Posted on 08/06/2014 12:33:12 PM PDT by James Franklin
"In the October-November 2011 issue of Migration Policy Practice, the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) announced that in March it had ‘partnered’ with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An IOM/DHS workshop, held around the same time as the first ‘Morton Memo’, planned how to best facilitate a mass migration of illegal immigrants into the United States..." " On July 18, 2014, the IOM posted this article on their website clearly claiming credit for facilitating the crisis: 'IOM Stresses Need to Increase Assistance to Unaccompanied Children Traveling to the United States' excerpt - “The ability of transit countries to deal with the situation is strained, and once in the U.S., the government’s capacity to properly receive and assist child migrants is equally stretched. IOM, through its presence in all countries in the region, has considerable experience addressing these challenges. - IOM also works with migrant children and families in shelters in transit countries and when returning home.”
This is not BS, I personally did the research and wrote this - see the full story at http://www.dontcomply.com/homeland-security-joined-un-migration-organization-triggered-border-crisis/
(Excerpt) Read more at dontcomply.com ...
I will not.
Two, this person is posting an excerpt from their own blog, when instead they could have posted the entire thing without requiring FReepers to go to the blogsite to read it in its entirety. Most probably to generate hits on the blogsite in question.
Not what FR is all about. We do not exist to generate hits to someone's personal sites.
Too right, humble! :)
Jim, could you please clarify for us?
Excerpts are acceptable when they point to a valid news source, that way the original site can still garner the hits it needs by presenting the original article in the first place.
Not when someone is excerpting their own material. Then THEY are the only ones who would object to not having their original material posted here.
If they would not want their material posted here, then why are they posting excerpts from it?
Read My previous posts for “clarity”.
Why.. we might as well start paying people for vanity threads.
It’s the New Media.
ICE and US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have become possibly the world’s largest human trafficking organization, using buses and commercial airlines to openly transport illegal aliens all over the United States; even as far away as Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands.
As far back as 2011 independent media and watchdog groups were issuing warnings about the reckless dereliction of duty by ICE that would result in a major crisis.
6/15/12 DHS Secretary Napolitano issues memo instructing DHS to refrain from deporting illegal aliens up to the age of 30 thereby circumventing congress by administratively enacting the “DREAM Act”
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) highlighted the Morton Memos, issued by ICE Director John Morton, beginning in March 2011. These memos ordered changes in policy ensuring that ICE and CBP would be unable to perform according to their mandates.
In the October-November 2011 issue of Migration Policy Practice, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) announced that in March it had ‘partnered’ with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
An IOM/DHS workshop, held around the same time as the first ‘Morton Memo’, planned how to best facilitate a mass migration of illegal immigrants into the United States, or as the IOM summarized it:
“examined the balance between the need for agile and compassionate responses by immigration systems and the need to preserve the integrity of those systems. Among the key themes raised there were the importance of preparedness and pre-established immigration policies that can be quickly implemented as soon as an emergency occurs; the establishment of mechanisms for quickly identifying individuals in need of international protection; and the critical value of coordination for both the immediate and longer term migration response.”
On July 18, 2014, the IOM posted this article on their website clearly claiming credit for facilitating the crisis:
IOM Stresses Need to Increase Assistance to Unaccompanied Children Traveling to the United States
excerpt - “The ability of transit countries to deal with the situation is strained, and once in the U.S., the government’s capacity to properly receive and assist child migrants is equally stretched.
IOM, through its presence in all countries in the region, has considerable experience addressing these challenges. Through information campaigns, IOM warns parents of the dangers of sending their children north with smugglers. IOM also works with migrant children and families in shelters in transit countries and when returning home.” (emphasis mine)❝
DHS and IOM didn’t discuss maintaining border integrity or preventing illegal immigration because the IOM is a UN agency with the singular mission of facilitating ‘migration’ with no regard for national sovereignty.
Since this ‘partnership’ was unaccompanied by press releases, it passed unnoticed by the media and the American People. So, in December of 2011 when Government Security News filed a report stating that DHS Secretary Napolitano had “directed ICE to develop a national-level mass migration plan” only a few independent media outlets even bothered mentioning it.
That announcement would be echoed in January 2014, when ICE posted a request on FedBizOpps.gov for Planning, Briefing, and Reporting Anlaysis for Emergency Response and Mass Migration Support only months before the historic influx of illegal immigrants into Texas.
The requests included:
There’s something distinctly Orwellian about the Obama regime’s exclusive use of the word ‘stakeholders’ instead of adjectives like citizen or state, except of course in public speeches intended for proletarians. Used in this way, the word reeks of the ‘reverse fascism’ or ‘inverted totalitarianism’ that Obama so wholly embodies. [click the picture for link]
“Assist in coordination and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders to facilitate a “Whole Community” approach to comprehensive emergency preparedness facilitating the alignment of leadership guidance, organizational requirements, and equities.”
“Provide support for program/project management, operations, coordination, planning, and policy support regarding all-hazard emergency/crisis management, preparedness, continuity of operations, and enterprise resilience before, during and after natural/man made and or technological incidents or events.”
The request was posted on January 21st, 2014 with a response date of February 14th.
In hindsight, the posting contained some very ominous indicators disguised by it’s mundane language. For one, the limited response time certainly gives the request a sense of urgency.
Keywords like ‘preparedness’ and ‘all-hazard emergency/crisis’ are strikingly similar to our news headlines now as we enter the third month of the officially recognized Border Crisis.
Support was sought for ‘enterprise resilience’ bringing to mind widespread looting or even economic collapse “before, during and after natural/man made and or technological incidents or events”
Eerily, it was these three elements that created the Border Crisis.
Reports of numerous pandemic causing diseases have not slowed the regime’s efforts to accommodate anyone willing to violate our border. Central and South American newspapers have for months reported that ‘children’ and families will not be turned away but instead will be eligible to vote and receive welfare. Once again, a statistically unlikely computer glitch has conveniently provided the regime with a form of plausible deniability, just like with Obamacare.
Over the past year, as independent journalists monitored the FedBizOpps site to keep track of the record stockpiling of ammunition and other suspicious acquisitions by the Federal Government, several requests by FEMA in August 2013 raised red flags signaling the government’s preparation for some unknown, imminent emergency.
Requests from FEMA were put out for an indefinite supply of freeze-dried food, bottled water for up to four years, cutlery kits, beverage dispensers “capable of holding hot or cold beverages,” paper towel dispensers, assorted tea bags, hot chocolate mix, drink/punch mix, lemonade mix, and assorted fruit juice in bottles.
One of the many ‘shelters’ that the US Federal Government has considered for housing ‘Dreamers’.
Also in August 2013, FEMA requested (using all caps) “CLOTHING COMMODITIES”, stating that “CONTRACTORS MUST DEMONSTRATE CAPACITY TO DELIVER AT LEAST 50,000 ITEMS WITHIN 48 HOURS. CONTRACTORS WITH HIGHER CAPACITY MAY RECEIVE GREATER CONSIDERATION.”
That same month a request was made for emergency shelters, and shelter cleaning kits. Then in February 2014 came a request for 150 manufactured homes per week that could be deployed to any state in the country with the potential to become permanent housing.
Additional orders for Bulk Hygiene Kits, Waste Removal Services and “Evacuation Planning and Operational Support for Motor Coaches” left little room for speculation. The government seemed to know for certain that something terrible was coming.
(full story here) These preparations finally made sense this summer when an unprecedented number of illegal immigrants started flooding across the border and the Federal Government gave them refuge instead of turning them back.
Why would the US Government partner with the United Nations in order to create an immigration emergency that’s predicted to cause an ‘overwhelming public health crisis’ and may possibly be the last nail in the coffin for our domestic economy?"
Is it only that the NYT is a deep pocket and can fight it? Is it that the NYT is "for profit" pay-per-view and the entrepreneur has not quite reached that status yet? Is there some other distinction between the so-called majors and minors that the majors get a pass on posting content but the minors do not?
What am I missing that the rules are different for the small guy?
-PJ
See My last post. If he does not like it, he can request that the entire thread be pulled.
You mean like the 5% are already paying for the other 95% to keep this site alive?
We might have to go to a two-tiered approach at the very least. Those who actually contribute, in whatever small amount they can, can continue on as usual. Those who do not, will see banner ads and popups to help maintain this site.
Hate to say it, but the tooth-grinding experience of watching the FReepathons drag on while the 95% do nothing and continue to abuse Jim and John's efforts is really annoying.
His Wordpress blog is seen only by the perverts who log in after him at the library.
His material posted here reaches millions. What is his goal?
Numerically, he's got 'way more exposure here. But no hits.
Hmmmm.
Is there some other distinction between the so-called majors and minors
It varies. Mostly literacy.
Sometimes accountability. The MSM may lie, but they risk lawsuits.
A homeless itchy blogger at a library computer runs no such risk.
Itchy can post any garbage he sees fit with nary a care.
I’m sorry that you misunderstand the issue.
I think it's deep pockets. You don't go after the NYT or WaPo to post their whole content because you know it's futile. They are big corporations.
Plus, and more importantly, it's not the original authors who are employed by the news organization who are posting the content, it's Joe Public posting someone else's intellectual property.
In the case of a blogger, it is their own content. So, if a reporter from the NYT posts an excerpted piece from his own article here, shouldn't he also be expected to post the full content because he's the author of the content?
Or maybe the NYT is the owner of the content even though someone was paid by them to author it, so the owner gets to call the shots?
But then the blogger is also the owner of his own content, but he doesn't get the same "rights" as the owner of the NYT or WaPo?
It's so confusing...
-PJ
You really do not see the cognitive dissonance presented by a thread originator posting only an excerpt from their own blog but unwilling to post the entire thing? Really?
Newssites post articles in order to get hits on their websites, and they are within their rights to ask us not to post the entire articles here so that they can continue in business
Someone's personal blog is their personal opinion only, and FR is not meant to be an advertising platform for anyone's suggestions, opinions, random thoughts, or pontifications in general. That is why they write to their personal blogs.
FR is no-one's personal blog -however, if you feel your blog has merit and it bears scrutiny from the FReepers that make up this site, you can certainly attempt to post it here and see if the majority of FReepers agree with you.
Posting excerpts in order to generate hits to your own personal site is NOT acceptable. FR is not in the business of promoting ads for anyone who only wants to call attention to themselves.
Is it?
Does the blogger have a story development team, or an editor, or any assets at risk?
Or did he just see something online and re-write it?
And expect to be paid for it?
No. We don't "go after" anyone. The NY Slimes or the Wash ComPost does not want their articles posted in their entirety; that's fully within their rights. We try to excerpt for situations such as that so they can keep track of what readers find interesting.
Freepers will treat you much more kindly if you heed this advice.
by Admin Moderator
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2776537/posts
- - - - -
I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.
by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552
bump
No. In the case of a blogger, see My previous post on the matter. In the case of a reporter or reporterette from a major publication, their articles are the properties of their respective employers, and as such can not be posted on other sites or in other publications without their express consent. Good luck with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.