prior to me logging onto here tonite I posted this along with the story link:I am so sick and tired of hearing about how WHITES have this magical thing that blacks don't have. p.s. I think it's funny as anything how a lot of whites are holding protests etc for the black guy that got shot and killed and claim to be all loving of everyone blah blah. How many blacks do you see standing with you while out on the street protesting? I'm not talking about these rallies in Ferguson or even the one shown below, oh wait yes I am I can seriously only point out 5 or 6 blacks out of how many we are the worlders? Just saying

Millennials have long been praised as one of the most racially progressive generations in America’s history, but a closer look at data about the young generation’s views and overall racial bias suggests that white millennials aren’t actually as progressive as many previously thought.
Millennials are the generation that caused #CrimingWhileWhite to trend nationally on Twitter, helped elect the nation’s first Black president, caused a spike in the support of interracial relationships and organized rallies for slain unarmed Black men that generated massive and extremely diverse crowds of protesters.
It seems to paint a portrait of an accepting, loving and progressive group of young white people that have been deemed the “most tolerant generation in history” by the Chicago Tribune’s Ted Gregory.

But despite comforting media headlines that assure the nation that millennials will likely deliver a serious blow to racism once they start taking on positions of power, it seems white millennials are only willing to describe themselves as “racially tolerant”—their actual social, political and economic views and inherent racial biases don’t support their illustrious title. MORE AT SOURCE
US agribusiness subsidies squelched Haitian rice exports

Aristide was also barred <by the US> from providing any protection for the economy. Haitian rice farmers are efficient, but cannot compete with US agribusiness that relies on huge government subsidies, thanks largely to Reagan, anointed as the high pries of free trade with little regard to his record of extreme protectionism and state intervention in the economy. Other small businesses were destroyed by US dumping which Haiti was powerless to prevent under the imposed conditions of economy rationality.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 11-12 , Jun 1, 2010
1985: Vetoed import tariffs on textile goods

I found myself in a rare, head-to-head confrontation with President Reagan over proposed import tariffs on textile goods--a bill that aided industries already struggling in the US. Mass-produced goods from abroad were making a dent in an indigenous American business whose roots stretched back a century. The proposed tariffs would help protect this industry--including two textile plants in my district, which would benefit directly.
I informed the administration, which opposed the bill, that my support for the legislation prevented me from performing my whip duties. My chief deputy whip and I both recused ourselves.
Still, the bill passed, only to be promptly vetoed by the president. I did lead the drive to override the president's veto in an exhaustive campaign, and we managed to get 276 votes--71 Republicans and 205 Democrats. But it takes 2/3 of the votes to override a president, and our tally of 276-149 fell eight votes short.
Source: Herding Cats, by Trent Lott, p. 91 , Aug 29, 2006
1985: imposed import quotas on Japanese cars

Japan flooded the U.S. market with high-quality cars that sold far below the price at which the Big Three could afford to build, sell, and survive.
In 1985, the dollar, at 220 to the yen, was still too high to arrest the rising U.S. trade deficit. The Big Three were at death's door. Refusing to let any of them go under, Reagan intervened to save the industry by imposing import quotas on Japanese cars. Free traders denounced Reagan as a heretic. The death of Ford and Chrysler were of far less concern to them than fidelity to the free-trade gospel of David Ricardo and Adam Smith.
But Reagan's intervention succeeded. The U.S. auto industry was saved. By now, the boom of the 1980s was underway, propelled by the tax cuts of Reagan and the sound money policy of the Fed.
Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p.201 , Aug 12, 2004
1985: Articulated goal of Western Hemisphere free trade

Reagan's belief in the twin policies of deregulation and free market trade reinvigorated the American economy in the 1980s. Under Reagan's leadership, we initiated a series of measures to ensure increased opportunities to sell American-made goods and services overseas, believing that exports equal jobs for Americans.
It was Reagan who first articulated a goal of free trade in the Western Hemisphere. America's first free trade agreement with Israel, implemented in 1985, was a Reagan achievement. A US-Canada agreement followed. In 1986, Reagan launched the Uruguay Round, a series of talks aimed at the reduction of trade barriers among more than 60 nations. NAFTA, providing substantial trade benefits to US firms seeking to conduct business in Mexico and Canada--our best customers--was another initiative of the Reagan-Bush years.
Reagan's faith in free trade principles was vindicated abroad by the crumbling of state-controlled, centrally directed communist economies.
Source: Agenda For America, by Haley Barbour, p.177-178 , Apr 25, 1996
Proposed concept behind NAFTA in 1979

Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, <<MORE>>
The future of Syria under the jihadists will be a genocide of religious minorities of unimaginable proportions.</link

Jizya is the money, or tribute, "that conquered non-Muslims historically had to pay to their Islamic overlords 'with willing submission and while feeling themselves subdued' to safeguard their existence," Mr. Ibrahim explained.

According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga, all Copts in the village, "without exception," are being forced to pay the tax.

Why does Islam have Jizyah (money paid by non-Muslims in the Islamic State) law?
The sections of this article are:
- What does the Noble Quran say about Jizyah?
- Why Jizyah? And how much are the taxes for both Muslims and non-Muslims?

What does the Noble Quran say about Jizyah?
Let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran regarding Jizyah:
"O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; So let them not, After this year of theirs, Approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, Soon will Allah enrich you, If He wills, out of His bounty, For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (The Noble Quran, 9:28-29)"

Before I explain why Allah Almighty ordered the Muslims to fight the Pagans and the People of the Book until they all either submit to Islam or pay the "Jizyah", I'd like to point out that many people were exempt from the "Jizyah" or "taxes":

"Jizyah: the root meaning is compensation.......there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifah), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service." <2>

As to the fighting, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started spreading the Message of Islam to the Arabs, he had to eventually deal with 365 Pagan Arab tribes, 3 Jewish tribes (Bani Qaynuqaa, Bani Al-Natheer, and Bani Quraytha) and some Christian tribes as well.

The Muslims did not live Islam easily 1400 years ago. >>see more<<

Since America's Founding, We Have Almost Always Paid ‘Jizya’ (Islamic Fines/Bribes To Leave Us Alone)

The question of why Thomas Jefferson wanted every American to be able to read the Quran, so much so he commissioned it to be written in English, and why it was displayed for all to see, in his library.
Some would say it was because he honored what it stood for, some even being made Congressmen have made that ignorant, if not lying statement of fraud.
In order to know the history of Islam, you have to know the history of Islam with America...from the very beginning.
When we watch fantasy movies about pirates, the value that comes across is like comparing them as honest and caring Charlton Heston to Moses...It sounds good, looks good...but its for show, not reality.
Terrorists of Islamic standing were brutal, political and religious in their actions to anyone, outside of their religious beliefs.
Boats were seized by these 'pirates', and anything on these ships were taken.
Men as slaves, women as concubines (sex slaves), children raped and made slaves, gold, silver...anything...and what was America to do? We had no Navy...We had a tired military and has just started our founding.
What we were told was, if we paid them, they would be lenient on what, and who they took.

The payment is called Jizya, and its purpose is based on Islamic law and religion...which goes hand in hand.

Jizya is a tax that all non-Muslim citizens had to pay, to appease 'allah.'
It's not something you hear, in most history books, because it, Islamic religion, is so brutal and immoral, in the standards of true Islamic's, it allows them to lie, cheat and steal...even with a room full of attorneys with means nothing in their eyes, and deception called for in their beliefs.

Here is an article/video, I came across a while back that goes further into this.
Tags: Islam, Jizya tax

Launched by the General Assembly in 1978 at its first special session devoted to disarmament, the Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament aims to train and build the capacity of officials from Member States to enable them to participate more effectively in international disarmament deliberating and negotiating fora.

The Fellowship Programme Itinerary

Submitted by cbaus on January 20, 2014 - 8:00am. National Politics Gun Grabbers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) has announced that the Omnibus appropriations bill prevents the implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by prohibiting any funding of the treaty unless it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, which opposes the treaty. In October 2013, Sen. Moran led a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators in reiterating to President Obama that the Senate overwhelmingly opposes ratification and will not be bound by its obligations.

"Last fall, the Obama Administration's signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty in a direct dismissal of the American people and the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty," Sen. Moran said. "Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own 'red line' negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty's dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text. With the passage of the Omnibus bill, it will be made unequivocally clear that Congress is committed to upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans and rejects the ATT. We will not be bound by the treaty and we will not fund its implementation."
The Omnibus appropriations bill includes specific language in Section 7075 stating, "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for the Treaty."

BackgroundIn the letter to President Obama in October 2013, Sen. Moran and his colleagues outline six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty's object and purpose.

"We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations," the 50 Senators wrote to President Obama.

The six reasons for opposing ratification of the ATT include:
The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers.

In addition, the bill would result in slower response time in the case of a disaster, requiring increased consultation with states before the federal government calls for cleanup of Superfund sites - where hazardous waste could affect people and the environment.

The bill amends both the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act - often referred to as Superfund, which was created in 1980 to hold polluter industries accountable for funding the cleanup of hazardous-waste sites.

There are over 1,300 priority Superfund sites in the US.

The legislation was passed by a vote of 225 to 188, mostly along party lines, with all but four Republicans supporting the bill and all but five Democrats opposing it. One of those Democrats crossing party lines to support the changes to environmental law was Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO), touted the “common-sense” changes as needed economic relief.

"We are five years into this failed experiment of increased government spending, taxation, and regulation," Gardner said in a statement. "The results are clear: The power to grow our economy and put Americans back to work lies in the private sector. With more than 80,000 pages of new federal regulations published in 2013 alone, common-sense revisions of existing rules and regulations are a vital part of ensuring businesses that power our state and local economies are given the capability to grow."

Critics point out that the bill severely weakens environmental protections. Earthjustice and 128 public interest groups said the legislation would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.”

The legislation also "substantially increases the potential for harm in communities across the United States. As one in four Americans live within three miles of a hazardous-waste site, safe management and prompt cleanup of toxic waste sites are essential to our nation's health and economy,” the group added.

H.R. 2279, Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 19, 2013H.R. 2279 would amend laws concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) oversight of hazardous substances. The bill would authorize EPA to review regulations related to solid waste disposal only when necessary instead of every three years as required under current law. The legislation also would remove a long-expired deadline, which EPA has already met, regarding regulations for the owners and operators of certain types of facilities that produce, transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous substances. In addition, the bill would direct that any financial requirements established by EPA for such owners and operators do not preempt state or other federal agency requirements.
The bill also would require EPA to report to the Congress any financial responsibility requirements it intends to establish under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Finally, H.R. 2279 would require certain facilities holding flammable or explosive materials to report on those holdings to state and local officials.

Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing the current requirement to review certain regulations every three years would reduce administrative costs. However, some of those savings in administrative expenses would be offset by spending on the new requirement to report to the Congress any financial responsibility requirements. CBO estimates that, on balance, implementing this legislation would not have a significant net impact on spending that is subject to appropriation over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

Administration’s Regulatory Record Rests on Dubious Assumptions

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, during his press briefing on Wednesday, gave the Obama administration a pat on the back for writing federal rules. Here’s the context:

Q: Hi. Different subject altogether. This morning, at the U.S. Chamber, Tom Donohue was talking about the state of business. And he said one of business's biggest concerns right now is overregulation. He accused this administration of regulatory overreach. Is the president satisfied with the level of regulation on businesses?

Behold my display of the 2013 Federal Register. It contains over 80,000 pages of new rules, regulations, and notices all written and passed by unelected bureaucrats. The small stack of papers on top of the display are the laws passed by elected members of Congress and signed into law by the president.

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say a couple of things about that. The president does not believe that we have to choose between protecting the health, welfare and safety of Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness and innovation.

We can do both and we are doing both. The net benefits of rules finalized through the fourth fiscal year of this administration were $159 billion. That's the net benefits. This is almost four times the net benefits through the fourth fiscal year of the previous administration.
Displaying 6 to 10 of 17