web analytics

MASTER OF PUPPETS

By Pete Moore On September 1st, 2012

While the drones are clapping like lobotomised seals at identikit politicians mouthing the same old lies and platitudes on the stage, enquiring minds are pulling back the curtain. Remember the name Sheldon Adelson, a man suspected of links with organised Chinese crime but who’s buying his way into organised Washington crime. He’s a billionaire who made his money in Vegas and Mitt Romney’s single greatest donor. Before jumping aboard that boat he was shovelling money at Newt Gingrich, which explains why Gingrich suddenly took against Palestinians during the primaries. According to the New York Times, Adelson’s “a fervent Zionist who opposes any territorial compromise to make way for a Palestinian state.” This all might be well and good if you like that sort of thing. Adelson’s clearly the kind of man who likes to get his own way and he hasn’t poured an estimated $35million into GOP candidates during this election for the fun of it. However, getting his own way might well involve young American (and, possibly, British) men and women dying yet again in far flung places. Zionists in the GOP might well look forward to that kind of thing or think it a necessary cost of interventionism abroad, but they would do well to see and admit that Adelson appears to not only be a Zionist but also harbour a total adoration of, and fealty to, a foreign nation.

(h/t allan@aberdeen)

Many of the attacks made against Obama since 2008 have been rooted in the idea that his allegiances are international instead of American, or that his ideology is not rooted in American tradition. The Great and Powerful Oz behind Romney goes well beyond this, to the point of explicitly repudiating America and American interests and stating, in effect, he wishes he never wore an American uniform. If he was backing Obama and wishing he wore, say, a French uniform, I suspect that some Republicans might regard him as a traitor.

22 Responses to “MASTER OF PUPPETS”

  1. Pete – I would reckon that Troll is one of the puppets. Even when this is put in front of his eyes (and there is a good chance that he would refuse to watch and listen to this), he would simply deny what he has heard and claim that it was ‘out-of-context’, as would millions of other non-jewish ‘zionists’.

  2. What I took from your rant, Pete:

    1.Adelson supported Gingrich before he supported Romney and you think he has “suspected links” to some criminals

    2. Adelson supports Israel and in your opinion this is very bad indeed.

    3. you cleverly used a made-up word “identikit” which brings back memories of another cleverly made-up word, “Amerika”

  3. Patty – Adelson said that he wore “unfortunately” an American uniform and not an Israeli uniform. Are Adelson’s words ‘out-of-context’ and, if so, please explain why and back up your explanation with reasoning and/or supporting evidence.

  4. Adelson puts Israel first. It’s a free country. That’s his choice.

    and….here’s the kicker…..Adelson’s not running for any office; he’s promoting candidates who put America first….so I don’t give a damn because Israel is not America’s enemy.

  5. Patty –

    My “rant”? I have no idea if Adelson has links to organised Chinese crime, but a journalist thinks he does.

    Supporting Israel is right when Israel deserves support, and I did not make up the word “identikit”.

  6. Anyone who puts Israel first is a traitor and a scumbag and is radioactive, unworeo
    Of any respect

    Him The fact that Newt took cash from this guy is proof of his rackateering

  7. “My “rant”? I have no idea if Adelson has links to organised Chinese crime, but a journalist thinks he does.”

    So the oft derided Daily Mail does have its uses as a reference – when it suits your purpose!

  8. A good point, Ernest, if addressed at someone who derides the Mail.

  9. No one gets big deals done in Chona without playing ball esp in a slimy business like casinos

  10. The Supreme Court ruling in favour of unlimited contributions (loudly supported by Troll) is rapidly turning US politics into a corruption fest for the billionaires. They can buy elections and therefore candidates, and that includes the presidential race:

    “In past elections, big donors like Simmons gave millions for advocacy groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. By law, such groups were only allowed to run issue ads – but instead they directly targeted John Kerry, drawing big fines from the Federal Elections Commission. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, the wealthy can legally hand out unlimited sums to groups that openly campaign for a candidate, knowing that their “dark money” donations will be kept entirely secret. The billionaire Koch brothers, for instance, have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama this year – but their off-the-book contributions don’t appear in any FEC filings.

    Even more money from megadonors is flowing into newly created Super PACs, which, unlike advocacy groups, can spend every cent they raise on direct attacks on an opponent. Under the new rules, the richest men in America are plying candidates with donations far beyond what Congress intended. “They can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the campaign – and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC,” says Trevor Potter, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. A single patron can now prop up an entire candidacy, as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson did with a $20 million donation to the Super PAC backing Newt Gingrich.

    The undisputed master of Super PAC money is Mitt Romney. In the primary season alone, Romney’s rich friends invested $52 million in his Super PAC, Restore Our Future – a number that’s expected to more than double in the coming months. This unprecedented infusion of money from America’s monied elites underscores the radical transformation of the Republican Party, which has made defending the interests of 0.0001 percent the basis of its entire platform. “Money buys power,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, “and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties.” In short, the political polarization and gridlock in Washington are a direct result of the GOP’s capitulation to Big Money.”

  11. Patty – Adelson is putting Israel before America and that’s not in doubt. He wants his children to serve in the IDF yet he claims all the rights of an American. This Israel-firster is financing a candidate who will put Israel first otherwise there wouldn’t be the financial support for Romney. It would of course be in Israel’s interests for the US to send its soldiers to Iraq, Afghanistan and soon Iran, but us it in America’s interests? The key to all this was 9/11 which, as Netanyahu said, “is very good for Israel”. Ah well, at least somebody apart from Larry Silverstein benefited – Netanyahu’s good friend, btw.

  12. Romney has totally adopted the neo-con pro-war line. If he wins in November, Israel will attack Iran immediately, but the attack will come before then if Obama looks like winning.

  13. Peter, on September 1st, 2012 at 6:42 pm Said:
    Romney has totally adopted the neo-con pro-war line. If he wins in November, Israel will attack Iran immediately, but the attack will come before then if Obama looks like winning.

    Yep .. and North Korea and China are next ?

    The Neo-cons, no one or nothing can stop them… no matter who you ‘vote’ for.. they are not the mugs, we are.

  14. Allan,
    It is an observable fact that people with lots of money and influence can be quite ruthless when it comes to pursuing their business interests, or their political/philosophical/religious goals.
    Individuals do it.
    Governments do it.
    Multinational corporations do it.
    It’s nothing new.

    Do you agree?

  15. Peter

    If you ran Israel, what would would you do about the Iran bomb program, given that illegitimate theocracy’s intent about the Jewish state?

  16. Phantom

    I didn’t say that an attack by Israel would have no justification. But if John Bolton has any say in it, the US will attack Iran the day after Romney is inaugurated, with or without Israel.

  17. I don’t think so

  18. //If you ran Israel, what would would you do about the Iran bomb program//

    I’d say first find out if it exists would be the only rational choice.

    US and Israeli conservatives should be satisfied with giving the world one bloody and costly war based on false claims of scary weapons.

  19. Agit – this is a clear case of a billionaire with NO loyalty to the US using his funds to get into power somebody who will act in the interests of Israel, and the interests of Israel and the US are not necessarily compatible. How many American soldiers must die for Netanyahu?

  20. “Agit – this is a clear case of a billionaire with NO loyalty to the US using his funds to get into power somebody who will act in the interests of Israel,”
    Allan,
    Do I take that as tacit agreement with my stated premise?
    The point is Allan, that one could argue as I do, that the exercise of power, money and influence has been going on since who knows when.
    You don’t think that German companies didn’t benefit from slave labour during the Nazi regime? Or even British companies selling riot control equipment abroad, or Russians supporting Syria, or Union Carbide in Bhopal, India.
    Individuals who have made it financially often go on to use that wealth to pull strings and manipulate people.
    It is the natural behaviour of tribal creatures. Always has been, always will be.

    That is not to say I like or agree with it (who the heck cares anyway?!), nor that in this particular case Sheldon Adelson merits my unstinting support simply because he is a Jew supporting Israel. People this powerful are usually very ruthless.

    But you are doing your usual thing of expressing moral indignation at the behaviour of a very rich American Jew, using his wealth and influence in support of Israel.
    Now if you were to show the same indignation over say, a Palestinian American multi millionaire doing the same thing, or a Russian oligarch residing in London who might be doing similar things back in Russia; you might command more of my attention.

  21. //Now if you were to show the same indignation over say, a Palestinian American multi millionaire doing the same thing, or a Russian oligarch residing in London who might be doing similar things back in Russia//

    Agit, you completely miss the point, which is not that rich people are bad for influencing politicians (which they may be, but that’s something for another day) or that the supporters of other countries do the same (ditto). The point is that while this person is an American, his first and foremost loyalty is to another country and he (may be) with his munificence pursuing a policy that promotes the interests only of that other country and is to the detriment of the United States, that in fact will drag the United States into a war and lead to more Americans being killed just so that the soldiers of his favourite country are spared.

    That’s pretty treasonable at least in spirit, IMO.

    You might argue that Israel doesn’t want the US to attack Iran, or that Sheldon wants Israeli soldiers and not US soldiers to be in the firing line, or even that it’s right to bribe US politicians so that US troops will fight alongside Israelis, but making comparisons to Russia (!) won’t get you far.

  22. Noel,
    my dear sir.

    I would have thought it was up to the American government to decide whether Mr Adelson’s activities are treasonable or not? I hold no brief for the man. He’s never been invited for dinner at my place,(whereas you my ATW cyber sparring partner would be welcome.)

    Take another example. 9/11.
    It is known that some of the neoCons in George Bush’s government had close connections/investments in a major weapons company, and that the Bush family have had long standing business/personal relations with the Saudi royal family.
    Just before the terrorist attack, a planeload of Saudis make their way back to Saudi Arabia. Why?

    Now let’s just say that on this basis, at the very least the US government is guilty of propping up a horrible mediaeval regime which is known to fund the spread of Wahabbi Islam across the world; and to support various terrorist organisations.

    The US government does it for oil.

    They do it in order to sell weapons systems to a country which as someone here pointed out recently, metaphorically digs money out of the sand.

    But innocent people die in the process. Idealistic young US/UK service personnel, taught that patriotism and the defence of their nation is a noble cause still die; still get their limbs blown off, still go home emotional and mental wrecks.

    So no, Noel. I don’t accept that I’m missing the point.
    It may well be that there are many, many rich and powerful individuals of all faiths in the US who could reveal stuff which would be incredibly damaging and embarrassing.
    Way beyond anything the “We are all Julian Assange now!” crowd could ever have hoped for.