[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles

Title: Springtime for Grifters
Source: NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/o ... ifters.html?smid=re-share&_r=0
Published: Oct 30, 2015
Author: Paul Krugman
Post Date: 2015-10-30 09:41:16 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 1796
Comments: 16

At one point during Wednesday’s Republican debate, Ben Carson was asked about his involvement with Mannatech, a nutritional supplements company that makes outlandish claims about its products and has been forced to pay $7 million to settle a deceptive-practices lawsuit. The audience booed, and Mr. Carson denied being involved with the company. Both reactions tell you a lot about the driving forces behind modern American politics.

As it happens, Mr. Carson lied. He has indeed been deeply involved with Mannatech, and has done a lot to help promote its merchandise. PolitiFact quickly rated his claim false, without qualification. But the Republican base doesn’t want to hear about it, and the candidate apparently believes, probably correctly, that he can simply brazen it out. These days, in his party, being an obvious grifter isn’t a liability, and may even be an asset.

And this doesn’t just go for outsider candidates like Mr. Carson and Donald Trump. Insider politicians like Marco Rubio are simply engaged in a different, classier kind of scam — and they are empowered in part by the way the grifters have defined respectability down.

About the grifters: Start with the lowest level, in which marketers use political affinity to sell get-rich-quick schemes, miracle cures, and suchlike. That’s the Carson phenomenon, and it’s just the latest example of a long tradition. As the historian Rick Perlstein documents, a “strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers” goes back half a century. Direct-mail marketing using addresses culled from political campaigns has given way to email, but the game remains the same.

At a somewhat higher level are marketing campaigns more or less tied to what purports to be policy analysis. Right-wing warnings of imminent hyperinflation, coupled with demands that we return to the gold standard, were fanned by media figures like Glenn Beck, who used his show to promote Goldline, a firm selling gold coins and bars at, um, inflated prices. Sure enough, Mr. Beck has been a vocal backer of Ted Cruz, who has made a return to gold one of his signature policy positions.

Oh, and former Congressman Ron Paul, who has spent decades warning of runaway inflation and is undaunted by its failure to materialize, is very much in the business of selling books and videos showing how you, too, can protect yourself from the coming financial disaster.

At a higher level still are operations that are in principle engaging in political activity, but mainly seem to be generating income for their organizers. Last week The Times published an investigative report on some political action committees raising money in the name of anti-establishment conservative causes. The report found that the bulk of the money these PACs raise ends up going to cover administrative costs and consultants’ fees, very little to their ostensible purpose. For example, only 14 percent of what the Tea Party Leadership Fund spends is “candidate focused.”

You might think that such revelations would be politically devastating. But the targets of such schemes know, just know, that the liberal mainstream media can’t be trusted, that when it reports negative stories about conservative heroes it’s just out to suppress people who are telling the real truth. It’s a closed information loop, and can’t be broken.

And a lot of people live inside that closed loop. Current estimates say that Mr. Carson, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz together have the support of around 60 percent of Republican voters.

Furthermore, the success of the grifters has a profound effect on the whole party. As I said, it defines respectability down.

Consider Mr. Rubio, who has emerged as the leading conventional candidate thanks to Jeb Bush’s utter haplessness. There was a time when Mr. Rubio’s insistence that $6 trillion in tax cuts would somehow pay for themselves would have marked him as deeply unserious, especially given the way his party has been harping on the evils of budget deficits. Even George W. Bush, during the 2000 campaign, at least pretended to be engaged in conventional budgeting, handing back part of a projected budget surplus.

But the Republican base doesn’t care what the mainstream media says. Indeed, after Wednesday’s debate the Internet was full of claims that John Harwood, one of the moderators, lied about Mr. Rubio’s tax plan. (He didn’t.) And in any case, Mr. Rubio sounds sensible compared to the likes of Mr. Carson and Mr. Trump. So there’s no penalty for his fiscal fantasies.

The point is that we shouldn’t ask whether the G.O.P. will eventually nominate someone in the habit of saying things that are demonstrably untrue, and counting on political loyalists not to notice. The only question is what kind of scam it will be.


Poster Comment:

Snookerthon Thread MCMLXXXIV -- Woo hoo!! And the first 35% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

#10. To: Willie Green (#0)

Springtime for Grifters

The actual Q&A debate exchange:

QUINTANILLA: One more question. This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplements, with which you had a 10-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism, cancer, they paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas, and yet you’re involvement continued. Why?

CARSON: Well, that’s easy to answer. I didn’t have an involvement with them. That is total propaganda, and this is what happens in our society. Total propaganda.

I did a couple of speeches for them, I do speeches for other people. They were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of a relationship with them.

Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product.

QUINTANILLA: To be fair, you were on the homepage of their website with the logo over your shoulder —

CARSON: If somebody put me on their homepage, they did it without my permission.

QUINTANILLA: Does that not speak to your vetting process or judgment in any way.

CARSON: No, it speaks to the fact that I don’t know those —

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

See? They know.

(APPLAUSE)

QUINTANILLA: Apparently. We will take a break. We’ll be back in Boulder in just a minute.

The Politifact review:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/29/ben-carson/debate-ben-carson-says-he-has-no-connection-mannat/

At debate, Ben Carson says he has no connection to Mannatech

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 12:10 a.m.

Ben Carson said it’s "total propaganda" to suggest he had any connection to Mannatech, a maligned nutritional supplement company.

[...]

For Carson to say he "didn’t have an involvement with" Mannatech is a stretch. While he was not any sort of employee for the company as far as we can tell, it’s hard to see the speeches he’s delivered, as well as other promotional work, as anything but a full-throated endorsement of the product. Further, Mannatech appears to view Carson as a product promoter.

First, the speeches. Carson has delivered four to Mannatech, according to the Wall Street Journal. Carson has written these paid remarks off as just several of many diverse speeches the Washington Speakers Bureau have booked for him. But in the speeches, he talks about his personal fondness for the product, which he started taking in conjunction with cancer treatment years ago.

[...]

Our ruling

Carson said, "I didn’t have an involvement with" the nutritional supplement company Mannatech.

As far as we can tell, Carson was not a paid employee or official endorser of the product. However, his claim suggests he has no ties to Mannatech whatsoever. In reality, he got paid to deliver speeches to Mannatech and appeared in promotional videos, and he consistently delivered glowing reviews of the nutritional supplements. As a world-renowned surgeon, Carson’s opinion on health issues carries weight, and Mannatech has used Carson’s endorsement to its advantage.

We rate Carson’s claim False.

Carson was not a paid employee of Mannatech.

Carson was not an official endorser of any Manatech product whatsoever.

As Carson stated at the debate, he delivered paid speeches to Mannatech.

At the debate, Carson further stated that the Washington Speakers Bureau booked the speeches for him.

He personally took the product and liked it and said so in the speeches.

And being fair and balanced, let us look at paid speeches by Bill and Hillary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014

By Matea Gold, Rosalind S. Helderman and Anne Gearan
Washington Post
May 15, 2015

Damn. The Clintons made over $25 million giving 104 speeches since January 2014, according the article from May 2015. What were they selling and what was being bought?

Slick made $105 million giving speeches while Hillary was a Senator and Secretary of State.

For a speech to eBay, Hillary earned $315,000.

For a speech to Cisco, Hillary earned $325,000.

In one day, Bill earned $500,000 giving two speeches at Univision and Apollo Management Holdings.

Hillary's payment for speeches to universites has been epic. The public was informed those fees had been donated to charity. The charity has been identified as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

So, what are the Clinton's involvement with all the entities and foreign governments or officials that paid them over $100 million dollars for speeches?

https://www.americarisingpac.org/clinton-state-dept-approved-bills-overseas-speeches-consulting-objecting-source-income/

The Washington Examiner reports that following the Clintons’ agreement in 2008 to have ethics advisers guard against conflicts of interest while Bill Clinton, a globetrotting fundraiser who makes millions off of paid speeches and consulting arrangements, and his wife served as America’s top diplomat, the State Department rarely objected to the Clintons’ near $50 million in reported income.

Approving dozens of overseas speeches in countries with interests in influencing U.S. foreign policy, a controversial consulting arrangement, the State Department, with Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff regularly copied, never took issue with millions made from foreign sources such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Cayman Islands and other countries.

In addition, Clinton’s arrangement with consulting firm Teneo was approved in just 7 days (if only FOIA requests were dealt with so speedily!). This quick verdict came despite the firms client roster, having represented top global corporations with substantial interest before the government including MF Global. Among those on its payroll were Hillary Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin – in a controversial arrangement where she also worked for the State Department. 

More:

A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released Wednesday in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.

Some of the speeches were delivered in global hotspots and were paid for by entities with business or policy interests in the U.S.

The documents also show that in June 2011, the State Department approved a consulting agreement between Bill Clinton and a controversial Clinton Foundation adviser, Doug Band.

The consultancy with Band’s Teneo Strategies ended eight months later following an uproar over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm MF Global.

State Department legal advisers, serving as “designated agency ethics officials,” approved Bill Clinton’s speeches in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Panama, Turkey, Taiwan, India, the Cayman Islands and other countries.

The memos approving Mr. Clinton’s speeches were routinely copied to Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff.

Mills is a longtime Clinton troubleshooter who defended the president during his impeachment. In the Benghazi affair, Mills reportedly berated a high-ranking official at the U.S. embassy in Libya for talking to a Republican congressman.

Under State Department protocols, a “designated agency ethics official” is assigned to advise the secretary of state about “potential or actual conflicts of interest.”

In a December 2008 memorandum of understanding, the protocols were expanded to Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and related initiatives — specifically, to reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches and consulting deals.

In an accompanying letter to the State Department legal adviser, Clinton lawyer David Kendall noted that Bill Clinton would disclose proposed consulting deals and, for speeches, provide “the identities of the host(s) (the entity that pay the speaker’s fee)” so that the State Department “in consultation with the White House as appropriate, may conduct a review for any real or apparent conflicts of interest with the duties of the Secretary of State.”

But an inspection by the Examiner and Judicial Watch of donations to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure forms, and the State Department conflict-of-interest reviews shows that at least $48 million flowed to the Clintons’ personal coffers and foundation from many entities that clearly had interests in influencing the Obama administration — and perhaps currying favor with a future president as well. …

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-30   16:35:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#10)

As far as we can tell, Carson was not a paid employee or official endorser of the product. However, his claim suggests he has no ties to Mannatech whatsoever. In reality, he got paid to deliver speeches to Mannatech and appeared in promotional videos, and he consistently delivered glowing reviews of the nutritional supplements.

Thank-you...

And being fair and balanced, let us look at paid speeches by Bill and Hillary.
If that's what turns you on, have at it...
I'm tired of Klintons & Bushes and wished they'd all just go away... far, far away.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-10-30   16:45:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 11.

        There are no replies to Comment # 11.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com