,hl=en,siteUrl='http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/',authuser=0,security_token="v_SeT2Tv8vVdKRCcG9CCW-ZdIfQ:1429878696275"/> Old Fox KM Journal : voting
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Citizens United Wasn’t Really about Corporations as People

link

In the name of campaign finance reform, the United States government argued it could ban books.

===================================
This Friday, “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” will be released in theaters nationwide. The movie, based on the book “13 Hours” by Mitchell Zuckoff, is directed by Michael Bay and gives the public a chance to see one man’s take on what happened in Libya on September 11, 2012, when terrorists stormed our diplomatic compound and killed four Americans: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Ambassador Chris Stevens, and Tyrone Woods.
The decision to make this movie and release it so widely was likely unpopular with the Democratic political establishment. While the film focuses on the events on the ground in Benghazi, it is bound to generate interest about what was happening back in Washington and what President Obama and his secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, might have done to prevent the loss of American lives. ...
============================================
Some interesting background here on the Citizens United v. FEC case, which Democrat Party members are totally mis-characterizing as "corporations are people."    I did not know that Citizens United, a non-profit corp, had complained to the Federal Election Comm. about Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004.  The FEC dismissed their complaint.  So CU put out their own documentary bashing Hillary as unfit in 2008.  This time, the FEC changed their tune and tried to censor the CU movie.  A district judge agreed with them and thus it went to the S.Ct. who upheld the First Amendment 5 to 4.  It is about Free Speech, not corporations, or unions, or newspapers "electioneering" for a candidate.

We can see why Hillary hates this Free Speech affirmation, but why would Col. Sanders, Stuart Smalley, Tim Harken, Chuckie Schumer, et al. be so angry about it?    They said what was good for the goose was no good for the gander.   But tit for tat was more just, they learned.
--------------------------------------
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/daily-affirmation-movie-opening/n10706
------------------------------------
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/14/thank-citizens-united-that-you-can-see-13-hours-this-weekend/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=da7ef07b3e-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-da7ef07b3e-83774053

At the oral argument on appeal, the Supreme Court justices probed the limits of the power the government claimed for itself, and questioned how it squared with the First Amendment. In one incredible back-and-forth, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart if there was “a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?” Stewart’s response: yes.
“Well,” he explains, “if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.” In the name of campaign finance reform, the United States government argued it could ban books.

Sunday, December 06, 2015

Dalton Trumbo, "Johnny Got His Gun [half-cocked]"

link

Film the Legend

On publicity junkets for Trumbo, star Bryan Cranston has repeated the line, “Everyone has the right to be wrong.” Cranston claims this quote came from Dalton Trumbo himself, and shows that the blacklisted screenwriter supported and defended everyone’s right to free speech.
The real Trumbo didn’t. The movie is frank about his membership in the American Communist Party, but its makers (director Jay Roach, screenwriter John McNamara) give us not a hint of what that entailed, or how roundly contradicted is Trumbo-the-free-speech-avatar by Trumbo the actual person.
Trumbo celebrates the screenwriter’s battle against the blacklist. There is much to be said for his go-it-alone fight against the Hollywood producers, but the image of him as a New Deal liberal hero defending civil liberties against homegrown fascists crumbles when you look into what he said and did in the 1940s and 50s.
His daughter Nikola has said that being a communist in that period had “nothing to do with Russia” but was instead about the “rights of workers.” If so, Trumbo spent a great deal of “wasted” time defending Joseph Stalin. It is easy to confirm his zigs and zags in accord with the policy changes out of Moscow throughout much of his adult life.
When Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939, and announced that comrades should not support Great Britain’s military response to the Third Reich because it was an “imperialist war,” Trumbo followed suit. He wrote many vociferous attacks on the British during the nearly two years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, despite that they were almost alone in fighting Hitler. His novelJohnny Got His Gun (1939) carried the same pacifist message, for the same reason—a fact that those who celebrate it rarely discuss.
To help the non-interventionist cause, Trumbo even defended the Third Reich. In response to Hitler’s crackdown on France, the famous civil libertarian disputed reports of Nazi brutality coming out of France, declaring that “To the vanquished all conquerors are inhuman.”
When the socialist motherland was invaded two years later, Trumbo suddenly and with equal passion switched to supporting the Allies’ war against Hitler. When asked how he could reconcile the pacifistic theme of Johnny Got His Gunwith his newfound bellicosity, Trumbo explained that the quadriplegic, blind, and deaf character he created would have supported the Progressive nature of the war.
The convolutions are breathtaking. The sudden ex-pacifist now found it necessary to denounce pacifists as fascists because they wouldn’t get into the effort to defeat the fascists. And an entity he had just gotten done lambasting as an American Gestapo, the FBI, was now worth helping. The famous civil libertarian encouraged the Bureau to arrest those who spoke out against the war (which, to be fair, did include some homegrown fascists).
After the war’s end, Trumbo’s thinking took a not very surprising turn back to peace as promoted by the Russians. He portrayed the Soviet regime in the manner it presented to the world: as a Progressive country that liberals could easily support. As Stalin swallowed up Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, and repressed countries such as Poland, Trumbo amazingly penned a 1946 article asserting that the Soviet Union “had no colonies.” In 1949, a year after being blacklisted, he doubled down, declaring the Soviet Union had no anti-Semitism because it was forbidden by the Soviet constitution.
Uncle Joe needed to be protected not only from the supposed fascists who ran the U.S. government but by rival revolutionaries: the Trotskyists. Trumbo, the famous civil libertarian, bragged of enforcing his own blacklist by keeping such “reactionary and untrue” works as Leon Trotsky’s “so-called biography of Stalin” from making it to the big screen.
The FBI, by the way, was bad again. He denounced it during the Cold War as a “hateful shadow preying on the citizenry.” Meanwhile, as late as 1956, he was still asserting Stalin to be “one of the democratic leaders of the world.”
If the arrogant Trumbo felt a sense of entitlement, so did many of his comrades, for the World War II period was the high tide of communist influence in the film industry. Not only were those like Trumbo highly paid for cranking out screenplays (into which they tried, with only limited success, to insert their pro-Soviet and pro-collectivist point of view), they had a power that reached beyond the industry. John Howard Lawson, the autocratic head of the Hollywood Communist Party, penned the 1942 California Democratic State platform. Trumbo himself wrote speeches for Secretary of State Edward Stettinius.
At the point when Soviet crimes became hardest to deny, the 1956 speech by Nikita Khrushchev admitting that Stalin had killed thousands of innocent people during the Purge Trials of the 1930s, Trumbo again had a characteristically arrogant response. He wrote to a communist friend that he was “not surprised,” having read all the notable anticommunist writers like Arthur Koestler and Ignacio Silone—even Leon Trotsky! So he knew about the murderous policies of Stalin all the while that he publicly defended the dictator? Yes, if that statement is to be believed. (Another possibility is that he just said that in order not to look like a dupe, which would have offended his dignity greatly.)
He enjoyed his position as editor of the prestigious movie-industry journal, The Screenwriter, and it cut no ice with him at all when one anticommunist writer pressed him to publish, in the interest of freedom of expression, an article that Trumbo didn’t agree with. Trumbo, as he rejected the man’s submission, informed him that freedom of expression wasn’t an inalienable right, in fact was downright fascistic and had led to the Holocaust.
Trumbo sidesteps such compromising matters. Clearly they would jeopardize the portrayal of Trumbo as civil libertarian extraordinare. The most criticism the movie allows in is that 1) Trumbo was a limousine communist who craved all the creature comforts of capitalism, and 2) he behaved autocratically toward his wife and children. The movie opts for a breezy, light approach at times (director Roach also made Meet the Parents in 2000 and the Austin Powers movies). But its “screwball comedy” tone halts when it comes to lauding Trumbo as a civil libertarian.
McNamara has said that he did “an enormous amount of research” to write the script, but that his chief source material was Bruce Cook’s 1977 biography of Dalton Trumbo. The Cook biography has been rereleased in conjunction with the film, and in fact Cook is listed as cowriter in the film credits. What is notable about this 1977 work is that it is a kind of time-capsule document of the attempted rehabilitation of Reds in the context of an anticommunism that was being blamed for the carnage of Vietnam.
In the era of the antiwar movement and Watergate, the countercultural Left was in the ascendant, and one sign that they were feeling their oats was their eagerness to promote the rehabilitation of the Hollywood communists of old. For Cook, and many other journalists, biographers, screenwriters, and novelists from E.L. Doctorow to Arthur Laurents (whose novel was the basis for the Robert Redford-Barbara Streisand pro-Popular Front movie, The Way We Were {1973}), the robotic Stalinoids among their elders were now airbrushed into heroic civil libertarians.
And now the time capsule has been removed from its cask and given the imprimatur of accuracy, with the movie following the biography in retaining in every detail Trumbo’s claims about himself as he sat before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Early in the biography, the reader is helpfully alerted to a certain bias. Cook calls himself an “advocate” for his subject. Indeed he bases his account on interviews only with Trumbo’s admirers, such as his wife, his comrades in the Party, and fellow travelers including Cary McWilliams, editor of the Nation. No adversaries are heard from.
Ronald Reagan, for example, would have been instructive. Reagan went head to head with Trumbo and the other leading Hollywood Reds during the fight for communist control of the Screen Actors Guild in 1946. He recalled Trumbo’s defending the Soviet constitution as more democratic than the American one.
Cook tiptoes so cautiously around these aspects of his subject that Trumbo himself has to bring up the question of his Party membership. The biographer swallows whole the screenwriter’s explanation for joining in 1943—that he had long been allied with the Reds ideologically but now foresaw trouble ahead for the Party from anticommunists. Supposedly he signed on as a way of supporting, in their time of need, those alongside whom he had fought the good fight.
It would be no defense to say the compromising material alluded to above was not available in 1977. Trumbo’s defenses of Stalin, and (as unearthed by writer Allan Ryskind) of North Korea during the Korean War—along with the chilling statements about who, in Trumbo’s judgment, deserved to have his civil liberties respected and who didn’t, have been available in Trumbo’s papers donated to the University of Wisconsin repository since the 1960s.
Indeed one gets a sense throughout the film that McNamara knows Trumbo’s politics were hardly democratic. Other characters do call him a “swimming pool Stalinist.” But most such comments come from the hardline Right, whose representatives in the film are presented as the destroyers of civil liberties. McNamara has Trumbo land comfortably (and falsely) in the sensible center by ranging horrible people to his right, while contrasting him, on the other end of the spectrum, with Arlen Hird, a more hardline comrade played by Louis C.K. In response to Hird’s wish that everyone earn the same salary, McNamara has Trumbo reply urbanely that that would make for “a dull world.”
McNamara does allow that Trumbo was one to dismiss political arguments with frothy spin. Criticized by Hird for “talking like a radical while living like a rich guy,” Trumbo hastily improvises by reasoning that “a radical can fight with the purity of Jesus, but a rich man wins with the subtlety of Satan.” “Please shut up,” replies his comrade.
It’s a pity that this is the only moment in the film when a bullshit detector is applied to Trumbo. For, if one accepts that he did know what was really going on in the Soviet Union, he peddled his own brand of it albeit in a witty manner. The rest ofTrumbo lets its hero present to a credulous world, as if it were real, the hollow image of a supposed defender of everyone’s right to be wrong.

Ron Capshaw

Historian Ron Capshaw is a writer in Midlothian, Virginia.

Comments

  1. gabe says
    I wonder why anyone would be surprised about this?
    The Left has been (knowingly) wrong about everything over the course of the last century starting with Sacc & Vanzetti, The Red Scare of the late teens / early 20’s, the Stalinists, the Rosenbergs, the “Blacklist,” vietnam, etc etc etc – but it sure helps when the organs of communication (such as they are) are in your hands.
    What next Abe Lincoln was a member of some LBGT group -Oops, I forgot, they already tried that!!!!
    As for me, I prefer Ancient Aliens – their lies are more straightforward!!!

Monday, March 30, 2015

Christian Icons of Propaganda - Sabeel and Desmond Tutu

link

The troublesome truth, however, is that there is no apartheid in Israel. Black South African Reverend Kenneth Meshoe, founder and president of the African Christian Democratic Party and member of the South African parliament since 1994, indicates that under apartheid South Africa, blacks could not vote or hold high government positions; the races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, schools, hospitals, public transportation, public washrooms, benches in waiting rooms; and blacks had inferior medical care, hospitals, and education; they were forced to live in separate residential enclaves. Blacks also carried IDs to show their place of residence at all times, or they faced the penalty of being beaten or thrown in jail. In other words, blacks were criminalized for being black and severely restricted by state laws. Further, marriage was also outlawed between different races.

To brand Israel as an apartheid state, when none of these restrictions exist, is not only defamatory propaganda, but, according to Meshoe, trivializes the real suffering of blacks under apartheid. Meshoe has visited Israel many times, and says that he has never seen any evidence of apartheid. In his reference to the purely defensive so-called "apartheid" wall, Meshoe accurately calls it the "security" barrier. "It is the responsibility of every government to assure the safety of its citizens," he says.

While Sabeel states as its mission support of the "oppressed" Palestinians of the "indigenous Church," it never highlights the oppression and abuses of Palestinians by their own leadership, or the leadership of other countries hosting them such as Jordan or Lebanon. Tutu also disregards the abuses by Hamas, which uses its Palestinian citizens as human shields in its wars to obliterate Israel.

As the patron of Sabeel Center, Tutu also disregards the countless Christians being slaughtered in Muslim states; that black slaves are still being...

Monday, November 03, 2014

Did You Know?

link
Did You Know?
“Between speaking fees, investments and income from presidential appointments, Frederick Douglass’ was able to mass $300,000 in savings–an equivalent of more than $10 million dollars today. We shouldn’t ENVY those earning $250,000 per year. We should EMULATE them. That’s how jobs are created.” ~ KCarl Smith, ConservativeMESSENGER
  • African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.
  • The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.
  • In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.
  • The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.
  • Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.
  • Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.
  • In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.
  • George Wallace was a Democrat.
  • Bull Connor was a Democrat.
  • In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.
  • In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.
  • Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.
  • Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.
  • Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
  • In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).
  • Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield.  Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.
  • Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.
  • By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.
  • In 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory.  In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.
  • In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”.  That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.
  • Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.
  • The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.
  • In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery:  the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory.  But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.
  • Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.  The name of that party?  They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress  had perverted those original principles.
  • One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner.  In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death.  According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them.  What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner?  He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.
  • In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan.  In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform.  It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
  • In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.
  • It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred  Scott decision.  In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished.  Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.
  • African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today.  Consider:  although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans.  In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies.  Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.
http://frederickdouglassrepublican.com/donate/we-need-you/

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Battle Of Athens

The GIs came home to find that a political machine had taken over their Tennessee county. What they did about it astounded the nation.

link


In McMinn County, Tennessee, in the early 1940s, the question was not if you farmed, but where you farmed. Athens, the county seat, lay between Knoxville and Chattanooga along U.S. Highway 11, which wound its way through eastern Tennessee. This was the meeting place for farmers from all the surrounding communities. Traveling along narrow roads planted with signs urging them to “See Rock City” and “Get Right with God,” they would gather on Saturdays beneath the courthouse elms to discuss politics and crops. There were barely seven thousand people in Athens, and many of its streets were still unpaved. The two “big” cities some fifty miles away had not yet begun their inevitable expansion, and the farmers’ lives were simple and essentially unaffected by what they would have called the “modern world.” Many of them were without electricity. The land, their families, religion, politics, and the war dominated their talk and thoughts. They learned about God from the family Bible and in tiny chapels along yellow-dust roads. Their newspaper, the Daily Post-Athenian , told them something of politics and war, but since it chose to avoid intrigue or scandal, a story that smacked of both could be found only in the conversations of the folks who milled about the courthouse lawn on Saturdays.

Since the Civil War, political offices in McMinn County had gone to the Republicans, but in the 1930s Tennessee began to fall under the control of Democratic bosses. To the west, in Shelby County, E.H. Crump, the Memphis mayor who had been ousted during his term for failing to enforce Prohibition, fathered what would become the state’s most powerful political machine. Crump eventually controlled most of Tennessee along with the governor’s office and a United States senator. In eastern Tennessee local and regional machines developed, which, lacking the sophistication and power of a Crump, relied on intimidation and violence to control their constituents.

In 1936 the system descended upon McMinn County in the person of one Paul Cantrell, the Democratic candidate for sheriff. Cantrell, who came from a family of money and influence in nearby Etowah, tied his campaign closely to the popularity of the Roosevelt administration and rode FDR’s coattails to victory over his Republican opponent....

Read the rest

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Clinton's Nonexistent Church Burnings And Special Forces Racists--1996

One of the more prominent hoax hate crimes was invented by Bill Clinton when he was president.  In a 1996 radio address, Clinton said, "I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child."  No one else in Arkansas remembered a single church burning in Arkansas, ever.  Definitely not when Clinton was a child.

The Arizona Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock) checked with the state historian, current and past presidents of the Arkansas NAACP, the former president of the Regular Arkansas Baptist Convention, the chairman of the Arkansas Black History Advisory Committee--and all confirmed that there had been no church burnings in Clinton's own state.

There was no apology from the White House, much less from Clinton himself, for this despicable slander on the state of Arkansas.  The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post didn't mention Clinton's tall tale--though all newspapers ran stories on the fraudulent claim that there had been an upsurge in arson at black churches.

In fact, the burnings of churches, black and white, had been declining in recent years.  The hysteria about a new epidemic of black church burnings was completely counterfactual nonsense being put out by a liberal group in order to accuse right-wing rhetoric of inciting neo-Klanners.  Again, the lie part got a lot of coverage; the facts exposing the claim as a lie did not.

Then, during his 1996 reelection campaign, Clinton repeatedly trotted out a hoax hate crime against blacks allegedly committed by white Special Forces members.

At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, he said:
We still have too many Americans who give in to their fears of those who are different from them.  Not long ago, swastikas were painted on the doors of some African American members of our Special Forces at Fort Bragg.  Folks, for those of you who don't know what they do, the Special Forces are just what the name says; they are special forces.  If I walk off this stage tonight and call them on the telephone and tell them to go halfway around the world and risk their lives for you and be there by tomorrow at noon, they will do it.  They do not deserve to have swastikas on their doors.
He told the same yarn at a White House with the Boys and Girls Nation, in a speech to northern California Democrats, in remarks at a magnet school in Arkansas, and while chatting up a cocktail waitress in Des Moines.

As was already well known, the prime suspect was the black "victim" himself.  This had been widely reported in the press.  The soldier, not a member of Special Forces, by the way, was later discharged.

Clinton thus became the first president in history to knowingly make a false statement while giving a keynote address at a major party convention.  He did so to accuse the military of racism.   Just to cite one example of racism in America, here's a fraudulent one.

If I were claiming America has a long way to come on race relations, I think I'd showcase the hate crimes that weren't complete fabrications.  Someone should tell liberals that their argument about continuing racial problems would be more effective if they cited true cases of racism.

--Ann Coulter.  Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama. New York: Sentinel, 2012, pp. 69-70 [footnotes omitted]

Wednesday, December 05, 2012


Quote of the Week
Peter Hitchens on Abortion
"Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think too violent and obscene to portray on TV. This is not because they are squeamish or prudish. It is because if people knew what Abortion really looked like, it would destroy their pretence that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do about unwanted babies."
Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail columnist, October 27, 2007. 


Sunday, October 28, 2012

Why Democrat Party want felons to vote

link


Socialite Denise Rich dumps U.S. passport



Mon Jul 9, 2012 9:47am EDT

(Reuters) - Denise Rich, the wealthy socialite and former wife of pardoned billionaire trader Marc Rich, has given up her U.S. citizenship - and, with it, much of her U.S. tax bill.

Rich, 68, a Grammy-nominated songwriter and glossy figure in Democratic and European royalty circles, renounced her American passport in November, according to her lawyer.

Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards. (link.reuters.com/naq28s)

By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.

Rich, who wrote songs recorded by Aretha Franklin, Mary J. Blige and Jessica Simpson, is the latest bold-faced name to join a wave of wealthy people renouncing their American citizenship. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin gave up his U.S. passport to become a citizen of Singapore, an offshore tax haven, before the company's initial public offering in May.

Nearly 1,800 citizens and permanent residents, a record since data was first compiled in 1998, expatriated last year, according to government figures.

Rich, who was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, has Austrian citizenship through her deceased father, said Michael Heidt, a lawyer in Hollywood, Florida, who represented her in a recent lawsuit.

He said Rich had dumped her U.S. passport "so that she can be closer to her family and to Peter Cervinka, her long-time partner." Rich's two daughters live in London; Cervinka, a wealthy property developer, is an Austrian national. Rich plans to make London her main residence and does not intend to acquire other passports, Heidt said.

MARC RICH's PARDON

Rich's ex-husband, commodities trader Marc Rich, fled the United States in 1983 when indicted on charges of tax evasion, fraud, racketeering and illegal trading of oil with Iran. They divorced in 1996.

Marc Rich received a presidential pardon in 2001 on President Bill Clinton's last day in office. Federal prosecutors and Congress investigated the pardon, and in 2002 a House of Representatives committee concluded Denise Rich had swayed the action through donations to the Clinton library and campaign.

Dubbed "Lady Gatsby" by Yachting magazine, Rich owns multiple properties, including a mansion in Aspen, Colorado. She is a frequent habitue of Cannes, Monte Carlo and St. Tropez with celebrities and singers aboard her 157-foot yacht, Lady Joy.

Rich will escape future U.S. taxes but possibly not all current ones. In 2008, Congress imposed an expatriation tax on persons with a net worth of more than $2 million who dump their U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. Under the law, those people owe an "exit tax" on their worldwide property, computed at a fair market value the day before they leave. But tax lawyers say the tax can be reduced or avoided by structuring asset holdings through foreign annuities.

While Austria, like the United States, generally taxes its citizens on their worldwide income, it has generous tax breaks for citizens who spend half the year abroad.

In January, Rich put her 5th Avenue penthouse in New York on the market for $65 million, according to the listing agent, The Corcoran Group. New York property records show Rich acquired a 100 percent stake in the apartment, described by Corcoran as "the epitome of luxury and grandeur," for $200,000 in 2006. Bonnie Evans, the Corcoran broker for the property, declined to discuss details.

COOK ISLANDS TRUST

The recent lawsuit against Rich was filed on behalf of Lee Goldberg, the former protector of a Cook Islands trust of which Rich is a beneficiary, in February. The case was dismissed in April, court records show.

The Cook Islands, a South Pacific tax haven, offers Swiss-style secrecy for wealthy investors.

The lawsuit accused Rich and Richard Kilstock, a British real estate entrepreneur who is married to Rich's daughter Daniella, of "transferring, moving or secreting trust assets, in violation of the trust's guidelines and without the knowledge or permission of Goldberg."

Rich and Kilstock denied the charges and accused Goldberg of altering trust documents, court filings show.

Both Goldberg and his attorney, Donald Thomas, declined to discuss the case. Rich recently dismissed Goldberg, one of her long-time lawyers, as protector of the trust.

Heidt, who also represents Kilstock in the case, declined to discuss the lawsuit. Kilstock did not return calls requesting comment.

(Editing by Eddie Evans and Mohammad Zargham)


Socialite Denise Rich dumps U.S. passport

Comments (7)
CitizenAbroad wrote:
Austrian vs. US taxation: This story is misleading regarding Austrian vs. US taxation, which seems to suggest that Austria is a tax haven. Austria taxes RESIDENTS of Austria based on worldwide income, irrespective of citizenship. (Residency-based taxation is the method used by all countries in the world, except the US (and Eritrea)). The US and Eritrea tax their CITIZENS based on worldwide income. An Austrian citizen, residing in the UK, would file a tax return in the UK only. A US citizen, residing in the UK, would file two tax returns. One for the UK, as a resident of the UK, and one for the US, as a citizen of the US, although resident in the UK.
The concept behind residency-based taxation is the taxpayer uses the services of the country where he/ she is living. The concept behind citizenship-based taxation is unknown to me. Perhaps a US or Eritrean politician could explain it.
Jul 09, 2012 11:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
You cannot tell the story of people (rich or not) who are either renouncing or relinquishing (there is a difference) their citizenship without a full understanding the unique nature of U.S. Citizenship taxation with all the complexity that surrounds it.
You have to couple this understanding with the inside knowledge of a 3 year IRS jihad in search of revenues ostensibly to cover the continued tax breaks for U.S. homelanders and profligate deficit spending by Congress. Currently they are chasing up revenue from all U.S. persons (more than just citizens) living around the world even when they are not resident in America any longer. Only other country that does anything close to this is Eritrea. They want to tax and penalize them for past FBAR reporting failures, get them to report in the future, even if they have no tax liability, and consequently make life very difficult for them in the countries of their residence.
Never mind that no other civilized country in the world does this. This is the American way. Other countries send their citizens out in the world unencumbered with double taxation and reporting burdens to create markets for their export products. The US tethers,on the other hand, them home with an taxation shackle with severe, complex and expensive tax rules that makes it almost impossible to them to survive, complete or create export jobs for the homeland.
This story was fun one to write, I am sure, even with all the inaccuracies that it contains about Austrian territorial taxation (very normal in the world) and Saverin’s renunciation. BTW, he did not take up Singapore citizenship. He did keep his Brazilian citizenship. You should do some serious inquiries of why he would keep it over the US passport? Could it be that the US be doing something wrong and that Brazil is doing something right?
I understand that story with headline of “Socialite dumping the US passport” is designed to titillate the “drive by” pop culture reader who understands nothing about the complexities of U.S. Citizenship tax law, or the past 3 year offshore IRS jihad. This story adds nothing to the broader understanding of the harmful policies like FBARs and FATCA. If you just said FWhat? I rest my case. You really should start googling around! If you have lived in Timbuktu for the past 30 years and felt the recent pressure of the IRS attempts to haul you into their revenue/penalty net, you get the broader story however!
US citizenship taxation complexities, penalties and continued offshore actions have many unintended consequences and tons of collateral damage. Basically, if you live over seas, and are no longer resident in America, you have some tough choices, Comply, renounce or return home to Kansas! The cost of the US passport has just reached a tipping point, and many are deciding the cost of maintaining it is not worth the benefit anymore.
Those who are taking the renunciation route (a term the US uses for handing in a passport) are doing it for very understandable reasons. It is not just about the taxes, it is about the complexity, the hassle and the Draconian penalties. This is not just the rich leaving, but they are the most sensational and easy to write about. The IRS is required to give you their stats and names on what is called “covered expats” or those having certain characteristics. The most common being that their world wide assets have a value in US dollars more than $2 million. But is my contention that they are just a small part of the story.
There is another class that you don’t know about or would have a harder time counting, and that is the thousands of average dual citizen or accidental Americans who are facing these same serious decisions and electing not to participate in the most complex and onerous penalty taxation regime in the world any longer. Also there are thousands of immigrants who are being seriously harmed, and are just heading back home rather than hand over their family savings to the IRS jihad just because they failed to send in an FBAR that few knew about.
Yes, this story is a headline grabber, but just scratches the surface of a story much bigger than just what is portrayed here.
Jul 09, 2012 5:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
arete66 wrote:
The real problem isn’t people like Denise Rich. The real problem is that America has the most lenient transfer pricing rules in the world, allowing companies like Google, Facebook, and so forth to pull a Double-Irish under the auspices that their falsely constructed shell subsidiaries overseas deal with each other as if at arm’s length (riiiight!) when interacting with one another. We lose out on roughly 60 billion dollars in annual revenue by allowing this nonsense. The tax holiday in 2004, in which companies were allowed to bring such moneys back into the U.S. at extremely low tax rates, was promised to create jobs. Instead, corporations mainly reinvested the money in buying back stock and continued to “downsize” and “streamline”. Let Denise renounce her citizenship. But nail companies who do all their business here and hide their money overseas.
Jul 09, 2012 8:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lyne wrote:
Once someone renounces their citizenship, they should be on the no-enter list.
Jul 10, 2012 5:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
theagitator wrote:
If our tax laws are too complex it is only because the 1% – ers such as Denise Eisenberg Rich have wanted them that way. Tax attorneys get rich, while hiding their over compensated clients’ money in trusts and offshore accounts. They pay an effective tax rate that is much below what the 99% pays. She needs to be persona non grata in the USA.
Our political leaders (besides getting reelected) have only several priorities….low taxes for the rich, sending our military to fight wars in the Middle East, and waging war on internet freedom and those who have the audacity to copy generally worthless digital material from Hollywood (of which she represents), while doing nothing to protect those average Americans whose jobs and rights have been stolen for the benefit of Wall St..
Jul 11, 2012 9:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaguar6cy wrote:
Another liberal, democrat, progressive and dear friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Jul 12, 2012 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:
@ theagitator – succinct and yes