Friday, January 27, 2012

So How's That "Citizens United" Thing Working Out For Ya?

After the rabidly Zionist gambling Mogul and newspaper owner, Sheldon Adelson, and his wife, revived Newt Gingrich's campaign with $10 million plus in contributions, even some in Congress were rattled. But, this was the predicted outcome of the "Citizens United" decision, so no one should be surprised. You might, however, want to support the groups that are trying to promote a needed constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision like Move to Amend. Interestingly, Mr.Adelson seems to prefer giving his money primarily to political ventures favoring Israel, where he maintains the most read newspaper, and along those lines, he is willing to provide whatever it takes to influence our Presidential election on Israel's behalf. Unprincipled politicians like Gingrich are all too eager to become Adelson's sock puppet for 10 million dollars, and Gingrich's hyperbolic and exaggerated, Likud-like statements about the Palestinians and Iran in recent weeks demonstrate that Adelson's purchase may be a sound one.

Here are some articles about Sheldon and his good work:

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America
Posted By Justin Raimondo On January 24, 2012

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.

Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills. In short, Adelson can operate in the dark, as far as Joe Voter is concerned – and darkness is what the Adelsonian agenda requires above all.

So what is Adelson’s agenda? . . . .


Gingrich’s Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions from Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson
Democracy Now! 1/27/12

. . . . Gal, explain what it is, this Adelson-Gingrich relationship, why he supports him.

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, he supports—the relationship is really symbiotic, in a way. It developed, as you said, in the mid-'90s over issues of union busting. Adelson wanted some help; Gingrich was able to offer it. And it developed as time went on. It seems to have helped kind of in Gingrich's evolution in terms of his pro-Israel stance. Wayne Barrett recently reported in The Daily Beast that, you know, if you look at what Gingrich was saying about Palestinians and Israel in 2005, even, as recently as 2005, it was kind of a different line. He was talking about investing in their ancestral lands. He was really speaking a much different language. This is now changed. You won’t hear Gingrich saying anything like that anymore. And it’s not—you know, one can’t draw a direct causal link, you know, find the telephone call in which Adelson said, you know, "I want you to say this." But it’s not hard to imagine that if your political life depends on a man who has very extreme-right views when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, that you’re going to hear that same language come out of that candidate’s mouth. . . . .


NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Urged to Resign After Police Conceal Role in Anti-Muslim Documentary
Democracy Now! 1/27/12

. . . .
LINDA SARSOUR: The film is absolutely outrageous. Any rational-minded person that watches it will say, "Wow! How did the New York Police Department, the largest police force in this country, supposedly the most credible, have access to this film?" And what’s most astonishing is that while the NYPD surveils our community and creates files on us and checks us and all this kind of intelligence, the fact that there was no due diligence on the part of the NYPD to check out who the Clarion Fund is and to look up—look at their history—you don’t even need to have intelligence; just go on Google and find out who these people are—and connecting the dots, and looking at, you know, someone like Sheldon Adelson, who like funded this film, is also funding Newt Gingrich. It’s all connected. And this Third Jihad is not a one-time, you know, just a film, and we’re all mad and offended. It’s not about being offended. It’s about the security of all New Yorkers. If one bad judgment like this is happening in the NYPD, only God knows what other films are being shown that we don’t have the names in order for us do a FOIA request on these films. It’s absolutely outrageous. . . . .


Who is Newt Gingrich’s biggest donor and what does he want?

. . . . Sheldon Adelson is also, far and away, the biggest patron of Newt Gingrich’s now-surging Republican presidential bid. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, have pumped $10 million into a political action committee backing Gingrich that is run by the former House speaker’s onetime aides. Campaign finance experts say the two $5 million contributions are among the largest known political donations in U.S. history.

No other candidate in the race to challenge President Barack Obama in the November election appears to be relying so heavily on the fortune of a single donor. It’s been made possible by last year’s Supreme Court rulings — known as Citizens United — that recast the political landscape by stripping away restrictions on contributions and how outside groups can spend their money.

Sheldon Adelson is Citizens United come to life. . . . .

No comments: