Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

A few years ago, I mentioned that the conservative/corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court would never vote to end abortion rights. Click here for that story.

The billionaire owned New York Times reported last month, “At Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s confirmation hearings 14 years ago, the first dozen questions were about whether he would respect the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents.” Well, last month Roberts voted with the court’s honest wing to strike down a Louisiana law that would have severely crippled abortion rights in the state.

The Times explained Roberts decision this way, “Although he offered no reason for his vote, there is little doubt that he wanted to avoid sending the message that the court was ready to discard a 2016 decision, a precedent, in which it struck down a similar Texas law.”

The Times explanation can be considered pure blather. Roberts does not care about “legal precedent” at all and never has. He has voted against legal precedent numerous times. For example, Roberts voted to unleash the financial power of the rich and their corporations by voting against campaign finance laws that curbed the ability of the rich to buy politicians and elections with overwhelming financial might, including the notorious Citizens United v. FEC case of 2010. That decision overturned 100 years of legal precedent. So the New York Times explanation for why Roberts elected to protect abortion rights is absurd, if not a downright lie intended to deceive its readers.

The real reason why the conservative/corporate United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast his vote to maintain abortion rights is more likely to continue to keep the Republican Party grassroots voters in line and their eyes only on one thing; abortion and the dying unborn.

Those rights won’t be significantly impeded legally because doing so would raise the hopes of the Republican faithful that their dreams of saving tens of thousands of the unborn every year would be fulfilled, and this great wedge issue would be legally resolved. Perhaps then many of the faithful would begin to clamor for a more equitable distribution of income, wealth, and political power, just like Jesus once did, and the leadership cannot have that.

Read Full Post »

The New York Times and MSNBC are flagships of Democratic Party control, along with other news outlets. The Republican Party wields similar control over such outlets as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Wall Street exercises massive influence over all of the above. And Wall Street does not want somebody to become president of the United States. Elizabeth Warren is that person.

Warren is one of the most pro-99 percent members of the United States Senate, along with Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and a few others. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez us her closest competitor in the U.S. House of Representatives in this regard.

The last thing billionaire Wall Street executives want is a president who will put an end to their corruption of US politicians, end the production of legislation that redistributes income from the 99 percent to the billionaires, and put an end to the massive corruption of the corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court.

That is why the Wall Street controlled Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its political weapons of mass misinformation, such as the New York Times, are focusing all of their attention on Warren’s youthful claim of thirty-three years ago that she had Native-American ancestors, which Warren’s DNA test verified six months ago. The intent of this is to discredit and ridicule Warren as a presidential candidate. The real issues, such as income and wealth inequality and the legislation that has brought this about via the massive corruption of all three branches of the United States government, are not being mentioned, and deliberately so.

Warren is one of the very best candidates for president the 99 percent and uncorrupted democracy could have and the worst for the billionaires of Wall Street. For example, Warren is the sponsor of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act. Some of the features of this legislation would eliminate even remote possibilities of corrupting lawmakers and that is a scary prospect for the billionaires of Wall Street who count on that corruption to be able to get richer at the expense of everyone else. A few of the provisions of the legislation are below and notice the corporate news/propaganda outlets are deliberately not mentioning them.


Warren’s legislation would ban individual stock ownership by Members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries, senior congressional staff, federal judges (such as the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court), White House staff and other senior agency officials while in office. Prohibit all government officials from holding or trading stock where its value might be influenced by their agency, department, or actions. It would also:

• Apply conflict of interest laws to the President and Vice President through the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act, which would require the President and the Vice President to place conflicted assets, including businesses, into a blind trust to be sold off.

• Require senior government officials and White House staff to divest from privately-owned assets that could present conflicts, including large companies and commercial real estate.

• Apply ethics rules to all government employees, including unpaid White House staff and advisors.

• Require most executive branch employees to recuse from all issues that might financially benefit themselves or a previous employer or client from the preceding 4 years.

• Create conflict-free investment opportunities for federal officials with new investment accounts managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and conflict-free mutual funds.

All of these provisions would help ensure the restoration of uncorrupted democracy in the United States, but the badly corrupted corporate news media would rather have you focus on other issues while attempting to discredit the author of the above provisions. Corruption clearly extends beyond easy purchases made in the political markets.

Read Full Post »

It looks as though progressive, anti-Wall Street, pro main street, US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is getting ready to make a run to become the next United States president. She has always been the champion of the 99 percent and the scourge of Wall Street criminals.

Warren recently took a DNA test showing she has a small percentage of native American running in her bloodstream. For years President Trump mocked Warren’s claim “that family lore says I have Cherokee blood in me.” Trump, true to his immaturity, has always ridiculed her by calling her Pocahontas. This suggests the president and his billionaire backers are terrified of her, and the polls show why he should be scared of her.

During the presidential primaries in 2016, Trump was the only man standing in the Republican field, while Bernie Sanders was still running hard against eventual nominee and Wall Street favorite Hilliary Rodham Clinton. Polls showed Clinton consistently beating Trump by 5 to 10 points at the time, Meanwhile, polls showed progressive candidate Sanders wiping out Trump by 10 to 20 points.

This suggests a significant number of Republican voters would have preferred Sanders over Trump.

In the actual election, Clinton beat Trump by four million votes but lost the electoral college and the presidency. Warren would likely defeat Trump by a greater amount than Wall Street Hillary.

Trump’s popularity is running at 41 percent. Warren, assuming she develops name recognition and a funding machine as Sanders did, would likely wipe Trump out.

However, getting out of the primaries will be tough for Warren. For starters, the Wall Street billionaires who control the Democratic Party, and in particular its leadership; the Democratic National Committee (DNC), would do just about anything to stop a progressive candidate such as Warren, Bernie Sanders or Oregon’s US Senator Jeff Merkley from ever winning the Democratic primary. Wall Street billionaires are terrified of Warren because she actually wants to put an end to business as usual, which is largely based on corruption.

Should Warren win the Democratic presidential primary in 2020, her most bitter foes will be Trump, the Republican Party, the DNC, the Koch brothers, and almost every living billionaire, and perhaps every living billionaire.

Not since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt will the forces of corruption be so united against one candidate. Want proof? The reliably DNC ally Huffington Post has run stories two days in a row denigrating Warren releasing her DNA test results. The last thing the billionaires want is a high visibility presidential candidate talking about bread and butter issues such as forty years of stagnant wages, massive income and wealth inequality, as well as political corruption, Supreme court corruption, and Wall Street corruption.

The attacks on Warren will come from all sides. The big boys are utterly terrified of her. This is precisely why both the Huffington Post, the New York Times and CNN, bastions of the DNC and its billionaire backers, have viciously attacked Warren for her DNA test. Let the battle begin.

Read Full Post »


A political coup has taken place and the US Constitution has been overthrown. The so-called conservative justices on the US Supreme Court have lied, cheated and simply made up stuff in order to steal your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms while handing greater constitutional rights to billionaires and their corporations.

With the retirement of US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to continue the coup.

While the corporate false news media, both liberal and conservative, will (and has) showered us with speculation of how Kavanaugh will vote to roll back abortion rights, in reality, Trump nominated Kavanaugh to steal your freedoms by rolling back your constitutional rights and to increase the constitutional rights of the billionaires. The abortion issue, while real, is, in reality, a deliberate distraction, a slight of hand, while the corporate justices alter the constitution in violation of the original intent of the founding fathers.

None of the following points has ever been mentioned by the corporate news media and deliberately so, not even the rich man’s bastion of rich man’s liberalism, the New York Times, has dared mention the following.

The corporate/rich man’s wing of the court has been waging class warfare against the 99 percent for forty years in violation of the US Constitution and legal precedence. So it is considered a foregone conclusion that the far right and fascist billionaires who control the Republican Party and the US Senate will confirm Kavanaugh through their senator puppets.

Theses corrupt activist members of the United States Supreme Court blithely favor conservative money, wealth and power over all else. The current anti-Constitution justices corrupted by powerful vested interests are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. All claim to be “original intent jurists.” In other words, when they rule on a legal issue, they claim they follow the original intent of the founding fathers.

All four have shown that their job is to rob the 99 percent of their Constitutional rights and to give more legal rights to the rich and their corporations, which they have done time and again. This legal corruption makes it easier for the rich to steal from the rest of us.

The rich derive most of their political, economic and legal power from their ownership of limited liability corporations. Quite naturally, all five so-called original intent justices argue that publicly traded corporations are persons with all of the legal rights of human citizens. These justices are not ignorant little boys.

They know publicly traded corporations did not come out of a woman’s womb. They know corporations are simply an idea of a form of business structure given life by state legislation. They know the United States Constitution does not even mention the word corporation. They know that not a single one of the founding fathers ever mention “persons” and “corporations” together in any sentence, paragraph, or chapter of any of their voluminous writings. The idea that corporations are people subverts the original intent of the US Constitution, which gives only individual’s legal rights. Ideas of business models were never given any constitutional rights by anybody until corrupt supreme court justices decided it was so.

Since the rich control the mechanisms of corporations, the court’s decision in this regard is to hand greater constitutional rights to a legislatively created tool of the rich, giving the one percent greater power than the founding fathers wanted or been able to imagine. Then the corrupt wing of the court issued another class war decision.

The activist Supreme Court declared in its 2010 Citizen’s United ruling that corporations spending money on political advertisements is free speech, but nowhere in the United States Constitution is such power granted or even recognized. And nowhere in any founding fathers writings is such a power to be found. Now corporate advertisements are drowning out the free speech of all others, especially during election season.

In addition, this ruling eliminated one hundred years of campaign financing laws. Two corrupt US Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, “participated in political strategy sessions” to advance this case, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” according to Common Cause.

U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice John Roberts gave sworn testimony in his confirmation hearings before the US Senate that he would respect legal precedents. He, obviously, lied under oath. Think about it. A known perjurer in now the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. His job is to overthrow the US Constitution on behalf of his class solidarity, just like the other corrupt corporate members of the US Supreme Court. He has been doing a marvelous job.

These corrupt activist justices have simply been making up shit in order to give the rich and their business tools called corporations greater Constitutional rights while diminishing the Constitutional rights of the 99 percent in the process.

The lies, the made-up make-believe that ideas are people and that money is free speech, the perjuries, and working with the rich on cases the justices are about to rule on demonstrate without a doubt that the sole purpose of the corrupted members of the court has been to wage class warfare on behalf of the rich by subverting the US Constitution. Doing so has allowed for a greater political rule and constitutional rights for the rich, and these activist class warriors have succeeded against the original intent of our founding fathers.

Trump nominated Kavanaugh to continue the on-going coup waged by the rich against the 99 percent, the US Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers.

See the following link for more information. Click here.

Read Full Post »

The New York Times has lied again. So does most of the corporate news media about certain issues.

The Times has long been a bastion of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which, since the late 1970s, has been completely dominated by billionaires of Wall Street and big corporations, as well as another group of billionaires, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and others. The chief aim of all of these folks and organizations is to keep Wall Street happy, stock prices soaring, and the liberal Democratic grassroots uninformed and keeping their eyes off the real issues.

The Times now officially has endorsed the lie that public employee pensions are the cause of local and state government budget shortfalls. In a story published on April 14 2018, they specifically used the case of Oregon. The Times claimed that funding for public employee pensions is crowding out other government services.

However, there are other things that are causing budget shortfalls in Oregon, and nationally, and the Times editors dare not mention them because it will offend corporate advertisers, the Democratic National Committee, and other billionaires whose plight the Times editors are sympathetic to.

Here is the reality.

Budget shortfalls in Oregon coincide with declining state corporate tax liabilities. A report by the Oregon Center for Public Policy shows that corporations now pay only 6.7 percent of all of Oregon’s income taxes today compared to 18.5 percent in 1970. No budget shortfalls would exist if corporations paid the same percentage of state income taxes as they did in 1970. Corporations have used their financial muscles to force legislators to reduce their state tax liabilities, and this has caused the shortage. (As an aside, some people call the links between cash and legislation corruption.)

In addition, hundreds of thousands of Oregon jobs have been exported since 1994 to third world nations, reducing the state’s tax base, and this has also helped to increase the budget shortfalls. Wall Street politicians, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, have led the drive to export tens of millions of US jobs since 1994 (Wyden is supposed to be a US senator from Oregon but his voting record indicates he is in Wall Street’s back pockets as much as the Clintons).

What this really means is that income and wealth inequality have created the shortfalls since corporations are simply tools of the rich which are used to redistribute income and wealth from working Americans to rich investors. Reducing the tax liabilities of corporations has redistributed $2.36 billion dollars from taxpayers to the rich shareholders of corporations during the 2017-19 Oregon state budget. Notice the Times doesn’t mention this.

The same holds true with international income redistribution treaties. The difference between the old higher US wages and benefits of those tens of millions of exported US jobs and the new dirt low third world wages have gone straight into the bank accounts of the billionaires who control both major political parties, and the New York Times.

So redistributing income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent has created local and state budget shortfalls nationwide, as well as in Oregon.

What’s even worse, the Times story only uses examples of overly generous state pensions given to just a few, such as former Oregon Ducks football coach Mike Belotti. Belotti receives $559,000 a year from the public employee’s retirement system (PERS). There is no mention in the Times story that Belotti and these few others are exceptions. There is no mention of the elderly couples who worked thirty-four years each to get a combined $2000 a month in their deferred compensation called a pension, or the many who only receive a few hundred dollars a month, or the vast majority who receive between $400 and $2000 a month. There is no mention that pensions are deferred compensation.

In effect, the Times story was intended to generate public outrage at local and state pensions, and it was also specifically intended to turn our eyes away from the real reasons why there might be local and state budget shortfalls in Oregon and throughout the nation. The Times story was class warfare at its most insidious. No doubt the billionaires loved the story, even if it was a complete lie.

See 8 Key Things About Oregon Corporate Taxes–Oregon Center for Public Policy

Read Full Post »

images

The New York Times recently reported that Toys R Us had exported 67 jobs from its headquarters to India via the H1B visa.

According to the Times,

“A temporary visa program known as H-1B allows American employers to hire foreign professionals with college degrees and “highly specialized knowledge,” mainly in science and technology, to meet their needs for particular skills. Employers, according to the federal guidelines, must sign a declaration that the foreign workers “will not adversely affect the working conditions” of Americans or lower their wages.

In recent years, however, global outsourcing and consulting firms have obtained thousands of temporary visas to bring in foreign workers who have taken over jobs that had been held by American workers. The Labor Department has opened an investigation of possible visa violations by contractors at the Walt Disney Company and at Southern California Edison, where immigrants replaced Americans in jobs they were doing in this country. Four former workers at Disney have filed discrimination complaints against the company. The companies say they have complied with all applicable laws.”

The problem with the H1-B visa are numerous. They are primarily used to reduce American wages and salaries, for starters. In addition, there must be a shortage of US workers in order for a US corporation to bring in H1-B workers, but there never is a shortage. The Times reports, “…in recent years, many jobs that American workers lost have been in accounting and back-office administration — although there is no shortage of Americans qualified to do that kind of work.”

Then the H1-B visa worker must have “exceptional skills,” but that is rare, especially in the case of Toys R Us. Toys R Us employees trained their replacements so their jobs could be more easily exported to India.

Christine Brigagliano, a lawyer in San Francisco with extensive experience advising American companies on obtaining visas, says “Those contractors are signing on the bottom line, saying we will not undercut the wages and working conditions of Americans. But, in fact, they are.”

Of course they are! That is the purpose of the H1-B visa, and always has been.

Read Full Post »

organicvsnongmo-3

Another big corporate lie has been refuted yet again by simple evidence.

Investigative reporter Danny Hakim’s piece argues that in the last two decades GMO crops have been a mainstay in conventional agriculture and the technology has not led to larger yields nor reduced pesticide use, despite the biotech industry’s promises of both. He also notes that the fear that GMOs are unsafe to eat are “largely unsubstantiated.”

Using United Nations data, Hakim compared the yields of GMO corn and sugar beets in the U.S. and Canada with their non-GMO counterparts in Europe, which is largely suspicious of GMOs and strictly regulates its cultivation.
“The United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields—food per acre—when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany,” he wrote.
Hakim’s conclusion, he points out, is similar to a report from the National Academy of Sciences that found GMO crops have not, to date, increased actual yields and should not be exclusively relied upon to meet long-term food security needs.

The Academy of Science report also notes that use of GMO crops has increased the use of herbicides, which remains in the crops, and then you eat them when you consume the product.

The Times report stated:

“One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

“By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage—65 percent—and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.”

The article also highlighted the tragic cycle of ever-stronger herbicides to combat herbicide-resistant superweeds. For instance, 10 states have reported devastating crop damage after farmers illegally sprayed their GMO soybeans and cotton with drift-prone dicamba in order to beat back weeds that have evolved against Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup.

“The NYT has finally admitted what a number of us have been saying for 20 years,” Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association, told EcoWatch via email. “GMOs are designed to increase the sales of the proprietary toxic pesticides and patented seeds of Monsanto and the other gene giants, and offer nothing in the way of increased nutrition, yield, adaptation to climate change, nor reduction of pesticide and chemical inputs.”

Click below for the full New York Times story.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: