Thursday, July 13, 2017


 Published on Jul 11, 2017
Aynaz Anni Cyrus at United America First Rally, CA -- July 8, 2017
 Sharia: The Threat to America-Part 1 
 Published on Jun 18, 2017
An ATP Report Production - On this episode Barry interviews Aynaz Anni Cyrus, National Director of American Truth Project, and discusses what Sharia law is and how it relates to American policy, law, society and the pervasive spread of violence on America’s homeland.
 Sharia: The Threat to America-Part 2
 Published on Jun 25, 2017
An ATP Report Production - On this episode Barry interviews Aynaz Anni Cyrus, National Director of American Truth Project, and discusses what Sharia is and how it relates to American policy, law, society and the pervasive spread of violence on America’s homeland as well as the agenda of Linda Sarsour, leading the Islamism movement in America.
 Islam's "Kill-All-Jews" Day and the Left's 
Hateful Silence
 Anni Cyrus Video: Leftist Feminists’ 
S&M Islamic Odyssey
 The Unknown: Islam's Rape Game in Europe


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
During the National Education Association’s (NEA) annual meeting and representative assembly held in Boston from June 25-July 5, delegates approved 159 new business items, with one of the most radical proposals — promoting the LGBTQ agenda — coming in at number three on the list. 
Other proposals called for using NEA funds to “promote solidarity” among all labor unions, oppose deportations of illegal aliens and requirements that educators provide information about the immigration status of students, deliver an ultimatum to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos demanding her resignation if she does not respond “to the satisfaction of the NEA governance” to questions posed by NEA President Eskelsen Garcia, and for the NEA to develop resolutions that local NEA associations can introduce at school board meetings calling for “county-wide and state-wide moratoria on new charter school authorizations in every state that has legislation authorizing the creation of charter schools.”
The obvious intent of this last proposal is to discourage the formation of new charter schools, which often outperform traditional public schools staffed by NEA members.

“Charter schools were started by educators who dreamed of schools in which they would be free to innovate, unfettered by bureaucratic obstacles,” NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia said in a July 4 statement.
“Handing over students’ education to privately managed, unaccountable charters jeopardizes student success, undermines public education and harms communities,” Garcia continued. “This policy draws a clear line between charters that serve to improve public education and those that do not.”
Apparently, Garcia believes that “fettering” educators with obstacles placed in their path by bureaucrats beholden to the NEA — the nation’s largest labor union — is desirable.
The statement posted on the NEA website noted that the 7,000 delegates in attendance at the meeting “overwhelmingly approved a fundamental shift in policy by passing a new policy statement on charter schools.” The statement could not have been more clear about its intent:
The new NEA Policy Statement on Charter Schools will boost NEA[']s forceful support of state and local efforts to limit charter growth and increase charter accountability, and slow the diversion of resources from neighborhood public schools to charters.
Among the criteria that charter schools should be required to adhere to, states the NEA, are “the same civil rights, employment, labor, health and safety laws and staff qualification and certification requirements as other public schools.” (Emphasis added.)
Does this mean that the NEA is demanding that their union-controlled public schools should not face competition from non-union schools — which would be a typical labor union demand? Of course, since charter schools are also public schools, it would not be surprising for the government to rein in whatever education alternatives they have thus far been allowed to offer and to subject them to the same requirements as traditional public schools.
As for “civil rights,” we might place that in the context of the NEA’s “New Business Item 3,” which promotes civil rights for LGBTQ students and educators. Presumably, this means that LGBTQ teachers should be guaranteed the right to teach your impressionable children.
The adopted item is lengthy, but it is important enough to quote at length:
The NEA will continue to advance the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) students and educators by taking the following actions to counter the continuing backlash against LGBTQ individuals:
Call upon our members and society to promote a culture of safety, support, and affirmation that ensures civil rights and advocacy for LGBTQ members and students, including adopting policies that respect the civil rights of all educators and students, inclusive of transgender students and educators.
Provide tools for affiliates and members to use at the state and local level to gain or secure protections for LGBTQ individuals at work and in schools.
Convene periodic webinars for state and local affiliates and members (in the fall, winter, and spring) to provide updates as to the current status of state and local protections as well as models for actions that can be taken at the state and local level to increase protections.
Provide legislative support and resources to state affiliates and tools for local affiliates to use in advocating for increased LGBTQ protections.
Continue to actively participate in the legal efforts to secure full civil rights for LGBTQ individuals by filing amicus curiae briefs in support of challenges to anti-LGBTQ legislative and policy initiatives and in support of ensuring full civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals.
Evaluate eliminating states and cities as acceptable locations for future NEA meetings if the state or city adopts a law or ordinance that licenses discrimination against students and educators based on their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
The NEA has just provided parents with one more good reason for refusing to send their children to public (more accurately, government) schools at any cost.

Related articles:
Calling Transgender Student Wrong Pronoun Could Trigger Federal Investigation
Wisconsin Protests: The Reforms, the Reality
Wisconsin Teachers, Doctors Caught Lying Could Face Trouble


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On Monday, the Seattle, Washington City Council unanimously passed an income tax targeting the rich despite constitutional and legislative prohibitions on doing so, making a court challenge to the tax almost inevitable.
According to the Seattle Times, “The measure applies a 2.25-percent tax on total income above $250,000 for individuals and above $500,000 for married couples filing their taxes together.” The city expects the tax to raise about $140 million a year — assuming the well-off don’t flee the city — with the revenue to be used “to lower property taxes and other regressive taxes; address homelessness; provide affordable housing, education and transit; replace federal funding lost through budget cuts; create green jobs and meet carbon-reduction goals; and administer the tax.”
The bill still has to be signed by Mayor Ed Murray, but that appears to be a foregone conclusion. Murray proposed the bill and praised its passage in a statement, saying Seattle is “challenging this state’s antiquated and unsustainable tax structure by passing a progressive income tax” — one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.

The tax will affect at least 11,000 Seattleites; that is the number of individuals with earned annual incomes of at least $250,000, according to the Times. However, since the tax applies to both earned and unearned income, it is likely to be levied on even more people. Then there’s always the matter of bracket creep as people’s incomes increase because of inflation, plus the fact that income taxes invariably start out small and aimed at the rich but eventually grow to encompass more individuals and larger proportions of their income.
Supporters argue that the tax is necessary because the state’s tax structure is highly regressive. “In 2015,” wrote the Times, “Washington households with incomes below $21,000 paid 16.8 percent of their income in state and local taxes, on average, while households with income above $500,000 paid only 2.4 percent.”
The solution to this problem, of course, is not to raise taxes on the rich but to cut taxes for everyone. Seattle’s budget has increased 33 percent in the last four years; surely some spending could be trimmed so that taxes could be reduced. Yet just last month, the same city council that claims to be so terribly concerned about regressive taxes passed a new tax on sugary sodas, which will also hit the poor hardest.
But instead of cutting spending and taxes, city officials have taken the usual left-wing tack of appealing to envy, an approach that clearly succeeded in getting the public on their side. A June poll by KING 5/KUOW found that 66 percent of Seattleites favored the tax, undoubtedly agreeing with 79-year-old Bobby Righi, who told the council and an appreciative crowd Monday, “It’s time for the rich to pay their fair share.”
Tax opponents have vowed to take the city to court over the measure, arguing it violates the state constitution, which requires taxing property at a uniform rate; state law, which prohibits cities from taxing income; and various court precedents — not to mention the wishes of Washington voters, who have rejected an income tax nine times.
Proponents believe they may have a shot at overcoming these obstacles by carefully wording the tax legislation — it taxes total income, while the state law only forbids taxing net income — and by taking the matter to “the liberally configured Washington State Supreme Court,” in the words of the tax-fighting Freedom Foundation. One councilwoman even suggested “pack[ing] the courts” to make sure the tax is upheld.
“We are greatly disappointed the Seattle City Council voted to impose a clearly illegal and unnecessary income tax,” Dann Mead Smith, president of the Washington Policy Center, which opposes the tax, said in a statement. “As a life-long Seattle resident, it is frustrating to see the Seattle City Council choose to waste taxpayer dollars on lawsuits for an income tax that is not needed.”
The Left, however, never hesitates to use any means necessary to impose its will upon the rest of the population. Its opponents, therefore, will need to be equally combative if Seattle is not to be saddled with this destructive tax.