In the lead-in to her interview with President George W Bush's Appointed Amb John Bolton, Rupert Murdoch's Fox Host Greta asked her viewers:
"Are you pumping billions ... in aid while the rich ... live the high life and ignore their own poor?"Greta then answered her own question and said,
"Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes."During the interview Greta said,
"Here's the thing, though, that makes me so, you know, I don't know, enraged about it, is that the ones who are the rich people -- a large portion of the rich people actually are in the government.Greta went on to say:
"And so they -- they pass their own laws to shield themselves."My antennas really went up when Greta said,
"most of the rich people .... do not pay income taxes. And yes, rich people make up a large part of the government. So are you asked to do the job that rich people ... simply refuse to do? I don't know, this one unglues me!"John Bolton agreed with Greta and said,
"These guys are making money off us. They're not paying taxes. They're living well. We're not living well. We vote for new politicians. They don't change anything. They just steal a little bit more. That is the kind of breeding ground, really, for Taliban or other radicals to take advantage of."To which Greta replied,
"But it's just so appalling that if the rich in their own country don't give a damn about the people in their own country."How about that, Fox Host Greta is "enraged" and "unglued" that rich politicians pass laws to shield themselves from paying taxes.
Neat, huh? Are you thinking, "it's about time someone on Fox shame the "rich politicians" for not giving a damn about the people in their own country?"
Problem: Greta was talking about Pakistan, not American politicians.
Seems Greta nor Bolton have a problem with rich American politicians not giving a damn about their own poor - they're only concerned with Pakistan's rich politicians not giving a damn about their poor.
One of the reasons I wrote this Diary was I wanted to point out that even rightwingers, like John Bolton, who were in the US Government's Foreign Policy arena know full that when your country creates an environment where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and the middle class becomes extinct) it is:
"... the kind of breeding ground, really, for Taliban or other radicals to take advantage of."Bolton is saying poor people and those becoming poor are vulnerable to being brainwashed with radical ideas - ideas that will that inevitably lead to the poor being oppressed by their new "radical leaders"
It is that quote from Bolton that makes me think the "creation" of the Tea Party Radicals was intentional ... thought out and intentional.
The enablers and Funders of the Tea Party Ideology - Fox Hosts, Koch Brothers et. al. - want to take advantage of the poor and those in the middle class who are becoming poor to brainwash them with their Agenda of:
No Taxation for the rich, keep wages low, no benefits for the poor, etc
My theory has been that some Corporations who ship US jobs to overseas sweatshops enjoy their Historic Record Profits - and would love it if the US Worker would work under the same sweatshop conditions that their workers do in their 3rd World Manufacturing Operations.
What better way to usher in sweatshop labor conditions in the USA than to use Bolton's notion:
- Take advantage of the poor by brainwashing them with "radical" Tea Party Ideology so that the poor begin to chant their "radical leaders" (Fox Hosts, Koch Brothers et.al.) Agenda. An Agenda that will ultimately oppress the Tea Party Individuals
No Taxation for the rich, keep wages low, no benefits for the poor, we can't afford to educate our kids, we can't afford to fix our crumbling bridges, we can't afford to hire US Workers etc
(A) In states we see laws ending collective bargaining that will enable a Corporation to usher in sweatshop labor - and Tea Party individuals, even the ones who will become oppressed by those laws, are the ones cheering that on behalf of Koch Brothers et al.
(B) Just last week the House of Representatives passed a Bill (HR 2587) that literally prevents the National Labor Relations Board from closing down a Company even if that Company has violated Federal Labor Laws, thus enabling sweatshop labor conditions in the USA
- again Tea Party individuals, even ones who could become oppressed by those laws, are the ones cheering that on for the Fox Hosts, Koch Brothers et al. (Entire House Bill, HR 2587, is posted below)
(C) We hear Millionaires who host Radio shows brainwash their middle to low income listeners into falsely believing that Taxing the rich 3% more will be worse for the US Economy than what we have right now.
Millionaire Talk Show host can't possibly be the ones chanting "don't tax me 3% more" so they get their brainwashed audience to do it for the millionaires. Meanwhile we have crumbling bridges.
-- I always envision Rush Limpba//s, Sean Insanity, GlennDUH Beck et al laughing AT their audience all the way to the bank.
(D) Here's how brainwashed the Tea Party Individuals have become.
We have: crumbling Interstate bridges, police stations closing, fire departments closing, hospitals closing, schools closing, 23% cuts in food programs for women and their infant children (WIC) and many more but the Tea Party Individual chants "We can't afford any of those things"
When, in reality, we can afford those things - we would just need to raise the Tax Rate on their Millionaire Radical Leaders by 3%. Meaning we have a REVENUE problem when it comes to re-building and maintaining our own country.
Ok, I'll end Bolton's notion of the poor and vulnerable being taken advantage of by their radical leaders there - but the list could go on.
The other reason I wrote this Diary is to let the word out that even though we hear and will hear the Fox Propaganda Hosts, including Greta, chant their Frank Luntz rightwinged script:
"having the 'rich' pay 3% more in Federal Income Taxes is 'Class Warfare'"
From Greta's interview we know, that even they know, they are full of shit and that Fox Hosts KNOW:
"It is outrageous and appalling that rich politicians, and their rich donors, don't give a damn about the poor in their own country."That is the end of my Diary. Below is the Transcript of Greta's interview and the House Bill, HR 2587, I wrote about above.
1) Copy of the Transcript of the Interview Greta had with John Bolton - you will notice that I left out the words referencing Pakistan on purpose above so as to highlight and underscore that Greta and John could have very easily been talking about the United States as well as Pakistan.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Are you pumping billions into Pakistan in aid while the rich Pakistanis live the high life and ignore their own poor? Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes. The United States is giving $7.5 billion -- yes, billions of dollars -- to Pakistan for aid. Meanwhile, according to a New York Times report, most of the rich people in Pakistan do not pay any income taxes. And yes, rich people make up a large part of the government. So are you asked to do the job that rich people in Pakistan simply refuse to do?2) House Bill HR 2587 That Corporations can not be closed under "any circumstances" including for violating Federal Labor Laws.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton joins us live. I don't know, this one unglues me!
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, it's unfortunately typical of the way a lot of foreign aid money is misused by the government to which it is given. The money is not itself diverted, necessarily, but money's fungible. And in this case, I think even Pakistanis recognize that the level of assistance we're giving enables them to avoid doing things like collecting taxes from people who clearly owe it. It's a distorting element and it's not one that ultimately contributes to our strategic objectives.
VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the thing, though, that makes me so, you know, I don't know, enraged about it, is that the ones who are the rich people -- a large portion of the rich people actually are in the government.
BOLTON: Well, this is...
VAN SUSTEREN: And so they -- they pass their own laws to shield themselves, while we are handing out billions to do good works, like water projects and things like that.
BOLTON: Well, this is one of the fundamental problems Pakistan has had since its inception. It's just that democracy thing is not working out well in Pakistan, and it leads to repeated military coups. They call the military the "steel skeleton" because it is the -- it is what holds the country together.
So people look at the government. They say, These guys are making money off us. They're not paying taxes. They're living well. We're not living well. We vote for new politicians. They don't change anything. They just steal a little bit more. That is the kind of breeding ground, really, for Taliban or other radicals to take advantage of.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, I really -- I want us to help people. And I understand the strategic value in terms of making friends by, you know, funding -- helping them with water or helping them protect themselves, and I understand our own personal security risk's at issue here. But it's just so appalling that if the rich in their own country don't give a damn about the people in their own country and essentially, it's just stealing our money and we are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place because we're good people and we have security interests. appalled
BOLTON: Well, there are things we can do to minimize the risk that money will be diverted or that these kinds of practices like not paying taxes will go on. We need insist more on the conditions that we attach when we give economic assistance.
VAN SUSTEREN: But that's what -- when we were there last year with -- last October with Secretary State of Clinton, they were outraged, the Pakistanis, when we announced the $7.5 billion because we wanted to know where they were going to spend it.
VAN SUSTEREN: They were actually -- they were unglued about that! And I...
BOLTON: You just have to bear down and keep telling them that it's part of the deal to get the money. And otherwise, you give them the money for general budget support, you're never going to find it.
But the other thing, really, especially in the case of Pakistan, is concentrate on what suits us. That is to say, primarily military assistance. Again, money's fungible, but if we're spending the money on what we really need, then I think you've got a better chance of actually using it for our purposes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Except for the water buys us good will and is humane, so there are all those (INAUDIBLE) All right, now, here's my other thing. This is my other (INAUDIBLE) When we were over there the other day, Pakistani legislators are facing accusations of faking their degrees. (INAUDIBLE) required at least up until 2008 to have a degree to be a member of their government and they were all buying them on line.
BOLTON: Well, unlike our members of Congress, who fake degrees and war records and other things like that. This is...
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have some plagiarism issues, too. But still! This is worse!
BOLTON: Well, this is part of the general disillusionment with the government as a whole. The average people look at this kind of fraud and they just say, Why are we voting for these people? What do we get out of this democracy thing? And they become more subject to the claims of Taliban and others that the whole system is corrupt and needs to be overthrown.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, the chief minister of a province who's a close ally of President Zardari is quoted as saying this. A degree is a degree. Whether fake or genuine, it's a degree. It makes no difference.
BOLTON: Yes, well...
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, that's a -- you know, Oh, well, it's a degree. It's a degree. So what if it's fake, it's still a degree?
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, that's -- that's nuts!
BOLTON: Let's go back to President Zardari, who used to be known as Mr. 10 Percent in Pakistan. But he's changed his ways. He's got a new lifestyle. Now he's known as Mr. 20 Percent.
VAN SUSTEREN: (INAUDIBLE) you know, this is astounding! I mean, this is such an incredible problem for us, for our nation! I mean, it's, like - - you know, the enormous amount of money that we spend there and hoping to get, you know, so many (INAUDIBLE) so many things that are so important to us, and then we run into this.
BOLTON: Well, I just -- I think you've got to restructure the assistance programs in ways that minimize the possibility of that happening. And I think there's too much pressure, really, from places in the State Department, just say, Look, move the money. It doesn't matter what it's spent on. That's a real mindset, and I think...
VAN SUSTEREN: I think it does to the American people, though! I think the American...
VAN SUSTEREN: It does to the American people!
BOLTON: I agree completely.
VAN SUSTEREN: It's their money, and they -- they don't like that!
BOLTON: No, it's the State Department that's the problem, not the American people.
VAN SUSTEREN: Ambassador, thank you.
BOLTON: Thank you.
H.R.2587 -- Protecting Jobs From Government Interference ActNotice: KEYWORDS:
Calendar No. 173; 112th CONGRESS - 1st Session
To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: `: Provided further, That the Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations, or to require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location'.
SEC. 3. RETROACTIVITY.
The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any complaint for which a final adjudication by the National Labor Relations Board has not been made by the date of enactment of this Act.
Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2011.
"under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE" - clearly includes even if that Corporation has violated Federal Labor Laws.
"shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against an employer)" - Meaning there would be no legal recourse against a Corporation who violates Federal Labor Laws, no legal penalty.
Tea Party GOP supporters of the Bill say the Bill was intended to stop NLRB's lawsuit against Boeing because NLRB has accused Boeing of violating Federal Labor Laws
But, the way this GOP House Bill is written - it goes BEYOND Boeing's alleged illegality and says:
"under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE"
So, if a Corporation has unsafe work conditions, enforces illegal child labor, or is guilty of enforcing any other type of sweatshop labor practice - this GOP Bill dictates that National Labor Board have lost their current legal power to shut that Corporation down.
Since the GOP made the Bill, Retroactive, it sure seems like the GOP think Boeing has, in fact, violated Federal Labor Laws. (But that's not what this Diary is about)
This Bill takes away the protections "the people" used to have. and the Tea Party Radical Leaders have brainwashed their "Followers" to chant for them -
"NO MORE CLOSING OF CORPORATIONS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"