U.S. at War

[WGJ]

1. $1.00 or $1.5 MILLION it was still TREASONOUS and PROFITEERING.

Here's the economics/math problem:
Using 1940 as your economic base year calculating for rate of inflation what would that paltry $1.5 MILLION be in today's dollars?

2. Now ask yourself where Lee's pal "Duke" Cunningham is. He only profiteered
$2.4 MILLION in today's dollars.

Don't forget to read Shaw's article,
WGJ

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

1. $1.00 or $1.5 MILLION it was still TREASONOUS and PROFITEERING.
WGJ

Wrong. At the time it was perfectly legal. You need to read the time frame of involvement. It should be noted that the billions were owned by Harriman who was a Democrat.

Read up on Prescott Bush. You would actually agree with a lot of things he supported, believe it or not.

Oh, what about you corrupt buddy in Louisiana that hid thousands of bribe money in his freezer?

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

then I'm going to use NEWTOPIA Magazine:
The Bush Empire
Charles Shaw

Held at the home of Neil Bush, the son of George Herbert Walker Bush, who himself was the very ambitious former CIA director and current Vice President, the guest of honor at the dinner party (which was quickly cancelled after news of the failed attempt on the life of the President), was Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, the man who just that afternoon shot President Ronald Reagan, coming one half-inch from killing him.
WGJ

Williford, Did you read far enough to figure out that Bush and Hinckley are distant relatives. Now that should have you tap dancing and saying----"See, I told you so."

Lee

[Electrophil]

1 share.... Worth 1.5 million dollars. Nah..... I don't think so.

Name one share from one company that is worth 1.5 million dollars today. Anywhere..... any country... any planet. This is just another Bush family "Dumb people will believe anything" tricks. No way. Didn't happen then, and it doesn't happen today. Shares split wayyyyyy before they hit a worth of 1.5 Million. This "1 share" gimmick is probably a play on when the company was started and every partner recieved "1 share out of 5".

[WGJ]

From Shaw's article:

Misinterpreted? Yes, because since 1970 both George Bush Sr. and John Hinckley Sr. were friends and fellow oil industrialists in Texas and Colorado, and Hinckley had given substantial sums of money to the failed 1980 Bush Presidential campaign. In 1978 Neil Bush lived in Lubbock, Texas while managing his brother George Jr's (our President) failed campaign for Congress. John Hinckley Jr. lived in Lubbock that year as well.

Coincidence? Apparently so. We are also supposed to believe that John Hinckley, Jr. was mentally disturbed, and, as the Bush story went, shot Reagan to please actress Jodie Foster, and his Uncle George had absolutely nothing to do with the entire incident, even indirectly and unwittingly.

Allegedly, the only mention of it to appear on national television was a brief comment by NBC's John Chancellor who was absolutely floored by the revelation and mentioned it during his newscast against the demands of NBC management. NBC quickly jumped in and censored it. The revelation was never mentioned again in any mainstream media outlet.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:
http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/arch...bushempire.php

WGJ

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

1 share.... Worth 1.5 million dollars. Nah..... I don't think so.

Name one share from one company that is worth 1.5 million dollars today. Anywhere..... any country... any planet. This is just another Bush family "Dumb people will believe anything" tricks. No way. Didn't happen then, and it doesn't happen today. Shares split wayyyyyy before they hit a worth of 1.5 Million. This "1 share" gimmick is probably a play on when the company was started and every partner recieved "1 share out of 5".

The Bushes moved to Columbus, Ohio, in 1923, where Prescott Bush went to work for the Hupp Products Company, where his business efforts generally failed. He left in November, 1923 to become president of sales for the Stedman Products company of South Braintree, Massachusetts. In 1925, he joined the United States Rubber Company of New York City as manager of the foreign division, and moved to Greenwich, Connecticut.

From 1944 to 1956, Bush was a member of the Yale Corporation, the principal governing body of Yale University. Bush was on the board of directors of CBS, having been introduced to chairman William Paley around 1932 by his close friend and colleague Averell Harriman, who became a major Democratic party power-broker.

Political career
Bush was a typical New England Republican of his time; as a former banker, he was pro-business, but held many positions today considered socially liberal. Later he would be identified with the Rockefeller Republicans, and right-wing elements of the party distrusted and at times openly opposed him, a pattern that has continued with his son and grandson. These disputes would be the source of many of the charges laid against him, which have been taken up in recent years by critics of President George W. Bush, such as being a sympathizer of the Nazi party or of eugenics.

Bush was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. Bush was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951.

From 1947 to 1950 he served as Connecticut Republican finance chairman, and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 1950. The ties with Planned Parenthood hurt him in heavily Catholic Connecticut, and were the basis of a last-minute alleged smear campaign in churches; the family vigorously denied the connection, but Bush lost to Democrat William Benton by only 1,000 votes.

In 1952 he was elected to the United States Senate, defeating Abraham Ribicoff for the vacant seat which was caused by the death of James O'Brien McMahon. A staunch supporter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (another golf aficionado), Prescott Bush served until January, 1963.

Bush's moderate politics became more complicated in time. He disliked Nelson Rockefeller despite the close relationship his father Samuel P. Bush had with the Rockefeller family and his own friendship with Nelson's great-uncle Percy, and when Nelson divorced his first wife and remarried, causing an infidelity scandal that ditched his campaign for the 1964 Republican nomination for President, Bush spoke at grandson George W.'s high school Andover and denounced Nelson. He threw his support behind ultraconservative Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater, and campaigned for Goldwater in the election. Bush liked Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative and recommended it to his son George H.W. and grandson George W.


War seizures controversy
Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City.

The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)
Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take the full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)
The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Bush's interest in UBC consisted of one share. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry. This presupposes that Union Banking Corporation was worth $4 billion, of which almost all would have been paid to the Harrimans. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html by Cecil Adams addresses this claim with some skepticism.

The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists.

E. Roland Harriman, the bank chairman and brother of former New York Gov. W. Averell Harriman (search), held 3,991 shares. Bush had one share.

There are unsubstantiated rumors concerning Prescott Bush's associations with the Nazi party. The Anti-Defamation League has stated, "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated." [2] The rumors began with extreme right-wing attacks on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 presidential run and were renewed during his 1988 run.

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. Reportedly, however, there has been a determined effort by Canadian bloggers, apparently connected with Lyndon LaRouche, to circulate reports that Bush himself was known as "Hitler's Angel".

Lee

[lhopp77]

I think it is interesting to note that many of the attacks against Prescott Bush and even George H W Bush came from the far right and not the far left. The far left has picked up on them to further their hatred for the current prez.



Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

Allegedly, the only mention of it to appear on national television was a brief comment by NBC's John Chancellor who was absolutely floored by the revelation and mentioned it during his newscast against the demands of NBC management. NBC quickly jumped in and censored it. The revelation was never mentioned again in any mainstream media outlet.
WGJ

Williford, I am not surprised that is was not mentioned again because it was totally superfluous. I would like to point out that NBC leans very much left and would have loved to publish and report anything that was true to hurt the Republicans involved.

Nothing else worthy of comment in your blatant erroneous, lying and misleading posts.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Everybody but Fox leans left. I guess that means the leaning tower of Pisa is straight, but the rest of the world is tilted.

Or! It means our physics are true and what is considered by the far right Fox gang to lean left is actually perfectly in the middle.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Everybody but Fox leans left. I guess that means the leaning tower of Pisa is straight, but the rest of the world is tilted.

Or! It means our physics are true and what is considered by the far right Fox gang to lean left is actually perfectly in the middle.

It is very clear that nearly all of the mainstream media leans left. Some just further than others. Yes, Fox DOES tend to lean right, but ALSO provides mostly balanced reporting with representatives from both sides of the issue on at the same time. None of the other networks do that on a consistent basis. Actually it is rarely done on the other networks or cable news agencies. They tend to editorialize the news instead of report it.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Just take the case of the New York Times this week. Front page news "Government SIFTS through bank records". Yet, reporting the homegrown terrorist arrests appeared way back on Page 9.

Couple things wrong with this. First the headline is VERY misleading. The government is not "SIFTING" through records. In order to get the information the requester has to do it BY NAME and REASON for (read justification) requesting the information. There has to be a terrrorist link. It is NOT SIFTING. Actually I think you might see some information leaker or reporters go to jail over this one.

The homegrown terrorist arrest was a much more significant story relative to our national safety.

This is "business as usual" for the NYT. Slanting, misleading and editorializing news. It is also done by CBS, ABC and NBC as well as CNN and MSNBC to a lesser degree. Like the forged document reported by Rather even though he KNEW they were suspect. CNN used to be much more left leaning, but the advent of FOX has acted as a bit of an "honest broker".

Lee

[Royal Tiger]

All you need to know about media and the ignorant populace is that 80% of people actually think CSI is real. You put it on TV or in the paper and it's fact.

[Electrophil]

The truth, or at least a facsimile of truth is gotten by weighing all of them, except for the extremes like Fox, that you completely discount as propaganda.

[Royal Tiger]

Now see Robert, because you don't like them you call it propaganda. So the N.Y. Times is nuetral? You have to weigh all sides to get the closeest to the real story.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Now see Robert, because you don't like them you call it propaganda. So the N.Y. Times is nuetral? You have to weigh all sides to get the closeest to the real story.

Sorry. The Fox comment was meant to be an irony in jest. I should have thrown a roll eyes and a grin after it, but the icons weren't working at that moment. In all seriousness, CNN is channel 20, and Fox is Channel 21, and I roll between them equally. (Gotta know what the enemy is doing. )