ACORN is becoming more of a spectacle and a mafia like outfit as the days pass. It isn’t as if independent thinkers didn’t already realize that ACORN is a corrupt scheme that has been in place for years helping politicians get elected illegally. The sad fact of the matter is that our taxpayer dollars fund this group and therefore we are paying for their antics and fraud, whether we want to or not.
The latest story from ACORN comes out of New York, where an angry mob of ACORN workers went after a NY lawmaker, James Alesi- Republican. The mob knocked him down and spat in the face of his top aide.
The protesters were reportedly upset that two Democratic senators decided to caucus with Republicans, a move that when finalized by the state Senate would hand Republicans control of it. Majority Democrats have shut down the chamber to prevent the transfer of power.
States around the nation, as well as several Republicans in Congress, have called for an investigation into ACORN and the eventual ban of the organization. Groups like ACORN are supposed to be common place in third world countries, not a Republic like the United States.
I’m still waiting for Obama to condemn this group…. I won’t hold my breath!
It’s getting harder and harder to believe if the government or the Democrat cronies will ever hold any institutions, organizations, or politicians on their side, accountable for their corrupt actions. Michelle Malkin posted earlier on Attny. General Eric Holder’s latest judiciary decisions regarding the Black Panthers, and his ruling on Georgia voter verification. The US Justice Department is also considering the release of two convicted corruptocrats in Alaska. I’m not sure what is going on anymore these days…
It would come as no surprise to me if Eric Holder decides to exonerate ACORN, even if found guilty of such a heinous federal crime. ACORN is currently facing charges brought against them in several states, the latest of which concerns 4 ACORN employees charged with voter fraud.
Four former ACORN workers in western Pennsylvania will face trial on charges that they forged, illegally solicited or illegally filled out voter registration cards before the November election.
That’s after a court hearing in Pittsburgh on Friday.
Twenty-year-old Pittsburgh resident Eric Jones waved his preliminary hearing. Three others were held for trial: 23-year-old West Mifflin resident Alexis Givner and two Pittsburgh residents, 21-year-old Ashley Clarke and 28-year-old Mario Grisom.
Prosecutors charged seven ACORN workers in May. One had already been ordered to stand trial and two others had their preliminary hearings postponed.
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has also come under scrutiny for registration irregularities in other states.
Now take for example the most current discovery in Minnesota, a state that was won narrowly last November… They have found that close to 3K voter registrations were illegal (not including imaginary characters like Mickey or Minnie). They registered approximately 3K dead people! I think the Democrats are getting their ideas from “Black Sheep” the Chris Farley movie!
A review of Minnesota’s statewide database of registered voters revealed at least 2,812 deceased individuals voted in last November’s general election, according to a new report by the “traditional values” advocacy group Minnesota Majority.
After obtaining the list of voters who participated in November’s election, the group hired an independent firm who specializes in “death suppression” for direct mailing lists to review the data. The process, which involved matching names and addresses to state death records, bore troubling results.
According to Minnesota statute 201.13, the commissioner of health is to report monthly the name, address, date of birth, and county of residence of voting-age deceased residents to the secretary of state.
Presumably the commissioner of health would not issue incomplete reports (read: no motive), the blame then falls elsewhere – namely, at the feet of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, whose partisan leanings and curious alliance with vote fraud-magnet ACORN are becoming more salient by the day.
This needs to stop and it needs to be stopped now! Is it that hard to have a fair election where one person = one vote?
Obama, yesterday, launched his own news network. Rather than allowing the White House press corps to take photos and interview the UCONN women’s team at the White House, they were denied access and told that the White House was creating their own news channel and would conduct all necessary reporting of the event themselves.
“After shaking hands with the team’s parents and members of Congress who showed up, the president walked the team over to his basketball court and shot hoops. The pool was held back from the stroll down the drive and around the corner, and couldn’t see the court. Poolers could hear periodic cheering coming from the other side of the bushes.”
Read the TV pool report: “Your Pool was not allowed to go over and shoot POTUS with the team shooting hoops. We protested loudly.”
Now we know why: Obama White House officials decided to do their own media report on the visit, complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who’s speaking.
Also, just like a network, they have their own little logo!
So I have heard the term Pravda being paraded around again (the old Soviet run newspaper that meant ‘Truth’ in English), but that’s too boring, then there is OTV, of course for Obama TV, aptly named by Jake Tapper, GBCN which I figured could stand for Government Broadcasting Communism Network or my favorite, American Communism Obama Reinforcing Network or ACORN…
Whatever the name, it’s still pretty disturbing that an administration so hell-bent on controlling everything in the free market is also taking over the airwaves. This is the socialism/communism creep; frog in a pot analogy.
What I don’t understand is that this should scare people, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, however, the Obama appeasers are still backing his every move. If the White House or any government is putting out its own news it has to be biased. It will be politically slanted based upon whichever party they are part of. This is what Soviet Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Cuba do. They do not allow dissent and they only put out “news” they deem acceptable – most of which promotes what they are doing – there can never be an opposing opinion less you end up in some prison or killed for that matter. This is getting unbelievably ridiculous and the cult followers are getting scarier by the minute!
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels (Chief Propagandist of the National Socialist Party of Germany or Nazis)
Two of the latest corruption/fraud stories coming out of the media, ABOUT the media, are from the New York Slimes!
I realize that this is incredibly surprising to hear about one of the most reputable news organizations in existence today, but it is important to remember that it can happen to any of us…/sarc.
Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.
But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom’s reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady’s “public editor.” Hoyt used the word “nonsense” to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign.
When isn’t the NYT snarky and condescending? It’s not like they have the country’s or the American citizens’ best interests at heart…
A little background:
The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges “fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group.” Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.
We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief. In July she reported that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from the group. She also reported that ACORN management covered up the embezzlement for eight years, withholding information even from ACORN’s national board.
The next month Strom reported that Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike, a comrade-in-arms of liberal philanthropist George Soros, had personally covered what remained of Wade Rathke’s debt (the embezzler had agreed to a slow-as-molasses repayment plan that would have kept him in debt well into old age).
In September Strom reported on two ACORN national board members’ lawsuit aimed at forcing ACORN to provide financial documents regarding the embezzlement.
She followed up the next month with a story on ACORN’s efforts to sever its remaining ties with its founder. (Strom reported that Wade Rathke resigned as chief organizer of ACORN. In fact, Rathke was fired, as shown in the ACORN national board’s minutes of June 20, 2008, available at page 11 of the linked PDF file.)
The same month Strom wrote about an internal memo written by ACORN’s lawyer that alerted the group to potential legal problems related to its organizational structure.
But apparently MonCrief’s information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its “maxed out donor list” and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group’s employees “to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”
As if the withholding of a story that size during a presidential election wasn’t enough, there is also proof of plagiarism by one of NYT’s most prominent/famous columnists; Maureen Dowd.
It was a wild Sunday for New York Times columnist. It opened with her latest column in the newspaper, which closed by declaring that she had once opposed a wide-ranging probe of the uses of torture, and who authorized and knew about it, during the Bush administration but now favored it. This brought some praise liberal news sites and bloggers often critical of Dowd.
But by mid-afternoon she was on the hot seat for using a paragraph almost word-for-word from one of the most prominent liberal bloggers, Jost Marshall of Talking Points Memo, without attribution. Charges of “plagiarism” ensued.
By early evening, Dowd had admitted wrongdoing, in an email to Huffington Post, and said she wanted to apologize to Marshall. She also said that the Times would issue a correction tomorrow — and the copy was changed in her column to attribute the line of thought to Marshall.
She seemed to be suggesting, however, that she had merely heard the line of argument from a friend, who did not attribute it to Marshall. This wouldn’t explain, however, why the rather lengthy sentence, a full paragraph, matched Marshall’s writing virtually word for word.
Can I ask why this liberal rag is still in business or is used as a credible source?
Given all the media coverage on Pelosi and the CIA briefings it comes as no surprise that there are other big news stories going on behind the scenes. This is typical of this administration and the liberal super majority ~ they create a crisis or a smoke screen and work fast behind the scenes to pass an agenda item without the full knowledge of the electorate.
Several items of interest have gone on over the last week or so. Although I have not been able to post as much as I would like to, I have been keeping abreast by listening to C-Span during the weekdays and much of what I have caught is not giving me that shiny happy feeling…
Some items of note are the Census Director hearing, health care, Internet Neutrality, media bailouts, media contributions to the Obama campaign, Cap and Trade, and executive pay caps.
Census:
Robert Groves, who we reported on a while back, had his hearing on Friday, interestingly enough, no votes were taken on Friday and therefore, almost all the senators had gone home to their home states. Groves has been associated with faulty sampling that could game the system and was deemed unconstitutional back in the 90′s. Although he is incredibly intelligent and qualified as a statistician, ethics, morals, and integrity are required to run the Census, since it is such a sensitive department. The Census has the capability of changing the entire political/voting landscape of a country and could have a long lasting effect that would ensure the redistricting gives the upper hand to one party over the other if not done ethically or properly. The Census has had past associations with ACORN, the same ACORN that is facing charges of voter fraud in more than over a dozen states. ACORN was also reported to have been marking front doors and canvassing neighborhoods using GPS as recently as last week.
Health care:
The Senate version is mandating everyone carry health care as of 2013… exempting only illegal immigrants and those opposed for religious reasons. Odd concept since in some parts of the country, it is the illegal immigrant population driving up the costs.
All employers will be mandated to provide insurance to their workers, or face a “special tax”. Additionally, the government will be mandating the four levels of coverage provided by that employer… from lowest to highest. And no annual or lifetime limitations allowed either.
Not only will the government regulate the marketing of commercial insurance premiums to families and employers, they will also regulate premium prices, allowing workers to drop out and seek a better deal…. no doubt that offered by the federal government plan.
Not enough? They plan to dictate sales commissions as well.
Under the Senate proposals, the government would regulate not only insurance products, but also the marketing of insurance and sales commissions paid to insurance agents and brokers.
Under these auspices, the private insurer – who requires a profit to stay in business – cannot compete with the government who just sucks more out of the taxpayer as their costs increase. With government mandates controlling everything from premium price for coverage to marketing, their demise is imminent. Indeed, it is being orchestrated.
One of the most notable features of the Senate proposals is that workers could drop out of an employer’s group health plan and buy private insurance on their own, outside the workplace. The employer’s normal contribution for a worker would be paid to the insurance exchange.
Democrats said that people dropping out of employer plans would, in many cases, be eligible for tax credits to defray their premiums.
Employers worry that this feature would destabilize the health plans they provide to employees.
“If people can opt out of employer-sponsored insurance and get a tax credit, that will lead to a death spiral for employer-sponsored plans,” said James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
“People who are sick will stay in employer plans, and many young, healthy people will opt out,” Mr. Gelfand said.
The House version accomplishes something similiar, using a government “health insurance exchange” that mandates participation by all private insurers. The government would also label all insurers with “quality ratings”…. a Good “House”keeping Seal of Approval, so to speak.
Consumers could sign up for insurance at hospitals, schools, Social Security offices and state departments of motor vehicles.
~~~
Under the Democratic proposals, the government would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance. The credit would be available to people with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four).
The government would also provide tax credits to help small businesses buy insurance for employees. The credit would be available to businesses with up to 25 employees, and businesses with the lowest-wage workers would get more aid.
The below summary encapsulates a great argument against government intervention with the health care industry and especially the single payer system. John Lechleiter of Eli Lilly spoke before the US Chamber of Commerce on May 15, 2009. He did not get political but stated his concern that policy makers would enforce a system that would leave out innovation and would actually create the opposite results than what would be originally intended:
In remarks before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today, John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D., chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) said that federal policymakers’ attention to access, quality and costs in health reform should also include a focus on innovation – or the results could include “unintended side-effects.” Innovation, he said, helped boost the average Americans life expectancy from 47 to 78 years, a rise of 66 percent over the past century and “unprecedented in human history.” In his keynote speech before a group of business, government and health care representatives, Lechleiter identified specific policy proposals and their implications for patients and for developing breakthrough treatments and cures.
“Encouraging innovation needs to be the purpose of U.S. health care reform, not its victim,” Lechleiter said. “It’s innovation that explains why we are the healthiest, longest-lived and wealthiest human beings ever to occupy the planet.”
But, he asserted, if heath care reform does not encourage innovation, “then the important goals of expanding access, improving quality and controlling costs will prove illusory.”
He cited a Columbia University study that analyzed data from 52 countries and showed that, controlling for other factors, the availability of new medicines alone accounted for 40 percent of the increase in life expectancy during the 1980s and 1990s. He said the medical advances of the past century that made life-expectancy and quality-of-life gains possible included the invention of:
– Antibiotics to cure infections
– Vaccines that have nearly eradicated several conditions, such as polio
– Effective treatments for a growing number of cancers, and
– Medications that have lessened the toll of a number of dreaded diseases,
such that they are now considered chronic, manageable conditions.
He then observed, “The economic payback from these gains is difficult to overstate. The payback is years of productive work, economic value added, consumer spending and tax dollars paid – which together outweighs the costs of treatment overwhelmingly – even if you resist the idea of putting a number on the intrinsic value of being alive.”
Lechleiter expressed hope for similar future gains, but he pointed to major bellwethers warning that innovation is at risk:
– The pharmaceutical industry, he said, is “in the midst of a wave of
defensive consolidations that will leave the world with even fewer
entities capable of taking an idea — a discovery — and turning it into
a medicine approved for patients.”
– “Half of the smaller biotech firms in the U.S. have less than a
year of [operating] cash remaining, and a third are down to their last
six months”; and
– Recent FDA new drug approvals have dropped sharply relative to the past
30 years.
Lechleiter rounded out his speech with a closer look at several areas of public policy under which, depending on the path taken in health reform, innovation will be enhanced or curbed. Prefacing his policy prescriptions, he said: “When it comes to sustaining innovation, the burden remains on us — as it should. We’re not asking for a handout or a bailout. Instead, businesses that live or die by health care innovation in the U.S. ask only that we be allowed to continue doing just that: proving the value of what we’ve developed or failing in the marketplace.”
He urged all stakeholders engaged in health reform to ensure that:
– The value of medicines is evaluated by doctors and patients, who, when
properly informed, can choose from the available alternatives a drug
that’s medically appropriate and best for the individual patient;
– Innovators get a return on investment that accurately reflects the value
of the innovations delivered, thus encouraging investment in new
treatments and cures for patients; and
– Innovators retain ownership, for a reasonable period of time, of their
intellectual property, to provide the necessary incentives for
risk-taking that leads to innovation.
Such an approach to public policy, he contended, would usher in:
– An era of “personalized medicine,” which would tap the
insights of the Human Genome Project and replace the usual
one-size-fits-all approach;
– Market-based health reforms, including access to insurance for all
Americans, supported by public subsidies and tax credits rather than a
government-run option;
– Solid comparative effectiveness research that informs on the benefits,
risks and costs of various treatment options but that does not trump
physician judgment, deny patients access to needed treatments or mandate
prices;
– A 14-year data protection period for biologic drugs, which balances the
prospect of a return on investment with a clear path to lower-cost
copies. The bipartisan “Pathways for Biosimilars Act” in
Congress takes this approach.
Google can pick and choose what sites can be in their searches or what will appear at the top of pages during those searches etc. There is quite a bit of information in this video. Google is also lobbying to be exempt from anti-trust laws. Obama received a lot of money from Google and Silicon Valley so there is a good chance that he will possibly rule in favor of Google. If Google is not held to anti-trust laws this could be a huge problem for any differing ideologies.
Media Bailouts (Exception to Anti-Trust Laws & Tax Cuts):
As Fox News and the Wall Street Journal increase reader and viewership, the liberally biased media continues to slip in ratings and consumers. The serious issue at hand with government media bailouts is the slant of information. The media would openly be in the pocket of government and would act as an arm of a particular party. This begins to look more and more like Pravda, the propaganda….errr… media of Stalin & the USSR. I say openly, because currently, much of the media is ultra liberal and is already a part of the DNC.
I am a strong believer in free enterprise and free markets, therefore, I adamantly disagree with bailing out any entity because it causes bias and goes against the basic principles of doing business in a capitalist society. If a company cannot create a valuable business model it should file bankruptcy, plain and simple – this has caused a nation of lazy, complacent, entitled enterprises and individuals – moral hazard has become the norm.
Four of the suggestions coming out of the policy makers (Kerry):
– Bring copyright laws into the age of the search engine. Taking a portion of a copyrighted work can be protected under the “fair use” doctrine. But the kind of fair use in news reports, academics and the arts — republishing a quote to comment on it, for example — is not what search engines practice when they crawl the Web and ingest everything in their path.
Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet. Journalism therefore needs a bright line imposed by statute: that the taking of entire Web pages by search engines, which is what powers their search functions, is not fair use but infringement.
Such a rule would be no more bold a step than the one Congress took in 1996 rewriting centuries of traditional libel law for the benefit of tech start-ups. It would take away from search engines the “just opt out” mantra — repeated by Google’s witness during the Kerry hearings — and force them to negotiate with copyright holders over the value of their content.
– Federalize the “hot news” doctrine. This doctrine protects against types of poaching that copyright might not cover — the stealing of information not by direct copying but simply by taking the guts of the content. While the Internet has made news vulnerable to pilfering because of the ease of linking from one site to the next, the hot-news doctrine has limited use because it is only recognized in a few states.
Now that many news aggregator sites have taken “linksploitation” to a commercial level by selling ads wrapped around the links they post, Congress has the incentive it needs to pass a federal law protecting hot news. Such a law would give publishers an additional source of legal leverage outside of copyright to demand fair compensation for the content they create.
– Eliminate ownership restrictions. Media insolvency is a greater threat today than media concentration. Congress should abolish caps on ownership of broadcast stations and bars on newspaper and television ownership in the same market. These outdated rules belong to an era when the Web was a home for spiders.
– Grant an antitrust exemption. Congress first came to journalism’s defense with antitrust relief in 1970, when it permitted endangered newspapers to combine their business operations without fear of antitrust suits if their newsrooms remained independent.
As noted in the Kerry hearing, publishers need collective pricing policies for their Web sites to finally break out of the expectation of free content that is afflicting the industry. Antitrust immunity is necessary because most individual news sites can’t go it alone by walling off their content for fees — readers will simply jump to sites that are still free.
A temporary antitrust shelter would serve the public interest by enabling the industry to take steps today to preserve for tomorrow the journalism that benefits us all.
Individual states (Washington) are also giving some unfair treatment to their media by only cutting taxes for those entities and not other businesses.
– Use tax policy to promote the press. Washington state is taking a lead in the current crisis with legislation signed into law this week to slash business taxes on the press by 40 percent. Congress could provide incentives for placing ads with content creators (not with Craigslist) and allowances for immediate write-offs (rather than capitalization) for all expenses related to news production.
Yippeee! And this is what Obama has to say on the matter:
What about those media contributions?
Follow the money.
Some people say rich millionaires own the networks so they support the GOP. That is not true. They’re not owned by a lotta rich Republicans.
Actually, they’re owned by publicly held corporations. General Electric owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, Viacom owns CBS.
Follow the money. (And at the bottom see where FOX News owner News Corp gave it’s money. You will be surprised.)
Here is NBC and ABC breakdown. Didn’t have available CBS (Viacom)
Jeffrey Immelt who is the CEO of GE (NBC) and its PAC have contributed millions of dollars to the DNC and to the Obama campaign.
It gave a million and a half to Dems and about 800,000 to Republicans. $400,000 directly to candidate Obama, and about 80,000 to McCain.
A sister company of NBC, GE Financials (also owned by GE) gave it’s total contribution limits to Democrats. GE Financials is also getting a huge chunk back from the bank bailout.
MSNBC? Follow the money.
Interestingly, the third top contributor to Mr. Obama was Microsoft. Ever hear of MSNBC? And you wonder why it has a liberal slant? $800,000 to Obama from Microsoft, and $400,000 from GE (NBC). Thus the owners of MSNBC (Microsoft and GE) gave candidate Obama $1.2 million in soft money. Other PACS and organizations of GE and Microsoft also contributed to Mr. Obama.
Disney (ABC) gave $300,00 to Obama, $84,00 to Hillary and $21,000 to McCain.
Democrats are the biggest recipient of money from the companies that own broadcasting networks.
Follow the money.
The entire motion picture industry gave $12.7 million to Dems and $1.3 million to GOP.
Commercial TV gave $3.3 million to Dems and $2.2 million to GOP.
Viacom (CBS) is much harder to analyze, but I’ll get back to that.
So, if you follow the money, major broadcasting networks are big time sources of campaign money for Democrats.
Oh, and FOX News? Owned by the News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch? It gave $1.5 million dollars in contributions to campaigns, 68% of that went to Democrats, or roughly about $1.02 million dollars. Less than a half million went to GOP.
Cap and Trade:
The latest IBD/TIPP poll shows that cap and trade is a no go in the public eye. More people are beginning to understand what it actually entails/means. Indiana has also found a way around cap and trade this past week.
However, the Obama administration seems as though it may want to advance this agenda, but just under a different name.
How does the “The Clean Energy Divide” sound to you?
The Obama administration is exploring alternative names for cap and trade legislation.
People don’t really know what cap and trade means, but they don’t like it. So a new name is being concocted to gather support for the legislation.
It doesn’t look like the names “carbon tax” or “regressive tax” are in the mix, though. How does “clean energy divide” grab you?
WSJ: Seeking to bolster public support for climate legislation, the Obama administration is consulting pollsters who advocate avoiding phrases such as “cap-and-trade” and “global warming.” On Monday, the White House Council on Environmental Quality was scheduled to meet with Robert Perkowitz, president of ecoAmerica, a Washington-based nonprofit that uses “psychographic research” to “shift personal and civic choices of environmentally agnostic Americans,” according to its Web site.
“We’re trying to give them phrases that work,” Mr. Perkowitz said in an interview. He said that in a survey of some 2,000 Americans conducted by his group in March and April, less than half of the respondents said they would support a “cap-and-trade” policy, and that only 24% said they knew what the phrase means. “If you call it ‘clean energy dividend’…almost anything other than ‘cap and trade,’ you’ll get people responding a lot more favorably,” he said.
Isn’t that nice? let’s trick the American people so we can still strap the poor and the middle class with tax hikes to obtain our faulty liberal green agenda so Al Gore can receive a bunch of profits as well as GE, Google and Microsoft…
Executive Pay Caps:
The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.
The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.
Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.
Socialism? Fascism? You be the judge…
Actually, just keep looking away and don’t pay attention to what’s really going on behind the scenes – rather watch the below video instead:
