Blog powered by Typepad

« Ethiopians fought in Korea? | Main | As if »

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Now, don't go thinking I'm harboring any doubts on this latest "Gift to the Nation" but I've spent a bit of time researching OPEC's resources and though I do find Ecuador supplied a Secretary General, none of the others seemed to be named.

I find no mention of OPEC offering scholarships either - that is until the year 2000. Think we might orter take another look at Obama's birth certificate? Just may be he ain't actually meeting the minimum age requirements!

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/search.jsp?

I suppose, JK, that a lot would depend on how you framed your question on that OPEC enquiry site. What it says on the tin may not be an exact description of the contents! Also, although the title of OPEC is tossed around my guess would be that such funds would come from the Saudis. Anyway, someone paid for Obama's education and I suggest you re-read and note Miele's last paragraph!


There are lots of questions about The Imom Obama that need answered. At least everyone accepts that he did go to Law School at Harvard - not everyone seeems to be convinced that he finished his undergradaute education at Columbia. Moreover, some people suspect that he hides details of his education to disguise the fact that he had registered as an overseas student, Barry Soetero.
http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/obama-scandal-columbia.html

And of course he makes such efforts to hide his birth certificate that some people have managed to delude themselves that he was born in Kenya. He is a very odd one, and The Media have been very remiss in their duty.

David
As I understand it you're alleging that Obama recieved money from the Saudis, but you can't be sure? If you can't be sure, you shouldn't expect anybody else to be, still less for them to publish anything. As you know I discovered that Tory and Republican politicians were unlawfully channeling donations through a charity for tax purposes. Nobody would run that story until it was proven. And quite right too. Clearly, nobody will run this story because it remains unproven. And it is unproven despite a large army of bloggers and others pouring hours into it.

But let's assume you're right. Your next challenge is to prove it matters. Receiving a grant through a Saudi backed scheme does not make one beholden to Saudis from then on. People accept grants from various trusts for all sorts of things all the time without selling their souls.

Finally, you need to point to a favour or favours the Saudis have received. How has this sock puppetry manifest? Are they waiting for the second term?

Well done, Stephen, no point ever knowingly taken if it can be missed! It remains unproven because(a) no-one from the MSM is looking and (b) surreptitious funding of this sort is, er, surreptitious.

You ask what favours the Saudis have received. America, if it had encouraged home oil drilling and the import of shale oil/gas from Canada, would now be virtually self-sufficient in energy resources. Obama has deliberately done the exact opposite and America is still hugely reliant on Middle-East oil which is part of the reason why they have three aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf today.

If you truly believe that receiving large funds from a donor implies nothing in return then perhaps you could see your way clear to lending me a hundred grand!

If you truly believe that receiving large funds from a donor implies nothing in return...

Point take David. Can't say I truly believe there could be "nothing in return."

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2009/04/15/george-bush-kisses-a-saudi-prince/

I gather, JK, from the comments that the photo of the 'kiss' was photo-shopped!

David
You have surprising faith in the so-called MSM. The first thing you need to understand is that the MSM primarily exists to make profit for shareholders (despite some misconceptions, even the Scott Trust which owns the Guardian has profit-seeking as a primary goal, which is why it is not a charity). That many newspapers fail to make a profit, only increases this pressure.

Investigative journalism is very expensive because it is time consuming and often fails to come up with anything worth publishing. Journalists who keep coming back to their editors to say 'that MP wasn't bent after all' don't stay on the payroll very long. And unlike bloggers like you, professionals don't publish stuff along the lines of 'we reckon so-and-so must be on the take'.

Add to that political stories rarely add to sales. On the other hand, if you got a topless pic of someone off Coronation Street, you would do quite well. And hanging around some of the world's best beeches with a good camera, makes for a much easier life than risking it all over a corruption story.

You are also naive to if you believe a journalist from the New York Times, say, should be any more successful at uncovering these sorts of stories. Especially today, they really don't have access to anything you don't.

If you want to interest a professional journalist, you need to give them the story on a plate, because they need to be sure the story will lead to a pay day. There is a consensus amongst those of us who work with the MSM, in whatever capacity, that we will increasingly see so-called amateur journalists, like bloggers, doing all the work before selling the story on. (I'd be surprised if whoever is behind this story hasn't already tried to sell it to Fox News, say, and failed because it still isn't strong enough.)

All this is to say you come across as commercially naive, as if you think MSM organisations are charities. You need to come to terms with the fact that you live in a capitalist, market driven society where news is just another commodity.

As for this story, you still have very little. There are a great many charitable organisations in the USA (and in this country too) that offer grants without strings to various classes of people to help them gain an education. From my experience with the Atlantic Bridge, I know that in both this country and the USA it is illegal to make a donation to a charity in the expectation of a benefit. This is a problem for you, as you are effectively alleging illegal activities. This makes the MSM start to worry about getting sued and in most cases they prefer to play safe. So you need the kind of evidence that would stand up in court.

Your comments on oil need clarification as the USA has an enormous oil industry. I suspect you are critical of opposition to drilling in fragile ecosystems, like Alaska, where drilling was also blocked under George W Bush.

Thank you, I think, Stephen, for telling me much of what I already know - I'm 73 years old not 7!

Let me repeat, the MSM in the US has mounted an almost hysterical campaign in an effort to force Romney to disclose his tax affairs. He offered last year's showing tax paid and hefty donations to charity, and the silence was deafening! What they have signally failed to do, as they should if they were an unbiased set of organisations with some notion of ethics, is to hound the president on his Harvard records which have been held under lock and key for no very good reason that has been publically vouchsafed. Such secrecy invites suspicion. The reports I mention add ever more to the suspicion. Were it Mitt Romney's college records do you seriously suppose that teh American MSM would not be in full hue and cry? No, I thought not!

As to the domestic oil and gas inside America, yes, they have a huge industry but as far as oil goes there is not enough to satisfy the domestic marker. There would be if Obama permitted new drilling licences. Instead, America, in the middle of a recession, is forced to pay the Saudis top dollar for their oil. Now, do you see a teensy-weensy connection here?

The reason the Scott trust which owns the Guardian is not a charity is surely because the cause for which it was established, namely securing the editorial independence of the Guardian, is not recognised in English law as being charitable. Whether it is profit seeking or not is neither here nor there. I would imagine it has to be profit-seeking in one sense, as the Guardian loses money hand over fist, which has to come from the Scott trust's other commercial ventures.

And being a Trust, so I am led to believe, allows them to avoid tax!

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked - I wonder if I should write to Polly in her multi-zillion villa in Tuscany?

Although, without going into tedious detail, it does not give companies owned by the trust any particular tax advantages. And, if there's one good thing about losing money hand over fist, it is very tax efficient.

:The photo was Photoshopped...

Well, I suppose that could be. Let's make it a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLWN0fubQaA

Course it could be special effects costing zillions of dollars I'll admit. (But how somebody in 2007 knew to save it, is beyond me.)

Call that a kiss, JK? No wonder your love life is in need of repair!

'H', I accept what you say but why would they bother to have a trust?

H you are correct that the aim of securing editorial independence is not a charitable object. But you are wrong to suggest that being profit-seeking is neither here nor there. While it is true that a well run charity will retain a surplus, charity monies must be spent exclusively on charitable objects (and, within strict guidelines, admin). These means they cannot pay a dividend to shareholders, members or whoever. That is they may not pursue profit.

David If you know all this, then why does it not inform your writing?

I don't believe presidential candidates should routinely publish their tax returns, as even politicians should enjoy some privacy and a lack of privacy is may deter quality candidates. But in the US, the horse has bolted. Romney's problem is that, unlike Obama's, his tax returns are complex. You might argue that this is because Obama is a professional career politician and so has always been mindful of the need to be squeaky clean, but this is neither her nor there. Romney, on the other hand, does not appear squeaky clean. Instead, there was evidence of aggressive tax avoidance. That is to say, Romney has a case to answer, while Obama doesn't. It's a bit like Andrew Mitchell denying he called the police 'plebs': now people want to know what he really said and his refusal to disclose becomes the problem.

On the educational records, there is clearly no case to answer, just wild assertions from the usual suspects and conspiracy theorists. And your 'evidence' of Saudi influence doesn't even qualify as circumstantial. The USA (and Britain) have long sucked up to the Saudis regardless of who's in power.

Since when, Stephen has tax avoidance been a crime? If it is, I assume you will immediately cash in your tax-free ISA! And I notice you ignore the fact that Romney paid 4x more in charity donations than he did in tax.

As for Obama's educational records, why should they be secret? What is there about them that is so, er, delicate?

As for the 'Graun's' charitable status, does it, even at second-hand, pay Polly's enormous wages?

With the ever so slight curiousness of Mr. Romney's habit of off-shoring and the Swiss accounts I'm not particularly concerned. Won't be the "decider" in any case.

But I did laugh at one of our late-night comedian's joke when Romney was about to visit Europe during the Olympics, "He's going to visit his money!" That, I think, is the thing that's nagging at our electorate.

I do admit to annoyance with the chattering FOXclass constantly whinnying for more stuff of Obama's to look to. I'm certain David, were Barack to open his records from primary school to Harvard degree - Sean Hannity would next be demanding the President bend over in order for Sean to shine a light up his rectum.

The comments to this entry are closed.