The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label The Pauls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Pauls. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Kochs Bristle In Response To Real Media

This past September, Rolling Stone published a piece regarding the horrors of the Koch brothers empire. 

On September 24th, Tom Dickinson published the pieceInside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire, with the following by-line. 
Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money.
Read more

By now you should know the Kochs well enough to know they are not only two of the wealthiest men in the world, they also have a desire to reign in US government. They are Libertarian and occupy the far-right hemisphere of Libertarianism. "Libertarianism," an ideology that I strongly feel is conservative with little remaining vestiges of liberalism and individual freedoms. I have yet to meet or read about a Libertarian who manifest actual liberal views. In fact, I more often than not find staunch conservatives, bigots, racist and quick moniker-ed as "libertarian." The Kochs, the Pauls, and Jesse Ventura are classic and without question examples of my contempt for the ideology. But, I digress. 

Needless to say, the Kochs took great exception to the Rolling Stone's piece and fired off a response. There is one thing about the Kochs they will dig and manipulate (social and political) dirt by the tons, but do not like having their labor exposed in any manner. They are especially averse to attribution back to their marionette strings lined with shadowy money. 

The Kochs responded to Rolling Stone with an obvious post legal brief/public relations diatribe. The diatribe included a direct attack on Tom Dickinson. On September 29th, the surly industrial oligarch's response was addressed by Tom Dickinson: Koch Industries Responds to Rolling Stone – And We Answer Back
"Koch Facts" calls our story "dishonest and misleading." A point-by-point rebuttal.
Read more  (Including this: "The salient feature of Koch's response is that the company does not argue the core facts of our 9,000-word expose. Instead, Koch targets the messenger. Koch's top target here is not even Rolling Stone, but me, Tim Dickinson."
If you are an American who has a deep quest for accurate information and are concerned about growing US oligarchy with the Koch on leading white horses, the "We Answer Back" is classic first class journalism and a refreshing treatise regarding the Wichita oligarchs. Dickinson's 14 point retort to the Koch public relations response is  a must read.

Isn't it amazing the uber wealthy Kochs have continue a US government power grab since David Koch provided money and a body for the 1980 Libertarian party as the vice presidential candidate. An image of the 1980 platform (in brief).

I posit the Kochs have added a few anti-US government items to their List of Oligarchy. If you review the 1980 libertarian Party platform excerpt above, you will easily discern an aversion to any regulatory agencies, polices and monitoring. Haven't we seen and felt enough from laissez-faire GOP: "FREE MARKETS: No regulation." The moniker even wore thin for US conservatives as it was changed post Bush to "FREE MARKETS." When did you last hear or read a Republican speak of "no regulation?"

The Kochs are uncharacteristic in their attention to any article, comment or sentence leveled against them. They are of such privilege, they seem to have never learned that even the filthy rich and obscenely opulent cannot have it "all things Koch." 

In 2013, the Koch's public relations squad apparently requested a story correction form MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Well, the effort did not end as desired with yet another Koch trophy on their PR mantel. Pay particular attention to the segment start and its end starting at the 7:00 minute mark.

Uber wealthy "nation shapers" and "thin-skin (itis)" comes across as a bit of an oxymoron. The Kochs have no worries about scrutiny and criticism from Fox News, CNN, nor either of the major network news shows. 

The brothers escape any probing from Sunday Morning news shows as those shows are over-booked with conservatives with the singular focus of Obama Derangement.  

First Quarter 2013

Yet, their antennas raise like an angry Cobra with any level of criticism from MSNBC or "unbought' print/online media. 

US Media is owned (and directed) by six (6) corporate families. Since 1983, US media have collapsed into corporate families with conservative "overseers." If you think the last statement is a leap, think of any major US corporation that has a documented liberal executive management team. Since, corporations are "not" people and are run by uber wealthy boards of directors and CEOs, the "thought conservatives" run these entities are well within the purview of reality. Additional evidence of Us Media gone Right. Cases in point....

CBS news executives hired David Rhodes, former Fox News exec, to run its news division. Rhodes started his news career out of college at Fox News. I think it safe to assume an anti-progressive paradigm permeates his leadership vision. Hence, Lara Logan's over-the-top lie filled 60 Minutes Benghazi broadcast.

CNN's executive management change to Fred Zucker resulted in an immediate dispatch of all things progressive (Soledad O'Brien, Roland Martin and Ali Velshi as examples) and its "balance" moniker. Have you heard any CNN host speak of "balanced" broadcasting in the past two years? Have you noticed the overwhelming slant towards conservative guest on CNN? The network has full control over who appears on its broadcast segments. Watch to see the extent to which CNN books conservative guest in far greater numbers than progressive guest.  

I repeat.
"Yet, their antennas raise like an angry Cobra with any level of criticism from MSNBC or "unbought' print/online media." 
Rolling Stone and Dickinson are outside the Octopus grasp of the Kochs. To date, Comcast has not reeled all MSNBC hosts into conservative talking heads (such as Scarborough, Todd, Mitchell). Maddow and Rolling Stone's Dickinson stand as progressive journalist who have not succumbed to growing current event and political entertainment media.

It is delightful to find a couple of real journalist stand against the oligarchs, in a desert of growing subservience to the Kochs and tumbleweed media and politicians rolling around like insect collecting dollars strewn-out for performance, 

Embedded image permalink

While we are on the Kochs, we offer a Slate dot com piece relate to the Koch Cabal.


Sunday, April 21, 2013

The "Founding Fathers", The Pauls, The US Constitution

Eric Smith has a page on the TPI

We are posting this here for a few days prior to posting on "Eric Smith' Comments and Screed" Page.  I must address the phraseology "Grounding Fathers' prior to the Eric Smith read.  If you have visited here and read other pieces related the Constitutional Convention,  you know the TPI does not use the phraseology "Founding Fathers". The words are commonly accepted and easily understood, so use of the phrase is a personal aversion when I write. We more often refer to the the Continental Congress and its 79 actual crafters of the US Constitution as "Crafters of the US Constitution". Some prefer to refer to the "Crafters" as "Framers". It should be noted one of the nation's worse presidents prior to ascension while serving as a US Senator is responsible for the words "Founding Fathers". Warren Harding coined the phrase as Keynote Speaker for the 1916 Republican National Convention. 

Why does the developer of the TPI not used the phrase?  No civilized father would sanction human  bondage (the 3/5s persons) nor would such a man practice slavery.  The Constitutional Convention was comprised of 70 state and territory representatives, 55 were active in the Convention, 39 actually signed the US Constitution. 

Sixteen owned slaves,
Twelve presidents were slave owners,
Eight owned human beings while serving as president,

Thus my contempt for the phrase "Founding Fathers". 

Re- Posted from Eric Smith's Notes

Eric SmithThe Founding Fathers as Frauds or the Great Libertarian Lie. By Eric Smith  

by Eric Smith (Notes) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 1:42pm
There is a great lie being told to the America these days.  In fact, this lie is one of the whoppers of all time.  It is a lie being told by Ron Paul and his son Rand.  The lie they're telling us is that the Libertarian Party is for Liberty.  It is not  for  the "Liberty" that the Libertarian Party is speaking of is the "Liberty" of White Supremacy; it is the "freedom" of a Master Race to do with all other races & peoples as it see's fit; their individual freedoms be damned.

The Libertarians say they want to return America to the days  immediately following the  American Revolution; to have our national Constitution interpreted as our Founding Fathers interpreted it.  I've got news for you, when it comes to Liberty, our Founding Fathers were frauds.  They didn't believe in freedom so much as wanting to be  free of being oppressed by the British government.  They objected to being treated by King George III the same way they treated everyone else who was not white, Protestant, or male.

Our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, came about because the white males in the American colonies wanted freedom for themselves and only for themselves.  If it were otherwise then the words "All men are created equal" would have read "All people are created equal" instead.  If creating a Land of Liberty had been our Founding Fathers true intent, then the slaves would have been immediately emancipated and all the former slaves and women of voting age would have been given the right to vote.

If our Founding Fathers had not been frauds; if they had been what they said they were, then subsequent Amendments to our Constitution freeing the slaves and making the elective franchise universal for all people regardless of race or gender would not have been necessary for they would have been included in our original Bill of Rights.  If the Founding Fathers had not been frauds and been what they said they were then the United States would never have needed to fight a Civil War.  There would never have been a need for a Woman's Suffrage Movement or a Civil Rights Movement.

Why, because these issues would have been settled when this nation was originally founded.  They would have been settled if our Founding Fathers had not been frauds.  They would have been settled if, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the night of April 3rd, 1968 America had been what "it says it is on paper."  We can say we are for anything but our words  mean nothing if our rhetoric is not equal to our reality.

If you are for Liberty then you are going to do whatever is necessary to ensure that everyone is free; even if it means denying the freedom of some to deny freedom to others for the only ones who are unworthy to be free are those who feel that others are not as worthy of being as free as they are.

The Pauls and the Libertarians argue that they are for Liberty and that they believe that people should have the right to deny those very Liberties they say they are in favor of to others because of their race, their gender, their religion, and their sexual orientation.  How else can we take their argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of Federal authority and that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a "racial entitlement" other than proof positive that Ron & Rand Paul and the Libertarian Party are the very same thing those Founding Fathers of ours they so revere were; frauds?

Don't repeat this nonsense that our Founding Fathers were merely acting in the spirit of their times.  The full humanity of people of color and women was just as "self evident" in their time as it is in ours.  They, like the Libertarians of today, simply chose to ignore that reality because that reality did not jibe with their feelings of racial and gender superiority.  If these people really believed in Liberty; if they really felt that women and people of color were not their inferiors, would they have denied them their human rights?  No, because they would have rightly seen these denials as a direct contradiction of that Liberty  they said they were for.

Constructing our Constitution in such a manner so as to make it possible that these rights they were denying to people of color and women could be given to them at some future time through Constitutional Amendments was a tacit admission by our Founding Fathers that they were frauds; that they were wrong not to include  these  universal rights in our nation's founding documents.  What's more they were smart enough to realize that if they did not include in our founding documents mechanisms to give those rights they were then denying to people of color and women, that everyone around the world would see right through their lies and recognize the fraud they were perpetrating upon the globe.

The many freedoms our nation now enjoys came about not because of our Founding Fathers but in spite of them.  They came about because if they had not made it possible for future  generations of  America's  oppressed to be made free then they themselves would never have been freed from the yoke of British tyranny; the French would never have fought on our side and the American Revolution would have been crushed before it even really began.  The Founding Fathers proclaimed Liberty for All but they did so with the fingers of one hand crossed behind their backs because they knew that that was the only way they could secure Liberty for themselves.

The Founding Fathers were frauds, period.  They lied to the world and the world fell for it.  We just lucked out in that Dr. King was right when he said "truth crushed to Earth shall rise again for no lie can live forever", that lie of course being that Liberty can exist where some some people are more free than others.  It can't, no matter what Ron & Rand Paul and their Libertarian Liars would have us believe.  There is simply  no such thing as Freedom for the Few.  Freedom can only Freedom can only exist where there is Freedom for All.  It is as simple as that.

Eric Smith also publishes on We Demand That Democrats Fight Back and Bag The GOP Facebook pages