We are the 99%
Showing posts with label CPAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPAC. Show all posts

March 16, 2013

CPAC Underwriting

Did you know that the Conservative Political Action Conference is going on this weekend?

You did?

That's nice.  Wanna know how much Scaife money is intertwined at there?

Ok, here's what I did.  I started from this page and then cross referenced it with the info at this page and this page and then I limited the data to only that which was available in the last ten years or so (everything from 2003 to be specific) and this is what I found.

For the various sponsors and exhibitors I found, the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations have given a total of $32 million.  Here's the breakdown:
  • Accuracy In Media ($750,000 from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • American Enterprise Institute ($4.225 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • America's Survival ($1.115 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Capital Research Center ($1.945 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Center for Security Policy ($2.66 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute ($2.45 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • David Horowitz Freedom Center ($2.35 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Foundation for Individual Rights ($1.025 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Heartland Inst ($75,000 from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Heritage Foundation ($6.6 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Independent Women's Forum ($850,000 from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Intercollegiate Studies Institute ($3.125 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Judicial Watch ($1.15 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • Media Research Center ($2.7 million from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • National TaxPayers Union ($595,000 from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
  • NumbersUSA ($525,000 from Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations)
And again, that just represents just some of the money (from 2003) that's gone to some of the conservative organizations at CPAC.

So when the Tribune-Review decides to reprint, say, the Washington Post's coverage of Mitt Romney at CPAC, just remember how much money the Trib's owner has shuffled off to the various organizations supporting the conference.

February 12, 2011

Lil Ricky - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Watch:


Lil Ricky sez: America belongs to God.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says that.

He also waxes philosophical on choice. Did you know that Roe v Wade was a restriction of freedom? According to Ricky it is. He says:
You talk about the tyranny of what's going on in the last couple of years with ObamaCare and the Dodd Frank bill and TARP and all of this government control of our lives. And government telling us what to do. Taking freedom away from us.

Well, if you lived in the trenches of the social conservative movement you've seen this in America. You saw it in the issue of life. When a group of judges decided, 'Well, we're just smart enough and we're going to take that decision away from you. We're going to take that power away from you to make that decision.
I guess he means that by allowing women to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, the Supreme Court restricted the rights of that subset of Americans who feel they are entitled to make those decisions for everybody else.

I am so happy Ricky's thinking of running for President. This is going to be so much fun!

February 10, 2011

SOMEONE Has The Right Idea At CPAC!


Listen at about 1:27.

Some brave soul screams out "War Criminal!" at the former Vice-President.

Even in the alternative universe that is the American conservative movement, someone sees clearly enough to speak the truth.

TPM has more:
Rumsfeld is being given CPAC's "Defender Of The Constitution" award, a concept that apparently rankled Paul supporters in the crowd. Many of them got up and walked out en masse at the mention of Rumsfeld, though some stayed behind in the conference hall to heckle the architects of the invasion of Iraq.
And:
"Uh, Defender of the Constitution?" Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld's speech. "Let's see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act."

"[Speaking] as a libertarian, that's not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution," he added.
Gotta love those libertarians!

March 8, 2010

Teh Crazie GOP Fringe

This is getting funner and funner.

Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of the wingnut World Net Daily has declared CPAC (the "Conservative Political Action Conference") dead.

The reason?

They're not crazie enough to take him seriously.

I touched on this last September linking to this article at the LATimes:
Amid a rebirth of conservative activism that could help Republicans win elections next year, some party insiders now fear that extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the angry reaches of the conservative base are undermining the GOP's broader credibility and casting it as the party of the paranoid.

Such insiders point to theories running rampant on the Internet, such as the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be president, or that he is a communist, or that his allies want to set up Nazi-like detention camps for political opponents. Those theories, the insiders say, have stoked the GOP base and have created a "purist" climate in which a figure such as Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is lionized for his "You lie!" outburst last week when Obama addressed Congress.
And so on. The point to remember is that GOP insiders fear the "purist" climate.

Well today, Farah fights back. He tells his side of this story and hangs his victimization onto the actions of two people:
Fresh from sponsoring CPAC in 2009 and addressing the group on multiple occasions dating back to the 1980s, I thought I would plant a seed in the minds of the organizers for the 2010 affair.

So I sent a brief e-mail to event director Lisa De Pasquale suggesting that if CPAC 2010 were planning to do anything on the constitutional eligibility issue, I would like to be the speaker on that subject – what are the facts, why it's important.

I never heard back from her and didn't really give it another thought, until September – eight months later – when suddenly that innocent, private e-mail between a sponsor of CPAC and the director suddenly became "news."

It began when Republican blogger Jon Henke declared an ill-fated boycott of WND. I say ill-fated because WND had a banner year for revenues and traffic. That should tell you something about his level of influence in the world of politics and news. Henke did his best to get the Republican Party to withhold advertising from WND, never thinking, of course, to suggest the same to the Democrats, who outspent Republicans nationally and in WND in the election year 2008.
Hissy fit begun, Farah complains about what was allowed at CPAC 2010:
Apparently, De Pasquale and the CPAC leadership are more concerned about pleasing the media than their long-time sponsors and speakers – even people like me who are under siege from the left, the soft-right and the media establishment.

It didn't surprise me later, therefore, when this same leadership made the conscious decision to include in its sponsors for 2010 a group promoting same-sex marriage.
This was also the year CPAC accepted back into its ranks the formerly too-crazie for us John Birch Society. But Farah thinks they've gone soft on their conservative purity. So his solution:
That's why today I pronounce CPAC dead.

It's one of the reasons I am organizing a conference this September called "Taking America Back." This one is about the ultimate issues of God, the Constitution, the tea-party uprising, freedom and justice.

There will be no two-headed monkeys.

There will be no same-sex marriage sponsors.

But there will be free and open discussion of issues like the constitutional eligibility of the man occupying the White House.
Screw you guys, Farah Cartman sez, I'm going home.

February 21, 2010

Jack Kelly Sunday

This one'll be short, I promise.

Jack Kelly's column today at the P-G starts with a non sequitur, a red herring, a distracting factoid:
Americans didn't like it when the Obama administration announced in November it would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. A CNN poll indicated only 34 percent of respondents agreed with the president. Nearly twice as many (64 percent) said KSM should be tried by a military commission.

"Even a majority of Democrats and liberals say he should be tried by military authorities," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
There's more to that CNN report:
According to a Quinnipiac University poll also released Wednesday morning, 59 percent want September 11 terror suspects tried in military courts, with 35 percent saying they should face trial in civilian courts. And nearly 7 out of 10 people questioned feel that terror suspects should not receive all of the constitutional protections afforded by a civilian trial.

The Quinnipiac survey suggests a partisan divide, with Democrats split, while nearly 3 out of 4 Republicans and 6 out of 10 Independents supporting military trials. The poll also indicates that 3 out of 4 voters think the suspect who allegedly tried to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day be tried as an enemy combatant rather than as an ordinary criminal, but by a 52 to 42 percent margin, they approve of the FBI's advice to the suspect of his right to remain silent.
Huh? They approve of the FBI saying terrorists have a right to remain silent? You'd never guess that from Jack's diversionary column.

Why is this a diversion? Coincidentally, it came up at this weekend's CPAC. Take a look at Congressman Bob Barr getting booed (Barr goes on at about 2:15 in):
The media covered the story that he was booed for saying that waterboarding is torture (which it is and the Obama administration still has an obligation to prosecute the tortures committed by the Bush Administration). But just before that, he was defending the idea of civilian courts rather then military tribunals being used for the trials. Why would he do that?

Because the law's already in place for it.

Rawstory has a summary:
Debating the issue of whether terrorist suspects should be read Miranda rights and should have access to civilian courts, Barr argued that politicians are being allowed "to have their cake and eat it too" by choosing whether to place defendants in civilian courts or military tribunals. Barr said the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 provided the framework for how to deal with terrorist suspects, and said government officials should stick to that law.

"Either we believe, as lawyers, as lawmakers and as citizens, that there is value in laws, that laws that are passed have meaning and have a purpose, or we dont," Barr said.

"But I don't think that we should go down the path of allowing our leaders to have their cake and eat it too. There's nothing magical about military tribunals, they don't have necessarily better lawyers than in the civilian sector. I think I have more faith in our US attorneys, who are non-political, than my colleagues on the other side of this debate do," Barr continued.

"We can try them, we should try them. That is precisely what out law provides for. And the first time we're faced with a situation we say, 'Oh, we want to have them to go to the military, let them torture them for a while.' It's not advanced interrogation techniques. Waterboarding is torture."
So whether a only third of Americans polled think that the evildoers should be tried in a civilian court, it's beside the point.

Barr (a former USAttorney, by the way) said it: There's nothing magical about military tribunals. We're a nation of laws. Using an "easier" court system to better guarantee a conviction is, frankly, beneath us. We're better than that. Or at least we should be.

March 5, 2007

And speaking of CPAC...

Lil Annie Coulter drew attention to this meeting with her John Edwards homophobic "faggot joke." Now you can watch even more of this fun, wholesome event with The Nation's Max Blumenthal's "CPAC 2007: The Unauthorized Documentary."

He interacts with some of your fav wingnuts like: Malkin, Tancredo, Norquist, Horowitz, D'souza, and of course, Coulter herself.

An especially funny bit is when Blumenthal asks Michelle Malkin to autograph a photo of American Japanese in a W.W.II internment camp (Malkin wrote the book on the subject -- In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror -- if by 'book,' one means scary screed).

And speaking of all things racial, when Blumenthal tries to goad Tancredo supporters Borat-style they, no dummies, tell him to get lost. Though, as he leaves their company one of them desperately tries to hide his Confederate lapel pin. (Rep. Tom Tancredo [R-Co] has called Miami a "Third World country," when he's not busy worrying that "efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.")

You can watch the documentary here: