U.S. 'Ally' Pakistan ReOpens A TOLL ROAD for NATO Troops in Afghanistan

Pakistan: NATO supply deal looking more likely

  Excerpted

The Associated Press

Monday, July 2, 2012 | 9:13 a.m.

'U.S. and Pakistani officials expressed optimism Monday that Islamabad was close to reopening its Afghan border to NATO troop supplies after a 7-month blockade, a move that could significantly reduce tension between the two countries.

 The tussle over the supply line, which Pakistan closed in November in retaliation for American airstrikes that killed 24 of its troops, has driven the bilateral relationship to new lows, threatening U.S. prospects in Afghanistan.'

 'The latest trip was a prime example of how "quiet diplomacy can play a significant role to get things done," the official said.
The U.S. addressed Pakistan's demands for higher transit fees by sweetening the deal with extensive road construction projects, the American official said, without providing specific figures.
Before the November attack, Pakistan was charging the U.S. $250 per truck. Afterward, Pakistan demanded $5,000 and the U.S. countered with $500. It's unclear where the deal stands now.'
 Pakistan: NATO supply deal looking more likely 

BBC NOW REPORTS  3 July 2012 Last updated at 23:43 ET 

'Islamabad confirmed it would not raise transit fees when the lines re-open. US officials say the existing charge of $250 (£160) per truck will not change - Washington had baulked at a Pakistani demand for $5,000 per container to let supplies flow again.'  Pakistan allows Nato convoys to Afghanistan to resume
' Reports suggest the US may now release over $1bn in funding to Pakistan's military.'

------------------------------------------------------------------
 Background:
; According to a Pentagon report released in December, U.S. and Afghan troops came under fire from across the Pakistani border while conducting a night operation. After a show of force by U.S. aircraft launching flares, the shooting continued, the report said, and the aircraft attacked the enemy positions, killing 24 troops. Miscommunication and reluctance by U.S. commanders to fully report troop positions to the Pakistani military helped lead to the deaths, the report said.
The report also concluded that the U.S. troops who did the fighting “acted in self defense and with appropriate force after being fired upon.”
The Pentagon stands by the report, and Clinton’s statement that the United States is sorry for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers does not contradict the earlier assessment, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said Tuesday.
“None of this today changes what we previously said with respect to the incident,” Kirby said '

Pakistan reopens supply routes after Clinton says 'sorry'

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

'The opening of the routes promises to save billions of dollars as the U.S. prepares to draw down its presence in Afghanistan. The need to bring supplies through northern routes and by air has added $100 million a month in expenses, Panetta estimated last month' Pakistan reopens supply routes after Clinton says 'sorry'


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

This alleged ally, that was hiding Osama Bin Laden for YEARS among other treachery, now extorts a toll while receiving billions in aid from our country. A great new deal for Pakistan, for attacking our troops. Well done Barack Obama Administration. The movie is some more history on the event, and the following links announce the new agreement and the response from the taliban.


  U.S. talked with Pakistan before fatal airstrike killed 24 pakis 'on Afghan soil'

#pakistan #afghanistan #nato #supplyroute #tollroad #trollroad #trolls 


Clinton apologizes to Pakistan for airstrike deaths, says supply lines to re-open 

Clinton apologizes to Pakistan for airstrike deaths, says supply lines to re-open

7/03/2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized Tuesday for the NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last year -- and announced that Pakistan has in turn agreed to re-open supply lines into Afghanistan that have been closed since the incident.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/03/clinton-apologizes-to-pakistan-for-airstrike-deaths-says-supply-lines-to-re/#ixzz1zcFam5Be

And of course the expected headline to Follow the Announcement

Taliban threaten to attack Nato trucks after deal

MIRAMSHAH: The Pakistani Taliban threatened late Tuesday to attack Nato supply trucks and kill its drivers if they tried to resume supplies to troops in Afghanistan, a spokesman said

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

Progressive Agenda: The Foundations of Success

  Updated: Sun., Jul. 1, 2012, 3:23 AM

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

Poll says: Gop sucks

Flat Earther

By KYLE SMITH

Last Updated: 3:23 AM, July 1, 2012

Posted: 10:17 PM, June 30, 2012

Old joke: Guy tells his friend, “Guess what? My new girlfriend is a virgin.” The friend says, “How do you know she’s a virgin?” Guy says, “She told me.” The friend replies, “How do you know she’s not lying?” First guy says, “Virgins never lie.” 
That circular reasoning, UCLA poli-sci professor Tim Groseclose points out in his book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” is the kind of thing you hear from otherwise intelligent, even scientific-minded liberals when it comes to the kinds of stories that turn up in popular media outlets such as CBS, CNN or The New York Times.
Groseclose measured the extent to which these outlets mentioned liberal vs. conservative think tanks in their coverage and found a pronounced bias toward the left. A colleague of Groseclose’s to whom he mentioned this said, essentially, “So what? Those liberal think tanks are more reputable than the conservative ones.” And how did he know this? Because, er, they were the ones that were so often quoted on CBS, CNN or in The New York Times.

 Andrew Gavin Marshall - Tax-free foundations as a vehicle for transforming vast fortunes into political and social control
The crux of Groseclose’s book, which came out in paperback earlier this year, is seconded by this summer’s “The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future” by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin.
Horowitz and Laksin explore the world of foundation money, where it came from, where it goes and what it does. Philanthropic organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and their equivalents with names like Heinz, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Mellon tend to support left-wing causes. The financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the left, says Laskin, added up to $104.56 billion — more than 10 times the size of the war chest held by their ideological opposite numbers on the right.
We owe to Hillary Clinton the deathless term “vast right-wing conspiracy,” a sobriquet she used to ridicule reports that her husband might have had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

 Norman Dodd- Congressional Investigator on Foundations and their Agenda

The evidence is ample, though, that when it comes to weaving an intricate web of money and influence, the left is far more successful than the right.
Measuring the nation’s most influential news sources, for instance, Groseclose agrees that the Drudge Report and Fox News’s “Special Report” are far to the right of the rest — but in absolute terms, they are near the middle of the road (along with “Good Morning America” and “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer”). The Wall Street Journal, CBS Evening News, Washington Post and New York and L.A. Times are all at least as far left as Connecticut’s fairly liberal Joe Lieberman.
Groseclose is careful to point out that, in his analysis, the mainstream media do not make up facts. They don’t report lies. The bias is in the kinds of stories they do and don’t do, the kinds of experts they quote, how much prominence they are given and how they’re identified.
In an illustrative Los Angeles Times report on the size of the black student body at UCLA (after California outlawed consideration of race in state-college admissions), the reporter quoted five liberal supporters of affirmative action (none of whom was identified with an ideological label) and one opponent (who was stamped, correctly, as “conservative”). The conservative was given two paragraphs to make his case. His views were accurately summarized. But the liberals were awarded 17 paragraphs.
Newspapers don’t typically ask journalists what party they belong to. They don’t have to. Journalism is a field that attracts liberals.
So does philanthropy. In “New Leviathan,” Horowitz and Laksin discover that foundations don’t necessarily seek out liberal officers. They look for “nonideological” experts and experienced professionals in the field — but most of these turn out to have an affinity for giving money to left-wing or even far-left groups.
Take the Daniels Fund, for instance. It was set up by conservative Republican Bill Daniels, who made a fortune in cable television. He didn’t leave any instructions for how its operations were to be conducted. Its first president, Phil Hogue, went to existing foundations for advice. Foundations like the MacArthurs’, which has repeatedly showered largesse on socialist and even Marxist groups such as Global Exchange, which promoted the anti-World Trade Organization riots in Seattle and is headed by a pro-Castro communist.
Says a conservative observer quoted in “New Leviathan,” “I knew we had lost Daniels when I met a former Rockefeller program office at a reception who had just been hired at Daniels. Who can quarrel with foundation expertise acquired at one of the nation’s best? And I’m sure all the while Hogue thought he was just doing the most professional job he could in carrying out Daniels’ will.”
And these groups often see themselves as a private army of regulators working shoulder-to-shoulder with government ones.

Andrew Gavin Marshall-Tax free foundations - vehicles for transforming fortunes into political and social control part 1
 Andrew Gavin Marshall-Tax free foundations - vehicles for transforming fortunes into political and social control part2

Staff lawyers for the environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council, says Laksin, describe their job as, “We’re the shadow EPA; we make the EPA do its job.”
Bizarre as it is to contemplate the fortunes of supercharged capitalists like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford being used to fight capitalism, isn’t pointing this out merely conservative whining? Surely everyone is entitled to spend their money promoting whatever message they please.
Correct, says Laksin. But these foundations’ tax-exempt status depends on their being nonpartisan. He mentions that the head of Pew Trusts, Rebeca Rimmel, recently complained that the book falsely portrays Pew as a partisan group. “That’s demonstrably false,” Laksin says. “Pew Trusts spends millions funding radical environmental groups like Earth Justice and anarchist Ruckus Society. If that’s non-partisan, then the term has no meaning. Foundations should be upfront about their political agendas.” And lose their tax-exempt status.
It was free-market apostle Adam Smith who said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”
Wary of business today, regulators observe it closely. But the blob of regulation, with its ability to draw on the public purse, the private foundations and its close relationship with like-minded media, grows by the day.
Kyle.Smith@nypost.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_vast_left_wing_conspiracy_DT6558uEKTA57opvDZuqMN#ixzz1zOga9ozj

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Norman Dodd's video is lengthy but I encourage you to watch the origins of Foundations in America.  Kyle Smith's article 30 years later shows the 'progress' of tax-exempt foundations and their goals.
  Ideological Subversion and Active Measures- Spread the Agenda

Progressives control the messaging in the media and academia for decades now, by design. The appearance of and actual crisis or stress on the system is intentional. Understanding the who and why provides perspective.

Updated: 09/25/2012
#taxexemptfoundations #robberbarrons #foundations #andrewgavinmarshall