President Obama was back on television again, he is on more than "Friends" reruns. What did he accomplish with his talk? I have to admit, that I find it stunning how brazen Obama is in his lying directly to the American people. Is is that he knows that his base will be watching main stream media who will tell them how brilliant he was and not expose the lies? Does he simply ignore those who do their research, who scour the Internet and search out answers... you know those who attend tea parties, and watch Fox News?
My guess is that he is only trying to sell his base and the democrats in the House and Senate. He doesn't need anyone else. He will strong arm those who are not sure like Senator Bayh, he will offer huge pork programs to those "blue dogs" assuring them that he will campaign for them to save their jobs. There are going to be some heated discussions forcing these guys to come in line with the president's government health care take over. He knows he doesn't need us, he knows he doesn't need popular support.
You have to understand why Obama is there. He was put there by George Soros to end America's Free Market economy and make us into a Socialist Oligarchy. He has even said that he is willing to be a one term president to get his agenda through against the will of the American people. Obama in his speech mentioned that America was the only major "democracy" in the world without a nationalized health care plan. I would like to point out two things to our Constitutional scholar president. One is we are not a democracy, our founders were terrified of democracies and the word doesn't appear anywhere in any of our founding documents, we are a representative republic. If we were a democracy, he would and should drop this health care plan because more are against it than for it.
There were so many "misrepresentations" tonight, I prefer Congressman Wilson's analysis personally. A couple that I thought were amazing was his reference to "a man in Illinois" and "a woman" who both had pre-existing conditions and died because they couldn't get health care. Does anyone believe for one second that these two people really existed? If they did, he would have used their names, this was just propaganda because he knows the press won't look into it.
Thank You GOP Conference for breaking down a list of lies and facts.
Myth vs. Fact: President’s Address to CongressShare
Today at 10:05pm
The Republican Conference has prepared the following analysis of President Obama’s address to Congress:
Quote: “And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.”
Fact: The major coverage expansions in all the legislation being considered would not begin until January 2013—so according to the President’s own methodology, Democrat bills will allow more than 15 million additional Americans to become uninsured.
Quote: “And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it—about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.”
Fact: An even larger tax—of nearly $1,800 per year—is paid by individuals with private coverage who are forced to subsidize lower payments made by government-run health plans like Medicare and Medicaid, according to a study conducted by independent actuaries at the consulting firm Milliman.
Quote: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.“
Fact: Independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of Americans losing the coverage they have—the Congressional Budget Office believes several million, the Urban Institute 47 million, and the Lewin Group as many as 114 million.
Quote: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”
Fact: Senior Obama Administration official Sherry Glied has previously written that a mandate “is in many respects analogous to a tax”—and furthermore has the potential to be a “very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.” Thus this policy stance breaks the signal promise of the Obama campaign: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Quote: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Fact: Nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits—making the President’s promise one that the legislation itself does not keep.
Quote: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up—under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
Fact: The National Right to Life Committee, among other independent pro-life groups, have confirmed that the legislation will result in federal funds being used to pay for abortions—both through the government-run health plan, and through federal subsidies provided through the Exchange, despite various accounting gimmicks created in an Energy and Commerce Committee “compromise.”
Quote: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future. Period.”
Fact: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found that H.R. 3200 would increase deficits by $239 billion over ten years—and “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” thereafter. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation released a study today which found that in its second decade, H.R. 3200 would increase federal deficits by more than $1 trillion.
Quote: “Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.”
Fact: Among more than $500 billion in proposed savings from Medicare, the Democrat bills also propose re-directing $23 billion from the Medicare Improvement Fund to fund new health care entitlements. According to current law, the Medicare Improvement Fund is designated specifically “to make improvements under the original Medicare fee-for-service program.”
Quote: “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.”
Fact: The Congressional Budget Office has previously found that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans included in the Democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan—a direct contradiction of the President’s assertion that “nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have.”
Quote: “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.”
Fact: While some Republicans support addressing the current employee exclusion for health insurance in the context of overall tax reform, the President’s proposal would raise “fees” in order to finance new federal spending—a tax increase of hundreds of billions of dollars, and one that many Republicans may not support.
Quote: “Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.”
Fact: The Congressional Budget Office, in its score of H.R. 3200 as introduced, found that the legislation would spend approximately $1.6 trillion over ten years—nearly double the President’s estimate.
Quote: “I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.”
Fact: On May 13, House Republican leaders all wrote the President a letter reading in part: “We write to you today to express our sincere desire to work with you and find common ground on the issue of health care reform….We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss areas for potential common ground on health care reform.” Nearly four months later, that meeting has yet to take place.
Didn't I say that I found common ground with Obama during his speech this evening? Yes, I did. He said that presidents for nearly the last 100 years have been trying to reform America's Health Care system, and he intended to be the last. On that we can agree, once we turn back Obama's Nationalized Government Health Care grab, hopefully he will be the last to try to Socialize our health care.
Isn't it nice to find agreement with your president?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Diversity Czar wants Your Freedom of Speech!
Each of you who have been fighting the onslaught from the radical left with this administration need to pat yourselves on the back and congratulate yourselves on a good month, and great weekend. This has surely been the dog days of summer for Obama through August watching his and all his programs popularity free falling.
This last weekend, we saw our efforts to root out and sweep away that openly and proudly radical Communist Van Jones from his post as Green Jobs Czar, and in the process give Obama just one more tie to radical friends. Surely there will come a time when those in the middle realize that you don't have that many radical friends and associates unless you too are.
Another victory is be shining a light on Obama's plans to bypass parents and speak to our children, and with lesson plans asking them to figure out how they too can help Obama. He had to once again retreat, drop those lesson plans, and have his speech writers actually write a conservative values speech for his teleprompter today. This had to really get his goat to not only have his plans thawted but to force him to read a speech that goes against everything that he is pushing through politically. To stand on your own two feet, to be self reliant, to work hard and to believe in yourself. Anyone who has those beliefs wouldn't believe in anything in Obama's administration's agenda. So Congratulations, we had a very good weekend.
Okay, the party is over. Now we need to get back to work. Van Jones is out of his post, however, we really don't know if he is really gone, or just deeper under cover somewhere in the administration. There is also hosts of other radicals still there. We have talked about a few already, but here is one that is very dangerous to us all. Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer with the FCC. If you don't know what this is, don't be surprised, there has never been one before. Who is Mark Lloyd and what is this Chief Diversity Czar all about?
At Newsbusters, Seton Motley reports on the new FCC “Diversity Officer” — a racial engineering czar who has been targeting conservative talk radio since his days working for far left Center for American Progress.
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.
But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”
Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”
* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
These last two get perilously close to the use of “localism” to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time." from Michelle Malkin.
Lloyd's 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press), was his call to arms against Freedom of Speech.
In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.
These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.
Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.
“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”
Throughout history, Lloyd said, “the most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry.”
“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” Lloyd added.
“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.
Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.
“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”
Lloyd relies heavily on the left-wing radical Saul Alinsky in explaining his strategy.
Alinsky (1909-1972) was a community organizer and activist from Chicago and the author of the book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky "Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. This means revolution."
With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.
1. “Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ‘Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.’”
2. “Understand where people stand on your issue. Once we were clear that we needed to drum up the support of people, we needed to understand what people knew about our issues. As Alinksy wrote, ‘if people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it.’”
3. “Connect with groups that have already organized the community. Our means of reaching local communities was through existing national organizations. We reached out to groups that had large constituencies and articulated our message by identifying how our goals fit their core interests.”
4. “The strategy must have an inside and an outside game. For media reform, this means we needed to embrace the necessity of operating both in and outside Washington [D.C.].”
5. “Don’t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition – the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.’”
6. “Communications is a priority. Again drawing from Alinksy, we understood that ‘one can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one exception – and still be effective. That exception is the art of communication.’ It is not just a matter of getting media to cover your campaign. That is, undoubtedly, a part of it, but it is also about getting the sort of attention you want, so the public and your opposition see you and your issues the way you want to be seen.”
7. “Research is key. We took not only message and public opinion research seriously, we took seriously our obligation to research the activity of our opposition. Our research entailed not only public opinion polling, but academic papers presenting economic and social analysis, legal research…and grassroots research involving the inspections of dozens of televisions station’s public files.”
8. “Establish a broad base of funding and never stop raising money. Alinksy is right that people are a source of power, but without adequate funds organizing people effectively cannot be accomplished.”
9. “Find allies in power. If civil rights leaders such as King had the Kennedys and Johnson, and the anti-Bork campaign had Ted Kennedy, our main ally was [FCC Chairman] Bill Kennard.”
The solution
To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.
“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”
To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ...."
"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."
Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:
1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”
2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.
“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.
3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.
“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”
4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”
5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”
6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”
For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
“The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”
How he intends to "fund" these 8 reginal offices and the Public Broadcasting stations in which he proposes, among other things, that private radio broadcasters be required to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs in order to benefit public radio broadcasting.
Forget for a moment that no business can survive by paying some other entity a sum equal to their total operating expenses. This, of course, would drive private broadcasters out of business. But look at what he is proposing. He wants public broadcasting to be funded totally on the backs of private broadcasters, many of whom operate in the red.
Mark Lloyd said this in praise of Hugo Chavez at a conference:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution to begin to put in place saying that we are going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled [...] folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution and Chavez then started to take seriously the media in this country."
That's right folks, he is praising and showing his admiration for that Marxist dictator Chavez in Venezuela, and holding up the Chavez "administration" as the model he wants to emulate in America in his new position! That is to shut down all private media outlets and run them all through the government.
Mark Lloyd is determined to assault our freedom of speech, his goal along with Obama's is to shut up anyone who disagrees with their policies and agenda. They are not happy about losing Van Jones, or their opportunity to indoctrinate our children. They lost both do to talk radio, Fox News Network, and the Internet. Now combine that with the legislation that will give Obama the power to shut every American off the Internet whenever he feels it is in the best interest of the country, we see them setting up a way to completely put Americans in the dark. This has been the staple of every Marxist regime in history.
We must, as long as we can, keep making noise, raising a fuss. We can't go quietly into that good night! The fight continues, and intensifies.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/28/fcc-diversity-czar-loves-communist-hugo-chavez/
This last weekend, we saw our efforts to root out and sweep away that openly and proudly radical Communist Van Jones from his post as Green Jobs Czar, and in the process give Obama just one more tie to radical friends. Surely there will come a time when those in the middle realize that you don't have that many radical friends and associates unless you too are.
Another victory is be shining a light on Obama's plans to bypass parents and speak to our children, and with lesson plans asking them to figure out how they too can help Obama. He had to once again retreat, drop those lesson plans, and have his speech writers actually write a conservative values speech for his teleprompter today. This had to really get his goat to not only have his plans thawted but to force him to read a speech that goes against everything that he is pushing through politically. To stand on your own two feet, to be self reliant, to work hard and to believe in yourself. Anyone who has those beliefs wouldn't believe in anything in Obama's administration's agenda. So Congratulations, we had a very good weekend.
Okay, the party is over. Now we need to get back to work. Van Jones is out of his post, however, we really don't know if he is really gone, or just deeper under cover somewhere in the administration. There is also hosts of other radicals still there. We have talked about a few already, but here is one that is very dangerous to us all. Mark Lloyd, the Chief Diversity Officer with the FCC. If you don't know what this is, don't be surprised, there has never been one before. Who is Mark Lloyd and what is this Chief Diversity Czar all about?
At Newsbusters, Seton Motley reports on the new FCC “Diversity Officer” — a racial engineering czar who has been targeting conservative talk radio since his days working for far left Center for American Progress.
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.
But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”
Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”
* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
These last two get perilously close to the use of “localism” to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time." from Michelle Malkin.
Lloyd's 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press), was his call to arms against Freedom of Speech.
In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.
These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.
Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.
“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”
Throughout history, Lloyd said, “the most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry.”
“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” Lloyd added.
“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.
Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.
“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”
Lloyd relies heavily on the left-wing radical Saul Alinsky in explaining his strategy.
Alinsky (1909-1972) was a community organizer and activist from Chicago and the author of the book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky "Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. This means revolution."
With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.
1. “Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ‘Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.’”
2. “Understand where people stand on your issue. Once we were clear that we needed to drum up the support of people, we needed to understand what people knew about our issues. As Alinksy wrote, ‘if people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it.’”
3. “Connect with groups that have already organized the community. Our means of reaching local communities was through existing national organizations. We reached out to groups that had large constituencies and articulated our message by identifying how our goals fit their core interests.”
4. “The strategy must have an inside and an outside game. For media reform, this means we needed to embrace the necessity of operating both in and outside Washington [D.C.].”
5. “Don’t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition – the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.’”
6. “Communications is a priority. Again drawing from Alinksy, we understood that ‘one can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one exception – and still be effective. That exception is the art of communication.’ It is not just a matter of getting media to cover your campaign. That is, undoubtedly, a part of it, but it is also about getting the sort of attention you want, so the public and your opposition see you and your issues the way you want to be seen.”
7. “Research is key. We took not only message and public opinion research seriously, we took seriously our obligation to research the activity of our opposition. Our research entailed not only public opinion polling, but academic papers presenting economic and social analysis, legal research…and grassroots research involving the inspections of dozens of televisions station’s public files.”
8. “Establish a broad base of funding and never stop raising money. Alinksy is right that people are a source of power, but without adequate funds organizing people effectively cannot be accomplished.”
9. “Find allies in power. If civil rights leaders such as King had the Kennedys and Johnson, and the anti-Bork campaign had Ted Kennedy, our main ally was [FCC Chairman] Bill Kennard.”
The solution
To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.
“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”
To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ...."
"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."
Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:
1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”
2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.
“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.
3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.
“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”
4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”
5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”
6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”
For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”
“The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”
How he intends to "fund" these 8 reginal offices and the Public Broadcasting stations in which he proposes, among other things, that private radio broadcasters be required to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs in order to benefit public radio broadcasting.
Forget for a moment that no business can survive by paying some other entity a sum equal to their total operating expenses. This, of course, would drive private broadcasters out of business. But look at what he is proposing. He wants public broadcasting to be funded totally on the backs of private broadcasters, many of whom operate in the red.
Mark Lloyd said this in praise of Hugo Chavez at a conference:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution to begin to put in place saying that we are going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled [...] folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution and Chavez then started to take seriously the media in this country."
That's right folks, he is praising and showing his admiration for that Marxist dictator Chavez in Venezuela, and holding up the Chavez "administration" as the model he wants to emulate in America in his new position! That is to shut down all private media outlets and run them all through the government.
Mark Lloyd is determined to assault our freedom of speech, his goal along with Obama's is to shut up anyone who disagrees with their policies and agenda. They are not happy about losing Van Jones, or their opportunity to indoctrinate our children. They lost both do to talk radio, Fox News Network, and the Internet. Now combine that with the legislation that will give Obama the power to shut every American off the Internet whenever he feels it is in the best interest of the country, we see them setting up a way to completely put Americans in the dark. This has been the staple of every Marxist regime in history.
We must, as long as we can, keep making noise, raising a fuss. We can't go quietly into that good night! The fight continues, and intensifies.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/28/fcc-diversity-czar-loves-communist-hugo-chavez/
Sunday, September 6, 2009
More Czars In and Out.
Today under pressure Obama's hand picked Green Jobs Czar Van Jones resigned. The firestorm of outrage for his many radical thoughts and associations "proved to be a distraction." The scary part is most of America awoke today to the very first time they heard that anything was going on. Until the last couple days there wasn't a single story on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or most print outlets. If you didn't read Drudge, Brietbart, Wall Street Journal, News Max, or watch Fox News it was not covered. Even today with the press release from AP that was pretty much copied and pasted to all main stream news media as well told only of his calling republicans a dirty word, and his signing on a 9/11 truthers petition. They are those who believe that Bush did 9/11 as an inside job. Not one mention of his prison record, his radical ties and self boasts as to his being a radical and a communist. Not one word that talked about him admitting that the "green movement" in his thinking is nothing but a means to incrementally destroy capitalism and totally replace it with a system that he believes in. No mention to his affiliation with Storm or other radical groups. Somehow none of those stories were interesting enough to get into any main stream media outlets.
So today, one radical Czar down, but there is still a bunch to go. If you read my last post you learned about John Holdren, Carol Browner, and Cass Sundstein, if you haven't please read it for more details on them. They are all quite frightening all by themselves. In fact when Carol Browner was appointed I was outraged that a leader of a Socialist Organization that is committed to ending American Free Enterprise System and not only that, but to end American sovereignty and create a one world Socialist government was brought to such a high level position and advisor to president Obama. However, by the time you read about Cass and John she seems as American and wholesome as a Girl Scout leader in comparison.
This is the second Czar to go down in scandal, even if the press didn't tell you about them. The other was the short lived Car Czar Steve Rattner, he resigned "to go back into private life" quickly and quietly once he was under indictment for a massive fraud and pay for play scheme that reached from New York to New Mexico and took out another Obama appointee Bill Richardson. Quietly Rattner took a settlement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo instead of prosecution. I wonder what kind of pay for play Cuomo got out of that one. I haven't found any radical agenda with Rattner yet, just that he was a crook, frankly that is a relief after these other guys.
My biggest concern about Van Jones is where is he now? Is he really gone, or just under cover? This administration has a habit of keeping the most offensive people working for them out of the light of day. Consider that when Tom Daschel was stopped from being the Secretary of Health to allow him to work on the Obamacare program because of his tax cheating issues, did he go away? No, he is still the main architect of the Obamacare plan along with Dr. Zeke Emanuel and the herd of lobbyist that they are shepherding. So, now he is doing the same thing but without any oversight just in the shadows.
Who else lurks in these shadows? Well, there is Jeff Jones. Not to be confuses with Van Jones, Jeff Jones has quite a resume, he was one of the founders of the 60's radical terrorists group the Weather Underground along with Obama's friend and partner Bill Ayres who blew up federal buildings and killed police officers. Jones was not only in the Weathermen he was on the Weather Bureau modeled on the Politburo. After he came out of hiding he became and advisor for labor groups such as the SEIU and different Environmental groups. He one of the heads of the Apollo Alliance, who is filled with radicals, but figure headed by John Podesta. It was the Apollo Alliance who wrote the "Stimulus Bill." Jones now works as a consultant who helps write grant requests for leftist groups to get stimulus money.
Jeff Jones goes way back with a bunch of buddies who are tied into this shadow government of Obama's. Others are Rob Borasage with the Center for American Future, and Carl Davidson all go back to their Students for Democratic Society, SDS, a communist organization from the 60s. Now they are with a new organization called the Movement for a Democratic Society which is a reconstituted organization from the SDS committed to transforming America into a Socialist Nation. This new MDS was formed in 2006. Most believe that the Center for American Progress is actually headed by George Soros.
Today a radical Communist resigned from his post working directly for Obama, but we know of several more. How many don't we know about? We all need to be alert, and pay attention like we have never paid attention before to the goings on in D.C., and not just to what is above the surface, but that stuff that is under the sewers as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization)#Articles
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2322
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_8qz-CD_r8
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/03/by_dan_eggen_within_24.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/rattner.fortune/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W276ICvVAd4&feature=player_embedded
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/rattner.fortune/
So today, one radical Czar down, but there is still a bunch to go. If you read my last post you learned about John Holdren, Carol Browner, and Cass Sundstein, if you haven't please read it for more details on them. They are all quite frightening all by themselves. In fact when Carol Browner was appointed I was outraged that a leader of a Socialist Organization that is committed to ending American Free Enterprise System and not only that, but to end American sovereignty and create a one world Socialist government was brought to such a high level position and advisor to president Obama. However, by the time you read about Cass and John she seems as American and wholesome as a Girl Scout leader in comparison.
This is the second Czar to go down in scandal, even if the press didn't tell you about them. The other was the short lived Car Czar Steve Rattner, he resigned "to go back into private life" quickly and quietly once he was under indictment for a massive fraud and pay for play scheme that reached from New York to New Mexico and took out another Obama appointee Bill Richardson. Quietly Rattner took a settlement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo instead of prosecution. I wonder what kind of pay for play Cuomo got out of that one. I haven't found any radical agenda with Rattner yet, just that he was a crook, frankly that is a relief after these other guys.
My biggest concern about Van Jones is where is he now? Is he really gone, or just under cover? This administration has a habit of keeping the most offensive people working for them out of the light of day. Consider that when Tom Daschel was stopped from being the Secretary of Health to allow him to work on the Obamacare program because of his tax cheating issues, did he go away? No, he is still the main architect of the Obamacare plan along with Dr. Zeke Emanuel and the herd of lobbyist that they are shepherding. So, now he is doing the same thing but without any oversight just in the shadows.
Who else lurks in these shadows? Well, there is Jeff Jones. Not to be confuses with Van Jones, Jeff Jones has quite a resume, he was one of the founders of the 60's radical terrorists group the Weather Underground along with Obama's friend and partner Bill Ayres who blew up federal buildings and killed police officers. Jones was not only in the Weathermen he was on the Weather Bureau modeled on the Politburo. After he came out of hiding he became and advisor for labor groups such as the SEIU and different Environmental groups. He one of the heads of the Apollo Alliance, who is filled with radicals, but figure headed by John Podesta. It was the Apollo Alliance who wrote the "Stimulus Bill." Jones now works as a consultant who helps write grant requests for leftist groups to get stimulus money.
Jeff Jones goes way back with a bunch of buddies who are tied into this shadow government of Obama's. Others are Rob Borasage with the Center for American Future, and Carl Davidson all go back to their Students for Democratic Society, SDS, a communist organization from the 60s. Now they are with a new organization called the Movement for a Democratic Society which is a reconstituted organization from the SDS committed to transforming America into a Socialist Nation. This new MDS was formed in 2006. Most believe that the Center for American Progress is actually headed by George Soros.
Today a radical Communist resigned from his post working directly for Obama, but we know of several more. How many don't we know about? We all need to be alert, and pay attention like we have never paid attention before to the goings on in D.C., and not just to what is above the surface, but that stuff that is under the sewers as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization)#Articles
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2322
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_8qz-CD_r8
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/03/by_dan_eggen_within_24.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/rattner.fortune/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W276ICvVAd4&feature=player_embedded
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/rattner.fortune/
Friday, September 4, 2009
Who Are These Czars?
Barrack Obama told us during the presidential campaign if we wanted to know who he was, and what he believed, all we had to do was look at those he surrounded himself for council. At the time, he mentioned those who we would consider rational people such as Warren Buffet, and Richard Lugar. However, who has he actually surrounded himself in his administration, and especially in his shadow government of the Czars?
What exactly is a Czar anyway? What powers do they really have? What is their budgets? How much do they make? Who other than Obama are they accountable to, and in what ways? Frankly it seems that only they and Obama know those answers. As we are learning more about some of these Czars we should also be wondering what type of vetting process was used.
Obama has more Czars than even Russia had though the reign of the Czars there. I personally have never been comfortable having something or someone called a Czar having power over any aspect of my life, how about you?
The American Daughter Media Center has a wonderful blog site to keep you updated on the comings and going of these Czars. You might want to check them out at http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2385 they are a wonderful resource on this shadow government group. I will take the list of Czars from their site to give you quick access to all of them later on this post. However, first there are a handful of very interesting Czars we should all be very aware of, especially when taking Obama for his own word on who he is can be seen by those who he has brought into his inner circle.
The most well known over the last few days is most easily Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. This is a very interesting fellow. By his own self description he was a Black Nationalist, who when put in prison after the Rodney King riots, met these real radicals, and communists in prison and realized this is who he needed to be. His background as a Radical and Communist is deep and prolific. He realized that the best method to advance this radical agenda was the marriage of the "green" movement, the Unions, and the Communist radicals into one strong cohesive force. This is what he has been in charge of for quite some time, Obama's team brags that they have been watching him and his advances and couldn't wait to recruit him and his energy for their team. The media and many of the politicians from the GOP are in an uproar over two recently discovered items about Van Jones, one is where he used a potty mouth description of Republicans and the other that he is a signed member of the nutty 9/11 Truthers who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Frankly their missing the point worrying with these two lower level blunders or proof of nuttiness. I am much more concerned with recently found tapes of his commitment to tear down our systems and replace them completely with his Communist ideology. One was speaking of total wealth redistribution to Native Americans, Immigrants, and minorities. Another was his speech where he admitted that the entire Green initiative has nothing to do with ecology, but a methodical step in destroying the "gray capitalism" and replacing it in the short term with a marketable "green capitalism" until they can completely eliminate capitalism all together. What could possibly be more frightening than having someone whose open goal is to dismantle capitalism and the entire American system and replace it with Communism who is the president's adviser and "Czar?"
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/
Want more scary stuff on Van Jones look into his involvement with Apollo, Tides Center, SEIU, and ACORN.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/glenn-beck-uncovers-van-j_n_249044.html
Van Jones telling us that white people are poisoning minorities.
http://embedr.com/playlist/breitbart-tv-playlist-van-jones
Van Jones is also one of the founding members of STORM and wrote their manifesto you can read it yourself below.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070719020533/http://leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf
How about Regulatory Czar, Cal Sunstein? Does he have any radical agenda in his office?
Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about one aspect of Sunstein's ideology:
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.
In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"
Sunstein believes anyone sending any email, blog, post, or anything over any electronic medium, phone, whatever, should be able to be sued if they cannot prove any comment that they make. This would end all free speech.
Sunstein believes in "libertarian paternalism." This phrase means that statists plan to do to the word libertarian what they did to the word liberal.
"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer."
Sunstein also believes that animals have equal rights with humans and should be able to sue humans in court. He has also called for outlawing all hunting.
"Representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children's behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property."
How about John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, any weird ideological baggage there?
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
John Holdren: "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
John Holdren: "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
John Holdren: " Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
John Holdren: "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
John Holdren: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection."
John Holdren: "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"
John Holdren: "Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
John Holdren: "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
Carol Browner Obama's Global Warming Czar, surely she doesn't have a shady past does she?
She is listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30, 2008 to the group's congress in Greece was still available. Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.
The Socialist International Web site didn't have a copy of her June 30 speech, but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on "How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?"
The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
I am sorry, but I simply can't do any more research tonight. I am truly becoming sick to my stomach as I put all this information at the same place at the same time. It has been one thing gathering it, focused on the individuals involved, but putting them all together is very difficult to stomach. I haven't even begun to talk about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and others.
President Obama, you told us if we want to know who you are, and what you believe, all we have to do is look at those who your surround yourself for council. I have, and are you telling me that you are and believe as these people whom you have surrounded yourself? Isn't that in it's self self incrimination in your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
Gang, our nation, our representative republic under our Constitution is in more jeopardy today than at any time in history since 1812 when the British burned our Capital and White House. There is a concerted effort by enemies of our American Constitution along with all our corresponding freedoms and liberties operating at the very highest level. ...The next 16 months will determine if we will remain free or become serfs to an oppressive government, it is just that simple. I don't care what political label you consider yourself, we must all unit in opposition to these enemies of America who pretended to be democrats to win this last election.
Thank You American Daughter Media Center for this list below:
1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass [This is a new media buzz since our earlier list, a response by pundits to the White House request for informants: see Glenn Beck and Lew Rockwell]
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source). His last day in DC government was March 4 but on March 12 the FBI raided his office and arrested two staffers.]
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominatied to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation. Voting on his confirmation was delayed to clarify his position on Honduras. Watch WaPo’s Head Count to track status of confirmation.]
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings [appointed to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a newly created post (that does not require Senate confirmation); openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren [chair of the [Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is frequently called the TARP czar]
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
Positions being planned:
1. Income redistribution czar
2. Land-use czar
3. Mortgage czar, formally “consumer financial protection czar” (source)
4. Radio-internet fairness czar
5. Student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. Voter list czar
7. Zoning czar
Obama has moved swiftly to concentrate power in the White House, bypassing the review of our elected representatives in Congress in most of the posts listed above. Even though cabinet positions are part of the executive branch, the cabinet secretaries must be approved by Congress, they are funded by Congress, and they can be called before Congress to testify. Most of these czars, on the other hand, are appointed by Obama at his sole discretion, and are answerable only to him. If subpoenaed by Congress, they can claim executive privilege.
What exactly is a Czar anyway? What powers do they really have? What is their budgets? How much do they make? Who other than Obama are they accountable to, and in what ways? Frankly it seems that only they and Obama know those answers. As we are learning more about some of these Czars we should also be wondering what type of vetting process was used.
Obama has more Czars than even Russia had though the reign of the Czars there. I personally have never been comfortable having something or someone called a Czar having power over any aspect of my life, how about you?
The American Daughter Media Center has a wonderful blog site to keep you updated on the comings and going of these Czars. You might want to check them out at http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2385 they are a wonderful resource on this shadow government group. I will take the list of Czars from their site to give you quick access to all of them later on this post. However, first there are a handful of very interesting Czars we should all be very aware of, especially when taking Obama for his own word on who he is can be seen by those who he has brought into his inner circle.
The most well known over the last few days is most easily Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. This is a very interesting fellow. By his own self description he was a Black Nationalist, who when put in prison after the Rodney King riots, met these real radicals, and communists in prison and realized this is who he needed to be. His background as a Radical and Communist is deep and prolific. He realized that the best method to advance this radical agenda was the marriage of the "green" movement, the Unions, and the Communist radicals into one strong cohesive force. This is what he has been in charge of for quite some time, Obama's team brags that they have been watching him and his advances and couldn't wait to recruit him and his energy for their team. The media and many of the politicians from the GOP are in an uproar over two recently discovered items about Van Jones, one is where he used a potty mouth description of Republicans and the other that he is a signed member of the nutty 9/11 Truthers who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Frankly their missing the point worrying with these two lower level blunders or proof of nuttiness. I am much more concerned with recently found tapes of his commitment to tear down our systems and replace them completely with his Communist ideology. One was speaking of total wealth redistribution to Native Americans, Immigrants, and minorities. Another was his speech where he admitted that the entire Green initiative has nothing to do with ecology, but a methodical step in destroying the "gray capitalism" and replacing it in the short term with a marketable "green capitalism" until they can completely eliminate capitalism all together. What could possibly be more frightening than having someone whose open goal is to dismantle capitalism and the entire American system and replace it with Communism who is the president's adviser and "Czar?"
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/
Want more scary stuff on Van Jones look into his involvement with Apollo, Tides Center, SEIU, and ACORN.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/glenn-beck-uncovers-van-j_n_249044.html
Van Jones telling us that white people are poisoning minorities.
http://embedr.com/playlist/breitbart-tv-playlist-van-jones
Van Jones is also one of the founding members of STORM and wrote their manifesto you can read it yourself below.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070719020533/http://leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf
How about Regulatory Czar, Cal Sunstein? Does he have any radical agenda in his office?
Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about one aspect of Sunstein's ideology:
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.
In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"
Sunstein believes anyone sending any email, blog, post, or anything over any electronic medium, phone, whatever, should be able to be sued if they cannot prove any comment that they make. This would end all free speech.
Sunstein believes in "libertarian paternalism." This phrase means that statists plan to do to the word libertarian what they did to the word liberal.
"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer."
Sunstein also believes that animals have equal rights with humans and should be able to sue humans in court. He has also called for outlawing all hunting.
"Representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children's behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property."
How about John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, any weird ideological baggage there?
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
John Holdren: "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
John Holdren: "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."
John Holdren: " Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
John Holdren: "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
John Holdren: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection."
John Holdren: "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"
John Holdren: "Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
John Holdren: "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
Carol Browner Obama's Global Warming Czar, surely she doesn't have a shady past does she?
She is listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30, 2008 to the group's congress in Greece was still available. Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.
The Socialist International Web site didn't have a copy of her June 30 speech, but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on "How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?"
The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
I am sorry, but I simply can't do any more research tonight. I am truly becoming sick to my stomach as I put all this information at the same place at the same time. It has been one thing gathering it, focused on the individuals involved, but putting them all together is very difficult to stomach. I haven't even begun to talk about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and others.
President Obama, you told us if we want to know who you are, and what you believe, all we have to do is look at those who your surround yourself for council. I have, and are you telling me that you are and believe as these people whom you have surrounded yourself? Isn't that in it's self self incrimination in your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
Gang, our nation, our representative republic under our Constitution is in more jeopardy today than at any time in history since 1812 when the British burned our Capital and White House. There is a concerted effort by enemies of our American Constitution along with all our corresponding freedoms and liberties operating at the very highest level. ...The next 16 months will determine if we will remain free or become serfs to an oppressive government, it is just that simple. I don't care what political label you consider yourself, we must all unit in opposition to these enemies of America who pretended to be democrats to win this last election.
Thank You American Daughter Media Center for this list below:
1. Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
3. Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
4. Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
5. Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
6. Border czar, Alan Bersin
7. Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
8. Climate change czar, Todd Stern
9. Copyright czar, not appointed yet
10. Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
11. Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
12. Disinformation czar, Linda Douglass [This is a new media buzz since our earlier list, a response by pundits to the White House request for informants: see Glenn Beck and Lew Rockwell]
13. Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
14. Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
15. Economic czar, Larry Summers
16. Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
17. Education czar, Arne Duncan
18. Energy czar, Carol Browner
19. Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
20. Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
21. Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
22. Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
23. Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
24. Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
25. Infotech czar, Vivek Kundra [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source). His last day in DC government was March 4 but on March 12 the FBI raided his office and arrested two staffers.]
26. Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
27. Latin-American czar, Arturo Valenzuela (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominatied to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation. Voting on his confirmation was delayed to clarify his position on Honduras. Watch WaPo’s Head Count to track status of confirmation.]
28. Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
29. Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
30. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
31. Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
32. Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
33. Safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings [appointed to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a newly created post (that does not require Senate confirmation); openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
34. Science czar, John Holdren
35. Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
36. Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
37. TARP czar, Elizabeth Warren [chair of the [Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is frequently called the TARP czar]
38. Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
39. Trade czar, Ron Kirk
40. Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
41. War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
42. Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
43. Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
44. Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
Positions being planned:
1. Income redistribution czar
2. Land-use czar
3. Mortgage czar, formally “consumer financial protection czar” (source)
4. Radio-internet fairness czar
5. Student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. Voter list czar
7. Zoning czar
Obama has moved swiftly to concentrate power in the White House, bypassing the review of our elected representatives in Congress in most of the posts listed above. Even though cabinet positions are part of the executive branch, the cabinet secretaries must be approved by Congress, they are funded by Congress, and they can be called before Congress to testify. Most of these czars, on the other hand, are appointed by Obama at his sole discretion, and are answerable only to him. If subpoenaed by Congress, they can claim executive privilege.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How Do You Feel About Obama Slipping Into Your Child's Classroom ?
Why would any reasonable person stand against the president for wanting to speak to our nation's school children and encouraging them to take their studies seriously, stay in school, and to set and achieve goals in their lives. When you further consider that our nation's first African American president could inspire children who may have never truly believed that their dreams could come true before, it is even more of a positive isn't it? If there was a way to assure Americans that was what was going to happen, and only that, then I believe it would be embraced by all.
However, are there really any people left who would believe that with regards to this particular president?
This unprecedented live speech directly to the public school kids all across America just seems a little too creepy, a little too Orwellian, to those who have been paying attention to what other things that this president and administration have been closely involved. This attempt by Obama is far more the politics of personality that has been his trademark throughout, closely reminiscent of "The Leader for Life" indoctrinations found inside Communist and Fascist regimes. It also follows a decades long pattern for those trained in Marxist ideology to go past the adults when their message isn't being well received and sell it to the children to make them little lobbyists at their dining room tables.
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already.....What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in my camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this community." Adolph Hitler 1933
We need to consider who Obama is, his training, and what he stands for in trying to discern his motives. Once again this speech was attempted to be done quietly on the first day of most schools across the country without parents being aware of it until after it was done. Why? If his motives are so pure, why not make political hay out of his "magnanimous" gesture? His personal popularity is free falling to the lowest any president has ever seen this early in their presidency during the last 60 years. His policies and pet projects are much less popular than he. The left has for years, during such political crisis, run for cover by promoting to children to use them as salespeople for their agendas.
"Can we truly expect those who aim to exploit us to be trusted to educate us?" Eric Schaub.
What did democrats say about George W. Bush's speech he gave from a school, not to every school child.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.
Where are these towers of virtue today as Obama sets about a self promotion to EVERY school in America?
There has never been a president we have known so little about as we do this one. For a man who has written two books about himself before he had accomplished anything we still have huge gaps in our knowledge about what he was up to most of his adult life. Maybe that is why so many think of him in messianic terms. However, there are some things we do know, how do they make us feel about Obama speaking to our children? We learned a lot from articles written by Steven Diamond and Sol Stern coming out a day apart.
Barrack Obama worked in a 30 x 30 office for Bill Ayres, the former Weather Underground bomber and terrorist from the 60s. Obama was part of Ayres work to turn the Chicago public schools into indoctrination centers.
"For William Ayers and other American pedagogical versions of the Weather Underground, social justice 'education' means using every subject taught in public school, including math and science, as a means to teach children that capitalism is evil and that anyone who supports the American way of life is going straight to hell."
Characterizing the Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
From Steve Diamond:
"[...] in late 1994 or early 1995, Obama made what I think was probably the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million grant program to funnel money into reform efforts at Chicago schools. It turns out that the architect of the Annenberg Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the grant proposal and shepherded it to success.
Diamond's report makes it clear that the relationship was close and work-related over a period of years. And it's clear from Obama's willingness to work for Ayers's pet project that he was in general agreement with Ayers's political philosophy and approach to public education."
From Sol Stern:
"Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.
Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.
Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.
Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.
AERA already does a great deal to advance the social-justice teaching agenda in the nation’s schools and has established a Social Justice Division with its own executive director. With Bill Ayers now part of the organization’s national leadership, you can be sure that it will encourage even more funding and support for research on how teachers can promote left-wing ideology in the nation’s classrooms—and correspondingly less support for research on such mundane subjects as the best methods for teaching underprivileged children to read."
Sol Stern is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author of Breaking Free: Public School Lessons
Obama had another job in Chicago in the education field. He was a trainer for Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" for ACORN. He trained an army of community agitators in this Marxist strategy to tear down Capitalism and bring about Marxist change. At least he had some experience teaching in a classroom.
During one of the Health Care Rallies with Obama speaking he had a little 11 year old girl who stood up to ask "why are there those people with the mean signs out there?" She was a plant, her mother was Obama's local campaign manager. So he obviously doesn't mind exploiting children for his end, just as they did with the young nephew of Ted Kennedy at his funeral being used in the same way. There seems to be no shame in this administration in their quest for ever more power.
Why then would there be such a groundswell of opposition to Obama speaking to our kids, do you really still have to ask?
If you have children in public schools, you have a decision to make before Tuesday the 8th. You can do as I did and call the school principle and tell them you don't want your child exposed and need an alternative activity not related to the Obama session, you can be non-confrontational and just keep your child home that day, or as a couple friends of mine told me today go sit in their classroom and be there to observe, and point out if it is getting out of hand. However, doing nothing isn't a choice I as a parent could feel comfortable with.
"The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow." Abraham Lincoln.
However, are there really any people left who would believe that with regards to this particular president?
This unprecedented live speech directly to the public school kids all across America just seems a little too creepy, a little too Orwellian, to those who have been paying attention to what other things that this president and administration have been closely involved. This attempt by Obama is far more the politics of personality that has been his trademark throughout, closely reminiscent of "The Leader for Life" indoctrinations found inside Communist and Fascist regimes. It also follows a decades long pattern for those trained in Marxist ideology to go past the adults when their message isn't being well received and sell it to the children to make them little lobbyists at their dining room tables.
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already.....What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in my camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this community." Adolph Hitler 1933
We need to consider who Obama is, his training, and what he stands for in trying to discern his motives. Once again this speech was attempted to be done quietly on the first day of most schools across the country without parents being aware of it until after it was done. Why? If his motives are so pure, why not make political hay out of his "magnanimous" gesture? His personal popularity is free falling to the lowest any president has ever seen this early in their presidency during the last 60 years. His policies and pet projects are much less popular than he. The left has for years, during such political crisis, run for cover by promoting to children to use them as salespeople for their agendas.
"Can we truly expect those who aim to exploit us to be trusted to educate us?" Eric Schaub.
What did democrats say about George W. Bush's speech he gave from a school, not to every school child.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.
Where are these towers of virtue today as Obama sets about a self promotion to EVERY school in America?
There has never been a president we have known so little about as we do this one. For a man who has written two books about himself before he had accomplished anything we still have huge gaps in our knowledge about what he was up to most of his adult life. Maybe that is why so many think of him in messianic terms. However, there are some things we do know, how do they make us feel about Obama speaking to our children? We learned a lot from articles written by Steven Diamond and Sol Stern coming out a day apart.
Barrack Obama worked in a 30 x 30 office for Bill Ayres, the former Weather Underground bomber and terrorist from the 60s. Obama was part of Ayres work to turn the Chicago public schools into indoctrination centers.
"For William Ayers and other American pedagogical versions of the Weather Underground, social justice 'education' means using every subject taught in public school, including math and science, as a means to teach children that capitalism is evil and that anyone who supports the American way of life is going straight to hell."
Characterizing the Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
From Steve Diamond:
"[...] in late 1994 or early 1995, Obama made what I think was probably the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million grant program to funnel money into reform efforts at Chicago schools. It turns out that the architect of the Annenberg Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the grant proposal and shepherded it to success.
Diamond's report makes it clear that the relationship was close and work-related over a period of years. And it's clear from Obama's willingness to work for Ayers's pet project that he was in general agreement with Ayers's political philosophy and approach to public education."
From Sol Stern:
"Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.
Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.
Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.
Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.
AERA already does a great deal to advance the social-justice teaching agenda in the nation’s schools and has established a Social Justice Division with its own executive director. With Bill Ayers now part of the organization’s national leadership, you can be sure that it will encourage even more funding and support for research on how teachers can promote left-wing ideology in the nation’s classrooms—and correspondingly less support for research on such mundane subjects as the best methods for teaching underprivileged children to read."
Sol Stern is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author of Breaking Free: Public School Lessons
Obama had another job in Chicago in the education field. He was a trainer for Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" for ACORN. He trained an army of community agitators in this Marxist strategy to tear down Capitalism and bring about Marxist change. At least he had some experience teaching in a classroom.
During one of the Health Care Rallies with Obama speaking he had a little 11 year old girl who stood up to ask "why are there those people with the mean signs out there?" She was a plant, her mother was Obama's local campaign manager. So he obviously doesn't mind exploiting children for his end, just as they did with the young nephew of Ted Kennedy at his funeral being used in the same way. There seems to be no shame in this administration in their quest for ever more power.
Why then would there be such a groundswell of opposition to Obama speaking to our kids, do you really still have to ask?
If you have children in public schools, you have a decision to make before Tuesday the 8th. You can do as I did and call the school principle and tell them you don't want your child exposed and need an alternative activity not related to the Obama session, you can be non-confrontational and just keep your child home that day, or as a couple friends of mine told me today go sit in their classroom and be there to observe, and point out if it is getting out of hand. However, doing nothing isn't a choice I as a parent could feel comfortable with.
"The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow." Abraham Lincoln.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What is going to happen when the Government give aways go away?
The government decides to get involved in business we all have to wait and see if our blessings turn to curses. The crazy "successes" with the Cash for Clunkers program sold thousands of cars, hopefully, actually paying the dealers eventually as well. However, what I am interested in seeing now is what happens to car sales over the next 90 days or so. Will the buying fever keep things warmed up, or has the government give away burned through anyone who was willing and able to buy cleaning out the pipeline for months to come?
There are about 40 days left for first time buyers to take advantage of the 8,000.00 tax credit on homes. This too has been a great success as people are smartly taking advantage of the best opportunity to buy a home maybe in history, with record low mortgage rates, and without rising Real Estate pricing. Anyone who misses out on this will be long kicking themselves for their blunder. This has really ignited the sales of homes in the price range for first time buyers, and it is rolling into the move up market for those who sold their homes to them, buying up the next level. Hopefully this rising tide will keep rolling up through the price range for a while at least. However, what happens once this is over? What will the pipeline look like then?
My biggest concern short term is that buyers have been conditioned to wait for the next government give away before moving forward. There are things that could be done, none of which would cost government also known as you and I as taxpayers a dime. Let's look at a few ideas.
Ideas to Stimulate Housing Market and Economy
1. Eliminate Mark to Market Accounting System and replace with Rolling Three Year Averaging to create immediate liquidity in financial markets.
Sarbanes Oxley Act brought this in 2002. On Sept. 28th 2008 it was offered that we can eliminate Mark to Market if they choose to. It would free up nearly 800 billion in liquidity immediately.
Mark to Market creates an artificial accounting system that simply doesn’t work in a downturn. It causes all assets of financial institutions to be revalued at fire sale prices as if forced to sell at the bottom of the market.
This causes the financial institutions to hoard their cash to show higher liquidity to protect themselves from auditors shutting them down. It has been said that if Mark to Market had been in place in 1992 nearly 85% of USA banks would have failed, and if not in place now, maybe none of the current failures would have happened.
2. Pass H.R. - 600 to bring back Seller funded Down Payment Assistance Programs.
Seller Funded Down Payment Assistance Programs were removed by HR-3221 July 08.
Seller Funded Down Payment Assistance Programs such as Nehemiah, and AmeriDream opened the possibility for nearly 50,000 American families across the country every single month to purchase homes that are blocked from home ownership without it.
This is tied to FHA fixed rate loans, it has been endorsed by HUD Secretary Steven Preston after tiered risk pricing, and strong penalties were added to stop manipulating appraisals by raising pricing to add in the “gift” funds.
There is strong support for this bill in the House; we just need to get it through the Senate.
3. Reduce Capital Gains Taxes.
To stimulate more investment, and turnover on investments.
4. Make 2003 Tax Cuts permanent. You can see the numbers on one of my previous posts.
Every time tax rates are reduced the economy has grown, and the Federal tax revenues increase dramatically. This happened under John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
6. Reduce Corporate Taxes.
To stimulate the private sector to invest in growth, and create a more competitive environment for US businesses to compete with foreign competitors.
7. Develop and support an Adult financial education program.
To allow Americans to have a working general knowledge of basic financial skills.
Make basic financial education program required in every high school teaching basics of budgeting, how to balance a check book, basic investment knowledge.
None of these programs increase government spending.
There are about 40 days left for first time buyers to take advantage of the 8,000.00 tax credit on homes. This too has been a great success as people are smartly taking advantage of the best opportunity to buy a home maybe in history, with record low mortgage rates, and without rising Real Estate pricing. Anyone who misses out on this will be long kicking themselves for their blunder. This has really ignited the sales of homes in the price range for first time buyers, and it is rolling into the move up market for those who sold their homes to them, buying up the next level. Hopefully this rising tide will keep rolling up through the price range for a while at least. However, what happens once this is over? What will the pipeline look like then?
My biggest concern short term is that buyers have been conditioned to wait for the next government give away before moving forward. There are things that could be done, none of which would cost government also known as you and I as taxpayers a dime. Let's look at a few ideas.
Ideas to Stimulate Housing Market and Economy
1. Eliminate Mark to Market Accounting System and replace with Rolling Three Year Averaging to create immediate liquidity in financial markets.
Sarbanes Oxley Act brought this in 2002. On Sept. 28th 2008 it was offered that we can eliminate Mark to Market if they choose to. It would free up nearly 800 billion in liquidity immediately.
Mark to Market creates an artificial accounting system that simply doesn’t work in a downturn. It causes all assets of financial institutions to be revalued at fire sale prices as if forced to sell at the bottom of the market.
This causes the financial institutions to hoard their cash to show higher liquidity to protect themselves from auditors shutting them down. It has been said that if Mark to Market had been in place in 1992 nearly 85% of USA banks would have failed, and if not in place now, maybe none of the current failures would have happened.
2. Pass H.R. - 600 to bring back Seller funded Down Payment Assistance Programs.
Seller Funded Down Payment Assistance Programs were removed by HR-3221 July 08.
Seller Funded Down Payment Assistance Programs such as Nehemiah, and AmeriDream opened the possibility for nearly 50,000 American families across the country every single month to purchase homes that are blocked from home ownership without it.
This is tied to FHA fixed rate loans, it has been endorsed by HUD Secretary Steven Preston after tiered risk pricing, and strong penalties were added to stop manipulating appraisals by raising pricing to add in the “gift” funds.
There is strong support for this bill in the House; we just need to get it through the Senate.
3. Reduce Capital Gains Taxes.
To stimulate more investment, and turnover on investments.
4. Make 2003 Tax Cuts permanent. You can see the numbers on one of my previous posts.
Every time tax rates are reduced the economy has grown, and the Federal tax revenues increase dramatically. This happened under John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
6. Reduce Corporate Taxes.
To stimulate the private sector to invest in growth, and create a more competitive environment for US businesses to compete with foreign competitors.
7. Develop and support an Adult financial education program.
To allow Americans to have a working general knowledge of basic financial skills.
Make basic financial education program required in every high school teaching basics of budgeting, how to balance a check book, basic investment knowledge.
None of these programs increase government spending.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Letter to Congressman Dan Burton
Tonight I am putting forth my last letter in this series for you to use if you want to contact your Congressman and Senators. If you would like to use these four you can cut and paste all or part, or not at all use your own words. Just be sure that you write them.
Congressman Dan Burton
2308 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0001
Telephone: (202) 225-2276
Fax: (202) 225-0016
Dear Congressman Burton,
When Congress and the Senate come back from break there are three bills facing you of critical importance to the future of all Americans. Never before have such total game changing legislation come at the same time each with the potential of destroying the very fabric of America. The Health Care Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill, and the Card Check Bill each are designed to remove our American liberties and replace them with a near Totalitarian State. I thank you for your vigorous defense of American Freedoms, Liberties, and our Constitution. I know how your votes will fall on each of these and I thank you for your consistent defense of our values.
The Health Care Bill would effectively take away the greatest health care system in the world away from the American people to give the Federal government total control over each American’s life. With this bill, it doesn’t matter if you want to call them death panels or not, it effectively creates a system to determine the “value” of a person’s life to determine if they will get treatment or not. It will create as system that will reduce the available health care that we have today.
There are much better free market solutions to help reduce costs and improve care. We need to look at removing the restrictions on selling insurance across State Lines. Another opportunity for savings would be to allow and encourage first party payer plans and move away from the third party systems of employer based, and stay far away from the idea of a single party nightmare of government health care. There has to be tort reform to not only eliminates the cost of legislation, but to stop redundant medical tests that are only done as a CYA of the doctors practicing defensive medicine to protect them from litigation.
There are good options available for Health Care, and Health Insurance reform, but the government option isn’t one of them. Not only would it destroy our current health care system, and cause rationing and shortages of basic services, it will bankrupt this country.
Congressman, not only for myself, my family, my children, but for every American we thank you for voting against each of these bills when you have the chance. We are counting on you, and others who value our American Constitution to stop this assault on our freedoms and liberties.
Sincerely,
Jim Morgan
Congressman Dan Burton
2308 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0001
Telephone: (202) 225-2276
Fax: (202) 225-0016
Dear Congressman Burton,
When Congress and the Senate come back from break there are three bills facing you of critical importance to the future of all Americans. Never before have such total game changing legislation come at the same time each with the potential of destroying the very fabric of America. The Health Care Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill, and the Card Check Bill each are designed to remove our American liberties and replace them with a near Totalitarian State. I thank you for your vigorous defense of American Freedoms, Liberties, and our Constitution. I know how your votes will fall on each of these and I thank you for your consistent defense of our values.
The Health Care Bill would effectively take away the greatest health care system in the world away from the American people to give the Federal government total control over each American’s life. With this bill, it doesn’t matter if you want to call them death panels or not, it effectively creates a system to determine the “value” of a person’s life to determine if they will get treatment or not. It will create as system that will reduce the available health care that we have today.
There are much better free market solutions to help reduce costs and improve care. We need to look at removing the restrictions on selling insurance across State Lines. Another opportunity for savings would be to allow and encourage first party payer plans and move away from the third party systems of employer based, and stay far away from the idea of a single party nightmare of government health care. There has to be tort reform to not only eliminates the cost of legislation, but to stop redundant medical tests that are only done as a CYA of the doctors practicing defensive medicine to protect them from litigation.
There are good options available for Health Care, and Health Insurance reform, but the government option isn’t one of them. Not only would it destroy our current health care system, and cause rationing and shortages of basic services, it will bankrupt this country.
Congressman, not only for myself, my family, my children, but for every American we thank you for voting against each of these bills when you have the chance. We are counting on you, and others who value our American Constitution to stop this assault on our freedoms and liberties.
Sincerely,
Jim Morgan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
