We Are Change Mail
- U.S. Backed Siege of Mosul Shows How Hypocritical Media Manipulates Us
- VIDEO: What Will Happen With The U.S. Federal Reserve Under Donald Trump?
- BREAKING: Police Officer Accidentally Discharges Weapon At Hollande Speech In France
- Netanyahu: Trump, Israel At Odds Over Settlements
- Abby Martin Exposes The Fake News About Russia
- Fifth Circuit Court Rules First Amendment Gives Citizens Right To Film Police
- Pentagon Delivers Plan to Defeat ISIS to Trump
- What is Happening to Julian Assange?
- Media Silent As Trump Slashes National Debt By $12 Billion In First Month
- Do Not Fear, The Tax Revolution Is Here
|U.S. Backed Siege of Mosul Shows How Hypocritical Media Manipulates Us
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 11:16 AM PST
This is how the hypocritical media manipulates us.
Article via The Anti-Media
In order to determine the truth when it comes to the mainstream media’s coverage of American-led offensives in the Middle East, be sure to scroll down to the bottom of any article. This is where the most important information can be found. As can be seen in a BBC report on the U.S.-backed offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State, the last line of the article reads:
“The UN said in late January that almost half of all the casualties in Mosul were civilians. At least 1,096 have been killed and 694 injured across Nineveh province since the start of October.” [emphasis added]
Compared with a separate BBC report on the Russian-backed offensive to retake the Syrian city of Aleppo, the media’s coverage of these two military operations can hardly be viewed as balanced. In that report, the idea that Russia is constantly killing civilians is laid out in almost every paragraph.
A spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reportedly told Russian state-owned news site RT that the situation in Mosul is “incredibly desperate.”
In Mosul, 650,000 civilians are reportedly at risk, and as the U.N. has indicated, half of those being killed in the U.S.-backed operation are civilians. The notion that American bombs are safer and more precise than Russia’s has no evidentiary basis, nor does any suggestion that the troops the U.S. military is fighting alongside are less violent than Russian or Syrian authorities. In fact, the troops fighting alongside the U.S. in Iraq are more or less aligned with those attempting to liberate parts of Syria from terrorist groups, anyway. This demonstrates America’s completely bipolar approach to the Middle East given the U.S. has consistently opposed advances made by these troops in Syria.
In a press briefing, the Pentagon’s Baghdad-based spokesperson, Colonel John Dorrian, admitted that American troops on the front lines have come under fire in Iraq. The Trump administration, with full knowledge of this, is nonetheless reportedly considering a “long-term commitment” to Iraq.
According to a report compiled by a think tank founded by alleged war criminal Tony Blair, at least 65,000 fighters “share key parts of the ideology of ISIS, with 15 of its rivals ready to take its place if it is defeated.”
No matter what the U.S. does in Syria and Iraq regarding combating terror groups, there will always be another group just as deadly and willing to replace its predecessor. The U.S. has clearly used this dynamic their advantage as these terror groups consistently give the American military a cause to intervene, which can provide a smokescreen for the real motives behind the war.
Currently, it is possible that the push to move ISIS out of Mosul is actually an attempt to drive ISIS back into Syria so they can put added pressure on the Syrian regime.
That’s something worth looking forward to.
The post U.S. Backed Siege of Mosul Shows How Hypocritical Media Manipulates Us appeared first on We Are Change.
|VIDEO: What Will Happen With The U.S. Federal Reserve Under Donald Trump?
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 10:43 AM PST
In this video Luke Rudkowski interviews G. Edward Griffin, the legendary scholar and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about the U.S. Federal Reserve under Donald Trump.
They discuss the future problems and solutions in dealing with the U.S. Federal Reserve System under President Donald J. Trump.
What do you think? Comment below and please share this video article!
To find out more about G. Edward Griffin go to: https://realityzone.com/
Visit our MAIN SITE for more breaking news: https://wearechange.org/
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out: https://wearechange.org/donate
We take BITCOIN too
The post VIDEO: What Will Happen With The U.S. Federal Reserve Under Donald Trump? appeared first on We Are Change.
|BREAKING: Police Officer Accidentally Discharges Weapon At Hollande Speech In France
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 10:18 AM PST
A police officer has accidentally opened fire at a speech of the French President Francois Hollande, the Associated Press reports.
“I hope that wasn’t serious,” Hollande said oblivious to the shots continuing with his speech at the unveiling of the LGV high-speed rail line.
It’s believed that the weapon’s safety was not on when a security services agent, located on a nearby rooftop, accidentally fired off a single shot heard in the below video. The bullet landed in the marquee in which Hollande was addressing the assembled crowd, according to Soud Ouest.
Conflicting reports say that two individuals were injured but note different people. Initial reports suggested the agent shot himself in the leg, although surfacing reports now seem to indicate a waiter and a member of the LGV maintenance crew may have received leg injuries, according to L’Express.
An investigation into the incident has been launched and a public prosecutor is expected to hold a press conference later on Tuesday, reports La Provence.
The post BREAKING: Police Officer Accidentally Discharges Weapon At Hollande Speech In France appeared first on We Are Change.
|Netanyahu: Trump, Israel At Odds Over Settlements
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 10:12 AM PST
Warns Likud Members There Was No ‘Understanding’ With Administration
Article via Antiwar
In a closed-door meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told the Likud leadership that US-Israel relations are a lot more complicated than anyone realizes, and that Israel and the Trump Administration remain at odds over the question of settlement expansion.
Many Israeli officials assumed Trump’s inauguration, and pledge to be the “most pro-Israel” president ever would allow settlement expansion with impunity. Multiple large Israeli expansion announcements after Trump took office only added to that perception.
Netanyahu, however, insisted that there has been no formal understanding reached with Trump on the settlements, and that while Trump’s desire to be “pro-Israel” gives him opportunities, it is important to recognize they are not limitless.
The meeting was said to involve a vocal debate about what Israel’s reaction should be, with several MPs saying they believed Trump would ultimately accept any position that Netanyahu publicly held, and that he should be trying to do more, both to expand the settlements and to end talk of a two-state solution.
This article first appeared on Antiwar.com and was authored by Jason Ditz.
|Abby Martin Exposes The Fake News About Russia
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 09:40 AM PST
After she was named as a reason Hillary Clinton lost the election, the Free Thought Project interviewed Abby Martin to set the record straight.
Article via True Activist
Jay Syrmopoulos, of The Free Thought Project, interviewed investigative reporter Abby Martin, the former host of the RT show Breaking the Set, which was featured in the fatally flawed DNI report on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, and asked her a few questions about the widely panned intelligence report, fake news and more.
The “Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” report, which amounted to nothing more than a speculative assessment, contained no actual evidence of Russian hacking, and was a clear attempt at propping up a dubious political agenda.
The report provided no conclusive evidence to support the oft-made claims of “Russia hacking the election,” and instead devoted a large section of the report to speculative claims about Russian motives and criticism of the Russian television station RT.
In particular, the report explicitly blamed the RT program, Breaking the Set, for undermining Americans’ confidence in US electoral processes. One major problem: the program wasn’t even on the air during the current presidential election cycle.
TFTP: With the publication of the anti-Trump dossier that was clearly unverified propaganda meant to intentionally undermine Trump, but published by Buzzfeed anyway, making it into the intelligence report on Russian election interference — on top of the already fallacious narrative about Breaking the Set influencing the election, despite not being on the air at that time — do you feel that that US intelligence community as a whole is politicized beyond the point of operating as fully functional intelligence agencies that provide non-politicized, untainted, intelligence to President Trump or are we off into uncharted territory in terms of the intel apparatus attempting to largely dictate public policy with highly politicized intelligence to the administration? Any other thoughts about the extremely speculative DNI report into “Russian election interference?”
Abby Martin: The Buzzfeed dossier was one of the most outrageous things printed during this entire election season. You’d better have substantial evidence in order to print a claim as crazy as Trump is compromised because Russia has Golden Shower sex tapes of him. Buzzfeed knew the report was likely fake, and published it anyway, telling people to ‘make up’ their own mind. This is a reprehensible way to conduct journalism, and Buzzfeed is no better than the ‘fake news’ it denounces.
The long awaited DNI report allegedly proving Russia’s role in US elections is audaciously baseless. Almost half of it was dedicated to bashing RT and the network’s coverage of valid issues like Wall Street and fracking. Half of the US population is living paycheck to paycheck, and there is mass suffering across the country. Simply covering inequality, protests and exploiting the devastating hypocrisy on behalf of the US Empire when it comes to human rights does not ‘undermine democracy’––in fact, it strengthens it. In order to have any sort of functioning self-governance, a citizenry needs to have unfettered access to a variety of opinions and information that impacts them.
The scariest part about the report is that it was essentially calling coverage of activist issues, environmentalism and third parties a danger to the US. It also singled out my former RT show Breaking the Set, which has been off the air for two years, as some sort of Kremlin entry point to subvert the US government by fomenting “radical discontent.”
In any reasonable world, with a true and honest fourth estate, such a report would be laughed out of the room. Unfortunately, many in the corporate press have vehemently defended the report, desperate to latch on to vestige of power that they will invariably lose now that the Clinton dynasty is crushed. It’s embarrassing that partisan journalists and Hillary lackeys all of the sudden are defending the same apparatus that got us into Vietnam, Iraq and other deadly wars on purposefully false intelligence.
I don’t think we’ve seen this much internal conflict inside the intelligence community since the the 1960s, where there was a series of high profile political assassinations and aggressive covert operations being carried out at home and abroad. The existing power structure has lined up against Trump, because of his unpredictability to puppet their agenda, and could go to some extreme lengths to correct and reassert itself.
Russia was just declared as the number one “national security threat” to America by politicians vying to escalate their new Cold War and desperate to de-legitimize Trump’s presidency, putting US-Russia relations at potentially its most dangerous moment. People must fight against this belligerent push for war.
TFTP: There is a large entrenched corporate oligarchy that has deep roots within the U.S. governmental bureaucracy, which is largely being brought to bear against Trump, a perceived outsider to the levers of powers, mainly as a means of delegitimizing his presidency and usurping his stated intention of rapprochement with Russia — what, or whom, do you see as the main drivers and interest groups coalescing behind this soft coup of sorts?
Abby Martin: The US is undoubtedly an oligarchy, to which Trump is no outsider. The cabinet he’s putting together is one of the richest gaggle of billionaires in history to be ruling over us peons––from mercenary Erik Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos, to Exxon Mobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson. There are just differing factions within the capitalist class, from neocons to neoliberals, that see Trump as a derailment to their plans and ‘common interests’ in Syria, Russia and beyond.
I think the establishment is mainly concerned about Trump because they know he will be a magnet for mass protests at home, and could bring the country to the brink of revolt like it was near the end of the Bush administration, before Obama’s hypnotic platitudes put everyone back to sleep.
It would be a mistake to assume Trump is going to defy a ruling class he is ultimately a part of when it comes to the Empire’s global chessboard. Already, he has stacked his cabinet with tons of anti-Muslim war-mongers who are itching to fuck with Iran, one of the world’s greatest tinderboxes. Trump’s ego could lead him anywhere in the world he feels would make him more popular among his base.
TFTP: There was a clear trickled down agenda enacted after a major post-election meeting of progressive elites with the Democratic Alliance, co-founded by Soros in 2005, with Media Matters then issuing a press release, and like clockwork numerous publications such as the Washington Post began running articles about “fake news.” Subsequently, President Obama even publicly claimed “fake news” a threat to our democracy during a speech in Berlin. In turn, Mark Zuckerberg announced a fact-checking regime, laughably using Politifact, Snopes and ABC news to fact-check and flag disputed stories — which would then result in disputed stories being given a lower algorithm ranking, thus not as often appearing in people’s newsfeeds. In essence, this is a way for the corporate oligarchy to attempt to regain control of the public informational narrative.
The corporate mainstream narrative of “fake news” had a creeping, but clear, drive to delegitimize alternative media outlets, such as us here at The Free Though Project, likely due to our reporting on U.S. hegemony/imperialism and topics like the contents of WikiLeaks’ releases of the DNC and Podesta emails during the election – while the mainstream media largely refused to do so.
Do you perceive the aforementioned events as separate and distinct from one another, or do you see a larger agenda being set into motion by a collusion of the power-elite regarding these attempts at regaining control over the informational gates of society?
Abby Martin: Those who hitched their wagons to Hillary want to blame the loss on everything and everyone but themselves. So of course “fake news” is a perfect target. But the attack on so-called “fake news” is really nothing more than an attack on non-corporate media. The neo-McCarthyist list propagated by Washington Post and elsewhere conflated several hard hitting legitimate news sites with random blogs to try to discredit alternative media as illegitimate.
It’s ridiculous to see the same media outlets that have been pushing disastrous economic and political policies for decades suddenly outraged about “fake news.” I don’t think anyone is buying it, either. The extreme distrust in corporate media outlets being at an all time low is why Trump did so well––their clear agenda against him just made people trust him more. Unfortunately, Trump as president means
TFTP: Also, I was curious if there was a heavy Russian state influence on reporting at RT in terms of how much censorship or suppression was there, and how much leeway journalists were provided in how they reported on events relating to Russia vs other global events?
Abby Martin: I worked for RT for three years, and although it was obvious who the network’s financier was, I was still able to pave a level of editorial freedom essentially unheard of at any other major media outlet. I was able to denounce Putin, as well as my own network’s coverage, and still maintain the prime time show for the next year. Despite the disagreements I had with management, I was never deterred from speaking my opinions on my show, and if I ever was I would have immediately quit. My personal experience at RT totally undermines the mainstream narrative that RT is nothing more than a Kremlin mouthpiece.
What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!
This article (Activist Abby Martin Exposes Fake News And The Oligarchy Behind It) by Jay Syrmopoulos is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and The Free Thought Project.
|Fifth Circuit Court Rules First Amendment Gives Citizens Right To Film Police
Posted: 28 Feb 2017 09:20 AM PST
The fifth circuit court has ruled in an 2-1 appeal that the first amendment gives citizens the right to film police and ensures they “are not abusing their power.”
Phillip Turner was arrested back in 2015 for filming the police and taking video of their police station in Fort Worth, Texas.
Previously, a federal judge had dismissed Turner’s allegations, expressing that the officers involved held “qualified immunity” because the right to film the police was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s position. However, the majority then went on to declare the First Amendment right to film the police within the fifth circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes – Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
In light of Turner’s case the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided earlier this month that “Filming the police contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy,” Justice Jacques Wiener wrote. “Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles.”
“Starting now we conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” the court said.
Turner, like many others in a growing trend, films the police on his YouTube channel “The Battousai,” posting a series of videos where he seeks to challenge police officers and police department policies videotaping their activities and responses in “first amendment audits.”
“There is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply,” The American Civil Liberties Union said.
While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on this topic. The appeals court went on to note the varying rulings on the right to film the police and the First Amendment:
The cops that detained Turner can now be sued on Fourth Amendment grounds. “The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances,” the court concluded.
So do yourselves and your fellow citizens a favor and download the ACLU’s Police Tape app or one of these dozen apps and begin videotaping the police and their actions and protect yourself from unlawful arrest or if you are brave enough run “first amendment audits” and if in that case check out these tips from the ACLU and know your rights!
The post Fifth Circuit Court Rules First Amendment Gives Citizens Right To Film Police appeared first on We Are Change.
|Pentagon Delivers Plan to Defeat ISIS to Trump
Posted: 27 Feb 2017 11:14 PM PST
Officials Say Proposal Would Lead to ‘Rapid Defeat’ of ISIS
Article via Antiwar
Full details of the plan have not been released yet, but the long-promised Pentagon proposal to escalate the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been delivered today, and is said to includes options for large deployments of additional troops to Syria, as well as increased targeting of ISIS the world over.
The plan for the Pentagon is to “rapidly” defeat ISIS, with the assumption that throwing more US troops at the situation will make it go faster. Officials at the Pentagon conceded this strategy might need to be further refined before implemented on the ground.
It is particularly noteworthy that we don’t really know any more about the plan today, beyond the talking points, than we did about it in recent weeks when officials started hyping its upcoming delivery, with the recommendations still apparently boiling down to straightforward additions of a number of combat troops.
With some 6,000 US troops already active in Iraq, the deployments are likely to be heavily focused on Syria, where the US is hoping to pick up the pace of the offensive against the ISIS capital city of Raqqa, which was announced last year and which still sees only a limited effort made to surround parts of the city.
President Trump has expressed interest since the election campaign in a plan that would rapidly lead to the outright defeat of ISIS, though as a practical matter officials concede that the ground deployments in Iraq are likely to last far beyond ISIS defeat at any rate.
While today’s reports on the plan made no mention of how it will involve US aid to other factions, previous reports have suggested that it will also involve a substantial increase in US aid to Syrian Kurdish faction, with some Kurdish officials claiming recently that they’ve been getting an increase in US aid since Trump took office.
This article first appeared on Antiwar.com and was authored by Jason Ditz.
|What is Happening to Julian Assange?
Posted: 27 Feb 2017 11:06 PM PST
Tensions between Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his asylum state are beginning to rise while the election results in Ecuador illustrate divided public opinion on the future of his asylum.
The future of the Wikileaks mogul might be determined along with the next president of Ecuador. Third place candidate, Cynthia Viteri was reported to say that she would “withdraw his asylum” if she won the presidency. However, since she lost in the first round, all eyes are now on the two remaining candidates in the runoff: Guillermo Lasso and Lenin Moreno.
This all comes after Assange claimed he would willfully agree to extradition to the United States if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency by Barack Obama before he left office. After Obama commuted her sentence, Assange reportedly stood by his word, but reiterated that since “it’s not going to be commuted [until May]… We can have many discussions to that point.”
We might have to wait until the runoff election results in April before we will know the future of Julian Assange, or May when Chelsea Manning is due to be released from prison. The current favored candidate to win, Lenin Moreno, was reported to say that he would continue Assange’s asylum under certain conditions, and Lasso offered Julian Assange an ultimatum of one month before he would have to leave the embassy if he wins the election.
Recent reports indicate that Moreno has a mixed opinion of the controversial publisher. On one hand, the candidate says that he was granted asylum because a “citizen of the world” was in danger. On the other hand, Moreno believes Assange should “reduce meddling in the policies of the nations we have friendly relations with… the way he meddled with the election campaign in the United States.”
During the heat of the U.S. presidential election, the government of Ecuador admitted to temporarily restricting Assange’s internet service to avoid him interfering too much in the election. Wikileaks was occasionally cited as a source during the presidential debates.
Assange himself might have to wait and see how things will work out in Ecuador before his fate will be determined. He is currently located at the embassy of Ecuador in London. It is conceivable that he could find a different country for asylum if Ecuador decides to remove his asylum, that he could eventually agree to terms of extradition back to the United States, or another scenario. In short, we will have to wait and see what is going to happen to Julian Assange.
|Media Silent As Trump Slashes National Debt By $12 Billion In First Month
Posted: 27 Feb 2017 09:09 PM PST
The Trump administration managed to decrease total US public debt by $12 billion in a month, while former President Obama increased it by $200 billion over that same period.
Article via True Activist
Despite the numerous controversies during his first month in office, President Trump successfully decreased the US total public debt by $12 billion within his first 30 days as president. Yet, as Trump pointed out in a series of tweets, few media outlets covered the significant debt decrease though they were more than happy to pounce on other recent stories casting the new president in a negative light.
Though some may take such statements from Trump as self-serving and not factually sound, the US Treasury Department has confirmed Trump’s claims. According to data released by the Treasury, the overall national debt on the day of Trump’s inauguration stood at $19.95 trillion and dropped to $19.93 trillion on February 21st. Then, between February 22nd and 23rd, the debt dropped even lower to $19.91 trillion.
Not only that, but Trump’s assertion that former President Barack Obama increased the national debt by $200 billion within his first month in office was also proven to be accurate by official government statistics. In Obama’s first month in office, the US national debt began at $10.62 trillion and jumped to $10.84. Over Obama’s presidency, the national debt soared by 86%, hitting a record high at $19.6 trillion.
Yet, the mainstream media’s ignorance of the national debt crisis is nothing new. The national debt has been and is so out of control that it threatens to bring down the entire national economy and completely obliterate the US dollar as a currency of value. Essentially, the Federal Reserve – through years of currency manipulation intended to enrich the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest – is forced to keep interest rates at near-zero, lest it unleash the true weight of the national debt upon the American public.
Davidson Stockman, the former director of the national budget under Reagan, recently summarized the situation:
Trump had promised on the campaign trail to reduce the US debt and to eliminate deficit spending. Last Wednesday, he again addressed this issue and pledged to end the wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money, saying “The finances of our country are a mess, but we’re going to clean them up. We won’t let your money be wasted anymore. We must do a lot more with less.”
What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!
This article (Trump Slashes Nat’l Debt By $12 Billion in First Month, Media Silence) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and True Activist.
The post Media Silent As Trump Slashes National Debt By $12 Billion In First Month appeared first on We Are Change.
|Do Not Fear, The Tax Revolution Is Here
Posted: 27 Feb 2017 06:45 PM PST
One year after it launched, the Tax Revolution Institute (TRI) — true to its name — is radically distinguishing itself from other organizations in the tax-reform space. TRI’s claim is that the fundamental problem with our tax system is not that it isn’t flat enough, fair enough, low enough, or simple enough — but the simple fact that the government does not have to earn our money.
Our tax system guarantees politicians an uninterrupted stream of revenue, regardless of whether it is spent honestly, wisely, or effectively. This, TRI claims, creates an environment of weak accountability and a lack of responsiveness to the impact of government spending on people’s lives.
The evidence surrounds us: millions of poorly educated children, tens of millions of Americans still living in poverty, contaminated water supplies, countless lives ruined by abusive IRS practices, and so much else.
Meanwhile, the public has the false impression that their responsibilities to each other are being met.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
The Tax Revolution Institute is asking the public a simple question:
What if the government had to earn our money?
In other words, what if individuals could redirect their tax dollars whenever they saw them spent wastefully, corruptly, or in ways that just don’t have a positive impact on people’s lives? What if Americans could maximize the good that government does by effectively voting with every tax dollar?
Many Americans have heard the expression “voluntary tax system.” Our politicians, the Internal Revenue Service, and even our tax code, insist that we currently have one. They are wrong, of course, but TRI is determined to make it so – to make the “voluntary” tax system truly voluntary.
“In a truly voluntary tax system, individuals would be able to send their tax dollars to wherever they can do the most good,” TRI Executive Director Dan Johnson says. “This could mean choosing not to fund corrupt state agencies, diverting money to charitable programs and nonprofits that outperform the government, or even directing money away from politicians’ pet projects and using it to meet the fundamental needs of local communities.”
TRI Communications Director Robin Koerner explains that the tax revolution is a human one, not a political one: “Making the ‘voluntary’ tax system voluntary improves accountability and democracy, but they are just the means — not the end. The ultimate purpose of making the government earn our money is to improve the wellbeing of the people, which is the only reason for taking their tax dollars in the first place.”
About the Tax Revolution Institute
The Tax Revolution Institute (TRI) is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) organization committed to researching and developing innovative, voluntary tax solutions to promote transparency, accountability, and integrity in the delivery of public services in the United States.
Through FOIA requests, briefings, testimonies, advocacy, research studies, white papers, and educational programs, TRI will expose and explain how the coerciveness of our current method of funding government lies at the root of some of its greatest flaws — such as waste, inefficiency, incompetence, corruption and even the complication of the tax code and its inhumane enforcement by the IRS.
This report prepared by Tax Revolution Institute.