NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label dick armey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dick armey. Show all posts

16 February 2013

FreedomWorks Is "Freaking Out" Over the Giant-Panda-Hillary-Clinton-Sex Video & FreedomWorks Made Video of Fake Giant Panda Having Sex With Fake Hillary Clinton 15&14FEB13

freedomworks, that right wing group touting it's "christian" credentials with a porn video including simulated bestiality and Hillary Clinton. Quite a testimony, that's for sure. From Mother Jones....

The story revealing that FreedomWorks produced a video with an obscene scene featuring a giant panda, Hillary Clinton, and oral sex created quite a stir and, according to former officials of the influential tea party group, had staffers at the conservative advocacy group and super-PAC "freaking out," as one put it. That was to be expected, especially since FreedomWorks is the target of an internal investigation mounted by its board of trustees after board members received "allegations of wrongdoing by the organization or its employees," according to a letter the board sent in December to Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks. That probe is being conducted by two lawyers: Alfred Regnery, long a prominent figure in the conservative movement, and David Martin.
Readers of Thursday's article may have noticed that Kibbe, Adam Brandon, the executive vice president of the group (who appeared in the obscene video), and Jackie Bodnar, the director of communications for FreedomWorks, did not respond to repeated requests from Mother Jones for comments (and an explanation) regarding the bizarre video. James Burnley IV, one of the two trustees who initiated the internal inquiry, did offer a comment that suggested he might not have known of the video and that the investigation might have not yet learned of it. (Former FreedomWorks officials note that the production of the video could have entailed sexual harassment, given that two female interns were asked to play the roles of the giant panda and Hillary Clinton and act out a pretend sex scene.)
After the story was posted, the FreedomWorks gang was still officially keeping mum about the giant-panda-Hillary-Clinton-sex video. I did send Burnley this query, which referred to C. Boyden Gray, another board of trustees member:
Now that the allegations regarding the video are public, do you and C. Boyden Gray intend to ask Alfred Regnery and David Martin to investigate them?
So far, no response from Burnley. Yet two former FreedomWorks officials say that they believe Regnery and Martin will have no choice but to add the panda-Clinton-sex video to their to-do list.

08 January 2013

Powerful Tea Party Group's Internal Docs Leak—Read Them Here 4JAN13

THE voluntary ignorance of the tea-baggers EXPOSED!!!!!! How could have any of them ever believed the various organizations of the tea-bagger movement were nothing but a political front for the rich to benefit the rich? There isn't one piece of tea-bagger backed legislation that benefits anyone making less than $100,000 a year. No tea-bagger backed tax breaks, nor their lobbying for funding cuts in social safety net programs, nor their lobbying for cuts in funding for the Depts of Education, HHS, Labor (including unemployment benefits), as well as lobbying for cuts in funding for the EPA, FDA, and Transportation benefit the vast majority of tea-baggers. Everything the movement has supported has been for the benefit of the wealthy who fund and control the movement. This expose from Mother Jones....

FreedomWorks bills itself as a grassroots outfit, but it's bankrolled mostly by big-money donors.

FreedomWorks
This story has been updated. Click here for the latest.
FreedomWorks, the national conservative group that helped launch the tea party movement, sells itself as a genuine grassroots operation, and for years it has battled accusations of "astroturfing"—posing as a populist organization while doing the bidding of big-money donors. Yet internal documents obtained by Mother Jones show that FreedomWorks has indeed become dependent on wealthy individual donors to finance its growing operation.
Last month, the Washington Post reported that Richard Stephenson, a reclusive millionaire banker and FreedomWorks board member, and members of his family funneled $12 million in October through two newly created Tennessee corporations to FreedomWorks' super-PAC, which used these funds to support tea party candidates in November's elections. The revelation that a corporate bigwig like Stephenson, who founded the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and chairs its board, was responsible for more than half of the FreedomWorks super-PAC's haul in 2012 undercuts the group's grassroots image and hands ammunition to critics who say FreedomWorks does the bidding of rich conservative donors.
Big donations like Stephenson's are business as usual for FreedomWorks. According to a 52-page report prepared by FreedomWorks' top brass for a board of directors meeting held in mid-December at the Virginia office of Sands Capital Management, an investment firm run by FreedomWorks board member Frank Sands, the entire FreedomWorks organization—its 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofit arms and its super-PAC—raised nearly $41 million through mid-December. Of that total, $33 million—or 81 percent of its 2012 fundraising—came in the form of "major gifts," the type of big donations coveted by nonprofits and super-PACs. (FreedomWorks' nonprofit components do not have to disclose their funders.)
Well-heeled individual contributors ponied up $31 million—or 94 percent—of those major gifts, according to the FreedomWorks board book. Eight donors gave a half-million dollars or more; 22 donated between $100,000 and $499,999; 17 cut checks between $50,000 and $99,999; and 95 gave between $10,000 and $49,999. Foundations contributed $1.6 million in major gifts, and corporations donated $330,000. Corporations once accounted for more of FreedomWorks' hefty donations. In a memo included in the report, David Kirby, FreedomWork's vice president for development, and senior adviser Terry Kibbe wrote, "This year continued our trend of relying less and less on corporate support." At the same time FreedomWorks expanded its small donor ranks from 41,794 in 2011 to 81,081 in 2012. More than 30,000 of those small donors gave between a dollar and $99 this year.
According to ex-FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey, when he joined the organization in 2003, FreedomWorks relied heavily on corporate donations. The group, he says, subsequently weaned itself off such underwriting and used direct-mail lists—some provided by Armey—to build up a base of small donors. But in the last year, there was a "big surge in private individual contributions," most of which Armey says he didn't know about. "The details were kept secret from me," he remarks.
FreedomWorks, flush with wealthy donors' money, took full advantage of the nation's lax campaign finance rules during the 2012 election cycle. The group's nonprofit side shifted millions of dollars in dark money to the FreedomWorks super-PAC, effectively hiding the true source of those funds. One campaign finance reform advocate blasted those internal money transfers as the "laundering of secret money." A FreedomWorks spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.
The December board report was prepared in the wake of a bitter internal battle between Armey and FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe. As Mother Jones first reported, Armey resigned in November after feuding with Kibbe over the direction of FreedomWorks. Armey accused Kibbe of using FreedomWorks resources to write a book in a deal that awarded Kibbe the sales profits. Two board members allied with Armey in December launched a legal investigation into alleged wrongdoing at FreedomWorks. Kibbe, meanwhile, drafted a memo charging that Armey tried to steer the group away from its tea party roots and toward a more mainstream GOP position. Four FreedomWorks staffers, including vice president for public policy and government affairs Max Pappas, resigned after news broke of Armey's resignation.
In 2012, according to the board book, FreedomWorks hosted 110 current and potential "investors" at a Jackson Hole, Wyoming, hotel for its second annual "Restore Liberty" donor retreat. The event resulted in a source pledging a $10 million matching grant; the board book does not name this source. In August 2013, FreedomWorks plans to fete donors at the four-star St. Regis resort in Aspen, Colorado. (FreedomWorks also treats its board well, holding its August 2012 meeting at the Snake River Lodge and Spa in Teton Village, Wyoming, according to minutes taken at the meeting.)
In 2013, FreedomWorks plans to spend between $25 million and $30 million, according to the board book. Favored causes and projects include the annual Blog-Con convention, the right's answer to Netroots Nation; fly-ins for activists to lobby members of Congress; briefings with lawmakers and their aides; and the recently launched FreedomWorks University. FreedomWorks also plans to continue its financial support for Glenn Beck's media enterprise, including sharing a TV studio with and leasing office space to the Washington bureau of TheBlaze, Beck's website and TV network.
The board book is chock full of strategy talk by the FreedomWorks' brass. In a memo to the board included in the report, CEO Kibbe panned GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as just another "old white guy." He acknowledged that his group's plan to help flip control of the US Senate to the GOP failed miserably ("We take our lumps with humility"), and he insisted that it's time to replace the aging image of the conservative movement with "younger, more diverse, more substantive voices for freedom in America." Kibbe asked: "Can liberty, personal responsibility, and doing things for yourself be the new 'cool'?"
Such a makeover, Kibbe wrote, can begin if FreedomWorks courts so-called "Ron Paul Millennials," the loud, loyal twentysomethings who in 2008 and 2012 followed the GOP libertarian presidential candidate from one stump speech to the next. Kibbe noted that FreedomWorks plans to reach out to blacks and Hispanics with a new "Black and Brown" tour, starring a Brazilian immigrant and tea party activist named Ana Puig. And he touted FreedomWorks' growing online presence, with 2.1 million members on its email list and 4 million Facebook fans.
Despite his organization's reliance on big-money donors, Kibbe stressed that the future of conservative politics is at the grassroots level. "Freedom is trending," he wrote to the board, "thanks to your willingness to keep up the fight."
UPDATE: In an interview with Media Matters for America's Joe Strupp, Dick Armey shed more light on FreedomWorks' financial arrangements with Glenn Beck's media network and Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Those deals were first reported by Mother Jones. Armey said FreedomWorks paid Beck upwards of $1 million to promote Freedomwork last year, calling the deal with Beck "basically paid advertising for FreedomWorks." But Armey questioned that deal, saying it provided "too little value" to FreedomWorks. Read the entire Media Matters story here.
Click here to return to the top of the story.
Read FreedomWorks' Winter 2012 board book:
(Click the link below to go to the MJ article and read the board book)

23 June 2010

The Right's Latest Faux Obama Outrage 18JUN10

These tea-baggers and their neo-nazi fascist pig supporters in the gop are pathetic. They spread their lies through "fox news" and gullible Americans suck it all in because they are too stupid and too lazy to try to find out the facts. I really detest voluntary ignorance and stupidity, and too many Americans, especially in the gop and the tea-bagger movement, are guilty of both. This is from Mother Jones, click the header to go to the article on the magazine blog.
Is Obama's support for an arcane maritime law really preventing other countries from assisting in the Gulf?
Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.
To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."
During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness. Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.
Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.
Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.
In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.
"You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)
Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.
So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.
"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.
His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."
There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.
This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.
There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.
In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.
Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.
Read all of our BP coverage here.