One of the biggest problems facing this nation is the amount of money that has been “sequestered,” to term it, for “Non-Profit Organizations,” or “NPO’s.” Why? They present a problem when they can be used by an unscrupulous individual or groups of unscrupulous individuals (for examples, a George Soros, or the Democratic Party respectively). What is an NPO? Let’s look at what they are and see if the definition is characterized by actual NPO actions.
Here is an excerpt from a book that describes NPO’s (what they should be):
“The main financial difference between a for-profit and a not-for-profit enterprise is what happens to the profit. In a for-profit company like Ford or Microsoft or Disney or your favorite fast-food establishment, profits are paid to the owners, including shareholders. But a nonprofit can’t do that. Any profit remaining after the bills are paid has to be plowed back into the organization’s service program. So profit can’t be distributed to individuals, such as the organization’s board of directors, who are volunteers in every sense of the word.”
“Nonprofit Kit for Dummies,” ISBN: 0-7645-5347-X, pg. 8
Austere and stoic, these NPO’s, all! Ahh, but what is conveniently left out is the salary portion…for the directors. Those salaries are written off as an operating expense by the “Non-Profit,” but they’re hardly the funds gleaned by a “simple volunteer for the beneficent NPO.” Another paragraph from the book shows this:
…for the most part, we’re talking about an organization that the Internal Revenue Service has classified as a 501(c)(3). They receive exemption from federal income taxes and sometimes relief from property taxes at the local level. Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c)(3) receive extra privileges under the law. They are, with minor exceptions, the only group of tax-exempt organizations that can receive tax-deductible contributions from individuals and organizations.
Being a nonprofit organization does not mean that an entity is exempt from paying all taxes. Nonprofit organizations pay employment taxes just like for-profit businesses do. In some states, but not all, nonprofits are exempt from paying sales tax…”
As a part of the increasingly obvious set-up of conservative movements by international banking interests and globalist think-tanks, I have noticed an expanding disinformation campaign which appears to be designed to wash the Federal Reserve of culpability for the crash of 2008 that has continued to fester to this day despite the many claims of economic “recovery.” I believe this program is meant to set the stage for a coming conflict between the Trump Administration and the Fed, but what would be the ultimate consequences of such an event?
In my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’, I outlined the propaganda trap being established by globalist owned and operated media outlets like Bloomberg, in which they consistently claim that Donald Trump has “inherited” an economy in recovery and ascendancy from the Obama administration. I thoroughly debunked their positions and “evidence” by showing how each of their fundamental indicators has actually been in steady decline since 2008, even in the face of massive monetary intervention and fiat printing by the Fed.
My greatest concern leading up to the 2016 election was that Trump would be allowed to win because he represents the perfect scapegoat for an economic crisis that central banks have been brewing for years.
Race–baiting: “the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people.”
This is typical of the New York Times’ race baiting.
After the author goes “slumming it” undercover at a rural Michigan Walmart she concludes that the white, working poor voted for Trump because of resentment at the loss of their white privilege.
I wonder if she had moonlighted at a majority black or South Asian-staffed Walmart in suburban Maryland, Virginia or Pennsylvania her conclusions would have been different.
By focusing on just the white working poor, the author’s goal is to increase racial divisions in the working class, to divide them and distract from the political and media establishments’ roles in turning our country into a 3rd world, banana republic for corporate exploitation.
Is she trying to imply that if they just hadn’t been so blinded by their own racist reactions to globalist Darwinism, they would have voted for Hillary Clinton?
The author doesn’t explain how these race-blind 2008 voters, that helped elect Obama, are white supremacists 8 years later.
She also doesn’t take into account that they might not have voted for Hillary for many non-racist reasons, including how Hillary’s husband passed NAFTA, and after 8 years in office her would-be White House predecessor doubled the national debt (to “bail-out” banks) and created less than 3% growth with 95% of new jobs being part-time, temp or contract.
The Washington Post works hard to distract from the fact that the American Dream has faded for the entire working class, not just a particular race, and that fading was designed to benefit global corporations and the oligarchs that own them.
White Resentment on the Night Shift at Walmart
By TRACIE McMILLAN
“Seven years ago, I joined the night shift at a Walmart in rural Michigan. For $8.10 an hour, I spent four or five nights a week filling shelves with the flour and sugar and marshmallow fluff that residents of the local county, which in 2008 voted for Barack Obama, needed to get through the holidays. Four years ago, the county went with President Obama a second time, though by a thinner margin. But this past November, the county, like the state, turned red.”
Oxfam International sounds cheery about global corporate monopolies turning the world into sick and lethargic, clowns.
How many of these products contain cheap chemicals banned in other countries but still used in the US and developing markets to increase corporate profits?
By Anna Kramer
December 10, 2014
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s true: There really are 10 companies that control most of the food and drinks you’ll find in the grocery store. Between them, these giants—whose revenues add up to more than a billion dollars a day—own hundreds of common brands, from Cheerios to Ben & Jerry’s, Odwalla to Tropicana. (See the infographic above to learn more.)
One of the group’s biggest donors is the Tides Foundation, a non-profit funded by billionaire progressive philanthropist George Soros. Tides gave AfGJ $50,000.
The United Steel Workers labor union also contributed $5,000. The city of Tucson is also listed in AfGJ’s 990 as a donor, but a city official says that the city acted merely as a pass-through for a Native American tribe that provided a grant to the activist group. The city official said that no city money went to AfGJ.
Charities associated with several major corporations also donated. Patagonia.org, the outdoor apparel and equipment company, gave $40,000. The Ben & Jerry Foundation, the charity associated with the ice cream maker, gave $20,000. And Lush Cosmetic gave $43,950.
Another bit of irony is seen in the $5,000 contribution from the Peace Development Fund, a group that claims to support organizations that fight for human rights and social justice.
Another major donation came from a group that was chaired by Hillary Clinton during the 1980s. The New World Foundation gave $52,000 to AfGJ.
There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
Flemming Rose is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Jacob Mchangama is director of the Copenhagen-based think tank Justitia.
Remember George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth? In his dystopian novel “1984,” its purpose was to dictate and protect the government’s version of reality. During the Cold War, Orwell’s book was banned behind the Iron Curtain, because readers perceived the novel as an allegory for their own repressive regimes.
It was a serious crime to distribute information defaming the Soviet social and political system. Such criminal laws were widely used by the Kremlin to silence dissidents, human rights activists, religious movements and groups fighting for independence in the Soviet republics. Similar laws were on the books in East Germany, Poland and other Eastern bloc countries.
Thankfully, today this landscape is much changed, but increasingly there are disturbing echoes of the past. Amid a debate about the rising influence of fake news and the danger it poses to the political and social order in the West, democratic politicians in Europe have proposed sanctions — and even prison terms — for those found responsible for distributing false information.
George Soros is having a very good crisis. Other investors are wilting, political power structures are being upended and market economists are scrambling to fashion new theories, but the world’s most famous speculator is having a belated heyday.
“It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,” the 78-year-old says in his heavy Hungarian accent during an interview at his London mansion.
If Soros had retired from the money markets at 48 to become a philosopher – which was his life plan when he set up his own Wall Street hedge fund at the age of 43 – the world is unlikely to have heard of him, as either an ideas man or a money man. Even if he had ended his career 20 years later, he would have been remembered as little more than the big-stakes gambler who “broke the Bank of England” with his 1992 bet against the pound that earned him $US1.1 billion.
At 68 Soros had just predicted a global financial collapse which did not happen, just as he had done a decade earlier; his pet theory of market behaviour, which he calls “reflexivity”, had been largely ignored; and his political donations had bought him little sway in Washington. Yet today, he says, all those strands seem to have come together – “the American election, the financial crisis, the theory of reflexivity, so it is actually a very stimulating period”.