Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says. There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.
"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."
ABC News was able to locate several examples on the government's Web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified. For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.
Click Here to Track the $787 Billion Stimulus Plan
The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts. In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district, but none of these districts exist.
The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.
ABC News' Zach Wolf contributed to this report
ABC News Exclusive: Obama Admin Slashed 60,000 Jobs From Recent Stimulus Report
And We Want Government Run Health Care!!!
Cloward-Piven Strategy: Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
CLOWARD PIVEN IN A NUTSHELL
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."[1]
The strategy
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2] They wrote “the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income... (via)the outright redistribution of income.”
Focus on Democrats
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[3]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]
Reception
Historian Robert E. Weir argues that the original goal of the strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms.[5] A major article in the New York Times in 1970 investigated the welfare system and discussed the impact of the Cloward–Piven strategy.[6] Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because "Great Society programs 'had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.".[7] Robert Chandler claimed, "The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward–Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government."[8] Other observers credit the city's bankruptcy to the mismanagement caused by politics, encouraging "frequently maturing short-term debt that left officials constantly scrambling to pay off loans"[9]
Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
CHANDLER: The Cloward-Piven strategy - Washington Times
References
^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 512.
^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 510.
^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 516.
^ Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=f0iC56biZOgC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=cloward+piven+crisis+strategy&source=web&ots=FS1gpmnk4K&sig=6u84VMirF97Qjb0x4lb6PYZNxgo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result.
^ Weir, Robert (2007). Class in America. Greenwood Press. pp. 616. ISBN 978-0-313-33719-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=YS69fMlIUX0C&pg=PA616&dq=%22cloward-piven+strategy%22&client=firefox-a.
^ Richard Rogin (1970-09-27). "Now It's Welfare Lib". New York Times. p. SM16.
^ Robert Pear (1984-04-15). "Drive to Sign Up Poor for Voting Meets Resistance". New York Times.
^ Chandler, Richard, "The Cloward–Piven strategy", The Washington Times, October 15, 2008.
^ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/nyregion/recalling-new-york-at-the-brink-of-bankruptcy.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy"
UPDATED: President Obama's appointments. Do we need to worry?
OBAMA'S "CZARS LIST
- Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar. Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.
- Ed Montgomery-Auto recovery Czar. Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
- Jeffrey Crowley AIDS Czar. Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.
- Alan Bersin Border Czar-Former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegal’s
- David J. Hayes California Water Czar. Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. No training or experience in water management.
- Ron Bloom Car Czar-Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned. How did this happen?
- Dennis Ross Central Region Czar. Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and pro abortion.
- Lynn Rosenthal Domestic Violence Czar. Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.
- Gil Kerlikowske Drug Czar. Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of drugs
- Carol BrowerEnergy and Environment Czar. Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership. SOCIALIST on Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
- Joshua DuBois Faith Based Czar. Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism—seek a separate black nation.. Anti gun ownership lobbyist.
- Cameron Davis Great Lakes Czar. Chicago radical anti business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” No experience or training in w ater management. Former ACORN Board member
- Van Jones Green Jobs Czar(since resigned). Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. MARXIST, said whites are poisoning blacks, said transformation from “suicidal gray capitalism to econ-capitalism to the complete redistribution of wealth.” Black activist with strong anti-white views.
- Daniel Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar. Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.
- Nancy-Ann DeParle. Health Czar. Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
- Vivek Kundra Information Czar. Born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails.
- Todd Stern International Climate Czar. Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming.
- Dennis Blair Intelligence Czar. Ret Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”. Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.
- George Mitchell Mideast Peace Czar. Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 “ smaller more manageable plots”. Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual
- Kenneth Feinberg Pay Czar. Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.
- Cass Sunstein Regulatory Czar. Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”. Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership. Says animals should be able to sue people. Anti-hunting..
- John Holdren Science Czar. Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training. OK to abort a child until the age of two. Thinks TREES should be able to sue humans.
- Earl Devaney Stimulus Accountability Czar. Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico .
- J. Scott Gration Sudan Czar. Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations
- Herb Allison TARP Czar. Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
- John Brennan Terrorism Czar. Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military
- Aneesh Chopra Technology Czar. No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan
- Adolfo Carrion Jr.. Urban Affairs Czar. Puerto Rican. Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care
- Ashton Carter Weapons CzarLeftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America . No Other “policy”
- Gary Sam ore WMD Policy Czar. Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other “policy”.
- Kevin Jennings SAFE SCHOOL CZARS As a teacher when a 15 year year said he was having sex with an older man, instead of turning in the man—the law for a teacher, he asked how it was going and suggested they use condoms. Held a conference with the MAXIMUM age of 18 to teach homosexual issues like “*******” Wrote the intro to the book, “Queering Elementary Education.” Has repeatedly praised and claims to be inspired by Harry Hay, early supporter of NAMBLA, (Noth American Man Boy Love Association).
Third Party Power
The election in NY-23rd is about third party power, and professional politicians are trying to suppress that fact. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want the public to realize this, for obvious reasons. The media are complicit with establishment insiders, so they are not saying anything. And the bloggers, bless them, who would ordinarily be the purveyors of truth, don’t have the length and depth of political experience to understand what is going on. It requires an understanding of the legal mechanics of candidate selection and a long memory…
Let us be perfectly clear about the situation in New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election. Three distinct political parties with legal status in New York put up viable candidates:
- The Republican Party nominated New York State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava in a smoke-filled room deal.
- The Democratic Party nominated community activist and 30-year practicing lawyer Bill Owens.
- The Conservative Party nominated community leader, business entrepreneur, and Certified Public Accountant Doug Hoffman.
The fresh-faced Hoffman, reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, has the most appeal with voters in the district weary of government excess (almost an art form in the state of New York), and has pulled ahead in the polls. The Conservative Party selected the most likable candidate and has the best message, and so they are ahead. It is as simple as that. It is a reprise of the election of US Senator James Buckley on the Conservative line in 1970, when he proved more popular than both the Republican and Democratic candidates.There is nothing sacred about the Republican and Democratic parties. Political party organizations are not provided for in the Constitution of the United States. They are merely incorporated entities that provide for pooling money and manpower to support candidates for public office. They have acquired the veneer of “official” status by being around for a long time, but they are no more “official” than any newly minted party, which can be formed under state election law by meeting certain requirements.
For example, to put a name on the ballot in New York State requires the signatures of five percent of the registered voters in the juridiction. As of April 1, 2009, there were 15,339 registered voters in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. So volunteers had to collect valid signatures from at least 767 registered voters on “designating petitions” for Doug Hoffman to run for Congress.Do you understand how feasible that is? Twenty people collecting 10 signatures per night for one week can collect 1400 signatures. That is easily done by going door to door in your neighborhood. Or you can just stand outside the local grocery store and collect signatures from shoppers as they enter. The totals rack up quickly. It is no more difficult than, say, selling Girl Scout cookies. And your kids can do that.
One advantage that the two so-called “major” political parties have is that they retain a cadre of volunteers trained in the collection of signatures, which have to meet certain book-keeping requirements. For instance, the person has to sign the petition in exactly the same way that his or her name appears on the voter registration. So you need to have that information before you start your rounds, but that information is a matter of public record, and the state cannot deny you access to it. The other advantage of the “major” parties is that they have established fund-raising channels. And as we see in NY-23rd, that isn’t doing them a lot of good in the face of an outraged populace.
On Thursday, February 19 of this year, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli called for a “Chicago Tea Party” while reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Within two short months, powered only by bloggers, a national “tea party” movement had organized across the country to hold rallies on tax day, April 15. Along about the 4th of July, another round of tea parties erupted across America, and sentiment grew for a march on Washington. A little over two months after that, one of the largest grass-roots crowds ever seen in the District of Columbia marched on the Capitol.
What if, instead of attending rallies, or marching on Washington, these aroused patriots had been carrying designating petitions? The whole political landscape of America could be changed within one year! And that is the 900 pound gorilla in the political closet that the Republicans and Democrats do not want you to know about or think about. It scares them witless.
All the talking heads and political hacks are painting the congressional race in NY-23rd as a rift in the Republican ranks. It is not. It is a third party candidate proving that the Republicans and Democrats can be made irrelevant in the face of tea party power. It is proving this in the full glare of the national spotlight. And the only way that the entrenched politicians can save their own bacon is by spinning the story to distract the public from the obvious truth. All the king-makers’ horses and all the king-makers’ men cannot defeat an honest tea party patriot once ordinary Americans wake up.
Free Speech Being Muzzled?
October 30, 2009 - 11:08 ET
The president who is sitting in the Oval Office right now promised to bring us "hope" and "change." Barack Obama is keeping at least one of those promises: change. But it's not the kind of change millions of you voted for.
This nation is being fundamentally transformed; the president promised us in his own words he would transform it. What we didn't know was how and just how much.
One way this administration and its helpers are doing it is by systematically stripping away our right to free speech. Yes, the president and other progressives profess to be the saviors of our First Amendment rights.
But when you pull back the curtain, you will see that free speech is being eradicated for controlled speech: Control over the media; control over the Internet; control over you.
One of the groups behind all this is Free Press.
I was struck first by their motto: "Free Press. Reform media. Transform democracy."
I didn't realize democracy needed transforming. But anyway, you'll remember that Free Press is the group pushing net neutrality, which would take the Internet out of the hands of private business and put it into the hands of government. That would create a level-playing field, which would destroy the free market that... created the Internet. But hey, you know how those evil corporations are: Always trying to be successful and make money. So evil.
Free Press is also behind SaveTheNews.org, which is "leading the search for new public policies to save journalism and to promote a robust free press in America."
Hmm, policies? Policies like a government bailout for journalism? How exactly does that "promote a robust free press"?
But on to Public Broadcasting. Executive director Josh Silver's position paper "Public Media's Moment" spells out to President Obama how to take advantage: "The growing crisis facing commercial journalism and public media's unique ability to address it... makes such reform all the more urgent... you have a rare opportunity to achieve real change and reinvent public media."
Adding: "Just as the economic crisis has put an end to free market fundamentalism, so too should the failure of commercial media to adequately serve the public interest end the myth that government has no role in fulfilling society's information needs."
You see how the White House's "Fox isn't a real news organization" comments make more sense now, right?
Silver calls on President Obama to create a White House commission on public media to provide policy recommendations. And how do we pay for it? Silver points out that currently only $400 million per year goes to public media. He recommends a media trust fund, starting with $50 billion, more money from Congress or — wait for it — a tax on electronics:
"A tax of 0.5 percent of the purchase price for every home electronic device: multimedia players, cable and satellite set-top boxes, video game systems, televisions, etc. those devices that entertain America would in turn be supporting programming to inform, educate and enlighten. And the fee would be paid by those consumers with the means to spend on new electronics."
Those consumers "with the means"? That means "rich" people. Higher taxes and this will not increase the deficit by one thin dime.
Step one: Shut down the speech they don't like. But, since nature abhors a vacuum, the question is: What do they fill the space with?
Glenn Beck:
October 30, 2009 - 11:08 ET
Congressman Michele Bachmann
Glenn Beck: Bachmann on ObamaCare
November 2, 2009 - 12:55 ET
 |
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Hi, Glenn, I'm doing great. It's good to talk to you today.
GLENN: Good to talk to you. Now, you say that this healthcare package is going to pass and arrive at the president's desk? You believe that?
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, this is the week. This is the Super Bowl of socialized medicine. Tonight Speaker Pelosi will actually reveal the final bill that we're to vote on and we're expected to have to vote on it Friday. But I firmly believe it's not inevitable that this passes this week if we do something about it because a lot of these Blue Dog Democrats are scared to death. I don't think you are going to see any Republican votes, I doubt it. But there are people who are on the but this is the moment when I think we can actually do something about killing it because people woke up in August. We saw it with the town halls, we saw the 9/12 where all the people came to D.C. That was phenomenal. And it scared them to death, but now Speaker Pelosi's put the hammer down and she believes that she's going to be able to convince all of her people to vote for this. And I really believe, Glenn, if we can get good normal patriot, freedom loving Americans to D.C., converge at noon on Thursday on the capitol steps, and what we need to do is literally go into these members of congress' offices, look in the whites of their eyes and tell them don't take away my healthcare, don't take away my freedom. Because once government gets this power, Glenn, they can use healthcare as cradle to grave, they can use that as a pretext for controlling every other aspect of our life.
GLENN: I know, I know. It's I mean, when I found vending machines in the healthcare bill, I mean, and tonight I'm going to highlight the gift to attorneys. I mean, it's the gift that just keeps on coming.
Now, she's going to release the final version of the bill. Is it going to be better or worse? And I know there's I don't think anything should pass quite frankly but is it going to be bigger or smaller? Are they making cuts or additions to this bill? Do you have any idea?
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, if this last bill is any indication, it went from about 1,000 pages to 2,000 pages and it collapses the private health insurance industry. It says after 2013 you can never buy private health insurance again. It has taxpayer funding of abortion in it. It has every terrible provision now we all said was in it. It was in this last bill. So why would you release just before your final bill a bill that's so bad that includes every tax increase in there. $500 billion cuts in senior citizens. They have more to lose than anyone on this, senior citizens. Huge tax increases on the middle class and huge increases on premiums. Probably we're looking at $4,000 a year increase in premiums over the next few years' time. This is just, this really has never been about healthcare. It's been all about the government amassing more control and also huge tax increases, redistribution of wealth. Because one thing we know is that in the last year the government has taken over about 30% of the private economy. That's according to an economist from Arizona State University. Whether it's banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, the whole student loan industry. Now they want to take over healthcare. If they take over healthcare, that's an additional 18% of the private economy, or within just over a year's time the federal government will have taken over 48% of the private economy. That's nothing short of stunning. That's a revolution.
GLENN: Michele, how many people do you think would make an impact on those members of congress? I mean, you know, you are asking on a Monday morning for people to leave their job at a time of
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: I know. It's a big ask. I know, Glenn, it's a big ask, but you love this country, I love this country and so do your listeners. They understand what's at stake and I know this is a big ask. People are afraid to lose their jobs because they don't want to lose them to travel to Washington, D.C. What? Well, this isn't just another rally that I'm calling people to. I'm asking people to actually come to Washington where we'll meet on the capitol steps. The actor Jon Voight is going to come and he's going to speak about why it's important that we hold onto our freedom and from there I am encouraging everyone to go find their member of congress. These are public places. Go into their office buildings, Cannon, Longworth, Rayburn.
GLENN: How many people
BACHMANN: Find them, look at their eyes.
GLENN: How many people do you need for them to say holy cow?
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: As many as we can get. I mean, I'm not putting a number down because I don't know. This is such an extraordinary thing. I've never done anything like this to make this kind of an ask, but everything's on the table now. Everything's at stake. Next week may not matter. It's this week when the vote will occur. That's why it's so important that people occur on Thursday so that we can make an effort.
GLENN: So you are saying that
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: I can't tell you how many it will take, Glenn.
GLENN: So you are saying
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: We just need as many as we can get.
GLENN: You are saying that the reason why it's this week is because it's going to pass the House I mean, if it passes the House, it goes right to Harry Reid and Harry Reid will use the nuclear option which means that he only needs 51 votes, which they clearly have, 51 votes in the Senate to get it to the president's pen which he would then sign. You know, I was talking, you know, earlier with one of my guys and we were talking about it and I said, he said, Glenn, he is not going to pull the nuclear option. And I said, he has nothing to lose. He is losing
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: He may very well lose his seat in Nevada anyway. The polls aren't good for Harry Reid. So why wouldn't he pull the alarm and do it?
GLENN: Right.
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: This is what they want from the beginning. This is what they want. It is about government control and government takeover. It's not about healthcare.
GLENN: Interesting that it comes down to one guy who is just going to pull the lever, perhaps, pull the lever just to protect his own butt because he will say, if I pull the lever, I'll at least have ACORN and the unions in Nevada? Are you kidding me? There's no corruption in Nevada or Las Vegas. Pull the lever. They are the ones that got Barack Obama elected because they threw the election, the primary election away from Hillary Clinton in Nevada to Barack Obama, and you know that every special interest would say, Harry, if you pull this lever, we will do everything we can to win the election for you in Nevada. And if he doesn't win, he's I mean, he's out anyway.
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: And Glenn, nothing is more powerful than the American people, nothing. When we come together as the American people coming together in the most beautiful place there is, the steps of the American capitol at Washington D.C., and we talk to each other and we fan out and go find their members of congress and those three office buildings and it's the capitol, it belongs to you. It doesn't belong to the individual members of congress. It belongs to the American people. And people have been saying what can I do? How can I get involved? This is the number one most effective, most efficient way to get involved. Come Thursday, noon, meet at the capitol steps. We'll have a great we'll get awe inspired by Jon Voight and then send people out. Go find your member of congress and look at them and tell them what you believe and what you think and what you want them to do. Bring the town hall to them. They have amnesia. They have forgotten already what happened in August and we need to bring the town hall to them. People should make signs. Come. We just, this is it. I don't know what else to do. I don't have anything to offer. I don't have anything for sale. All I know is that this is our country, and we don't want to lose what we've been given. We've held onto it for 233 years, but I'm worried that this is the crown jewel of socialism and if this passes, I don't know how we ever unwind it. So this is it.
GLENN: Michele, God bless you. We'll get the word out and let's have you on a little bit later on this week and we'll continue to have you make the pitch for people going to Washington D.C. noon this Thursday and look them in the whites of their eyes. All right, Michele, thank you very much.
CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Hey, thank you. If people want more information they can go to MicheleBachmann.com or a link found on your website.
Another of Obama’s Radical Appointees
The Old Media wholly ignored the story, but one of the extremists that Barack Obama appointed as a so-called czar in his government had to step down when the full extent of his un-American radicalism was exposed on the Internet. Obama’s “green czar,” Van Jones, resigned when it was revealed how anti-American his rhetoric was not to mention his membership in a Marxist organization. But Van Jones isn’t the only far leftist that Obama has tried to foist on this country in places of influence.
We’ve been hearing lately about the radical homosexual agenda of Obama’s “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings. When he was a school teacher, Jennings once admittedly abetted a sexual relationship between a teenage male student of his and an adult man. He did not report this molestation, but smiled and advised the poor kid to “use a condom.”
There are several other examples of Obama’s radical appointees, some of whom have already had to leave their positions, and lately we’ve seen another example in Obama’s FCC “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.
On October 8, Glenn Beck reported that Mark Lloyd had co-authored a paper titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” This slanted paper whines that AM talk radio is dominated by conservative views and suggests that liberal views should be forced upon the talk radio industry.
That left-wing idea, of course, is bad enough, but the group that Lloyd was working with to have the paper published shows ties to left-wingers, out right Marxists and other haters of this country and that connection should have disqualified Lloyd for service in the federal government.
Lloyd published his report with a group called The Center for American Progress and the Free Press both headquartered in Washington D.C. These groups claim to be “nonpartisan,” but that belies their leftist ideologies.
For instance, founder of the Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, has said some pretty harsh stuff against the U.S.A
For instance, at the end of September of 2001, right after the Twin Towers fell, McChesney said that the United States was the, “leading terrorist institution in the world today.”
In February of 2009, McChesney recommended that capitalism be “dismantled” in the U.S.A. It is typical communist boilerplate.
In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society.A November, 2004 interview conducted by one Tanner Mirrlees for a magazine called “Relay, a Socialist Project Review,” McChesney called advertising “capitalist propaganda” and proposed the government “limit” it and “perhaps even eliminate it.”
Advertising is commercial propaganda… We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.McChesney has also taken the lead in pushing for a government bail-out of the newspaper industry in order to take control of the news message. and these are the sort of people that Obama’s “diversity czar” surrounds himself with and he isn’t the only one in Obama’s administration that does so. Sadly, the Old Media completely ignores the anti-American ideas being spouted by Obama’s so-called czars and their friends.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is seen in a video from January talking about how the Obama campaign exercised absolute "control" over media coverage.
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.
In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama's highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Dunn complained about the fact-checking last Sunday. In the January forum, she provided details about the lengths to which the Obama campaign went to control the media message.
She explained that the campaign favored live interviews so that Obama's words could not be edited -- "so that what the voters heard we determined, as opposed to some editor in a TV station."
She said Campaign Manager David Plouffe put out Web videos so the campaign could avoid talking to reporters and focus the media message.
"Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it," she said. "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. ... We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it."
National Endowment for the Arts called on to "push the presidents agenda"
In the call, Yosi Sergant, then the NEA's communications director, seemed to encourage the listeners to create art to further the president's goals by promoting the United We Serve campaign and create art specific to areas of health care, education and the environment.
"I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service," Sergant said on the call. I’m hoping that through this group, and the goal of all this, and the goal of this phone call, is through this group we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign. But to continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration."
"This is just the beginning," Sergant says on the call. "This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally. We're still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites of Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it's being made, so bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely. And we can really work together to move the needle to get stuff done."
listen HERE to the transcript and the audio secretly recorded by Los Angeles filmmaker Patrick Courrielche.
More Information Here
Obama 'Most Powerful Writer Since Julius Caesar,' Says NEA Chief. WHAT???
Et tu, Rocco?
Maybe President Obama will win the Nobel Prize for Literature, too, now that the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts has declared that "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."
Rocco Landesman rendered unto Obama that considerable compliment in a little-noticed speech to a group of art philanthropists in Brooklyn, N.Y., last week, praising the president as an "Optimist in Chief" who is developing "the most arts-supportive administration since Roosevelt."
Putting the president in the pantheon with such pencil-pushing powerhouses as the man who was, literally, the Czar of all Czars, Landesman said that since Obama "actually writes his own books," he's the most powerful man to be a true writer in the 2,000 years since Caesar strode the narrow earth.
"That has to be good for American artists," he said.
But one man's praise is another's dagger, say presidential historians, who called the speech a "bizarre" and illiterate attempt to praise a political patron -- and a big misfire for the NEA chief.
"Julius Caesar is historically the last person in the world that American presidents would want to be compared to," said historian Richard Brookhiser, who has written widely on the Founding Fathers. "He tried to subvert the republic -- that's why he was killed."
Though Caesar has been justly celebrated for his commentaries on Rome's Gallic and Civil Wars, he has been cursed by democrats for centuries for his role in the systematic destruction of Rome's republican government.
"Caesar ... was certainly the symbol during the whole founding period of the despot, of the aspiring despot," said Brookhiser. "The Founders insulted each other by calling each other Caesar."
A spokesman for the NEA called the chairman's comparison a "bit of an overstatement" -- a "rhetorical flourish" that still scored an important point.
"I think the underlying point is a serious one, which is that we currently have a president who had an identity as an author, as a writer, before he had an identity as a president," said Jamie Bennett, the NEA's director of communications.
Bennett said that "it means a great deal for writers in particular and the creative community in general" that Obama spent time struggling with his own writing, and for that reason can better understand the struggles of the artistic community.
Despite the confusion, Landesman came to praise the president, not to bury him -- and beamed that in the Obama White House "the arts can play a starring role," because it is one "where words like change and hope and aspiration have real meaning."
That embrace of the president has pricked some ears, particularly after the NEA’s previous director of communications, Yosi Sergant, was forced to resign for promoting the president's political agenda on a conference call with artists he hoped to prod into backing Obama's domestic policies.
Landesman made clear that his agency would never advocate for a "particular program" like health care reform, but he added, "I have no intention of walking away from the compelling themes of this presidency and a historic opportunity in arts policy."
His kind words for Obama nettled a historian of the NEA, who worried that Landesman may bring greater scrutiny on the agency by skirting political lines in his speech.
"For people who are concerned about the Yosi Sergant thing, they're going to be watching Landesman for signs that he agrees that the NEA can push these (Obama political) agenda items," said David A. Smith, author of "Money for Art: The Tangled Web of Art and Politics in American Democracy."
"It doesn't do him any favors ... to have the appearance that he's in Obama's pocket."
Smith added that the NEA's head honcho may be giving short shrift to some of the nation's other great authors-in-chief. Though he mentioned Theodore Roosevelt, he left out quite a few presidential penmen:
Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs are canonized in the Library of America as a national treasure; Calvin Coolidge translated Dante's Divine Comedy for his personal pleasure; Herbert Hoover wrote around 25 volumes before his death in 1964; Richard Nixon authored another eight volumes in his own hand; and many other presidents besides managed to publish before they perished.
Abraham Lincoln, whom Landesman called the greatest American author, never actually wrote a book, though he's been the subject of thousands. Smith suggested a better comparison for the president might have been a writer and leader like Winston Churchill, who won the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature, or an American like Grant, rather than an assassinated Roman tyrant.
"There's not a shortage of presidents who write books," said Smith. "Don't muddy the waters by dragging Julius Caesar into this."
So-Called 'Death Panel' Measure Survives in House Health Bill
WASHINGTON -- It's alive.
The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to "death panels" for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.
The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.
For years, federal laws and policies have encouraged Americans to think ahead about end-of-life decisions, and make their wishes known in advance through living wills and similar legal documents. But when House Democrats proposed this summer to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, it touched off a wave of suspicion and anger. Prominent Republicans singled it out as a glaring example of government overreach.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, at the time a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a town hall meeting they had good reason to question the proposal.
"I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma."
Thursday, the sponsor of the provision said the barrage of criticism may have actually helped.
"There is nothing more basic than giving someone the option of speaking with their doctor about how they want to be treated in the case of an emergency," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "I think the outrageous and vindictive attacks may have backfired to help raise awareness about this problem, which is why it's been kept in the bill."
The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or promotion of suicide or assisted suicide.
The counseling provision is supported by doctors' groups and AARP, the seniors' lobby. It was not included in health care bills passed by two Senate committees.
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
Barack Hussein Obama will cede US sovereignty to the United Nations at the December “Climate Summit.
Not content with his humiliation in Copenhagen, Denmark this past September, President Obama will be traveling there again in December to attend the UN COP15 Climate Change Conference. This agreement would commit the United States to punitive and expensive greenhouse gas regulations dictated by the United Nations without recourse.
COP stands for “Conference of the Parties” and the December Copenhagen conference will be the 15th under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hence COP15. According to their website, it will be one of the largest conferences ever held outside the New York or Geneva headquarters, with an anticipated attendance of over 10,000 people, including governmental representatives from 189 countries, industry groups, and other non-governmental organizations.
The theme of the December 7 - 18 conference is “Hope,” so perhaps Mr. Obama will have more luck this time. Instead of soliciting the International Olympic Committee with trite clichés and getting no payoffs, he will be doing something much easier: selling out our country. After all, ceding power, relinquishing billions in U.S. tax dollars and destroying U.S. economic competitiveness is a pretty easy sell to the countries that will benefit, and he has had a lot of practice doing the same thing here at home. He will have a hard time screwing this one up.
The Hope site optimistically pronounces:
On 7 December, leaders from 192 countries gather for UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and decide the fate of our planet…
Decide the fate of our planet… Do these people have any idea how mindlessly grandiose they sound? Of course not. They are out to save the planet, just like Nancy Pelosi! It is hard for a normal person to imagine making such proclamations without embarrassment. But this is today’s political class.
This agreement will cede U.S. sovereignty permanently and irrevocably to the United Nations. So said British Lord Christopher Monckton at an event at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota last Wednesday, October 14th.
Lord Monckton was former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor. He has lectured and written extensively on the issue, including an in-depth scientific critique to the 50,000 member American Physical Society, a serious side-by-side comparison slap-down of Al Gore’s global warming assertions, and a recent summary of the global warming issue. In introducing his topic at Bethel University, he states unequivocally:
…and I am going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled any more, this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over the climate. The science is in, the truth is out, and the scare is over.
You can watch his entire presentation (1:35:33) on the Webcast Page here — well worth the time if you can spare it. The slideshow he frequently points to in this presentation can be viewed along with the video, here. Lord Monckton presents a series of statistics, charts and studies making a compelling case that not only is global warming insignificant — if it exists at all — but is likely not manmade, and more importantly, that the global warming alarmists have repeatedly, blatantly, deliberately lied, suppressing the facts to promote the myth.
Despite his effective refutation of manmade global warming, his closing remarks about the Copenhagen treaty are chilling:
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.
You might call it a bit of rhetorical overkill, but given everthing else this administration and Congress have already done, only a bit. As Monckton later stated in a Q & A session, for such a treaty to be ratified requires a positive vote from a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate.
It seems difficult to imagine Democrats convincing seven Republicans to assist them in committing national suicide that way. Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal article quoted Senate Republicans as saying that whatever deal Obama cut at Copenhagen would be dead on arrival:
Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, predicts “a repeat of Kyoto — namely an environmentally ineffective agreement that cannot be ratified” by the Senate.
However, perhaps an easier option would be for Democrats to pass legislation enacting some or all of the proposals. The House has already passed the Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade) bill. This onerous legislation calls for an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from 2005 levels by 2050. That means almost complete elimination of carbon based fuels, and parallels the goals identified in COP15, which asks participating countries to reduce global emmissions 50-85% by 2050.
Such reductions would essentially bring our economy to a screeching halt, as Lord Monckton states in his speech. Even the more modest goal for 2020 of a 17 percent reduction will force radical changes in how we do business and conduct our daily lives.
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and the increasingly addled Lindsay Graham (R-SC), put out an Op-Ed in the New York Times last week, under the frighteningly Obamanoid title “Yes We Can,” indicating that perhaps Senate Republicans shouldn’t be so sanguine either. Their article concludes thusly (emphasis added):
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming.
So if Kerry and Graham get their way, not only is America going to agree to UN global warming regulations, we are going to lead the charge in getting them imposed!
And the UN panel is fully anticipating a more conciliatory approach from the US. Recognizing Kerry’s efforts, as UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stated:
I think that a major shortcoming of Kyoto was that the official delegation came back with a treaty they knew was never going to make it through the Senate. And this time I have the feeling that the communication is much stronger, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, through John Kerry, is really expressing strongly what they feel needs to be done in Copenhagen.
Thank you John Kerry.
The UN website states the following about COP15 (emphasis added):
This [the 2009 Bangkok climate change talks] was the penultimate negotiating session before COP15 in Copenhagen in December, at which an ambitious and effective international climate change deal is to be clinched.
Before COP15, there will be a final round of negotiations November 2-6 in Barcelona, Spain at the Barcelona Convention Center.
The most recent UNFCCC Working Group report (181 pages) can be accessed here in PDF format. Much of it references earlier documents, of which there are many. To fully assess the ramifications of this proposal would likely require referencing these earlier documents as well.
While the prospects for Senate ratification of this treaty are probably in doubt, it seems likely the US Congress may try to pass Waxman-Markey or some other hybrid legislation using the same underhanded tactics now in play on healthcare. All the more reason to redouble our efforts at getting them out in 2010.
Suffice it to say that if the carbon reduction targets already discussed are adapted by this country, nevermind whatever other onerous provisions are in this treaty, we might as well all buy a horse and buggy — sorry, rickshaw; horses create methane — because we will be headed back into the 18th century.
Additional Resources:
UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol — Guide to Climate Change Negotiations (2008)
SourceWatch — UNFCCC summary, listing all participating parties, all COP meetings past and scheduled, and other useful information
Reasonable questions for unreasonable times...
I may not have the answers, but power left unchecked can turn very ugly, very rapidly. So it's vital that we all question with boldness, hold to the truth and speak without fear. –Glenn Beck-
You need to start asking questions:
• Why do we need a civilian force?
• Who is posing a threat to us?
• Who will this "force" be made up of?
• Who is the real enemy?
• Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
• Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?
• Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"?
• Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves?
• Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?
• Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?
• Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?
• Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?
• Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?
If Lloyd has his way, stations who don't comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine — that helps support public broadcasting:
• What will be the definition of "public interest"?
• Who defines "public interest"?
• Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them)
• Who is "surrounding" the president in the White House?
• Do any of the president's advisers have criminal records?
• Are the president's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?
• Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?
• What role do they have in crafting bills?
• What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders; where are they now?
• What qualifications must one have to be a presidential adviser?
• What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?
• Do the "czars" have power?
• Should a communist have the ear of the president of the United States?
• What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?
• Does the president know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?
• How many people in the administration are connected to the Movement for a Democratic Society?
• What role does George Soros play... constitutionally?
• Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?
• Why the rush on health care reform, cap-and-trade?
• Who is writing these bills?
• Will Washington read and understand the bills?
• Why are you called "grassroots" if you are for, but "Astroturf" if you are against?
• Our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?
• We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red ink?
• The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN: How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?
• If it was so important for Congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it, why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent six months later?
• Former President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them; how exactly does that work?
• Why won’t member of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?
• Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?
• Was the "cash for clunkers" program meant to save the Earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?
• How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special adviser to the president?
• Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special adviser?
• The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill; why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?
• If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1,000-page plus bills actually impose on the American people?
• If the "public option" health care plan is so good, why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?
• If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind, why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?
• Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?
• Why would you want to overwhelm the system?
• Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through Congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crisis go to waste?
• What are the president's "czars" paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?
Why Healthcare Reform?
Building the SEIU Empire
By Jerry A. Kane Saturday, October 24th, 2009 at 4:03 am
ACORN co-founder Wade Rathke discussed the role of ACORN and SEIU in the government takeover of healthcare during a book signing in New Orleans.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have a symbiotic relationship. Rathke called SEIU “one of the pillars of the ACORN family of organizations.”
While serving as ACORN’s Chief Organizer, Rathke created SEIU Locals 100 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas) and 880 (Illinois, Indiana and Kansas). After establishing SEIU, Rathke held executive positions in labor unions while working as ACORN’s Chief Organizer.
ACORN whistle-blowers swore SEIU and a coalition of labor unions gave ACORN $1,729,462 for political activities and union organizing in 2008, mixing together taxpayer money and union funding. It would seem that the American taxpayer has been picking up the tab to promote Rathke’s political agenda and advance his unionizing activities.
While governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich signed an executive order allowing collective bargaining, which helped SEIU unionize health-care workers. The mega-union had been Blagojevich’s biggest supporter, donating more than $1.8 million over two campaigns for governor.
Now SEIU is in the process of building an empire to handle America’s healthcare needs, which explains its unrelenting fight for a public option. Obviously, the mega-union envisions greater demand for its services and plans to mine the mother load of new dues-paying members.
Acorn Exposed
Imagine the courage of a 20yr old girl & a 25yr old boy to take on "The Goliath" and expose this corrupt organization of which Pres Obama is very much in favor of and supportive of in developing fair and balanced communities around the country. Well at least now we know what types of communities they are interested in building. Hats off to you 2 brave Americans for speaking without fear.
Part 1
Part 2
***Read the entire transcript, watch the videos, and hear the recorded audios here
http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/
List of Obama's Czars
These czars are hard to keep up with updating as one after another is exposed of corruption and Marxist pasts. Which raises the question; why would Pres. Obama surround himself with people who's pasts represent crushing capitalism?
Updated, Monday, 8/17/2009
The Compleat* List of Czars
in American Daughter, by Nancy Matthis
Bypassing the authority of Congress, Barack Obama rules through czars -- the beginnings of dictatorship:
- Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar, Richard Holbrooke
- AIDS czar, Jeffrey Crowley [openly gay white man]
- Auto recovery czar, Ed Montgomery
- Behavioral science czar, position not yet filled
- Bailout czar, Herbert Allison Jr., [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
- Border czar, Alan Bersin
- Car czar, Ron Bloom [Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury , under Senate oversight]
- Climate change czar, Todd Stern
- Copyright czar, not appointed yet
- Counterterrorism czar, John Brennan
- Cybersecurity czar, position will be vacant on August 21st [upon the departure of Melissa Hathaway]
- 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]
- Domestic violence czar, Lynn Rosenthal
- Drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske
- Economic czar, Larry Summers
- Economic czar number two, Paul Volcker
- Education czar, Arne Duncan
- Energy czar, Carol Browner
- Food czar, Michael Taylor [a former Monsanto executive, or, the fox in charge of the henhouse]
- Government performance czar, Jeffrey Zients
- Great Lakes czar, Cameron Davis
- Green jobs czar, Van Jones [who has a communist background]
- Guantanamo closure czar, Daniel Fried
- Health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
- 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.]
- Intelligence czar, Dennis Blair [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position. He is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral]
- 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.]
- Mideast peace czar, George Mitchell
- Mideast policy czar, Dennis Ross
- Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg
- Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein
- Religion czar, aka God czar Joshua DuBois
- 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]
- Science czar, John Holdren
- Stimulus oversight czar, Earl Devaney
- Sudan czar, J. Scott Gration
- 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]
- Technology czar, Aneesh Chopra
- Trade czar, Ron Kirk
- Urban affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion
- War czar, Douglas Lute [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
- Water czar, David J. Hayes [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
- Weapons czar, Ashton Carter [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
- Weapons of mass destruction czar, Gary Samore
