Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Sessions: Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Sessions: Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty

    The Senate isn’t doing anything to stop Obama’s plans — thank the plutocrats.

    September 11, 2014 2:38 PM
    By Jeff Sessions



    Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.

    Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

    The Senate Democratic conference has supported and enabled the president’s unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the president’s partner in his planned lawless acts.

    Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation’s immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?

    Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: “Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes Real Big.”

    Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the president to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.

    Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid’s statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.

    This body is not run by one man. We don’t have a dictator in the great Senate. Every member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid can succeed in blocking this Senate from voting to stop the president’s executive actions is for members to stop supporting him.

    Every senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents — not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests, but the American interests, the workers’ interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don’t have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.

    In effect, the entire Senate Democratic conference has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House. They are surrendering them to executive actions that will foist on the nation what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House to move forward with executive action no matter what the people think and no matter what Congress — through the people’s House — has decided.

    Politico reports that “White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.”

    So who are these so-called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law-enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren’t in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren’t sought.

    No, White House officials are meeting with the world’s most powerful corporate and immigration lobbyists and activists who think border controls are for the little people. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set, who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world don’t care much about old-fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, and immigration control — let alone the constitutional separation of powers.

    Well, don’t you get it? They believe they are always supposed to get whatever it is they want. They are used to that. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, one report says they have spent $1.5 billion since 2007 trying to pass their desired immigration bill — $1.5 billion. They tried and tried and tried to pass the bill through Congress, but the American people said: No, no, no. So they decided to just go to the president. They decide to go to President Obama, and they insist that he implement these measures through executive fiat. And Senate Democrats have apparently said: Well, that is just a wonderful idea. We support that. Just do it. Go big. But, Mr. President, wait a little bit. Wait until after the election. We don’t want the voters to hold us accountable for what you are doing. We want to pretend we in the Senate have nothing to do with it.

    One of the groups that have joined the chorus of special interests demanding executive action on immigration is FWD.us, run by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He just turned 30, and I understand he is worth about $30 billion.

    Mr. Zuckerberg has been very busy recently. One of his fellow billionaires, Mr. Carlos Slim — maybe the world’s richest man — invited Mr. Zuckerberg down to Mexico City to give a speech. What did Mr. Zuckerberg promote in his speech? Well, this is a report of it.

    I guess I will first note that young Mr. Zuckerberg maybe doesn’t know there is a deep American tradition — a tradition in most developed nations — that you don’t go to a foreign capital to criticize your own government. I suppose he doesn’t know about that. They probably didn’t teach him about that when he was at one of the elite schools he attended.

    This is what he said in Mexico City: “We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants. And it’s a policy unfit for today’s world.”

    Well, the “masters of the universe” are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don’t extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.

    I have another article from late last fall that was printed in Business Insider about Mr. Zuckerberg’s actions. The headline is “Mark Zuckerberg Just Spent More than $30 Million Buying 4 Neighboring Houses for Privacy.” The article says:

    Mark Zuckerberg just made an unusual purchase. Well, four purchases. Facebook’s billionaire founder bought four homes surrounding his current home near Palo Alto, Mercury News Reports. The houses cost him more than $30 million, including one 2,600 square-foot home that cost $14 million. (His own home is twice as large at 5,000 square-feet and cost half as much.) Larry Page made a similar move a few years ago so he could build a 6,000-square-foot mansion. But Zuckerberg’s reason is different. He doesn’t want to live in excess, he just wants a little privacy.

    That is a world the average American doesn’t live in.

    So Mr. Zuckerberg — who has become the top spokesman for expanding the admission of foreign workers — championed the Senate immigration bill for which all of our Democratic colleagues voted. One of the things the bill did was double the supply of low-wage foreign workers brought into the United States for companies such as Facebook.

    Many of us have heard for a long time the claim that there is a shortage of STEM and IT workers. This has been the central sales pitch used by those making demands for massive increases in foreign-worker programs across the board — programs that bring in workers for every sector in the U.S. economy. But we know otherwise from the nation’s leading academics, people who studied this issue and are professionals in it. I have a recent op-ed here from USA Today which reports that there is actually not a shortage but a surplus of Americans who have been trained in the STEM and IT fields and that this is why wages for these fields have not increased since 1999.

    If you have a shortage of workers in a field such as information technology or science and mathematics, wages go up, do they not? If wages are not up, we don’t have a shortage.

    So rich high-tech companies are using the H-1B visa program to keep wages down and to hire less expensive workers from abroad. Indeed, the same companies demanding more guest workers are laying off American workers in droves.

    I would like to read some excerpts from that op-ed published in USA Today. The article was co-authored by five of the nation’s experts on labor markets and the guest-worker program. I think it tells a story that has not been refuted. We have partisans and advocates who have been claiming there is a shortage in these fields, but the experts say no. And since they have been speaking out on this issue, we have seen no real data that would dispute what they say in this article dated July 27, 2014.

    Headline: “Bill Gates’ tech worker fantasy.” Sub-headline: “Silicon Valley has created an imaginary staffing shortage.”

    Business executives and politicians endlessly complain that there is a “shortage” of qualified Americans and that the U.S. must admit more high-skilled guest workers to fill jobs in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math. This claim is echoed by everyone from President Obama and Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.

    Yet within the past month, two odd things occurred: Census reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a STEM job, and Microsoft announced plans to downsize its workforce by 18,000 jobs.

    The five writers of this article — referring to themselves — go on to say:

    None of us have been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages.

    The article was written by Ron Hira, Paula Stephan, Hal Salzman, Michael Teitelbaum, who has recently written a book on this subject, and Norm Matloff. These are labor-economics experts who have studied these issues for years. Many of them have testified before Congress. They say:

    None of us have been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages.

    What a statement that is.

    They go on to write — they all signed this article together — that:

    If a shortage did exist, wages would be rising as companies try to attract scarce workers. Instead, legislation that expanded visas for IT personnel during the 1990s has kept average wages flat over the past 16 years. Indeed, guest workers have become the predominant source of new hires in these fields.

    The “predominant source of new hires” in information-technology fields is guest-worker programs from abroad.

    They go on to say:

    Those supporting even greater expansion seem to have forgotten about the hundreds and thousands of American high-tech workers who are being shortchanged — by wages stuck at 1998 levels, by diminished career prospects and by repeated rounds of layoffs.

    They go on to say:

    There is an ample supply of American workers who are willing and qualified to fill high-skill jobs in this country. The only real disagreement is whether the supply is two or three times larger than the demand.

    There is no doubt we have a surplus of IT workers. The question is whether the supply is two or three times as big as the number of job openings.

    They go on to say:

    Unfortunately, companies are exploiting the large existing flow of guest workers to deny American workers access to STEM careers and middle-class security that should come with them. Imagine, then, how many more Americans would be frozen out of the middle class if politicians and tech moguls succeeded in doubling or tripling the flow of guest workers into STEM occupations.

    That is exactly what the bill before this Senate — the bill the House of Representatives rejected — would have done. It would have doubled the number of guest workers coming into America just to take jobs — coming in for the very purpose of taking a job that we need Americans to be taking.

    The article goes on: “Another major, yet often overlooked, provision in the pending legislation” — that is the bill President Obama is pushing for, the Gang of Eight bill — “would grant automatic green cards to any foreign student who earns a graduate degree in a STEM field, based on assertions that foreign graduates of U.S. universities are routinely being forced to leave. Such claims are incompatible with the evidence that such graduates have many paths to stay and work, and indeed the ‘stay rates’ for visiting international students are very high and have shown no sign of decline. The most recent study finds that 92 percent of Chinese Ph.D. students stay in America to work after graduation.”

    So there is this myth that we have thousands and thousands of students graduating from schools and being sent home. That is not accurate, according to the experts who study the data.

    The article continues:

    The tech industry’s promotion of expanded temporary visas (such as the H-1B) and green cards is driven by a desire for cheap, young and immobile labor. It is well documented that loopholes enable firms to legally pay H-1Bs below their market value and to continue the widespread age discrimination acknowledged by many in the tech industry.

    I talked to a gentleman whom I knew a little bit who worked at a computer company. He is well into his 40s, maybe close to 50. I asked him what kind of security there is. He said, well, in the tech industry these companies go and fall. I said, what happens if you were to lose your job? He said, at my age, it would be very difficult.

    The USA Today op-ed concludes by saying:

    IT industry leaders have spent lavishly on lobbying to promote their STEM shortage claims among legislators. The only problem is that the evidence contradicts their self-interested claims.

    So I would pose a question to Mr. Zuckerberg. I read in the news that Facebook is now worth more than $200 billion. Is that not enough money to hire American workers for a change? Your company now employs roughly 7,000 people. Let’s say you want to expand your workforce 10 percent, or hire another 700 workers. Are you claiming you can’t find 700 Americans who would take these jobs if you paid a good wage and decent benefits?

    Let me just say one more thing: Facebook has 7,000 workers. Microsoft just laid off 18,000. Why doesn’t Mr. Zuckerberg call his friend Mr. Gates and say: Look, I have to hire a few hundred people; do you have any résumés you can send over here? Maybe I will not have to take somebody from a foreign country for a job an unemployed U.S. citizen might take.

    There is this myth that we have surging employment in the high-tech industry.

    As Byron York reported, Hewlett-Packard, a high-tech company, “laid off 29,000 employees in 2012” — 29,000. “In August of 2013, Cisco announced plans to lay off 4,000 workers in addition to the 8,000 cut in the last 2 years,” and Cisco was right in the White House this summer with a group of other companies demanding more workers from abroad. Cisco was signing a letter with a bunch of other companies: “United Technologies has announced 3,000 layoffs this year”; “American Express cut 5,400 jobs”; “Procter and Gamble announced 5,700 jobs cut in 2012”; “T-Mobile announced plans to lay off 2,250 employees in 2012.”

    “According to a recent Reuters report,” York writes, overall “U.S. employers announced 50,000 layoffs in August of 2013, up 34 percent from the previous month, then up 57 percent through August 2012.”

    There is no shortage of workers.

    But FWD.us and other immigration lobbyists are working with the White House to extract executive orders from the president that provide them with the same financial benefits that were included in the Senate bill that was rejected by the House of Representatives. One proposal would increase by as much as 800,000 the number of foreign workers admitted for the explicit purpose of taking jobs in the United States.

    A recent Associated Press article, entitled “Obama Weighs Broader Move on Legal Immigration” reports that “President Barack Obama is considering key changes in the nation’s immigration system requested by tech, industry and powerful interest groups.” Not by the American people was he being requested to do this, not by the national interest, but by “powerful interest groups” that are referred to here.

    It goes on to say:

    After recent White House meetings, top officials have compiled specific recommendations from business groups and other advocates.

    “Other advocates.” Who are they? We know the ACLU has been there. We know La Raza has been meeting there on a regular basis. It goes on. The article says:

    One of the more popular requests is a change in the way green cards are counted that would essentially free up some 800,000 additional visas the first year, advocates say. . . . Other requests would extend work permits to the spouses of all temporary H-1B skilled workers who have not been able to work.

    But how about the fact that a single mom might like that job? An unemployed single mom or a single mom who has a job prospect that would pay $3 more than the job she is now working while trying to raise a family? Or an unemployed father? Maybe they would like those jobs first.

    So these actions fall on the heels of previous executive action in which the president already acted unilaterally earlier this year to grant companies an additional 100,000 guest workers. He has already done that. In just the first year of this order, it adds 100,000 guest workers by providing work authorizations to the foreign spouses of temporary guest workers. It would increase the supply of guest workers by approximately 30,000 each year thereafter — this at a time when we have 58 million working-age Americans who are not working. Since 2009 the number of adults has increased by 13 million, while the number of people actually working has decreased by 7 million.

    Median household income has dropped $2,300 since 2009. According to the National Employment Law Project, wages are down across all occupations.

    A CBS report titled “Why American workers feel increasingly poor” writes of the NELP’s study:

    Real median hourly wages have declined across low, middle and high income levels from 2009 to 2013, the study found. No matter if workers were in the lowest bracket ($8.84 to $10.85 an hour) or the highest ($31.40 to $86.34) median hourly wages declined when you take into account the impact of inflation.

    It goes on: “Across all occupations, real median hourly wages slipped 3.4 percent since 2009. While even better-paid workers saw median hourly earnings erode, the worst hit segments were at the bottom” — the people who got hurt the most were at the bottom — “with declines in their wages of more than 4 percent.”

    We have business CEOs, lobbyists, activists, immigration groups, and clever politicians who demand that we have to have even more workers brought into America even when we have a decline in wages and a decline in jobs. But what does the president do? His administration issues an executive order to provide foreign spouses — the citizens of other countries, not American citizens — with 100,000 jobs in the United States, precious jobs that many Americans would love to have. How many American spouses struggling to support their families would benefit from one of those jobs? How many single moms would benefit from a chance to earn a better paycheck?

    Our Senate Democratic friends talk about paycheck fairness repeatedly. Yet they are supporting policies that take jobs and wages directly from American women by the millions.

    Immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interest and the people of the United States, not the interests of a few activist CEOs and the politicians who are catering to them. We have had 40 years of mass immigration combined with falling wages, a shrinking workplace, and exploding welfare rolls. We know that, don’t we, friends and colleagues? It is time for a shift in emphasis. It is time to get our own people back to work, and our communities out of poverty, and our schools back on their feet.

    Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas — who is probably the leading academic in this entire area and has been for many years — estimates that our current immigration rate results in an annual loss of more than $400 billion in wages for Americans competing with immigrant labor. Between 2000 and today the government issued nearly 30 million visas to temporary foreign workers and permanent immigrants, largely lower-skilled and lower-wage.

    A recent Reuters poll showed that Americans wish to see record immigration reduced, not increased (as the Gang of Eight bill would have done), by a huge 3-to-1 margin.

    Another poll from pollster Kellyanne Conway recently showed that 80 percent of Americans think companies should hire from among the existing unemployed rather than bringing in new workers from abroad to fill these jobs. Yet Senate Democrats have unanimously supported legislation to double the annual supply of labor brought into the United States. These workers would be brought in to take jobs in every field, occupation, and industry in America.

    So what about the good, decent, and patriotic citizens of our country who fight our wars, who obey our laws, who follow our rules, and want a better future for their children? Should their needs not come first?

    As National Review explained, we are “a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation.” We cannot put the parochial demands of a few powerful CEOs ahead of an entire nation’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations.

    The basic social contract is that citizens agree to follow the law, pay their taxes, and devote their love and loyalty to their country, and in exchange the nation commits to preserve and protect and serve their interests, safeguard their freedom, and return to them in kind their first allegiance and loyalty.

    The job of elected officials is to answer to the people who sent them to Washington — not to scorn them, not to demean them, not to mock them, and not to sell their jobs and dreams to the highest bidder.

    I yield the floor.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-jeff-sessions
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Masters? Who needs masters when billionaires are controlling it (borders, economy, industry, technology, banking, investments, military, education, media, labor, IMMIGRATION, infini .. et.al. .

    ----------------------------------------------

    Meet The Puppetmasters: Here Are The 25 Most Politically Influential Billionaires In The US



    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/11/2014 - 16:29 It has been said, correctly, if only by those who see beyond the false "left-right" paradigm, that those who call the shots in US politics, and thus American socio-economics, are not so much America's lobbying corporations, but the people behind the corporations - i.e., those who have the money... all of it. Obviously, nobody has more money than America's billionaires. So who are the true puppetmasters who determine America's fate? For one answer we turn to Brookings Institution Governance Studies Director Darrell West in whose upcoming book "Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust" ranks the 25 most influential American billionaires.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...illionaires-us
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    The Executive Immigration Order That Breaks the Obama Presidency?

    By Stanley Renshon, September 12, 2014

    "The straw that broke the camel's back". Definition: "The last little burden or problem that causes everything to collapse."
    There have been so many avoidable domestic and international missteps in the Obama presidency that is it is hard to single out one and say: That did him in!
    There is, at the core, the most profound mismatch between the president's ambitions and the preferences of ordinary Americans. They want reform; he wants transformation.
    Then there are the serial policy mistakes, both domestically and abroad. Domestically, any list would have to start with the massive, complex heathcare bill whose support continues to fall, most recently to 35 percent. To that we would have to add the president's enormous spending binge, un-tempered by effectiveness or restraint, and riddled with fraud and mismanagement in pursuit his policy preferences.
    The list of his major foreign policy mistakes is even longer and would include the mishandling of Egypt, Syria, and Libya; the failed (again) effort to force an Arab-Israeli agreement; the chimerical "reset" with Russia; and the extraordinarily slow response to ISIS in Iraq. The jury is still out on the president's determined withdrawal from Afghanistan and his equally determined search to reach a nuclear deal with Iran.
    And on top of this are the outright lies, such as "if you like your insurance, you can keep it, period", and the serial, almost childlike misrepresentations to avoid criticism or responsibility, such as his insistence that he didn't draw a red line in Syria, the international community did.
    The president ran on a platform of being the one candidate who could heal and bridge American's large divides, and that was one large reason why Americans elected him. Had he governed as a soft-left center president like Bill Clinton, he might have succeeded. But he didn't.
    Instead, at every point in his presidency where he had a choice between centrist and strong-left policies, he choose the latter and, as a result, exacerbated the divisions he began with to the point where he is the most polarizing president in history.
    The fact that the legitimacy of his presidency has lasted so long is testament to the reservoir of hope and goodwill that he began with, even among those who were not supportive of his policy approach.
    That protective coating of legitimacy shows evidence of beginning to seriously crack. Its seriousness is reflected in a Washington Post story covering the results of a recent poll, with the headline "A majority of Americans say Obama's presidency is a 'failure'".
    After some appropriate data caveats, the article ends as follows:
    Regardless, the numbers demonstrate that opposition to Obama's presidency isn't shallow. The fact that people are willing to use the f-word as much as they are — regardless of the alternative — suggests it's not just about the man and what he's done; it's also about the results he's gotten.
    And on the whole, Americans give it a failing grade.

    It is within this context that the president's determination to issue a sweeping executive order about immigration should be understood.

    Next: The Executive Immigration Order That Breaks the Obama Presidency? Pt. 2

    http://cis.org/renshon/executive-imm...ama-presidency

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    BREAKING: White House Reconfirms Obama to Issue Executive Action on Illegal Immigration By The End of The Year

    Katie Pavlich | Sep 12, 2014








    Speaking to reporters Friday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest reconfirmed President Obama will make an announcement and take executive action on illegal immigration by the end of the year, adding that the "bulk of the work" on the issue already done.
    "We're in a position where a vast majority of the work has been done," Earnest said in response to a question from TIME's Zeke Miller. "The bulk of the work has been done."
    "That [remaining] work will be done in sufficient time for the President to make an announcement before the end of the year," he added. "There are still some additional decisions that need to made."
    Earnest also said President Obama has been working with Attorney General Eric Holder at the Justice Department and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson "for months" to form decisions about what action to take on the issue. He has also been taking suggestions from outside groups.

    Last week the White House announced President Obama will delay executive action on illegal immigration until after the 2014 midterm elections in an effort to save vulnerable Democrats from voters. Obama had originally promised to use executive action on the issue by the end of the summer.
    This post has been updated.


    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-year-n1891041

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Homeland Security Chief Drops Amnesty Bombshell






    Tea Party

    Published on Sep 12, 2014
    Homeland Security Chief Drops Amnesty Bombshell


    A sustainable way, what is that???? The American Public does not support amnesty for illegals...
    Last edited by kathyet2; 09-12-2014 at 04:13 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546



    Follow us on Twitter


    Stopping Zuckerberg's 'terrorism network'

    By Larry Klayman

    WND.com
    September 12, 2014

    When thinking of Mark Zuckerberg, the words that come to one's mind may include computer programmer, Internet entrepreneur, billionaire and, of course, co-founder and CEO of Facebook. When I think of Mark Zuckerberg, I think of greedy, disloyal, villain and terrorism-furthering prostitute. Let me explain.

    As depicted in the movie "The Social Network," Zuckerberg infamously stepped on the toes of the very people who helped him rise to the top for his own financial gain. For example, Zuckerberg settled with the "Winklevoss twins" after they sued Zuckerberg for ripping off their idea to program a social networking site they had founded called ConnectU, before Zuckerberg launched Facebook. In another example, Zuckerberg outlined in an email his plan to dilute co-founder Eduardo Savarin's shares down from more than 30 percent without modifying the stakes that were held by other shareholders. (See "6 People Mark Zuckerberg burned on his way to the top" by Courtney Palis, Huffington Post, May 17, 2012.) This sort of "toe-stepping" is only the beginning and hardly a taste of Zuckerberg's less-than-credible, money-hungry reputation. My next example is far more serious.


    Continue Reading.....

    HIGH-TECH JIHAD

    Stopping Zuckerberg's 'terrorism network'

    Exclusive: Larry Klayman explains his lawsuit against Facebook for enabling ISIS et al.

    Published: 13 hours ago Larry Klayman About
    Email | Archive


    Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."


    When thinking of Mark Zuckerberg, the words that come to one’s mind may include computer programmer, Internet entrepreneur, billionaire and, of course, co-founder and CEO of Facebook. When I think of Mark Zuckerberg, I think of greedy, disloyal, villain and terrorism-furthering prostitute. Let me explain.
    As depicted in the movie “The Social Network,” Zuckerberg infamously stepped on the toes of the very people who helped him rise to the top for his own financial gain. For example, Zuckerberg settled with the “Winklevoss twins” after they sued Zuckerberg for ripping off their idea to program a social networking site they had founded called ConnectU, before Zuckerberg launched Facebook. In another example, Zuckerberg outlined in an email his plan to dilute co-founder Eduardo Savarin’s shares down from more than 30 percent without modifying the stakes that were held by other shareholders. (See “6 People Mark Zuckerberg burned on his way to the top” by Courtney Palis, Huffington Post, May 17, 2012.) This sort of “toe-stepping” is only the beginning and hardly a taste of Zuckerberg’s less-than-credible, money-hungry reputation. My next example is far more serious.


    Due to the lack of liability attached to Internet entities, such as Facebook, for permitting and furthering terrorist conduct on their forums, terrorists groups are using the network to grow much stronger. As outlined in my lawsuit against Facebook and Zuckerberg, I came across the “Third Intifada Page” on Facebook. The page, which had over 300,000 followers, contained terrorist death threats and calls to carry out said death threats against all Jews. As a person of Jewish origin and pro-Israel activist with a highly public opposition to radical Islam, I feared an imminent attack to cause me severe bodily harm or even death. My fears were justified because I received death threats as a result of the page. Consequently, I, along with the public diplomacy minister of Israel, simply asked Facebook to take down the page. Facebook refused, and as a result, Jews actually DIED. The page remained on Facebook for a staggering two weeks!

    What are the reasons Facebook allowed the “Third Intifada Page” to remain online for so long while people were dying? The truth is simple: Zuckerberg is more concerned with increasing viewership and participation in the Middle East and elsewhere for his personal financial gain by increasing the value of any future public offering of shares than he is concerned with saving peoples’ lives. To Zuckerberg, if saving lives decreases viewership, he will have no part in it. Zuckerberg has become well aware that furthering and allowing terrorist death threats to remain on Facebook increases readership, which boosts the value of his shares. Facebook’s commercial objective has also obviously been to raise its user base to boost Facebook’s profits, and he will stop at nothing to make it happen.

    Although Zuckerberg and Facebook are well aware of my lawsuit, and are also well aware that their decision to further terrorism on the “Third Intifada Page” led to the deaths of many innocent Jews, they did not learn their lesson. More recently, beyond the issues pertaining to the Palestinians and the Jews, Facebook is permitting and encouraging current terrorist groups, including ISIS, to use Facebook as a forum to group together and commit more terrorist acts. The extremist group is using all forms of social media to intimidate its enemies and recruit followers. ISIS terrorists are specifically using Facebook to link to friends and sites that support the Islamic State. On countless pages, ISIS terrorists are posting pictures of themselves holding weapons and raising their right index finger pointed to the skies, a symbol of ISIS. Facebook could easily remove these pages and help save countless lives by preventing ISIS from using Facebook to multiply and carry out countless death threats. Of course, that would mean a reduced viewership for Facebook and less money in Zuckerberg’s fat pockets.

    One way to stop Facebook from furthering terrorism is to contact Facebook and Zuckerberg and tell them to take down any and all pages used by terrorists. Nothing will happen, but it’s worth a shot. Another way is to hit Zuckerberg where it really hurts – his wallet. I suggest deleting your Facebook profiles and telling your friends to do the same. You should also tell your friends who do not have profiles to not sign up. If not supporting Zuckerberg isn’t enough to convince you to stay away from Facebook, just think of it as a way to make it more difficult for the NSA to spy on you. I may know a thing or two about the NSA.

    Help Larry Klayman with his class-action suit against Obama’s use of the NSA to violate Americans’ rights
    Now, while I hope you all enjoyed, as I did, “The Social Network” for accurately depicting Zuckerberg as an evil man who will do anything for his personal financial gain, please stay tuned for the movie’s sequel, “The Terrorism Network,” starring Zuckerberg, ISIS, Barack Hussein Obama and a resurrected Osama bin Laden. I hear it’s going to be a real killer!

    My case against Zuckerberg and Facebook is now before the Supreme Court, as ironically, on Sept. 11, I filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to ask the Court to put an end to this outrageous and extremely harmful, deadly conduct.

    Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.



    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/stopping-...k4BkBZ2qW6v.99






    Last edited by kathyet2; 09-13-2014 at 09:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Quote Originally Posted by kathyet2 View Post
    The Executive Immigration Order That Breaks the Obama Presidency?

    By Stanley Renshon, September 12, 2014

    "The straw that broke the camel's back". Definition: "The last little burden or problem that causes everything to collapse."
    There have been so many avoidable domestic and international missteps in the Obama presidency that is it is hard to single out one and say: That did him in!
    There is, at the core, the most profound mismatch between the president's ambitions and the preferences of ordinary Americans. They want reform; he wants transformation.
    Then there are the serial policy mistakes, both domestically and abroad. Domestically, any list would have to start with the massive, complex heathcare bill whose support continues to fall, most recently to 35 percent. To that we would have to add the president's enormous spending binge, un-tempered by effectiveness or restraint, and riddled with fraud and mismanagement in pursuit his policy preferences.
    The list of his major foreign policy mistakes is even longer and would include the mishandling of Egypt, Syria, and Libya; the failed (again) effort to force an Arab-Israeli agreement; the chimerical "reset" with Russia; and the extraordinarily slow response to ISIS in Iraq. The jury is still out on the president's determined withdrawal from Afghanistan and his equally determined search to reach a nuclear deal with Iran.
    And on top of this are the outright lies, such as "if you like your insurance, you can keep it, period", and the serial, almost childlike misrepresentations to avoid criticism or responsibility, such as his insistence that he didn't draw a red line in Syria, the international community did.
    The president ran on a platform of being the one candidate who could heal and bridge American's large divides, and that was one large reason why Americans elected him. Had he governed as a soft-left center president like Bill Clinton, he might have succeeded. But he didn't.
    Instead, at every point in his presidency where he had a choice between centrist and strong-left policies, he choose the latter and, as a result, exacerbated the divisions he began with to the point where he is the most polarizing president in history.
    The fact that the legitimacy of his presidency has lasted so long is testament to the reservoir of hope and goodwill that he began with, even among those who were not supportive of his policy approach.
    That protective coating of legitimacy shows evidence of beginning to seriously crack. Its seriousness is reflected in a Washington Post story covering the results of a recent poll, with the headline "A majority of Americans say Obama's presidency is a 'failure'".
    After some appropriate data caveats, the article ends as follows:
    Regardless, the numbers demonstrate that opposition to Obama's presidency isn't shallow. The fact that people are willing to use the f-word as much as they are — regardless of the alternative — suggests it's not just about the man and what he's done; it's also about the results he's gotten.
    And on the whole, Americans give it a failing grade.

    It is within this context that the president's determination to issue a sweeping executive order about immigration should be understood.

    Next: The Executive Immigration Order That Breaks the Obama Presidency? Pt. 2

    http://cis.org/renshon/executive-imm...ama-presidency

    The Executive Immigration Order That Breaks the Obama Presidency? Pt. 2

    By Stanley Renshon, September 19, 2014

    When a president's major policy initiative, like President Obama's healthcare initiative, never gains public support, he is in trouble. When, in addition, the public no longer supports many of the president's other major domestic or foreign policies, the trouble is far more serious. And when both of the preceding are true and the public views the president as "weak", ineffective", or "dishonest", it is appropriate to use the word "collapse" to describe that presidency.
    That is the current state of the Obama presidency.
    In the midst of swirling public doubts about the president's domestic and foreign policies, along with questions about his competence and integrity as a leader, Mr. Obama insists that he will issue a sweeping executive immigration order that is certain to further roil the public and damage his public standing.
    Why he would do this is an interesting question, but what, if anything, can be done about it is a more important one.
    The president's view is that his executive immigration order, that is likely to provide amnesty for substantial numbers of illegal migrants, is the "right thing to do". I'm sure he believes that to be true.
    Believing that goal is "right" has led him to not pressure members of his party to back down from their maximalist demands for legalization and citizenship for most of the county's 11.7 million illegal migrants, a doubling of the numbers of legal immigrants now entering the country every year, and making only vague promises to strengthen border security sometime in the future.
    As a result, the president's complaint that he has been forced to issue his executive order because Congress "won't act" is a shallow subterfuge that glosses over the president's own central role in ensuring that a compromise can't be reached.
    The less savory reasons for Mr. Obama's forthcoming assault on the rule of law and the public's confidence in the president's adherence to it is personal aggrandizement and politics, pure and simple.
    The president wants to make a grand gesture, one for the history books, to help compensate for his failed six-year search for presidential greatness, which has so far eluded him. It is highly doubtful this divisive initiative will rescue his presidency or his historical standing.
    On the surface, the president's executive order must seem like clever politics. By waiting until after the midterm elections are held he avoids putting his party's candidates at more electoral risk by doing something that many ordinary Americans don't support and won't like. Then there are the political rewards of associating not only the president, but also his party, with a major effort to cement the political loyalties of "Latinos" for generations to come by granting legalization through executive fiat.
    Sure, Republicans will loudly complain about his lawlessness, but almost no Democrat in either the House or Senate has raised any objections. Nor will they. They share the president's political calculations and even his legacy ambitions. After all, historically, and at the voting both, his success is theirs.
    The major question for the country, ordinary Americans and incidentally independents, Republicans and those interested in real immigration reform, is this: Will the president and his party get away with it?
    Next: Responding to the President's Immigration Fiat, Pt. 1

    http://cis.org/renshon/executive-imm...residency-pt-2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 08:18 PM
  2. China The new masters of the universe?
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 10:17 PM
  3. Across the Universe
    By GREGAGREATAMERICAN in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 01:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •