Cancer and other Cures Frustrated by Rockefellers and the FDA *vid*

For more on how these tax-exempt foundations have corrupted our country with money gifted from us go here.
For another youtube expose of the FDA, go here 

For the extensive video gallery of the Rockefellers and their co-conspirators go to bottom of this post.

 

Published on Mar 12, 2014

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and wonder how the country became enslaved to the high.

The modern day mainstream medical industry has a dubious history, deeply rooted by a drive for profit through the subversion and suppression of non-profitabl.

Alex Jones Radio show 5th of January 2009 broadcast. Dr. Russell Blaylock talks to Alex about the Rockefellers and their eugenics programs and how it all cam.

Part of a Eustace Mullins interview by wa5dxp, May 22, 2005.

Global Sciences Congress, December 1, 1990, Tampa, Florida.

An exploration of the mission and history and an overview of some current research underway at The Rockefeller University Hospital. The Hospital, which is ce.

How ROCKEFELLER ruined our Medical industry, hiding a simple cure for ALL diseases, even terminal cancer, for nearly free and no danger -- contrary to Corbot.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

The good folks at Natural News put together this short - but extremely revealing - video about the origins of both the American Medical Association and the n.

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to s.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

This is a video of the Rockefeller Estate. It is the home that John D. Rockefeller, the nations first billionaire, called Kykuit - dutch for lookout, because.

Rockefeller was used to tough situations from a young age. Watch his story in The Men Who Built America exclusively on HISTORY (Sky 529, Virgin Media 234, BT.

Rockefeller University cell biologist Ralph M. Steinman, who discovered the immune system's sentinel dendritic cells and demonstrated that science can fruitf.

David Rockefeller, youngest son of the late John D. Rockefeller Jr., discusses his new book, Memoirs, with UCSD history Professor Michael E. Parrish. Serie.

Quelle: The Rockefeller Medicine http.

Eustace Mullins in the Bobby Lee Show in 1992 on the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly and the matching cancer industry, the profits of cancer, death and vaccinat.

This is one of the Billionaires mentioned who decide who lives and who dies, pay attention to what he is saying and why.

Voices for National Service and ServiceNation, in partnership with AmeriCorps Alums, have launched the I Serve Because. Video Contest. This is why I serv.

7 minute vid starts out at President Garfield's monument and tomb. Then we parked and walked up to the Rockefeller family plot.

Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV gave an opening statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on June 26, 201.

Les Rockefeller - 1l3.

 

This is the video gallery of subversive activities of the Rockefellers and their agents.

National Lawyers Guild (NLG): Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party

 National Lawyers Guild [NLG]

"Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party"

 .....September, 1950, House Committee on Un-American Activities (Full congressional Report -PDF)

---

The National Lawyers Guild(NLG) was organized in 1936 by a caucus of Communist Party, U.S.A.(CPUSA) lawyers assisted by the International Labor Defense, an American agency of the Comintern(Communist International). 

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) from the Top Down (incl. membership roster)

Chairman,
Peter G. Peterson Foundation

Report: Taxpayer-Subsidized Foundations paid $42 million to spread anti-Muslim propaganda

By Andrew Jones  
Sunday, August 28th, 2011 -- 1:15 pm

 

The Center for American Progress has compiled a report in which seven foundations has been paid $42 million dollars to spread fear of Muslims in America.

"The report, titled “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network In America,” documents which anti-Muslim organizations have played a part in the rise of Islamophobia throughout the country. The seven foundations include "Donors Capital Fund" and Richard Scaife Foundations, which received more than half of the $42 million spent.

Moshe Yaalon, Former IDF chief of staff, and blogger Pamela Geller (2006). Source

The money has also been given to five key "scholars", including Frank Gaffney, who are considered the masterminds of crafting anti-Muslim propaganda. Those scholars are assisted by the likes of Pamela Geller and David Horowitz, who help pass off the negative information to Fox News, Allen West, and Newt Gingrich among others.
Read the report here. <<[strongly recommend you download and save this file from the archive]

REVIEWING THE RHODES LEGACY

Bill Clinton meeting JFK. Clinton attended Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, won another scholarship to the Jesuit Georgetown University and then went to Yale. Talk about a chosen one.

REVIEWING THE RHODES LEGACY

By William F. Jasper

"In America, where idealism is the yardstick used to judge a generation's collective virtue, Rhodes scholars are its masters," says Rhodes scholar Peter Beinart. "They are chosen as much for their public-spiritedness as for their academic prowess. Not all want to run for elective office, but the bulk think their talents can be most fully realized through public service. Like Clinton, my peers believe earnestly in government. Above all, they believe in themselves in government."

Rockefeller Council Subjects Chicago Black Community Slums to Eugenic Mind Control

Rockefeller Council Demographers Subjected American Slums To Eugenic Mind-Control Ops

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
June 30, 2012

Until recently unsuspected and undetected, a publication surfaces straight from the Rockefeller Archives which speaks of eugenic mind-operations on the black community of Chicago in the early 1960s.

Finding the Foreign Agents

Isn't it unlawful for our congress members to receive donor contributions from foreigners and not be registered as foreign agents under FARA? Nearly every US congressman is on Israel's payroll. See the complete list HERE. Pretty unlikely that an honest game will ever be seen by the American people when the 'umpires' are on the other team!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by Philip Giraldi on February 3, 2015

One suspects that the Barack Obama/Eric Holder Justice department has little stomach for going after any organization linked to Israel... 

In monitoring the activities of foreign organizations, the DOJ often gives powerful political lobbies a pass.

 

by Philip Giraldi 

American Conservative

In high school civics classes, Americans are brought up to believe that in their nation a rule of law prevails. Justice is depicted as blind and the rules apply to everyone. All Americans will receive the same fair hearing in court or at the hands of the government. Of course the reality is that experience tells us that those who trust in impartial justice are somewhat delusional as the criminal justice and regulatory systems do not operate in a reliably mechanical fashion. Many factors determine whether a suspect actually goes to trial or whether an organization is regulated or investigated and there are a number of roadblocks along the way that influence the outcome.

One of the federal government regulatory bodies that few have heard about is the board at the United States Department of Justice’s Counterespionage Section that administers the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The original FARA was passed in 1938 just before the outbreak of war in Europe and was intended to monitor the activities of front organizations being directed by the German and Italian governments. From its inception FARA was politicized and selective. Rome and Berlin were potential enemies while the extremely active British government efforts to draw the United States into what eventually became a European and then a world war were largely ignored.

The original act was loosely worded to include anyone propagandizing for a foreign power but an amended version in 1966 narrowed the definition of whom would be covered to include only actual “agents of a foreign principal” working directly for a foreign government in an attempt to influence U.S. economic or political decision making. Since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under FARA and nearly all compliance has been more-or-less voluntary. There have, however, been a number of civil cases and administrative resolutions in which the government asserted the viability of the act. In 2004, for example, Susan Lindauer, a former congressional staffer, was charged with taking payments from an Iraqi government source. Her case was finally dropped in 2009.

There are somewhat less than 2,000 foreign agents registered under the act representing more than 100 countries. Their names and their periodic financial and activities filings are accessible by the public at the FARA Unit office in Washington. Most are associated with law or lobbying firms that represent foreign governments as part of their business. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was, for a time, a registered agent for Turkey when he held that account while working for the Dickstein Shapiro law firm, which he joined after leaving congress. Former Congressman Dick Gephardt also headed a company engaged in lobbying for Turkey. Both Gephardt and Hastert were involved in lobbying Congress to oppose pending legislation calling the First World War massacre of Turkish Armenians a “genocide.”

The disadvantage of registering under FARA is that you have to disclose your sources of income and you also have to detail what you are doing on behalf of the foreign government. Organizations that do not consider that they are actually directed by a foreign government or who assess their relationship to be borderline are consequently reluctant to comply.

FARA inevitably is selective in its targeting. Agents of nations hostile to the United States are pursued with some vigor while organizations linked to powerful domestic political lobbies tend to get a pass. This has been historically true of Irish republican groups as well as of the predecessor of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which was founded in 1949 as the American Zionist Council. The American Zionist Council was funded directly by the Jewish Agency for Israel. Attorney General Robert Kennedy ordered the group to register in 1962 but the death of his brother led to an intense lobbying campaign to influence his strongly pro-Israel successor Lyndon B. Johnson who obligingly instructed the Justice Department to stand down.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

Since that time repeated efforts to compel AIPAC to register have failed due to White House and Justice Department unwillingness to confront the issue but a new initiative by the Israeli government might well be construed as having crossed the line in violation of FARA. In early January the Prime Minister’s Office of the Israeli government funded a joint project to be run by the government’s National Information Directorate and StandWithUS, which has been described as an “American hasbara organization.” In Hebrew the name, hasbara, means literally “public explanation” but the expression is generally applied to anyone involved in generating pro-Israeli propaganda. It is also sometimes more politely described as a program of “perception management,” a euphemism made popular by the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon in 2004.

Finish reading>>

The UN even before its beginning was a failure. Bill Gates realizes that, too, but will not relinquish the belief that he knows better than the people what's "liberty" for them. To become the emperor of the serfdom of a One World Government is his propellant , Corporatism and War his venue.

We would wager most of you didn't know that in a 2003 Bill Gates admitted that his father used to be the head of Planned Parenthood! This explains in large degree why the Gates and Buffetts families share the close comradeship.


Gates is able to ensnare the people at their own expense through the IRS taxpayer-funded non-profit "charity" charters for the privileged elite. Afterall, any cause that's recognized as worthwhile would not need the taxpayer to forcibly contribute, would it? Here's a portion:

Posted by Cyrus Khoroushi, 01.30.14

Bill Gates: We Need A One World Government

Bill Gates was recently interviewed by German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. In the interview Bill Gates responds to the problem of climate change by declaring that a world government is needed to deal with the crisis. 
Huffingtonpost.de reports: 

“The UN system has failed”

“You can make fun of it, but in truth it was sad how the conference in Copenhagen is run, how individual who behave like the UN system failed,” the 59-year-old said in view of the often viewed as a failure UN Climate Change Conference 2009 in the Danish capital . So far there is no perfect frame, so Gates.

In view of the urgent problems in the world is a global government “badly needed,” said Gates. “Take the UN, it has been created especially for the security in the world.

We are ready for war, because we have taken every precaution. We have NATO, we have divisions, jeeps, trained people. But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared. ”

Gates founded in the 1990s with his wife Melinda, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support people in health care and the fight against poverty worldwide.

Gates is the richest man in the world.

According to the New York business magazine “Forbes” Bill Gates leads with more than 80 billion dollars (70 billion euros) a list of the richest people . His success is called Windows. The world’s most popular computer program directs three decades billion into the pockets of the now 59-year-olds.

Founded with friend and Mitmilliardär Warren Buffett Gates 2010 also “The Giving Pledge”. The club can only join who donates at least half of his fortune to charity. Richard Branson and Larry Ellison are, Diane von Furstenberg and Barron Hilton, the nearly century-old David Rockefeller and Mark Zuckerberg.

Source yournewswire

ALEC: a Taxpayer-Funded Foundation Neocon Corporatist Cabal with State Politicians as Officers, Trustees & Directors

 

ALEC Corporations

The alphabetical list below contains the names of for-profit

Learn more about corporations
VOTING to rewrite our laws

corporations that are known to be, or to have been, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) members or supporters.

• Find corporate trade groups here.
• Find other special interest groups here.
• Find ALEC law and lobbying firms here.
• Find government groups here.
• Find corporations that have cut ties to ALEC here.

Published by Charleston Voice, 05.09.12

Not only should ALEC have their IRS tax-exempt charter withdrawn, but likewise for their enemies, "Common cause", for instance, as well as all other "charities..... churches, synagogues & mosques included. Are your state elected reps on the list? See ALEC's tax filing Form 990. See the corporate membership list posted by "Source Watch"., a project of the tax-exempt Center for Media & Democracy which describes its charity as "receiving substantial funds from a government unit." CMD is closely aligned with leftist Amy Goodman's DemocracyNow!  , also a tax-exempt entity.

Experts to Scrutinize Israel Lobby During April 10 Conference at National Press Club

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Register online for "The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" today at http://IsraelLobbyUS.org

"The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the US?" is an all-day conference which will take place April 10 in the National Press Club ballroom in Washington, DC.  Questions will be addressed by experts of all ages and backgrounds from academia, government, independent research organizations and alternative news media shut out of public discourse.  The conference is co-sponsored by the American Educational Trust's publication Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc (IRmep).


Hundreds of organizations lobbying for Israel behind the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continue to push for U.S. economic warfare and military actions against Iran. Most Americans support negotiations to resolve questions over Iran's civilian nuclear program and oppose efforts to torpedo diplomacy.  Americans also overwhelmingly (63.9%) believe Israel is a Middle East nation with nuclear weapons.

Recent passage of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 gives Israel expanded rights to U.S. weapons stockpiles, diplomatic support, additional foreign aid and future visa-free entry, despite Israel's long history of espionage against the United States.  Yet six in ten Americans, advised that the U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country), believe such aid is "too much."

Pro-Israel donors and political action committees are working hard to ensure that when Americans head to the polls to choose a president in 2016, both candidates will be Zionists.  Delegates who oppose special pro-Israel planks in conventions are shut down by rigged votes.

How did Israel lobbying organizations become so influential in America? Are U.S. and Israeli interests, as claimed by the lobby, truly "the same"? Does Israel's strategic value drive massive U.S. aid, or is it mostly the influence of Israel's lobby in this country? What laws govern lobbying for a foreign government, and are they enforced? Why is ongoing economic, military, industrial and nuclear espionage by Israeli spies working with American supporters almost never punished? 

How big, in terms of revenue, activists and organizations, is the lobby today? How are lobby operatives targeting critics and pro-Palestinian activists on campus? Are qualified government appointees blacklisted if they do not espouse sufficiently pro-Israel views? How can Americans who do not believe in massive aid, pro-Israel slogans, activities and policies become enfranchised?

The conference includes luncheon and is open to members of the public and news media who register in advance.

Register online today at http://IsraelLobbyUS.org  and follow us on Twitter @IsraelLobbyUS

WRMEA is a magazine published 8 times yearly by the American Educational Trust which focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in the region.

IRmep is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit researching U.S. Middle East policy formulation and how warranted law enforcement and civil action can improve outcomes.

SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
via prnewswire.com

The American Religious Left and its Financial Sponsors

Ron Arnold looks like a very trusted source! See what your taxpayer subsidies are buying...your own national suicide perhaps?
 

Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library

The American Religious Left
and its funders

Social Network Diagram of the American Religious Left and its Major Funders RETURN TO THE GUIDE RETURN TO THE LEFT ORGANIZATIONS INDEX RETURN TO THE LEFT TRACKING LIBRARY HOME PAGE

Soros' OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE: $2B available to Fund Anti-Americanism

From what we could see, the Open Society Institute is the largest of the Soros foundations. It is from these 'charitable' foundations subsidized by the US taxpayer , he is able to fund America's despoilage both domestically and in foreign lands. Links to other Soros foundations are at bottom of page. Find full reports for other foundations you're paying for, here. Don't you think it's long past due that all these special interests (more than 1,000,000 - churches included) are no longer subsidized by the American people?  There are thousands more agitating for the same destabilization as Soros - also with taxpayer subsidies!

Lobbyists can make You Rich if you're a Politician

Instead of honoring your oath of office and following the rule of law, just feign 'love of country', stick to Party commandments, and the special interests will stuff your every pocket in every suit.

---

Sincere or Strategic, Lobbyists Give Big

by Emily Kopp on March 12, 2014 8:00 AM

It seems a lobbyist's work is never done.

You have to know policy, wrangle with legislative language, persuade important people of the rightness of your cause, market yourself to clients. And then, for many on K Street, there's another key part of the job: pulling out your checkbook. Federal lobbyists are often campaign contributors, too -- sometimes offering, sometimes responding to not-so-subtle requests.  

And the sums can be large. In fact, the 25 lobbyists who have given the most to political campaigns in the first half of the 2014 cycle have combined to give a total of $1.85 million. Whether they give strategically or out of partisan passion depends on the donor, but there's little doubt that their generosity can play a role in wedging doors open in congressional office buildings.

Or, as sixth-ranking lobbyist-donor Ben Barnes put it, "I think anyone could be sanctimonious and say they're donating for the love of their country, but how you make a living has something to do with it." Barnes, whose clients include Texas A&M University, Texas Gulf Energy and Huntsman Corp., has long been a fixture of Democratic politics in Texas, and is a top bundler for congressional campaigns. So far in this cycle, he has given out about $79,000.

Lobbyists rank 13th among all interest groups in contributions so far in the 2014 campaigns, a jump from 22nd at the end of the 2012 cycle. Individual lobbyists contributed far more than lobbying firms' PACs -- 22 times as much. 

And as in 2012, the big-giving lobbyists prefer writing their checks to candidates or committees, rather than sending them funds into a larger pool -- for instance, a super PAC. Only four lobbyists on our list contributed to super PACs. Tonio Burgos, the director of his own lobbying firm, contributed $25,000 to the liberal House Majority PAC, though even absent his super PAC donation Burgos would have earned a spot in the top 25.

Overall, super PACs have received a pitiful 2 percent of lobbyists' donations so far, a dip from their 7 percent share in 2012.

An array of clients -- unions excepted

Among our top 25 contributors, 24 work for a lobbying or law firm or for a consulting group. Their major clients include household names like General Electric, Caterpillar and Microsoft.

Fifteen of our top 25 represent firms in the insurance industry, while 14 count pharmaceutical firms among their clients. Altogether the top lobbyist-donors are associated with 65 different industries in 12 sectors. Labor is the only industry not represented by even one of the the top 25.

Together this band of lobbyists represented 481 discrete clients in 2013, about 19 clients per lobbyist.

The exception? Nicholas Calio, a former aide to President George W. Bush, who lobbies in-house at Airlines for America, a trade association that spent nearly $8.5 million lobbying in 2013.

The technology sector is well represented by this coalition. General Electric, Microsoft, Intuit Inc. and Blackberry each number four clients among the group. Seven lobbyists of our top 25 represent Blue Cross/Blue Shield, while five represent the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group of power companies.

Kenneth Kies is the top lobbyist-donor so far this time around, having given close to $140,000. Together with his wife, he's given nearly $200,000 to candidates and committees in the 2014 cycle, putting them 22nd among all donors. Kies, who years ago worked for two tax committees in Congress, is now with the lobbying firm Federal Policy Group, where his clients include the American Bankers Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Microsoft.

Party matters, again
There are deep partisan divisions among the top 25. Sixteen of them gave exclusively to one party or the other: Five donated solely to Republicans, 11 gave only to Democrats. Some who work at the same firm were diametrically opposed in their giving patterns: Capitol Counsel LLC's Sharon Finley funneled all of her contributions to Democrats, while 100 percent of her partner Jeffrey Walter's donations went to the GOP.

The nine who divided their donations showed strong party preferences too, though. Even the two most even-handed donors contributed $4 to one party for every $1 they gave the other. James D. Massie donated $44,000 to Democrats and $11,000 to Republicans; David E. Franasiak donated $51,000 to Republicans and $12,600 to Democrats.

In D.C., genuine friendships often overlap with relationships built on mutual favors. Add the fact that many well-paid lobbyists once worked in congressional and agency offices where they still know people and it can be especially hard to tease out the motivations behind any single donation.

"If I only donated for the good of my firm or business I wouldn't have donated to candidates that I knew had no chance. But I knew it was important for them to have a voice," one lobbyist on the list told OpenSecrets Blog. His belief that a Democratic majority is better for the country "animates my giving," he said.

Another lobbyist on the list was more pragmatic. He favors the pro-business stance of Republicans and hopes they take control of the Senate and then the White House. At the same time, "this is politics, and you have to participate in the system," he acknowledged in an interview.

Lobbyists prefer incumbents, bolster embattled Democrats
Federally registered lobbyists have spread $18 million in contributions among over 100 candidates and members of Congress so far in the 2014 cycle, with donations tilting to the right: $7.4 million has gone to Democrats, $8.35 million to Republicans. Super PACs received a very small share, only about $71,000.

About 93 percent of lobbyists' total spending has gone to incumbents, and much of it has gravitated to just a few veteran lawmakers in the leadership. While lobbyists aim for access, they love stability, not eager to have to forge new relationships every election cycle. 

Top Recipients of Lobbyist-Donors, 2014 cycle

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)	$281,301
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)	$278,380
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)	$221,450
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)	$204,400
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)	$194,300
Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)	$160,300
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)	$129,433
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)	$123,733
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)	$121,750
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)	$121,486

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who faces a primary challenge, has received the most from lobbyists in the midterm cycle so far, more than $281,000. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is a close second at $278,380.

READ MORE

IRS Rarely Audits Nonprofits for Politicking

What more evidence do the people require to conclude that "tax-exempt, ' non-profit, 'charity' orgs" are conduit mechanisms to payoff a privileged class? 

And the IRS asks for more money? When an employee's work record is poor and failing would you award him a raise, or fire him? Worse, you find out your watchman is sleeping on the job or a no-show yet billing you for a salary. The IRS does no meaningful auditing yet you're gonna award it a raise? Of course, keep in mind that in your instance you'd be using your own money not that extorted from others as is the IRS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Julie Patel 22 January 2015

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John
Koskinen explains how his agency wants to
regulate politically active nonprofits during an
interview at the agency's headquarters in
Washington, D.C. Eleanor Bell/Center for Public
Integrity

When Republicans won control of the U.S. Senate in November, they could thank dozens of conservative "dark money" nonprofit groups for spending nearly $130 million to boost their preferred candidates or bash their political enemies.

Those nonprofit groups, including many that enjoy a preferred tax status because they purport to be focused on “social welfare,” are barred from engaging in electoral politics as their primary activity.

But the Internal Revenue Service, which is charged with policing the groups, almost never audits them to see if they’re spending too much money on politics, according to new information obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

The IRS told the Center for Public Integrity that it has only begun auditing 26 organizations specifically for political activity since 2010. That represents a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million nonprofits regulated by the agency.

More than 100 nonprofit groups have directly involved themselves in elections during recent years, some spending into the tens of millions of dollars. The rest — largely charities that are generally prohibited from campaigning for politicians — are seldom monitored to ensure they follow federal law.

The situation leaves the groups largely free to operate like political committees without fear of reprisal.

Their involvement in politics, meanwhile, has accelerated since 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision ushered in unprecedented election spending by nonprofit organizations that don’t disclose their donors.

Such groups spent more than $336 million during the 2012 cycle alone compared to about $17 million during the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The lack of IRS oversight and enforcement stems from a confluence of factors — fewer employees are devoted to nonprofits at a time when the number of  “dark money” groups applying for tax exempt status has skyrocketed, and the agency meantime has failed to clarify the rules surrounding political activity.

Internal IRS documents also show declines in the number of IRS employees investigating nonprofit groups and the number of employees who approve organizations’ application for nonprofit status, which allows the groups to avoid paying certain taxes.

“The IRS is not doing its job,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told the Center for Public Integrity. “There have been not only some obvious abuses of the tax exemption by some of these so-called social welfare groups, but I think some pretty flagrant ones.”

Help is not on the way. President Barack Obama last month signed into law a bill that chops the IRS’ annual budget by $345.6 million — reducing agency funding to 2008 levels.

It’s a decision IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says will result in hiring freezes and further job losses.

“The number of taxpayers keeps going up and the resources are down,” he said in an interview. “We are leaving billions of dollars uncollected because we do not have enough” employees.

The new information about the IRS’ internal resources comes in the agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in December 2013 by the Center for Public Integrity.

It follows an investigation the Center for Public Integrity published in July that found Congress has systematically weakened the IRS’ exempt organizations division in recent years, leading to the IRS all but quitting its regulation of politically active nonprofit groups.

The agency’s enforcement capabilities were further degraded because of political fallout from some employees’ decisions to delay approval of conservative groups’ applications for nonprofit status.

“The aftershocks from the political targeting scandal certainly don't facilitate prompt solutions,” said Mark Everson, a former IRS commissioner appointed by President George W. Bush. “I would imagine there is a real slowdown getting issues resolved because there is a tendency on the part of employees to make sure they aren't causing new problems.”

Cheryl Chasin, who worked for 32 years until 2010 in the IRS’ exempt organizations division, which oversees nonprofits, went further: “Anybody who at this point stuck their neck out [by delving into political spending] … would be slapped so hard and so fast they would bounce.”

Politically active nonprofits are simply “not afraid of the IRS or anybody else on this matter,” said Paul Streckfus, a former exempt organizations division employee who now edits a trade journal focusing on nonprofits. “Anything goes as far as spending” by these groups.

Politically active nonprofits include 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups, 501(c)(5) labor unions and 501(c)(6) trade groups.

It’s not that investigators can’t look at the issue: Auditors are empowered to probe groups for suspected political transgressions during the course of other audits, an agency spokesman said. The number of those audits, however, isn’t tracked.

The number of employees responsible for investigating nonprofits in the IRS exempt organizations division has dropped 9 percent from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013 — from 538 to 489.

There has also been a 16 percent decline in “determinations” employees — workers who process applications for nonprofit status. Their numbers fell from 297 in fiscal year 2009 to 248 in fiscal year 2013.

Meanwhile, applications for “social welfare” nonprofit status — the status obtained by many of the nation’s most politically active groups — increased by more than 17 percent, from 1,922 in fiscal year 2009 to 2,253 in fiscal year 2013.

The agency as a whole lost 13,000 employees in the past four years and has dealt with hefty budget cuts in recent years, and the exempt organizations division hasn’t been spared — even as its leaders “review how to most effectively use its staff,” said Bruce I. Friedland, an IRS spokesman.

Friedland also noted that the IRS has attempted to reduce the backlog of tax-exemption applications by, among other things, bringing in employees from another division to help.

A roster provided by the IRS of tax exempt and government entities division employees from 2001 to 2013 indicates support services for workers has also taken a blow.

For example, the 20 “employee development” positions in 2001 fell to three in 2013, plus four human resources positions.

Several IRS employees said the change was likely part of the overall decrease in training they encountered over the years. This, in turn, contributed to the uncertainty about how to handle applications for nonprofit status by a new wave of political groups.

“Practitioners [such as nonprofit tax attorneys] are saying they’re seeing a reduction in the quality of the work coming out of the IRS. A lot can be traced to that training budget being slashed,” said Streckfus, who worked for the IRS for six years during the 1970s.
Read more

How A Police SWAT Team Becomes a Charitable Corporation

Tuesday, 13 January 2015
Written by  Gregory A. Hession

Government agencies have developed very clever ways to hide their acts and paperwork from their bosses, the public. Some of them do it by staying deep in the shadows, such as the CIA or the National Security Agency (NSA). 

However, a group of regional police agencies in New England, which operate Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and are armed with machine guns, armored BearCat vehicles, and other military equipment, have done it by styling themselves as non-profit “religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational” corporations in order to avoid disclosure of their records.
 
These agencies are called “Law Enforcement Councils” (LECs), which evoke images of fraternal cooperation between police departments. In most of the country, that is what they are: regional groups of police departments who band together — and often incorporate — for legislative lobbying, getting funding grants, sharing information, and coordinating between jurisdictions. Some of them share equipment such as traffic speed machines.
 
Only in Massachusetts have these LECs subsumed their police SWAT and other militarized operations, such as locking down the City of Boston after a bomb explosion during its marathon, under the shield of non-profit corporations in order to avoid public scrutiny.

When the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tried to get the documents of one such group, the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement council (NEMLEC), which is made up of 58 police departments in northeastern Massachusetts, NEMLEC used the excuse that they were just a small non-profit charitable, religious, or educational organization and not a pubic entity, and thus were not subject to freedom of information requests. Never mind that each officer in the SWAT team is a public employee, is paid by public funds, operates publicly owned vehicles and equipment, and works on public safety missions.
 
The ACLU then sued NEMLEC to obtain their records, under the open records law in Massachusetts. However, NEMLEC has continued to oppose disclosure of the records in court, and has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. “NEMLEC can’t have it both ways,” said an attorney for the ACLU. “Either it is a public entity subject to public records laws, or what it is doing is illegal.”
 
Each member police force of a Massachusetts LEC is required to pay dues to the organization of many thousands of dollars per year. These dues are paid out of public funds. Certainly they run their policing operations by their public authority granted by the state and each city or town. In other words, they are public employees, doing their public work and getting paid by our taxes. 
 
NEMLEC’s response appears to be a recent change in the purpose of its non-profit charitable corporation status. NEMLEC was founded forty years ago in 1974, according to Massachusetts secretary of state documents. When it started, it was probably a bunch of police chiefs meeting to swap stories and give each other awards. Perhaps only recently did the group figure out that their non-profit corporation could also serve as a shield to protect their SWAT and military-like activities from disclosure to the public.
 
Why does this matter? Because these cops raid homes and kill people — sometimes the wrong people, sometimes innocent children. They use heavy armored personnel carriers, and serve “no-knock” warrants on drug houses, where they use automatic weapons and flash grenades.
 
As public employees, the records of their activities should be open to the public, and individual police departments have always had to produce them. But because the police departments have consolidated their SWAT teams under these regional “Law Enforcement Councils,” they can hide their most violent, most controversial operations under the protection of a charitable corporate veil.
 
According to a June 26, 2014 article in storyleak.com, SWAT raids have increased from 3,000 a year to over 80,000 a year in the last three decades. Media bring daily reports of drug raids on homes that were mistakenly targeted, and where police sometimes injure or kill innocent persons or pets.
 
Most of these SWAT raids, conducted by officers armed to the teeth and carrying smoke or flash grenades and battering rams, are part of the so-called “drug war.” Although law enforcement theoreticians are well aware of the ample historical evidence that prohibition does not work, we have continued to use this drug war pretext to ramp up the militarization of local police and to perpetrate a siege mentality in many urban areas.
 
We should not forget our last experiment with prohibition of liquor, some ninety years ago, which ran from 1920 to 1933. H.L. Mencken, the “sage of Baltimore,” writing during that period, reminds us what a horrible flop it was and how it ended up doing far more harm than good despite the best intentions of “dry” reformers:

Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.

Modern police departments have changed from a “protect and serve” model to an “us versus them” mentality and culture. In the new model, citizens have become enemies of the state, and “officer safety” is the primary concern, not the rights of the people. Officers are trained to escalate at the slightest perception of a threat, and will bring criminal charges of resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct with little provocation.
 
In that highly charged police-state atmosphere, it is critical that citizens be afforded the opportunity to see public records about police SWAT activities, regardless of whether the police style themselves a “charitable” corporation. Hopefully, the lawsuit filed by the ACLU will succeed in piercing that barrier, and the result will be more accountability by police and fealty to the constitution in their operations, because they know they are being scrutinized.

Source thenewamerican

Why All Nonprofits Should Lose Their Tax-Exemption

People have been pounding the drums for years for congress to abolish these privileged tax avoidance schemes! Abolishing the IRS entirely may have to wait for a time, but eliminating IRS tax sheltering schemes for corporations,  political parties, academics, millionaires, subversives, foreign agents, and yes even churches, is needed now! Friends, these are not charities as we are told, they are un-Constitutional, parasitic and feed from the souls who toil for them --- us.

Posted on April 4, 2014 by The PROGRESSIVE View - Eric Zuesse
 

via  Washington's Blog

Even the “nonprofit” Harvard University, with the world’s largest academic endowment fund, refuses to do its duty to the public and to their own students, and to divest itself from the companies that are destroying our planet — companies that are destroying the biosphere that their students and everyone else will inherit. What, then, does their “nonprofit” status really amount to, but a sham to shift their own tax-burden onto everybody else — a tax-shifting scheme? If they are so obsessed with profit that they don’t even care about the planet, and their students’ future, then they are really just an outrage, not at all better than the companies they invest in that are destroying our planet — and they should therefore be stripped of their “nonprofit” status, and of the privileges that it bestows upon them at everyone else’s expense. They are just a tax-shifting racket, and should be recognized as such.

Thus, I am here publicly urging Congress to strip of “nonprofit” status all organizations that, like Harvard, continue to invest in fossil-fuels-exploration and development corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, and Peabody Coal. Undiscovered oil, gas, and especially coal, must remain undiscovered; and these fuels will inevitably soon be simply abandoned anyway, because of their long-term harms. Even if they stop too late, they will stop; they will be forced to, but the question is: How soon? Will it be soon enough?

A January 2013 report to institutional investors by the world’s largest bank, HSBC, was titled “Oil and Carbon Revisited: Value at Risk from ‘Unburnable’ Reserves,” and it noted, in its front-page summary, under the heading of “Unburnable Reserves,” that, “The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (2012 edition) estimated that in order to have a 50% chance of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2ºC [i.e., the amount of heating above which runaway heating would be uncontrollable], only a third of current fossil fuel reserves can be burned before 2050. The balance could be regarded as ‘unburnable’.”

The rest — all of the remaining two-thirds — must stay in the ground, never be burned. That one-third will be reduced to even less if the most global-warming-worst fuels, such as coal, tar-sands oil, and petroleum cokes, are to be part of the mix that will be burned. If any of those super-dirty ones are burned, then the cleaner carbon-based fuels such as regular oils will practically not be able to be burned at all if the world is still to be able to avoid climate-catastrophe.

The amount of all fossil-fuels that will be able to be burned if the world is to have an 80% chance of avoiding uncontrollable climate-catastrophe is only 20%; and that percentage, too, will be even less if the dirtiest carbon-fuels are to be included in the mix.

What this means is that the investors in the dirtiest fuel-sources, such as the Koch brothers, who own more than half of Alberta Canada’s tar sands, will be (and indeed are) fighting the hardest to persuade the public to simply ignore global warming.

The propaganda from the fossil-fuels corporations, and especially from the Koch brothers and the rest of the dirtiest fossil-fuels-producing firms, causes to remain legal the continued exploration to discover yet more oil, gas, and coal, to burn beyond the point-of-no-return for our planet, even though no more such fuels should be discovered and added to the already-existing stockpiles (since much of it will have to remain in the ground). Our society is just too corrupt for it to be illegal yet. It’s like slave-trading was, and like Apartheid in South Africa was, before public pressure caused laws to change and those activities to stop (or at least to become outlawed). But “nonprofits” that invest in such things are adding insults to the already incalculable injuries that those firms cause. This is essentially a publicly subsidized rape of our planet; and it is even more unacceptable, and must therefore be stopped — which Congress can do, and here is how:

The 17 February 2014 issue of the Nation has an article by James Lawrence Powell on “Harvard and Brown Fail on Climate.” Powell, now retired, himself had a storied career, which makes him an ideal authority on this sort of thing. He was the president of Oberlin College, of Franklin and Marshall College, of Reed College, of the Franklin Institute Science Museum, and of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History; and, so, he knows something about nonprofit educational organizations, such as Harvard. He also has an MIT Ph.D. in Geology; and, so, he also knows something about science concerning our planet. Furthermore, as wikipedia’s article about him says, “In 2012, Powell conducted a survey of scientific papers regarding the topic of anthropogenic global warming by searching Web of Science for scientific papers published from 1991 to 2012. He identified 13,950 papers, but only 24 argued that humans were not the primary cause of global warming. He updated his survey in 2014 to include studies published from November 12, 2012 to December 21, 2013, and identified only one study published during this time which argued that global warming was not caused by human activity.” So, he knows the refereed scientific literature on climate change as well as just about anyone does.

That article from him in the Nation says:

“Today, university presidents, and the institutions they lead, confront a moral choice over a crisis that threatens human health and society on a far greater scale than either tobacco or apartheid: climate change. As Elizabeth Kolbert wrote in Field Notes From a Catastrophe, ‘It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.’ In the last few years, students have begun urging their colleges and universities to divest from fossil fuel companies (FFCs), whose products are driving climate change. Two of the first university presidents to respond, [were] Drew Gilpin Faust of Harvard [http://www.harvard.edu/president/fossil-fuels 3 Oct. 2013 had him saying, 'I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the Corporation, that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise. Harvard is an academic institution. It exists to serve an academic mission — to carry out the best possible programs of education and research.'] and Christina Paxson of Brown [http://brown.edu/about/administration/president/2013-10-27-coal-divestment-update 27 Oct. had her saying, 'The serious, thoughtful and robust discussion in the Corporation covered the full range of perspectives. The conclusion of this discussion is that Brown will not divest from coal.']”

So: those “nonprofit” institutions obviously would rather put the profits of oil, gas, and coal companies (and their own splendid paychecks derived therefrom), above their responsibilities to the public, or even above the lives that their students will be experiencing in a world of runaway, out-of-control, heating.

Why should all the rest of us continue to pay their taxes?

Are not the stakes now too high for their scam of us to be allowed to continue any further?

READ MORE…