Preview Newsletter
FF Transition - Week of 12/15
-
Big, Very Rich and Dangerous: Time to Rein in Private Charitable Foundations
Dec 11, 2016 | American Thinker
By Clarice Feldman
Calls for a substantial rewrite of the laws respecting our tax-exempt sector, reining in private foundations, including The Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Funds and The Pew Charitable Trusts as examples. American Thinker is “a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans,” emphasizing national security, Israel, business/science/technology, economics and American culture. -
Capital Against Capital Punishment: Who's Fighting the Death Penalty?
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside Philanthropy
By Philip Rojc
Mentions Ford Foundation’s contributions of “at least $500,000” to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Equal Justice USA. -
Donors Flock to Liberal Journalism Nonprofits After Trump Victory
Dec 14, 2016 | mrc NewsBusters
By Alatheia Nielsen
Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations are among several “liberal donors” mentioned in a News Busters article analyzing a New York Times report about increases in donations to nonprofit journalism organizations after the election. News Busters, whose aims include, “exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias” highlights donation figures given from liberal organizations, including Ford Foundation, to the Center for Public Integrity, WNCY Radio, ProPublica and Marshall Project. -
J. Edgar Hoover feared a cabal of ultra-liberal economists with CIA ties would hijack the American economy
Dec 12, 2016 | MuckRock
By Michael Best
Reports on a letter released via FOIA documents. The piece states that former employees for the Mutual Security or the Ford Foundation were potentially ultra-liberal reformist economists who were “awaiting an opportunity to rise again to a position of dominance in U.S. economic policy.” MuckRock is a non-profit, collaborative news site which provides a repository of “information on how to file requests, and tools to make the [Freedom of Information] requesting process easier.” -
Questions for Mr. Tillerson
Dec 14, 2016 | Ricochet
By Mona Charen
Ford Foundation is mentioned in this opinion piece published in the National Review about ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson and liberals’ distrust in big-business CEOs. The author notes: “Some of the nation’s largest companies are very generous to progressive causes, and when they start foundations, it’s Katie-bar-the-door (yes, that means you Ford Foundation).” -
What Is an NGO? How Do They Demonize Israel?
Dec 15, 2016 | Jewish Link of New Jersey
By Alex Grobman
Ford Foundation has been linked to efforts to demonize Israel in an article appearing in Jewish Link of New Jersey. The article, appearing in a Jewish community-focused paper, lists Ford Foundation alongside the New Israel Fund, USAID, Christian Aid and the Advocacy Project as “among institutions providing significant funds and technical support to NGOs”. -
Clinton Campaign Supports Call for Electors To Be Briefed On ‘Foreign Intervention’ Claims
Dec 12, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
Mentions the Ford Foundation as a notable funder of net neutrality, donating alongside Soros’s foundations “a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting ‘net neutrality.’” -
Activist Who Served on George Soros-Financed Boards Behind Scheme to Take Trump’s Electoral College Votes
Dec 9, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
Mentions the Ford Foundation as a notable funder of net neutrality, donating alongside Soros’s foundations “a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting ‘net neutrality.’” -
New Chinese Law Puts Foreign Nonprofits in Limbo
Dec 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Josh Chin
Mentions Ford in the context of the Chinese NGO law, which says the exodus of NGO’s could “weaken informal ties between China and the U.S. just as tough talk from President-elect Donald Trump on trade and other issues is shaking up the relationship”. -
The Soros Summit takes place at Paris
Dec 13, 2016 | Voltaire Network
Mentions “Ford Foundation (the traditional partner of the CIA)” in a list of foundation funders of the Open Government Partnership. -
PHILANTHROPISTS GALVANIZE AROUND NEWS
Dec 14, 2016 | Harvard's Neiman Lab
By MOLLY DE AGUIAR
Predicts that foundations will galvanize around journalism in light of societal divisions and the rise of “fake news.” -
10 Private Foundation Do's And Don'ts
Dec 14, 2016 | Forbes
By Ashlea Ebeling
Highlights recent issues the Donald Trump Foundation has faced with the IRS, outlining dos and don'ts for private foundations. -
Soros-Backed Group Leads Charge Against Tillerson From the Left
Dec 14, 2016 | Newsmax
By John Gizzi
George Soros is mentioned in an article about the appointment of Tillerson : “But Tillerson, 64, will face his most spirited opposition from a decidedly left-of-center group funded in large part by George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire known as "the paymaster" of leftist organizations.” -
The Billionaires vs. Donald J. Trump
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside Philanthropy
By David Callahan
As a billionaire president-elect selects his cabinet, there’s another slice of the far upper class that is getting ready to do everything they can to derail a Trump agenda that’s shaping up to be even more hardline and conservative than anyone expected. Inside Philanthropy identifies this group as including George Soros, Tom Gill and Jon Stryker, and Tom Steyer, among others. -
REPORT: HILLARY IGNITES SOROS-FUNDED PURPLE REVOLUTION AGAINST TRUMP
Dec 9, 2016 | INFOWARS
By Kit Daniels
Discusses Hillary Clinton's recent penchant for purple clothing, arguing that George Soros is trying to initiate a color revolution using far-left radicals in the U.S. -
Obama’s Soros-funded Pro-Dope Policy in Peril
Dec 8, 2016 | Accuracy in Media
By Cliff Kincaid
Mentions George Soros and his foundation negatively connecting him to policy in favor of marijuana legalization. -
SOROS-FUNDED GROUP DOES HIT PIECE ON BEN CARSON
Dec 12, 2016 | WND
By Bob Unruh
George Soros and his foundation negatively connecting him to recent inflammatory remarks directed toward Ben Carson. -
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi Joins Trump's Business Council
Dec 14, 2016 | Fortune
By John Kell
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi has become only the third female executive to join a 19-person business forum created by President-elect Donald Trump as he prepares his economic agenda for the United States.
Mentions of Ford Foundation
Mentions of Other Charitable Foundations
Mentions of Key Transition Issues
-
Big, Very Rich and Dangerous: Time to Rein in Private Charitable Foundations
Dec 11, 2016 | American Thinker
By Clarice Feldman
A few years ago, Mark Steyn sagely observed, “In America today, few activities are as profitable as a ‘nonprofit.’” Nothing warrants changing that assessment now. President-elect Trump has a lot on his plate if he plans to turn around the ship of state. But if it’s not too presumptuous, I’d like to add one more item to his agenda: a substantial rewrite of the laws respecting our tax-exempt sector, reining in private foundations.
Background
During a 75-year period (1884-1969) the U.S. Tax Code “established the basic principles and requirements of tax exemption, identified business activities of tax-exempt organizations that were subject to taxation, and defined and regulated private foundations as a sub-set for tax-exempt organizations.” Their assets have increased enormously since then. It’s time for another look at the law with an end to rewrite it.
Together, private and public charitable foundations are apparently sitting on trillions of dollars of assets.
These organizations have grown to massive size -- and are poorly, if at all, regulated. Instead of meeting the charitable needs of citizens that government funds were inadequate to provide for, foundations are regularly being misused to fund organizations and outfits antithetical to our best interests, disenfranchising us and working at cross purposes to the desires and beliefs of most Americans. The achievements of a few big foundations include undermining the war on terror, Balkanizing our universities and society, lobbying for open borders, and undermining our economy with radical environmentalism. -
The most egregious offenders in terms of size seem to be those foundations categorized as private “non operating foundations” such as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation --which exist primarily to give grants to others, and it will be these to which I refer here. (Operating foundations function rather like public charities, providing direct support to a school, a hospital, or another specific charitable program, and are not the subject of this article.)
The Foundations that are my focus are those like the Tides Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation. Evidence of their anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Israeli activities is copious and well documented.
The Ford Foundation
Ford funded the Black Power Movement, helped establish the Black studies, Womens Studies, Hispanic Studies and Diversity Programs in colleges throughout the country, and supported Multiculturalism in place of assimilationist policies. It created and funded the Black Power Movement and La Raza, the Mexican national group here. Ford fought to expand the welfare state, created the Open Borders Lobby, underwrote the “human rights “ focus in America’s law schools, and pushed affirmative action programs. Its sponsorship of the anti-Israeli, anti-American Durban Conference got it into hot water, after which it promised to cease funding “subversive groups” including those calling for the destruction of Israel,
In recent decades, the Ford Foundation has continued to play a major role in shaping American culture, popular opinion, and public policy, by funding organizations whose agendas and worldviews are consistent with its own. These agendas and worldviews include:
the weakening of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures on the theory that they constitute unacceptable assaults on civil liberties;
the dissolution of American borders;the promotion of mass, unchecked immigration to the United States;
the redistribution of wealth;
the blaming of America for virtually every conceivable international dispute;
the depiction of Israel as an oppressor state that routinely victimizes its Palestinian minority;
the weakening of American military capabilities [snip];
a devotion to the principle of preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, and a host of other demographic attributes;
the condemnation of the U.S. as a racist, sexist, homophobic nation that discriminates against minorities, women and gays;
the characterization of America as an unrepentant polluter whose industrial pursuits cause immense harm to the natural environment;
the portrayal of the U.S. as a violator of human rights both at home and abroad;
the depiction of America as an aggressively militaristic nation; and
support for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand as an inalienable right for all women.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
This fund worked to derail the Keystone Pipeline. While it indicates its goal is “Peacebuilding in the Middle East,” NGO Monitor’s analysis shows it has been fomenting war there.
Among the nefarious groups funded by this Fund are these:
Middle East Policy Network ($100,000 for 2 years, June 2015, for general support; $30,000 for 1 year, December 2013, for general support): Also known as Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network, a think tank that produces policy analyses “on Palestinian human rights and self-determination within the framework of international law.”2 In July 2013, Al-Shabaka hosted a roundtable on “Political Agency For Palestinian Return,” arguing that “efforts for changing the balance of power by weakening and isolating Israel should be seen as efforts for refugee return” and that anti-Israel boycotts (BDS) are “the most effective and strategic campaign for refugee return at present.”[snip] Institute for Middle East Understanding ($150,000 for 2 years, June 2015, general support; $50,000 for 1 year, November 2013, general support): Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) aims to be a resource for journalists, providing a one-sided Palestinian perspective and narrative that demonizes Israel. For instance, a factsheet titled “Endgame Apartheid: The US-Sponsored ‘Peace Process’” refers to “Israel’s nearly 47-year-old discriminatory occupation regime” and describes U.S.-led peace efforts....
How antithetical it is to US interests -- and peace in the Middle East -- is evident from this about Al-Shabaka:
“Al-Shabaka’s policy advisors include: convicted Hezbollah spy Ameer Makhoul, Grace Said of Friends of Sabeel, Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, BDS activist Omar Barghouti, Ingrid Jaradat Gassner of Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem (formerly head of Badil; during her tenure, Badil had its funding frozen for posting antisemitic imagery on its website – dozens of disturbing images promoting the elimination of Israel, antisemitism, and violence remain), Muhammad Jaradat of BADIL, and Issam Younis of Al-Mezan and Gaza Community Mental Health Program “
Nor has the Rockefeller Brothers Fund ignored domestic lobbying groups here. It has been a major funder of J Street, the anti-Israeli nominally Jewish group favored by the Obama Administration and the go-to group on Israel-American Jewry of the major media.
Other grantees on Middle East issues include the New American Foundation for the now defunct Open Zion blog run by Peter Beinart ($30,000 in June 2012) and the National Iranian American Council”
Much more than I can cover in one article has been reported about these foundations. Useful sources of information include David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks site and NGO Monitor.
The environmental movement is heavily subsidized by major foundations. [snip] With more than $7 billion in assets, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — funded by the fortune of the co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard computer company — has made grants to such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and "pro-illegal immigration" groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
George Soros’ Open Society Institute, with assets of more than $300 million, has supported the ACLU, the National Organization for Women and the "pro-illegal alien" National Immigration Forum.
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts, now also in the hands of the left, not only pushed for the ill-conceived campaign finance reform, they manipulated the facts in an effort to get it passed.
In the early 1990s, Sean Treglia, a former program officer with Pew, conceived a strategy whereby a few major leftist foundations would bankroll front groups and so-called “experts” whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign-finance reform.”
A cynic might conclude they were merely trying to preserve their hold on political speech while denying it to ordinary voters.
And it ,too, has been a major contributor to radical environmental groups:
PCT supports a host of organizations that are passionately anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, while it simultaneously holds many millions of dollars worth of investments in major corporations. [snip]
PCT is the largest funding source for the Tides Center, having given the latter nearly $109 million between 1990 and 2002. Other PCT grantees include: the Brennan Center for Justice; the Brookings Institution; the Council on Foundations; Environmental Media Services; the Institute for Policy Studies; National Public Radio; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Planned Parenthood; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Urban Institute; and Zero Population Growth.[snip]
In addition to earmarking enormous sums of money to fund the projects and activities of the aforementioned organizations, PCT also proposes its own policy solutions in a number of areas, including the Global Warming movement:
Working in partnership with the Energy Foundation to promote “the adoption of state and regional policies that curb global warming pollution,” PCT seeks “to advance the climate change debate through analysis, public education and a new cooperative approach with business.”[snip]
PCT is a member organization of the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG), a network of more than six-dozen grantmakers dedicated to funding leftwing groups and causes.
Perhaps the worst outfit to have tax-exempt status is the Tides Foundation. That is so because it a money-laundering scheme which allows others to contribute to very radical causes without being identified as funding them,
Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.
Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides -- thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.
If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no organization in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need. (Source)
Allowing foundations like these to pile up huge assets virtually tax-free (they are charged 1-2% excise tax on their revenues depending on the distribution of their funds) injures us twice: by reducing federal revenue and by making us fight against those who advocate against our best interests.
How then to rein them in?
1. Federal and state agencies must exercise greater oversight over their operations
Community watchdogs say the present regulatory structure is nowhere near adequate. For one thing, says Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator, a New Jersey-based nonprofit that helps donors select charities, existing law delegates considerable enforcement authority to states, but many of today's philanthropies cross state lines.
“We are continuing to regulate nonprofits in a way that might have worked in 1954,” he says, “but nonprofits are a big business that they weren't in 1954.” And while the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversees for-profit organizations, he explained, influential nonprofit boards of directors investing billions of dollars in the stock market represent “a parallel universe that we are not paying attention to.”
Stamp, in fact, advocates establishing an SEC counterpart to oversee the entire nonprofit sector. Short of that, philanthropies should have to justify keeping their tax-exempt status, he argues. “The IRS gives out tax-exempt status and doesn't see those charities ever again,” except in a handful of cases, he says.
Rich Kent suggests state attorneys general should do more on criminal oversight of these foundations, which often operate in many jurisdictions. He cites Mike Cox’s efforts in 2005 against the Ford foundation in Michigan, which had gone far outside the grantor’s intent:
“Between 1998 and 2005, the foundation’s annual grants to Michigan charities totaled less than $1.5 million a year, running as low as $200,000 in 2000. In 2001 the Ford Foundation granted $593 million worldwide.
No wrongdoing was ever found in the investigation and in subsequent years, the foundation began funneling more money to Detroit and Michigan.”
2. Change the Tax Code on Foundation Lobbying Expenditures
The IRS permits limited lobbying by these foundations. Watchdogs need to ascertain if they are following these rules, but the biggest loophole it seems to me is in their grant making to groups that engage in lobbying.
“Private foundations may make grants to public charities that engage in lobbying activities, but those grants cannot be earmarked (in whole or in part) for lobbying. Permissible grants to such organizations may take one of two forms. First, a private foundation may make a general support grant to a public charity that engages in lobbying, leaving to the grantee discretion as to how the funds will be used. The recipient of the grant may then choose on its own to use the funds for lobbying expenditures, but must comply with federal lobbying rules for public charities. Second, private foundations may make specific project grants to projects that involve some lobbying component. However, the grant must be limited to the non-lobbying component of the project.”
This should be tightened with grantees forbidden to use any portion of money received from private foundations for lobbying.
3. Require Faster Pay Outs of Endowments
At the moment these non-operating foundations must pay down 5% of their endowments annually for charitable purposes or pay a penalty in taxes and sanctions. I think this rule ought to be changed to require that they actually pay out 20% of their non-fixed assets annually. Not doing so only enlarges their endowments for years past the deaths of the grantors, and takes them further from their original intent. When foundation boards become self-perpetuating, appointing new members to fill vacancies, officers can receive free rein to indulge their whims.
4. Require More Specific Definition of Aims and Make Foundations Stick to Them
I think the charitable purposes which the non-operating foundations are permitted to engage in should be reduced to more specific ends. At the moment organizations that are tax exempt under Section 501 C (3) are very broadly defined -- they must have as their purposes “religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational” purposes. This is too broad, and a proscription for continued trouble making.
5. Require Transparency
Outfits like Tides should be forbidden. Allowing one grant making tax-exempt foundation to give to another in a way that hides who gave money to a grantee allows grant making institutions to hide their contributions to the most nefarious groups.
These are just a few suggestions. I’m certain that tax experts can refine the existing laws in a way that makes these institutions more responsive to our needs than what we get from the leftist officers who have burrowed into these outfits and shell out money in ways their long-dead, more conservative original grantors intended.
If they fail, I plan to set up a Wine Women and Song Foundation which will work to get fabulously rich people to spend all their money on frivolous self-indulgences and leave us alone instead of trying to reshape our world into their blinkered wishes for it.
-
Capital Against Capital Punishment: Who's Fighting the Death Penalty?
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside Philanthropy
By Philip Rojc
This year’s election results don’t bode too well for opponents of the death penalty. A year after they abolished it, Nebraska voters decided to reinstate capital punishment. Oklahoma voters approved “any method of execution” not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. And California, the nation’s most populous state, struck down a repeal measure, instead approving a measure to make executions easier.
But will this capital punishment comeback last? A cadre of dedicated funders, including Atlantic Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, the Proteus Fund and others wants to make sure it doesn’t. These death penalty opponents are playing a long game and some have been at it for years. Angry populist elections come and go, but progress against the death penalty has been ongoing. Death sentences handed out in the U.S. have dropped almost tenfold since 1996, and actual executions per year have declined by about 75 percent. A full 42 percent of the American public opposes the death penalty, a 44-year high.
While capital punishment enjoys its day in the sun (and in approving comments from President-elect Donald Trump), several big funders are working behind the scenes to chip away at the penalty’s long-standing popular support. One major player (if not the major player) is Atlantic Philanthropies, which recently granted $3.25 million to Cornell Law School to establish the Cornell Center on Death Penalty Worldwide.
The first center of its kind in the U.S., the Cornell Center will work on the policy, research and advocacy side to advance international human rights norms that favor abolition. Indeed, most executions occur in a small number of countries: the United States, and top human rights violators like China, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Those fighting the death penalty have three main strategic goals. The first involves changing public perception of executions from a necessary measure to a cruel and unusual punishment. Second, advocates focus on the states, supporting grassroots efforts to repeal. Finally, the end goal for many advocates is a nationwide ban handed down from the Supreme Court. Often, this work involves direct political appeals and lobbying, backed through 501(c)(4) organizations.While appeals to human rights are effective to a point, philanthropic efforts against the death penalty are also now quite focused on the practical problems of this punishment: why executions aren’t just wrong, but ineffective and costly to boot.
Leading the charge are groups like the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Equal Justice USA, both recipients of large Atlantic grants in the years since 2006. While fighting the death penalty isn’t one of its major funding priorities, the Ford Foundation has also contributed at least $500,000 to the National Coalition.
All told, Atlantic Philanthropies has invested $60 million over the past decade to end the American death penalty. And although the foundation plans to discontinue its grantmaking this year (no doubt a worrisome fact for the abolition movement), it has already fertilized a whole bunch of anti-execution organizations that will continue raising funds. Among Atlantic’s biggest beneficiaries on this issue, besides the two mentioned above, are the Proteus Action League, the Advocacy Fund, Texas Defender Service, and the Southern Center for Human Rights.
In addition to its regular grantmaking, Atlantic Philanthropies backs direct lobbying, ballot initiatives and voter mobilization efforts against the penalty through its 501(c)(4), the Atlantic Advocacy Fund. But Atlantic’s greatest contribution to the fight (at least in terms of dollar support) has been its support for the Proteus Fund, via the 501(c)(4) Proteus Action League.
A longtime supporter of progressive policy efforts, the Proteus Fund channels money from donors to organizations where it can make the most impact. Proteus’s Themis Fund is dedicated solely to combating the death penalty. Aside from Atlantic Philanthropies, additional supporters include the Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation, Butler Family Fund, Fund for Nonviolence, and the Wallace Global Fund.
On a related note, Proteus has also fought profiling, discrimination, and xenophobia (including Islamophobia) through its Security & Rights Collaborative. With both Proteus and the Cornell Center, the idea is to apply international norms favoring abolition to American popular sentiment, which has generally favored capital punishment.
The Proteus Fund isn’t the only funding intermediary taking on capital punishment. Through its Death Penalty Mobilization Fund, the Tides Foundation has awarded over $6 million in grants since 2000.
Besides Atlantic Philanthropies, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is another regular source of money for those fighting the penalty. Since the early 2000s, Open Society has granted regular sums ranging from five to six figures to prominent anti-penalty organizations. Those grantees include the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, the Tides Foundation, the Death Penalty Information Center, Death penalty Focus, and People of Faith Against the Death Penalty.
The Fund for Nonviolence, true to its name, is another anti-penalty stalwart. Through its Justice With Dignity grants program, it has disbursed modest but regular funding to many of the organizations we’ve already named. As elsewhere, many of this funder’s grants are region-specific, supporting local efforts to push back against the penalty.
The Wallace Global Fund is another progressive funder with a hand in anti-death penalty work. Its funds several big-name advocacy organizations like the National Coalition, Themis at the Proteus Fund, and the Equal Justice Initiative. The numbers here are modest as well, in the high five figures.
Rounding out our list, we have the Oak Foundation, whose contributions to the fight have been substantial. While Oak has offices in the U.S., it is an international funder and its death penalty work is also international, through a commonwealth nations initiative called the Death Penalty Project.
Many prominent individuals have also supported an end to the death penalty in recent years. Among them, figures from the entertainment industry make a strong showing. Individual donors include Norman Lear, Susan Sarandon, Frank Quattrone, Alec Baldwin, and J.J. Abrams.
As we reported this year, Bryan Stevenson's Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama recently received a $1 million gift from Boston-area couple Jonathan and Jeannie Lavine via their Crimson Lion Foundation. Stevens has been a leading opponent of the death penalty for years.
-
Donors Flock to Liberal Journalism Nonprofits After Trump Victory
Dec 14, 2016 | mrc NewsBusters
By Alatheia Nielsen
Since comedian John Oliver recommended people donate to the liberal journalism site ProPublica, donations have been pouring in, according to The New York Times.
The Times also reported that nonprofit journalism in general has seen a spike in donations (especially small ones) since Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States. But The Times failed to note that every outlet they mentioned in their Dec. 7 report were funded by left-wing organizations.
In fact, the nearest The Times came to revealing the nonprofits’ liberal ties was simply saying the donors and audience “tend to lean to the left.”
All The Times stated was that nonprofit executives didn’t know whether their donors were motivated by a “partisan response to the election” or a “broader concern over the viability of a troubled industry.” The report also cited that Laura Walker, President of New York Public Radio, and “others” said it was “not their role to be partisan” despite their donors’ views.
But three of the four outlets named by The Times — the Center for Public Integrity, The Marshall Project (which focuses on criminal justice), and ProPublica — are liberal. The fourth, WNYC Radio (the flagship station for New York Public Radio), has received millions from liberal organizations.
All four groups share liberal donors like the Ford Foundation, the Park Foundation, Open Society Foundations (run by George Soros), and various Rockefeller groups.
Since the election, The Times revealed, donations to these liberal nonprofits have increased significantly. Individual donations to Center for Public Integrity are “up about 70 percent compared to the same time last year,” while the Marshall Project donor pool is “up 20 percent since the election.”
ProPublica likewise hauled in $750,000 from small donors since the election, surpassing the $500,000 “raised from small-dollar donors in all of 2015,” and at one point, “ProPublica was receiving as many as four donations a minute.”
WNYC, meanwhile, brought in $3.25 million in its October fundraising campaign — “the largest in public radio history,” and since the election, donations have come “at two or three times the normal rate,” The Times reported.
-
Dec 12, 2016 | MuckRock
By Michael Best
A letter released via FOIA documents FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s private fears that a CIA-backed cabal of ultra-liberal reformist economists were plotting a takeover of the American economy.
The letter was released as part of a FOIA request to the FBI on Robert R. Mullen. Mullen played a unique role in history, having founded the Robert Mullen Company, a PR agency and CIA cutout that employed Howard Hunt during Watergate.
According to the letter, the list was compiled following a July 1953 exchange of letters between Hoover and the Office of the Director for Mutual Security, sent just two days before the agency was officially disbanded and its functions transferred to the Foreign Operations Administration. According to the released letter, the list was compiled for the FBI to perform name checks on certain individuals.
So just who were they? According to the letter, they former employees for the Mutual Security Agency or the Ford Foundation. More importantly to Hoover, they were potentially ultra-liberal reformist economists “who formerly held key positions in the Government service and who have now, in effect, gone underground. These men are believed to be in close personal association while awaiting an opportunity to rise again to a position of dominance in U.S. economic policy.”
Robert Mullen, one of the “underground economists,” was one of the people that had already had a background check run on him. Despite being worried about his” ultra-liberal and reformist beliefs,” the background check makes no mention of Mullen’s personal views aside from the perception that he probably would not have fought for his country and he appeared to have been pro-German before America entered World War II. Aside from that, he was a “heavy drinker and girl chaser” but considered loyal.
Mullen wasn’t the only one who would be connected to CIA by history. Though he hadn’t gone to work for the Agency yet, Richard Bissell was only a year away from finally giving into the pleas from Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner to come work for the Agency. After Wisner’s mental breakdown, Bissell would take his place as the Deputy Director for Plans for the Agency. From this position, Bissell was heavily involved with a number of the CIA’s projects relating to assassinations and coups. Others on the list had more esoteric ties to the Agency and its operations, mostly through their ties to various groups and Foundations that worked with/for the Agency at various times.
Though several of the individuals would return to government service, or positions of stature within the community of economists, the fear that they were a cabal of “closely associated” economists who had “gone underground” and were plotting to dominate U.S. economic policy seems to have been just one more instance of Hoover’s paranoid flights of fancy.
-
Dec 14, 2016 | Ricochet
By Mona Charen
The American appetite for businessmen in government is a hardy perennial. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 on the strength of his “get under the hood” appeal. The Republican Party nominated Wendell Willkie in 1940 (though he’d been a Democrat until 1939) because he was perceived as a businessman “with a heart.” Now, the president-elect has chosen ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Is a businessman – a great dealmaker – according to the Trump camp, what we need as Secretary of State?
Progressives tend to respond in Pavlovian fashion to corporate CEOs, especially oil company executives. “Corporate America” is their bête noire – which just demonstrates their tunnel vision. In fact, the leaders of big corporations in the US tend to bend with fashion in political matters. Recall that a number of large companies denounced Indiana when it passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and some even withdrew from the state. Among those bringing pressure to amend or repeal the law were Apple Corporation, Angie’s List, Subaru, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and Gen Con. Some of the nation’s largest companies are very generous to progressive causes, and when they start foundations, it’s Katie-bar-the-door (yes, that means you Ford Foundation).
In my experience, small business owners tend to be more conservative than executives of large corporations. Why? 1) Small businesses lack the heft to influence the government; and 2) they lack the manpower/income to comply with costly regulations. Large companies are better positioned to lobby the government for favorable treatment, including policies that will harm their competitors (which often includes the small businesses), and they have the staff to fill out stupid, useless government forms.
When I heard that Mr. Tillerson was instrumental in getting the Boy Scouts to change its policy on homosexuality, that ExxonMobil donated to Planned Parenthood on his watch, and that he favors a carbon tax, I wasn’t surprised. Thiels, Mackeys, and Kochs are thin on the ground.
Tillerson’s business experience is impressive, but it tells us nothing important about whether he is a good choice for Secretary of State. What is most relevant, and what the senators who question him during his confirmation hearings will want to illuminate, is what are his views on American foreign policy?
President George W. Bush intervened aggressively in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Barack Obama withdrew precipitously from Iraq, dithered about Afghanistan, and studiously declined to intervene in Syria. What are Mr. Tillerson’s views of the wisdom/folly of those policies? Where does he stand on normalizing relations with Cuba? The Paris climate accord? The Iran deal? Mr. Obama tilted the US toward Iran and sharply away from Israel and the Sunni powers in the region. What are Tillerson’s views?
Does he agree with John Kerry (and his old friend James A. Baker III) that solving the Israel/Palestine dispute is the key to peace in the region?
What is the major geostrategic threat to the United States?
Is a trade war the way to deal with China? Who would be hurt by a 35 percent tariff on imported goods? What are other options for curtailing Chinese aggression?
Is it ever in the U.S. interest to defend human rights, or small nations menaced by bigger neighbors?
Then, there are the critical issues President-elect Trump raised during the campaign. Does NATO remain a keystone of US defense? Does it serve US interests to see South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and other nations acquire nuclear weapons? Should the United States repeal the sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea (as Tillerson urged when he was pursuing the interests of ExxonMobil)?
And while we’re on the subject of Russia, how many consecutive presidencies should begin with a resolution to improve relations with Russia? Why, in light of Putin’s unrelenting hostility, vicious, often murderous behavior toward critics and rivals at home, Soviet-style anti-American propaganda, possible hacking of our political parties, and unblushing war crimes abroad (especially, lately, in Syria), should we seek better relations? Doesn’t that seem pusillanimous just now?
Mr. Trump promised to destroy ISIS “very quickly.” How would that be accomplished?
The President-elect has said that strongmen are preferable to chaos. Agree? Trump took a congratulatory call from Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who has launched a terror campaign against drug dealers and addicts. Thousands have been killed. What ought the US response to be?
Who are our most important allies? What, if any, is America’s global role?
-
What Is an NGO? How Do They Demonize Israel?
Dec 15, 2016 | Jewish Link of New Jersey
By Alex Grobman
Articles about Israel frequently mention the term nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which play an inordinate role in shaping the way Israel is portrayed in the media. Few people know why NGOs exist, how they function, the underlying motivation of each organization or how they are funded.
The UN uses the term to differentiate between government institutions and private organizations. An article published by Harvard University Law School described some of the positive contributions NGOs have made: the collapse of apartheid regime in South Africa, the overthrow of the dictatorship in Chile, the political revolution in the Philippines, the demise of the Communist governments in Central Europe;, the establishment of an international treaty outlawing land mines and the creation of an international criminal court.
Gerald M. Steinberg, the president of NGO Monitor, which documents questionable funding and actions of many Israeli NGOs, explains that NGOs are established ostensibly to focus on human rights and legal, environmental and media issues. Those involved in Israel have clear political agendas, with legal NGOs using lawfare having the most profound influence.
The NGOs are in the vanguard of the organizations demonizing Israel such as BDS and Breaking the Silence and promoting anti-Semitism. In their reports and public statements, and with their clout in the UN, the media and the academic and diplomatic world, many NGOs misrepresent facts to advance their objectives without any external accountability.Lawfare
Lawfare is a weapon used in U.S. and European courts to initiate civil law suits and criminal investigations to thwart Israel’s ability to fight terror by accusing her of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” Brooke Goldstein, director of the Lawfare Project notes, “The object is as much to win a public relations victory as a court case.”
By framing political attacks in legal terms, Steinberg and Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s Legal Advisor, assert that NGOs attempt to create “a veneer of credibility and expertise for their claims. Since 2001, this process has repeated itself numerous times—Jenin in 2002, the ICJ [International Court of Justice] case against Israel’s security barrier in 2004, the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2010 Gaza flotilla.”
Lawfare strategy was formulated at the NGO Forum of the 2001 UN Durban Conference, which marked Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” responsible for “genocide” and “war crimes,” and demanded “the establishment of a war crimes tribunal” and other actions against this renegade state.
According to Herzberg, NGOs directing lawfare are the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), the Ramallah-based Al Haq and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York. A number of European governments also fund these suits, including the European Union, as do the Ford Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute and others. Many of the court cases are filed in the countries that have financed the organizations.Funding Sources
A number of NGOs have thousands of members and multi-million dollar budgets. Local and regional NGOs like Al Mazen, the PCHR, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and LAW are mostly led by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organization and share their goals. The Ford Foundation, the New Israel Fund, USAID, Christian Aid and the Advocacy Project are among institutions providing significant funds and technical support to NGOs.
B’Tselem, Israel’s largest and foremost NGO, is unrelenting in attacking Israel for alleged human rights abuses in Judea and Samaria. B’Tselem’s prime objective, warns Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, is “not to convince Israelis to change their policies from within, but rather aiding international efforts to pressure Israel to adopt the kind of policies Israelis themselves have repeatedly rejected in elections.”
NGO Monitor reports that B’Tselem’s supporters include “the European Union, Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), DanChurch Aid (Denmark), Catholic Relief Services (US), Norway, the Netherlands, Christian Aid Ireland, Diakonia (Sweden), Bread for the World-EED (Germany), ZIVIK (Germany), France, UK, UNICEF, UNDP, the Ford Foundation [and] the New Israel Fund.”Operation Protective Edge
During Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s military operation in Gaza during July and August 2014, Steinberg found that NGOs assisted the media in presenting a distorted narrative, by providing information through “ubiquitous” publications. NGO allegations were highlighted in hundreds of articles and repeated by decision makers. B’Tselem played a significant role in this process.
Few journalists, UN officials and diplomats questioned the accuracy of these “facts” or how they were obtained. Steinberg concluded that “most NGO statements did not comport with ethical and legal fact-finding principles; exhibited severe bias and double standards; lacked legal, forensic, and military expertise; gave minimal attention to Israeli human rights; and ignored or justified Palestinian abuses.”
NGO superpowers with budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Federation of Human Rights (France), have supported these efforts by providing publicity, organizing demonstrations and issuing reports produced as legal briefs to coincide with court hearings.Legislation to Expose and Thwart Anti-Israel NGOs
After Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked proposed legislation to end European government- financed NGOs, curtail the absence of transparency among those funding the NGOs, opponents of the bill charged the government of trying to restrict free speech, and stifle valid criticism. Steinberg responded that “legislation to counter efforts by a small number of influential and unaccountable groups financed by foreign governments to impose their opinions and preferences on Israel is hardly undemocratic.”
When sponsoring programs promoting Israel, such as the annual Israel Day Parade, American Jews might consider the implications of granting legitimacy to NGOs and other groups that seek to undermine the Jewish state by including them in their events.
By Alex Grobman, PhD
Alex Grobman, a Hebrew University-trained historian, is a consultant to the America-Israel Friendship League, a member of the Council of Scholars for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and a member of the Academic Council of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.
-
Clinton Campaign Supports Call for Electors To Be Briefed On ‘Foreign Intervention’ Claims
Dec 12, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s top political adviser who served as chairman of her presidential campaign, expressed his support for a request by ten Electoral College voters to receive an intelligence briefing on claims of foreign intervention in the presidential election.Podesta’s statements seem to call into question the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory.“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday, Politico reported. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” he said. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”Podesta was responding to an open letter from ten electors – including Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, requesting the intelligence briefing.The electors wrote:The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.Podesta’s statements are already strengthening attempts by Democratic lawmakers to impact the Electoral College vote on Dec.19.Politico reported:Shortly after Podesta’s statement, the Democratic National Committee disseminated a POLITICO story that revealed the electors’ call for a briefing. Two Democratic members of Congress have also suggested the Electoral College should take an active role in reassessing — or stopping — a Trump presidency.Over the weekend, a Democratic congressman asserted that members of the Electoral College should have the right to consider the alleged impact of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election when they cast their votes.
“To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result, I believe the electors have the right to consider that,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) told POLITICO in a statement on Saturday.
Politico further reported:
Cicilline appears to be the first member of Congress and the highest-ranking elected official in the country to endorse the notion that electors aren’t simply rubber stamps for their states’ popular vote. Earlier Saturday, he retweeted a Rhode Island-based national security expert who argued that the intelligence community “must brief electoral college about Russia before vote.”
Cicilline was referring to reports in the Washington Post and New York Times claiming Moscow interfered in the presidential election to help Donald Trump win — a contention the President-elect called “ridiculous” in an interview on Sunday.
Cicilline’s comments come after a Democratic presidential elector from California filed a lawsuit aiming to overturn a California statute that requires him and the states’ other electors to support the winner of the popular vote in the state with the aim of voting for someone else. The lawsuit, the second of its kind nationwide, is clearly part of an effort to set a legal precedent to free any rogue Republican electors in other states to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump.
The lawsuits join a larger effort to try to turn electors against voting for Trump. Last week, Breitbart News reported Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law.Autoplay: On | Off
Lessig, a one-time presidential candidate, has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros.
Lessig’s Electoral College scheme, which is being called the Electors Trust, is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president.
It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether.
Lessig’s project also follows the largely failed recount efforts of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was aided by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart News reported that the lawyer representing Clinton’s recount efforts, Marc Elias, recently led legal battles against state voting laws with an infusion of funding from Soros.
Lessig’s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico:
Lessig says his new effort, which he calls “The Electors Trust,” will provide free counsel to electors, provided by the midsize firm, Durie Tangri, whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig’s.
More significantly, Lessig said, the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House. It’s a platform, he said, that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they’ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency.
“It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said in a phone interview.
Writing at Medium.com, Lessig elaborated on his electors plot:
With their permission, the electors can allow others to know that they are considering a vote of conscience. But that information will not include either their identity or their state. Our primary objective is to provide a safe and confidential legal context in which electors can seek advice and support, and depending on the facts, an opportunity to litigate to defend their freedom.
Reached for comment, Lessig last week refused to provide Breitbart News with the specific numbers of electors who are allegedly considering switching their votes from Trump.
“”I’m not in the information flow for that. We’re being very careful to assure anonymity,” Lessig said.
Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton.
Reported Politico:
Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.
Lessig launched his project after one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, publisheda news-making op-ed in the New York Times announcing his intentions not to vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to formally elect the president.
Lessig’s movement seems to be gaining some momentum, even if it is a long shot. On Tuesday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Elizabeth Williamson citing Republican insiders saying there are other quiet “faithless electors” like Suprun plotting to vote against Trump. Still, Williamson, a Times editorial writer who specializes in national politics, admitted the chances of the effort succeeding amount to a “moon shot.”
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker also advocated for the scheme in a piecetitled, “The electoral college should be unfaithful.”
Parker claimed renegade electors would write a new history of “heroism”:
Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written.
Lessig has been a national leader in the movement for so-called net neutrality, a concept highlighted in its infancy in his 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
A study by the Media Research Center found that Soros’s foundations and the Ford Foundation donated a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting “net neutrality.”
Lessig served on the boards of numerous nonprofits advocating so-called net neutrality, including Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Sunlight Foundation. Lessig is still on Sunlight’s board.
All three are funded by Soros, as documented here, here, here, and here.
Asked about his associations with those groups, Lessig told Breitbart News, “I’ve served on the board of Public Knowledge, the advisory board of Sunlight, and I’ve been a fan of Free Fress. I’ve received no compensation from any of them, ever.”
Asked whether he served on the board of Free Press, where he was listed on the board, he subsequently replied that he did, from 2007-2009.
Despite its namesake, Free Press is a well-known advocate for government intervention in the Internet and news media.
Lessig has been a close associate of Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has called for the U.S. capitalist system to be dismantled and replaced with a socialist-style system.
“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay.
Lessig and McChesney have worked on projects together and have co-authored academic papers and opinion pieces in major newspapers.
This reporter previously documented Free Press has advocated for the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.
“The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America,” begins a 48-page Free Press policy paper titled, “New Public Media: A Plan for Action.”
“Commercial media’s economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media, presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system,” argued the Free Press document.
I further reported at the time:
The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient.
“We believe local news reporting should become one of public media’s top priorities,” said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron, one of the paper’s co-authors.
“We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can’t follow closely on their own,” Aaron stated.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
-
Dec 9, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig has announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law.Lessig, a one-time presidential candidate, has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros.
Lessig’s Electoral College scheme, which is being called the Electors Trust, is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president.
It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether.
Lessig’s project also follows the largely failed recount efforts of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was aided by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart News reported that the lawyer representing Clinton’s recount efforts, Marc Elias, recently led legal battles against state voting laws with an infusion of funding from Soros.
Lessig’s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico:
Lessig says his new effort, which he calls “The Electors Trust,” will provide free counsel to electors, provided by the midsize firm, Durie Tangri, whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig’s.
More significantly, Lessig said, the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House. It’s a platform, he said, that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they’ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency.
“It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said in a phone interview.
Writing at Medium.com, Lessig elaborated on his electors plot:
With their permission, the electors can allow others to know that they are considering a vote of conscience. But that information will not include either their identity or their state. Our primary objective is to provide a safe and confidential legal context in which electors can seek advice and support, and depending on the facts, an opportunity to litigate to defend their freedom.
Reached for comment, Lessig refused to provide Breitbart News with the specific numbers of electors who are allegedly considering switching their votes from Trump.
“”I’m not in the information flow for that. We’re being very careful to assure anonymity,” Lessig said.
Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton.
Reported Politico:
Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.
Lessig launched his project after one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, publisheda news-making op-ed in the New York Times announcing his intentions not to vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to formally elect the president.
Lessig’s movement seems to be gaining some momentum, even if it is a long shot. On Tuesday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Elizabeth Williamson citing Republican insiders saying there are other quiet “faithless electors” like Suprun plotting to vote against Trump. Still, Williamson, a Times editorial writer who specializes in national politics, admitted the chances of the effort succeeding amount to a “moon shot.”
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker also advocated for the scheme in a piecetitled, “The electoral college should be unfaithful.”
Parker claimed renegade electors would write a new history of “heroism”:
Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written.
Lessig has been a national leader in the movement for so-called net neutrality, a concept highlighted in its infancy in his 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
A study by the Media Research Center found that Soros’s foundations and the Ford Foundation donated a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting “net neutrality.”
Lessig served on the boards of numerous nonprofits advocating so-called net neutrality, including Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Sunlight Foundation. Lessig is still on Sunlight’s board.
All three are funded by Soros, as documented here, here, here, and here.
Asked about his associations with those groups, Lessig told Breitbart News, “I’ve served on the board of Public Knowledge, the advisory board of Sunlight, and I’ve been a fan of Free Fress. I’ve received no compensation from any of them, ever.”
Asked whether he served on the board of Free Press, where he was listed on the board, he subsequently replied that he did, from 2007-2009.
Despite its namesake, Free Press is a well-known advocate for government intervention in the Internet and news media.
Lessig has been a close associate of Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has called for the U.S. capitalist system to be dismantled and replaced with a socialist-style system.
“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay.
Lessig and McChesney have worked on projects together and have co-authored academic papers and opinion pieces in major newspapers.
This reporter previously documented Free Press has advocated for the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.
“The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America,” begins a 48-page Free Press policy paper titled, “New Public Media: A Plan for Action.”
“Commercial media’s economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media, presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system,” argued the Free Press document.
I further reported at the time:
The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient.
“We believe local news reporting should become one of public media’s top priorities,” said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron, one of the paper’s co-authors.
“We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can’t follow closely on their own,” Aaron stated.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
-
New Chinese Law Puts Foreign Nonprofits in Limbo
Dec 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Josh Chin
Hundreds of international nonprofits in China are bracing for the new year when a law rolled out as part of President Xi Jinping’s push against unwanted foreign influence threatens to make them illegal.
The uncertainty stems from new rules requiring foreign nonprofits to register with police and have a government sponsor, among other restrictions. The nonprofits most at risk are smaller groups working on criminal justice and rule of law. But without key information on how to register, groups operating even in nonsensitive fields are in danger of ending up violating the law.
An exodus of such groups would weaken informal ties between China and the U.S. just as tough talk from President-elect Donald Trump on trade and other issues is shaking up the relationship.ADVERTISINGinRead invented by Teads
On Wednesday, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing sent out a notice warning that U.S. citizens employed by or associated with nonprofits “may face special scrutiny and/or penalties for noncompliance” when the law goes into effect on Jan. 1.
Fears in the Communist Party that foreign governments might exploit nonprofits to promote democracy in China have ramped up under Mr. Xi. The new law, which passed in April, follows tightened controls targeting foreign textbooks and foreign entertainment and is part of expanding legal fortification against what Chinese leaders see as threats from abroad.
China estimates 7,000 foreign groups have activities in the country, while experts say those with a long-term presence number less than a thousand. A few large organizations like the Ford Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are formally registered under older regulations, but the vast majority operate in a regulatory gray area, registered as businesses or sometimes not at all.
Authorities have signaled that groups working on civil rights will have trouble registering, according to Western diplomats.
One prominent nonprofit, the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative, which has advised activists in environmental lawsuits and lobbied for landmark legislation on domestic violence, decided as a result to move its China program to Hong Kong and will have no staff in China come next year.
With only a couple of weeks till the deadline, authorities haven’t provided lists of government sponsors or approved activity areas necessary for groups to register under the law.
“A lot of organizations just don’t know what to do,” said Mark Sidel, a University of Wisconsin law professor who has been advising groups on how to prepare for the law.
Several rights-advocacy groups are looking at mothballing their programs, and some have already moved foreign managers out of the country, according to nonprofit staffers.
China routinely portrays informal exchanges as vital for good relations with other nations. Nongovernment groups also provide a framework for important back-channel dialogue in times of flare-ups.
“How do we deal with another bilateral disruption if there’s no fabric holding the relationship together?” asked the China head of a large international NGO.
U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice raised concerns about the new law’s impact on “people-to-people links” in a Washington meeting on Dec. 8 with China’s minister of public security, Guo Shengkun, the White House said. Neither the public security ministry nor China’s foreign ministry responded to requests for comment.
‘‘No one can explain the law to us.’’——Ching Tien, founder of a nonprofit
One veteran nonprofit staffer said he believed China’s government’s approach to foreign nonprofits is similar to its treatment of foreign technology companies: absorb what they have to teach, then use laws to push out undesirable ones and create local groups that are more easily controlled.
The small number of nonprofits already registered will be able to re-register under an expedited process, officials have said. Several Western officials, legal experts and nonprofit staff said they believed the government intends to let most unregistered groups enter the new year as illegal organizations to make it easier to control or expel them.
At a forum on foreign NGOs in Beijing on Monday, Ching Tien, the Canadian founder of a nonprofit that sponsors the schooling of girls in western China’s Gansu province, said she is now thinking of making her group part of an existing Chinese foundation, which would mean giving up financial control.
“No one can explain the law to us,” Ms. Tien said. “It’s just easier this way.”
In discussions about the law, one Western diplomat said, Chinese officials showed little interest in addressing foreign governments’ concerns. A foreigner involved in the talks said authorities attributed the delay in releasing the guidelines to a lack of consensus “at the highest levels” over which agencies would be approved to sponsor foreign groups. Officials also said “all political activities will be forbidden,” the person said.
For groups that can’t get registered, there’s a danger that international funders will pull support, or that local partners will be afraid to work with them, said Gisa Dang, former program director for Asia Catalyst, which does training and research on HIV and other health issues in Asia.
“I think that’s part of the plan,” said Ms. Dang, who moved to the U.S. from Beijing earlier this year. Asia Catalyst declined to comment.
In July, the American Bar Association angered Beijing by giving its inaugural International Human Rights Award to Chinese human-rights lawyer Wang Yu. Some in China’s legal circles took the award and the closure of ABA’s Beijing office as a sign the organization had given up on engagement with China.
The director of the ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative, Elizabeth Anderson, said the organization was hopeful it would be allowed to register under the new law and would try to continue to work in China.
-
The Soros Summit takes place at Paris
Dec 13, 2016 | Voltaire Network
France has hosted the fourth summit of the Open Government Partnership, [which took place] from 7 to 9 December 2016. 70 states participated in it.
This organization is the product of a major reform of the Obama Open Government Initiative, launched in 2009 on the first day of his first term in office.
Applying the principles of the philosopher Karl Popper promoted by the George Soros foundations, this initiative pursues the following aims:
keeping a watchful eye over the transparency of democratic governments;
making citizens participate in decision-making through NGOs – and not through their Parliaments.At the time this inter-governmental organization was created, two other objectives were added:
fighting corruption – except when undertaken by registered lobbyists; [and]
making new technologies available to everyone.The Open Government Partnership was launched by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in 2011. Pursuing the application of its own principles, this inter-governmental association brings together several NGOs both to its debates and management. France and the World Resources Institute currently hold the presidency. The latter is a US association established by the Democrats. Its aim is to promote a market in ecology, by-passing the UN. It is through this NGO, that the former vice-president, Al Gore, popularised the theory that humans cause problems for the environment. [1].
Open Government Partnership receives the bulk of its funding from funds set up by businesses: George Soros’s Open Society, the Omidyar Network heavily implicated in the coup d’etat in Ukraine, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, (the traditional partner of the CIA) and by its member states.
Five years on from its establishment, anyone can see that, contrary to the commitments made by Barack Obama and the presidential decrees, the United States has never been as opaque, corrupt and unambiguously closed. In contrast, the other members states have been forced to become weaker, supposedly in the interests of all, but actually in the sole interests of the « ONG » and the foundations of accredited enterprises.
-
PHILANTHROPISTS GALVANIZE AROUND NEWS
Dec 14, 2016 | Harvard's Neiman Lab
By MOLLY DE AGUIAR
2017 is the year that philanthropy stops asking, “Why should we fund news and information?” and starts asking, “How do we get started?”
For years, funders have averted their eyes from the alarming loss of journalism jobs and coverage of local and state issues. This presidential election made it virtually impossible for them to ignore it any longer.
In the swirl of confusion and fear about fake news, echo chambers, and threats to press freedom, funders are now grasping the consequences to our communities when there are no journalists covering city council meetings or providing substantive statehouse reporting to keep elected officials accountable. Weeks away from the inauguration, foundations are waking up to the reality that this major transition of power will likely impact the issue areas they support, and that they can’t achieve their longterm objectives as long as the public is starved for relevant, reliable information about those issues.
Funders will be tempted to make grants that, in effect, seek to buy coverage in order to promote their agendas, by offering to fund beats or specific investigations, requesting editorial review and enacting quotas for stories written. But this would be disastrous to an already divided society, sowing further distrust for both philanthropy and journalism. Instead, philanthropy should focus on infrastructure: supporting a broad array of organizations — newsrooms, libraries, and civic tech organizations, as well as projects that promote open data and transparent government — that will strengthen news ecosystems across the country and give people access to information they crave.
Foundations should provide operating and project support with few or no strings attached. Additionally, they should give dollars that help newsrooms and other community-based nonprofits take creative risks, explore new revenue streams, and collaborate with partners. Doing so provides organizations the stable support they need while also empowering them to experiment, learn, and adapt to a changing landscape. Funding infrastructure also insulates philanthropy from accusations of deliberately influencing coverage.
There is no quick, easy fix to rebuilding capacity for news and information organizations or cultivating constructive dialogue and solutions for pressing issues; it will require sustained philanthropic investment and patience. But the opportunity here is immense. Journalists and their community-based partners can become the superheroes people desperately need right now: promoting understanding among neighbors; empowering people to participate in important local decisions; holding elected officials accountable; amplifying the voices and ideas that are never heard; and restoring the public’s trust in institutions. And fortunately, there are good models to turn to — thoughtful and creative leaders in the field demonstrating how people-powered journalism can act as a bulwark against fear, hate, and apathy.
Philanthropy has been too slow to value news and information organizations as community anchors. They have viewed media funding as a program area unto itself (one that they have not been particularly interested in), rather than a vital pathway for helping people discuss, understand, and engage with urgent issues. 2017 is the year this changes. Funders will make a bold longterm commitment to strengthening news and information ecosystems, recognizing it as a systemic way to inform, engage, and improve our communities and people’s lives.
-
10 Private Foundation Do's And Don'ts
Dec 14, 2016 | Forbes
By Ashlea Ebeling
Can you run a private foundation without getting into hot water? “If you set it up just to avoid taxes, and it’s the next year, and you have to at a minimum give away 5% and don’t have a clue, it’s easy to get yourself in trouble,” says Henry Berman, ceo of Exponent Philanthropy (formerly the Association of Small Foundations). That said, “The vast majority of people play by the rules; they’re doing it for the right reason; they have a passion,” he adds.
Here’s how to stay on the right side of the rules—and steer clear of the mistakes the Trump Foundation has fessed up to and more.
Get expert help at the outset. You’ll need a lawyer and/or CPA to help you set up a private foundation—most are established as non-profit corporations these days. You apply to the IRS for approval, and file with states as needed. For how outfits like the newer Foundation Source and the 60-year-old Glenmede Trust can help ease the administrative burdens of running a foundation, see Foolproof Foundations.
Shutterstock
Avoid self-dealing. That means you’re not allowed to use foundation funds for your personal benefit. The foundation is a separate legal entity. The responsibility to ensure that all the rules and regulations are met falls on the directors and officers (or trustees if the foundation is set up as a trust).
The Donald Trump Foundation last month reported in Internal Revenue Service filings that it engaged in self-dealing in 2015 and before. (See Trump Foundation self-dealing violations highly unusual.) What if you’re caught self-dealing or fess up to it? You might have to pay penalties and repay the money distributed improperly to the foundation. If you intentionally break the law, the IRS and/or the state Attorney General might come in and replace the board members. Educating foundation directors is key. Three times as many foundations (82%) have conflict of interest policies in place compared to 10 years ago, according to Exponent Philanthropy.
Watch out for issues with tickets to benefits and special events. Can my private foundation sponsor a table at a gala event and I invite my extended family? No--you can't bring non-trustee family members, unless they pay for their own ticket. The exception is trustees can attend events if they are there to learn more about the programs and encourage other donors, says Nina Cohen, director of endowment and foundation advisory at Glenmede Trust.
See Forbes Investment Guide 2017Set reasonable salaries. Many small foundations are run with no paid staff, but if you do pay staff, in particular family members, the salary has to be commensurate with the work. Imagine you employ your two kids, paying them $100,000 each a year, and they’re going to do all the work to manage $5 million in distributions from the $100 million foundation. If they each make a $2.5 million grant to their alma maters, that’s not reasonable, says Berman. On the other hand, if they’re visiting charities and paying out $25,000 grants, that’s a lot of work, so the $100,000 salary could be justified.
A private foundation cannot make political donations. The Trump Foundation came clean earlier this year, paying a $2,500 penalty for an improper 2013 donation from the Foundation to a campaign group connected to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in Florida. The Trump Foundation said it was mistake.
A private foundation can’t ask for money from outsiders unless it’s registered with a state charity bureau to do so. State laws vary. New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a notice of violation to the Trump Foundation in September for not being registered to solicit contributions. The New York Attorney General investigation is continuing, according to their press office.
Collaborate. Join a group like Exponent Philanthropy, which focus on foundations with few or no staff. Its members pay $750 to network and share resources from benchmarking advisor fees to handling investments. The Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers has information on local groups, such as the Philanthropy Network Greater Philadelphia, that offer training, resources, and affinity groups around issues like early childhood education or substance abuse.
Get a CPA who specializes in private foundation work to complete the annual 990PF tax return. “There are special rules, and the average accountant probably doesn’t deal with them very often,” warns Marc Owens, a tax lawyer at Loeb & Loeb in Washington, D.C. who headed the IRS tax exempt division for a decade. (Note: you have to make it available for public inspection.)
A private foundation must spend down at least 5% of its assets each year. You can’t give a grant to another private foundation without going through a multi-step “expenditure responsibility” exercise, including a written agreement and disclosure on your 990PF, warns Thomas Blaney, a CPA and director of foundation services for PKF O’Connor Davies in New York.
Write yourself a thank-you note. As donor, even if you’re a trustee or on the board of the private foundation, you need a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of your contribution to the foundation in order to claim a tax deduction. “This is something the IRS expects to see on audit,” says Carol Kroch, managing director of wealth and philanthropic planning at Wilmington Trust.
-
Soros-Backed Group Leads Charge Against Tillerson From the Left
Dec 14, 2016 | Newsmax
By John Gizzi
As soon as President-elect Donald Trump made official his nomination of Exxon Mobil CEO Ken Tillerson to be secretary of state, U.S. senators of both parties began to voice strongly worded concerns about the nominee's ties to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.
But Tillerson, 64, will face his most spirited opposition from a decidedly left-of-center group funded in large part by George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire known as "the paymaster" of leftist organizations.
Global Witness, which styles itself as an environmental watchdog group, charged Monday that under Tillerson's watch, Exxon Mobil has been a part of "misleading the public about what it knew of the threat from climate change, for which it's now under investigation by the New York Attorney General."
Because of Tillerson's leadership of a corporation accused of holding back information on climate change, Corinna Gilfillan, head of Global Witness's U.S. office, told reporters that "he shouldn't become our top diplomat or global representative on climate change."
An even more serious charge thrown at the secretary of state-designate by Global Witness is that their investigations have shown "how ExxonMobil or its corporate predecessor Mobil have engaged in questionable transactions with governments of oil-rich countries, including Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, and Angola."
Such deals, according to Global Witness's Gilfillan, "have contributed to entrenching poverty, fueling instability and violating human rights in some of the world's most volatile regions."
This charge may be on shallow ground, according to a leading Africa expert who spoke to Newsmax.
"Is Exxon Mobil's record in developing oil economies worse than Royal Dutch Shell's or ENI's or BPs?" asked Patrick Smith, editor of the much-read and influential Africa Confidential, "Probably not — they have more financial power and more weight to throw around.
But, Smith quickly added, "When a government says no, they back down. Let me give you the example of Exxon Mobil's efforts to buy their way into Ghana. The then government in Accra held firm after much lobbying and pressure . . . then Exxon Mobil backed down.
"So the horrors of oil production in Africa are very much a joint venture between bad governments and big oil . . . There are no innocent parties except those who stay out."
Of Global Witness, Smith concluded that "it's funded largely by George Soros, draws credible research but also has to burnish their campaigning credentials to get heard above the mêlée." -
The Billionaires vs. Donald J. Trump
Dec 15, 2016 | Inside Philanthropy
By David Callahan
As a billionaire president-elect stocks his cabinet with wealthy people, or those friendly to the rich, there’s another slice of the far upper class that is boiling with anger at the once unfathomable prospect of a Trump administration. These wealthy givers are getting ready to do everything they can to derail a Trump agenda that’s shaping up to be even more hardline and conservative than anyone expected.
Before saying more, it’s worth noting that America’s wealthy are more politically divided than at any time in history. Voters making over $250,000 evenly split between Clinton and Trump, and the same probably holds further up the income ladder. Today’s class allegiances are downright bizarre, and defy the textbook idea that politics is about “who gets what.” A billionaire candidate who wants to slash taxes on the rich, along with labor protections and healthcare for the working class, clinched victory by capturing a majority of voters without a college degree. And now, as he moves to put his agenda into action, some of his most powerful opponents will be billionaires and multi-millionaires. Politics in America have long diverged away from neat class lines, thanks to race and culture issues, but things seem more weirdly upside-down now than ever before.
Who are the wealthy opponents that a Trump administration may face? Let’s look at a few of them.
Michael Bloomberg. Forget the fact that Trump’s ignorance and sloppy operating style is anathema to Bloomberg’s vision of effective governance based on reason and data. The biggest impetus for the former New York mayor to oppose Trump is that the new president threatens to reverse gains on climate change that Bloomberg has invested a fortune in bringing about. In particular, Trump is gunning to stop implementation of the Clean Power Plan that Obama put in place through the EPA and which has dovetailed with the Bloomberg-backed Beyond Coal campaign to close dirty power plants. Look for Bloomberg to fight this rollback attempt with millions of dollars in new giving.
Warren Buffett. The second richest man in America has open contempt for Trump and more of his wealth will find its way into the fight against the next president’s agenda than you might think. While most of Buffet’s fortune is pledged to the Gates Foundation, he’s also giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year to foundations controlled by his children, and has the ability to increase that flow of money if he chooses. One of these foundations, the Susan Thomas Buffett Foundation, is the largest supporter of reproductive health in the United States. It will play a critical role in pushing back against the coming attack on Planned Parenthood and abortion rights.
Tim Gill and Jon Stryker. These two wealthy leaders in the fight for LGBT rights are already mobilizing for a scary new era that challenges both past and future gains. While marriage equality is unlikely to be rolled back, progress on a broader agenda of LGBT equality across all spheres of American life now faces new obstacles. Gill, a savvy philanthropist and determined political operative, can be expected to double down on his current work. Stryker’s Arcus Foundation has lately focused more globally after helping to secure gains in U.S. LGBT rights. It wouldn’t be surprising if Arcus now pivoted back to invest more heavily in America.
Dustin Moskovitz. The Facebook co-founder and his wife Cari Tuna emerged as top Democratic donors during this election but it’s not known if such giving will continue. The couple’s philanthropy has been non-ideological and pragmatic, but they have also supported several causes that are under new threat in a Trump era, including criminal justice reform, LGBT rights and animal welfare. Most younger tech types don’t like to take sides in what can seem like yesterday’s stalemated ideological battles. But if Moskovitz and Tuna really care about their causes, they may not have a choice. Certainly, they have cash to spare to fight Trump, with a net worth that now stands at $9.7 billion.
Pierre Omidyar. The billionaire founder of eBay is not a major campaign donor and not typically considered a partisan player. But few billionaires have been keener to challenge the surveillance state and preserve the openness of the Internet. Omidyar-backed groups, like First Look Media, are likely to be on the front lines of the fight to stop a rollback of net neutrality and new encroachments on civil liberties by a Trump regime filled with security hardliners. Likewise, the grantmaking of Democracy Fund, a bipartisan group bankrolled by Omidyar, will become all the more critical in standing up for the integrity of our political system at a moment that it's widely expected to face new stresses.
Julian Robertson. The retired hedge fund billionaire is a Republican who supports parts of the Trump agenda such as school choice. But he’s also a strong environmentalist and few donors have invested more in fighting climate change. Most notably, Robertson is a top backer of the Environmental Defense Fund, an organization deeply involved in pushing and defending the Clean Power Plan and other Obama policies. Like all environmental groups, EDF now finds itself in the fight of its life, with the clock on climate change running out. Our bet is that its most generous donor, Robertson—who’s 86 with a $3.6 billion fortune—will step forward in a big way.
Herb Sandler. A retired banker, Sandler is no longer a billionaire, but he’s still extremely wealthy and has been a leading funder of progressive groups in recent years, including the Center for American Progress, the ACLU, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and others. He’s also given tens of millions to fight climate change and advance environmental goals. An ongoing flow of Sandler funding will be key to bolstering the progressive infrastructure under Trump and it could well be that this flow will increase. After all, the stakes have never been higher for everything that Herb Sandler cares about.
Howard Schultz. The retiring CEO founder of Starbucks has a $3.1 billion fortune, and now, more time on his hands. He also has deep contempt for Trump and quite possibly has political ambitions of his own. Schultz, who grew up in the projects in Brooklyn, is publicly advancing a narrative about capitalism and the American dream that is sharply at odds with Trump’s harsh vision. In a way, Schultz is a perfect lead critic of Trump: a high-profile entrepreneur who wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth and believes that a successful business should “bring everyone along” with decent pay and benefits. Look for his growing philanthropic operation, the Schultz Family Foundation, to play a role in supporting this critique and elevating Schultz's profile.
James Simons. The billionaire hedge funder gave millions to elect Hillary Clinton, but his philanthropy is decidedly non-ideological, focused on advancing basic science. However, some of Simons' vast fortune—which now stands at $16.5 billion—is being passed down to the foundations of his three children, all of which engage in grantmaking to support progressive causes. Nat Simons’ Sea Change Foundation is among the top backers of groups fighting climate change, while the foundation that Liz Simons runs with her husband Mark Heising is also involved with this work, and has specifically given to advance Obama’s Clean Power Plan. We’d expect that with Trump in power, the flow of Jim Simons’ money to bankroll his kids’ activist philanthropy will only increase—maybe dramatically.
George Soros. It goes without saying that Soros and his Open Society Foundations will be at the forefront of resistance to Trump. So much of what OSF has supported in recent years is now at risk, such as its work to humanize the criminal justice system and repeal draconian drug laws. Already, OSF announced that it is setting up a $10 million rapid-response fund to combat a rise in hate crimes. In the years ahead, OSF will be everywhere in the fight against Trumpism.
Tom Steyer. It’s not clear what Steyer’s next move will be in his ambitious effort to remake the politics of climate change, but his group, NextGen Climate, has already mobilized to fight Scott Pruitt’s nomination to be the next EPA administrator. Look for that organization to fight Trump’s climate agenda at every step, with an eye on 2018 and beyond. More broadly, Steyer’s long-term effort to change voters’ consciousness on climate could actually get a boost from the horrors of a Trump era, helping politicize younger people and others who grew complacent under Obama. This is another donor likely to open the spigot even further.
Donald Sussman. He's no billionaire, but the hedge funder was one of the biggest political donors in the 2016 cycle, giving $39 million. Sussman is also closely involved with progressive causes as a partner in the Democracy Alliance and used to be married to former Common Cause president Chellie Pingree. We don't know what this mega-donor has planned, or what he might do on the philanthropy end of things, but it's hard to imagine Sussman would spend so much money to stop Trump's election and then not fight equally hard against his far-right agenda.
Hans Wyss. The Swiss-born billionaire tends to fly under the radar. But he’s pledged to give away most of his $6 billion fortune and has lately emerged as an important backer of progressive causes. He sits on the board of the Center for American Progressive and heavily funds environmental work.
***
This is just a partial list, off the top of my head, of wealthy funders who are likely to mobilize against a Trump administration. Plenty of other rich people will line up to fight a president that poses a threat to progress on so many different issues. Over a decade ago, President George W. Bush's scary presidency activated a whole bunch of new progressive donors and galvanized existing donors to step up their giving. My guess is that we'll see something similar this time around, but at a larger level. Trump doesn't just appall traditional progressives, but also many in the center who are worried about his competence in foreign policy, his respect for the constitution, and so on.
Of course, also, the far-upper class is much richer today than it was in, say, 2004. Many top progressive donors have seen their net worth double or triple since that time. Some have also turned away from work to focus more on giving. Now, with everything on the line, you can bet that more than a few mega-givers will look to hit Trump as hard as they can.
-
REPORT: HILLARY IGNITES SOROS-FUNDED PURPLE REVOLUTION AGAINST TRUMP
Dec 9, 2016 | INFOWARS
By Kit Daniels
While blasting so-called “fake news” on Thursday, Hillary Clinton once again wore the color purple which signifies George Soros’ color revolution against the Donald Trump presidency.
Clinton, who has deep ties to Soros, also wore purple during her concession speech on Nov. 9.
Soros, a socialist billionaire best known for breaking the British pound in 1992, has funded government overthrows, known as color revolutions, in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and other countries in the former Soviet bloc, the Middle East and North Africa.
And now he’s trying to do the same using far-left radicals in the U.S., if Hillary’s recent penchant for the color purple is any indication.
But why purple? It’s the color resulting from mixing red and blue – and Clinton and others pushing the upcoming “purple revolution” will likely justify it as the “unification” of the divided red and blue states of America.
“Anytime globalist politicians embrace a color, be on guard for a revolution bearing that particular hue,” reported D.C. journalist Wayne Madsen. “On the day after the election that propelled Donald Trump into the White House, Hillary and Bill Clinton entered the ballroom of the ‘Moonie’ Unification Church-owned New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan adorned in the color purple.”
“Mrs. Clinton wore a pant suit with purple lapels and a purple blouse, while Bill Clinton wore a purple tie.”
Already many of the nationwide protests since the election were coordinated by the Soros-funded activist group MoveOn.org.
“When it comes to themed revolutions, the Sorosites have refined the art to a science,” Madsen added. “While Mrs. Clinton called for uniting the nation in her concession speech, Soros’s minions took the streets in protests, some turning violent, across the United States.”
“Clinton, who received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Soros, showed her real intentions by signaling the start of Soros’s Purple Revolution in the United States.”
-
Obama’s Soros-funded Pro-Dope Policy in Peril
Dec 8, 2016 | Accuracy in Media
By Cliff Kincaid
It is part of the Obama legacy: more drugs, more psychotic behavior, and therefore more violence.
Deranged potheads, some of them Islamists, are killing people in a series of violent and terrorist incidents on American soil.
In a recent case in Massachusetts, 15-year-old Mathew Borges has been charged with first-degree murder in the decapitation death of a classmate. But you have to read deep into the articles about the case to discover a motive. Police said he told them that he and his victim, Lee Manuel Viloria-Paulino, went away together to “smoke marijuana.”
Don’t expect our liberal, pro-drug media to draw the obvious connections between marijuana, psychosis and violence.
Dr. Christine Miller, who has written about the relationship between marijuana and mental illness, says the documented links between the heavy use of marijuana and psychosis in some people may help explain the gruesome murder in Massachusetts.
Ironically, Massachusetts was one of those states that approved the legalization of “recreational” marijuana on November 8.
President Obama’s administration has encouraged the use of marijuana through its support of state legalization initiatives.
In the Massachusetts case, the body of the victim “was mutilated so badly, including his arms and head cut off, that the autopsy took 11 hours to complete,” said the Boston Herald.
Miller cites another case out of Oregon where a pothead decided out of the blue to drive his car over another person he feared and considered a threat. Moments before he struck and killed a man with his car, the suspect in the fatal hit-and-run incident had smoked marijuana in his car and then intentionally sped toward the victim, officials on the scene said.
The pothead, Dillon Van Diviner, 22, said he had a “strong feeling” that the man he hit, Brad Goad, was somehow a threat. “Brad Goad was a loving boyfriend, father, Son, and uncle,” says the page set up to raise money for his family. “He was a hard worker and wanted nothing but good things for everyone.”
What observers in the media and elsewhere are not seeing is the ongoing evidence that psychosis linked to marijuana can cause paranoia about the intentions of others and spark violence, even murder.
In the states where legalization has occurred, Miller says, marijuana usage rates have gone up. She says that because marijuana is an intrinsically dangerous drug, the most serious results of increased use are chronic psychosis (increased five-fold in regular users) and suicide (risk for suicide increased seven-fold in regular users).
But Dr. Miller and other anti-drug advocates, such as Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation, are optimistic that President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), will turn things around.
“The news that Jeff Sessions has been chosen by the Trump transition team to be attorney general is fantastic news for our movement,” Miller told Accuracy in Media, “because not only would Sessions be more likely to enforce federal drug laws, but he is familiar with the science concerning marijuana’s mental health impacts and has cited such concerns during speeches in the Senate.”
Fay says that Sessions will have to go up against a “pot lobby” that is “pouring tons of money into the movement along with the billionaires such as George Soros.” She adds, “The anti-drug side cannot even come close to matching their money.”
The pro-drug side is “aided by a current administration that has taken a hands-off approach and has been totally AWOL on the marijuana issue,” she said. “We even have drug prevention coalitions that have had their federal funding threatened unless they remained completely silent about the harms of marijuana.”
She adds, “New research comes out regularly showing the alarming harms of marijuana and yet the public hears nothing about it because the Office of National Drug Control Policy and other government agencies have done absolutely nothing to get the information out.”
One possible problem in the development of a tough anti-drug policy by the Trump administration is the influence of libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal and has become the first major investor in a marijuana company.
“It is refreshing that Mr. Thiel bucked the pressure from his liberal friends and supported Trump’s candidacy,” Fay told us. “Obviously, he recognized a Trump administration would provide a stronger business economy than a Clinton administration. It is my hope that the advice that he may have the privilege of providing to the Trump administration will be limited to the technology issue and that he will avoid advising in areas of policy, where he is not qualified, and/or where real or perceived conflicts of interest exist. Since he financially benefits from the marijuana industry, he should not be commenting or advising on drug policy.”
The Soros-funded drug legalization lobby is now scared. “This is looking really bad,” Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said about Trump’s cabinet picks. “First Sessions for Attorney General, then [Rep. Tom] Price at HHS, and now yet another old-style drug war character for Homeland Security [General John Kelly]. It looks like Donald Trump is revving up to re-launch the failed drug war.”
Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of national affairs, denounced Kelly as “a big-time drug war zealot,” adding, “As head of Southern Command he demonstrated that he is a true believer in the drug war, and it’s incredibly worrying that he could now head up Homeland Security.”
What Kelly understands is that failures in the drug war partly stem from a porous southern border which serves as a conduit for many dangerous, illegal drugs coming into the U.S., as well as terrorists and guns.
“We’re going to build that wall and we’re going to stop that heroin from pouring in and we’re going to stop the poison of the youth,” Trump said repeatedly on the campaign trail.
In connection with the alleged medical benefits of marijuana, a condition called Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome is affecting some users, causing them to vomit uncontrollably for as long as 48 hours. “It’s confusing and paradoxical for patients because cannabis use is thought oftentimes to be a relief of vomiting and nausea,” said Dr. Matt Noble, a medical toxicologist with the Oregon Poison Center.
Christine Martinez, who said she used cannabis heavily to treat chronic pain, was quoted by the local TV station as saying the vomiting “scared me to death” about the alleged medical benefits of dope. “Never again,” she said. “I’m through with it.”
-
SOROS-FUNDED GROUP DOES HIT PIECE ON BEN CARSON
Dec 12, 2016 | WND
By Bob Unruh
When the Southern Poverty Law Center infamously labeled retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, at the time a candidate in the GOP primary for president and one of the most respected men in America, a “hater” for his traditional Christian values, the public outrage prompted a quick retreat.
Now another organization, Right Wing Watch, funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, has gone down the same path.
But it wasn’t the “hater” label applied to Carson; it was “grifter.”
The report from Brian Tashman was headlined “Trump picks fellow unqualified grifter and conspiracy theorist Ben Carson for HUD.”
Dictionaries define the word as someone who runs a side show at a circus, or “a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.”
That was just the start.
See what Ben Carson believes about the United States, in his bestseller, “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great.”
Referencing Trump’s announcement to nominate Carson for a federal role, the report said: “In November, Carson’s spokesman said that the former neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate didn’t want to pursue a role in the Trump administration because he has no relevant experience in managing a federal agency and the ‘last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.’ Trump himself has compared Carson to a child molester, questioned his mental stability and suggested that he is pathologically violent.”
The report said Carson, “much like Trump, has embraced one conspiracy theory after another, no matter how strange.”
The site linked Carson to campaign aides allegedly “defrauding donors” and his involvement “in a business venture that sold quack cures to people with cancer, ALS and other diseases.”
“As we’ve reported, Carson claimed during his campaign that the gay rights movement ‘was part of a wider anti-American, anti-God, anti-Constitution plot conjured up by communist subversives and the New World Order’ and stunningly stated that prison rape proves homosexuality is a choice,” the site claimed.
It charged Carson with making “bizarre claims” and calling on the government to “stop recognizing Supreme Court rulings.” The site also criticized his pronunciation of Hamas and blasted his concerns over President Obama’s governance.
WND CEO Joseph Farah wrote a commentary about the SPLC’s earlier smear, when it listed Carson as a “hater.”
“Apparently, the racketeering outfit that poses as a ‘progressive’ civil liberties group realized it had crossed a bridge too far in its smear efforts against, quite possibly, the most respected black leader in America (and, yes, I include Barack Obama and all members of his administration and frequent White House visitors such as Al Sharpton),” he said.
“The group’s stock-in-trade is raising hundreds of millions of dollars through fanning the flames of phantom threats posed almost exclusively by those who love America and its Constitution. The others are a collection of actual scum-of-the-earth racists, neo-Nazis and other certifiable lunatics who, through guilt by association, are intended to reflect badly on the liberty proponents and Christians and Jews on the list, who are the SPLC’s real targets.
“The ultimate objective with SPLC is raising money – big money. It does this through lawsuits – lots of lawsuits, occasionally even on behalf of real victims of racism. It pockets most of the money raised through heart-wrenching direct-mail pitches,” he noted.
“The most famous example was a judgment SPLC won for a black woman whose son was killed by the Ku Klux Klan. While Morris Dees and company raised $9 million sending out solicitation letters featuring a gruesome picture of the victim, the mom received a total of $51,875 in the settlement. Dees pays himself more than $280,000 a year from the ‘charity.'”
He wrote, “In falling on its own sword with regard to removing Dr. Carson from its hate list, the SPLC acknowledged it is indeed vulnerable to public opinion.”
-
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi Joins Trump's Business Council
Dec 14, 2016 | Fortune
By John Kell
She’s one of three female CEOs on the 19-person forum.
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi has become only the third female executive to join a 19-person business forum created by President-elect Donald Trump as he prepares his economic agenda for the United States.
Trump’s team on Wednesday announced that three additional members would join the new president’s Strategic and Policy Forum—a group of business leaders who can be called upon to meet with Trump frequently as he implements his economic strategy. The initial round of 16 members included just two women: General Motorschairman and CEO Mary Barra and IBM chairman, president and CEO Ginni Rometty.
All three rank high on Fortune’s most recent Most Powerful Women list. Barra repeated as the most powerful woman in 2016, while Nooyi is second and Rometty ranked fourth.
The inclusion of Nooyi on the expanded business policy council (Uber Technologies CEO Travis Kalanick and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk were also added) is interesting as Nooyi generated headlines last month for comments she made in the wake of Trump’s victory. After Nooyi appeared at a post-election New York Times conference, online boycotts began to float around alleging she said she “loathed” Trump and “hated” his supporters. As those boycotts began to circulate on social media channels, a #BoycottPepsi hashtag circulated.
But as Fortune reported, Nooyi never made those comments. In fact, she congratulated Trump on the election, adding “We should mourn for those of us who supported the other side. But we have to come together and life has to go on.” Her public stance has been neutral: Nooyi never backed a presidential candidate and never personally gave money to either campaign. She did vote, but hasn’t disclosed how she voted.
Adding Nooyi to Trump’s team of business experts gives a seat at the table to a key voice that can advocate and advise on behalf of the food and beverage industry, which didn’t have any representatives on the council until Nooyi was added to the group. Her insights in the world of food will likely be helpful in relation to the Food and Drug Administration, as well as policies involving trade (many Big Food companies sell billions of goods abroad), taxation, and nutritional guidelines.
Mentions of Ford Foundation
Mentions of Other Charitable Foundations
Mentions of Key Transition Issues
Add recipients
Suggested