Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
America's Shadow Class War |
Post Reply |
Author | |||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: October 14 2010 at 8:50am |
||||||
America´s Shadow Class War and the 2010 Elections. The Rich are Getting Richer.
by E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington - The 2010 election is turning into a class war. The wealthy and the powerful started it. This is a strange development. President Obama, after all, has been working overtime to save capitalism. Wall Street is doing just fine and the rich are getting richer again. The financial reform bill passed by Congress was moderate, not radical. Nonetheless, corporations and affluent individuals are pouring tens of millions of dollars into attack ads aimed almost exclusively at Democrats. One of the biggest political players, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accepts money from foreign sources. The chamber piously insists that none of the cash from abroad is going into its ad campaigns. But without full disclosure, there's no way of knowing if that's true or simply an accounting trick. And the chamber is just one of many groups engaged in an election-year spending spree. This extraordinary state of affairs was facilitated by the U.S. Supreme Court's scandalous Citizens United decision, which swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections. The Republicans' success in blocking legislation that would at least have required the big spenders to disclose the sources of their money means voters have to operate in the dark. The "logic" behind Citizens United is that third-party spending can't possibly be corrupting. The five-justice majority declared that "this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." You can decide what's more stunning about this statement, its naivete or its arrogance. If one side in the debate can overwhelm the political system with clandestine cash, which is what's now happening, is there any doubt that the side in question will buy itself a lot of influence? If that's not corruption, what exactly is it? And how can five justices, who purport not to be political, sweep aside what elected officials themselves long ago concluded on the subject and claim to know what will or will not "cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy"? Could anything undermine trust in the system more than secret contributions to shadowy groups spending the money on nasty ads? The good news is that the class war is bringing a certain clarity to politics. It is also another piece of evidence for the radicalism of the current brand of conservatism. This, in turn, is forcing Democrats to defend a proposition they have been committed to since the days of Franklin Roosevelt but are often too timid to proclaim: that government has a legitimate and necessary role in making economic rules to protect individuals from abuse. It has thus been both entertaining and educational to watch Republican Senate candidates in Connecticut, West Virginia, Alaska and Kentucky grapple with the impact of their bad-mouthing of minimum wage laws. Conservative academics have warred against the minimum wage ever since FDR declared the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 perhaps "the most far-reaching program, the most far-sighted program for the benefit of workers that has ever been adopted here or in any other country." These critics have never gained traction because most people think it's simple justice that those who work for a living be treated with a modicum of respect. Many voters who express skepticism about government in the abstract nonetheless favor laws that give a fighting chance to individuals with weaker bargaining positions in the marketplace. The minimum wage battle underscores the difference between 2010-style conservatism and the conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan. The 2010 right actually imagines a return to the times prior to the New Deal and Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal, the heady days before there were laws on wages and hours, environmental concerns and undue economic concentration. The country doesn't need this class war, and it is irrational in any case. Practically no one, least of all Obama, is questioning the basics of the market system or proposing anything more than somewhat tighter economic regulations -- after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression -- and rather modest tax increases on the wealthy. But even these steps are apparently too much for those financing all the television ads, which should lead voters to ask themselves: Who is paying for this? What do they really want? And who gave them the right to buy an election? |
|||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
|||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
LOL, Mahshadin you are drinking the kool aid! I have been in politics for many years, local as well as national and I can tell you the pot is calling the kettle black.
Dems are just angry that the Repubs finally got smart and are using the media and 527's to get the message out. The Chamber of Commerce is a red herring to try and get names of Conservative Suppporters so they can make and use an enemies list. Quit crying Dems and defend your bad policies. It is time to pay the piper. |
|||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
FluMom
Pot calling the kettle black (you are either confused or manipulated)
I too have been in and involved in Politics for some 30+ years working for both Republicans and Democrats. The problem I see with your party today is the (Your eiter with us or your the enemy) metality that is being pounded and pounded day after day week after week month after month. I do not belong to either and I hold views that would piss the right off and I also hold views that would piss the left off. Believe it or not one party does not have all the answers and as a matter of fact whenever our country leans to far in either direction it always ends in disaster (The Last 10 Years).
I posted that article not to bring attention to whining democrats but rather to the issue of Corps taking control of our elections and unlitimetely of Governemtn as a whole. Citizens United was a HUGE MISTAKE and it will if we all let it take our country apart piece by piece. This time its the dems next time it could very well be you. Allowing a piece of paper to control elections for the purpose of manipulation and profit will be our undoing as a nation.
Its Called Corporate Facism, and while you all are being manipulated to be afraid of brown people, and black people, and gay people, and muslim people, Socialists, and Marxists, and Maoists, or whatever our Country is quickly being taken from us all Right--Left---Red---Blue---Green---Whatever. And while everyone is conned into these false arguments by the use of Fear, Anger, and hatred the Corporate Fasicts are laughing all the way to their Bank.
The fight is not Left vs Right FluMom
The fight is actually Wallstreet vs Mainstreet, but SSHHHHH were not supposed to know that just keep being afraid, and if that doesnt work dont worry there will be a new group to hate next week.
This election to date
Corporate dollars 26 for every 1 spent by all others combined, including those villainous devilish despicable unions. Of course we knew this would happen, and now that it has will you understand why it is wrong or will you just bask in your temporary victory blinded by deception as your Country is slowly stolen from you. |
|||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
|||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
This is what it is about:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (a generous gift) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. -- Alexis de Tocqueville You are too worried about Left vs Right and you are correct they are all bad but it is the system we have and we must work with what we have. I say let the Repbulicans in and see if they can pull us out. We need to put Republicans in on Nov 2 and in 2012...let's see if they can get us out of this mess. If they can't vote them out and put others in. We have Term Limits it is called the VOTE! |
|||||||
edprof
V.I.P. Member Joined: October 16 2006 Status: Offline Points: 308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Good history lessons in here.
|
|||||||
Oftentimes the Lord helps those who help themselves.
|
|||||||
HappyHeart
V.I.P. Member Joined: July 11 2010 Status: Offline Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
'Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for any of this especially now. All local and federally funded stations should be terminated. Let those that enjoy those venues donate to keep them running... ' comment from article
----------------------------------------------------------
The damage done to America with the help of this man is simply breathtaking...This man is the devil reincarnate.
A link below shows 'video' of him admitting turning fellow JEWS into the SS, if you get bored watching the vid at least start from the 14 minute mark....... The other link is a great piece by David Horowitz.... He a major player in the New World Order movement that some on this site are afraid to even think about.....Take a good long look at this man, what he owns, what he says, and you will come to the inevitable conclusion that he wants to destroy us..... The plan is to crash the economy, devalue the dollar and pick the bones clean... Note, right click on the boxes in the muckety links to drill down... He is a funder of the defence of NAMBLA...nuff said? http://www.muckety.com/John-Podesta/8565.muckety http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProf... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fUyrzDyek http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/soros_obam... http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/george_sor... http://educate-yourself.org/cn/georgesorospostmod... http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/10/soros-schemi... Comment from article George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPRPosted by Warner Todd Huston Oct 18th 2010 at 12:32 pm in Featured Story, Fox News, Mainstream Media, NPR, Old media, Radio, journalism, media bias | 133401Comments(184)http%3A%2F%2Fbigjournalism.com%2Fwthuston%2F2010%2F10%2F18%2Fgeorge-soros-millions-buying-political-reporters-for-npr%2FGeorge+Soros%27+Millions+Buying+%27Political+Reporters%27+for+NPR2010-10-18+19%3A32%3A09Warner+Todd++Hustonhttp%3A%2F%2Fbigjournalism.com%2F%3Fp%3D133401 The left loves to go wild claiming that Rupert Murdoch, a famous conservative, owns a few news outlets. The left is also aghast that well known righty Roger Ailes guides Fox News. Ailes’s ideology makes of his network a compromised product, they claim. It’s all a travesty of “news,” and “proof” that those agencies are contaminated by right-wing ideology say lefty detractors. So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.” One will likely wait in vain, too. In fact, The New York Times doesn’t even mention the left-wing ideology of the foundation that is supplying $1.8 million to NPR so it can hire political reporters across the country. The left-wing Open Society Foundations is donating the large sum to NPR for a project being called “Impact of Government.” The project is planning to add at least 100 reporters across the country to cover local state house politics to fill the holes left by the firing of so many local reporters due to the contraction in the field of journalism over the last decade. One might look at this plan and imagine that it isn’t such a bad idea. If states have lost reporters ready to hold local politicians accountable why is it so bad for $1.8 million to be spent to fill that gap? But in the NYT piece one can see why this donation should raise eyebrows instead of making folks feel at ease that the plan is merely helping fill a reporting gap.
What exactly does “enterprise journalism” mean? This sure smacks of agenda journalism as opposed to mere reporting, doesn’t it? And even if that isn’t the intent, the rhetoric here is suspicious. But what makes this all even more suspicious is the source of the $1.8 million donation. The Open Society Foundations was founded by well-known anti-American George Soros. Yet, nowhere in the news is this made clear to readers. One might recall the hullabaloo that was raised when it was revealed that News Corp, owner of Fox News, had donated one million dollars to Republicans for this election cycle. It was the end of the world as far as the left was concerned. It was “proof” that Fox could not be trusted. Yet, here we have George Soros buying reporters for NPR, the same Soros who has an extremely left-wing agenda that he has been pushing on the world for decades. After all, if the assumption that conservatives owning Fox makes its news slanted, shouldn’t the same logic dictate that anything Soros owns reflects his ideology? Shouldn’t we assume that NPR’s new reporters will be left-wing hacks bought and paid for by one of the richest, most active, most extreme left-wing activists in the world? So what is the difference between a left-wing billionaire buying 100 reporters for NPR and Fox News being owned by conservative owners? Why has the Old Media establishment completely ignored the extremist agenda of the foundation making such a large donation to NPR? Why isn’t NPR to be suspected of being a left-wing mouthpiece now? The answer to this question can only be that the Old Media establishment is already bought and paid for by the far left and would never raise questions that might reflect badly on a left-wing agenda. Only conservatives need “outing” as far as the Old Media is concerned. That George Soros owns NPR like this? Well, that’s just a little secret between you and me. |
|||||||
HappyHeart
V.I.P. Member Joined: July 11 2010 Status: Offline Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
|
|||||||
HappyHeart
V.I.P. Member Joined: July 11 2010 Status: Offline Points: 42 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Obama Loses Media in Last-Ditch Smear CampaignAccuracy in MediaBy Roger Aronoff | October 14, 2010While the Times and Post simply pointed out that Obama’s charge was unsubstantiated and hypocritical, the partisans at MSNBC tried to pump some life into the allegation.
It is rare when The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Post and The New York Times all agree on something. But President Obama’s attack on the Chamber of Commerce—for supposedly spending “foreign money” on the campaign—caused all of them to cry foul. The Journal and IBD could be expected to treat Obama’s charges with skepticism. But when the Times and Post object, you know Obama is in trouble. And he now seems to recognize it. Observers agree that the Obama administration appears increasingly desperate and concerned about the outcome of the election, and is making unsubstantiated charges that have managed to offend conservative and liberal news organization alike. The latest move was to coordinate an attack claiming that the Chamber of Commerce was using “foreign money” to unfairly and perhaps illegally influence the election. No evidence of this sensational charge was presented. But according to White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” the Chamber of Commerce should have to prove it’s not true. The Chamber of Commerce says it receives about $100,000 a year in dues from foreign-owned corporations with American subsidiaries. They are spending between $50 and $75 million to try to elect people, mostly Republicans, who are pro-business. The Chamber, like many Americans, is concerned about the transformation of the American free enterprise system into a federal government-managed economy burdened with high taxes and debt. The charge, which originated with the leftist Center for American Progress (CAP), is that some of the money from foreign-based companies somehow spills into the Chamber’s general funds and they are used in the campaign ads. There are rules that govern such transactions, and they require that funds be accounted for in specific ways to avoid violating laws and Federal Election Commission rules. CAP did not offer any evidence that the Chamber of Commerce has violated any such laws. It is ironic that CAP, a George Soros-funded organization, would raise such a charge, since Soros makes money through foreign investments and currency manipulations. He was convicted of insider trading in France. The liberal media would usually jump on board with the Democrats and try turning a charge like this into a Republican scandal. But in this case, not only are they not biting, but they are ridiculing the Democrats for their desperate move. This exchange, for example, took place on CBS’s Face the Nation last Sunday with David Axelrod as the guest: BOB SCHIEFFER: Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn’t putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing—do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem here. What we’ve seen in part because of a loophole that the Supreme Court allowed earlier this year, we now see tens of millions of dollars being spent by the Chamber and a number of organizations some of which just cropped up. The “loophole,” the Citizens United case, does not lift the prohibition on foreign funding of U.S. elections. It only gives corporations the rights already enjoyed by labor unions friendly to the Obama Administration. The Washington Post, which strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in that case, was very critical of the Obama Administration. In an editorial this week, the Post argued that “the rhetoric about this development, from President Obama on down, is irresponsibly alarmist. And the popular understanding of how this mess arose—generated by the President and other Democrats and abetted in part by media reports—is ill-informed. The fundamental problem is not the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, although that reflected wrongheaded judicial activism. The real problem lies in a tax code that permits too much political activity to take place in secrecy.” Regarding the use of secret “foreign money” by the Chamber, the Post said, “The White House seems willing to stoke xenophobia without any evidence for its accusations.” The charge of “xenophobia” is usually reserved for conservatives upset about illegal foreign immigration. The New York Times also pushed back. They referred to Obama’s statement that “Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations…So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.” “But,” according to the Times, “a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.” “In fact,” said the Times, “the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle—where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself—than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.” The “Internet blog posting” was a reference to the charge originating with the Soros-funded CAP. The Times article continued on: “Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States. “In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service. “Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.” While the Times and Post simply pointed out that Obama’s charge was unsubstantiated and hypocritical, the partisans at MSNBC tried to pump some life into the allegation. Keith Olbermann, for example, had the editor of CAP’s “Think Progress” blog, Faiz Shakir, on his show to repeat the charge and suggest there is some reason to believe it is true. But the performance fell flat. Shakir is the original source of the dubious charge and provides talking points on a regular basis for MSNBC personalities. The use of Shakir as some kind of “expert” could be considered payback to White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, who has praised Olbermann and his MSNBC side kick, Rachel Maddow, as personalities who “keep our government honest” and promote “progressive values.” Burton said that Obama “thinks that those folks provide an invaluable service.” It seems that no charge against the Republicans or their allies is ridiculous enough to be treated with skepticism by the Olbermann/Maddow crew. This is why they are considered valuable by the increasingly desperate Obama Administration. In addition to the news organizations which dismissed the charge, others took a look and found it wanting. FactCheck.org analyzed the charge and concluded that “Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.” Kevin Ganster of ChamberPost.com did an excellent job of documenting the various articles exposing the crude allegations and tactics of the Administration in going after the Chamber. Since there is no evidence for the charge, one must conclude that Obama regards Olbermann and Maddow as his “pets,” in the same way that Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid said that he considers Democratic senatorial candidate Chris Coons of Delaware to be his “pet.” But Olbermann and Maddow are pets with bark but no bite. Plus, they are still trying to figure out how to draw Fox News-size audiences. Since Obama is raising the charge of foreign money in U.S. elections, it is helpful to review what we know with certainty about the subject. Ken Timmerman previously documented that the Obama presidential campaign received more than $200 million that were from unidentified sources, including some from foreign sources, some of which they ultimately gave back when caught red handed. Even the Washington Post took note at the time, reporting that “Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.” With Obama’s charge of foreign money petering out, Peter Baker of the Times has authored a piece, “Education of a President,” in which Obama’s desperation about the election appears to be evolving into resignation, and that there might be a path forward after the midterm elections. “Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections,” wrote Baker in his 8,000-plus word article. “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he said, ‘either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.’” It’s not clear that Obama has found a winning strategy, calling opponents who just might be moving into a position of power in Congress “bomb throwers.” It is also a bad use of language, coming from somebody who used to associate with people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who planted real bombs. The continuing attacks on Republicans may suggest that Obama is counting on a lame duck session after the November elections, during which his party still exercises control of Congress, to pass liberal legislation that has been stalled. But the stalling hasn’t just been by Republicans. The issue of what to do about the extension of the Bush tax cuts was deferred by Democrats running Congress. No budget bill was passed. No decision was made on where to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. No congressional ethics trials were held before the election in connection with the corruption charges against Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. With the Times article about his “education” being the latest example Obama has seized the stage in recent weeks, bobbing and weaving as he makes charges and then recoils from them, as if he is resigned to losing many of his progressive allies in Congress on November 2. It seems that George Soros is resigned to the likely outcome. He recently announced that after contributing so much in recent elections, he is planning to sit this one out, because, as he said, he’s not in a position to stop the Republicans from winning control over one or both houses of Congress. “I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche,” he said according to a report in the New York Times. The Times article about Obama working with Republicans is the latest twist, undoubtedly a realization that if the media won’t accept his charges of tainted money, he may have lost the ally that counted the most. It will never be the same, no matter what happens on November 2. Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope." He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org |
|||||||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |