The GOP embraces Lap Dogs!
http://www.britethorn.com

Duration : 2 min 33 sec

(more…)

Technorati Tags: gop

Wall Street and Private Equity vultures are at it again. They are aided and abetted by Republican senators and its media with well designed and orchestrated campaign to cause death to the United States’ biggest employer – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The vultures are interested in causing deliberate bankruptcies so that all the equity and options owned by UAW in those respective companies turn worthless, the pension fund liabilities be avoided partly or altogether, termination benefits be reduced substantially for want of funds, and the companies so stripped off its statutory liabilities with approval of court be bought over by in Bankruptcy Court for a song.

The officials from FED, Treasury, Office of the President, and hosts of senators mainly from Republican Party want to rehearse the events of United Airlines, WorldCom, Bethlehem Steel and lately Lehman Brothers, all of whom were allowed to go bankrupt to the detriment of all its workers and employees.

Destroy the United Auto Workers..

REASON, all these companies were partly or majority owned by the Employees or Workers, which uses to act as “eyeshore” to the sucker brokers on the Wall Street and predators Private Equity firms.

The Courts of United States also favor the predators. They also award the companies to those vultures by refusing to let the company liquidated compulsorily, but handing over to bond or debenture holders by allowing writing off the entire equity of the company, so that the employees are not left with any power without money.

The whole system sucks – from monetary (FED & Treasury) to Political (Senators and Representatives), Executive branch (President) to Judiciary arm (Courts) – all are corrupted by the wily suckers on the Wall Street who use its orchestrated media – in print or television. Day in and out, you tune in to CNBC, NBC, Fox News, CNN or CBS or read Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Business Week, Forbes who all praise such actions in the name of saving the company and enforcing cost savings.

Even today, the questions are asked – why Lehman Brothers were allowed to fail? Why not Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, or even Goldman Sachs? What is so common in rest of four and unique in Lehman Brothers? The answer is LHB was majority employee owned. The Employees or workers are treated like disposable diapers in United States, whatever be the outer façade to describe them,

It happened to United Airlines only in recent past..

Why United Airlines was allowed to fail and thrown into bankruptcy court – because its was majority owned by employees. All of their shareholdings were reduced to ZERO by the bankruptcy court and awarded the company to the debt holders who deliberately bought debts to exercise the control. The life time savings of all employees were lost in a flash like homes destroyed in Californian wild fires.

The debt holders were given the new equity at most favorable terms and reducing all past equities to Zero value. If the company was still worth, the question arises why UA was not placed on auction block with open public tender or why was it not sold part by part to realize the best value?  The stocks owned by employees were reduced to zero and the stocks awarded to debt holders in exchange of debt soared to as high as $ 49 from just under few cents. This is the practice of American Capitalism where the rights of the workers are abused legally with full blessings of FED, Treasury, President, Senators, Representatives, and the Courts right up to Supreme Court.

All in the name of free enterprise, freedom, capitalism, efficiency of the capital market, and similar nouns and adjectives. They nvent new names, phrases or synonyms from Roget’s Thesaurus.

Wall Street Brokers Cheers and Jeers at the Loss of Other People’s Jobs

Whenever a company merges or taken over by predator, announcements are made to dismiss the thousands of employees in the name of cost cutting exercise and boosting the profits. Wall Steet Brokers from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch, UBS and all down the line, applaud such moves and start recommending the respective stocks by shooting them up by 10% to 50% in a few days. While the thousands of laid off employees live sleepless nights,  sobbing until dawn how to meet the mortgages or tuition fees of their kids,  the bastard brokers and investment bankers on the Wall Street go on celebrating in high profile parties hitting wine or champagne glasses with the shouts of “cheers”. They are interviewed on popular channels like CNBC or Bloomberg by Anchors with glee on their faces. There could not have been better shameless spectacle.

Read every take over in the past or mega merger, you will find the same gimmics all the time.

Condem the Wall Street Brokers and Investment Bankers to Guantanamo Bay…

It is therefore highly a celebration event that finally the Wall Street brokers saw what they deserved most. Thousands of Wall Street brokers are now being laid off in worst ever crisis which was their own making.  They now realize how it feels like losing a job – celebrating with wine glass or with full glass of tears of their loved ones. There should be no sympathy for all these bankers, Investment bankers and brokers – they should be condemned and consigned to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.  Osama Bin Laden may have caused pain only once – on 911. But these Wall street brokers, banks and investment banks are the biggest financial terrorists who cause pains every day to every family in United States.

$ 218 Billions charity by Paulson to AIG to help them pay Goldman Sach, his former company?

And look at the perfidy of Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary and Ben Bernanke (FED Chief) who have been pouring the billions, even trillions of dollars, into bankrupt banks and brokers for the losses of their offshore arms who never contributed any taxes or employment to the local American Tax Payers.  They never asked or justified why the off shore obligations of banks have suddenly become the liability of domestic Americans who have nothing to do with independent off shore operations of those defunct companies.

And why does Paulson pays $ 89 billions +$ 129 billions to AIG? Because, AIG could repay its dues to Goldman Sachs (wild guess is $ 20 billions to $70 billions), a firm of whom he was the President before joining Bush Administration. Yet, the President Bush is so blind that he can not see the naked truth

Devils’ Donation to Tax Dodgers and Denial to Domestic Tax Paying Corporations.

They are giving hundreds of billions of dollars to “Asset Void Banks with no possibility of Repayment”  for the obligations of their off shore operations, in short, tax dodgers. Same gang is  refusing to pay even $25 billions to 3 Auto makers – General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler who have been paying hundreds of millions of taxes for over 60 years, who have created over 2 million jobs, who have solid assets, who developed thousands of townships, who became the backbone of the American Industrial expansion.

United Auto Workers may come out in full force to demand full justice and ensure that all the excesses of the past defeating the cause of labor, are put to rest. It is now or never for them.

NO,  this stubborn Paulson and Bernanke say. And the Republican Senators join them – do not give them $ 25 billions – they are inefficient. If these 3 auto makers fail, and 3 million Americans are laid off, it will cause $12 Billions per month towards “unemployment allowances” that is over $144 Billions annually, if we consider the recent extension granted by the President Bush. Simple arithmetic  - lose $ 25 billions now with full guarantee of repayment or lose $144 billion in a year without any possibility of repayment towards the unemployment allowance alone, loss of tax income if they were gainfully employed is not even counted.

Crooks and Scoundrels Rule the United States now…

There is no doubt that the Crooks and Scoundrels have taken over the colorful America which is now converted into black and white – The first Black president taking over White house.

The country is on steep decline. There could  be unrest, strong protests, riots, loots, murders, real blood bath on the main streets of United States, if no actions were taken to blunt the attack of the Wall Streeters on the main street. Can you imagine what happens when 52000 employees of Citi Group and over 2 million direct or indirect employees of 3 Auto makers are suddenly thrown out on the street!

It just defies my common sense – how come these VIPs in the White House are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into bankrupt off shore operations in the form of 100% unsecured advance while denying relatively small but fully secured  $25 billions to America’s biggest industry at home – Auto Makers.  The present rulers have gone absolutely mad, just mad, just mad.

Kalidas, Hong Kong

Ref: 0811-016 Vultures preying on US Auto Makers

Anil Selarka
http://www.articlesbase.com/credit-articles/vultures-circling-on-us-auto-makers-game-plan-to-destroy-united-auto-workers-689485.html

Does today’s mainstream media news still hold the reputation of society’s watchdog?

Within the last 15 years or so, a polarizing effect has occurred moving news organizations to align themselves with either democratic or Republican Party interests. In so doing, their reporting has been biased at best and alienated certain viewer segments for the sake of satisfying what appears to be a personal political agenda. Thus, viewers on both sides (Republican and Democrat) are left with only rhetoric and commentary to size up current events.

Gone are the days of hard hitting investigative reporting.

Take Ken Silverstein for instance who was an investigative journalist and while undercover, approached powerful Washington lobbying groups as a representative seeking support for the country of Turkmenistan, which happened to have a horrible human rights record, looking to gain favor with the United States government in seeking favorable legislation. The less than patriotic lobbyists were glad to oblige and took his money. His expose was published in Harpers magazine, which was a blockbuster as far as the readers were concerned, however spurned by other journalists because his methods were seen as – deceptive?  

Hmmm, a man from an oppressive foreign nation approaches American lobbyists with money to burn looking to gain access and favor with American politicians and the reporter is shunned by his peers for deceptive practices?

Investigative news reporting has been mitigated and repackaged to debate spun news programs with hosts and a panel of experts as opposed to on the ground fact finding. This most notably occurs within the cable news network environments, which even despite the lower percentage of viewers tuning in for news overall, have managed capture the lions share of the market overtaking local news affiliates.

Apparently the media watchdog only barks at certain crooks while others get a pass.

The average commentator or reporter is not the problem; however lies with the editors, producers, and owners of the news organizations who have compromised their professionalism for advancing political beliefs and set the tone for how and what information will be conveyed. Of course this would be denied by them, but the average Joe knows where to get his news based upon his own political direction. To support my point, chances are if you’re a democrat you’ll tune in to CNN or MSNBC, however if you’re a Republican, Fox news is probably you’re source of news. No surprises here.

The problem this creates for the average individual is that its human nature on certain levels to seek confirmation of our beliefs by like-minded individuals, which gives us a sense of acceptance within society. In so doing, we will choose that one news media outlet over the other just to confirm that we are indeed correct for thinking the way that we do. The problem then becomes cyclical in that his/her source of news information suppresses or under reports the very information that may contradict his/her political views. In so doing, you are only getting half the truth but satisfied nonetheless because your beliefs are confirmed.

It would seem that news media outlets have tossed a veil over their once bright spotlights – too much light on any given issue could be a bad thing especially if your own political underpinnings become visible.

There are possibly hundreds of political scandals taking place as you read this and for the most part are left unchecked and unchallenged by the news media. No doubt, you may likely turn the news on to find “discussions” taking place with the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews, however are most likely a magnified political hit job; void of any fact or investigative findings. It is apparent that news reporting agencies have left “the ground” for the safer confines enjoyed within the walls of their studios.

When we got hit on 9/11 we soon found that our intelligence was inefficient in that we relied upon satellites and computers for intelligence gathering as opposed to having feet and eyes on the ground watching our enemies. Thus, we had to quickly reconfigure and realign our methods for gathering intelligence if we were to have any chance in reducing the threats of terrorism. So too would be the case for news reporting in today’s environment in  that uncertainty is growing rampant as it relates to our economy.

The spiraling economy has piqued the emotions of many in terms of finding out “what went wrong and who is to blame” and second “what is being done about it.” The “what is being done about it” is pivotal in that it has immediate impacts in all of our lives, however is not fully being exposed but rather presented only in the grey shades of political hide and seek.

People trust their good senses and know when something isn’t fully exposed at which times survival skills and instinct prevails.

The fact that the government who has just given $350 Billion to big business, but has not delivered on its promise of transparency in who is receiving this money and why, exemplifies the weakness and inability of main stream media news to be an effective watchdog in today’s society.

We viewers create the advertising dollars through the products we purchase from their advertisers and like any organization faced with a business decision will not throw good money after bad if ratings continue to decline.

When the checks stop coming in, mainstream media news may make an honest attempt to satisfy the viewer and look out for society’s best interest, but at that point will they have lost all credibility and simply be regarded as political mouthpieces?

Any move to the center by a news organization would undoubtedly be a painful process. It would involve a blind eye to ones political dogma and the courage to ask some tough questions to some tough people. However, the payoff would be a dominant viewer market share knowing that the majority of the US population is comprised of honest and hard working Americans who always cheers for the good guy especially when they catch the crook red-handed.

Reporter: “Senator, why are you supporting A when you campaigned on B – this is very odd? Why are you voting against your constituents wishes? Have you been compromised? Do you stand to personally gain from this? Is money involved?”

Senator: ”Um ….no comment”

Reporter: “That’s the news folks, goodnight.”

Eric Kaad
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/media-bias-affects-both-the-left-and-right-704057.html

Is it time to junk the Electoral College? By formulating such an arcane method of electing the executive, the founding fathers hoped to insulate the presidency from popular emotions while, at the same time, protecting thinly populated states from domination by the great cities. The College works by having the state legislatures pick people to vote for the President. Each state has the number of electors as it has representatives to the congress, both House and Senate. These were to be the most able people of the state…in theory. What quickly evolved was that each party would nominate a slate of electors. The political party that won the state’s popular vote would have their slate of electors get the right to vote for President. A “win” was considered 50% plus one vote This has been the method of electing our Presidents since the founding of the republic. There have been consequences not intended by the founders. They have shaped what kind of party system we have. The structure of elections has determined the ways campaigns are run. They have even affected the way in which our government is organized. The “winner-take-all” system also shapes the campaign. Since only one vote more than the competing party is required, there is no reason to give campaign resources to states where a particular candidate is well ahead or too far behind to compete. The battlegrounds are those states that could go either way. In a tight campaign the votes of small states become critical in putting together an electoral majority. Because a state’s entire electoral vote is determined by which party gets one vote more than the next, there is no advantage in voting for a party that will come short of that goal. Ten percent means no vote at all. It makes sense then that we have two parties because that’s the surest way to win the privilege of casting the electoral vote. While third parties might have influence at the state level, it is almost impossible to have an effect at the Presidential level. A popular-vote election means Presidential candidates no longer visiting small, closely contested states. It reduces their influence. The electoral wars will be waged only in the large cities. The changes don’t stop there. Remember, we now nominate candidates by state primaries. Electing people by a national popular vote would cause those to merge into a national primary. After all, if states no longer elect the President, why should they nominate the candidate? There’s a whole new national campaign. college map college map A popular election of the President would change that. No longer would a national campaign be necessary. A President, political scientists tell us, could be elected in the six largest TV. markets. Campaigns would be waged in the large cities and their suburbs. Rural areas would be completely ignored. That is especially true for Democrats. The parties would spend their resources in those areas where they are already strong. Political professionals know it’s easier to expand the percentage of your vote in places you’re already ahead. That is seen today. Republicans don’t waste their resources in mainly African-American areas. Nor do the Democrats campaign in strong Republican precincts. The process has become longer and more expensive. But, that’s not the end. Would a party want its candidate to be one with only, say, 20% of the vote? Probably not. A national run-off primary will evolve to insure one candidate wins 50%.. Electoral college map with numbers electoral college map with numbers
college supply list
Another problem now rears its ugly head…the national election. Recall that the Electoral College and the winner-take-all system forced the parties to campaign state by state. Since only a one-vote majority was required to carry that state, third parties found it impossible to exist. They could never have an influence. Not so with a popular vote election. Here a small party getting fifteen or twenty percent could have a large impact on who is elected. In fact, the vote could be spread among several small political parties. Would the nation be content with the President being elected with, say, 30% of the popular vote? Maybe not. There is a way around the problem. The old One-Party-Democratic-South solved it. It’s called the run-off election. Now there are four possible national campaigns: the first national primary, the run-off national primary, the national election, and the run-off national election. Another effect is one that strikes at the government itself. It’s likely that a multi-party system would evolve with elected officials from many different small ideological groups. How would the government work? Our national government is organized around two parties. Could it accommodate coalitions? There is no way to tell. All of the governments that have multi-party systems are Cabinet governments. There are built in mechanisms for bringing down the government and holding new elections when the governing coalition loses public support. Our constitution has no provision for such a circumstance. It’s possible the popular election of the President would force the U. S. to completely change its government from a Presidential to a Cabinet form. Some people argue that would be a good thing. It would, they say, make the government more responsive. They’re right. But, it would also make it unstable. Our constitution creates government that is slow to respond because the framers wanted ideas to have time for thorough review and debate before they were made into national policy.

Online Best College
http://www.articlesbase.com/college-and-university-articles/electoral-college-map-with-numbers-689994.html

According to dictionary.com, the technical definition of Democrat is “a member of the Democratic party.” This is not exactly helpful, especially if you are new to politics and trying to figure out where you fit in the political spectrum. At the risk of sounding partisan and getting the political bloggers on my back, the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want bigger government while Republicans want smaller government. Obviously there are plenty of ways to incorporate both philosophies into a political belief system, so don’t think that this article is going to favor the Democrats over the Republicans. We only want to explore what makes Democrats…well, Democrats!

It might be hard to believe with all of the partisan bickering happening in Congress, but Democrats were, once upon a time, members of a party called the Democratic – Republican Party, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Democratic Party officially separated from the Republican Party when Andrew Jackson was elected.

That’s all fine and good, but what do Democrats really believe? We can’t speak for individuals within the Democratic Party, but the party defines itself as believing in the following:

Raising the minimum wage
Investing in and favoring renewable energy over oil
Lower taxes for the middle class
Higher taxes for the wealthy (currently defined as those who make more than $250,000 per year)
Public funding for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
National/Universal health care
Lower pharmaceutical costs
Protection of the environment 
Lower costs for Higher Education
North American Free Trade Agreement
Central American Free Trade Agreement
Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax
Equal Opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion
Making gay marriage legal
Pro-Choice legislation
Stem cell research
Ending the war in Iraq
Reversing Unilateralism
Decolonization of Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican citizens want that)
This is simply a quick laundry list of what Democrats believe in as a party. All of these points have paragraphs of complicated policy behind their headlines (which we do not have time to explore in this article). Within both political parties there are members who do not agree with every facet of a party’s political platform.

The 2008 election has caused the balance in Washington to tip toward the Democrats’ side of the aisle. Americans have elected a Democratic President and both the House of Representatives and the Senate will have Democratic majorities when everyone has been sworn in to session. Many Republicans worry about how this will shift the balance for laws and policy in the United States. It is important to remember that you cannot paint all Democrats (or all Republicans) with the same brush. It is also important to remember that being “liberal” and being “a democrat” do not always mean the same thing. In the last few decades the “liberal” brush has been used against Democrats and it is important to remember that liberals can be found in the Republican, Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties as well!

For more information on politics, visit http://www.democratsmicroblog.com and http://www.republicanmicroblog.com.

John Parks
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/what-do-democrats-believe-in-anyway-680005.html

According to dictionary.com, the technical definition of Democrat is “a member of the Democratic party.” This is not exactly helpful, especially if you are new to politics and trying to figure out where you fit in the political spectrum. At the risk of sounding partisan and getting the political bloggers on my back, the basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want bigger government while Republicans want smaller government. Obviously there are plenty of ways to incorporate both philosophies into a political belief system, so don’t think that this article is going to favor the Democrats over the Republicans. We only want to explore what makes Democrats…well, Democrats!

It might be hard to believe with all of the partisan bickering happening in Congress, but Democrats were, once upon a time, members of a party called the Democratic – Republican Party, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Democratic Party officially separated from the Republican Party when Andrew Jackson was elected.

That’s all fine and good, but what do Democrats really believe? We can’t speak for individuals within the Democratic Party, but the party defines itself as believing in the following:

Raising the minimum wage
Investing in and favoring renewable energy over oil
Lower taxes for the middle class
Higher taxes for the wealthy (currently defined as those who make more than $250,000 per year)
Public funding for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
National/Universal health care
Lower pharmaceutical costs
Protection of the environment 
Lower costs for Higher Education
North American Free Trade Agreement
Central American Free Trade Agreement
Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax
Equal Opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion
Making gay marriage legal
Pro-Choice legislation
Stem cell research
Ending the war in Iraq
Reversing Unilateralism
Decolonization of Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican citizens want that)
This is simply a quick laundry list of what Democrats believe in as a party. All of these points have paragraphs of complicated policy behind their headlines (which we do not have time to explore in this article). Within both political parties there are members who do not agree with every facet of a party’s political platform.

The 2008 election has caused the balance in Washington to tip toward the Democrats’ side of the aisle. Americans have elected a Democratic President and both the House of Representatives and the Senate will have Democratic majorities when everyone has been sworn in to session. Many Republicans worry about how this will shift the balance for laws and policy in the United States. It is important to remember that you cannot paint all Democrats (or all Republicans) with the same brush. It is also important to remember that being “liberal” and being “a democrat” do not always mean the same thing. In the last few decades the “liberal” brush has been used against Democrats and it is important to remember that liberals can be found in the Republican, Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties as well!

For more information on politics, visit http://www.democratsmicroblog.com and http://www.republicanmicroblog.com.

John Parks
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/what-do-democrats-believe-in-anyway-680005.html

The Republican Party formed by abolitionists in 1854 take bold steps in securing freedoms for former slaves until the Democrats regain control of Congress. Once in control of Congress and many of the southern state governments the Democrats once again stripped away the rights African Americans wouldn’t again fully achieve until the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.

- In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: “No.”

- In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.”

- February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.

- February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP’s Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.

- October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington.

- January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.

- Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America’s first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi’s Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart “P.B.S.” Pinchback became America’s first black governor.

- August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

- September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).

- May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.

- November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.

- President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

Facts are from Deroy Murdock who is an advisory board member of Project 21, a Washington-based network of black free-market advocates.

Duration : 0:3:2

(more…)

Technorati Tags: Abolitionists, Abraham, African, American, Americans, Civil, Democrats, Lincoln, Orbin, Racism, Republicans, Slavery, War

I know the story behind the Democratic Party’s symbol being the Donkey, that Andrew Jackson started it and a cartoonist got it going. I know that reasoning, I just wanted to know why the Republican Party’s symbol is an elephant? I know that the Republicans are the GOP, Grand Old Party, and I just wanted to know why that was there symbol. Did it have anything to do with Lincoln being the first true Republican? What is the story behind it? Links would be great. Thank you.

Republicans have the elephant because its the strongest one of the smartest animals on the planet. The Dems got a jackazz becaise that best sums them up.