Communist China funding takeover of America by Republican Party.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The Chamber elicits donations through their foreign offices and just has to promise that they'll use that cash on things other than political activities. Since cash is fungible, well......

Teabag tag brought you by spidey's leash holders in Bahrain.

You might want to read this, an article quoted above your post:

Mr. Josten said the Chamber of Commerce had 115 foreign member affiliates in 108 countries, who pay a total of less than $100,000 in membership dues that go into its general fund.

The group’s total budget is more than $200 million, and Mr. Josten said the group had safeguards to segregate the small fraction generated overseas from other accounts to comply with federal law and avoid bleeding into political spending.

The group has already spent more than $25 million on an aggressive political ad campaign in attacking policies it considers anti-business and the candidates, overwhelmingly Democrats, who have supported those policies. The chamber expects to spend at least $50 million by the November elections.

Even if the Chamber failed to seggregate the foriegn source funds, how could this be a problem of any significance? ($100k/$50M = .002 - that's far less than 1%)

The US corporations, and that's what all most all are, that are members of a foreign US Chamber pay dues to it. In turn, the foreign based US chamber pays a 'membership fee' back to the US based Chamber HQ here in the US. The vast majority of any foreign based US Chamber membership dues are used for it's purposes in that country. Only a very small amount is paid out to the US Chamber HQ as that foreign based Chamber's dues.

I.e., so far no one has even remotely identified how significant foreign money could find it's way through to US elections. There's no significant foreign money to begin with.

Obama et al are really guilty of smear tactics, of making allegations which they haven't substaniated or even tried to.

I don't see how this improves his very poor reputation with the business community.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Out of context, that one sentence sounds like Axelrod is unreasonably asking that the Chamber prove a negative. However, his point is quite clear:



The issue here is about disclosure, transparency in our political process, and I quite agree with Mr. Axelrod. The fact is, the GOP blocked legislation to require disclosure of the source of funding for political ads. The Chamber, among others, spent dollars lobbying to defeat the legislation. So organizations like the Chamber have been doing whatever they can to be legally permitted to conceal their sources of funding from the American public. Under those circumstances, they are getting exactly what they deserve. If disclosure is not required, it is fair to assume much worse actually than what the dems are speculating. I'd rather just assume that any political ad for which a source of funding is not disclosed is the worst case scenario - funded by a child molesters advocacy group or the American Nazi party. They don't want people assuming the worst? They can disclose their damn funding. Otherwise, they have no cause to complain about inferences being drawn and no place to demand proof when they themselves possess all the proof and refuse to release it.

- wolf

We have discussed the campaign disclosure Bill and teh various groups who were exempt from it's provision, the bill was crap to begin with. I don't think I need mention more it...

Unlike the NRA and MoveOn.org and the many other groups, politics is a small part of the Chamber's business. Collectively I bet +90% of their diburements have nothing to do with politics, how much of their (unrelated) records must be examained to assure someone regarding foreign sourced funds?

Shall we demand the same of corporations that donate to the Dem side? Do any of them have foreign subsidiaries that repatriate earnings? How can we be sure that foreign money isn't making it's way into the political donations. Shall we demand they make all their records public?

Fern
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
You might want to read this, an article quoted above your post:



Even if the Chamber failed to seggregate the foriegn source funds, how could this be a problem of any significance? ($100k/$50M = .002 - that's far less than 1%)

The US corporations, and that's what all most all are, that are members of a foreign US Chamber pay dues to it. In turn, the foreign based US chamber pays a 'membership fee' back to the US based Chamber HQ here in the US. The vast majority of any foreign based US Chamber membership dues are used for it's purposes in that country. Only a very small amount is paid out to the US Chamber HQ as that foreign based Chamber's dues.

I.e., so far no one has even remotely identified how significant foreign money could find it's way through to US elections. There's no significant foreign money to begin with.

Obama et al are really guilty of smear tactics, of making allegations which they haven't substaniated or even tried to.

I don't see how this improves his very poor reputation with the business community.

Fern

Another Communist Apparatchik enters the thread. How much are the Communists paying you, comrade?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
Got something to hide? Honest people don't.

Or so I've heard from repubs in this forum about how our intelligence agencies, in being forced to bow to the whims of Bush and Cheney and their desire to abuse those agencies for personal/political gain, went about trashing our Constitution wrt PERSONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS with the help of good 'ol Bush appointed AG and family friend Alberto Gonzales.

Frick'in hilarious to now see these same repubs arguing from the other side of the fence.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Really? Empty South you say? Which of these southern states that all had a greater population growth than California (9.1% 2000-2009) would that be? Would it be Texas (18.8% 2000-2009), South Carolina (13.7% 2000-2009), North Carolina (16.6% 2000-2009), Virginia (11.4% 2000-2009), Georgia (20.1% 2000-2009), or Florida (16% 2000-2009)?

Right, those Communist Mexicans that infiltrated in from North Viet Nam and are eating you alive and breeding like rats, battle hardened communist worker party laborers who can pick lettuce for a dime. Good luck finding a twelve fingered keyboard at your white collar job. The way you sling those statistics, though, shows you already have a gig as a party boss.

Comrade Fong is waiting in the wings to replace you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
Firstly - I could give a shit less what you or PJABBER post - You are both idiots. Therefore, whatever you guys happen to be spewing at the moment is safely ignored.


Also - Your insults are crass and lacking imagination. Perhaps you could at least get some sympathy points for creativity if you worked at it hard enough.

This isn't a time to be creative, you idiot. America is in danger of a Republican Communist funded takeover. This is a time for real Americans like me to stand up for truth justice and being serious. Get out of my way, you beloved patriot.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,921
5,543
136
This isn't a time to be creative, you idiot. America is in danger of a Republican Communist funded takeover. This is a time for real Americans like me to stand up for truth justice and being serious. Get out of my way, you beloved patriot.

The joke has pretty much worn out now moonie, it's time to let up.
I know you get away with a lot more than most everyone else around here because of your disability, but calling someone a beloved patriot, even in jest, is over the line.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
This isn't a time to be creative, you idiot. America is in danger of a Republican Communist funded takeover. This is a time for real Americans like me to stand up for truth justice and being serious. Get out of my way, you beloved patriot.

You only see things from an American perspective.

Let me offer you an internationalist's perspective.

Remember, these approaches are all viable in their home countries. It is only when someone gets the idea that they are transferable that we have issues.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM:
* You have two cows.
* You sell one and buy a bull.
* Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
* You sell them and retire on the income.

AMERICAN CAPITALISM:
* You have two cows.
* You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy influence with a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You sell one, accept a LAW tax promised credit payable in 4 year's time, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
* You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce 20 times the milk
* You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* Both are mad.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
* You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
* You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You count them and learn you have five cows.
* You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
* You count them again and learn you have 12 cows.
* You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION:
* You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you.
* You charge others for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* You have 300 people milking them.
* You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION:
* You have two cows.
* That one on the left is kinda cute...
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Funny ideas. Rich Republicand are evil and rich democrats are good. There are just as many evil rich democrats.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
The joke has pretty much worn out now moonie, it's time to let up.
I know you get away with a lot more than most everyone else around here because of your disability, but calling someone a beloved patriot, even in jest, is over the line.

What joke. All I saw was a mass of bot programs including your own here.

Mommy Mommy, Moonbeam used a bad word. Moonbeam is a racist communist hater and politically incorrect. Communist paid for Republican propaganda has taken over the American mind. War is peace and Republicans are anti racists.

Wake up America. It's sunset in America if we don't stand up and take our country back.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
lol, good one.

Fern

Yeah, good one from the International Socialists Party perspective. Watch out for PJ. If you become anybody in the fight to save America he will try to slime your wife with Communist lies. There's no bottom for immoral dirt.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Shall we demand the same of corporations that donate to the Dem side? Do any of them have foreign subsidiaries that repatriate earnings? How can we be sure that foreign money isn't making it's way into the political donations. Shall we demand they make all their records public?
Fern

Yes yes and yes. If you've read my posts, you shouldn't have felt the need to ask me these questions. The money trail should be absolutely transparent with all spending on politics. Period.

- wolf
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
We have discussed the campaign disclosure Bill and teh various groups who were exempt from it's provision, the bill was crap to begin with. I don't think I need mention more it...

Fern

I'll reply to this separately. The bill exempted non-profits, which is not only unions but also groups like the NRA. That said, the bill should have had no exemptions. I would still have voted for it because some disclosure is better than no disclosure. IMO it was a no brainer.

- wolf
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yes yes and yes. If you've read my posts, you shouldn't have felt the need to ask me these questions. The money trail should be absolutely transparent with all spending on politics. Period.

- wolf

I support disclosure in as far as who is funding any ad should be disclosed.

But talk of requiring open access to everyones' complete and detailed financial info strikes me, as an accountant, as absurd. It's just not feasible at any level. Too much info etc. Amng other things, given the enormity of the cost to the donor targeted for audit this would be a powerful political weapon subject to abuse.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Long, but extremely weak. There isn't a correct thing you said here, starting especially with your first sentence. This has nothing to do with "liberalism" versus "conservatism." You're the one thinking in those terms. You're the one introducing those concepts into the discussion.

This is about disclosure, period. And on that, I'm afraid you have made a rather poor analogy. Lawyers do not make secret donations on behalf of their clients. If they were to do so, they would not be exempt from a disclosure law because disclosing the identity of a client who is making a donation doesn't violate the privilege. Only attorney-client communications are privileged. And if lawyers are doing this, they are in the same boat as the chamber. They should be disclosing, or their clients should be. Either way the disclosure doesn't violate any privilege and disclosure is essential.

It is clearly not in the public interest to have funding for political propaganda hidden from the public's view. It's one thing to say, as the SCOTUS did, that entities like corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as citizens and hence may spend unlimited money in attempts to influence the public through media propaganda. It is quite another to allow them to do so while concealing their identity. In a democracy, information is paramount because our system of government presumes an informed electorate. Blocking disclosure is anti-democratic, and I don't care one lick whether we're talking about right wing specials interests or left wing special interests.

I stand by what I said. Mr. Alexrod is dead on. When you refuse to disclose the source of your funding, people are entitled to draw the most negative inferences possible. In fact, it is logical for them to do so. The dems are being too soft on them with these foreign corporation allegations. They should be suggesting that they're probably being funded by child molesters or nazis, and if they don't like the inference, eff them, they can disclose their funding. THEY are the only ones who can prove their funding. So standing on "prove it, neener neener neener" is bullshit.

Any organization that spews political propaganda on public airwaves and refuses to disclose it identity or source of funding is beneath contempt.

Sorry, but I feel strongly about this and you aren't about to convince me otherwise with analogies, because I'm not going to change my position given a different scenario. Because this isn't about left versus right. I'm sorry you don't see that.

- wolf
Lawyers don't make secret donations on behalf of their clients, true. But lawyers certainly receive secret donations to fund lawsuits. Just last week Allred refused to say who is funding her attacks on Whitman - says that's privileged information. Assuming that a maid doesn't have the resources to pay Allred's very high salary for the many hours she spends bashing Whitman on any forum she can claw her way into, either Allred is working pro bono or some other rich liberal is funding her attacks. If pro bono, she is doing her client a severe disservice, probably actionable, by exposing her to a felony prosecution and deportation for the sake of attacking a political candidate. This is acted out every day. When an atheist takes a case to SCOTUS because he hates seeing "In G-d We Trust" on his coinage, no one believes that atheist is funding the lawsuit; it's being funded by the ACLU and/or by ultrawealthy George Soros types. How about some disclosure there?

Further, we can stretch the analogy to attorney-client communications as well. If you have every right to assume that the Chamber of Commerce is in cahoots with the Chicoms and child molesters and neo-Nazis, then I have every right to assume the same about your clientele. In any case concerning attempts to change or circumvent laws, I have a right to sit in on your attorney-client communications, which could equally be a foreign-funded attempt to subvert our country. (I'd bet you'll find Americans two or three to one more willing to believe that of lawyers than of the Chamber of Commerce, too.)

As far as disclosure in political adverts goes, the Dems had another shot at the barrel. Once again they chose to write special rules for their constituencies and power groups while establishing a much more restrictive set of rules for others. One of the most popular things the Republicans did when they won Congress in '94 was to end the long-time Democrat practice of exempting themselves from the laws they pass. With the notable exception of progressives and liberals, Americans don't like being ruled by a self-serving elite who live by different rules. If we wanted one, we had a perfectly good one until 1776; we didn't want an autocracy. If it's good for the Chamber of Commerce, then it's good for EVERYONE, not just those groups that the Democrats find politically in opposition. In the case of the Chamber of Commerce, it's more than just disclosure - Obama and the modern Democrat Party clearly hate business, and they need to know whom to punish for daring to dissent. Well, whom to punish first.

And I too hope the Democrats claim the Chamber of Commerce is funded by child molesters and Nazis. Because people generally like and trust the Chamber; people generally dislike and distrust politicians, and at the moment particularly Democrats. The more outlandish the claims, the more the Democrats will be revealed for the desperate, power-mad elitists they've become.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I think you mean East German, Meine Stasi.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Which reminds me of a story.

A Japanese guy is at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX,) waiting for his flight back home to Japan. While he's waiting, he goes to the currency exchange counter to change his remaining dollars.

He counts his money at the counter and says to the clerk...

Japanese Guy: "Wait a minute. When I came here I got more dollars for my yen. What's going on here?"

Clerk: "Fluctuations."

The Japanese man stiffens.

Japanese guy: "Well! Fluck you Americans, too!"
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Lawyers don't make secret donations on behalf of their clients, true. But lawyers certainly receive secret donations to fund lawsuits. Just last week Allred refused to say who is funding her attacks on Whitman - says that's privileged information. Assuming that a maid doesn't have the resources to pay Allred's very high salary for the many hours she spends bashing Whitman on any forum she can claw her way into, either Allred is working pro bono or some other rich liberal is funding her attacks. If pro bono, she is doing her client a severe disservice, probably actionable, by exposing her to a felony prosecution and deportation for the sake of attacking a political candidate. This is acted out every day. When an atheist takes a case to SCOTUS because he hates seeing "In G-d We Trust" on his coinage, no one believes that atheist is funding the lawsuit; it's being funded by the ACLU and/or by ultrawealthy George Soros types. How about some disclosure there?

Further, we can stretch the analogy to attorney-client communications as well. If you have every right to assume that the Chamber of Commerce is in cahoots with the Chicoms and child molesters and neo-Nazis, then I have every right to assume the same about your clientele. In any case concerning attempts to change or circumvent laws, I have a right to sit in on your attorney-client communications, which could equally be a foreign-funded attempt to subvert our country. (I'd bet you'll find Americans two or three to one more willing to believe that of lawyers than of the Chamber of Commerce, too.)

As far as disclosure in political adverts goes, the Dems had another shot at the barrel. Once again they chose to write special rules for their constituencies and power groups while establishing a much more restrictive set of rules for others. One of the most popular things the Republicans did when they won Congress in '94 was to end the long-time Democrat practice of exempting themselves from the laws they pass. With the notable exception of progressives and liberals, Americans don't like being ruled by a self-serving elite who live by different rules. If we wanted one, we had a perfectly good one until 1776; we didn't want an autocracy. If it's good for the Chamber of Commerce, then it's good for EVERYONE, not just those groups that the Democrats find politically in opposition. In the case of the Chamber of Commerce, it's more than just disclosure - Obama and the modern Democrat Party clearly hate business, and they need to know whom to punish for daring to dissent. Well, whom to punish first.

And I too hope the Democrats claim the Chamber of Commerce is funded by child molesters and Nazis. Because people generally like and trust the Chamber; people generally dislike and distrust politicians, and at the moment particularly Democrats. The more outlandish the claims, the more the Democrats will be revealed for the desperate, power-mad elitists they've become.

This entire post again is coming from a democrats versus republicans standpoint and is a total straw man of my position. I am afraid you are projecting your own partinsanship on me. Some of us, in addition to having a political viewpoint, also care about the process.

Accordingly, your discussion of Allred, for example, is off point. What is your reasoning in even bringing that up, because Allred= left, woolfe9999=left, therefore woolfe9999 must defend Allred, therefore woolfe9999 is being a hypocrit in wanting disclosure of the chamber's funding? That is some tortured logic if that is where you are coming from. I guess you didn't read the recent thread about the Whitman housekeeper story where I said I couldn't stand Allred and may vote for Whitman...

And yes, I agree, the republicans should call out left-wing organizations that spew political propaganda and refuse to disclose funding as Nazis and child molesters. Absolutely. Where did I say otherwise, and who or what are you arguing against here? I'm afraid you're so obsessed with attacking the left and defending the right you can't even see that there is a clearly non-partisan issue here, and a critically important one at that. Statements like Axelrod's are dead on point, as would be similar statements coming from the right, because these sorts of negative characterizations may shame these organizations into disclosure.

I stand by what I said: it is totally fair to accuse an organization of the worst and most malicious kinds of motives and funding when that organization is the sole holder of all evidence pertaining to said motives and funding. The burden of proof is not on the accuser in this case because the accuser has no access to the evidence which is being concealed and blocked by the accused. So make any infererences you want, including to lawyers. You think your analogy somehow gives me paused because I practice law?

- wolf
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I support disclosure in as far as who is funding any ad should be disclosed.

Fern

And the Republicans have blocked this disclosure, this year.

Twice. Every Republican voting to block it.

The Republicans who were about 80% FOR disclosure around 2001.

And then the Republicans said it was the DEMOCRATS who did not pass it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This entire post again is coming from a democrats versus republicans standpoint and is a total straw man of my position. I am afraid you are projecting your own partinsanship on me. Some of us, in addition to having a political viewpoint, also care about the process.

Accordingly, your discussion of Allred, for example, is off point. What is your reasoning in even bringing that up, because Allred= left, woolfe9999=left, therefore woolfe9999 must defend Allred, therefore woolfe9999 is being a hypocrit in wanting disclosure of the chamber's funding? That is some tortured logic if that is where you are coming from. I guess you didn't read the recent thread about the Whitman housekeeper story where I said I couldn't stand Allred and may vote for Whitman...

And yes, I agree, the republicans should call out left-wing organizations that spew political propaganda and refuse to disclose funding as Nazis and child molesters. Absolutely. Where did I say otherwise, and who or what are you arguing against here? I'm afraid you're so obsessed with attacking the left and defending the right you can't even see that there is a clearly non-partisan issue here, and a critically important one at that. Statements like Axelrod's are dead on point, as would be similar statements coming from the right, because these sorts of negative characterizations may shame these organizations into disclosure.

I stand by what I said: it is totally fair to accuse an organization of the worst and most malicious kinds of motives and funding when that organization is the sole holder of all evidence pertaining to said motives and funding. The burden of proof is not on the accuser in this case because the accuser has no access to the evidence which is being concealed and blocked by the accused. So make any infererences you want, including to lawyers. You think your analogy somehow gives me paused because I practice law?

- wolf

How the fuck can a LAWYER say it is totally fair to accuse an organization of the worst and most malicious kinds of motives and funding when the only thing you know is that you know nothing? With that logic you'd be kicked out of the courtroom so hard you'd ricochet on the way out. "Excuse me, your Honor. I have absolutely no evidence of malfeasance, so I'd like a ruling that will allow me to go look for some." "I have no evidence that your client sleeps with children - but I have evidence that your client DOESN'T sleep with children either, so until I'm privy to every detail of his sex life I'm going to assert that he sleeps with children." That is totally based on your left wing dislike for the Chamber of Commerce taking an adversarial position from your preferred party. You have made exactly zero similar demands from the Teacher's Unions or the SEIU or the ACLU.

It's not like this is some fly-by-night organization, it's the freaking US Chamber of Commerce, a 98 year-old business organization that has habitually protected business, most small businesses, around the country from oppressive or unfair governmental practices and tries to encourage smart governmental action. I can't believe so many liberals have gone completely batshit and are attempting to practice scorched earth policies on the Chamber of Commerce for G-d's sake, all on the fear that the Democrats make temporarily lose the chance to remake our unique country into another glorious European socialist Republic. Jeez, it's not like you won't get another chance in two years.

As far as Allred is concerned, one mo' time: The US Chamber of Commerce is attempting to influence an election. They admit that and have almost a century of the same behavior. It's what they do, they are registered lobbyists with a clear non-partisan agenda. Gloria Allred is trying to trying to influence an election. She does not directly admit it, but she's done nothing else for weeks. She is not a registered lobbyist and supposedly does something far different. How the hell does it make sense that the US Chamber of Commerce's donation lists must be made public, but Allred's funding is sacrosanct? This is especially true if you consider that Allred's backers face no possible governmental sanction, whereas any companies found contributing to anti-Democrat ads will almost certainly face governmental sanctions, if only harassing IRS audits, and organized boycotts from the left.

And the burden of proof is always on the accuser. ALWAYS. This new Democrat world where you levy a charge and demand the accused prove his innocence went out with the witch trials.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Just in case anyone doubts what is going on here:
The US Chamber of Commerce is under attack by:
The ThinkProgress blog (George Soros), for using foreign money in American campaigns; http://www.uschamber.com/facts/myth-vs-fact-foreign-money-and-political-spending

Move-On and Change to Win (an SEIU group) for possible tax fraud;
http://www.chamberpost.com/2010/09/politics-and-politics.html

The Daily Kos, for complicity in another, unrelated group's ad; http://www.chamberpost.com/2010/05/truth-is-the-first-casualty-of-kos.html

TPM Magazine and the Huffington Post, for "protecting rapists" (for taking the same position as Obama's Department of Defense);
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php

The SEIU, for not supporting a new entitlement for workers suffering from H1N1 (even though the Chamber hasn't opposed it either);http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/11/h1n1-and-paid-leave.html

Notice any pattern? Repeatedly far left groups - those with no scrutiny of their own funding, mind you - launch attacks on the Chamber any time they fail to toe the Party line. With nothing positive to put forth, the liberals are increasing launching a concerted effort to destroy or else so terrorize any who oppose them, on anything, so that only the liberal voice may be heard. If you deny that, think back how many calls you're heard for the restructuring or outright banning of talk radio or Fox News. Then think how many you've heard for the banning of CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/NPR.