A friend’s elderly mother received a scam letter, and I started looking into it. The trail led to a discovery that the Romney campaign is receiving Moonie money.
The scam letter is from the American Federation of Senior Citizens (AFSC). Tracing them down, it turns out it is a scam run by the Moonies.
The head of AFSC is Gary Jarmin. Jarmin is a member of the secretive, right-wing Council for National Policy. He words (or worked) as Government Liason of the Washington Times, a Moonie outfit. He’s also the guy who booked the room in the Senate Office Building which Moon was crowned Messiah, if you remember that event.
The address of ASFC, 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, according to Raw Story, is also the address of a number of other Moonie outfits,
Christian Voice 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 548-1421
Jar-Mon Consultants (Global Dominion Communications Inc.) 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 548-4904
US Cuba Foundation 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 548-4904
American Christian Cause 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 715-6523 (703) 548-1840
Pacific Asia Foundation 208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 548-4906
AFSC uses a PR firm, Global Dominion Communications, also used by Christian Voice.
So I started looking into these groups a bit, and guess what I found?
More orgs at 208 N. Patrick:
MORAL GOVERNMENT FOUNDATION TRUST ENDOWMENT FUND Americans for Faith and Freedom The Seniors Center
A list of contributions to the Romney campaign shows Global Communications giving the max – $2300.
More research discovers that the Romney website proudly announces that Gary Jarmin is a “Romney For President National Faith And Values Steering Committee Vice-Chair”. Jarmin is listed there as President of the American Service Council. The Christian Voice website declares, “Christian Voice is a program of American Service Council, Inc.” (208 North Patrick Street, Alexandria, VA 22314) and the ASC website lists:
Special Programs of ASC
* Americans for Faith and Freedom
* The Seniors Center
* Citizen’s Voter Drive
* National Council of Survivors
* Christian Voice
Now, I don’t have time to trace this further — I haven’t even traced the donations of these other Moonie fronts — but the way the Moonie organization works I bet with just a little work we’d find many, many more connections between the Romney (and other Republican candidates) organization and the Moonies. If you are reading this and have some time, see what you find and let us know in the comments here. Is Romney taking more Moonie money? Is he working with other Moonie fronts? Are the other Republican candidates?
Here’s why: The right wants to imply something sinister out of Hillary Clinton accepting donations from people with Asian names. Maybe they’re just following the STF Rule.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, which prevented a full criminal investigation and trial. He felt it would help to heal the country, which had been through assassinations, riots and the divisive Vietnam war. But the pardon had the unintended consequence of creating an impression that those in the highest office really aren’t accountable to the public if their actions violate the law.
Four years later the Reagan administration picked up right where Nixon’s had left off, and got caught. Other select insiders made the decision not to pursue Reagan.
As chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be “good for the country” to put the public through another impeachment trial.
At a time when thousands were being sent away for years for smoking a joint or doing a line, the country was learning that things really are different for those at the very top.
Bush1 then pardoned everyone involved, especially those being pressured by Lawrence Walsh to testify against him for his own possibly criminal part in it. The public got the message clearly that time.
There is no real question that Democrats are more skilled at politics than the Republicans are. Democrats are more articulate, not to say glib, and they know how to stick together.
You don’t see individual Democrats in the Senate going off to do their own thing in concert with the opposition and against the interest of their own party, as Senator John McCain has done with so-called “campaign finance reform” co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Senator Russ Feingold, and as he attempted to do on immigration with liberal icon Ted Kennedy.
Well, now we know WHY there have been so many recent accusations that Clinton had a chance to kill bin Laden and did not. It’s because the Republicans knew a book was coming soon that exposed that Bush was begged to do something about bin Laden ad didn’t.
What is the STF Rule? When Republicans accuse, it means it is something THEY are guilty of.
From New York Daily News – Home – Chance at Osama pre 9/11, sez book:
CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book “State of Denial.”
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.
… Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and “he might be able to bring Bin Laden’s head back in a box,” Woodward writes.
… Tenet said he had hoped the meeting would shock Rice into encouraging the President to take immediate action against Al Qaeda.
… Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a “tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks.”
Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, “Could all this be a grand deception?”
The STF Rule: When Republicans accuse, it usually means they’re doing what they are accusing others of.
Question — does it embolden the terrorists to intentionally split the country right down the middle? Does it weaken the country in a time of war to accuse half of the country of being traitors and helping the enemy? Doesn’t THAT “embolden the terrorists?”
The STF Rule: When Republicans accuse, it means they’re probably doing what it is they are accusing others of.
In this fantastic (in the true meaning of the word) piece at right-wing Townhall, Our covert enemies, Michael Barone tries to accuse anyone promoting what he calls “multiculturalism” of being “covert enemies” of the country (i.e. traitors). He follows the narrative’s script about “elites” pretty well, so he might get his bonus,
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism.
Of course, following the STF Rule, he’s describing the conservative movement’s own attack on all of the fundamental institutions of our society – government, public schools, the justice system, etc.
But then, OOPS, look how he ends his piece:
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions.
What is that a description of? “Young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam war?” That’s not a description of Gore, Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, etc., it’s instead a description of Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh and every single leader of the conservative movement! And this thing about propagating their ideas until they become conventional wisdom — is a description of the conservative movement itself!
OOPS! Maybe he won’t get his bonus after all.
Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.
Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically “educated” to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.
The fact that we could use a larger army of the kinds of people who have already volunteered to put their lives on the line does not mean that we can get it by adding warm bodies fresh from our politically correct schools and colleges, where standards and self-discipline are greatly lacking.
"an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force. Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections."
The professional Republican PR and campaign consultants who created, funded, and coordinated the attacks on John Kerry continue to spread their poison. And now, with the 2006 campaign season upon us they are ready to attack again, creating false stories and spreading doubt and mistrust about the more than fifty veterans running for Congress this fall. We can expect that candidates like Admiral Jim Webb, Admiral Joe Sestak, Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown and Captain Patrick Murphy will be targets for attack. So it’s a good idea to look back and understand what is happening here, how they have perfected the politics of political destruction since the strategy emerged, where some of them are now, and examine some ways to fight back.
“providing a shield from attack” by “working away from the negative image your opponent wants to pin on you. If you know you are going to be attacked as morally imperious, it is a good idea to lead with a position that is inclusive and tolerant.” … “Symbols are so powerful that if you manipulate them cleverly … you can even launch mean-spirited attacks on your opponents and pretend to be compassionate while doing it.
… positioning [yourself] as victims gives … a license to attack. … But remember this: using fear as a weapon can be dangerous. Enemies inspire fear, friends do not. … [so let] surrogates do the dirty work. When and how to use fear is a political art. If you are a white male … be careful when you go on the offensive, and be sure to surround yourself with allies who are neither white nor male.”