Adelson (the latest) says he'll pay 'whatever it takes' to oust Obama ( ITS OUR COUNTRY>PAY ATTENTION)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 9:27 AM GMT
    Is Sheldon Adelson harming U.S. interests by pouring money into Republicans?
    The casino magnate is proving to be an anti-Obama force to be reckoned with.
    By Natasha Mozgovaya | Jun.24, 2012 | 7:54 PM | 1

    "The New York Times slammed casino magnate Sheldon Adelson on Sunday, accusing him of pouring money into a political agenda that is "wildly at odds" with the American nation's needs.

    In an article published on Sunday, the New York Times wrote that Adelson was "the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation’s needs."

    The article stated that "Mr. Adelson has made it clear he will fully exploit the anything-goes world created by the federal courts to donate a “limitless” portion of his $25 billion fortune to defeat the president and as many Democrats as he can take down."

    Under the headline, "What Sheldon Adelson wants," the New York Times suggests a number of reasons why the billionaire is donating a "limitless" sum to defeat the president and as many Democrats as he can take down.

    First, it explains, Adelson is disgusted by the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which, it explains, is supported by President Obama and most Israelis. "He considers a Palestinian state “a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians", said the article. "[Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer".

    Another answer to the question of what Adelson wants is profit - he is concerned over Obama's plans to raise taxes for the wealthy. The article notes that in Macau the tax rate is zero for Adelson's business, so he pays 9.8 percent U.S. corporate tax instead of 35 percent. "For such a man", the article concludes, "at a time when there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect Republicans who promise to keep his billions intact."

    Much has been said about Adelson's influence in Israel, particularly on his ties with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his ownership of the free daily newspaper "Israel Hayom" and his vindictive clash with Channel 10. But all that attention has been dwarfed by his single-man massive cash influx to the U.S. Republican presidential campaign, which even prompted Republican Senator John McCain to express concern last weekend over the influence of "foreign money" on the American presidential race – in a less than subtle referral to Adelson's casino in Macau.

    When sources in Adelson's camp clarified to the "Wall Street Journal" that he would donate whatever it takes to unseat Obama, whose policies he perceives as socialist-like and dangerous to the U.S., he was featured as a villain in the Democratic camp. An email soliciting donations from Obama supporters quoted Adelson in an interview with Forbes saying, "I’m against very wealthy ¬people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it." The Democrats' email proclaimed that the tycoon must be stopped.

    So how much does it cost for one person to buy a presidential election? That question was asked by MSNBC's Martin Bashir, who also answered himself: "71 million dollars and counting". Bloomberg View columnist William Cohan echoed that sentiment. "It's a kind of new normal that makes me very uncomfortable... It feels like buying a democracy," he said.

    McCain told PBS that "Much of Mr. Adelson's casino profits that go to him come from his casino in Macau, which says that obviously, maybe in a roundabout way, foreign money is coming into an American political campaign." It was interesting point, raising the question of how America's foreign policy could be impacted given that China holds most of its foreign debt and much of Adelson's profits come from his casino in Macau, China.

    Officials in the Obama camp rejected the Super PAC system, but ended up endorsing a Super PAC of its own, claiming they can't let the rival enjoy such an advantage. Following these elections, attempts will probably be made to restore balance to the system of political contributions that created "Super-PACs."

    The question that has not been asked - for obvious reasons - is whether Adelson's ambition to influence the election's outcome in such a blunt way will exacerbate existing anti-Semitic stereotypes. This is a question one of Adelson's good friends, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, can answer.

    IT IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC TO BE AGAINST THIS ISRAELI FIRSTER'S EFFORTS TO BUY THIS US ELECTION !!

    We should all be furious over such actions as Adelson's, no mater where such money comes from and even more furious with the Supreme Court who opened the doors to this.

    Money buying our elections is ruining our democracy.

    What do you think ? Anyone from either party really think this is healthy for our democracy ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:23 PM GMT
    Here's a comment from another Jewish/Israeli site on this subject.




    Comments (12) (From the Jewish Daily Forward (offices in New York)





    "JohnWV68p · 1 day ago


    Iran is only Israel's current fixation. America's entire electoral system has been corrupted by Netanyahu's Israel, AIPAC, Israel Firsters and ingenious distribution of enormous amounts of Jewish money. Our representative democracy is nearly defeated and the destruction of America as we know it well underway. Termination of the criminal treachery and treason demands immediate priority. The Government of the United States must again serve American interests, not the Jewish state's relentless pursuit of invulnerability, territorial conquest and apartheid supremacist empire in, and beyond, the Mideast.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2012 2:21 AM GMT
    Adelson says he’ll pay ‘whatever it takes’ to oust Obama

    Sheldon Adelson reportedly has said he will donate “whatever it takes” to defeat President Obama.

    Forbes Magazine reported Thursday that a source close to the casino magnate said that Adelson is willing to donate more than the $10 million he gave this week to Restore Our Future, a pro-Mitt Romney political action committee. Such PACs generally run negative attacks on a candidate’s opponent. The source told Forbes that Adelson believes “no price is too high” to defeat Obama.

    Adelson had said previously that he was ready to spend as much as $100 million to help Newt Gingrich, his old friend and the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, win the Republican nomination.

    After Gingrich withdrew, Adelson said he would switch allegiances to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and the presumptive nominee.

    Romney and Adelson met late last month. Adelson, a major donor to Jewish and right-wing pro-Israel causes, says Israel is a critical element in how he determines political support.


    From the Jewish Journal.com
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jun 26, 2012 2:52 AM GMT
    Remember when the President used to be chosen by votes, not by which billionaire spent the most to buy the election?
    We really don't live in a democracy any more, it's government to the highest bidder.
    The only way out of this is replacing conservatives on the Supreme Court with progressives who believe in government by the people, not by the price tag.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidRemember when the President used to be chosen by votes, not by which billionaire spent the most to buy the election?
    We really don't live in a democracy any more, it's government to the highest bidder.
    The only way out of this is replacing conservatives on the Supreme Court with progressives who believe in government by the people, not by the price tag.








    The amazing thing to me is how easily blinded the public who vote for Romney really are, are they even paying attention ? Its obvious that money spent by billionairs are succeeding with their constant misinformation campaigns to influence the public to vote in the billionaires interests rather than their own.


    The supreme court in a way is choosing our president now with this 'Citizens United' decision, just as they did in 2000 with Bush and look what that got us.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jun 27, 2012 9:08 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidRemember when the President used to be chosen by votes, not by which billionaire spent the most to buy the election?
    We really don't live in a democracy any more, it's government to the highest bidder.

    The only way out of this is replacing conservatives on the Supreme Court with progressives who believe in government by the people, not by the price tag.


    Since Supreme Court members have a lifetime appointment, there are two ways of changing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court:

    1) waiting for the current conservatives to retire or die, or

    2) enlarging the size of the Supreme court. The U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the court, it gives that power to Congress. With current Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the chances of this happening are the same as the sun becoming a black hole by tomorrow, that is, zero.

    In its ruling in 2000 to "stop counting the votes in Florida," the nine justices effectively choose who would become president, in a 5-4 vote that the justices emphasized was not to be considered a precedent (despite the fact that all previous Supreme court rulings were precedents.)

    In its ruling in Citizens-United, the Supreme Court in effect determined that our democracy, "government by the people" has been replaced with a plutocracy, "government by the wealthy." A bloodless Coup d'état has occurred that most Americans are not aware of.