bet his paycheck is signed by Soros.
I wonder which news agency he's with.
National Review: Undercover Photographer - L.A. Times staffer Carolyn Cole crosses a line, again.
(By Andrew Breitbart, National Review May 14, 2002)PLittle critical attention has been given to the recent antics of Los Angeles Times staff photographer Carolyn Cole, who on May 2 joined a group of "peace activists" who had clandestinely entered Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, in solidarity with the Palestinian militants holding dozens of civilians and clergymen hostage.
Upon her arrival inside the holy site, Cole took on the dual role of photographer and reporter for the Times, offering first-person accounts from within the church.
The Times, often accused of carrying an anti-Israeli grudge, confirmed many of its critics' suspicions by printing Cole's blatantly pro-Palestinian church dispatches. Cole even noted that she felt safer with the Palestinian militants than she did with the Israelis. (A collection of her like-minded photos from inside the church appear in this week's Time.)
...But this isn't the first time Cole has stepped over a professional line in her career. In April 2000 — at the height of the Elián Gonzalez affair — Cole was arrested on felony charges of "throwing deadly missiles" at police during protests in Little Havana, apparently in an effort to stir up her subjects and thereby generate "better" news.
Miami detective Delrish Moss said Cole "was seen throwing two or three rocks and then picked up her camera and proceeded to take photographs."
Michael Parks, her boss at the Times, said in a statement that her arrest was "an abridgment of the people's right to know."
"Carolyn Cole was covering the protests in Miami as a news photographer, not participating in them, and her photographs published in the Times make that clear," Parks insisted.
Of course, Ms. Cole would never overstep the law nor defy journalistic principles to get a story. And there's no way that she held the anti-Castro crowd in contempt and wanted to create shots that would portray them in the most frenzied and violent light.
“bet his paycheck is signed by Soros.”
Actually his paycheck, like that of tens of thousands of community organizers, ultimately originates from the taxpayer funneled by leftists in the bureaucracy to thousands of leftists community action groups. Government grant money pays for contracted “services” performed by these organizations. The organizations in turn employ community organizers. Other sources of funds for these organizations come from private foundations (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation).
Two things Congress could and should do to end the subsidies of this type of activity. First, end the flow of discretionary grant money for worthless studies and services. This action alone would save the taxpayer billions and save citizens from the trouble the community organizers, like Barack Obama in his early year, stir up.
The second action is to start taxing the annual income from the investment portfolios of large private foundations and require the foundation to liquidate after a defined period of time (say 25 years). No matter what the intent of the wealthy philanthropist who starts the organization, the missions of these multi-billion foundations become redirected once they are taken over by liberal activists. For example Andrew Carnegie set up his foundation to fund and build libraries around the nation. The foundation built its last library in the 1950’s. Today it funds a multitude of variety of leftists programs under the headings: Education, International Peace, International Development, and Democracy. The Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundations have seen similar evolutions.
Would Barak Obama even exist today as a major political figure if not for the pools of government and foundation grant money. His father’s education in the USA was paid for by grants. Obama’s mother’s Indonesian activities were funded by the Ford Foundation. Obama’s community organizing activities during his early years in Chicago were likely funded with private foundation and government money.
The two wealthiest billionaires in the US, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have pledged to leave the bulk of the fortunes to perpetual foundations. Essentially these foundations will become tax free pools of money for advancing the progressive agenda. Would we as a nation not be better off if these foundations were taxed on their income and there was a mandatory sunset provision (say 25 years) for their liquidation?
A Republican demand for reform of foundations would turn the class warfare theme of the Democrats against them. They would be forced to defend allowing billions of dollars in foundation income to be free from taxes. They would be forced to defend a loophole that allows wealth to escape estate taxes and employ heirs and friends of the individual creating the foundation. The Clinton Foundation is the poster child for wealth, special privilege, and keeping friends on a payroll in cushy jobs. Let the Democrats defend their billionaire supporters shielding billions of dollars in income from the taxes everyone else must pay.
Taxing foundations is not a limitation of freedom. The wealthy would still be free do what they wish with their money. They would still be able to give the money to foundations, individuals, or institutions. The major change would be the foundation would pay taxes on the income from its investments, just as an individual or corporation is required to do. In addition, foundations would not be perpetual pools of money existing for the benefit and vision of individuals unaccountable to the benefactor (who is dead) or to society.