HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 53,661

Journal Archives

I'd laugh too, but the Infowarriors are a growing brand of Bircher-ism.

And they vote Tea Party or work to discourage Democrats from voting daily. Just google 'alex jones john birch society' for links and video.

A video of the show where he is 'excited' to greet the President of the Birchers. And this is the same gang that went after Earl Warren for deciding for integration in the Brown vs Board of Education decision and went after President John F. Kennedy, posting their 'Wanted for Treason' signs everywhere. Well known hate group. More of that is available on DU:

The John Birch Society and the Kochs: Peas in a Pod

Most John Birch Society scoundrels are buried deep in the recesses of American history, known only to politics junkies, history wonks and me, a Birch kid.

There is one exception however, a Birch name that echoes across today’s political landscape: Fred C. Koch, founding member and national council member.

Before Koch’s sons―David and Charles―became synonymous with 2000s corporate power, Koch built a fortune from an oil refining techniques he developed. But, in the 1920s, the big oil companies in the United States would not consider his methods. Koch had a business and had to have a contract. Like all oil men, he knew that governments were the biggest buyers of energy systems. So, Koch sought a lucrative, government contract.

In 1929, he landed a $5,000,000 contract for his company to build fifteen oil refineries in Russia, Joseph Stalin’s Communist Russia

Koch supervised the refinery installations, traveling extensively across the country over three years. He claimed that his hatred for Communism grew out of his Russian experiences, but he had pocketed $500,000 (his part of the company's profits) before his outrage set in. That money, $8,000,000 in today's dollars made Fred Koch a very rich man.

Ironically, the wealth of the Koch family came from a brutal Communist dictatorship. Hardly the image of "free enterprise" the Koch's invoke so passionately.

It's also ironic, that the Koch's got rich because of government contracts and government tax breaks. They don't want to talk much about that, either.

In 1960, thirty years after Fred Koch took Communist money and parleyed it into a huge fortune, Koch wrote his book, A Businessman Looks at Communism, in which he rails against labor unions and civil rights efforts as part of the Communist plot to take over America.

“Labor Unions have long been a Communist goal,” Koch wrote. “The effort is frequently made to have the worker do as little as possible for the money he receives. This practice alone can destroy our country.” (p. 16)

Koch had equally damning views of civil rights.

“The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” he said (p. 25) and “it will use the colored people by getting a vicious race war started.”

Koch's views on civil rights were identical to those of the John Birch Society. Early in the civil rights movement, the Birch founder labeled Dr. Martin Luther King a Communist and marshaled the Birch leadership to fight every piece of civil rights legislation.

Fred Koch died in 1967, leaving his company and his vast fortune to his four sons: Freddie, Charles, David and Bill who spent the next twenty years battling over the estate. Eventually, David and Charles emerged with control over Koch Industries, one of the largest privately-held corporations in the country. The sons acquired dozens of companies and diversified their fossil fuel assets into every commodity from silicon chips to toilet paper. Koch Industries continued to build its corporate wealth (and the Koch brothers' personal wealth) with government contracts and government tax breaks.

Like their father, the Koch Brothers have no problem doing business with enemies of the United States. Koch Industries subsidiaries have engaged in very profitable business with Iran--despite federal sanctions against such trade.

The Koch brothers have enormous personal fortunes, somewhere around $40 billion dollars each in net worth. They are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in their favorite causes, right-wing, libertarian, anti-government ones. Now they're promising to spend $889,000,000 to influence the 2016 elections.

David identified himself as the wallet behind Americans for Prosperity, the big umbrella for Freedom Works and the Tea Party. Charles founded the Cato Institute, a powerful think-tank specializing in selling right-wing policies on everything from taxes to entitlements.

Their father must be proud. They’re re-shaping the United States into the kind of country Fred wanted―a country with a pint-sized federal government and none of the expense of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or any other social program.

This libertarian utopia would free businesses to make a profit unrestrained by regulation. Corporate taxes and taxes on the rich would be tiny, allowing vast accumulations of wealth for the wealthy. Workers incomes would be set by corporations without the requirements of minimum wages and union scale.

The ultimate irony of the Koch Brothers is this: they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to subvert the country that helped make them so fabulously wealthy. And, they're doing it under the guise of preserving the American Dream.

to the author, Claire Conner for her post her, at KOS and the book she wrote:



My add on the thread:


It's glaringly obvious who is listening to Alex Jones. A while back I read a post where someone (after listening to him no doubt) and reading a thread on banksters - see how that is prominent in Jones', Welch's and McManus' rants - said 'The John Birch Society was right after all.' It's overpowering and it now surrounds us.

They always take the view that both parties are the same in all matters. Yeah, they are. They're not Libertarians, so they are all the same to them. Naturally these heroes are all on the SPLC hate list and those who buy their spiel are so terribly deluded they aren't worth arguing with, they have entered the cult.


He's going to be President for life, cancel elections and install martial law!!111!!!

I'm ready to say:

'Really? Get on with it already.'

It never ends.

I deduce from your post that Obama is running again? He'll get my vote!

Just kidding, I'm sure you are speaking of votes in days gone by. Obama addressed Israelis, but not the Knesset and was fussed at for it:

But Harper, Brown and Bush did. It's been seen as a snub to Netanyahu. Obama did not cheer him then, but youth who wanted a road to peace:

As President, Obama in 2013 was gracious to the leader of Israel in a press conference, and even Netanyahu at that time appreciated Obama's negotiating with Iran. It was clear they did not agree on all points.

But Netanyahu was close to losing an election as other voices gained the attention of Israeli voters. So he made a partisan spectacle in Congress to make use of American support for Israel to keep himself in power.

Do you think it wrong if Obama congratulates him other than what protocol demands he do? Wouldn't his shunning him be immature and a slap in the face of the voters of Israel?

We must get along with friends and foes, those who agree and disagree. It's part of respecting the freedom of thought and opinion of others. And Democrats do that as a result of our values, but the Koch Tea Party GOP doesn't respect anyone who doesn't follow their party line.

All that being said, the fascination of people with Netanyahu and Israel who paint them as the ultimate evil is not a position that Obama or Democrats need to take. We do not own an inch of that land, claimed by Israelis and Palestinians. In the end, they will decide what to do and don't need or want our input, but we want the situation resolved as it inspires extremism around the world.

Thanks for posting this. Another beautiful view:

Oh, wah! The sacrifices she makes living in comfort all paid by the same government...

Cry me a river, thou entitled 1%er! Smoking cigarettes for 'freedom' and the tobacco industry! Distilled spirits, indeed! Love the Wonkette.

And my beloved Bernie Sanders had this to say:

If Bernie Sanders Runs For President, It Won’t Be as an Independent: “I will not be a spoiler”

January 26, 2015

Naturally, “Will you run for president in 2016?” was the first question DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain asked Sanders. Though not definitive, his answer was enough to leave these activists hopeful.

“I am giving very serious consideration to it, but before you make a decision of that magnitude, …you have to make sure that you can do it well,” Sanders said. “So what we are doing is reaching out to folks all over this country trying to determine whether or not we can put the grassroots organization together that we need.”

Sanders knows he will have to rely on grassroots mobilization to have a fighting chance at being elected, because his campaign will take on every monied interest. “If I run, we’ll be taking on the billionaire class,” he said. “That’s Wall Street, the drug companies, the military industrial complex.”

To the dismay some idealists, Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. “No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,” Sanders said.
“I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”


to pampango.

Bernie would never support what is said about not caring if a rightwing Republican takes over in 2017. It's why those who support him, but not what he says are not respecting his mission, principles or values. And they won't be affected if his mission fails, so why bother?

Most of the haters did, according to SPLC:

Worth a read:


to ianna.

Someone weighed in on this to say:

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton · 6h 6 hours ago

Congressional trifecta against women today:

1) Blocking great nominee, 1st African American woman AG, for longer than any AG in 30 years…

1,847 retweets 1,980 favorites

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton · 6h 6 hours ago

...2) Playing politics with trafficking victims…

3) Threatening women's health & rights.

1,564 retweets 1,730 favorites

But the title of your OP should be retweeted, too!

McConnell: No Vote on AG Unless GOP Gets to Force Trafficking Victims to Bear Their Rapists' Children

Heck, it should be put up on billboards and power poles and store bulletin boards!

What a powerful rebuttal of the GOP's WAR on Women and Girls worldwide!

And they don't care if the victims of sex trafficking such as those kidnapped by Boko Harum and ISIS, have no funds to escape and will be forced in the most brutal and degrading way possible to provide them with more fighters and slaves in the days to come. They are helping terrorists. But then, they are terrorists and want to make money off of war and the human misery that such actions bring. They are already on the record for refusing to sign on to a resolution against forced child marriages. They use the same logic to drag down women and children. The light at the Statue of Liberty is now gutted like a spent candle and out.

Yes, she goes straight at the craven cowards and they folded here:

By Jonathan Shroyer - Jun 13, 2013

History will look at Hillary Clinton as someone who never gave up and continued to succeed, despite being knocked down over and over again. She will be seen as a polarizing trailblazer who finally found her voice - leading to eventual success as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.

Once in positions of power, Hillary is ruthless when it comes to effectively advocating for her positions and destroying the opposition. This is why Republicans have fought (and failed) to stop her political career from climbing to new heights.

Hillary's resilience is unparalleled. She bounces back in the face of defeat because she's smart, articulate, and tough.

Many of Hillary's colleagues have often noted that she is almost always the most knowledgeable person in the room about any given issue. Her knowledge, persistence, and stamina is an unstoppable combination. Her perseverance, despite being attacked daily for the last 30 years, is a testament to her political skill and brilliance.

Former President Bill Clinton, the other half of this political powerhouse, often describes Hillary as the most competent person in his generation. I couldn't agree more. So although she may have been too polarizing to win the Presidency in 2008, we can all be certain that if given the opportunity, she would have been one of the most competent and successful President's in our lifetime. And I hope she is given another chance in 2016.

Hillary Clinton:

"I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about what people think about me... I would be totally paralyzed. How could you get up in the morning if you worried about some poll or what somebody said about you? That's giving up power over your life to somebody else, and I don't intend to do that."

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been."

"I'm not going to mislead anybody. Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There's a double standard, and you can't complain about it. You just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it. And you have to have a pretty tough skin. To paraphrase a favorite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: If a woman wants to be in politics, she has to have the skin of a rhinoceros. Most men who go into politics just think they're great. They believe they can do anything. Most young women, not only in politics but in most areas, are more cautious and more likely to say, 'Could I really do this? Am I good enough?' I was talking to a friend and very successful businessman the other day, and he said, 'The thing that still annoys me more than anything is that I see all these young women who are so much more capable than they allow themselves to believe. And I see so many young men who are so much less capable but who believe they are God's gift to the world.' I would just say to women: Try it! Put your foot in the pond and see if you want to swim."

"Occasionally I'll be sitting somewhere and I'll be listening to someone perhaps not saying the kindest things about me. And I'll look down at my hand and I'll sort of pinch my skin to make sure it still has the requisite thickness I know Eleanor Roosevelt expects me to have."

"When you stumble, keep faith. And when you're knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."

And her statement are not about 'promoting herself' or 'apologizing,' as some say in response to the video. That's from those who can't get their minds around a woman standing on her record for women, despite their claims of supporting them. When the rubber hits the road, they can't bear it.

And no, she won't have 'Bill telling her what to do,' as some have proposed as well, nor is she 'only in this position because her husband got a blow job,' as some say.

It says a lot more about them that it does her and made me investigate her for myself instead of listening to those who are spewing RW points who claim to be leftist, liberal or progressive.

Bain's Bane said it well:

Dismissing the rights and concerns of people of color and women is reactionary. It is way more reactionary than Third Way. There is nothing progressive or liberal about it, and I don't consider people who do so to be leftists. Period.


Hillary has spoken for workers, women and minorities. Some are still trying to convince us that the ideals of Rand or Ron Paul are worthy to be listened to as Democrats. Ain't buying that. And Hillary was one of Rand's first targets. For what, one might ask?

Bill getting a blow job.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »