I don't know whether to laugh or cringe after reading this article. It (correctly) points out that donors to a political cause want to remain anonymous (which is their right), while the organization sponsoring the report receives some (or plenty) of its funding in the same manner! Then I see that one of these organizations is operated by a former politician named Hillary Clinton! Does anyone doubt that said organization would have giving principles much different than Ms Clinton?
When the mainstream media and the ruling class decide to pick on a critical issue, it is usually for two reasons: first, the issue is serious enough and is affecting their interests, and therefore the narrative must be controlled to ensure that the results are in their favor. Second, in doing the former, the ruling class gets to strictly filter and manage the narrative on what needs to be said about any given topic; which ‘experts’ are given the stage to speak; and whose voices are excluded from debates,
or even defamed and slandered, if necessary.
I have a T that says: Don't let mass media tell you what to think!
Oct 30, 2023·edited Oct 30, 2023Liked by Liam Sturgess
Incredible job rebutting the smear job and so glad you did. It felt like a total betrayal of Sourcewatch history to use anti-vax smears against Highwire and CHD when they were early critics of Gardasil and mandates around it. This pair of smugnorant presstitutes were spouting the same talking points as Monsanto lobbyist & made me hotter than a hornet..
who stands with Monsanto? Kennedy Beacon had the Monsanto lobbyist quote which puts these two dim bulbs on the same page... Rambling my way to the point... reading this has been the first successful remedy to my fury. Big time kudos & thanks! <3.
Very good investigative reporting. I have helped raise, as a founder and a board member, millions of philanthropic monies from large and small philanthropy, and donor advised funds. When I read the original article I spied the duplicity and stupidity of the hit piece authors. Donor advised funds housed at brokerages and/or community foundations are directed by donors, not the custodians.
There are many things wrong here. I will first point out that the hit piece is a piece of mal-information, not simply dis-information. We are in a moral and ethical cesspool now. People are writing hit pieces claiming bad behavior meant to deceive and they are using as their examples of mis behavior behavior they themselves are employing. Not good.
There is another big problem here. Donor advised funds (DAF), yes, they have their own three letter acronym, are a huge business. In rough numbers 1.3 million Americans have DAFs, total assets of DAFs is $250 billion, they gave out $50 billion in 2021, and they took in $70 billion. Big business for the administrators/custodians like Fidelity, Schwab, etc. Everyone who's anyone uses them.
DAFs are a money racket and a drain on the US Treasury. As a donor, you get the tax deduction when you make the donation into your administered fund, even though a payout to a charity (the reason we forgo taxing you and instead give you a tax deduction which leads to all other taxpayers having to cover your nut) hasn't happened.
DAFs are big business and a big governance/finance problem. DAFs are, undoubtedly, funding CHD and CMD (Center for Media and Democracy) and ICAN, etc., etc. and the non profits I have been involved in. They are now the air we breath and the water we drink.
No journalist can elide and obscure these issues and be critical of one entity taking these funds while they do the same.
Shame on them. It reminds me of the Center for Digital Hate, the little outfit out of London that sprang to life in covid. It is just too easy to spin up a charity and enter the fray. You have to use the mechanism. It is there for the taking. It's the way the world works. But you have to have some honesty and self respect.
If we don't pull ourselves back from dishonesty, we will need some reform of our tax structure and fiscal management. That's depressing! Not a chance of either, I guess most would wager.
We need some moral fiber and I have hope that RFKJr can inspire us to bring that aspect back to our lives. Not sure on the actual institutional reform. Let's see.
I don't know whether to laugh or cringe after reading this article. It (correctly) points out that donors to a political cause want to remain anonymous (which is their right), while the organization sponsoring the report receives some (or plenty) of its funding in the same manner! Then I see that one of these organizations is operated by a former politician named Hillary Clinton! Does anyone doubt that said organization would have giving principles much different than Ms Clinton?
MSM and the liberal elites will do everything to stop our movement!
Sad but true—good thing Americans are quickly learning how not to fall for it!
Hope so!!!
When the mainstream media and the ruling class decide to pick on a critical issue, it is usually for two reasons: first, the issue is serious enough and is affecting their interests, and therefore the narrative must be controlled to ensure that the results are in their favor. Second, in doing the former, the ruling class gets to strictly filter and manage the narrative on what needs to be said about any given topic; which ‘experts’ are given the stage to speak; and whose voices are excluded from debates,
or even defamed and slandered, if necessary.
I have a T that says: Don't let mass media tell you what to think!
This one: https://t.co/QbmH10SE3N
Incredible job rebutting the smear job and so glad you did. It felt like a total betrayal of Sourcewatch history to use anti-vax smears against Highwire and CHD when they were early critics of Gardasil and mandates around it. This pair of smugnorant presstitutes were spouting the same talking points as Monsanto lobbyist & made me hotter than a hornet..
who stands with Monsanto? Kennedy Beacon had the Monsanto lobbyist quote which puts these two dim bulbs on the same page... Rambling my way to the point... reading this has been the first successful remedy to my fury. Big time kudos & thanks! <3.
https://thekennedybeacon.substack.com/p/friday-news-round-up-rfk-jr-addresses
Excellent point, Pamela. Thank you.
They are Disgusting!
Great Exposure Mr. Sturgess!
Very good investigative reporting. I have helped raise, as a founder and a board member, millions of philanthropic monies from large and small philanthropy, and donor advised funds. When I read the original article I spied the duplicity and stupidity of the hit piece authors. Donor advised funds housed at brokerages and/or community foundations are directed by donors, not the custodians.
There are many things wrong here. I will first point out that the hit piece is a piece of mal-information, not simply dis-information. We are in a moral and ethical cesspool now. People are writing hit pieces claiming bad behavior meant to deceive and they are using as their examples of mis behavior behavior they themselves are employing. Not good.
There is another big problem here. Donor advised funds (DAF), yes, they have their own three letter acronym, are a huge business. In rough numbers 1.3 million Americans have DAFs, total assets of DAFs is $250 billion, they gave out $50 billion in 2021, and they took in $70 billion. Big business for the administrators/custodians like Fidelity, Schwab, etc. Everyone who's anyone uses them.
DAFs are a money racket and a drain on the US Treasury. As a donor, you get the tax deduction when you make the donation into your administered fund, even though a payout to a charity (the reason we forgo taxing you and instead give you a tax deduction which leads to all other taxpayers having to cover your nut) hasn't happened.
DAFs are big business and a big governance/finance problem. DAFs are, undoubtedly, funding CHD and CMD (Center for Media and Democracy) and ICAN, etc., etc. and the non profits I have been involved in. They are now the air we breath and the water we drink.
No journalist can elide and obscure these issues and be critical of one entity taking these funds while they do the same.
Shame on them. It reminds me of the Center for Digital Hate, the little outfit out of London that sprang to life in covid. It is just too easy to spin up a charity and enter the fray. You have to use the mechanism. It is there for the taking. It's the way the world works. But you have to have some honesty and self respect.
If we don't pull ourselves back from dishonesty, we will need some reform of our tax structure and fiscal management. That's depressing! Not a chance of either, I guess most would wager.
We need some moral fiber and I have hope that RFKJr can inspire us to bring that aspect back to our lives. Not sure on the actual institutional reform. Let's see.
Probably the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't vote so clearly they interfere elsewhere.
Thanks for the tour through the journalistic swamp. As we used to say in the '60s, Rolling Stoned and the others have "sold out, man."