wnd--2020-09-18--There's nothing 'cute' about child pornography

It 's one of the most revolting developments in this crazy year : The debut of the movie `` Cuties . ''
The story centers around an 11-year-old named Amy who `` starts to rebel against her conservative family 's traditions when she becomes fascinated with a free-spirited dance crew , '' according to Netflix 's synopsis .
Little Amy `` rapidly grows aware of her burgeoning femininity – upsetting her mother and her value in the process . ''
Yay for female empowerment !
Down with the patriarchal family unit !
Full disclaimer : I have not watched the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .
But I saw about one minute of the infamous dance scene , and it was enough to sear my eyeballs and turn my stomach .
Movie critic John Nolte , a film critic for Breitbart , initially ( and sight unseen ) defended the film more or less on First Amendment grounds , then changed his mind after watching it .
`` Now I 've seen it and ca n't defend it , '' he writes .
`` 'Cuties ' is soft-core child pornography disguised as art .
Nothing less .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham to lead prayer march in D.C. : 'Only hope for our country is God' YouTube vlogger Blaire White agrees .
`` So much about the movie is creepy , not just even the super-overt stuff .
… This is absolutely a pedophile film , or at least a film pedophiles will love . ''
PTC program director Melissa Henson said Netflix is `` desensitizing millions of viewers at home by asking them to be entertained by it . ''
What is most horrifying is not that the film was made – bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left is defending it .
The movie 's writer-director , Maïmouna Doucouré , called the project a `` critique '' of the sexualization of children .
While that might have been her intent , how can she justify the sexual exploitation of the young actresses used in making the film ?
As a former ( ballet ) dancer , I understand the amount of rehearsal necessary to create the flawlessly choreographed dance scene I saw .
Each vulgar move , each bump and grind , each crotch shot , each pelvic thrust had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , refined over weeks for the children to move in such perfect synchrony .
And that was just a short one-minute scene .
In other words , the sexual exploitation of these young children took place over months of filming .
Now the left is attempting to paint anyone who finds the film objectionable as demented knuckle-dragging right-wing hate mongers too dense and unsophisticated to appreciate the subtleties and nuances of child pornography as an art form .
Netflix : `` 'Cuties ' is a social commentary against the sexualization of young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up – and we 'd encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie . ''
The New Yorker : `` [ I ] t 's the story of a girl 's outrage at , and defiance of , a patriarchal order .
… The subject of 'Cuties ' is n't twerking ; it 's children , especially poor and nonwhite children , who are deprived of the resources – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open family discussion – to put sexualized media and pop culture into perspective .
… Though many of Amy 's actions are dubious , her spirit of revolt is nonetheless sublime and heroic .
… It 's enough to give a right-winger a conniption . ''
( In a deleted tweet , the New Yorker referred to those condemning `` Cuties '' as `` scandal-mongers on the right . ''
) Rolling Stone : `` A sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen .
… Here 's what it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to appeal to baser instincts rather than better angels .
… None of which stopped people from claiming that the movie is softcore porn ( it is n't ) .
… It is the polar opposite of what it 's accused of being . ''
Los Angeles Times : `` Self-styled internet moralists immediately jumped on the film ( sight unseen , of course ) and called for its removal , essentially likening 'Cuties ' to child pornography .
… Some putative grownups … can never be bothered to do the hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone learning from it . ''
Buzzfeed : `` Cuties and Netflix have found themselves the target of a new critic : the # SaveTheChildren conspiracy theory on social media .
In the past few weeks , right-wing conspiracy theorists have decided that 'Cuties ' is yet another example of child sex abuse in Hollywood , and they are now spreading the lie to thousands of followers on social media . ''
Vox : `` Sometimes , a movie is just a movie .
… Much of the criticism against 'Cuties ' spawned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film – and the resulting narrative was that Netflix had produced a film aimed at enticing pedophiles .
… So while we do see young girls twerking , the film frames dance as an insidious corrupting tool that could rob the dancers of their innocence .
It 's actually quite a conservative viewpoint , despite what its detractors seem to think . ''
The Telegraph : `` This is powder-keg provocation in an age so terrified of child sexuality . ''
( Side note : `` Terrified '' of child sexuality ?
Damn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child sexuality !
Children should not be sexual ! )
NBC News : `` This is n't a provocative movie at all .
It 's a funny coming-of-age story about friendship and dancing .
… It is , annoyingly , important to state plainly that 'Cuties ' does not portray child abuse , it does not glorify or countenance pedophilia in any way , and it does not 'sexualize ' its characters – which is , to put it plainly , a favorite description of people so disturbed by their own reaction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quickly plant the blame for that reaction on the artist before anyone notices .
… [ A ] t the moment , the culture upstream of conservative politics is a hodgepodge of insane far-right conspiracy theories called QAnon , a movement that posits that senior Democrats , Hollywood executives and media barons feast , quite literally , on children , whom they also molest .
… It 's legitimately upsetting to see this movie so cynically hijacked .
It 's a very witty indie film – impeccably framed and shot . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you go .
Anyone concerned about how children were exploited during the making of this film are dismissed as pearl-clutching right-wing conspiracy nuts who are secret pedophiles and are just trying to hide it .
When did objections to child pornography become a right-wing position ?
Leftists are more offended at the backlash over the children being exploited , than they are over the children actually being exploited .
That is sick .
No , more than sick .
It 's evil .
Over and over again , we 've seen the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed the Rubicon and are calling child pornography artistic and empowering .
It 's no accident California recently reduced the penalties for pedophilia with `` willing '' kids .
`` [ T ] he political left hates the right so [ expletive ] much that when given the choice between defending child pornography and siding with us , they 're going to defend child pornography , '' blasts Nolte .
`` Good grief , they are already defending , championing , and encouraging four months of riots , looting , arson , murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people . ''
What should be a unifying issue across the board – that child pornography is wrong wrong wrong – is now supported by those who bash anyone `` terrified by child sexuality . ''
By dismissing this issue as a partisan matter and painting right-wingers as uptight prudes , progressives once again are moving the battle lines .
As of this writing – on one hand – Netflix shareholders lost a staggering $ 9 billion within days as a backlash from releasing the movie .
On the other hand , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 movie in the U.S. on Netflix .
Sigh .
Conservatives slam this movie .
Progressives defend it .
And that , ladies and gentlemen , summarizes the split in America in a nutshell .
By their fruits you shall know them .
`` How much further can the left and the media fall ? ''
wonders Nolte .
`` Trust me , there is no bottom . ''
If progressives can not agree with conservatives that children should not be sexually exploited , then all hope of a unified nation is gone @

It's one of the most revolting developments in this crazy year: The debut of the movie "Cuties."
The story centers around an 11-year-old named Amy who "starts to rebel against her conservative family's traditions when she becomes fascinated with a free-spirited dance crew," according to Netflix's synopsis. Little Amy "rapidly grows aware of her burgeoning femininity – upsetting her mother and her value in the process."
Yay for female empowerment! Down with the patriarchal family unit!
Full disclaimer: I have not watched the film, and of course I never will. But I saw about one minute of the infamous dance scene, and it was enough to sear my eyeballs and turn my stomach.
Movie critic John Nolte, a film critic for Breitbart, initially (and sight unseen) defended the film more or less on First Amendment grounds, then changed his mind after watching it. "Now I've seen it and can't defend it," he writes. "'Cuties' is soft-core child pornography disguised as art. Nothing less. Nothing more."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
YouTube vlogger Blaire White agrees. "So much about the movie is creepy, not just even the super-overt stuff. … This is absolutely a pedophile film, or at least a film pedophiles will love."
PTC program director Melissa Henson said Netflix is "desensitizing millions of viewers at home by asking them to be entertained by it."
What is most horrifying is not that the film was made – bad as that is – but how the left is defending it.
The movie's writer-director, Maïmouna Doucouré, called the project a "critique" of the sexualization of children. While that might have been her intent, how can she justify the sexual exploitation of the young actresses used in making the film? As a former (ballet) dancer, I understand the amount of rehearsal necessary to create the flawlessly choreographed dance scene I saw. Each vulgar move, each bump and grind, each crotch shot, each pelvic thrust had to be rehearsed again and again and again, refined over weeks for the children to move in such perfect synchrony. And that was just a short one-minute scene. In other words, the sexual exploitation of these young children took place over months of filming.
Now the left is attempting to paint anyone who finds the film objectionable as demented knuckle-dragging right-wing hate mongers too dense and unsophisticated to appreciate the subtleties and nuances of child pornography as an art form.
Netflix: "'Cuties' is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. It's an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up – and we'd encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie."
The New Yorker: "[I]t's the story of a girl's outrage at, and defiance of, a patriarchal order. … The subject of 'Cuties' isn't twerking; it's children, especially poor and nonwhite children, who are deprived of the resources – the education, the emotional support, the open family discussion – to put sexualized media and pop culture into perspective. … Though many of Amy's actions are dubious, her spirit of revolt is nonetheless sublime and heroic. … It's enough to give a right-winger a conniption." (In a deleted tweet, the New Yorker referred to those condemning "Cuties" as "scandal-mongers on the right.")
Rolling Stone: "A sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen. … Here's what it is not: a salacious bit of pedo-bait designed to appeal to baser instincts rather than better angels. … None of which stopped people from claiming that the movie is softcore porn (it isn't). … It is the polar opposite of what it's accused of being."
Los Angeles Times: "Self-styled internet moralists immediately jumped on the film (sight unseen, of course) and called for its removal, essentially likening 'Cuties' to child pornography. … Some putative grownups … can never be bothered to do the hard work of looking at something, let alone learning from it."
Buzzfeed: "Cuties and Netflix have found themselves the target of a new critic: the #SaveTheChildren conspiracy theory on social media. In the past few weeks, right-wing conspiracy theorists have decided that 'Cuties' is yet another example of child sex abuse in Hollywood, and they are now spreading the lie to thousands of followers on social media."
Vox: "Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. … Much of the criticism against 'Cuties' spawned from inaccurate or incomplete characterizations of the film – and the resulting narrative was that Netflix had produced a film aimed at enticing pedophiles. … So while we do see young girls twerking, the film frames dance as an insidious corrupting tool that could rob the dancers of their innocence. It's actually quite a conservative viewpoint, despite what its detractors seem to think."
The Telegraph: "This is powder-keg provocation in an age so terrified of child sexuality." (Side note: "Terrified" of child sexuality? Damn straight we're "terrified" of child sexuality! Children should not be sexual!)
NBC News: "This isn't a provocative movie at all. It's a funny coming-of-age story about friendship and dancing. … It is, annoyingly, important to state plainly that 'Cuties' does not portray child abuse, it does not glorify or countenance pedophilia in any way, and it does not 'sexualize' its characters – which is, to put it plainly, a favorite description of people so disturbed by their own reaction to a piece of art that they have to quickly plant the blame for that reaction on the artist before anyone notices. … [A]t the moment, the culture upstream of conservative politics is a hodgepodge of insane far-right conspiracy theories called QAnon, a movement that posits that senior Democrats, Hollywood executives and media barons feast, quite literally, on children, whom they also molest. … It's legitimately upsetting to see this movie so cynically hijacked. It's a very witty indie film – impeccably framed and shot." [Emphasis added.]
So there you go. Anyone concerned about how children were exploited during the making of this film are dismissed as pearl-clutching right-wing conspiracy nuts who are secret pedophiles and are just trying to hide it.
When did objections to child pornography become a right-wing position? Leftists are more offended at the backlash over the children being exploited, than they are over the children actually being exploited. That is sick. No, more than sick. It's evil.
Over and over again, we've seen the left side with evil. Now they've crossed the Rubicon and are calling child pornography artistic and empowering. It's no accident California recently reduced the penalties for pedophilia with "willing" kids.
"[T]he political left hates the right so [expletive] much that when given the choice between defending child pornography and siding with us, they're going to defend child pornography," blasts Nolte. "Good grief, they are already defending, championing, and encouraging four months of riots, looting, arson, murder, and mayhem. These are depraved people."
What should be a unifying issue across the board – that child pornography is wrong wrong wrong – is now supported by those who bash anyone "terrified by child sexuality." By dismissing this issue as a partisan matter and painting right-wingers as uptight prudes, progressives once again are moving the battle lines.
As of this writing – on one hand – Netflix shareholders lost a staggering $9 billion within days as a backlash from releasing the movie. On the other hand, "Cuties" is now the No. 4 movie in the U.S. on Netflix. Sigh.
Conservatives slam this movie. Progressives defend it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, summarizes the split in America in a nutshell. By their fruits you shall know them.
"How much further can the left and the media fall?" wonders Nolte. "Trust me, there is no bottom."
If progressives cannot agree with conservatives that children should not be sexually exploited, then all hope of a unified nation is gone.


wnd--2020-09-18--My video on encroaching evil YouTube banned

Daniel Joseph is president and founder of Corner Fringe Ministries .
Having pastored for over 10 years , his passion @ @ @ @ @ HOPE of the world and seeking to AWAKEN a lost and dying Church , bringing @ @ @ @ @ real repentance through the powerful and inspirational preaching of the Word .

Daniel Joseph is president and founder of Corner Fringe Ministries. Having pastored for over 10 years, his passion is preaching Yeshua/Jesus as the HOPE of the world and seeking to AWAKEN a lost and dying Church, bringing it to a place of real repentance through the powerful and inspirational preaching of the Word.


wnd--2020-09-18--A helping of 'white guilt' … in the middle of Mass!

As if the Catholic Church is n't facing enough disruption by some of the pronouncements and activities of Pope Francis , now some American priests are jumping on the political bandwagon .
When I grew up , priests kept to a quiet life .
Their talks to their parishioners , both personally and from the pulpit , were generally limited to religious themes , parish business and local issues .
In all those years , I never recall a priest venturing publicly into the arena of politics .
As a Catholic , I prefer it that way .
I see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to guide followers/believers in their religious life – not to preach to them on how to think or for whom , or for what , to vote .
But times have changed , and a clear example is the `` prayer for racial justice '' that Fr .
Kenneth Boller , S.J .
presented to his congregation on Sunday , Aug. 23 , at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York City .
TRENDING : Franklin Graham to lead prayer march in D.C. : 'Only hope for our country is God' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a normal Mass , until after the distribution of Communion .
At that point , the priest asked the congregation to bow their heads , and he invited them to stand and `` join in the prayer for racial justice , by responding 'yes ' to each of the following statements . ''
They were presented as a `` prayer '' although there was no mention of Jesus or God or any saints .
After each statement , congregants responded with a `` Yes . ''
In my view , this was shameful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church , much less in the middle of Mass .
As Fr .
Boller listed the questions , it was clear that he wanted the congregation to accept `` white privilege '' as being a reality , and he went on to ask the faithful if they were willing `` to transform our church culture . ''
Clearly this was not just a passing fancy of Fr .
Boller – not surprisingly , he is a Jesuit and , by the way , he is white – because it 's reported that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a display of pictures of black people killed recently , including George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor .
Like it or not , that smacks of politics , and only a fool would deny it .
Some of the questions/statements presented to the congregants : '' Do you affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person ?
`` Do you support racial justice , equity , and compassion in human relations ?
`` Do you affirm that white privilege is unfair and harmful to those who have it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you affirm that white privilege and the culture of white supremacy must be dismantled where it is present ?
`` Will you strive to understand more deeply the injustice and suffering white privilege and white supremacy cause ? ''
The priest was only getting started : '' Will you commit to help transform our church culture to one that is actively engaged in seeking racial justice and equity for all , for everyone ?
`` Will you make a greater effort to treat all people with the same respect you expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing the courage to live your beliefs and values of racial justice and equality ?
`` Will you strive to eliminate racial prejudice from your thoughts and actions so that you can better promote the racial justice efforts of our church ?
`` Will you renew and honor this pledge daily knowing that our church and our community , our nation , and our world will be better places because of our efforts ? ''
Boller is n't alone with such thoughts .
In an early September Mass , Archbishop Wilton Gregory of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic bishops to pray that `` God ends white people 's racist sins . ''
I was n't in that New York church the day all this took place , but I assure you , it would have been difficult for me to stay .
I would have walked out – and I wonder how many people did .
Talk about mixing Catholic teaching and Socialist/Marxist racism to undermine the church .
Rather than supporting the history of our country and the basic equality declared by the Founding Fathers – that `` all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest has bought into the modern bigotry that white people are the source of all oppression .
One can only guess as to the final reaction of the Catholics that day in that church .
I suspect there were many heated arguments at home – but who knows how the list of questions would affect the daily religious lives of those captive Catholics ?
I would only hope that many of them would register their complaints directly to Fr .
Boller and then , either change parishes or , at the very least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People walk and money always talks – and no one knows that better than the Catholic Church .

As if the Catholic Church isn't facing enough disruption by some of the pronouncements and activities of Pope Francis, now some American priests are jumping on the political bandwagon.
When I grew up, priests kept to a quiet life. Their talks to their parishioners, both personally and from the pulpit, were generally limited to religious themes, parish business and local issues.
In all those years, I never recall a priest venturing publicly into the arena of politics.
As a Catholic, I prefer it that way. I see the primary job of a priest is to guide followers/believers in their religious life – not to preach to them on how to think or for whom, or for what, to vote.
But times have changed, and a clear example is the "prayer for racial justice" that Fr. Kenneth Boller, S.J. presented to his congregation on Sunday, Aug. 23, at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York City.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
For all intents and purposes it was a normal Mass, until after the distribution of Communion. At that point, the priest asked the congregation to bow their heads, and he invited them to stand and "join in the prayer for racial justice, by responding 'yes' to each of the following statements." They were presented as a "prayer" although there was no mention of Jesus or God or any saints.
After each statement, congregants responded with a "Yes."
In my view, this was shameful and had no place in a Catholic Church, much less in the middle of Mass.
As Fr. Boller listed the questions, it was clear that he wanted the congregation to accept "white privilege" as being a reality, and he went on to ask the faithful if they were willing "to transform our church culture."
Clearly this was not just a passing fancy of Fr. Boller – not surprisingly, he is a Jesuit and, by the way, he is white – because it's reported that there was a side altar in the church with a display of pictures of black people killed recently, including George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor.
Like it or not, that smacks of politics, and only a fool would deny it.
Some of the questions/statements presented to the congregants:
"Do you affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person?
"Do you support racial justice, equity, and compassion in human relations?
"Do you affirm that white privilege is unfair and harmful to those who have it and to those who do not?
"Do you affirm that white privilege and the culture of white supremacy must be dismantled where it is present?
"Will you strive to understand more deeply the injustice and suffering white privilege and white supremacy cause?"
The priest was only getting started:
"Will you commit to help transform our church culture to one that is actively engaged in seeking racial justice and equity for all, for everyone?
"Will you make a greater effort to treat all people with the same respect you expect to receive?
"Will you commit to developing the courage to live your beliefs and values of racial justice and equality?
"Will you strive to eliminate racial prejudice from your thoughts and actions so that you can better promote the racial justice efforts of our church?
"Will you renew and honor this pledge daily knowing that our church and our community, our nation, and our world will be better places because of our efforts?"
Boller isn't alone with such thoughts.
In an early September Mass, Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., called on U.S. Catholic bishops to pray that "God ends white people's racist sins."
I wasn't in that New York church the day all this took place, but I assure you, it would have been difficult for me to stay. I would have walked out – and I wonder how many people did. Talk about mixing Catholic teaching and Socialist/Marxist racism to undermine the church.
Rather than supporting the history of our country and the basic equality declared by the Founding Fathers – that "all men are created equal" – that priest has bought into the modern bigotry that white people are the source of all oppression.
One can only guess as to the final reaction of the Catholics that day in that church. I suspect there were many heated arguments at home – but who knows how the list of questions would affect the daily religious lives of those captive Catholics?
I would only hope that many of them would register their complaints directly to Fr. Boller and then, either change parishes or, at the very least, stop their Sunday collection donations.
People walk and money always talks – and no one knows that better than the Catholic Church.
Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.


wnd--2020-09-18--Corruption, entitlement and this election

Perhaps when you spend your entire day promoting a sense of entitlement among others , it is inevitable that some of what you are handing out to them will stick to you .
Those peddling a sense of entitlement are responsible for a great deal of the pain and misery we see around us , especially among the very people whom they say they want to help .
The entitlement mentality makes emotional cripples out of the people who believe it .
Once we accept another person 's view that we are entitled to some thing or other , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve it on our own .
Why should we work for it , when we are already entitled to it ?
Just give it to me , already !
The person promising that shiny new entitlement to us , however , has no intention of personally giving it to us , regardless of how much of that item he or she may already possess .
They simply mean to take whatever that thing we are now entitled to away from someone else who has already persevered and earned it .
The `` giver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up what they have taken from someone else and hand it out to those who are , unlike the original owner , entitled to have it .
The entitlement mentality is very crafty , and it likes to perpetuate itself .
Once we have been given the thing that we were told we were entitled to , the next shiny object appears before us , and the cycle begins again .
TRENDING : Franklin Graham to lead prayer march in D.C. : 'Only hope for our country is God' Perhaps we would all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitlement mentality what the Bible calls it : Envy and greed .
Sounds a little different when we call it what it really is , does n't it ?
Normally , envy and greed do quite well for themselves in accumulating followers without help from anyone else .
But in our day , there are lots of salesmen and women out there peddling this lie .
We call them politicians , but they usually identify with a particular branded party label , known as Democrat .
The insidious part of selling a lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe it as well .
It 's difficult to acknowledge that you are destroying another person 's hope in life by selling them the snake oil of entitlement , without believing your own lie .
There is less internal pain in making it a `` cause . ''
Entitlement grows something inside the political salesperson , too : corruption .
An elected officeholder , especially one who has been reelected , may come to see that office as belonging to him or her .
Since it now belongs to him , that entitles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for money , sex and power , which is what most corrupt politicians seem to want ever more of .
That 's the carrot ; here 's the stick : Should you lose that office during an election , your corruption may very well be exposed by the new officeholder .
Shame has no effect on corrupt politicians , but prison does .
It takes them out of the market for reelection .
When politicians are engaged in widespread corruption , nothing matters more than reelection .
With reelection comes the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` your '' office on the backs of the very people you `` empowered '' by convincing them to vote for you in the first place .
Entitlement , corruption and elections is a sick , evil system that perpetrates itself by corrupting even those who come to officialdom with good intentions .
Nobody suffers more than the very people who vote for corrupt , entitled politicians .
Many others suffer as well , but at least those who do not buy the entitlement mentality escape the corruption of the soul that comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This system of corrupt politicians is perpetrated by big media conglomerates who through their mouthpieces do nothing but lie .
The news is fake ; only the lies are real .
An honest election will rid us of a lot more than corrupt politicians .
Big media companies will be broken up ; we will once again have diversity of opinion in the news business .
Big tech companies will be forced to post the source code 30 days prior to implementing an algorithm .
Big tech 's secret bias will be busted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to examine their code for political and other bias before implementation .
Do n't imagine that such an opportunity appears often in history .
It does n't .
Do n't reward those who have corrupted the system and sold out the very people they were elected to help .
They ca n't quit because evil owns them .
If we do n't change it now , it will own all of us .
Communist China is the model the elites want here in America .
Do n't give it to them @

Perhaps when you spend your entire day promoting a sense of entitlement among others, it is inevitable that some of what you are handing out to them will stick to you.
Those peddling a sense of entitlement are responsible for a great deal of the pain and misery we see around us, especially among the very people whom they say they want to help. The entitlement mentality makes emotional cripples out of the people who believe it.
Once we accept another person's view that we are entitled to some thing or other, we have a tendency to stop trying to achieve it on our own. Why should we work for it, when we are already entitled to it? Just give it to me, already!
The person promising that shiny new entitlement to us, however, has no intention of personally giving it to us, regardless of how much of that item he or she may already possess. They simply mean to take whatever that thing we are now entitled to away from someone else who has already persevered and earned it. The "giver" in this case will simply divide up what they have taken from someone else and hand it out to those who are, unlike the original owner, entitled to have it.
The entitlement mentality is very crafty, and it likes to perpetuate itself. Once we have been given the thing that we were told we were entitled to, the next shiny object appears before us, and the cycle begins again.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Perhaps we would all be better off if we called the entitlement mentality what the Bible calls it: Envy and greed. Sounds a little different when we call it what it really is, doesn't it?
Normally, envy and greed do quite well for themselves in accumulating followers without help from anyone else. But in our day, there are lots of salesmen and women out there peddling this lie. We call them politicians, but they usually identify with a particular branded party label, known as Democrat.
The insidious part of selling a lie is that the sales person comes to believe it as well. It's difficult to acknowledge that you are destroying another person's hope in life by selling them the snake oil of entitlement, without believing your own lie. There is less internal pain in making it a "cause."
Entitlement grows something inside the political salesperson, too: corruption. An elected officeholder, especially one who has been reelected, may come to see that office as belonging to him or her. Since it now belongs to him, that entitles him to sell the office's influence for money, sex and power, which is what most corrupt politicians seem to want ever more of.
That's the carrot; here's the stick: Should you lose that office during an election, your corruption may very well be exposed by the new officeholder. Shame has no effect on corrupt politicians, but prison does. It takes them out of the market for reelection.
When politicians are engaged in widespread corruption, nothing matters more than reelection. With reelection comes the power to hide past crimes, and continue selling "your" office on the backs of the very people you "empowered" by convincing them to vote for you in the first place.
Entitlement, corruption and elections is a sick, evil system that perpetrates itself by corrupting even those who come to officialdom with good intentions. Nobody suffers more than the very people who vote for corrupt, entitled politicians. Many others suffer as well, but at least those who do not buy the entitlement mentality escape the corruption of the soul that comes with believing the entitlement mentality lie.
This system of corrupt politicians is perpetrated by big media conglomerates who through their mouthpieces do nothing but lie. The news is fake; only the lies are real.
An honest election will rid us of a lot more than corrupt politicians. Big media companies will be broken up; we will once again have diversity of opinion in the news business. Big tech companies will be forced to post the source code 30 days prior to implementing an algorithm. Big tech's secret bias will be busted. Tens of thousands of programmers will be able to examine their code for political and other bias before implementation.
Don't imagine that such an opportunity appears often in history. It doesn't. Don't reward those who have corrupted the system and sold out the very people they were elected to help. They can't quit because evil owns them. If we don't change it now, it will own all of us. Communist China is the model the elites want here in America. Don't give it to them.
Armageddon, the real story.


wnd--2020-09-19--Report: New ISIS leader is in fact U.S. informant who gave up secrets on 88 jihadists

( NATIONAL POST ) Shadowy Islamic State ( ISIL ) leader Amir Muhammad Sa ’ id Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla is in @ @ @ @ @ used by the U.S. to gain intelligence on 88 jihadist fighters , new documents indicate @ @ @ @ @ before he had risen to the top of the terror group — he would eventually @ @ @ @ @ latter ’ s death in October 2019 — al-Mawla is reported to have given up @ @ @ @ @ extremists after being detained .
A new trove of previously classified documents , the Daily @ @ @ @ @ released by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. military academy West Point .
The @ @ @ @ @ at the time of al-Mawla ’ s capture in Mosul , Iraq , in January @ @

(NATIONAL POST) Shadowy Islamic State (ISIL) leader Amir Muhammad Sa’id Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla is in fact a former supergrass informant used by the U.S. to gain intelligence on 88 jihadist fighters, new documents indicate.
Twelve years ago, before he had risen to the top of the terror group — he would eventually replace Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi after the latter’s death in October 2019 — al-Mawla is reported to have given up the names of his fellow extremists after being detained.
A new trove of previously classified documents, the Daily Mail reports, have been released by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. military academy West Point. The documents come from interrogation reports at the time of al-Mawla’s capture in Mosul, Iraq, in January 2008.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-19--Black and Pacific Islander moms get $1,000 a month through SF mayor's 'Abundant Birth' plan

Leftists are extremely concerned with the onerous concept of `` systemic racism . ''
They claim that black people and other minorities are unable to get ahead in this country ( despite scores of successful minority individuals ) because racist systems hold them down .
In the name of `` social and racial justice , '' therefore , Democratic leaders institute clearly racist policies in favor of minorities .
The most recent example is San Francisco 's new Abundant Birth Project , which will provide $ 1,000 per month to approximately 150 black and Pacific Islander women during their pregnancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to The Hill .
The goal is to eventually provide financial support for as long as two years after a child is born .
TRENDING : In the end , the rioters are Obama 's army While there is nothing inherently wrong with providing support to pregnant women and new mothers , this program ties participation to the race of the mother rather than any need-based criteria .
That is the definition of a racist policy .
San Francisco Mayor London Breed praised the Abundant Birth Project as the first of its kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mothers during pregnancy is an innovative and equitable approach that will ease some of the financial stress that all too often keeps women from being able to put their health first , '' she said .
`` The Abundant Birth Project is rooted in racial justice and recognizes that Black and Pacific Islander mothers suffer disparate health impacts , in part because of the persistent wealth and income gap .
Thanks to the work of the many partners involved , we are taking real action to end these disparities and are empowering mothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthy pregnancies and births , '' she continued .
In San Francisco , black and Pacific Islander infants are more likely to be born prematurely than white infants : 13.8 percent of black infants and 10.4 percent of Pacific Islander infants were premature from 2012-2016 , compared to 7.3 percent of white infants , according to the mayor 's office .
However , the mayor 's office did not provide any data to support that the disparity in infant mortality rates is due to the mother 's race , as opposed to non-racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Breed cited the wealth and income gap affecting black and Pacific Islander women as a significant motivator for the project -- but project participation does not appear to be limited to low-income mothers .
Rather , it appears the sole criterion for participation is race .
Thus , the policy seems to conflate `` minority '' with `` poor , '' which is clearly a racist sentiment .
Moreover , California already has resources in place for low-income pregnant women -- programs that are not bound by the mother 's race .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state programs covering most or all of the cost of pregnancy and birth for low-income women .
Of course , the left 's response to claims that the Abundant Birth Project is racist is likely to be an assertion that `` reverse racism '' -- that is , racism against white people -- simply does n't exist because of the `` institutional power '' held by white people .
Never mind the fact that the legal barriers previously entrenched in this country to keep minorities from having the same opportunities as white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind the fact that there is substantial evidence demonstrating that disparities in outcomes among racial groups are largely based on factors other than race .
Never mind the fact that the only `` systemic racism '' legally allowed in the United States in 2020 actually cuts against white people in favor of certain minority groups -- for instance , affirmative action programs .
Programs like the Abundant Birth Project may be well-intentioned , but they do n't actually support long-term racial equality .
Rather , they sow further division between Americans of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial harmony in San Francisco , and in America at large , the solution is for government to step away from race , not codify it into government and law .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Leftists are extremely concerned with the onerous concept of "systemic racism."
They claim that black people and other minorities are unable to get ahead in this country (despite scores of successful minority individuals) because racist systems hold them down.
In the name of "social and racial justice," therefore, Democratic leaders institute clearly racist policies in favor of minorities.
The most recent example is San Francisco's new Abundant Birth Project, which will provide $1,000 per month to approximately 150 black and Pacific Islander women during their pregnancies and for six months after, according to The Hill.
The goal is to eventually provide financial support for as long as two years after a child is born.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While there is nothing inherently wrong with providing support to pregnant women and new mothers, this program ties participation to the race of the mother rather than any need-based criteria. That is the definition of a racist policy.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed praised the Abundant Birth Project as the first of its kind.
"Providing guaranteed income support to mothers during pregnancy is an innovative and equitable approach that will ease some of the financial stress that all too often keeps women from being able to put their health first," she said.
"The Abundant Birth Project is rooted in racial justice and recognizes that Black and Pacific Islander mothers suffer disparate health impacts, in part because of the persistent wealth and income gap. Thanks to the work of the many partners involved, we are taking real action to end these disparities and are empowering mothers with the resources they need to have healthy pregnancies and births," she continued.
In San Francisco, black and Pacific Islander infants are more likely to be born prematurely than white infants: 13.8 percent of black infants and 10.4 percent of Pacific Islander infants were premature from 2012-2016, compared to 7.3 percent of white infants, according to the mayor's office.
However, the mayor's office did not provide any data to support that the disparity in infant mortality rates is due to the mother's race, as opposed to non-racial factors such as income.
Indeed, Mayor Breed cited the wealth and income gap affecting black and Pacific Islander women as a significant motivator for the project -- but project participation does not appear to be limited to low-income mothers. Rather, it appears the sole criterion for participation is race.
Thus, the policy seems to conflate "minority" with "poor," which is clearly a racist sentiment.
Moreover, California already has resources in place for low-income pregnant women -- programs that are not bound by the mother's race. Covered California's website describes a number of state programs covering most or all of the cost of pregnancy and birth for low-income women.
Of course, the left's response to claims that the Abundant Birth Project is racist is likely to be an assertion that "reverse racism" -- that is, racism against white people -- simply doesn't exist because of the "institutional power" held by white people.
Never mind the fact that the legal barriers previously entrenched in this country to keep minorities from having the same opportunities as white people have long been removed.
Never mind the fact that there is substantial evidence demonstrating that disparities in outcomes among racial groups are largely based on factors other than race.
Never mind the fact that the only "systemic racism" legally allowed in the United States in 2020 actually cuts against white people in favor of certain minority groups -- for instance, affirmative action programs.
Programs like the Abundant Birth Project may be well-intentioned, but they don't actually support long-term racial equality.
Rather, they sow further division between Americans of different races.
If the goal is greater racial harmony in San Francisco, and in America at large, the solution is for government to step away from race, not codify it into government and law.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-09-19--Shooters hit New Jersey police officers' home in 'targeted' attack

Police in New Jersey are asking for the public ’ s help after the home of two police officers was fired upon in a late night attack earlier this week .
The home , which is located in the community of East Camden , belongs to two married police officers and their newborn child , and was fired upon six times .
Two bullets struck and entered the home through the front door .
Their 10-day-old infant was born on Sept. 5 and was home with the officers during the attack , which occurred just days after two police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Compton , California .
No injuries were reported in the East Camden shooting , but rewards totaling $ 40,000 have been offered for the arrest and conviction of the assailants .
TRENDING : In the end , the rioters are Obama 's army Camden County Police Chief Joseph Wysocki held a news conference Thursday , where he asked for the help of the public in identifying the shooters .
`` I do n't know why [ the officers ] were targeted , '' Wysocki told reporters , according to the Courier Post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The baby was in there .
People can just be so cruel.
” Wysocki said neighbors have been helpful with the investigation , but added that the department needs more information about the shooters .
The chief added the victims are `` two really good officers assigned to our Neighborhood Response Team.
” '' They 're constantly interacting with members of the community , '' he said .
`` We 're looking into every arrest that they have had .
We 're not going to leave a rock unturned.
” The department would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say that the male officer has been with the department for four years , and the woman has been with the department for two years .
`` Thank God the officers and their baby were uninjured , ” Wysocki said at the news conference , adding that the attempted shooting was not random .
`` I do know that this was a targeted attack against this residence and the officers inside , '' the police chief said .
Police believe three suspects were involved in the shooting .
Investigators said they believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and opened fire on the home while a third person remained in the car .
The vehicle is described as a 1998 Honda Odyssey with a temporary paper tag , and was discovered Thursday abandoned on a street in East Camden .
On the attempted shooting , Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli said , `` I want to send a very clear message to the scumbag thugs behind this senseless act .
We are coming to get you and you 'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
” '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with these crimes under the cover of some unfortunate acts that may have taken part in other parts of the nation or under cover of some national movement , you are wrong , '' Capelli said .
Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call the Camden County Police Department at ( 856 ) 757-7042 .
Anonymous tips can be given to the Citizen 's Crime Commission by calling ( 215 ) 546-TIPS .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Police in New Jersey are asking for the public’s help after the home of two police officers was fired upon in a late night attack earlier this week.
The home, which is located in the community of East Camden, belongs to two married police officers and their newborn child, and was fired upon six times.
Two bullets struck and entered the home through the front door.
Their 10-day-old infant was born on Sept. 5 and was home with the officers during the attack, which occurred just days after two police officers were ambushed in an attempted execution in Compton, California.
No injuries were reported in the East Camden shooting, but rewards totaling $40,000 have been offered for the arrest and conviction of the assailants.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Camden County Police Chief Joseph Wysocki held a news conference Thursday, where he asked for the help of the public in identifying the shooters.
"I don't know why [the officers] were targeted," Wysocki told reporters, according to the Courier Post.
A neighbor told the Post, "The baby was in there. People can just be so cruel.”
Wysocki said neighbors have been helpful with the investigation, but added that the department needs more information about the shooters.
The chief added the victims are "two really good officers assigned to our Neighborhood Response Team.”
"They're constantly interacting with members of the community," he said.
"We're looking into every arrest that they have had. We're not going to leave a rock unturned.”
The department would not name the officers targeted, except to say that the male officer has been with the department for four years, and the woman has been with the department for two years.
"Thank God the officers and their baby were uninjured,” Wysocki said at the news conference, adding that the attempted shooting was not random.
"I do know that this was a targeted attack against this residence and the officers inside," the police chief said.
Police believe three suspects were involved in the shooting.
2 gunmen open fire on home of officers in Camden; manhunt underway - via @6abc Submit tips about these suspects anonymously to the Citizens Crime Commission at (215) 546-TIPS, our tip line at (856) 757-7042 or text through the @STOPitSolutions app.https://t.co/hlD3o3pOtV — Camden County Police (@CamdenCountyPD) September 17, 2020
Investigators said they believe two people got out of a car and opened fire on the home while a third person remained in the car.
The vehicle is described as a 1998 Honda Odyssey with a temporary paper tag, and was discovered Thursday abandoned on a street in East Camden.
On the attempted shooting, Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli said, "I want to send a very clear message to the scumbag thugs behind this senseless act. We are coming to get you and you'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
"If you think you can get away with these crimes under the cover of some unfortunate acts that may have taken part in other parts of the nation or under cover of some national movement, you are wrong," Capelli said.
Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call the Camden County Police Department at (856) 757-7042.
Anonymous tips can be given to the Citizen's Crime Commission by calling (215) 546-TIPS.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-09-20--Tax-dodging easements described as 'purple mountain travesty'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
For ecologically minded landowners , land conservation easements have long been a win-win , allowing them to protect sensitive property from development and get a tax break .
But in recent years many of them have also become abusive tax dodges , costing the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars .
Here ’ s how they work : Speculators buy undeveloped land that qualifies for the program .
They then inflate the valuation of the property and sell shares in it to investors lured by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the land is donated for preservation .
More than 30,000 Americans have invested in these limited partnerships , many of whom are unaware of the potential tax penalties .
The total amount of deductions claimed by taxpayers using these vehicles over the years is believed to exceed $ 230 billion , according to documents from the Senate Finance Committee .
That total is nearly the amount the federal government annually spends on the combined budgets of the Education , Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs departments .
The owner of a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was sold $ 300,000 in easement interests in 2016 and 2017 by an investment adviser .
He was “ guaranteed ” that for every dollar he invested , he would receive $ 4 in tax write-offs .
At the time , though , he was unaware the IRS and U.S. Tax Court were challenging the deductions .
After an audit by state and federal tax agents , he was fined $ 1.4 million in penalties and back taxes .
“ I ’ ve always been conservative about my taxes , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The syndicated easement interests “ were an outright scam .
Tax authorities audited every aspect of my life , which caused me a great deal of stress and many sleepless nights .
I feel cheated.
” The practice has triggered major enforcement actions by the IRS and other agencies .
The IRS created a special task force late last year to crack down on the abuse , which is an extraordinary measure given its shrinking enforcement budget in recent years .
Conservation easements are longstanding and popular tax incentives .
Some 56 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easements , although the total has included questionable donations for farms , resorts , and golf courses -- including Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles .
An expanded write-off for these easements was added to the U.S. tax code nearly 40 years ago .
Tax experts believe most of these lands , especially those held directly by private individuals , are appraised fairly .
They also say that the charities that receive properties are not involved in appraising the land or confirming the stated value .
“ Most conservation easements are done for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , spokesperson for the Land Trust Alliance , which represents conservation groups that employ environmental easements .
“ The vast majority of them are done for the right reasons .
There are relatively small number of bad actors , although the abuses are stunning.
” It ’ s the syndicated , heavily promoted packaged vehicles that employ outrageously excessive land valuations – and resulting write-offs – that have triggered investigations and lawsuits .
“ Syndicated conservation easements are like a land mine in an investor ’ s portfolio , ” said Joshua Kons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors nationwide stung by the broker-sold easement investments .
The harm occurs “ because once an audit is triggered , the financial damage to the investor is far greater than the amount of the initial investment itself.
” Kons estimates that thousands of investors who bought the packages may owe “ tens of billions ” in unpaid taxes and penalties .
“ The investors may not even get final notice [ from the IRS ] of the disallowance until later in time , '' well after an audit begins , Kons added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is , packagers of the easement vehicles – “ usually say , ` We are being audited , but don ’ t worry , we disagree and will fight it.
’ ” The easement abuses have also attracted the attention of Congress .
A recent report by the Senate Committee on Finance found that they “ involve land valuations that appear so inflated above their original purchase prices that they can not reasonably be characterized as anything other than abusive tax shelters.
” In a rare , bipartisan agreement , Republican committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ron Wyden joined forces .
“ This is part of a larger pattern of wealthy tax cheats ripping off the American people because they know they can get away with it after years of cuts to the IRS budget , ” said Wyden .
More than 20 companies that sell the easement vehicles were being probed in the Senate report and by the IRS , requiring review of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents .
In a lawsuit filed earlier this year against one of them , the Atlanta-based conservation easement syndicator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged that the company and others selling the easement packages were not telling the truth about the true taxable value of the investments , causing clients to take “ improper and grossly overvalued federal tax deductions.
” EcoVest denied wrongdoing and defended its practices .
Robert McCullough , the firm ’ s chief financial officer , told Bloomberg Tax that it has worked with broker-dealers and financial advisers “ who know that the DOJ allegations are false , and so EcoVest ’ s business has continued.
” When the company was first marketing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreadsheets for investors to determine how much they would receive in tax benefits .
EcoVest did not respond to RCI ’ s request for a comment .
The easement packages are sold as interests in complex , pass-through entities such as limited partnerships with the promise of large write-offs that offer up to nine times the initial investment .
Although some 60 brokers of these partnerships have warned investors that the IRS views them unfavorably , they have sold them anyway .
It ’ s highly suspect that any legitimate investment will double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance of syndicated easements has raised hackles among under-resourced regulators for years .
A 2017 Brookings Institution study observed : “ This obscure tax provision has proved difficult to enforce .
Some donors abuse the provision by applying grossly inflated appraisals [ of their property ] to the value of the easement to increase their charitable deduction or by taking donations for their easement that do not fulfill bona fide conservation purposes.
” Combining conservation and outsized tax write-offs , however , proved to be a powerful marketing formula : When brokers started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deductions , the amount of write-offs diverting income from the U.S. Treasury tripled from about $ 1 billion to $ 3 billion from 2012 to 2014 alone , according to IRS figures .
The current amount of questionable easement deductions is believed to be at least 10 times that number , noted the Land Trust Alliance .
Brokers and other sellers also profited handsomely from selling the syndicated vehicles : One investor offering noted compensation ( expenses and fees ) to selling firms of 6.5 % , which is highly profitable .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , exchange-traded fund and pay as little as 0.07 % annually for annual expenses , often paying little or no commission .
The national marketing network of these vehicles involved more than 1,500 accountants , attorneys , financial advisers , real estate brokers and appraisers and wealth managers .
There are nearly 170,000 conservation easements in the U.S. To put the easement number in perspective , if you subtracted the more than 45 million acres of national park land in Alaska alone , the combined acreage of private conservation easements easily exceeds park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Again , although easement deductions – when done properly – are legal , the syndicated bundles that package overly generous write-offs for other investors flaunt the tax code .
The IRS calls them “ listed transactions , ” which marks them as tax-avoidance schemes that can target taxpayers for audits and enforcement actions .
These vehicles are now among the 10-most litigated tax schemes .
“ There ’ s no reason a financial adviser should ’ ve sold these vehicles , ” says attorney Kons .
“ They put their clients in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strongest liability cases are those where the investment was after October 30 , 2016.
” Yet with a generous tax break that Congress has expanded over the years for practicing environmental virtue comes attendant abuses .
An IRS crackdown has resulted in a relatively small number of cases .
The agency also has taken hundreds of investors to tax court , recently reaching a settlement forcing them to pay penalties and back taxes .
The easement promotions even made the IRS ’ s list of most egregious tax scams in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to cuts in the agency ’ s funding in past decades , the IRS was unable to keep up with tracking and shutting down the scams .
The agency ’ s budget is at a 40-year low with audit rates at 0.45 % of all returns , down from 0.59 % in 2019 .
Its workforce is some 78,000 employees , down 30,000 workers since fiscal year 2010 .
While the IRS has been slowly automating its operations , it has fewer auditors now than it did in 1953 .
In its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged “ Congress , the IRS and the Treasury Department to take further action to preserve the integrity of the conservation-easement tax deduction.
” One law curtailing the abuses has been proposed , although it ’ s not known whether Congress will take it up this year .
Sen. Grassley added : “ The American tax system relies on fairness and good faith compliance .
This is n't a partisan issue .
Serious , fair enforcement of our tax laws is the best way to preserve that system and uphold our understanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us.
” [ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By John F. Wasik
Real Clear Investigations
For ecologically minded landowners, land conservation easements have long been a win-win, allowing them to protect sensitive property from development and get a tax break. But in recent years many of them have also become abusive tax dodges, costing the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars.
Here’s how they work: Speculators buy undeveloped land that qualifies for the program. They then inflate the valuation of the property and sell shares in it to investors lured by the promise of a big deduction after the land is donated for preservation. More than 30,000 Americans have invested in these limited partnerships, many of whom are unaware of the potential tax penalties.
The total amount of deductions claimed by taxpayers using these vehicles over the years is believed to exceed $230 billion, according to documents from the Senate Finance Committee. That total is nearly the amount the federal government annually spends on the combined budgets of the Education, Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs departments.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The owner of a small San Francisco-area tech firm told RealClearInvestigations that he was sold $300,000 in easement interests in 2016 and 2017 by an investment adviser. He was “guaranteed” that for every dollar he invested, he would receive $4 in tax write-offs. At the time, though, he was unaware the IRS and U.S. Tax Court were challenging the deductions. After an audit by state and federal tax agents, he was fined $1.4 million in penalties and back taxes.
“I’ve always been conservative about my taxes,” said the man, who insisted on anonymity. The syndicated easement interests “were an outright scam. Tax authorities audited every aspect of my life, which caused me a great deal of stress and many sleepless nights. I feel cheated.”
The practice has triggered major enforcement actions by the IRS and other agencies. The IRS created a special task force late last year to crack down on the abuse, which is an extraordinary measure given its shrinking enforcement budget in recent years.
Conservation easements are longstanding and popular tax incentives. Some 56 million acres are “protected” through easements, although the total has included questionable donations for farms, resorts, and golf courses -- including Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles. An expanded write-off for these easements was added to the U.S. tax code nearly 40 years ago.
Tax experts believe most of these lands, especially those held directly by private individuals, are appraised fairly. They also say that the charities that receive properties are not involved in appraising the land or confirming the stated value.
“Most conservation easements are done for legitimate purposes,” says Lori Faeth, spokesperson for the Land Trust Alliance, which represents conservation groups that employ environmental easements. “The vast majority of them are done for the right reasons. There are relatively small number of bad actors, although the abuses are stunning.”
It’s the syndicated, heavily promoted packaged vehicles that employ outrageously excessive land valuations – and resulting write-offs – that have triggered investigations and lawsuits.
“Syndicated conservation easements are like a land mine in an investor’s portfolio,” said Joshua Kons, a Hartford, Conn.-based lawyer representing investors nationwide stung by the broker-sold easement investments. The harm occurs “because once an audit is triggered, the financial damage to the investor is far greater than the amount of the initial investment itself.”
Kons estimates that thousands of investors who bought the packages may owe “tens of billions” in unpaid taxes and penalties.
“The investors may not even get final notice [from the IRS] of the disallowance until later in time," well after an audit begins, Kons added. “The tax matters partners” – that is, packagers of the easement vehicles – “usually say, `We are being audited, but don’t worry, we disagree and will fight it.’”
The easement abuses have also attracted the attention of Congress. A recent report by the Senate Committee on Finance found that they “involve land valuations that appear so inflated above their original purchase prices that they cannot reasonably be characterized as anything other than abusive tax shelters.”
In a rare, bipartisan agreement, Republican committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democratic member Ron Wyden joined forces. “This is part of a larger pattern of wealthy tax cheats ripping off the American people because they know they can get away with it after years of cuts to the IRS budget,” said Wyden.
More than 20 companies that sell the easement vehicles were being probed in the Senate report and by the IRS, requiring review of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. In a lawsuit filed earlier this year against one of them, the Atlanta-based conservation easement syndicator EcoVest, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that the company and others selling the easement packages were not telling the truth about the true taxable value of the investments, causing clients to take “improper and grossly overvalued federal tax deductions.”
EcoVest denied wrongdoing and defended its practices. Robert McCullough, the firm’s chief financial officer, told Bloomberg Tax that it has worked with broker-dealers and financial advisers “who know that the DOJ allegations are false, and so EcoVest’s business has continued.” When the company was first marketing the easement vehicles, it even provided spreadsheets for investors to determine how much they would receive in tax benefits. EcoVest did not respond to RCI’s request for a comment.
The easement packages are sold as interests in complex, pass-through entities such as limited partnerships with the promise of large write-offs that offer up to nine times the initial investment. Although some 60 brokers of these partnerships have warned investors that the IRS views them unfavorably, they have sold them anyway. It’s highly suspect that any legitimate investment will double your return quickly, so the promised performance of syndicated easements has raised hackles among under-resourced regulators for years.
A 2017 Brookings Institution study observed: “This obscure tax provision has proved difficult to enforce. Some donors abuse the provision by applying grossly inflated appraisals [of their property] to the value of the easement to increase their charitable deduction or by taking donations for their easement that do not fulfill bona fide conservation purposes.”
Combining conservation and outsized tax write-offs, however, proved to be a powerful marketing formula: When brokers started to promote easement vehicles that syndicated the deductions, the amount of write-offs diverting income from the U.S. Treasury tripled from about $1 billion to $3 billion from 2012 to 2014 alone, according to IRS figures. The current amount of questionable easement deductions is believed to be at least 10 times that number, noted the Land Trust Alliance.
Brokers and other sellers also profited handsomely from selling the syndicated vehicles: One investor offering noted compensation (expenses and fees) to selling firms of 6.5%, which is highly profitable. In contrast, you can buy a tax-free, exchange-traded fund and pay as little as 0.07% annually for annual expenses, often paying little or no commission. The national marketing network of these vehicles involved more than 1,500 accountants, attorneys, financial advisers, real estate brokers and appraisers and wealth managers.
There are nearly 170,000 conservation easements in the U.S. To put the easement number in perspective, if you subtracted the more than 45 million acres of national park land in Alaska alone, the combined acreage of private conservation easements easily exceeds park service holdings in the lower 48 states.
Again, although easement deductions – when done properly – are legal, the syndicated bundles that package overly generous write-offs for other investors flaunt the tax code. The IRS calls them “listed transactions,” which marks them as tax-avoidance schemes that can target taxpayers for audits and enforcement actions.
These vehicles are now among the 10-most litigated tax schemes. “There’s no reason a financial adviser should’ve sold these vehicles,” says attorney Kons. “They put their clients in harm’s way. I think the strongest liability cases are those where the investment was after October 30, 2016.”
Yet with a generous tax break that Congress has expanded over the years for practicing environmental virtue comes attendant abuses. An IRS crackdown has resulted in a relatively small number of cases. The agency also has taken hundreds of investors to tax court, recently reaching a settlement forcing them to pay penalties and back taxes.
The easement promotions even made the IRS’s list of most egregious tax scams in 2019, joining its “Dirty Dozen.” But due to cuts in the agency’s funding in past decades, the IRS was unable to keep up with tracking and shutting down the scams.
The agency’s budget is at a 40-year low with audit rates at 0.45% of all returns, down from 0.59% in 2019. Its workforce is some 78,000 employees, down 30,000 workers since fiscal year 2010. While the IRS has been slowly automating its operations, it has fewer auditors now than it did in 1953.
In its easements report, the Senate Finance Committee urged “Congress, the IRS and the Treasury Department to take further action to preserve the integrity of the conservation-easement tax deduction.” One law curtailing the abuses has been proposed, although it’s not known whether Congress will take it up this year.
Sen. Grassley added: “The American tax system relies on fairness and good faith compliance. This isn't a partisan issue. Serious, fair enforcement of our tax laws is the best way to preserve that system and uphold our understanding that the law applies equally to all of us.”
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


wnd--2020-09-20--Facebook's election campaigning raises question about what's 'good for democracy'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Last month Facebook announced a new initiative in which it is partnering with a hand-selected group of academics to study the influence of social media on the 2020 election .
Unlike previous analyses of platforms ’ impact conducted after an election , this effort will involve actively manipulating the Facebook and Instagram accounts of volunteers in the lead-up to Nov. 3 with little transparency , raising critical questions about the sites ’ growing power over our democratic processes .
It is truly remarkable that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Russian interference in the 2016 election that Facebook would announce this step with just two months to go until one of the most contested elections in decades .
At first glance , Facebook ’ s new initiative appears long overdue .
The company is partnering with a group of academics to conduct “ objective , dispassionate , empirically grounded research ” into the question : “ What impact does [ Facebook ] have on democracy ?
” The rest of its announcement , however , frames the effort not as a traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguard elections from foreign interference but rather as one intended “ to amplify all that is good for democracy on social media , and mitigate against that which is not.
” What precisely does the company see as behaviors that are “ good for democracy ” ?
In Facebook ’ s eyes , “ polarization ” and “ divisions ” are listed as negatives , while being “ better informed about politics ” is a positive .
On its face , this assessment seems benign , but raises critical questions of just what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for democracy.
” Yet what truly sets this current effort apart from previous research is its focus on active interventions to study what changes have an effect on real voter behavior during a live election , rather than merely observing and documenting outcomes after the fact .
According to the announcement , up to 400,000 users are being recruited to participate in the research , signing a consent form that allows the company to make “ targeted changes to some participants ’ experiences with Facebook and Instagram .
For example , volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific categories such as retail , entertainment or politics , or see more or fewer posts in News Feed related to specific topics.
” Some will also be asked to not log into the site for a period of time or to consent to having their web browsing habits logged .
The company dismisses the possibility that this work might impact the 2020 election , offering on its FAQ , “ Is it likely that this research will change the outcome of an election ?
No .
With billions of dollars spent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing and get out the vote efforts , it is statistically implausible that one research initiative could impact the outcome of an election .
The research has been carefully designed to not impact the outcome of the election.
” As evidence of this , the company notes that it will be targeting 0.1 % of eligible voters .
Given projections of the closeness of the 2020 race , however , 0.1 % of eligible voters could very well change the outcome of the election , especially in closely fought swing states .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulating the accounts of just 200,000 to 400,000 users , the changes it makes to their behaviors will propagate outwards to their friends , friends of friends , friends of friends of friends , and so on .
For example , imagine if those 400,000 users are shown a daily stream of anti-Biden content in their news feeds , chronicling a range of alleged misdeeds and criticizing his policies , causing them to share or “ like ” at least some of those stories ?
If each of those 400,000 users has 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and each of those friends has 200 friends , very quickly those changes would have an impact across a much greater percentage of the U.S. electorate , flooding the site with anti-Biden posts .
Asked about this , neither Facebook nor the undertaking ’ s two academic leads , Talia Stroud and Joshua A. Tucker , responded to request for comments .
Facebook appears to acknowledge the potential for inadvertent effects , noting that it “ and our research partners will be monitoring the research at every step .
In the highly unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will stop the research and take corrective action as needed.
” The company and the academic leads did not reply when asked how it would determine whether “ unanticipated effects ” were occurring , what visibility the public and policymakers would have into these effects and at what threshold it would end the research .
If the Russian government was allegedly able to influence the 2016 election with a fairly small amount of effort despite the same “ billions of dollars spent on ads , direct mail , canvassing , organizing and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes will prevent the current effort from having an effect , why does the company believe this initiative won ’ t have an impact ?
In the academic world , ethics bodies called Institutional Review Boards carefully evaluate research like Facebook ’ s , weighing its risks and benefits and considering the potential of inadvertent impacts .
Facebook ’ s announcement is notable for the fact that it declines to list the IRB that approved the research .
Neither the company nor the lead researchers responded when asked which IRB approved it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of undermining confidence in an election .
After all , even if Facebook ’ s effort does not change the voting outcome , its mere existence could stoke concerns of influence in a contested election .
The company confirmed that it has already begun gauging the incentives necessary to get volunteers to participate with an eye toward beginning at least portions of the undertaking by the end of this month , so the project appears to be moving forward at speed .
What impact could it really have ?
In 2010 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost election turnout by 340,000 additional voters by adjusting their news feeds to encourage them to vote .
Given the current effort ’ s emphasis on “ whether and how [ users ] vote , ” it is certainly possible that Facebook could repeat this work in 2020 , leading to concerns about skewed election turnout .
In 2014 the company famously showed that it could manipulate the emotions of its users at scale .
That same research showed that those effects could spread from the manipulated user to that user ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that the impacts of Facebook ’ s current election research effort could stretch far beyond its target of 0.1 % of U.S. voters .
Two and a half years ago , when Facebook first announced its academic research partnership , I asked that initiative ’ s academic and ethical lead , the Social Science Research Council , whether it might ever permit active intervention in a U.S. election and how it would prevent that research from swaying the results .
The organization ’ s president at the time responded that all such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today we have our answer , but we are no closer to having any form of transparency .
It is a remarkable commentary on the state of our nation that the policymakers , pundits and press members who have condemned Facebook for allowing the Russians to allegedly influence the 2016 election outcome now are expressing no concerns about Facebook turning the 2020 election into a research project to measure its sway over voters .
The fact that neither the company nor the researchers involved will answer even the most basic questions about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is into a company where even mid-level employees have the ability to censor heads of state .
As the Washington Post ’ s motto laments , “ democracy dies in darkness.
” Perhaps we should keep that in mind when witnessing Facebook use one of the most consequential presidential elections ever as an opaque social science experiment .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Kalev Leetaru
Real Clear Politics
Last month Facebook announced a new initiative in which it is partnering with a hand-selected group of academics to study the influence of social media on the 2020 election. Unlike previous analyses of platforms’ impact conducted after an election, this effort will involve actively manipulating the Facebook and Instagram accounts of volunteers in the lead-up to Nov. 3 with little transparency, raising critical questions about the sites’ growing power over our democratic processes.
It is truly remarkable that after nearly four years of national outrage over Russian interference in the 2016 election that Facebook would announce this step with just two months to go until one of the most contested elections in decades.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
At first glance, Facebook’s new initiative appears long overdue. The company is partnering with a group of academics to conduct “objective, dispassionate, empirically grounded research” into the question: “What impact does [Facebook] have on democracy?”
The rest of its announcement, however, frames the effort not as a traditional dispassionate scientific analysis or an attempt to safeguard elections from foreign interference but rather as one intended “to amplify all that is good for democracy on social media, and mitigate against that which is not.”
What precisely does the company see as behaviors that are “good for democracy”? In Facebook’s eyes, “polarization” and “divisions” are listed as negatives, while being “better informed about politics” is a positive. On its face, this assessment seems benign, but raises critical questions of just what kind of voter Facebook views as “good for democracy.”
Yet what truly sets this current effort apart from previous research is its focus on active interventions to study what changes have an effect on real voter behavior during a live election, rather than merely observing and documenting outcomes after the fact.
According to the announcement, up to 400,000 users are being recruited to participate in the research, signing a consent form that allows the company to make “targeted changes to some participants’ experiences with Facebook and Instagram. For example, volunteers could see more or fewer ads in specific categories such as retail, entertainment or politics, or see more or fewer posts in News Feed related to specific topics.” Some will also be asked to not log into the site for a period of time or to consent to having their web browsing habits logged.
The company dismisses the possibility that this work might impact the 2020 election, offering on its FAQ, “Is it likely that this research will change the outcome of an election? No. With billions of dollars spent on ads, direct mail, canvassing, organizing and get out the vote efforts, it is statistically implausible that one research initiative could impact the outcome of an election. The research has been carefully designed to not impact the outcome of the election.” As evidence of this, the company notes that it will be targeting 0.1% of eligible voters.
Given projections of the closeness of the 2020 race, however, 0.1% of eligible voters could very well change the outcome of the election, especially in closely fought swing states. Most importantly, even though Facebook will be manipulating the accounts of just 200,000 to 400,000 users, the changes it makes to their behaviors will propagate outwards to their friends, friends of friends, friends of friends of friends, and so on. For example, imagine if those 400,000 users are shown a daily stream of anti-Biden content in their news feeds, chronicling a range of alleged misdeeds and criticizing his policies, causing them to share or “like” at least some of those stories? If each of those 400,000 users has 200 friends (the median in 2014) and each of those friends has 200 friends, very quickly those changes would have an impact across a much greater percentage of the U.S. electorate, flooding the site with anti-Biden posts. Asked about this, neither Facebook nor the undertaking’s two academic leads, Talia Stroud and Joshua A. Tucker, responded to request for comments.
Facebook appears to acknowledge the potential for inadvertent effects, noting that it “and our research partners will be monitoring the research at every step. In the highly unlikely event they detect unanticipated effects, they will stop the research and take corrective action as needed.” The company and the academic leads did not reply when asked how it would determine whether “unanticipated effects” were occurring, what visibility the public and policymakers would have into these effects and at what threshold it would end the research.
If the Russian government was allegedly able to influence the 2016 election with a fairly small amount of effort despite the same “billions of dollars spent on ads, direct mail, canvassing, organizing and get out the vote efforts” that Facebook believes will prevent the current effort from having an effect, why does the company believe this initiative won’t have an impact?
In the academic world, ethics bodies called Institutional Review Boards carefully evaluate research like Facebook’s, weighing its risks and benefits and considering the potential of inadvertent impacts. Facebook’s announcement is notable for the fact that it declines to list the IRB that approved the research. Neither the company nor the lead researchers responded when asked which IRB approved it and how they weighed the nearly unprecedented risk of undermining confidence in an election. After all, even if Facebook’s effort does not change the voting outcome, its mere existence could stoke concerns of influence in a contested election.
The company confirmed that it has already begun gauging the incentives necessary to get volunteers to participate with an eye toward beginning at least portions of the undertaking by the end of this month, so the project appears to be moving forward at speed.
What impact could it really have? In 2010, the company claimed that it was able to boost election turnout by 340,000 additional voters by adjusting their news feeds to encourage them to vote. Given the current effort’s emphasis on “whether and how [users] vote,” it is certainly possible that Facebook could repeat this work in 2020, leading to concerns about skewed election turnout. In 2014 the company famously showed that it could manipulate the emotions of its users at scale. That same research showed that those effects could spread from the manipulated user to that user’s Facebook friends, lending credence to the idea that the impacts of Facebook’s current election research effort could stretch far beyond its target of 0.1% of U.S. voters.
Two and a half years ago, when Facebook first announced its academic research partnership, I asked that initiative’s academic and ethical lead, the Social Science Research Council, whether it might ever permit active intervention in a U.S. election and how it would prevent that research from swaying the results. The organization’s president at the time responded that all such matters were “to be determined.” Today we have our answer, but we are no closer to having any form of transparency.
It is a remarkable commentary on the state of our nation that the policymakers, pundits and press members who have condemned Facebook for allowing the Russians to allegedly influence the 2016 election outcome now are expressing no concerns about Facebook turning the 2020 election into a research project to measure its sway over voters. The fact that neither the company nor the researchers involved will answer even the most basic questions about the initiative reminds us just how little transparency there is into a company where even mid-level employees have the ability to censor heads of state. As the Washington Post’s motto laments, “democracy dies in darkness.” Perhaps we should keep that in mind when witnessing Facebook use one of the most consequential presidential elections ever as an opaque social science experiment.


wnd--2020-09-20--Gov. Cuomo planning statue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Brooklyn

( NEW YORK POST ) Ruth Bader Ginsburg will get a statue in her native Brooklyn where she was born @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo said Saturday .
“ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg selflessly pursued truth and justice in @ @ @ @ @ giving voice to the voiceless and uplifting those who were pushed aside by forces of @ @ @ @ @ said Cuomo Saturday , a day after the Justice died of complications of pancreatic cancer @ @ @ @ @ , jurist , and professor , she redefined gender equity and civil rights and ensured @ @ @ @ @ founding ideals — she was a monumental figure of equality , and we can all @ @ @ @ @ monument in her honor .
”

(NEW YORK POST) Ruth Bader Ginsburg will get a statue in her native Brooklyn where she was born and raised, Gov. Cuomo said Saturday.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg selflessly pursued truth and justice in a world of division, giving voice to the voiceless and uplifting those who were pushed aside by forces of hate and indifference,” said Cuomo Saturday, a day after the Justice died of complications of pancreatic cancer. “As a lawyer, jurist, and professor, she redefined gender equity and civil rights and ensured America lived up to her founding ideals — she was a monumental figure of equality, and we can all agree that she deserves a monument in her honor.”
Read the full story ›