Introduction to Politics

Newt Gingrich 4 - A Racist & Liar

2012-01-25T14:27:00.000-08:00

1. Newt Gingrich is a compulsive liar...

Newt is the sort who continually lies when the truth would work better. Now these aren’t big lies, and most are inconsequential. Meaningless really. But it says something about Newt, the man. It goes to character. It speaks to why Newt can spend his entire political career supporting socialist ideas, standing with socialists like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and many more. It’s how he can support their agenda, at the exact time Conservatives are trying to stop it, and then look you right in the eye and claim he just wanted to be part of the conversation.

Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained

One of the biggest cons Newt is pulling, is his on going effort to make people think he doesn’t support pretty much everything included in ObamaCare.

Newt constantly says he doesn’t support the individual mandate “in ObamaCare” and this is the truth. Newt does not support the individual mandatein ObamaCare but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the individual mandate!

This is how smart Newt is. And make no mistake, Newt is highly intelligent. Newt knows that he can ramble on and on about the individual mandate in ObamaCare and only the most observant, only those who actually know Newt’s real position on the matter will call BS. The average voter just hears Newt is opposed to individual mandates, and moves on.

Worse than that, after hearing Newt doesn’t support the individual mandate [in ObamaCare] when presented with the facts that Newt actually DOES support individual mandates, as long as it’s in HIS plan, victims of Newt’s con get angry, and will often call you a liar. Or they go into a long explanation telling you that Newt gave a long explanation about it all.

Newt can talk longer, and say less, than anyone in politics today.

Even when shown video proof of Newt supporting individual mandates on many occasions, including as late as May of this year, victims of Newt’s con will tell you that you are wrong.
That’s how good Newt is, and why he must never be allowed back in elected office.

Newt absolutely supports individual mandates. Newt teamed up with Hillary Clinton back in 2005, not only pushing for government mandated health insurance, but showering Hillary with praise in the process.

Now I think Newt is a true believer, just as he is in the man-made global warming hoax. That said, the $37 million he has been paid by various drug and insurance companies, all with a keen interest in seeing mandated health care insurance become law, wasn’t for “history lessons!”

This following is yet another example of a position change WITHOUT any external pressure, i.e. another lie...

Gingrich the professor was a strong advocate for scientific research. Gingrich the presidential hopeful? Not so much.

In a November 2000 forum on policy in Science, Gingrich advocated for more government investment in scientific research and technology. In his essay, he specifically highlighted the need to allocate more money for climate research to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He lamented that NOAA is "so strapped for money" that it could barely keep its basic programs running, let alone make major new investments in cutting-edge research.

This sentiment sets Gingrich apart from the current batch of Republicans in Congress, who have long been after NOAA and made the agency's climate work their prime target.

FROM: Newt Gingrich 3 - Individual Mandate Hypocrisy and Ethics Violations

Extract:

(c) Freddie Mac required action within it's specified "timeframes and will include such other information related to the Services as Freddie Mac may request." i.e. You gotta tell us whatever we want to know (that's what the contract says!)

Another outright lie...

From Newt.Org.

Romney's False Attack: Newt was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac.

The Truth: Newt has never engaged in lobbying, period. Newt made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives.

At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

What Mitt Romney said was (extract from here)...

Mitt Romney says Gingrich was a consultant (approx 15 seconds into the video on this link). Look at the information above... it's obvious the part about being a "historian" is an outright lie. Newt replies, "I offered strategic advice" and then goes on a rant to confuse his voters so they could think he's right.

Mitt said Gingrich was a CONSULTANT. What Newt did was re-frame (or rephrase) it so that he would technically be speaking the truth (i.e. he was hired as a consultant NOT as lobbyist)

Here is an extract from Newt Gingrich's contract...

Notice that Corporate interests(i.e. Freddie Mac) come before the people (unless a waiver is given!) [Click Here To Read More]

2. Obvious Racism...

Can you imagine how this would play against Obama in the General Election? (even the Republican party has moved away from racism, generally speaking, Newt Gingrich is digging a hole for himself in the General election (unless there are only 3-7 debates planned, then he might be able to get away with it). No matter what he will humiliate the Republican party further.

Newt Gingrich Janitor Idea Won't Solve Jobs Crisis

During Monday night's Republican debate in South Carolina, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich continued to promote his controversial strategy to fight both child poverty and the jobs crisis: New York City janitors who make "an absurd amount of money" should be fired and replaced by poor schoolchildren, he said.

"You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor," Gingrich said. "And those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket."

The idea captures Gingrich's spin on two popular right-wing economic claims: Union workers are overpaid and the poor simply need to work harder to improve their lives.

In South Carolina, Gingrich didn't define an "absurd amount of money," but earlier this month he said, incorrectly, that an entry-level janitor gets paid twice as much as an entry-level teacher. Not only do Gingrich's calculations assume janitors earn much more than they actually do, his theory is deeply flawed, and would likely harm impoverished communities, not help them, researchers say.

The top salary for a New York City public school cleaner -- who generally does the type of work that Gingrich imagines schoolchildren might do -- is $37,710, or $18.13 an hour, according to the Service Employees International Union, which represents all 5,000 janitors. Divided among 30 kids, that would be some $1,257 a year, or a little over $24 a week. Meanwhile, the starting salary for a first-year teacher with no advanced degree is $45,530, more than a cleaner.

It's true that some workers classified as janitors make a decent living (by New York City standards): Custodial engineers in the New York City public school system can earn a top salary of $114,000 a year, but they start around $56,000 a year, and they work as supervisors -- not "entry-level" janitors. Along with supervising other custodians, their job responsibilities include repairing heating and electrical equipment and inspecting buildings. The work requires a high school diploma, or equivalent, along with years of experience, according to the New York City Department of Education.

Either way, if any of those janitorial positions were filled by schoolchildren, labor experts point out, the U.S. would have one less decently paying job.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"Larry Wilmore cracks Newt Gingrich's code for inner city government subsidy recipients."

Previous Statement by Newt Gingrich:“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"Wyatt Cenac analyzes why it took Newt Gingrich so long to be condescending and dickish to African Americans."

Gingrich to black people: paychecks, not food aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Thursday he is willing to go before the NAACP and urge blacks to demand paychecks, not food stamps.

Gingrich told a town hall meeting at a senior center in Plymouth, N.H., that if the NAACP invites him to its annual convention this year, he'd go there and talk about "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

He also said he'd pitch a new Social Security program aimed at helping young people, particularly African-American males, who he said get the smallest return on Social Security.

Gingrich routinely lambasts President Barack Obama as the "best food stamp president in American history." He also has spoken previously about welcoming an invitation from the NAACP to speak and has been critical of GOP candidates who have not accepted such an invitation.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had no immediate comment on Gingrich's remarks. His campaign spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said the former Georgia congressman has often said the GOP needs to be inclusive of all Americans.

"He has said since he became a presidential candidate that any Republican should always accept an invitation to speak to the NAACP on any topic," Hammond said.

One response...

Why Won’t Black People Let Newt Gingrich Help Them?

Those are the white people, and the good ones (the good ones are the black people that Newt isn’t talking about. You know, the exceptions to the rule). Why the difference? You think it’s because of skin color, but it’s not. As Newt has explained, time and again, it’s because black people haven’t learned how to work. That sounds racist, but he’s not saying they can’t work, or don’t want to work, but that America (and more specifically, liberals) haven’t taught them how to work. Newt’s a historian, remember, and black people do have a history of disproportionate poverty and unemployment that white people don’t.

My fellow liberals attacked Newt Gingrich when he made a series of factual observations about black children, and the example their parents set for them. First, he sensibly recommended that 9-12 year-old children in “poor neighborhoods” (you know what that means, right? “Urban?”) should clean toilets so they would learn to “show up on Monday.”

Other Blog Posts in this series:

1. Newt Gingrich - Consistently Inconsistent (A Quick Introduction)

Sample extract:

1. Gingrich hasn't held statewide office since he was kicked out by his colleagues in 1998!

2. "Most talented politician of his generation" (compared to Bill Clinton!)

3. "He got 1.6 million from Freddie Mac"

2. Newt Gingrich 2 - Despicable?

Lesson:

Question to Ponder: Why is Newt Gingrich against negative adds? Ans: Because the truth will make him despicable to any moral being.

Gingrich ex-wife claims he sought 'open' relationship, candidate won't say 'anything negative': Marianne Gingrich, the former speaker's second wife, also alleged that her ex-husband conducted his affair "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Senator Bernie Sanders 1

2012-01-25T09:02:00.000-08:00

"We must stop this corporate takeover of American democracy" - By Sen. Bernie Sanders

(Image source)

------------------------------------------------

Sen. Sanders Reacts to Pres. Obama's State of the Union Address

Notes:

1. At 1 minute and 30 seconds: That chart should be ignored as the title is inaccurate (i.e. "Vulture Capitalism", used by Rick Perry to describe private equity, is being used by MSNBC for ALL business)

Here is a better chart by Bill Moyers:

"In recent years, the rich have seen their wealth grow dramatically while the poor and middle class have basically flatlined. It’s no accident, argue Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Winner-Take-All Politics. The infographic below, which draws from Hacker and Pierson’s book, explains how our politicians — on both sides of the isle — fell under the spell of corporate dollars and re-engineered our economic system to favor the wealthy. The dark green line shows the income trajectory for the top 1 percent since 1970, while the light green line shows the bottom 90 percent."...

------------------------------

2. At 2 minutes and 5 seconds: "Clearly in thier hearts and souls, Republicans are there to defend the wealthiest people in this country."

Background information to understand the above comment:

Overview of the Republicans(GOP) by The Colbert Report (backed by news sources)

Overview of "Socialism" by The Colbert Report (backed by news sources)

------------------------------

3. At 3 minutes: "We have to invest in our infrastructure"

IN 2003 "... and this is an economy that's improving! Id hate to see what would happen if our economy was sinking!"...

"You have told the American people that you support a trade policy which is selling them out." ---Rep. Bernard Sanders to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on 7/16/03.

Note: Alan Greenspan supported the idea that it doesn't matter where products are made (as "we have the highest standard of living in the world" -!) Implying that it's OK for jobs to migrate elsewhere....

Related blog posts:

Alan Greenspan, The IMF and The World Bank - Part 1

Alan Greenspan, The IMF and The World Bank - Part 2

... One of the agreements that allowed jobs to leave the country (Gingrich supported this bill) = NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

(Image source)

"If you look at job creation over the last 20 years in America, you'll notice that we haven't been able to create any jobs in what is called the "tradable sector" of the economy – those jobs that are subject to global competition. The jobs we've created have almost entirely been in industries like health care, government and construction, which are basically local industries shielded from global competition." Fareed Zakaria

Current situation...

"US jobs are still vanishing, as US productivity moves up. And the things we do produce, like fighter jets, are not what your average consumer buys at the store."

------------------------------

‎4. At 3 minutes 45 seconds: I get nervous when the President talks about working with Republicans "reforming entitlement programs", that means "cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid" (Note: He is referring to the GOP NOT True Republicanism.

Social Security has not added one penny to the deficit because it's funded by the payroll tax which has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus...

The Social Security con is being promoted through something called an "echo chamber"...

More about the Koch Brothers here

More about echo chambers here and here.

------------------------------

5. 4 minutes: "End these absurd corporate loopholes"

Extract: End Oil Tax Breaks Sen. Sanders pledged Tuesday to introduce legislation that would repeal federal tax breaks and subsidies to the enormously profitable fossil fuel industry, declaring at a Capitol Hill rally that "the most profitable corporations in the world do not need subsidies from the American people," International Business Times, andEnvironment & Energy reported. LINK, LINK

Sanders Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline:

"The president made the correct decision today in rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, and I will fight to ensure Congress does not overturn the decision.

1. Citizens don't want their property destroyed: "See the land owners and citizens of Nebraska as they voice thier concerns about the Trans Canada XL Pipeline which could affect the protected Sandhills and drinking water supply"

2.The Keystone Pipeline creates ONLY a few temporary jobs (i.e. it's a pipeline... how many people do you need to manage the pipes in your house? None): ‎"The State Department said in a report to Congress yesterday that the pipeline would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs during the two years needed to build the project, based on labor expenses TransCanada included in its application."

3. On Fracking...

Fracking DID cause ELEVEN earthquakes in Ohio last year

How fracking might have led to an Ohio earthquake

Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater

I once explained what a depression would be like here. The "stimulus" was badly mismanaged as shown here because of this.

Just so there is no misunderstanding of my position...

"The more money that is invested into a method that will choke us also sets up the next 'too big too fail' companies, since if we get too a point where we have to cut down on carbon release to survive then we have to bail out the companies or face another contraction [~~although~~ since effective government spending (stimulus) may be too difficult for the US, we may be better off letting them fail when we get to that point.]"

Solutions for the future:

The study conducted the Blue Green Alliance found that policies such as a renewable electricity mandate would provide steady demand for clean energy and put Americans to work building the components needed to make wind turbines, solar panels and other technologies. "There's no question that our big investment in clean energy can lead to the rebirth of American manufacturing," said David Foster, executive director of the alliance. States with the most potential for creating renewable manufacturing jobs include California with an estimated 95,616 jobs, Texas with 60,100 and Illinois with 56,579.

An example of expensive technology and cheap technology.

Ancient and old tech ignored in favor of inefficient new tech

Some ancient technology for a new age

More examples of cheap tech

Information from PBS NOW related to Oil Politics (all links contain videos and transcripts)

A Few Informational Links On Clean Energy

------------------------------

Honourable Mention...

(Image source)

Click Here to Watch the Full Video of Sen. Sanders' 8.5 Hour Filibuster

The Sanders Solution

Racing against an August deadline, the White House and congressional negotiators engaged in rhetorical fencing Wednesday but made no discernable progress on a debt-reduction deal. Meanwhile, more than 78,000 of you so far havesigned a letter by Sen. Bernie Sanders urging President Obama not to capitulate to Republican demands to exclude taxes from the discussion about deficit. "I am concerned about deficit reduction," Sanders said, "but we can do it in a way that does not attack programs that millions and millions of children, elderly, and working families are terribly dependent upon." He laid out several ideas.

1) Repeal Bush-era tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans. That would raise at least $700 billion over the next decade. When Bill Clinton was president, taxes were raised on the top 2 percent. What happened? More than 22 million jobs were created, and Clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. Sanders laid out six other ideas.

2) A 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires and billionaires would raise more than $383 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. A millionaire's surtax has the support of 81 percent of the American people according to NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

3) The U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income. During the last decade, the U.S. lost about 30 percent of its manufacturing jobs and over 50,000 factories have been shut down. If we ended the absurdity of providing tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, the Joint Tax Committee has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next ten years.

4) Ending tax breaks and subsidies for big oil and gas companies would reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, as I pointed out earlier, have paid absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a rebate from the IRS. That has got to stop.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

General Information:

This is what an Oligarchy/Plutarchy looks like...

(Image source - Note: The above image is NOT a complete list)

When so few, extremely rich people, are competing for attention from politicians they have to spend big (basic free market competition). This is the result...

Gretchen Morgenson on Industry Influence from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Moyers talks with Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter and columnist Gretchen Morgenson on how money and political clout enable industries to escape regulation and enrich executives at the top.

In short, corporate politicians are kinda like this...

(Image source)

Very few politicians are not serving special interests (i.e. they have a background that often doesn't allow empathy and understanding towards the middle class and the poor)...

(Image source)

Senator Bernie Sanders made a Top 10 list for those interested...

Top Ten Tax Avoiders

[Senator Bernie Sanders] BURLINGTON, Vt., March 27 - While hard working Americans fill out their income tax returns this tax season, General Electric and other giant profitable corporations are avoiding U.S. taxes altogether.

With Congress returning to Capitol Hill on Monday to debate steep spending cuts, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit.

Sanders renewed his call for shared sacrifice after it was reported that General Electric and other major corporations paid no U.S. taxes after posting huge profits. Sanders said it is grossly unfair for congressional Republicans to propose major cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants, the Social Security Administration, nutrition grants for pregnant low-income women and the Environmental Protection Agency while ignoring the reality that some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.

Sanders compiled a list of some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasuryhere.)

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice hereand The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127,here)

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)

Sanders has called for closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that would yield up to $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families.

"We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed," Sanders said, "but it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We've got to talk about shared sacrifice."

To understand corporations better you can watch the following documentary...

The Corporation (complete, chapters 1 to 23)...

Notes:

"Afghanistan A Senate amendment calls for an expedited turnover of military control to the Afghan government. The amendment has the bipartisan support of Sens. Sanders and Rand Paul, the Daily Kos blogged."

David Stockman Trashes Reaganomics, Bush Tax Cuts, And Hank "Incompetent, Reckless" Paulson

WASHINGTON, June 25 - Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) spoke out today against legislation that would overhaul the government's wiretapping powers and grant legal immunity to telephone companies that took part in President Bush's eavesdropping program without warrants.

Sen. Bernie Sanders Thursday applauded the decision by the United States and other oil-consuming countries to push down energy prices by releasing 60 million barrels of oil from government reserves.

"I voted against extending the Patriot Act today for the same reason I voted against enacting it in 2001: it gives the government far too much power to spy on innocent United States citizens and provides for very little oversight or disclosure. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a proposal to roll back tax breaks that benefit the largest oil companies. The White House said the country “cannot afford to maintain these wasteful subsidies.” Sen. Bernie Sanders voiced disappointment after the Senate vote. “I voted to end oil company subsidies because we have a $14 trillion national debt, because some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world don’t need tax breaks, because some oil companies pay no federal income taxes, and because we desperately need to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Congress cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle-class working families without asking the wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations for shared sacrifice.”

Newt Gingrich 3 - Individual Mandate Hypocrisy and Ethics Violations

2012-01-24T01:28:00.000-08:00

Newt For President in capsule form...

(Image source)

1. On Individual Mandates

2008 VIDEO SURFACES OF GINGRICH SUPPORTING HEALTH CARE MANDATE

“The third thing I think you have to do, which is for a conservative a little controversial, is I think you’ve got to require everybody to either have insurance or to post a bond,” Gingrich said in 2008 speaking at the Alegent Health Clinic in Nebraska. Read Alegent‘s press release from Gingrich’s 2008 visit

His present position...
video platform video management video solutions video player
Re-Frame Keyword = "Mandate" (video source)

2. On Freddie Mac and Ethics Violations (Which lead to Republicans forcing him out!)

Article: Gingrich Firm Releases Freddie Mac Contract

Newt Gingrich’s consulting firm yesterday released a copy of its 2006 contract with Freddie Mac (FMCC), which covers just one year of his multiple years of service and documents only $300,000 of the $1.6 million he received from the mortgage company.

From CNN:

Gingrich has not denied the $1.7 million amount that his firm reportedly received from Freddie, which was first reported by Bloomberg News. A person familiar with his work for the company told CNNMoney that the figure is "generally accurate."

The Retention Agreement from Freddie Mac is located here.

A few extracts (clauses 1b, 1c, 1d and 9b)...

Notes:

(b) Services have to be rendered to Freddie Mac based on "legal requirement"... the following is one of the laws congress has passed (notice how easy it would be to commit, what was previously fraud, within the law!)...

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy: "No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors."

(c) Freddie Mac required action within it's specified "timeframes and will include such other information related to the Services as Freddie Mac may request." i.e. You gotta tell us whatever we want to know (that's what the contract says!)

(d) "Confidentiality is of utmost importance."

Is saying anything more really necessary? If so...

Note:Corporate interests(i.e. Freddie Mac) come before the people (unless a waiver is given!)

With the above information in mind, now watch the following video...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Video source)

Notice:

1. Mitt Romney says Gingrich was a consultant (approx 15 seconds). Look at the information above... it's obvious the part about being a "historian" is an outright lie. Newt replies, "I offered strategic advice" and then goes on a rant to confuse his voters so they could think he's right.

2. Mitt Romney wasn't working for the Government and a Corporation at the same time (also called 'conflict of interest'... thus the Delaware law above).

3. When Romney says Gingrich was "influence peddling" he is absolutely correct (see extracts of contract above).

Some more evidence of hypocrisy (notice how easy it would be for Obama to beat him in a debate)...

From CNN:Gingrich's Ethics

House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed on Dec. 21 to accept the House ethics investigative subcommittee's finding that he should have sought legal advice on the propriety of using tax-deductible donations to fund two college courses that he taught. He also admitted to providing inaccurate information to the ethics committee in two instances.

Just one month later, on Jan. 21, the full House voted 395-28 to approve the House ethics committee's punishment of a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty. Though it allowed him to hold onto his powerful post, the outcome marked the first time a sitting speaker has been disciplined by the House

What Gingrich said back then...

"I was overconfident, and in some ways, naive. I did not seek personal gain, but my actions did not reflect creditably on the House. ...I accept responsibility for this, and I deeply regret it." -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dec. 21, 1996

General Information:

To get an idea of how this corporate lobbying in Washington works...

"Bill Moyers and former White House budget director David Stockman on how politics and high finance have turned our economy into a members-only private club."

Moyers & Company Show 102: On Crony Capitalism from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Look how easily the "liberals" are gonna tear him apart...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

(Video source)

An analogy for some context by Mitt Romney...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Part 2 of this series is here.]

Newt Gingrich 2 - Despicable?

2012-01-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

[Note: Part 1 is here.]

Question to Ponder: Why is Newt Gingrich against negative adds?

Gingrich ex-wife claims he sought 'open' relationship, candidate won't say 'anything negative'

Marianne Gingrich, the former speaker's second wife, also alleged that her ex-husband conducted his affair "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Above: Then and Now: Newt’s Conversion On What’s Acceptable In Presidential Politics

Newt Gingrich opened Thursday’s debate with a full-throated assault on CNN and the media for having dared ask about ugly allegations made by his divorced second wife.

To make an issue of his past personal failings was beneath the forum of a presidential debate, Gingrich roared at host John King.

It was a masterstroke of debate strategy, but there’s good reason that it’s still funny coming from a guy like Gingrich.

So we decided to put a little ‘then and now’ together: Newt back in 1998, on the warpath to impeach President Clinton, and now - with a recently developed aversion to the personal side of presidential politics.

Think about it... Gingrich, with his "in your face" hypocrisy vs. Obama...

(Source: Zakaria: Obama defends foreign policy record)

Romney would at least be competition for Obama, Newt would be slaughtered. (I can continue this article series for a while with Newt's record, while with Romney I've almost run out).

Some articles related to his electability (in the general election):

"Newt’s penchant for apocalyptic rhetoric, revolutionary slogans and promises to fundamentally rethink things tends to get him branded as an agent of bracing changes;"

The (Bad) Ideas Guy: Who Let Newt Gingrich Get Away With The GOP ‘Thinker’ Moniker?"

"PRESENTING: The 11 Craziest Ideas Newt Gingrich Has Ever Had"

To get an idea of the field day President Obama will have destroying Newt Gingrich in the General Election check out these comedians...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Above: ‎"Rick Perry suspends his presidential campaign and endorses Newt Gingrich, and the former House speaker's second ex-wife comes out about his request for an open marriage."

More...

‎"John Oliver reports from Charleston, SC, on how Newt Gingrich can use his second ex-wife's open-marriage bombshell to his advantage."

On Newt Gingrich's "Ideas"

GOP 2 - Ron Paul... The Grossly Under-Mentioned Candidate

2012-01-21T00:01:00.000-08:00

Notice how much people have to talk about Ron Paul to get him exposure (vs. the other politicians) and how much exposure he actually ends up getting for every 10,000 tweets compared to the others...

(Image source)

As the following article extract explains...

The clear winner in last night’s GOP debate was Texas Congressman Ron Paul. While ABC News and the not so mainstream media continue to black-out his message and campaign, his opponents are stepping forward and unanimously giving credit to Rep. Paul for being right all these years. Paul also rightly claimed the mantle of “the most consistent conservative” of the field of candidates. Ron Paul raised cheers from the crowd more than any other candidate when he uttered the statement, “When you need the government to protect you from yourself, you’re in trouble.”

The final confirmation of Ron Paul’s debate victory was when the event moderators insisted each candidate name one of their opponents and give an example of how he or she inspired or illicited admiration. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney both took that opportunity to tip their hat to Rep. Paul, while former Senator Santorum repeated a statement he’s made at previous debates. It starts out with, “While I don’t always agree with Congressman Paul…”, and concludes with Santorum giving Ron Paul credit for being consistently right on financial and economic issues. Texas Governor Perry gave Rep. Paul credit for educating him on the devastating Federal Reserve system in this country while Mitt Romney gave it up for Ron Paul’s diehard supporters.

You can see the candidates compliment Ron Paul at approximately 11 minutes into the following video...

When the corporate media allows the people to be heard, it's Ron Paul who tops the charts...

Twitter Results: Ron Paul Wins South Carolina GOP Debate...

Some "journalists" may not like Ron Paul but if the Anchor is allowed to speak freely with thier viewers (such as through Twitter), then there is a measurable effect... From Fox News Live...

South Carolina Debate - Ron Paul Highlights (full debate is further below)

At...

6 minutes and 50 seconds - Government came in with social security and medicare (in the 60's) and medicine expanded. [ This has sky-rocketed medical costs, biased research and put children's sanity at risk = Read "Education Part 1 - The Problem Of Psychiatric Drugs"]

14 minutes (SOPA)- "Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together and I think this is a good example" (For the first time every political facebook page all seemed to have the same message - NO to SOPA - The next day it went back to normal.)

18 minutes 50 seconds (On abortion funding through Federal Government) - "All fund are fungible... You need the Government out of that business or you'll always be arguing over who's paying what bills."

It is because of Ron Paul's rise (if you notice when the decision was made) that Obama announced a slimming down of the military.

Ron Paul is right, just watch what Obama has done in response to him....

1. On the Military "WASHINGTON – Top Pentagon officials stressed Thursday that even the shrinking military they envision under President Obama's new strategy will be strong enough to take on all comers, a view not shared by some leaders on Capitol Hill."

2. In reponse to Ron Paul's 'ending 5 departments'

Obama Seeks New Power to Merge Agencies, Pledges Some Action ‘With or Without Congress’

President Barack Obama wants more power to reorganize the executive branch, powers he says will only be used to make government more efficient.

“This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times,” Obama said at the White House Friday. “Let me be clear, I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service, and a leaner government.”

Finally... people who cant defend themselves (i.e. their views) use insults for Ron Paul such as "kooky"...

"70% Are With Me on Foreign Policy." Ron Paul

AND

A soldier's interview on CNN was cut short before he could speak on foreign policy and Ron Paul brought him back (this was a while ago - link to cut off interview can be found from the video's main page)...

Watch the Full CNN Southern Republican Debate in South Carolina: The Final Four

In short... the only reason Ron Paul is not leading the polls right now is because he is not getting the exposure that he deserves (see image above and the following video link)...

Even when the media does remember Ron Paul, it's only to reassure themselves that there's no need to remember Ron Paul

God Bless.

Relevant Links

Veterans for Ron Paul

The Case For Ron Paul 2012.

Ron Paul at the Huckabee Presidential Forum (With Transcript)

Ron Paul on Israel: Zionism is Based on Independence and Self-Reliance

Is Ron Paul Right on Israel?

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Rand Paul: Newt Gingrich Is Part of the Washington Establishment I Was Sent to Fight

Ron Paul’s Plan for Victory: Just Tell the Truth

Ron Paul: Allow Israel to Take Care of Herself

Ron Paul: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney Are Consistently Inconsistent

Ron Paul: The Banking Establishment Is in Panic Mode

Under Paul Presidency, Welfare Programs Safe for Those Already Dependent

Ron Paul On Jobs Plan - And Cutting 5 Departments/Cabinet Posts

Ron Paul: You Think They Attack Us Because We’re Free and Prosperous?

Ron Paul: Romney "Won't Stand Firm" on Conservative Principles

like former president (and five-star general) Dwight D. Eisenhower, he thinks the current military-industrial complex wields excessive influence on our politics and has become a self-perpetuating engine for counter-productive meddling abroad.

GOP 1 - The "war party"

2012-01-14T18:13:00.000-08:00

"Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." Ron Paul

[For more on Ron Paul's foreign policy positions read this blog post]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

‎"Thier main problem with Ron Paul... is because he won't pre-agree to start a war with Iran" - Jon Stewart

What is Jon Stewart talking about?

Well, as Ron Paul put it, "preposterous"...

Or as the Pentagon put it...

Pentagon says Iran concerned primarily with deterring an attack

The Iran question is often posed, as it was in last week's debate to Ron Paul, as a hypothetical. If Iran was proven to have a nuclear weapon what steps would be taken by the US to assure they did not attack Israel? The establishment media is skillful in the presentation and structure of the debate. The question assumes it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel from a strike by Iran. But more importantly it assumes that Iran has the ability and strategic desire to attack Israel.

This unclassified assessment of Iran's military capability by the US Department of Defense clearly states that "To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."

The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."

But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, "At present Iran's forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel."

Stated simply Iran wants to obtain the necessary weapons to defend itself in a bad neighborhood where it finds itself surrounded by a global superpower.

The hyping of the potential nuclear program in Iran is Washington's attempt to establish a pretext that would garner public support for a strike/destabilization campaign on Iran. The obvious goal would be regime change.

Or as another writer put it...

Ron Paul's rise has the War Party frothing at the mouth

Why is war pushed so much when even the Pentagon (see above) doesn't eblieve Iran is a direct threat to the United States?

Answer: Because war is a large part of the US economy (in terms of wealth and, if the draft is re-instituted while a war is going on then, in terms of employment as well)...

Tax Dollars At War...

Tax Dollars At War from Softbox on Vimeo.

War profiteers escalate their war on jobs...

How can Romney put his dog on his car roof for 12 hours? How can Newt Gingrich leave his sick wife for another woman? How can Rick Santorum say he would like to put Judges he disagrees with in jail...

Rick Santorum's New Hampshire Roadshow: Terrorist Judges, "Snookered" Reagan, and Fidel Castro

On the Ninth Circuit, a favorite punching bag for conservatives, Santorum said he supported its abolishment—"What the Congress creates, it can uncreate"—or at least tossing out its most liberal judges and replacing them with new ones. He acknowledged there might be some Constitutional problems with just firing the Ninth's judges. His solution: "Maybe we can create a court that puts them in Guam or something like that," a jab that earned him more than a few laughs.

Why so much insensitivity? Well, it kinda goes with the territory of most non-self-made millionaires or billionaires...

As economic inequality in the United States continues to increase, a new study offers some discouraging news for anyone expecting the rich to spontaneously help those who have less.

(A full explanation is here)

And... how do we find the person who is likely to have to most concern for citizens who are not super rich? ...

CNN's Kate Bolduan takes a look at GOP presidential contenders' pricey homes...

Notes:

Ron Paul is also the ONLY candidate to actually give his congressional pay AWAY!

"What is clear is that members of Congress are getting richer compared not only with the average American worker, but also with other very rich Americans.

"While the median net worth of members of Congress jumped 15 percent from 2004 to 2010, the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans remained essentially flat. For all Americans, median net worth dropped 8 percent, based on inflation-adjusted data from Moody’s Analytics.

Going back further, the median wealth of House members grew some two and a half times between 1984 and 2009 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the wealth of the average American family has actually declined slightly in that same time period, according to data cited by The Washington Post...."

(Image source)

Mainstream press sniggers at Ron Paul’s antiwar message

Not one of these people said a respectful word about the antiwar agenda of Ron Paul. And this is a demonstration of the moral wanting of the left. Occupy Wall Street has done very little to push the antiwar issue; and here comes a politician with populist charm raging against the Patriot Act and drones and saying Muslims are angry at us because we're bombing their countries, and the liberal Establishment won't go near him. For the same reason that the Republican Jewish Coalition didn't invite him to its forum: he is considered out of the mainstream on the Israel issue.

When this is actually a matter of life and death for some people. North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones went from a warmonger to a war-opposer during the Iraq war because of the condolence letters he was signing to soldiers' families. Again, this story is about the complete detachment of the Establishment from the true costs of a disastrous war. During Vietnam the privileged young were at risk of being dragged off to Vietnam and they occupied university presidents' offices. This time they don't care.

Whistling to set off a nuclear bomb (from a movie? I remember this scene) ...and getting solitary confinement (unusually harsh and nonsensical punicshment cause if that's possible we have a bigger problem than this one guy).

Rand Paul Calls Rick Santorum A War-Mongering Moderate

Rand said his father’s view has been distorted and explained that the real question on foreign policy isn’t about who won’t attack another country, but rather who will. And Santorum’s anti-Iran talk is downright dangerous, Rand said.

“Ron Paul does not want [Iran] to have a nuclear weapon, but the question is do you want someone who’s trigger happy to be your commander in chief?,” Rand said.

Santorum is “a little over-eager to drop bombs,” Rand said.

He’s also someone who never served in the military. Ron Paul served in the military, will use force against our enemies if it’s required and if Congress approves of it, but I’m a little concerned about someone who didn’t serve in the military like Santorum, who’s a little over-eager to bomb countries because I don’t think he’s maturely thinking through the process and the consequences of war.

Perspectives from the left (i.e. the peaceful majority)

After Jimmy Hoffa Jr. warms up the crowd at a Labor Day rally, the Tea Party and conservatives suddenly develop an allergic reaction to violent rhetoric...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The failure of gunboat diplomacy...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

On Job Creation...

First read about the GOP then watch these videos on Class Warfare (notice how the meaning of class warfare has been reveresed) and then notice just one thing... which side in the following video is for job creation and which side is for shedding jobs (i.e. like Romney's company 'Bain')...

When you have figured out the above there is just one more piece you need to understand why Ron Paul's plan of spending reduction will work as opposed to the other GOP candidates who will reduce spending in everything but war...

This is the clincher...

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Notes:

A. "We gotta start somewhere... that's a million dollars (that we could save) - in contrast to the 700 billion we could save to reduce the deficit from the rich and unfairly untaxed
B . From fox news: Dont tax the rich but 'broaden the tax base' - ignore/cover over the realty of the tax codes C. Taxing the majority (poor) instead of taxing the minority.
D. Heritage institute (Koch Brother funded) are trying to create the image of poor being wealthy cause they have normal second world amenities. (i.e. this will lower standard of living).
E. Demonizing (irresponsible animals) the part of society that is suffering from the excess and scamming of certain individuals on wall street etc.

The next post will contain more proof of the GOP's reverse class warfare.

Mitt Romney 2 - On Job Creation and his In-electability vs. Obama

2012-01-14T12:38:00.000-08:00

Economists tend to agree...

On Romney's Job Creation Record (click here to watch video)

In other words, while you can't fault Mitt Romney's company (as explained here) you can say with great certainty that he can't beat Obama on his "job creation record".

As Zakaria explains:

Now it is striking that this attack is coming in a Republican presidential primary. After all, what Romney did while at Bain Capital was classic capitalist “creative destruction.” He took over businesses and tried to make them more productive and efficient. To do so, he often had to shed jobs.

Republicans should be celebrating Romney’s prior work as an example of how the market functions – driving out inefficiency, generating productivity and creating a lean, mean capitalist machine.

The fact that Romney’s past has turned into a line of attack tells you that something has changed in America. Even in the Republican Party, there is a huge concern about what globalization and technological change are doing to the average, middle-class American. There is a sense that the system is not working for the median American worker.

Even Newt Gingrich knows that, as he proved that Romney is better at giving out pink slips that creating jobs, i.e. it may be a Democrat type attack BUT it's also TRUE.

A 'liberal' would define Mitt Romney's job like this...

"The amounts of money are so vast that it is truly a matter of time before the taxation of private equity is front and center of the public agenda,” said James E. Post, a Boston University professor who teaches business-government relations. “Increasingly, this world of private equity looks like a world of robber barons, and Romney comes out of that world."

As the following conversation shows, Newt attacks Romney on capitalism NOT job creation! (A Liberal attack!) ...

“Venture capitalism is taking risks,” Bolling said. “Bain Capital took risks on companies that likely may have failed had they–”

“Steve, wait a second, you don’t even know,” Gingrich interrupted, thinking it was host Steve Doocy talking. “You have no proof, they are a totally private firm, they have never explained what they did.”

“But that’s what they do– I’m no fan–”

“I don’t have any question about the general process of entrepreneurial conservatism,” Gingrich said. There are a series of cases that don’t look right. And I’m saying, for a guy to run for President, use his record as the basis for running, and then tell us we’re not allowed to ask about his record?”

Bolling tried to follow up with a series of interjections:

“Sir, let me follow that up–”
“But, but sir–”
“Mr. Speaker, let–”
…but Gingrich plowed through, with Bolling resigned to listening, before they eventually ran out of time on the segment and hurriedly cut to break.

Watch a clip of the exchange by clicking here.

So first Newt Gingrich calls himself a conservative then he uses a Liberal attack... as usual, Newt Gingrich is "Consistently In-Consistent".

Why did Newt Gingrich do that?

(Video from here)

It makes more sense for Newt Gingrich to attack Mitt Romney on the weird stuff...

[Note: He dragged his dog for 12 hours on his roof. Vs. Obama? He would be crushed.]

People keep cracking that Teleprompter joke about Obama, I got bad news for ya'll, Romney needs a Teleprompter, otherwise he begins to sounds kinda rude...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

"The key to avoid using a Teleprompter is to memorize the same speech patterns and repeat them over and over and over and over and over and over"

Finally, all Mitt Romney is doing is copying Obama, how is he going to beat him?

From Mitt Romney's facebook page...

My plan makes America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for innovators and for job creators. It says if Boeing wants to build in South Carolina, it can build in South Carolina.

Here is what Obama is saying...

The question remains... whay does Mitt Romney do so well? Answer: Because the Republican party is more traditional than many analysts realize. With John McCain's support, the "waiting in line" torch was passed on to Mitt Romney and so he is now the unofficial 'party head'.

Despite the tea party’s extraordinary energy over the past year, it looks like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will win his party’s nomination. At the end of the day, Republicans are following a familiar pattern: Nominating the mainstream candidate who has waited his turn. This is the party that’s had a Bush or a Dole on its ticket for 20 years. It’s a party that also had Richard Nixon on its presidential ticket for 20 years.

In other words, although Mitt Romney has no chance against Obama, it would be seen has disloyal to many NOT to follow the traditional line of the GOP...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Mitt Romney 1

2012-01-12T03:19:00.000-08:00

What is Mitt Romney's Platform?

A New Hampshire surrogate for Mitt Romney said at a local political event that it's evident he will be the Republican presidential nominee and suggested that "beliefs and principles" should not be the deciding factor for voters.

State Sen. Gary Lambert said the most important thing is to nominate somebody who can defeat President Obama.

"I don't get it. This is not about picking a favorite, it's not about picking someone you like," Lambert said. "It's not about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person who can beat Barack Obama, period." Read more.

In other words, the reason Mitt Romney is leading is because somehow, a large number of people, have become convinced that Mitt Romney could beat Barack Hussein Obama in the Presidential Elections. I hope this first post will make it clear that that's impossible.

Creating jobs is one of the big concerns of today's debate... does Mitt Romney have the credentials for country-wide job creation?

Mitt Romney says President Obama, Newt Gingrich and Gov. Rick Perry are putting free enterprise "on trial."...

As Fareed Zakaria explains: Romney’s real problem

Instead, a second line of attack has been gaining traction against Romney – that of Romney as job-killer or Romney as the private equity guy, who buys companies, hollows them out and outsources jobs.

Now it is striking that this attack is coming in a Republican presidential primary. After all, what Romney did while at Bain Capital was classic capitalist “creative destruction.” He took over businesses and tried to make them more productive and efficient. To do so, he often had to shed jobs.

Republicans should be celebrating Romney’s prior work as an example of how the market functions – driving out inefficiency, generating productivity and creating a lean, mean capitalist machine.

The keywords are, "lean, mean capitalist machine." In other words...

In the face of that seething rhetoric, Romney’s defense of his background in private equity has been approximately this: an attack on Bain is an attack on American free enterprise.
That’s a plausible enough line for a Republican primary — a contest fought among voters who basically trust the market economy. But Romney has grounded his whole campaign on the claim that he understands how to create jobs and spur investment. And now his Republican opponents are slashing away at that political identity, a task made easier by the fact that Romney has typically spoken about his business experience in only the vaguest of terms. Read more.

Some writers don't seem to get it...

You can blame Mitt Romney, but not for Bain Capital

Most important, Bain Capital is not now, nor has it ever been, some kind of Gordon Gekko-like, fire-breathing corporate raider that slashed and burned companies, immolating jobs wherever they appear in its path

The story of the private equity business is somewhat more complicated. Almost by definition, a private equity investment is made with the hope of improving the profitability of the “portfolio company,” as it is known in the parlance. Often, this means replacing management or reducing unnecessary headcount – firing people.

While no one likes seeing jobs disappear, eliminating unnecessary overhead and even entire divisions if they cannot be made sufficiently profitable is at the heart of a successful economy — the process Joseph Schumpeter famously described as “creative destruction.” How strange for conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Perry to be questioning the core of free market economics.

No one is saying that Bain was a job-killing dragon (except maybe Colbert below). We are just pointing out, accurately I might add, that laying claim to being a great or even good job creator is not something that Mitt Romney can do. At least not in the Presidential elections.

What's the clincher? Romney can't even prove the measly 100,000 "net jobs" he claims to have added over the years...

"Mitt Romney says he created 100,000 jobs while at Bain Capital. Anderson Cooper is Keeping Them Honest."

By Comparision...

From The Washington Post:

When we last looked at one of Romney’s claims about Obama’s job record, his campaign inflated the job-loss total by assigning the entire month of January — when 820,000 jobs were lost — to Obama’s term, even though he took office Jan. 20. We are pleased to see that the campaign no longer does this, and instead starts the count in February.

But is this fair? An additional 2.2 million jobs were lost in February, March and April, before much of Obama’s stimulus could take effect. (He signed it into law Feb. 18). The recession did not officially come to an end until June 2009. Since that point, 1.2 million jobs have been created — which is still pretty anemic, but it is not a negative number.

Romney also claims to have created more than 100,000 jobs as a business consultant.

Fehrnstrom says the 100,000 figure stems from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs).

This tally obviously does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved — and are based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain. (Indeed, Romney made his comments in response to a former employee of American Pad & Paper Co. who says he lost his job after Bain Capital took it private.)

As we have explored before, we can neither prove nor disprove Romney’s previous statement that “tens of thousands of jobs net-net were created.”

Notice how Romney is described about 2 minutes and 30 seconds into this video...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

As Stephen Colbert explains... 'he chops up companies' ... does that remind you of any movie?

... "Edward is a rich, ruthless businessman who specializes in taking over companies and then selling them off piece by piece."

Romney's plan thus far? Taxes are increased on the poor/middle-class and decreased on the wealthy...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Note: This is NOT class warfare. Class warfare is when you increase taxes on the wealthy and decrease it on the poor - This art is called "re-framing" which is public knowledge on how the GOP operates = click here for proof (requires lots of reading, video watching and courage though!(If your Republican)]

Ron Paul tells CNN's John King he's the only true consistent conservative in the race, not Romney, Santorum or Gingrich...

Enemies of The Constitution - An Overview [Domestic and Foreign Policy]

2011-12-31T05:48:00.000-08:00

This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people...

Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis (FULL)

The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran.

Video Notes:

1. You start abroad and then you bring this behavior home

2. "A look at a government in the shadows"... 'and where the government will take us if the people let it!'

3. A policy of lies got accidentally exposed!

4. 'Since our adversaries know about our covert operations the only ones fooled are the America people.'

[Continues with history of US that explains how despotism could establish itself in the US]

FIRST...
An example of a covert operation in the middle east that few in America know about... (till possibly now, with Ron Paul on his third run for President)

History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present (9 minutes)

Currently...

‎"The establishment beats the drums of war for Iran & silences those who dare question otherwise. One side is definitely crazy, but it's not who the spinmeisters in D.C. would have you believe."

AND

‎"At present Iran's forces are sufficient to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel." -US Dept. of Defense

BUT

War has become a very profitable enterprise...

SECOND...
A clip from Air America about CIA drug involvements (Starring Mel Gibson)

‎Info Links...

1. Opium is gone!... U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer. A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year. "We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies..

2. Opium is back!... "If international drug- and law-enforcement officials are right, the Taliban might be hiding up to $3.2 billion worth of opium inside Afghanistan, potentially causing huge complications for NATO's decision this month to attack Afghanistan's opium laboratories and smuggling networks.

3. The clincher! = "Throughout the forty years of the Cold War, the CIA joined with urban gangsters and rural warlords, many of them major drug dealers, to mount covert operations against communists around the globe. In one of history's accidents, the Iron Curtain fell along the border of the Asian opium zone, which stretches across 5,000 miles of mountains from Turkey to Thailand. In Burma during the 1950s, in Laos during the 1970s, and in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA allied with highland warlords to mobilize tribal armies against the Soviet Union and China.".

THIRD
Has this "messing with The Constitution" been brought home?...

1. From PBS = Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous - 1. Indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens, 2. Targeting U.S. citizens for killing, 3. Arresting witnesses for recording police actions, 4. Using GPS to track your every move, 5. Surveillance drones spying on American soil...

2. ‎Enemies of the Constitution: "Sheriff Richard Mack discusses the Oath Keepers, veterans and cops who swore an oath to disobey any order to disarm or detain American citizens."

"When the President can unilaterally decide you're no longer a citizen..." Judge Andrew Napolitano

Notes:

1. There are ‎"900 bases in 150 countries"

2. From The Economist: Indeed, the one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.

3. ‎"[W]e can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things." Wolfowitz, 2003.

4. Economics perspective: Manufacturing jobs have become more specialized requiring less labor and more technical expertise - i.e. small companies making big ticket items such as fighter jets; this means less people are employed, smaller number of people make huge profits and these huge profits make the economy look like its growing when actually its just a few companies making huge profits benefiting a small group of people. Senator Bernie Sanders also thinks sending manufacturing jobs abroad is bad economic policy.

5. Comedic perspective: Colbert Report: Solutions to America's Financial Worries - World War III

6. Millions of jobs vs hundreds, possibly thousands of jobs, created by small companies with big ticket items.

7. Article: 11 Ways That Amerika Is Becoming More Like North Korea .

8. Interview: Ben Lowy describes his photographic work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arresting people just because someone says so with any due process of law.

9. "The Pentagon needs to conduct a "serious inquiry" into the Air Force for letting a retired general turned Boeing executive participate in a war game for a $51 billion aerial tanker contract Boeing was competing to win, Sen. John McCain said Thursday in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta."

10. Remains of 274 Soldiers Dumped in Virginia Landfill - Fox News Video [Original article here.]

11. "They've taken all the heat they want to," Barr said. "They paid a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't work."

12. ‎"How do you break an internet? Easy. SOPA." Judge Andrew Napolitano

13. Comedic perspective: At last, the U.S. government brings swift justice to hardened criminals on YouTube.

14. Interview: Colbert Report: Stop Online Piracy Act - Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain.

15. Comedic and serious perspectives on "The Power of Corporate Money."

--------------------------------------------

‎"What if they ruled through fear? What if there was too much FEDGOV?" Judge Andrew Napolitano

Second Amash Letter Opposing Indefinite Detention of Americans Without Charge or Trial

Sanders Statement on Defense Authorization Bill:

"The bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined, I get concerned that my deficit-hawk friends say we've got to cut Social Security, Medicare, education, health care and other programs that help working families, but when it comes to defense spending the sky is the limit.

"This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."

Read in full here.

‎"You made an oath to protect the Constitution" Father Nathan Monk of the St. Benedictine Orthodox Church in Pensacola Florida

Newt Gingrich - Consistently Inconsistent (A Quick Introduction)

2011-12-31T02:14:00.000-08:00

"Do not be duped by the establishment GOP. Do not exchange your values and principles for electability...or we'll keep heading down the same path." Glenn Beck

Bill O'Reilly: Does Obama Want to Run Against Gingrich or Romney?

Fox News: New Criticism of Gingrich's Conservative Credentials

From video above:

1. Gingrich hasn't held statewide office since he was kicked out by his colleagues in 1998!

2. "Most talented politician of his generation" (compared to Bill Clinton!)

3. "He got 1.6 million from Freddie Mac"

New Ron Paul Ad Blasts Newt Gingrich for 'Serial Hypocrisy'

"The new Paul ad takes aim at a few of Newt’s more garish about-faces."

Forbes Magazine: Whether you disagree with Ron Paul or not, one thing is certain: it’s impossible to lay the mantle of hypocrite at his feet. The congressman from Texas has changed his mind about things over the course of his career – for instance, he once believed in the death penalty but no longer does – but they’ve changed out of a change in belief, not political expediency.

The same cannot be said for many of his GOP rivals. People often accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flopping for political gain, a true enough charge. But then why has the Republican Party turned to Newt Gingrich, a man whose own flip-flops are manifold and glaring?

(Indeed, why did the GOP turn its back on Herman Cain for his extramarital activities when Newt’s own are now famous?)

Compare: About Herman Cain... "If these allegations prove true, that means you are only one extramarital affair behind Newt Gingrich." -- Stephen Colbert.

AND

Behind the scenes of the attack add above = 1.Ron Paul: I'm Reluctantly Doing the Media's Job in Exposing Newt Gingrich - , and 2. Ron Paul: I Wish We Could Just Debate the Issues.

IRS lets Newt Gingrich go but he DOES have to foot the bill!

"Leading in the polls, Newt Gingrich finds himself fielding questions about an ethics violation investigation in the 90s."

More Information:

1. Quote: Nor are quotes like this one, spoken by Newt Gingrich on September 19, 2001: "If we don't use this as the moment to replace Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster." Vice President Dick Cheney certainly felt the same way.

2. In an interview with Fox News, Paul criticized former House speaker Newt Gingrich for his lack of military service and his aggressive militaristic tone, as CBS News reported. "He supports all of the wars in the Middle East, a thousand times more than I would, but you know in the 1960s when I was drafted in the military he got several deferments. He chose not to go. Now he will send our kids to war. But at that time he said that one person wouldn't make a difference. He didn't know how he could make a difference. So I see that as important information. People should know that. And it reflects on him," Paul told Fox News. Read more here.

3. Quote from Glenn Beck! : "If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter."

4. Note = One "Tea Party" Response to Glenn Beck

"It's very wrong to pull the race card on this side of the aisle," said Gina Loudon, an Alabama-based Tea Party activist and radio host who also helped found the St. Louis Tea Party.

Loudoun rejected that notion that racism is a factor, claiming many of Gingrich's newest supporters had been backing Herman Cain, who is black, before he suspended his campaign.

"So saying it's a race issue is positively disproven," Loudon said.

(Note: Supporting Herman Cain for a short period proves nothing.)

5. Comedic perspectives: Larry Wilmore analyzes Newt Gingrich's janitorial solution to America's poverty problem.

6. Comedic Perspectives = Newt Gingrich - Topic: Weirdness.

More later.

Why is the US so low on the corruption charts?

2011-12-05T12:16:00.000-08:00

[Note 11 Dec '11: The examples and explanations of corruption in the US continue at this link.]

On December 5th CNN reported: "The United States ranked 24th least corrupt on a "corruption perceptions index," the fifth-best in the Western Hemisphere. Canada ranked 10th, Barbados is 16th, the Bahamas is 21st and Chile is 22nd."

These charts are complied by the following organization...

From Transparency.Org

Transparency International, the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption, brings people together in a powerful worldwide coalition to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world.

TI’s mission is to create change towards a world free of corruption.

Transparency International challenges the inevitability of corruption, and offers hope to its victims. Since its founding in 1993, TI has played a lead role in improving the lives of millions around the world by building momentum for the anti-corruption movement. TI raises awareness and diminishes apathy and tolerance of corruption, and devises and implements practical actions to address it.

Transparency International is a global network including more than 90 locally established national chapters and chapters-in-formation. These bodies fight corruption in the national arena in a number of ways. They bring together relevant players from government, civil society, business and the media to promote transparency in elections, in public administration, in procurement and in business. TI’s global network of chapters and contacts also use advocacy campaigns to lobby governments to implement anti-corruption reforms.

Politically non-partisan, TI does not undertake investigations of alleged corruption or expose individual cases, but at times will work in coalition with organisations that do.

TI has the skills, tools, experience, expertise and broad participation to fight corruption on the ground, as well as through global and regional initiatives.

Now in its second decade, Transparency International is maturing, intensifying and diversifying its fight against corruption.

[Note that the TI does not undertake investigations of 'alleged' corruption, so I'm sticking with only a small sample set of mainstream sources.]

The following is some information that suggests that the US doesn't deserve the extremely high ranking it has on the Corruption charts/scales...

The structure of Obama's government;

(Image source)

[Note that the structure of Obama's government is relevant because of the scale of inefficiencies of several of his implemented plans (of which we know about so far, for example this video and this one. Also, Goldman sacks is the same company that lied to its investors and bet against them and the same ones that postponed dealing with the Greek Crisis).

Insider Trading in Congress;

Insider Trading is what Martha Stewart went to prison for! ...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

'Basically the banks were being lent money at no interest (by the government) and then the government was borrowing it back and giving interest!' What a sweet deal!

(Note: Bloomberg report referred to above is here... also note that Social Security is doing well so many politicians are constantly diverting it or its funds, explanation by Senator Bernie Sanders is here and part of the reason for the Social Security political nonsense is explained here.)

The uselessness of the EPA and lack of social justice;

Lack of transparency in some investigations;

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Previously immoral and illegal activities are being promoted and accepted among a large number of GOP supporters (read GOP candidates facebook posts on Iran);

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

More examples of corruption and influence being used in ways that corrupt:

Echo Chambers 1 and 2.

The GOP

Debt Ceiling debate

Political influence in the courts

The problem of prisons for profit and other weird shit (that has a very long historical precedent, you would know if you lived in the South... in the meantime, read 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'. I've actually seen the scene of arguing over scripture between a fanatic and normal person in real life, so the book is like living history to me!)

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy ["No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors."]

The Financial Crisis screams of corruption and some investigations have begun.

The only politician running for the Presidential election is Ron Paul... and he is the only one telling the whole truth. Full explanation is here.

Theories: 1. TI either doesn't like to read, Or 2. Compiles it charts using other peoples charts (an old cartographers trick), Or 3. Is controlled by someone or some group (or coalition of groups) that opposes the release of this information, Or 4. This is an effort to defame one side for the purposes of power, control or manipulation, Or 5. Is biased against third world countries (which means they are probably elitists and racists/bigots in some way. It's easy to determine, by an expert, when looking at the researchers and decision makers as a whole, as to which theory or combination of theories is correct).

---------------------

Breaking News Dec 6 2011 -

From BBC - "Organised crime poses an "open threat" to democracy in Mexico, President Felipe Calderon has warned."

From Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Above video is from here.

---------------------

The Case for Israel Being Better Off Without The "Help" of The United States

2011-10-19T09:49:00.000-07:00

Comedic perspectives can help people see an issue with fresh eyes as contradictions become more apparent and the laughter helps overcome natural bias to various degrees, something which is needed in the Israel-Palestine debate.

Introduction:

In Obama's speech at the UN he spent a great deal of time trying to explain why he believes Palestine should not negotiate through the UN in any manner, even though Israel was created through the UN as well.

Obama's speech had so little substance that he sounded like a broken record...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

"Peace is hard, unlike winning the Nobel Peace Prize which is surprisingly easy"

Are discussions important? Yes. But to do that only through negotiations between a tiny super power (Israel is extremely strong and can take care of itself) and its occupied lands can't possibly be called an equal or fair negotiation table.

Fortunately, Obama's strange stance on the Israel-Palestine issue can be easily explained by tracing where the roots of the new rhetoric comes from and shinning a light on who these power sources are. Once done, you may agree with me that Israel is better off without any interference from the United States on foreign policy (in any sense whatsoever).

From BBC: Barack Obama has told the UN General Assembly the Palestinians deserve their own state, but that this would only be achieved through talks with Israel.

Obama is clearly following Republican/GOP rhetoric...

Rick Perry: "Palestinian statehood must be established only through direct negotiations between the Palestinian leadership and the nation of Israel."

To understand why it's bad for any country to get too involved with United States foreign policy can be explained by studying the Republican power structure which is controlling Obama. Rick Perry is himself a slave to that system. (i.e. read the last 3 links carefully).

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Palestine finds that, as with any good co-op, joining the U.N. requires getting past that one hard-ass on the co-op board who always shoots people down.

Notes - 1. Each side doesn't acknowledge they other, 2. They have been fighting for, like, forever, 3. Obama/US wants Palestine to get a recommendation from "their mortal enemies" to get UN membership (in contrast to North Korea or Syria).

Overview

Palestinians and Jews working together, in the present and historically, is not something you hear allot about in the media;

Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Barghouti advocate a non-violent approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this complete, unedited interview...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
Part 2 of Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti interview:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

'The US is too biased to one side and this isn't good for Israel'

A pro-Israel Lobby you don't hear about in the media...

Interview: Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of the pro-Israel lobby J Street, discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestine's application for full U.N. membership....

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Israel came into being by a UN mandate so its only fair that the Palestinians do too.

Ben Ami is taking a mainstream approach as that's necessary for his political position (Israel on one side and a right-wing Obama administration on the other)

From the Washington Post:

Ben-Ami provides an arsenal of logistical and moral arguments stressing that not only is Israel’s occupation over another people a threat to the Zionist dream and American interests in the region, but that it also runs counter to rabbinic values — indeed, even to the very letter of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which promises equality to all, regardless of race, religion or gender. In short, he tells us that Israel is on the brink of becoming an “apartheid state” and losing its status as a moral beacon to the Jewish people and the safe and democratic haven its pioneers intended it to be.

Ben-Ami argues that by taking a radically conciliatory pro-peace position today instead of the stance represented by the conservative AIPAC, the American Jewish community would serve Israel’s interests far better — paradoxically, just as the radically militant policy pursued by his father, Yitshaq (whom Ben-Ami calls a “terrorist”), in Israel’s early days was exactly what was needed in order to ensure its creation: At the time, his father’s brand of Zionism ran counter to what was considered acceptable by the Jewish community.

Ben-Ami says that today’s Jewish voice in America should clearly call for an active American intervention in the Middle East that will bring about the end of occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. How can this be done? He suggests that the American president, backed by the international community, must present a take-it-or-leave-it political package to the two sides. The basis already exists for this in various peace initiatives that call for making the pre-1967 armistice line a border between the two states and allowing for a one-to-one exchange of territory for reasons to do with security or demography. The resulting refugee problem could be addressed in any number of ways, including compensation, family reunification schemes and resettlement. Most of these plans also call for making Jerusalem a joint capital for the two states. President Clinton proposed a formula for sharing the city by having Arab neighborhoods come under Arab sovereignty, and Jewish neighborhoods under Jewish sovereignty.

US news media involvement in the flotilla incident can the UN called "excessive"...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Benjamin Netanyahu defends Israel's raid on a flotilla of activists bringing aid to the Gaza Strip...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The above is why Israel-Turkey relations are dead in the water and it makes the nagative image of the Israeilites amougnst the people of the region increase.

From CNN:

The Turks and many others have already contested the underlying logic of the Report, the central issue of which is the legitimacy of Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his colleagues concluded that 1) although Gaza is not a state, Israel and Gaza are in an international conflict; as a result 2) the Israelis’ claim that they have a right to self-defense in this situation is entirely legitimate, and 3) the naval blockade is an acceptable means to achieve that end. In order to reach these conclusions, Palmer et al affirmed Israel’s position that the naval blockade is fundamentally separate policy from the land cordon the Israelis established around Gaza since 2007.

Not being a lawyer, I may not be on firm ground here, but it seems pretty clear that Palmer’s report is correct that, while the conflict between Israel and Gaza may not meet the legal criteria for “international conflict,” politically there is no question that we are looking at what is, for all intents and purposes, an international conflict. (A conclusion, which although not legal, should nevertheless be important for advocates of Palestinian statehood.)

At the same time, Palmer’s conclusion that the naval blockade is a separate policy seems to be a bit shaky. It is based on the fact that this blockade was not established until January 3, 2009 more than a year after the imposition of the land closure. Yet, there is something that is too cute by a half about this reasoning. It is important to remember that the naval blockade also occurred during the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, which was intended to bring a halt to rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel. A laudable goal, but it also suggests that Palmer may be wrong in suggesting the “separateness” of the naval blockade. After all, that blockade was imposed as part of a military operation that was intended to do what the land closure was apparently failing to do. Under these circumstances, it seems that the naval blockade was an extension of or addition to an existing Israeli policy of preventing weapons, the raw materials for weapons along with a host of other goods that have nothing whatsoever to do with weapons, from being smuggled into Gaza.

The Palmer Report is thus not as clear-cut as either the Israelis who are declaring victory would suggest or the hopelessly politicized exercise that the Turks are claiming. The ironies here are almost too much to take, but what is done is done and the report, with whatever its faults, is a devastating blow to the Turkish narrative of the legal and political issues surrounding the incident (see pages 38-48, in particular). It has especially harsh words for the organizers of the flotilla and questions their intentions to actually deliver humanitarian aid. This is a political problem for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the reason why the Turks went on the offensive this week.

After all, wasn’t it a confident (righteous, even) Ankara that demanded a UN commission of inquiry in the belief that it would reinforce the Turkish narrative? Didn’t the Mavi Marmara incident and the events surrounding it help further Erdogan’s legend in the Arab world? Hasn’t Erdogan been minting political gold on the Palestinian issue? The answer to all of these questions is yes. The fact that the Palmer Report suggests that Israel may have screwed up the interception of the flotilla, used unnecessary force, and abused some of the passengers and crew is politically unsatisfying because the UN’s inquiry also states that the Israelis were within their legal rights to establish a naval blockade and enforce it.

Moments of Zen

1. Israel's present political situation suggests the people are ready for change, they just need a solution...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

2. 253rd time Palestine and Israel sit down for peace talks and the firmest thing the US can do is extend negotiations?...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appoints an "ambassador of death," while Hillary Clinton gives Israel and Palestine a firm deadline for peace.

3. Its obvious that the US has no influence in the Israel-Palestinian process in this video, at least, not from the Democrats...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Joe Biden punishes Israel for its plans to build more settlements by showing up late to dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

End of - The Case for Israel Being Better Off Without The "Help" of The United States

[Case Study] Who Is Rick Perry?

2011-10-18T16:42:00.000-07:00

In attempting to understand who Rick Perry is and what he represents for the new Republican party (GOP), we first have to figure out who he is. Based on a compendium of articles one thing is for sure, I can't tell if he is really a conservative or a liberal. However, there is one thing I can tell with absolute certainty, he is not even remotely consistent.

Outline of GOP Candidate Rick Perry

1. Rick Perry's Inconsistencies..

Despite His Current Vehemence on Taxes, Perry Has a More Nuanced Record
To hear him tell it on the presidential campaign trail, Gov. Rick Perry has never met a tax increase he liked. But at home, over a political career that reaches back to the oil price shocks of the 1980s, Mr. Perry has embraced billions of dollars worth of them — including a $528 million tax increase approved in 1990, after he defected to the Republican Party.

Rick Perry's Gaffe Problem
A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee said, "Rick's ramblings from the past 48 hours in the Hawkeye State show a candidate that's trying to create his own reality." Even Fox News commentator Karl Rove, the former political strategist for President George W. Bush (a former Texas governor who named Perry as his lieutenant governor), said Perry seems unpresidential and needs to choose his words more carefully.

Rick Perry Flip-Flops On The 10th Amendment and States Rights With Abortion
The thing about conservatives and state’s rights is that they are for them except when they are against them. Take Texas Governor Rick Perry, for example. Gov. Perry is on record for believing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That way states would be free to pass their own laws concerning abortion without having that pesky federal law and constitutional protections to worry about.

It appears that Gov. Perry has had a change of heart. According to RH Reality Check, Perry now supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would grant personhood status and legal protections to unborn children. That’s right. The same Governor who openly flirted with secession now believes the federal government should dictate abortion law to the states. That’s an interesting evolution on the topic of federalism.

Rick Perry Flip Flops On Gay Marriage, Backs Federal Ban
Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country's most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it's "fine with me" if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Do as I say not as I do...
Stimulus-Hating Gov. Rick Perry Used Stimulus to Balance Texas Budget
Gov. Rick Perry used federal stimulus money to pay 97 percent of Texas's budget shortfall in fiscal 2010--which is funny, because Perry spent a lot of time talking about just how terrible the stimulus was. In fact, Texas was the state that relied most heavily on stimulus funds, CNN's Tami Luhby reports.

"Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it," Luhby writes. "On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled 'No Government Bailouts.'" It called on Americans to express their anger at irresponsible spending.

Thanks to the stimulus funds, Texas didn't have to dip into its $9.4 billion rainy day fund. Still, now that the stimulus is spent, Texas, like many other states, is facing severe cuts--$31 million must be carved from the budget.

Rick Perry is George Bush on Steroids!?!...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy

Perry Makes It Official: He's Running for President
Through three terms as governor, Perry has overseen significant job growth in his state while working to keep taxes low. He was an early backer of the tea party movement and enjoys the support of social conservatives because of his opposition to abortion and gay rights. He is also an evangelical Christian who organized a well-attended prayer rally in his state last week.

Perry is a prodigious fundraiser who has already begun laying the groundwork for a national finance network his supporters say would rival that of President Obama, who is expected to exceed his record-breaking $750 million haul from 2008.

But some Republicans worry that Perry's hard-core conservatism and Texas style may not play well in a 50-state contest, particularly coming so soon after former President George W. Bush's two White House terms. Bush had record low approval ratings when he left office in 2009.

2. Rick Perry leads a prayer group to help the economy and proves his Christian Evangelical credentials...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Rick Perry targets Bible belt to ignite Republican race for the White House
The battle for the "Bible belt", one of the most crucial constituencies in the Republican White House race, will begin in earnest in Waterloo, Iowaon Sunday, where Texas governor Rick Perry, who announced his candidature on Saturday, is to speak at a dinner in the Electric Park ballroom that will also be attended by congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann changed her diary to be there, setting up an early showdown between two Christian evangelicals either of whom could be Barack Obama's opponent in the presidential election next year. Bachmann received a big early advantage on Saturday night when she came top of the Republican straw poll in Ames, the biggest political festival in America this year. In the second biggest vote in the history of the straw poll, with almost 17,000 voting, Bachmann took 4,823. Perry, as he had not declared in time, was not on the ballot but still managed to win 718 write-ins. The victory provides Bachmann with a short-term advantage but it is unlikely to last long with the arrival of Perry. The real race begins now.

The importance of the evangelical vote is huge, representing an estimated 40% of Republicans who will vote in the Iowa caucus, which is scheduled for February. Iowa, as the first of the contests, matters – helping to propel candidates to the front of the race and seeing others heading for oblivion.

Bachmann has received the endorsement of more than 100 pastors and Christian leaders in the state in the past week alone. But Perry's entry upsets her calculations. He is both a politician and part-time preacher, the kind of southerner who appeals to the Christian right. "Perry's entry shifts the dynamic," said Steve King, a rightwing congressman from Iowa, who was speaking at the Iowa state fair, where a string of Republican candidates used soapboxes to address voters sitting on straw bales.

American Christianity: constantly reimagined, manipulated and exploited
The politicised church, which has submerged religion under politics but claims to be the only real keeper of the flame, feeds off attention from vote-hungry politicians. Their pastors become players on the national stage, even while subject to criticism from their orthodox brethren and secularists alike.

Rick Warren's "purpose-driven" theology, for example, is considered unbiblical by some Christian critics. Kenneth Copeland, whose Word of Faith doctrine is considered heretical by Christians from both conservative and liberal traditions, is nonetheless quietly courted by Republican presidents and presidential hopefuls. He believes Jesus wants him to fly on a $20 million private jet while he sponges money off his television viewers.

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who plans to run for president, hosted a prayer rally that featured believers in signs, wonders, prophecies and spiritual warfare inspired by Joel 2. These are the generals Perry hopes will lead an army of believers, who insist that America must repent for the "sins" of abortion and homosexuality, to propel him to greater heights of political power. The candidate to whom he presents the greatest challenge, Michele Bachmann, studied law not how most American attorneys learn it, but through a curriculum designed by Christian Reconstructionists, who aim to have America governed by "biblical law".

Christianity in the US is collapsing: Christianity will struggle to re-emerge from the mishmash of self-help groups it has become in America
The rhetoric and politics of evangelicals and self-help gurus are different but the essential message is the same: it is the doctrine of salvation by faith according to the canonical born-again scenario. You are seized by the conviction that your life is profoundly unsatisfactory in some global way that eludes further analysis: you are sinful, neurotic, stressed, addicted, co-dependent – insufficiently happy. You assemble a customised mix of the beliefs that "work" for you: your personal faith. Through it you achieve salvation, healing, and personal growth, the start of an endless spiritual journey to further self-improvement. You, and other Americans whose only hobbies are themselves, support legions of pastors, gurus, therapists and motivational speakers.

It is easy to see why most people are contemptuous of this amalgam of credulity, sentimentality and narcissism, which in its evangelical Christian form is tied up with myths about the age of the earth and origin of species, sexual taboos and a conservative political agenda. With this as the public face of religion it's not surprising that in the US, as in Europe, Christianity is collapsing.

That is a shame because if it collapses everything essential to it and worthwhile, which is now merely obscure, will become inaccessible. Christian theology, metaphysical doctrines about the existence and nature of God that I believe to be true, will become curiosities, like the teachings of second-string neo-Platonists. Service books will languish in archives, for study by antiquarians. The better churches will be preserved as museums; mediocre ones will be gutted and refurbished as restaurants, condos and office space.

Reports: Rick Perry's backers behind stories against Mormon faith
Two new stories suggest that while Rick Perry has said he doesn't believe Mormonism is a cult, as one of his backers characterized the LDS Church, Perry's campaign team might be cheerleading negative messages about the Mormon faith, and his backers might be behind them.

First, The Daily Beast's McKay Coppins wrote about a series of emails that appear to show "Perry's team may be quietly advancing the notion that Mitt Romney 's faith should disqualify him from the White House."

CNN's John King speaks with Rev. Jeffress about his comment that a vote for Romney "would give credibility to a cult"...

(CNN) – Anita Perry stuck up for her husband Thursday, saying Texas Gov. Rick Perry was being "brutalized" by fellow conservatives for his Christian faith...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

No one gets it worse from the base of the Republican party than evangelical Christians -- also known as the base of the Republican party.

The US evangelicals who believe environmentalism is a 'native evil'
What is often not fully absorbed by onlookers, though, is the underlying role that religious doctrine – or "pulpit power" - plays in the environmental debate in the US. On the one hand, you have the "Creation Care" movement which is prevalent in some quarters of the Christian Church. On the other, particularly among evangelicals, you often see a vitriolic reaction aimed towards environmentalism.

Just last month, a survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors found that 41% strongly disagreed with the statement: "I believe global warming is real and manmade." The survey also found that 52% of the pastors address the issue of the environment with their churches once a year or less, with evangelical pastors speaking less often on the environment than mainline pastors.

3. Rick Perry vs. Other Candidates...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rick Perry demonstrates an incredible unlearning curve at his third debate, and the media notices.

Note: Perry says 'you don't have a heart' concerning empathy on a policy issue - This was taken personally by anchors/news-analysts/Frank Luntz (media mastermind) and turned into 'Rick Perry said ALL conservatives don't have a heart' rather than talk about whether the issue should be reconsidered (i.e. official 'conservative' policy is that this policy stays) - You can see this 'conservative' echo chamber functioning from about 40 seconds into the video across cnn, msnbc and fox...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

More info...

...for Rick Perry, the Texas governor and the apparent frontrunner for the Republican nomination, immigration suddenly has become a serious liability.

He came under sustained attack from his rivals at last Thursday’s debate in Florida for signing a 2001 Texas law granting in-state tuition rates at state universities to illegal immigrant students.

One of the memorable lines of that debate and perhaps of the 2012 campaign will be Perry’s attempted rebuttal of his critics over the Texas law: “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart.”

So why is his popularity down at the moment? Some poor debate performances coupled with a temporary backlash on immigration. With that out of the way he will be ready to come back...

Rick Perry Vs. Herman Cain

Herman Cain is a pizza guy who is singing about pizza on tape. He has no chance.

Rick Perry vs. Mitt Romney

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rick Perry takes shots at Mitt Romney before the debate, but Romney doesn't take them lying down.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In the GOP debate that was Rick Perry v. Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney got rickrolled.

Why Rick Perry is headed to the White House
The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.

"We think a them Mormons as bein' in kind of a cult," one of the Houston rally attendees told me. "I couldn't vote for one a them when we got a real Christian like Governor Perry runnin'."

Perry, of course, can't come right out and print bumper stickers that say, "Rick Perry -- 2012 -- Not a Mormon." But he doesn't have to. He's wearing his faith like a power tie while Romney stays quiet as a tabernacle mouse on the topic of religion. Romney has business experience and intellect that are not on Perry's resume' but he is from "Massatoositts," (Webster's Texas Edition, see also "Massachusetts"), and Texans love to kick their political boots into New Englanders' squishy parts. Perry is about to remind the tea partiers and fundamentalists that Romney created a state health care plan, (the horror, affordable health care for everyone), believes global warming is real, and has a troubling history for conservatives on the matters of abortion and gay marriage.

So much for Mitt.

Michele Bachmann, who is from Iowa, and is Perry in Prada, has the same appeal among Teavangelicals. Her husband's reparative gay therapy sessions, the Newsweek cover and a few speeches that were not reality based will, eventually, make even the GOP primary voters realize she is bound for the desert and not the Promised Land.

Bachman will run close to Perry in Iowa but will disappear into the snows of New Hampshire where religious fervor isn't exactly considered a positive attribute. In South Carolina, Perry's money, image and support will become overwhelming.

Romney and Bachmann are the only serious impediments to the Perry nomination. Ron Paul, who makes more sense than any crazy person to ever run for public office, has never been able to expand his cult to the mainstream.

Herman Cain is too brutally honest and lacking political experience, and Tim Pawlenty, what's-his-face-from-Minnesota, suffers from the heartbreak of ineffectuality.

Fueled only by speculation that he might announce, Perry became the putative front-runner (heard that word at a fancy Washington restaurant and thought it was cool). Because presidential politics tend to be more visceral than intellectual, Perry's coyote-killer good looks, $2,000 hand-tooled cowboy boots, supernova smile and Armani suits, combined with podium skills to embellish the mythology of Texas, all will create a product Americans will want to believe and buy.

After he wins the nomination, protocol will require Perry to have discussions with Bachmann about the vice presidential slot, but he will, eventually, turn to Sarah Palin. The general election will force the Texan back toward the middle and he will stop talking about faith and abortion and gay marriage; Perry will campaign on jobs and the economy.

I agree with the above analysis. That said, there is only one candidate who doesn't flip flop, Ron Paul, who is often ignored... even though all the Republican talking points come from him (in part only, for example; cutting spending but no withdrawal of troops and decreasing regulations but no corresponding increase in property rights). Add to the fact that the GOP is offering half an economic plan (at most) through Rick Perry (and even if Rick Perry flip flops all the way to Ron Paul's explanations, can you trust him?). Anyways, all of this, plus the fact that the media has ignored him...

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

... leads to only one conclusion. Ron Paul is the better candidate.

------------------------------------------------------

Note;

Rick Perry: 'quantitative easing akin to treason'

[Article 3 Section 3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ]

Based on the above definition and what going into the bond market means in economics, I can only assume that Rick Perry is acting crazy or telling the truth. If he is telling the truth then what he is saying is that Ben Barnake and The Federal Reserve in general have INTENTIONALLY being waging war against the people in favor of the rich...

Quantitative easing 'is good for the rich, bad for the poor'
"Real wages and salaries have fallen by £4bn. Profits are up by £11bn. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most unequal of ways."

Joshi adds that this also helps to explain why sales of high-end luxury goods have continued to soar, while many consumers have been forced to tighten their belts.

"High-income earners are more exposed to profits as owners of businesses or shareholders. Low-income earners are dependent on wages," he says."

-------------

Miscellaneous...

Stephen Colbert and The Super Pac Scandal

Comic Colbert Using PAC to Encourage Iowa Vote, Sort Of...
More about Super Pacs and Rick Parry - "Out-of-state groups like Grow PAC and Jobs for Iowa PAC are flooding the Iowa airwaves, telling you to vote Rick Perry at the Ames Straw Poll. They think they can buy your vote with their unlimited super PAC money," says Colbert. "We want you to vote for Rick Perry too, but not their Rick Perry, our Rick Parry. On August 13th, write in Rick Parry. That's Parry with an A for America, with an A for Iowa."

Colbert says he purposely misspelled Perry's name because campaign finance laws prohibit Super PAC's from being affiliated with candidates.

The first ad has already aired in Des Moines and a second one is now available online. One Des Moines station has refused to air the ads because it was afraid they would confuse viewers.

Colbert, who portrays a conservative commentator on his show, "The Colbert Report," got approval from the Federal Election Commission in June to start his political action committee, "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow."

The development of Super PAC's began after the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which allows groups unaffiliated with a candidate to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.

Colbert has been continuously mocking the decision ever since.

The Colbert Super Pac joins in the group of unlimited funds super pacs seeking friendly relations with Rick Parry and his "Billionaire Buddies".(Are the buddies paying for election strategies such as the Mitt Romney 'Mormonism' scandal?)

Rick pArry 1

Rick pArry 2

Rick pArry 3

Rick pArry 4

-------------------------

Added October 28th 2011

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Mitt Romney has surveyed the Republican field and decided 23% is enough to beat any of those yahoos.

Note: Jon Stewart's reaction to Rick Perry putting his hand in his coat has to do with the image that is being created for him by the GOP (such as running with a gun and what Rick Perry considers to be like 'golf' - which is supposed to create an image of confidence in some large segments of American society)...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

While Vladimir Putin bags tigers in Siberia, Barack Obama bags a pie on his Midwestern safari. ... and Rick Perry is compared to Yosemite Sam...

(Image from here.)

Such image creation is generally done by media master-minds like Frank Luntz.

-----------------------------------

Overview of "Socialism" by The Colbert Report (backed by news sources)

2011-10-13T22:56:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Notes: 1. Compares socialism and redistribution rhetoric to Santa giving gifts on Christmas, 2. Compares socialism to helping people, for example, Jesus to a socialist (he redistributed loaves of bread and fish), 3. Rhetoric accuses Obama of being a Marxist, 4. Republicans are creating fear about Obama calling him a communist/socialist and scaring people into thinking that they will lose all they own as it will get 'redistributed'.

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1. Gifts as 'redistribution': Santa clause giving gifts to children is a type of 'redistribution of income', so is feeding children to keep them from starving...

For many, summer means vacation, sports, camping or just time off to relax, but not for millions of kids living in poverty in the United States. There are few camps or beach trips for them, and sometimes not even three meals a day. During the school year, public schools provide breakfast and lunch to millions of students in the United States. But when summer arrives, parents struggling to feed their children can no longer rely on those meals.

2. Republicans have classified any help to anyone as 'socialism'. However, That goes against the principles of Christianity and is more in-line with the fictional teachings of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is of rational self interest and she states that the purpose of life is in pursuing your own happiness with NO regard for others well-being...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Notes: 1. She claims to be challenging the moral code of altruism, 2. Altriusm is immoral is it is placed above oneself (i.e. nothing should be above you), and 3. If a man or woman is weak they don't deserve love.

On the other hand...

Matthew 14:13-21

Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

3. Rhetoric accuses Obama of being a Marxist

An explanation of Socialism and Marxism:

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

The Birth of Socialist Planning

It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition. Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”

In fact, economic life pursued under these first four rules rapidly became so disorganized that within four years of the 1917 revolution, Soviet production had fallen to 14 percent of its prerevolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism came to an end in 1927 after Stalin instituted the process of forced collectivization that was to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.

It is obvious that the Democrats under Obama do not control all the means of production. And the big fuss over the 'redistribution of income' is a renaming done by the republicans... to win an election! (afterall, they are talking about a 2-3% tax increase which doesn't even remotely come under the banner of 'government controlling all means of production'). IN the process of creating propaganda to defeat Obama in the next elections the definition of Socialism has been destroyed.

4. Redistribution of Income (i.e. 2-3% increase in Tax rate)

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

So much fuss over a 2% tax increase! (Note: If someone says 'a 2-3% tax increase om the super rich is not fair', explain tax burden to them... this is obviously a case of renaming something for the purposes of marketing a political message irrespective of the reality behind what is being said... this is another form of lying or deception)

Was the word 'socialist' created to scare children? The Daily Show Correspondents explain...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Overview of the Republicans(GOP) by The Colbert Report (backed by news sources)

2011-10-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Notes/Summary: 1. Republican 'purity test' is basically 'anti-Obama', 2. Republicans believe unsubstantiated rumors, 3. No compromise on the debt ceiling, 4. Republicans have a record of re-naming things (called 're-frame' - see interview with Frank Luntz below).

1.A GOP purity test?

The "Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" outlines 10 conservative principles the group of signees wants potential candidates to abide by. The principles include support for:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

"President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent," the resolution states.

But if a candidate disagrees with three of the above, then the group wants the RNC to withhold financial assistance and an endorsement from that candidate.

Context to understand the effects of the GOP on actual politicians is reflected in the following interview:

This interview is with the ex-GOP president, notice how different he is...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Notice Michael Steel's use of the word 'establishment republicans' and that there was a change in republican party from the 1850s (from individuals to institutions)... i.e. the official (or rather unofficial) party direction is to help business over the individual which, over time, naturally came to be corporations. That's how the republican party became what it is today (also read True Republicanism)

2. Stephen Colbert, "Unsubstantiated rumors about people you don't support become majority beliefs"

Proof - Article Extract:

To get to the data, our April 20-23 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 9% of all Americans say that Obama was “definitely” not born in the U.S. Another 15% say that Obama was “probably” not born in the U.S. That’s about a quarter of the U.S. adult population, 24% who have doubts about Obama's being "natural born," the constitutional requirement for a president.

That contrasts with 38% of Americans who say Obama was “definitely” born in the U.S. and another 18% who say he was “probably” born in the U.S. Another 20% said that they didn’t know enough to say or refused to answer.

Who were those 24% who suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.?

Beliefs about Obama's birthplace are certainly related to education . Although 13% of those with post-graduate educations say that Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S., that’s half the 28% of those with some college and 26% of those with only a high school education or less who believe Obama was not native born.

Beliefs about Obama’s birth are strongly related to partisanship: 43% of Republicans say that Obama was not born in the U.S., including 15% who are definite in their beliefs and another 28% who say “probably.”

Of some concern to the White House and Obama’s 2012 re-election strategists is the fact that 20% of independents believe Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S. Nine percent of Democrats agree.

Naturally enough, this partisanship connection means there is a connection between beliefs in Obama's place of birth and intent to vote for Obama. Seventy-five percent of registered voters who say Obama was born in U.S. would consider voting for him. Fifteen percent of those who say he was not born in the U.S. would consider voting for Obama, while 85% say they definitely would not.

3. On the debt ceiling = [Case Study] Political Nonsense of the Debt Ceiling "Debate"

4. Renaming things...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Tips on the following topics from above video:

1. Body language tips,
2. Handling audience tips,
3. Creating a more positive phrase for 'drilling for oil' became 'energy exploration'. (inaccuracy doesn't matter as long as there is a sliver of fact - KISS principle, i.e'. keep it simple stupid),
4. 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming' ,
5. 'simple truth' (not a lie as it contains a sliver of fact!),
6. 'you decide' to lock in the last manipulative phrase (most of the viewers decisions are based on the views of who they trust... even the books they read ), 7. 'buzz words' - words that people focus on opposed to facts,
8. Use 'simple truth' only once in a discussion or article ?,
9. A criminal getting caught should apologize 3 times, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, forgive me'
10. Uses the sighing gesture in an interesting way... separating interview reality from fox news manipulations realities,
11. Frank Luntz is marketing a book, which is why he is exposing fox news/tea party secrets... we should get more fox news 'analysts' to write books! . [fox news interview is here - Learn from this book for political success.

Words like 'imagine' and 'real time' and other words/tactics used by Frank Luntz above, I first encountered when I started studying hypnosis about 13-14 years ago. Some further research links...

From Wikipedia "The Milton Model lists the key parts of speech and key patterns that are useful in directing another person's line of thinking by being "artfully vague", and in principle the model states that larger chunks (more general use of language) can lead to more rapport, while smaller chunks, (more specific language) is more limiting and has a greater chance of excluding concepts from a person's experience."

From my website "Hypnosis is one of the most misunderstood methods in the world. Hollywood movies have created an impression amongst most people that a hypnotist can control minds. That is simply not true." - [Note: controlling mind vs. manipulating minds using various social factors is a different phenomenon but studying hypnosis and NLP helps us understand them - about NLP].

Related blog posts about Republicans/GOP:

Establishment Republicans

Class Warfare

Union vs. Corporations

The Daily Show Correspondents explain the establishment republicans...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

-----------------------------

[Edit - Added October 19, 2011 ]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It must be tough for Republicans to love America so much but hate almost three-quarters of the people living in it. (08:54)

A partial list of people to 'hate' from above video:

List of people to hate - includes liberals, poor people, everyone who wants taxes on millionaires, labor unions, federal employees, global warming advocates, gays, poor people (people who have too little to pay income tax), progressives, etc. [ More explanations are in the post "Class Warfare"]
[End Edit]

[Case Study] Does Politics Shape the Perspectives of the Supreme Court Justices?

2011-10-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

[Full video here]

This last part of the video covers a new case, involving the singer Cher, where swearing is not allowed, even as an accident. There are less and less room for mistakes and this may affect people's first amendment rights of free speech so decisions that create new laws have to be examined carefully.

Supreme Court ruling bans broadcast 'fleeting expletives'

ASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a federal prohibition on the one-time use of expletives in a case arising partly from an expletive uttered by Cher at a Billboard Music Awards show in 2002.

The ruling, by a 5-4 vote and written by Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed a Bush administration Federal Communications Commission policy against isolated outbursts of, as Scalia said from the bench, the "f-word" and "s-word."

The ruling does not resolve a lingering First Amendment challenge to the 2004 policy that is likely to be subject to further lower court proceedings.

Tuesday's decision reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that had said the FCC's decision to sanction "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and capricious under federal law. That lower court had agreed with Fox Television Stations, which broadcast the Billboard awards, that such isolated utterances are not as potentially harmful to viewers as are other uses of sexual and excretory expressions long deemed "indecent" and banned by federal regulators.

Other broadcast networks had joined in the challenge, saying the policy was especially chilling for live awards shows and sporting events.

"Even isolated utterances can be made in … vulgar and shocking manner, and can constitute harmful first blows to children," Scalia wrote in the opinion that was signed by his fellow conservatives. The decision was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

So swearing, or expletives, even fleeting expletives, are not allowed. Suggesting that the court wants people to change their habits (as swearing in real life will occasionally intervene in TV/Radio/Live-events), yet at the same time graphic violence is allowed making it seem like Scalia and his allies are saying, 'you can show violence even in children's video games while...'

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

One judge grabbed another by the neck with all the judges present and they are still divided on what happened! No wonder they passed the 'eyewitness testimony can't be trusted', act.

"I used to think that your reality shapes your politics, it's clear now, your politics shapes reality"- Jon Stewart

Context: The political divide in the US covers the whole country including the courts!

Example 1: Claims of illegal attempt to gain 9/11 victims' numbers bring outrage from Democrats and caution from Republicans

Example 2: Courts are divided along party lines - "The 11th Circuit Court sided with 26 states -- mostly led by conservative governors and attorneys general -- who are asking for the law to be blocked in its entirety."

Note: The policy to ban one time expletives is supported by, "Family-friendly organizations such as Parents Television Council, Morality in Media, Inc., National Religious Broadcasters and Focus on the Family and Family Research Council have all come out in support of the FCC". The funding and information sources of these groups need to be outlined. It's possible that the experts with the most evidence have different views on how this should be handled?

[Case Study] Political Nonsense of the Debt Ceiling "Debate"

2011-10-13T11:17:00.000-07:00

Normally there are different views in the media (except in echo chambers) but this is one thing that many different sources converged on as particularly nonsensical. This post lays out the information of what happened as an overview.

Washington Week: Interview

(full interview here)

Notes:

"As soon as Republicans show some leg on raising taxes, it's over"

There is no political incentive to do a good job on the economy, everything is focused on defeating the opposite side.

Republicans won't raise taxes and Obama won't accept cuts on medicare without a tax increase

"The dirty secret about the cuts is that they don't occur till 2013, which means its after the next election"...

In other words, congress can rewrite a policy before a default as they have allot of time, so the primary political goal has become to attack Obama (and each other) and NOT to fix the economy...

At one point, McConnell said: "I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable." In an interview with CBS News, the president noted that McConnell has described his major political goal as making Obama a one-term president.

Here is the plan McConnel came up with...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

1. "I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the president the authority to REQUEST of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term" - "that [legislation] would be subject to disapproval. That resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the president, he could sign it or he could veto it." - McConnell - Theme: Passing legislation to 'disapprove it later.

2. "The reason default is no better idea today than when Newt Gengrich tried it in 1995, is it destroys your brand [i.e. America's credit rating] and would give the president the opportunity to blame Republicans for bad economy" - Defaulting was seriously tried by Newt in 1995.

3. "Look, he owns the economy. He's been in office almost 3 years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnel - The co-ownership is referring to the United states economy.

Important Republican Party Position: McConnel admits that making sure Obama is a one term President is his primary political goal. This means that the worse the economy is the better chances are that Obama will be a one term president.

Therefore...

Republicans devise a way to reject a debt cieling raise twice but getting the debt ceiling raised anyways (that way they can satisfy both constituntes, i.e. tea party and wall street)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

[ Eric Cantor - only concession, "The fact they we are even talking about a debt ceiling increase..."]

AND...

Interview: How Republicans hope to put the blame on Obama by hoping people believe that not cutting taxes is the reason for the American economy getting destroyed...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Overview of the break-down of Congress:

Daily Show: When it comes to resolving the debt ceiling crisis, Congress is the equivalent of a skunk with its head in a jar of Skippy peanut butter.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

On Gold:

Fear created by Debt Ceiling haggling in the US dropped the dollar and boosted the price of gold. As the BBC reports; "The price of gold has risen to a fresh all-time high of $1,594.16 an ounce, and the dollar has fallen, on concerns the US may default on its debts."

On raising the debt ceiling OR 'putting the debt ceiling in context of modern economics':

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Above: George Bush increased the debt ceiling in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006. 2007 and twice in 2008 (The Democrats have used the same strategy, though ineffectually)

Rather than defaulting on debts it makes more sense to raise the ceiling and solve the budget problem. THEN, over time, the debt will decrease if that is how the budget is balanced.

The speaker of the house voted for spending that led to the current debt...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Note: Left out unfunded Bush wars + the huge reduction in taxes for the rich which is the single largest contributor towards the debt i.e. if you don't remove the causes of a problem the problem will persist.]

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN "I know you have all heard so much about the debt ceiling that you're probably exhausted. But I think it's important to point out a few facts because this matter has been so clouded by rhetoric.

Did you know that there is only one other country in the world that even has a debt ceiling? That's Denmark, a strange anomaly, and its debt ceiling is deliberately kept very high so that it will never need to be raised.

Why does no one else have a debt ceiling?

Because when a legislature votes to authorize spending at a certain level but authorizes tax revenues at a lower level, it is assumed that the government will have to borrow the difference.

The vote to have higher expenditures than tax revenues is - in effect - a vote to borrow money to cover the difference.

And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.

The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.

"To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."

From CNN

Anderson Cooper: They're saying they're not holding anybody hostage. They're saying, 'Look, this is what we said we would do to get elected. We've been elected. This is what people elected us to do.'

Fareed Zakaria: Well, unfortunately, as I say, I think they don't understand the workings of democracy. They have not been elected as dictators of the United States. They have been elected to one house in one branch of the American government. The only way you can translate your wishes into public policy in America is if you can convince your branch and the other one, the Senate and the White House, to go along with it.

If you can't, you've got to figure out amongst yourself what you can agree on. This is why it is fundamentally anti-democratic –"counterconstitutional" in the words of Charles Krauthammer - to be trying to do this. It's just an extraordinary act of hostage-taking on the part of the Tea Party. It is holding the country hostage.

And it has already damaged the good standing of the United States. It's very important to understand that Tea Party talks a lot about morality. In a capitalist framework, the obligation you owe in terms of repaying your debts is a moral obligation. When the Visa bill comes you can decide that stuff you bought is stuff that you don't want. You pay the bill.

Then you can have an interesting conversation about how to reform your spending. But you can't renege on your debts.

From The Economist:

The problem for Republicans, then, is that the debt ceiling is not the size of government. The latter is something you can toy with without the chance of sudden default. The former is not. Or, to use everyone's favourite analogy regarding the debt ceiling, there seems to be some disagreement over who the hostage is. Much of the public thinks the hostage is big government, and many place little value on its life. Republican leaders, though, know the hostage is actually America's credit-worthiness and economic stability. That should make things interesting if ever it comes time to pull the trigger."

Another article from The Economist:

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

From "The Guardian"

"But though the speaker sets the agenda, he quite clearly took his cues from a boisterous set of backseat drivers: his new Tea Party members."

From the Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations;

The U.S. debt deal announced tentatively in Washington on Sunday may have been the best that was politically possible; but it is still scarcely worthy of the name. Barring a last minute break-down in negotiations, it will save the U.S. government from defaulting on its obligations to pensioners and others. But it does not address the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation. It does not remove the policy uncertainty that is damaging the economy. And it does not undo the severe harm to America's reputation caused by the standoff.

Given that a debt ceiling has nothing to do with how a country organizes it's finances but with its reliability in the market place... here is an example of an echo chamber that was promoting the idea of a default (and may still be doing so)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

On Taxes

To balance the budget you need to cut spending and raise revenue. Taxes is one of the main ways revenue is raised. [Learn more about economics here]

Daily Show: Unlike liberal elitist job evolutionists, Republicans believe in job creationism as part of their conservative tax cut religion.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Note: There are no negotiations for political reasons, history proves this! Reagan increased taxes in the 1980's during a recession and he is the one most Republican's turn to as their role model. Clear political nonsense.

Ronald Reagan actually increased taxes, putting the tax burden on the middle class and poor, which contributed to the increase in economic inequality in the US:

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

Moment of Zen: Somehow the fact that Taxes are revenue is consistently ignored...

The Daily Show - The Economy - Not Unbad?
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Note: George Bush says that the lack of revenue that is one of the reasons for the financial mess the country is in should be extended permanently (complete lack of awareness of economic realities - same no tax rise attitude as the Tea Party)

Related: Problems with Credit Rating Agencies

Examples of Echo Chambers - Part 2 (Plus Money Trail and Fox News Lies)

2011-09-15T09:57:00.000-07:00

The video below is an example of an echo chamber that extends to ALL of the US's mass media News networks. I personally believe that this is an echo chamber that is only activated from time to time as regular activation would create problems in credibility. Its better to have two sides fighting to keep the masses attention/distracted. That's how the gladiator system of Rome distracted the populace while the countries social and economic structures fell around them.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

1. Every media channel ignores its mass media hype for the same person, Ron Paul.

2. Ron Paul is against invasion/war and doesn't attempt to brush the lies of Iraq war under the rug.

Yet Another Rupert Murdoch Media Echo Chamber

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Above story only carried on Fox News/NY Post (Rupert Murdoch owned media)

Fox News is large enough in the US to be it's own echo chamber (and the fact that many false beliefs originate from Fox News broadcasts proves this - see Examples of Echo Chambers Part 1) which would be OK to an extant as long as they didn't lie. Unfortunately...

The Daily

Show
Get More: Daily Show

Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire

Blog,The Daily Show on

Facebook

Partial list of Fox News's FALSE Statements as checked by PolitiFact.com;

Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector."

Texas board of Education may eliminate references to Christmas and the Constitution from textbooks

Healthcare reform is a government takeover of healthcare

The Muslim brotherhood has openly stated they want to declare war on Israel

American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation

Florida's Gov. Rick Scott's approval ratings are up

Massachusetts health care plan is wildly unpopular among state residents

There's been more debt under Obama than all other President's combined

Health care bill includes death panels

Cash for clunkers will give government complete access to your home computer

Halting gulf drilling costs 8 billion a day in imports

Democrats plan largest tax increase in history

John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water

Nobody at Fox News ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance

Money trail to explain the Fox News and republican echo chamber...

News Corp. gives $1 million to Republicans...

The Daily Show - News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Examples of Echo Chambers - Part 1

2011-09-03T22:27:00.000-07:00

Many people have wrongly assumed that the new Republican Party (as opposed to True Republicanism) actually represents a conservative view. And although there may be elements of conservatism in the new Republican ideologies, conservatism itself has been co-opted by a small group of people (i.e. plans 'by the few'). This post is to begin to outline the kinds of echo chambers to look out for since the news reports seem to consistently leave out the context and money trails.

What is an echo chamber?

An echo chamber is when you control several sources of information and use those sources of information to spread news and ruors that suit your political and business agenda.

1. Here is the perfect example that shows an echo chamber being used for political goals:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The train of planting News in the above echo chamber goes as follows - First story in the Wall Street Journal, Second Story in ...the NY Post and finally, news story on Fox News - Seems like different news sources commenting on a story but in reality it's ONE news story, created and promoted by the SAME news source.

2. Here is another example of a political echo chamber using multiple people for ONE view and on ONE channel. (And proof of demonization of the 'left' by this 'conservative' echo chamber):

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Above: 'Conservative' Echo Chamber through Murdoch's Network (using multiple books on one view, talking about one perspective ONLY on a network owned by one man, i.e. the new republican party is an invention using multiple media channels all owned by the same group. Ironically, or perhaps, intelligently, the 'left' (i.e. the networks NOT owned by Murdoch) are grouped together as having a separate agenda thereby creating the 'Us vs. them' dynamic.

3. Here is an example of using an echo chamber for JUST business reasons (i.e. Rupert Murdoch comes up with device and tries to sell it through his news channels)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

4. Here is an echo chamber using a different method (i.e. controlling sources of 'expert opinion' as opposed to the actual companies presenting the news). This is presented by Senator Bernie Sanders.

All of the above are examples of "echo chambers" - i.e. sources of information controlled by a few who use these sources to promote thier ideas over and over again while making them seem to be from independant (and therefore reliable) sources.

How I Think The Political War Against The Right Wing Fundamentalists Should Be Fought [Includes info on the Koch Brothers]

2011-07-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

So, how should the new extreme rhetoric coming out of the right be fought?

The simple answer is that you determine the source of the rhetoric, the one or ones whom people tend to revolve around. Once the source has been identified (with proof) then this source must be neutralized and you have to make sure that this source is completely neutralized. That doesn't mean you have to kill them (but if you are attacked you should be ready to defend yourself). Also, if you are scared of dying then your moves will be filled with fear. It is better to determine a point of attack and then hold that point no matter what (unless you are wrong, then you adjust your actions according to the truth). A political 'enemy' is neutralized, not by attacking their followers, but by making sure their power is gone and will never, ever return. This is done by isolating them and their lies from their followers.

Before reading this post any further familiarize yourself with how a cultlike following can be created, how this connects to the Tea Party and the New Republican Party [As opposed to the Old Republicans or True Republicanism].

The extracts in this article are from the book The 48 Laws of Power is for anyone "interested in gaining, observing, or defending against power." In other words, to defend against power you have to understand it and then apply them. Keep in mind that any political war fought by people interested in peace MUST be a defensive war.

To win this is the path that must be followed...

1. Find the source of power.

2. Understand how the propaganda works

3. Strike and isolate the leader(s)

4. Expose all connections and secrets in a public way so there is no misunderstanding as to the guilt of the leaders of this source of power.

My view is not the same as one political institute...

Recognize that the Right is a complex movement. No one organization “controls” the Right. No single funder is “behind” the Right. Some large organizations areimportant, but many others appear to be more influential than they really are. Recognize that there are multiple networks of organizations and funders with differing and sometimes competing agendas. Find out as much as you can about the groups you see. Incorporate this information in your educational work. It is helpful in organizing to know a great deal about your opponents. Be alert to evidence of the Right’s “new racism.” The Right has replaced simple racist rhetoric with a more complex, “colorblind” political agenda which actually attacks the rights of people of color. See the Resources sections of this kit for some assistance in your research.

I think the above reasoning is wrong.

To fight a political war you need to first understand that every group has a source of power.

As explained in the 48 Laws of Power...

In the past, an entire nation would be ruled by a king and his handful of ministers. only elite had any power to play with. Over the centuries, power has gradually become more and more diffused and democratized. this has created, however, a common misperception that groups no longer have centers of power - that power is spread out and scattered among many people.

Actually, however, power has changed in its numbers but not in its essence. There may be a few mighty tyrants commanding the power of life and death over millions, but there remain thousands of petty tyrants ruling smaller realms, and enforcing their will through indirect power games, charisma, and so on. In every group, power is concentrated in the hands of one or two people, for this is one area in which human nature will never change: People will congregate around a single strong personality like planets orbiting a sun.

To labor under the illusion that this kind of power center no longer exists is to make endless mistakes, waste energy and time, and never hit the target. Powerful people never waste time. Outwardly they may play along with game - pretending that power is shared among many - but inwardly they keep their eyes on the inevitable few in the group who hold the cards. These are the ones they work on. When troubles arise, then look for the underlying cause, the single strong character who started the stirring and whose isolation or banishment will settle the waters again. Page 363, The 48 Laws of Power

Power still functions the same way as it has throughout our history. The rules are the same. You either play by the rules or you are food for the one that does.

The above institute also recommends talking and avoiding demonization hoping to win over the new republicans with reason and goodwill. The problem with this approach is that anyone who disagrees with the new republican philosophy is automatically 'the other' and being nice just makes them think that this is some sort of ploy. Cult followers are people who quote slogans and refuse to reason, believing that only with the implementation of their vague lies will there be a return to a 'golden age' or future paradise. [Read the post on cult-like behavior and fundamentalism and true republicanism ].

To end a political war, First, you have to genuinely hold the moral high ground (not just espouse morality). Second, you need to establish a base of support. Third you need to take out the leader. Bear in mind that in our civilized modern age you should be able to do this with an isolation tactic, if your only solution is physical violence then you don't hold the moral high ground. If someone else attacks you with violence and you defend against it, then you do hold the moral highground, at least for that debate.

The basic law is this...

Law 42: Strike The Shepherd And The Sheep Will Scatter

Trouble can often be traced to a single strong individual - the stirrer, the arrogant underling, the prisoner of goodwill. If you allow such people room to operate, others will succumb to their influence. Do not wait for the troubles they cause to multiply, do not try to negotiate with them - they are irredeemable. Neutralize their influence by isolating or banishing them. Strike at the source of the trouble and the sheep will scatter.

For Example:

Near the end of the sixth century B.C., the city state of Athens overthrew the series of petty tyrants who had dominated its politics for decades. It established instead a democracy that was to last over a century, a democracy that became the source of its power and its proudest achievement. But as the democracy evolved, so did a problem the Athenians had never faced: How to deal with those who did not concern themselves with the cohesion of a small city surrounded by enemies, who did not work for its greater glory, but thought of only themselves and their own ambitions and petty intrigues? The Athenians understood that these people, if left alone, would sow dissension, divide the city into factions, and stir up anxieties, all of which could lead to the ruin of their democracy.

The Athenians solution was to get everyone in the city to write down the name of someone they wanted banished and the highest number of votes to any person would get him banned for 10 years. This practice stopped when a powerless citizen with nothing but 'being an irritation' as his offense, was banished because the Athenians felt that their practice had been demeaned.

The Ancient Athenians had certain qualities in their citizens which made their democracy strong...

The ancient Athenians had social instincts unknown today - the passage of centuries has blunted them. Citizens in the true sense of the word, the Athenians sensed the dangers posed by asocial behavior, and saw how such behavior often disguises itself in other forms: the holier-then-thou attitude that silently seeks to impose its standards on others; overweening ambition at the expense of the common good; the flaunting of superiority; quite scheming; terminal obnoxiousness. Some of these behaviors would eat away at the city's cohesion by creating factions and sowing dissension, others would ruin the democratic spirit by making the common citizen feel inferior and envious. The Athenians did not try to reeducate people who acted in these ways, or to absorb them somehow into the group, or to impose a violent punishment that would only create others problems. The solution was quick and effective: Get rid of them.

The Koch and Murdoch Echo Chambers

No man need despair of gaining converts to the extravagant hypothesis who has art enough to represent it in favorable colors.

David Hume. 1711 - 1776

The law...

Law 31: Control The Options: Get Others To Play With the Cards You Deal

The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.

By putting out many different people and personalities and books around one theme, no matter what your base chooses, they will be following the path that you want their views to take.

Senator Bernie Sanders explains the Koch Echo chamber...

Foundations: Cato Institute + Mercatus Center + Reason Foundation + Heritage Foundation

An example of a business echo chamber from one of Rupert Murdoch's marketing campaign...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

[Note: The examples above and below provide even more reason for regulation of media oligopolies]

The Heritage Foundation is a part of the Koch Echo Chamber video above. They are also the ones who came up with the most unusual report...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

A first world country is defined by having a higher standard of living than, say, a third world country.

In economics you measure the standard of living of its citizens by how much wealth they own compared to other nations. If there is more (which is what 'economic development' seeks to achieve) then there is a higher standard of living. Less wealth means lower standard of living. In the tools for measuring the level of chances of getting despotism in society the larger the disparity between the wealthy and poor the greater the chances of a tyrannical government taking hold. A tyrannical government is never answerable to anything they do and can commit crimes without ever being investigated.

The

Daily Show - GOP - Special Victims Unit
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Above: 'Conservative' Echo Chamber through Murdoch's Network (using multiple books on one view, talking about one perspective ONLY on a network owned by one man, i.e. the new republican party is an invention using multiple media channels all owned by the same group. Ironically, or perhaps, intelligently, the 'left' (i.e. the networks NOT owned by Murdoch) are grouped together as having a separate agenda thereby creating the 'Us vs. them' dynamic which is very important for creating a cultlike following which is what the new republican party has become as opposed to the true republican party.

The law being followed is this one...

Law 43: Work On The Hearts And Minds Of Others

Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions, playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.

Warning: For various reasons sometimes people take 'mercy' on an enemy. To defeat the new 'conservatism', [which is right wing extremism, divided into chunks by the same media guy] you have to keep going till the job is done...

Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally

All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have leaned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: the enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.

As the author explains...

"It is not, a question of murder, it is a question of banishment. Sufficiently weakened and then exiled from your court forever, your enemies are rendered harmless.They have no hope of recovering, insinuating themselves or hurting you. And if they cannot be banished, at least understand that they are plotting against you, and pay no heed to whatever friendliness they feign. your only weapon in such a situation is your own wariness. If you cannot banish them immediately, then plot for the best time to act."

Also, you should note that telling the truth will not be easy and will most certainly NOT be welcome...

Law 32: Play To People's Fantasies

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

To win this political war you have to be ready to face the anger and ire you will stir up for disturbing peoples sense of order. When people think you should take a break and give 'the poor evil guy a rest', just take the anger, understand thier position [remembering they are either followers or are not grown up enough to 'take the heat'] and keep on attacking, strategically of course, until your goal is reached.

That is how Bush and Cheney got away from any investigation into the largest attacks on the United States mainland in it's history. Something that would have been debated publicly in any democratically run government.

The Daily Show - Accountability in the U.K. - David Cameron Kills

it
Get More: Daily Show Full

Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Tips for fighting the new extreme right in the USA;

1. Determine the leader(s) of that movement. Even a visible leader can be a patsy that is why you have to look deep. You have to look under the surface of appearances to the source.

2. Don't bother arguing with the followers. Followers are by their nature 'true believers' some are opportunists taking advantage of an opportunity to get power or take out pent up anger/insecurity on others. But most really do believe in what they repeat. And if rhetoric condoning violence is part of the movement then violence will occur (especially if they lose an election). Be nice to the true believers, make them friends by putting aside politics between you two if possible.

3. Strike the source or the 'shepherd'. Be relentless and merciless. Once you are secure and you have gauged it safe to attack the shepherd then begin and don't rest till the source has been permanently isolated. This will cause the followers of this source to scatter.

4. Always hold the moral high ground. That way even if you lose in the short run you will probably win in the long run as long as information isn't completely controlled by the source of the political problems. [Yes, you may not win if you fight a follower AND with the violent rhetoric, without a clear source to isolate, you risk getting physically attacked. If it gets to that point you need to have the courage to face it and defend yourself if necessary... OR you can skip the anger and strike the shepherd].

Those who seek to achieve things should show no mercy.

Kautilya, Indian Philosopher, thirdcentury B.C.

[Modern Fundamentalism] - Law 27: Play On People's Need to Believe to Create A Cultlike Following (part 1)

2011-07-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

I previously outlined a way of looking at modern fundamentalism here:

Definition of Fundamentalism: For fundamentalism to exist you have to take a side so completely that the 'other' side (whatever that side may be) MUST be beaten at all costs for survival.

The above is most certainly an attitude shared by Anders Behring Breivik as well as some others...

From Salon.com

Anders Breivik's favorite American pundits show no shame in blaming liberals, Muslims for right-wing terror.

Some individuals in hate groups will decide to attack on their own some will work in small groups. Muslims are in a bad economic environment and a large part of global population with historical grievances. This is being duplicated in the west with the currant economic conditions and, fascinatingly enough, a recreation of history so that there may be historical grievances to fight against!

Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasn’t stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that “guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive.” Said Barton, “If the press lacks moral discrimination, it’s because we haven’t been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.”

The above is about a man named David Barton who likes to take two or more separate facts and put them together. Then he markets them.

What Europeans need to realize is that he has allot of influence in American politics, guides the direction of fundamentalist Christianity and says stuff like 'just like attacking Jesus' (see quote above) which inflames his followers and any other Christian who is not aware of the facts (i.e. doesn't read), thus his movement, and with it the cultlike New Republican (GOP) party keeps growing. If the democrats in the States win there will be a great deal of genuine anger and conspiracy beliefs and, probably, more death. If Republicans win it could be worse. A great deal of their power comes from making some of their leaders untouchable. If they can be investigated internationally (as Obama doesn't have the political power or desire to expose certain war crimes etc.. that are already proven all over the place - including my blogs)

The rest of this post is a quick exposition in how Fox News is promoting political fundamentalism (which includes Christian fundamentalism).

Law 27: People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power. [From "The 48 Laws of Power"].

"emphasize enthusiasm over clear thinking."

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

In the above video you will see how lies are used to inflame passions and encourage the blooming of the Tea party, while the video below proves that they were lying...

Also, this video above is from August 17, 2009 and The Obama as Hitler campaign had already begun. Also, with million of people without health insurance, Fox News was promoting the lie that 'America has the best healthcare system in the world' - A statement that defies the facts - World Healthcare system ranks USA healthcare at 37. (just 2 places above Cuba!)

Many lies from Fox News have been confirmed by the politics fact checking website...

The

Daily Show - Fox News' False Statements
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart is considered to be a 'liberal activist' by Fox News so the full dynamic is played out on the daily show for all to see so I'm using allot of their videos to illustrate the method of cult creation and maintenance.

Step 1: Keep It Vague: Keep It Simple

"Done right, the combination of vague promises, cloudy but alluring concepts, and fiery enthusiasm will stir people's souls and a group will form around you."

"As a corollary to its vagueness your appeal should also simple. Most people's problems have complex causes: deep-rooted neurosis, interconnected social factors, roots that go way back in time and are exceedingly hard to unravel. Few, however, have the patience to deal with this; most people want to hear that a simple solution will cure their problems. The ability to offer this kind of solution will give you great power and build you a following. Instead of the complicated explanations of real life, return to the primitive solutions of our ancestors, to good old country remedies, to mysterious panaceas."

On one side, in the realm of economics, the new GOP slogans of balance the budget is simple and doesn't require any analysis of history of the intricacies of economic planning.

On the other hand Glenn Beck is one of the masters or promoting fear (which leads to anger... and violence? Obviously.) the following is a post I wrote a long time ago...

Beck says sarcastically "we are fighting our way back into the socialism we never had" implying that unions and people in unions are socialists. [Note: Socialism is defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production - to say that unions somehow control all means of production is absurd... and to imply that they are going to take over the government is probably not what he intended?]

He says, 'traditional values that we know and love and are trying desperately to hold on to' implying that everything any particular listener cherishes is under attack and this creates a need to respond - if he is wrong then what he has actually done is to create a psychological imbalance that could lead to problems.[Click here to watch video] [Note: This is an idea that could have spread to many right wing groups through many different routes].

The following is a case of being too specific (a mistake in following this law, which resulted in patch up propaganda), which is understandable as Chris Wallace appears to be a true believer in the conservative faith and therefore wasn't thinking strategically.

The Daily Show - Fox News Channel - Fair & Balanced
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

2 minutes 6 seconds :

Stewart: "You believe that Fox news is the ideological equivalent of MSNBC News?"

Wallace: "I think we are the counter-weight. I think that they have a liberal agenda and that we tell the other side of the story." [Notice the use of "Other"]

Notice the number of fields of knowledge Stewart cites as part of Fox News being "right wing resin" - In particular he mentions that Fox News sees Science, History, facts as against the 'conservatives' i.e. a comedic perspective based on Fox News broadcasts. (click links for further proof on these statements).

As a consequence he had to do a retraction, which was a very bad one but enough for a true believer as all they need is any almost any vague explanation that appears logical and has the word "because" in it [for example: He believes X because of Y, even if it is a lie the explanation is accepted if it is presented by a respected authority figure.]

The Daily Show -

Oh, for Fox Sake
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Around 1 min into the video a Fox News clip begins and Wallace says "I wish I had said the full story" in response to "we tell the other side of the story". The difference, the first is honest the next is either a lawyer idea or a planned line of attack chosen by the editors of the news cast.

About 5 minutes into the video Stewart describes Fox News game, which comes down to, 'if something is in line with Fox News 'conservatism' then it is fair and it it isn't it's liberal bias and if you try to prove them wrong they are being UNFAIRLY persecuted [playing the victim card]

Step 2: Emphasize the Visual and the Sensual over the Intellectual

"Surround yourself with luxury, dazzle your followers with visual splendor, fill their eyes with spectacle. Not only will this keep them from seeing the ridiculousness of your ideas, the holes in your belief system, it will also attract more attention, more followers."

Fox News is well known for having over done graphics and marketing. Sean Hannity's strategy is to use angry rhetoric and shouting down anyone he doesn't agree with (generally). [Creates spectacle, plus he's rich and supports the rich which is enough to dazzle some kinds of people].

Glenn Beck is also a great example of spectacle;

The Daily Show - Moment of Zen - Glenn Beck's Puppet Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Step 3: Borrow the Forms of Organized Religion to Structure the Group

"The lofty and holy associations of organized religion can be endlessly exploited. Create rituals for your followers; organize them into a hierarchy, ranking them in grades of sanctity, and giving them names and titles that resound with religious overtones; ask them for sacrifices that will fill your coffers and increase your power. To emphasize your gathering's quasi-religious nature, talk and act like a prophet."

The Tea Party protests has the format of a religion. A movement, based on ideology, that requires sacrifices of time and money from its followers with rituals such as buying tea bags and I think I remember some kind of tea boxes stacking event.

Side note: When there is dissension in the ranks then the cult is falling apart, this is the time for escape.

The Daily Show - Moment of Zen - Bernie Goldberg Calls Jon a

Racist
Get More: Daily Show

Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire

Blog,The Daily Show on

Facebook

Step 4: Disguise Your Source of Income

"Your followers want to believe that if they follow you all sorts of good things will fall into their lap. By surrounding yourself with luxury you become living proof of the soundness of your belief system. Never reveal that your wealth actually comes from your followers' pockets; instead, make it seem to come from the truth of your methods."

After the Tea Party movement was created, the creators (Fox News) distanced itself acting as if the Tea Party sprang up 'on its own'

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

About a minute in Newt Gingrich says that the tea party 'kinda sprang up on its own'

Then Stephen Colbert proves that the Tea Party was founded by anchors of Fox News and activism ideas even came from the repub party chairmen.

About 3 minutes into the video Stephen says a bunch of nonsense, mixing various eras from history together with fiction, this is making fun of Glenn Becks theories which are historically and factually inaccurate.

Step 5: Set Up an Us-Verses-Them Dynamic

"First, make sure your followers believe they are part of an exclusive club, unified by a bond of common goals. Then, to strengthen this bond, manufacture the notion of devious enemy out to ruin you. There is a force of nonbelievers that will do anything to stop you. Any outsider who tries to reveal the charlatan nature of your belief system can now be described as a member of this devious force."

[such as playing victim]

They egg each other on to believe that the Social Democrats are guilty of all the horrors we'll come to experience; that immigrants rape and murder and that it's the socialists' fault. It is the fault of Mona Sahlin, former Social Democrat leader, that we will be forced to wear burkas and live under sharia law by 2020. I'm not saying it's wrong to have opinions about immigration, or to protest against the people who really do want Sweden to allow Muslims to have their own courts and laws. I don't think it's right that our borders should be wide open, without any controls – but I utterly reject these reactions. Hatred breeds nothing but hatred.

Creating the 'other': When Chris Wallace appears to be losing the factual argument immediately a 'Us vs. Them/Him' dynamic is created

The Daily Show - Oh, for Fox Sake - Stewart Eviscerates Stewart
Get

More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

About a minute of Fox News anchors repeating the same catch phrases again and again, drumming negative perspectives about Stewart into thier viewers (simple yet effective tactic used by Hitler). The race card on such a flimsy case shows desperation... one would think, but if many people believed it, then the flimsy race card was all that was needed!

The move towards terrorism or violent rhetoric...

The

Daily Show - 24-Hour Nazi Party People
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Fox News gets upset because a democrat used thier own 'Nazi' tactic on them. [After the killing of a judge that possibly was because of an individual inflamed by fundamentalist right wing rhetoric - the lessons of which were either not learned or simply ignored]. In the above

video you will see why so many people believe Fox News anchors are always lieing and not just following a script. The reality is that when you are surrounded by one kind of rhetoric all day, all week, all year then you begin to believe it. Bill O Reilly literally says Ariana Huffington and the Nazi do the same thing but seems to geniunely believe that he is NOT making a comparision between a 'liberal' and the 'Nazis'.

[Was it any surprise that a judge was shot and anothe ralmost killed with this kind of rhetoric? I wasn't surprised by that, the Norway massacre, or the future massacres from both white, black, brown, yellow and purple polka dotted deranged individuals.]

"When you push the demonization of populations, you often end up with violence," —Heidi Beirich, research director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

To combat this demonization some activists are trying to balance the equation but are playing right into the trap of 'Us vs Them' by following tactics that are exact opposite of the cult (following the same tactic is also a trap, different law of power so not applicable here)

Avoid slogans, namecalling, and demonizing members of the Right.
Slogans and sound bites have their place, but they are not sufficient as an organizing strategy. Simple anti-Right slogans do not help people understand why the Right sounds convincing but is wrong. And responding in kind to being called names weakens your position with some of the listeners you are trying to convince. Phrases like “religious political extremists” are labels, not arguments, and often will backfire on the neighborhood and community level.

The above document shows how the democrats have chosen to handle the situation. It shows that they are on the back foot. In other words, lies and ideology are so effective in the states that simple facts can only be promoted as if in a defensive war. Allowing Fox News to control the political landscape with lies is clear indication of the failing American democracy. Ideas exported to Europe should be eradicated before they can take root.

Note: How can the following types of perspectives not lead to violence?

The Daily Show - Osama bin Laden Needs to Attack America
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

---------------------------------------------

Relevant...

The Republicans' refusal to accept any tax increases to help America out of debt is like a doctor believing strictly in magic to cure a patient.

The Daily Show - Dancing on the Ceiling
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Phone Hacking Scandal and the 26th Law of Power (part 2)

2011-07-25T18:04:00.000-07:00

Remember I had pointed out that in my last post on this topic...

According to the 26th law of power from the book, "The 48 Laws of Power"

Basic Law: "Keep Your Hands Clean: You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat's-paws to disguise your involvement."

AND

If this was a movie and the whole editorial staff didn't get fired I could see the detective saying. "Not firing the one in charge was your mistake as that person connects you directly to the crime... that and the settlements you made makes this a juicy case..." but, nowadays, you can just close down a building and people are so caught up in names that they associate the name News Of The World with all the wrong deeds done by individuals (i.e. the deeds were done by people NOT a building).

I find this new use of the 26th law of power very disturbing.

Developments since my last post on this topic (Jul 8th)

About 1 week after my post: "Les Hinton, the chief executive of Dow Jones and Rupert Murdoch's right-hand man, resigned from News Corp on Friday night, a statement from the company said. Hinton, who led Murdoch's News International when the phone-hacking allegations first arose, quit hours after Rebekah Brooks, News International's chief executive, also resigned."

Getting rid of two top executives is a much better use of the 26th Law of Power. However, he made some mistakes in implementing the scapegoat technique to get out of trouble (and not just with the huge delay in executing the firings). Here is more about the 26th Law of Power (i.e. when using it is inappropriate)

Reversal: The cat's paw and scapegoat must be used with extreme caution and delicacy. They are like screens that hide your own involvement in dirty work from the public; if at any moment the screen is lifted and you are seen as the manipulator, the puppet master, the whole dynamic turns around - your hand will be seen everywhere, and you will be blamed for misfortunes you may have had nothing to do with. Once the truth is revealed, events will snowball beyond your control. [From "The 48 Laws of Power"].

A look at developments and mistakes (with some comments) since July 8th:

"Anne Simpson, the Briton who is in charge of corporate governance at Calpers, said that it was time for change at the company, which gives special voting powers to shares held by the Murdoch family. "News Corp does not have one share one vote. This is a corruption of the governance system. Power should reflect capital at risk. Calpers sees the voting structure in a company as critical. The situation is very serious and we're considering our options. We don't intend to be spectators – we're owners," she said. While the Murdochs own 12% of the company, their special B shares give them voting rights over 40% of the company. Calpers holds 6.4m shares."

Behaviour pattern: Like to keep control over decision making in his company.

The loss on Friday of Mr Hinton, a senior US-based adviser who has worked for Mr Murdoch for 52 years, and Ms Brooks, a pivotal figure in his UK operation and close family friend, capped a second tumultuous week for the News Corp chairman.

Claims not to have any involvement of the decision making even though he obviously likes to keep control and has an extremely long family friend relationship. (i.e. the involvement and behaviour pattern is such that ones the scapegoat technique is used appropriately you have to take a 'hit' or take responsibility of some sort)

"Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for new media ownership rules to limit Rupert Murdoch's "dangerous" and "unhealthy" concentration of power. He told the Observer Mr Murdoch's large market share led to "abuses of power".

True. concentration of wealth and influence in the hand of of a few (or one) can lead to abuse - Proof of Murdoch's abuse of power is here.

The following extracts are from Murdoch's questioning (transcript is located here.):

"Q: Why was no one fired in April, when the company took responsibility for large-scale phone hacking?

RM says people in the company were guilty. "We have to find them and we have to deal with them appropriately."

JM says most of those responsible had long since left the company." ----- "• Rupert Murdoch denies overall responsibility for the phone hacking affair.

Q: Who is responsible?

RM says the people he trusted, and the people they trusted.

He says he worked with Les Hinton for 52 years. He would trust him with his life.

(It is not clear from this whether he thinks he has now been let down by Hinton, or whether he is saying he still trusts Hinton, but that Hinton was let down by others.)" .

From a strategy perspective... he's waiting to see what is proved against whom before he takes sides.

The mistake he made is simple;

There are moments when it is advantageous to not disguise your involvement or responsibility, but rather to take the blame yourself for some mistake. If you have power and are secure in it, you should sometimes play the penitent: With a sorrowful look, you ask for forgiveness from those weaker than you. [The 48 Laws of Power]

Rupert only used the above to the degree of saying that his being questioned, 'was the most humble moment' of his life. [Ironically that's what the Dowler family called him! "Hours after that statement, Rupert Murdoch met the parents and sister of Dowler in London. "He was very humbled and very shaken and very sincere," said Mark Lewis, the Dowler family lawyer." ]

This mistake is illustrated in the following interview;

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Notes:

‎1. 'People in Britain don't care about the royals or celebrity hackings' - so using an emotional card to push through public action on basic laws (as public knowledge can lead to public action; something that faith/ideology based political activists are excellent at) .

2. 'Apologized for everything and took responsibility for nothing' - check for abuse of the law of power - theme taking a short term hit for long term security. [Another mistake of the '48 Laws of Power' by Murdoch - Its time for his son to takeover] .

3. Murdoch's fox news is also using the 'he apologized so let him go' tactic.

Other interesting things Rupert said at his hearing:

RM 'The law should not be broken only campaigning for change' - i.e. Rupert doesnt believe anyone should break the law except as far as campaigning to change it goes. Which is fine but look what he's campaign contributions go towards...

"Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal."

Random comment: It irritates me that on one hand there are honorable illegals and on the other had there are newly made citizens in the US such as Murdoch. (Note: I'm indifferent to immigration issues except when it comes to Murdoch).

Future look out: RM ' i am the best person to clean this up' - It seems that RM follows the laws to some extant (excluding morality - see above) - With a change in laws requiring 'Truth in News for an informed populace' may encourage them to clean up Fox News?

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

1. "Notice how headlines always start on the left" - The joke makes a non-nonsensical connection of writing to 'left'. - Later shows Fox News doing the same thing [very clever!]

‎2. 1 min 28sec: Fox News has started reporting on the scandal!

‎3. 2 mins : "the news of the world is a hacking scandal that can't be denied [coughs] - [interrupted segment?] - "shouldn't we get beyond the scandal to the issue of hacking... bank of america has been hacked into, are they getting the same kinda attention they were getting back a year ago that newscorp is getting today" - A. Hackers wern't caught in the bank hacking incident, B. In this case it is the company doing the hacking (not a hacker doing a company) - This brings attention back on newscorp and seems to insist (in a round about way) that it should be investigated more as , for the first time, a hacker has been identified all the way to the top... could be a war going on in fox news?

4. "Both victims of being in the sentence with the word 'hack'" - As was the joke of 'left' with writing from 'left', above.

5. Accuses fox news anchors of being hacks when they are actually actors and actresses though they sometimes mess up. Nowadays, they are being trained much better... click here to watch an anchor compare a super size McDonalds meal to 'eating a Live Raccoon'. (Note: A raccoon is a rather large and possibly dangerous animal in the wild of the US).

Side Note:

The Daily Show - Horrible Bosses
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

1. ..."simple story, ma and pa owned newspaper" hacked dead girls phone.

‎2. Stewart, "well, i guess if the guys who were bribed don't think there is anything suspicious in the death of the guy who blew the whistle on the company providing the bribes, I'm satisfied." a. Parody of US citizen : This is a common attitude in the states where people will often believe most, if not everything, a particular authority figures says. In Pakistan its the opposite.

Breaking News: Phone Hacking Scandal and The 26th Law of Power

2011-07-08T02:18:00.000-07:00

This post concerns the British Tabloid that was involved in the recent hacking scandal. [Note: This also connects with the case for regulation of news media.]

There is a timeline of events here, that suggest there was some hanky panky going on in the background (i.e. payments being made for keeping people happy/silent) such as this one;

January 2007 – News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire are convicted of conspiracy to hack into phone voice mails of royals and are jailed. Andy Coulson, the paper's editor, claims to be unaware of hacking but still resigns.

July 2007 – Goodman and Mulcaire sue the tabloid for wrongful dismissal. Goodman receives £80,000 and Mulcaire receives an undisclosed amount. (click here to read more)

How can you get money for wrongful dismissal if you are guilty? Well, the story is still breaking...for example;

One of the Murdoch's has this to say, "The Company paid out-of-court settlements approved by me. I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so. This was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."

To say that making a payment was wrong, after such a large time period, is unusual.

And this, "We have also admitted liability in civil cases. Already, we have settled a number of prominent cases and set up a Compensation Scheme, with cases to be adjudicated by former High Court judge Sir Charles Gray. Apologising and making amends is the right thing to do."

There are still bugs to work out with asking questions and understanding business deals, however, since lie detector tests are allowed in civil suits, I think it's a good idea for citizens to take advantage of this and thoroughly interrogate any suspects associated with the invasion of privacy laws. (It won't happen, but I wanted to say this anyways).

On a side note ... or more accurately, something more directly related to the art of politics...

About 22 seconds into the video...

Notice that the entire staff is new (except for 3 people) - which means all the people involved in the hacking scandal have left.

According to the 26th law of power from the book, "The 48 Laws of Power"

Basic Law: "Keep Your Hands Clean: You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat's-paws to disguise your involvement."

Shutting down the newspaper, as if to blame an 'institution' or more accurately to blame a newspaper headquarters for any misdeeds done, thus wiping your hands clean.

To make this law work properly you have to "Conceal your mistakes - Have a scapegoat around to take the blame" as the author explains on page 201, "Our good name and reputation depend more on what we conceal than on what we reveal. Everyone makes mistakes, but those who are truly clever manage to hide them, and to make sure someone else is blamed. A convenient scapegoat should always be kept around for such moments."

If you watch the above video you will notice that the original wrong doers have all left. And one of the top executives, a woman by the name of Rebekah Brooks...has an interesting history with Murdoch...

In March 2003 she courted controversy -- and hinted at the scandal to come -- when, appearing before a government committee, she admitted that her paper had paid police officers for information.

Brooks held the Sun post until 2009 when she was handpicked for the role of News International chief executive by the paper's owner, media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
The pair had been close for many years: Murdoch is said to treat Brooks like a daughter.

If this was a movie and the whole editorial staff didn't get fired I could see the detective saying. "Not firing the one in charge was your mistake as that person connects you directly to the crime... that and the settlements you made makes this a juicy case..." but, nowadays, you can just close down a building and people are so caught up in names that they associate the name News Of The World with all the wrong deeds done by individuals (i.e. the deeds were done by people NOT a building).

I find this new use of the 26th law of power very disturbing.

Wall Street

2011-07-04T18:27:00.000-07:00

In this video you will see Patrick Mchenry go red as he claims that Elizabeth Warren is 'making this up'. This started a huge controversy, in some circles...

... so, I decided to visit Patrick McHenry's facebook page, along with a bunch of other people who seemed to have decided the same thing and it ended up becoming a fascinating exploration into modern politics...

Here are some of the links to conversations:

About Reagan and Unions

An amazingly nonsensical discussion from my comment of 'Warren is advocating for the Middle class'.

I was very impressed by the skillful use of half truths;

What he means here is - SINCE - Obama came to office. This is not a history lesson folks. This is politics. [Note: This was not a lie just a focus on a short time period.]

Sigh! What he means above is that she didn't cover everything that happened. Amazing! [Note: I didn't realize till later that this was another political charade.]

This sort of half truth charade is common in politics:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

My conclusion on Patrick McHenry's facebook page was based on a careful observation of the interactions of the commentators, the random beliefs thrown about and the surprisingly fierce insults being hurled, making this look like some playground brawl more than a political discussion.(Conclusion below)

OK. I'm done with my research. I am now certain that because of an educational system that didn't teach critical thinking skills, politics has now become a shouting match of insults bereft of any proof or respect. For others, still willing to learn, here is an overview of what despotism is from Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.youtu...be.com/watch?v=7TvTAJfZwII . You will notice that respect, critical thinking skills, less tax burden on the lower income groups, and economic distribution of wealth (and since wealth can buy votes and media exposure - greater wealth = greater power), is all covered in this old but forgotten Encyclopedia Britannica video.

Finally,

1. Notice how 100 cents on the dollar is paid for one institution and not another. This has to do with which institutions are considered to be of more risk to the economy, i.e. systematic risk. A bunch of regulations to control these risks were proposed. Yet, based on the above video, it seems that the shenanigans continue. :-(

"Almost everyone agrees that our banks need federal money to avoid even more calamity, but how much is too much, and who's watching how they spend it?"

The answer to above question is, at the moment, no one.

2. Notice that the FED was at the front-lines of these 'negotiations'.

3. Notice that big banks have gotten bigger - bigger means they have more financial resources concentrated around them. This means that they are no longer "too big to fail" but "much much too big to fail".

Now, take a look at this series of thoughts...

1. Reagan supported unions;

The Daily Show - Moment of Zen - Ronald Reagan Supports Unions
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

2.Hypocrisy concerning Wall Street;

The Daily Show - Moment of Zen - Public Employee Union vs. Wall Street Bonus Contracts
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

3. Elizabeth Warren can never be allowed to investigate Wall Street.

Not gonna happen: Elizabeth Warren would terrify Wall Street and couldn’t be confirmed; Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz got a lot of mentions in my Twitter feed, but I doubt either of them would want the job, and neither could be confirmed; Michael Bloomberg is an interesting choice, but he’s too ambitious, with too much of an independent power base, for the White House to trust him.

Background Information:

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 1

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 2

Warren's Interview with Stewart Part 3

Warren's Interview with Washington Post

An Introduction To Water Politics

2011-06-22T03:44:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show - Alex Prud'homme
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The following quote is from "Tools To Understand Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica":

"When decision making is left in a few hands (or compiled into a huge bill so that there is at least one issue you feel so strongly for that you have to vote for it even if other aspects of the bill is bad for the community/country - then you have limited choice {and have been tricked!}) THEN the community is moving towards despotism.

Today, a community can move towards despotism by allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few.

The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the Will of The People."

The above video involves people fighting to update regulations to keep thier water clean. The Koch Brothers are involved, about whom alot of controversy already exists.

Notice that Shep points out that if the unions go then the democratic party has no funding enabling the conservative economists to push through thier ideological agenda. {Learn more: Ideological Agenda Proof 1 and Ideological Agenda Proof 2 and Ideological Agenda Proof 3 }
[Note: Economic war on the people of a community counts as treason because it limits freedom and choice as it reduces access to resources to fellow citizens.]

The last point of the 'arguments made about past american presidents', I first mentioned here. (Note how sensible Glenn Beck's argument seems at a first glance - Click Here). My perspective is that there were only 13 colonies at the time, in a wilderness (especially when compared to European cities), they didn't have an economy period (much less a modern economy in a modern world) and they were making amendments to the articles that meant the most to them keeping a continuity with history and the ideals of republicanism and then Democratic. [The Democratic effort is still in the works.] - [Also note that Andrew Jackson also expanded Democratic freedoms in the political arena.]

From Zakaria's site:

In 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation met to revise a document that was out of sync with the needs of the nation. But instead of revising the Articles, they started anew, drafting the U.S. Constitution.

After a period of debate, revision and ratification, the Articles officially ended and the Constitution came into effect in 1789. The first Congress met. George Washington became president. And 222 years ago, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land.
Has the time come to revisit the document?

America today is quite different from the America of yore. Meanwhile, other nations have updated their constitutions successfully, bringing them more in line with modern democratic representation, for example.

On the other hand, the Constitution enshrined timeless principles of liberty and justice. The document's longevity is itself testament to its lasting value. Would it be a mistake to tinker with such a success script?

What do you think? Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and if so, how? What amendments would you recommend?

Further Research Links:

Water Wars. (College lecture series)

Water Wars.

Water wars in the Middle East.

The Ideological Debate Between... Jobs vs. Budgeting

2011-06-19T19:43:00.000-07:00

The debt ceiling is talked about allot in the media nowadays. An increase in the debt ceiling (which is done by a vote by the representatives of the country's citizens) failed to pass on May 31 for ideological reasons. Some Republicans think that NOW is the time to stop raising the debt ceiling (something done by the GOP leaders several times from 2002 to 2008). Why should we suddenly stop following a previous policy just when we are about to do something different on the economic field? I think its because the GOP leaders have lost faith in the American ability to overcome its challenges (as Republican rule put the country on the brink on economic collapse (remember 2008-09?).

Here is what is going on:

From Fox News:

The congressman said resolving the debt ceiling issue "is crucial for our place in the world economic system," adding that he's open to all ideas to balance the budget. One option the Washington Democrat is proposing is letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire. "The deficit would go down by $533 billion," he said. "So, there are a lot of ways we can get there."

Why is it so difficult to resolve this simple economic issue? The problem is ideology NOT economics...

The old Republicans used to be sensible. Then they got old. Problem is they brought up a bunch of 'old' children as well, stuck in ideology and not aware of the facts the way Republican's used to be. ‎[For example: My grandparents lived through the Great Depression which was so traumatic that they adopted, a 'great depression' perspective. Always worried, accumulating everything they can, wanting things not to change etc. They will often accept ideas from certain authoritive sources just because they have for a long time.]

Extract:

"It used to be that conservatism was a hard-headed set of ideas rooted in reality.
Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society, but from the world as it actually exists.

"This is the way things work," conservatives would patiently explain to wooly headed liberal professors. "Whatever you may want it to look like, this is what it really looks like."
But consider the debates over the economy these days. The Republican prescription is cut taxes - slash government spending, then things will always bounce back.

Now, I would like to see lower tax rates in the context of simplification and reform, but what is the actual evidence that massive tax cuts are the single best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies.

So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts, either past or present. It is simply a theoretical assertion.

The rich countries after all are in the best shape right now with strong growth and low unemployment are ones like Germany, Denmark and Canada - none characterized by low taxes."

More proof that the economic debate in the States is an ideological debate - i.e. watch the following talk between the economists on whether we should have jobs vs. whether we should be budgeting (I know I'm biased, but that sounds like my Grandparents... sensible for an individual in dire economic times but not for an economy/country). With jobs for our youth there will be a boost in demand driven by greater income. Add technological boosts and new/small business boosts and the demand in the country's economy will be even greater - i.e. we can think innovatively and succeed with the resources that we have.

[Edit: June 22 '11 - Podcast link removed and replaced with direct video evidence (below) - even CNN notes that this is an ideological debate]

Notice where it says 'in my judgement' in the following quote - another proof that this is an ideological debate...

"STOCKMAN: Yes. That's the dilemma that we're in. We're in a deflationary cycle. We can't afford to borrow more. We can't afford to create artificial demand and artificial employment. And so, therefore, we're likely to have unemployment in the teens for the balance of the teens, that is, for a decade or more.

That's the mess that we have created after 30 years of, you know, tax giveaways and lack of control on entitlements and running this massive $800 billion war budget that we don't need and can't afford. It sounds like very harsh medicine, but it happens to be reality. We cannot borrow our way out of this one, in my judgment. We're now facing the day of reckoning, literally."

Here is another direct quote (notice that what this Republican economist thinks should be done is an ideological perspective NOT an economic one {i.e. he is using metaphor of personal budgeting for understanding an economy)...

"Two years ago, Greece was borrowing two-year money at 3 percent. This morning, they're borrowing at 30 percent. There reaches a point when the bond market is no longer willing to tolerate the kind of fiscal irresponsibility we have, and I think we're very close to that, and it is very foolish to run a risk of trying to find out how much longer we can go on with this before the reaction sets in.

So, yes, I agree it would be nice if we could afford to spend money to put people to work or put money in people's pockets, although I don't think that's a good public policy. But we can't afford it. Literally, we are broke. Literally, we are at the edge of a financial calamity and we have to get beyond the idea that there is always enough balance sheet left to borrow some more money until we get to economic conditions that are more to our liking. The conditions that we have are the ones that we have to cope with, and that, unfortunately, is the fact of life today."

It is a fact of life for people. Economies function on different principles as my new REAL Economics blog will make clear. this post is just to make it clear that raising the debt ceiling an creating more opportunities and jobs VS. the current GOP leader's 'budgeting' approach to a country's economic system is an ideological one NOT an economic one.

Tools To Understand Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica

2011-06-18T13:22:00.000-07:00

[This is an old documentary by Encyclopedia Britannica that provides a way for a person to measure the levels of democracy and despotism in a society. This documentary is made in 1946 in collaboration with Harold D. Lasswell PhD of Yale University a political scientist. Harold D. Laswell PhD begins with the statement, Avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism. He then encourages a person to look beyond fine words and noble phrases and to use a couple of scales as yardsticks to measure the levels of democracy or despotism that may exist in a community.]

Notes:

You can measure any community on this simple scale;

Be careful NOT to assume that the 'mere form of a government can gaurd you against despotism'.

Germany was a Republic and yet a despotic ruler was able to take root (i.e. Hitler).

A competent observer looks beyong fine words and noble phrases. [even Hitler used fine words and noble phrases - You look instead at history, actions, behavior, results of policies (and who was the controller behind the scene NOT just the face of an action)... Then follow the dots into the present using a holistic perspective]

Two yardsticks have been proven to help any community to discover how close it is to despotism;

The Respect Scale

As a community moves towards despotism, respect is restricted to fewer people (such as restricting respect to ONLY members of a small group or one political party).

A community is becomming despotic is respect is withheld from a large group of people on account

of thier political attitudes. (such as persecution because someone is wealthy, of a different race or religion etc.).

The ability of every citizen to better themselves (and educate themselves) is another important measurement of determining the level of respect in society.

The oppoturnity to develope useful skills is important but not enough as the opportunity to put such skills to use (make a living) is another important measurement on the respect scale.

The Power Scale

This scale is useful to determine the citizens share in making decisions for thier community.

When decision making is left in a few hands (or compiled into a huge bill so that there is at least one issue you feel so strongly for that you have to vote for it even if other aspects of the bill is bad for the community/country - then you have limited choice {and have been tricked!}) THEN the community is moving towards despotism.

Today, a community can move towards despotism by allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few.

The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the Will of The People.

Despotism can be official AND unofficial.

The spread of respect and power in a community can be measured using the following 2 scales;

Economic Distribution

If a communities economic distribution becomes slanted then it is moving towards despotism.

If middle income groups grow smaller, then despotism has a better chance to gain a foothold.

One sign of a move towards a despotic society is the concentration of land in the hands of a few people.

When farmers lose thier farms they lose thier independence.

In communities that depend on almost on a single industry (such as a factory or mine) will have find that maintaining economic balance is a challenging problem

Tax Burden

Another sign of a poorly balanced economy is a taxation system that presses heaviest on those least able to pay.

Larger amount of a poorer person's income is spent on food, so sales taxes press heaviest on the poor and middle class.

The Information Scale

A community rests low on the information scale when the press/media is controlled by a few people and when citizens HAVE TO accept what they are told.

If students are not taught critical thinking skills (with a well rounded education so they have basic knowledge of history, politics, sophism, economics etc.) THEN despotism has a good chance of establishing itself.

By keeping students unable to think critically, you get adults who can't think critically (or have any ability to evaluate facts from lies). These adults will accpet whatever thier chosen authority source tells them.

A video and 3 links on Henry Kissinger

2011-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:00

Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy is a important for understanding modern politicks.

This video gives a great overview of the type of 'real politicks' has been going on for the last few decades.

Link 1

A prominent member of Switzerland’s largest political party has called upon federal authorities to arrest Henry Kissinger as a war criminal if he attends the 2011 Bilderberg conference of global power brokers which is set to begin on Thursday at the Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz.

Link 2

WALLACE: Good evening, I’m Mike Wallace. Tonight we’ll tackle the immediate issue that will decide the fate of our freedom, certainly, and possibly even of our survival. We’ll discuss the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the chances of war. Our guest, Professor Henry Kissinger, Associate Director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, and the man whose recent proposals substantially influenced President Eisenhower’s plan for military reorganization.

Dr. Kissinger, last year your attack on our foreign and military policies was apparently found so disturbing that the New York Times carried this front-page story: they said, "For the first time since President Eisenhower took office, officials at the highest government levels are displaying interest in the theory of the ‘little’, or ‘limited’, war. The theory of massive retaliation is being re-examined." That was a year ago. What has come of the re-examination?

KISSINGER: I think the theory has been re-examined; the practice has not been.

WALLACE: The theory has been found wanting, then?

KISSINGER: The theory has been found wanting, but I don’t think we have made the effort, or spent the money, or made the sacrifices necessary for… to get a capability for limited war.

WALLACE: Well now, in order to better understand your proposal for limited war, perhaps it would be well for you to define what you understand to be our current United States’ military policy. What is our military policy?

KISSINGER: Well, our current military policy is based on the doctrine of massive retaliation: that we threaten an all-out attack on the Soviet Union in case the Soviet Union engages in aggression anywhere. This means that, against almost any form of attack, we base our policy on the threat that will involve the destruction of all mankind; and this is too risky, and I think too expensive.

Link 3

Despite the fact that the United States is embroiled in three major conflicts and can barely service its own gigantic debt, with Standard and Poor this week indicating the US will soon lose its triple-A credit rating, top globalist and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently told fellow elitists at three different globalist confabs that the US needs to launch a ground invasion of Libya and keep the war running for at least another year.

Introduction to true Republicanism

2011-06-08T13:24:00.000-07:00

Extracts 1

The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."

In 1854 there was a serious problem with a few individuals controlling the labor supply with no benefits. This created a good economic situation for the wealthy but a life of no self-dignity for their workers (the title for this type of worker of that time is 'slave'). But the republicans came in. Destroyed the slavers and help increase the standard of living for the oppressed so that everyones environment would improve. With freedom of speech and freedom of choice for everyone - and better economic opportunities - the difference in distribution of wealth (i.e. between those who had money and those who didn't) began to improve. For a while. This means that more people have more wealth. This creates more equality, both in society and in perception of other human beings.

The Republicans were facing a country that was economically broken and socially fractured. To help repair the country and establish conditions for equality, freedom and thus democracy to flourish, the Republicans created an economically and socially sound platform to help protect the freedoms to citizens guaranteed under the constitution.

Today, we face similar economic conditions and the Republican platform is the opposite of what the founding fathers of the Republican party sought and won. Creating the America we know and love today. Unfortunately the wealthy people, who were seeking only their own benefit and not the benefits of their fellow citizens - who were defeated by the Republican Party founders - seem to have come back from the inside of my forefathers party and have subverted true Republican ideals to serve their own purposes.

The word society is normal for everyone. We all live in a 'society'. And we all want to help other members of our society and help improve our society. We encourage our kids to help others and to be be more social and better members of society. Yet, doing that (called being a 'socialist' i.e. finding ways to improve society) has been given a bad name and anyone who opposes these speakers are immediately demonized. If you don't help other members of society - first of all, there's a danger of increased heartlessness as we become more willing to watch the poor and homeless struggle to eat - society will get worse.

The difference between the wealthy, who can afford to do something other than struggle to survive, and the destitute is growing. The middle-class is shrinking (all through Republican policies that are not based on my forefathers party - as I have shown in other articles in other blogs). The current platform (see previous post) does exactly the opposite of what would be needed to ensure our freedoms and continued democracy.

The following video shows how democracy really works. Not as some catchy political word that is repeated over and over again till people simply are too tired to question it. Subverting the truth and even the investigation of truth with highly emotionally charged propaganda. That's treason.