From American Thinker
Ship of Fools: Obama's Intimates and Advisors
By Mac Fuller
The following thumbnails describe a very small sampling of the locust horde of Leftist bureaucrats President Barack Hussein Obama has deliberately chosen to help him grasp the helm of America's ship of state, strip it from the American people, and steer it hard to port.
The Obama Administration is plainly subverting democracy in America, wildly careening our previous 230-year history of democracy so dangerously Leftward that after a mere nine months we are in terrible danger of sinking.
In these thumbnails, three dominant themes of the Obama Administration emerge - fanatically uncompromising anti-capitalism, dangerous and blatant anti-Semitism, and the societal inculcation of dogmatic Leftist, Socialist "faith" through indoctrination of American school children beginning with the earliest ages - a practice instituted by Lenin in Communist Russia and now pounding its way into the American academic mainstream through the prolific efforts and influence of self-proclaimed Communist, Obama friend, and likely "autobiography" ghost writer, William Ayers, as well as Obama appointees like Charles Freeman and Kevin Jennings.
Make no mistake. These people are about Socialism, and they are about power. Their power.
______________________
A sampling of President Barack Hussein Obama's morally bankrupt White House "Brain Trust"...
1. Valerie Jarrett
2. Patrick Gaspard
3. Eric Holder
4. Cecelia Muñoz
5. Samantha Power(s)
6. Charles Freeman
7. Scott Gration
8. Rahm Emmanuel
9. Ezekiel Emmanuel
10. Cass Sunstein
11. Van Jones
12. Carol Browner
13. John Holdren
14. Kevin Jennings
15. Chai Feldblum
16. William Ayers
--------------------------------------------
1. Valerie Jarrett -- Obama Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs. Ms. Jarrett, a product of two decades in rough-and-tumble "Chicago way" politics, and a 17-year friend of the Obama's, is described as "the other side of Barack Obama's brain." Born in Iran, Jarrett, who speaks Persian, moved to the United States as a child. A product of an elite, private, New England boarding school, she is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.
Jarrett served in the administration of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington (who, prior to his election, failed to file income tax returns for 19 years and during it maintained dubious Socialist ties) as well as in the scandal-ridden, current Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Her step-father, Vernon Jarrett was associated with Frank Marshall Davis, the youthful Barack Obama's mentor from age 10 until college - a Chicago Communist Party (USA) member who moved to Hawaii from Chicago. Frank Marshal Davis is now immortalized in President Barack Hussein Obama's "autobiography" as "Uncle Frank" -- conveniently with no mention of his last name nor who he was.
According to the Washington Post, Ms. Jarrett was for many years both Michelle and Barack Obama's "tutor." Virtually every mainstream media outlet has not only done an over-the-top puff piece on Valerie Jarrett (as they repeatedly have with Mr. Obama and his wife), but all agree that neither the President not Mrs. Obama makes a move without first consulting Ms. Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett was personally responsible for bringing self-described Communist Van Jones into the White House as President Obama's environmental "Green Czar."
2. Patrick Gaspard -- White House Political Director (this is the position Karl Rove held in the Bush Administration). Prior to coming on board as President Obama's right-hand man, Mr. Gaspard was a registered federal lobbyist for the SEIU - the union members (thugs?) called-in by the Administration to run interference (sometimes violent) between Democrat members of Congress who support ObamaCare and their own constituents. Prior to that, Gaspard worked for ACORN - the community organizing front which Barack Obama worked for as a trainer, represented as a lawyer, helped as a politician, and funneled money to as a presidential candidate.
The President Obama is as much a product of ACORN as it is of him. He worked closely with the "community organizing" group for many years, represented them in court, and was a member of the board of Chicago's Woods Fund at the time it funneled $200,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Mr. Obama praised the organization extravagantly both during and after his election, and his campaign "donated" over $800,000 to an offshoot group controlled by ACORN (Citizens Services, Inc.) - to "get out the vote."
Gaspard worked directly for now-ACORN chief Bertha Lewis as her political director for the main ACORN office which is located in New York. ACORN is mired in long-standing as well as new and growing allegations of fraud, voter-registration fraud, corruption, and massive embezzlement of funds - ACORN operative organizations have received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants.
ACORN pledged $35,000,000 for voter registration drives in the 2008 election cycle.
In 2004, Patrick Gaspard served as National Field Director for America Coming Together (ACT), a group which was later fined $775,000 in civil penalties by the federal government. ACT hired felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in Missouri and at least two other swing states, and also employed felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio.
3. Eric Holder -- Attorney General of the United States. A handpicked Obama/Jarrett selection, who earlier this year referred to the United States as "a nation of cowards" on race relations, Mr. Holder is a shiningly despicable example of everything wrong when politics and personal ambition dictate the parameters of American justice.
Prior to grasping the brass ring of the department where he'd toiled during the Clinton Administration, Mr. Holder was responsible for these widely-reported miscarriages of justice:
(1) He streamlined the Clinton Administration's pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich by steering Rich's representatives to a former White House counsel, then helped lobby the President to pardon Rich ("an unrepentant fugitive wanted on extensive fraud, racketeering, and trading-with-the-enemy charges"). Holder did so for personal gain, later admitting he hoped this would help him become Attorney General in a Gore administration. Mr. Holder concealed the pardon negotiations from other prosecuting and investigative agencies to prevent their opposition. Mr. Rich's wife was a generous donor to both President Clinton's library as well as his legal-defense fund.
(2) "In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton's commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons - of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse - were issued in the months after al-Qaeda's 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.... The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife's impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York's substantial Puerto Rican vote."
(3) Holder was also instrumental in the "stealth pardons" of two Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans (both closely associated with President Obama's terrorist friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn). Rosenberg and Evans had been serving decades-long sentences for bombings targeting American government facilities. Again Holder helped circumvent the pardon process and evade objections from prosecutors regarding the terrorists' jail terms.
Just this summer, now-Attorney General Holder dismissed prosecution of an obvious case (it was filmed) of voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panthers, while also instigating prosecutorial investigations into CIA interrogation techniques of terrorist combatants. Attorney General Holder is a strong advocate for the release of the Islamofascist enemy combatants currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
4. Cecelia Muñoz -- White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Prior to being summoned to the White House by President Obama, Ms. Muñoz was Senior Vice President of The National Council of La Raza. La Raza (literally, "The Race") is the largest Hispanic lobbying organization in America, and is committed not merely to a socialist agenda, but, essentially, the return of California, if not larger portions of the American West, to Hispanics.
It lobbies heavily for completely open borders with Mexico, as well as amnesty for all illegal aliens. In order to carry out this agenda, the U.S. federal government awarded over $15.2 million in grants to the organization in 2005 alone.
La Raza is intimately involved with the "the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West." Aztlan's goal is the formation of a Chicano state.
The closing two sentences of Atzlan's motto are: La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada": "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing." Which ought to be as chilling as the idea of the U.S. government funding these people.
President Obama's recent appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has also long been deeply involved with La Raza - a fact which all Democrat Senators ignored during her confirmation hearing.
..........
Not only is Ms. Muñoz wedded to La Raza, she is closely associated with the Gamaliel Foundation - an organization which both President Obama and his wife Michelle are involved and active with. On December 4, 2008, members of the Gamaliel Foundation held a "prayer" service in Washington, D.C. in which they literally and liturgically prayed to Barack Obama, "Barack, hear our prayer," as the repeated responsive plea to a minister's lengthy requests for intercession. The video-taped "prayer" service can be found online at BreitbartTV.
5. Samantha Power -- Senior Director, Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council. Ms. Power, a professor of public policy at Harvard [who is married to President Obama's Leftist fringe academic Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs] was only seemingly thrown under the Obama campaign bus for referring to Hillary Clinton as "a monster" during the 2008 Democrat primary. In 2009 President Obama, tapped her to occupy her senior White House foreign policy position.
Ms. Power, a "fierce critic of Israel,... was indisputably Barack Obama's closest foreign policy adviser during the campaign. They go back years."
Ms. Power is a notorious acolyte of appeasement-challenged, Neville-Chamberlain-clone Zbigniew Brzezinski (former President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser) who recently stated that the U.S. should shoot down any Israeli planes which, out of self-preservation, might fly through Iraqi air space to destroy Iran's developing nuclear facilities.
Ms. Power agrees with the Charles-Freeman-published Walt-Mearsheimer-essay school of thought that America is run and being destroyed by a cabal of Jews. Power promotes the policies of disgraced anti-Semitic, Israeliphobic, pro-PLO, pro-Syria, Obama adviser Robert Malley who advocated not merely talking with Hamas, but funding the terrorist organization because he feels their policies and governance mirror that of Israel. The Obama Administration cut visible ties with Malley shortly after the election.
Power, who stridently criticized the invasion and "occupation" of Iraq, repeatedly calling for the removal of American forces from that nation, curiously advocates that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
While giving the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and other obviously terrorist Arab state organizations a pass, Ms. Power views Israel, the only democratic and non-totalitarian, nation in the Middle East, as guilty of war crimes. She favors slashing, if not eliminating, United States aid to Israel - which is surrounded by several hundred million Muslims who daily pray for its total annihilation - and, apparently, giving the money to the Palestinians instead.
Ms. Power, and virtually all of her truth-through-force ilk ignore the fact that on the day Israel gained independence it was immediately attacked by the surrounding Arab neighbors who erroneously believed they could destroy the nascent country in a matter of hours.
"Palestinians" (there is no such country, nor has there been since Biblical times) who now form the "Palestinian problem" were not forced to leave Israel but instead chose to do so because Israel became a Jewish state. Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Arabs remained and now form a large core group of Israeli citizenry.
The approximately 750,000 "Palestinians" who left, now number approximately 4,000,000. They constitute a "problem" because of all the Arab countries only Jordan has allowed them to become a part of its society.
The other Arab countries bordering Israel keep the "Palestinians" in enormous desert internment camps. And they have done so to their Arab brethren for 60 years. Ms. Power and her comrades exquisitely fail to note that Jews were forced to leave Arab countries and relocate to the newly-formed Israeli state.
Like her pro-Arab "realist" co-religionists Charles Freeman, Robert Malley, Zbigniew Brzezinsk, billionaire George Soros (an influential Obama supporter), and others of their stripe, Powers opposes the "Israel lobby." She, as they, adamantly rejects the participation of American supporters of Israel, including Christians, in foreign policy discussions of the Middle East.
For all Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public visibility, it may not be much of a conjecture that her job has been outsourced to the alpha female who once referred to Mrs. Clinton as a "monster."
6. Charles Freeman -- Nominated, but not confirmed, as Chairman of the (United States) National Intelligence Council - which is responsible for producing national intelligence estimates for the president and his advisors.
Mr. Freeman has a distinguished résumé of long service in both the State and Defense Departments, however, his "distinctive political views and affiliations" include: troubling financial ties to King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia who funds the Middle East Policy Council (formerly the American Arab Affairs Council) which Mr. Freeman heads; organizational support for professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's lengthy, controversial, and essentially anti-Jewish essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"; his stated viewpoint that "the primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today is "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation"; praise for the terrorist organization, Hamas, as the only "democratically-elected" government in the Middle East; and, bizarrely, unabashedly siding with the Chinese government over the massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989 - Mr. Freeman criticized the Chinese government for being "overly cautious."
Once Leftist liberal, New York Senator Chuck Schumer spoke against Freeman's nomination, the gentleman withdrew - but not without "blaming his own disgrace on a Jewish conspiracy."
During his Congressional investigation, Mr. Freeman was charged with "[p]romoting public schools textbooks which the independent Textbook League describe ‘a vehicle for disseminating disinformation, including a multitude of false, distorted or utterly absurd claims that are presented as historical facts. ...[with] three principal purposes: inducing teachers to embrace Islamic religious beliefs; inducing teachers to embrace political views that are favored by the...Middle East Policy Council (formerly the American Arab Affairs Council)...; and impelling teachers to disseminate those religious beliefs and political views in schools."
7. Scott Gration -- President Obama's Special Envoy to the Sudan.
His diplomatic policy is, quite literally the following:
"We've got to think about giving out cookies," said Gration who was appointed in March, "Kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
As even that bastion of liberal blather the Washington Post noted, "U.S. diplomacy has remained mostly in the hands of Obama's special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, who is pushing toward normalized relations with the only country in the world led by a president indicted on war-crimes charges."
While President Obama's handpicked "Special Envoy" was tempting genocidal Muslim radicals with "cookies" and "gold stars," marauding bands of guerrillas in the Sudan crucified seven Christians.
8. Rahm ("dead fish") Emanuel -- White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Emanuel is the notorious hardball political player from Chicago's North Side which he represented in Congress prior to his current incarnation as President Obama's political henchman and myrmidon. The ironically named Mr. Emanuel ("God with us") is "relentlessly partisan," thereby quite succinctly putting the lie to Mr. Obama's campaign claim to "post-partisanship."
Nicknamed "Rhambo," President Obama's Chief of Staff - the highest ranking office of the Executive Branch of the President of the United States - is well-know for the following accomplishments:
(1) a casual conversation style addictively laced with the most outrageous profanities and gutter language at any and all times;
(2) sending a 2½ foot-long dead and decomposing fish to lobbyist Allen Secrest with whom he was angry;
(3) threatening then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair just prior to a joint appearance with then-President Bill Clinton: "This is important. Don't f--- it up.";
(4) at dinner the night after Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, "Rhambo" ranted about a long list of people who were the subject of his ire. As he shouted each "enemy's" name, Mr. Emanuel punctuated his rage by forcefully stabbing the dinner table and screaming, "Dead!"
Outside of murdering a Congressional page, it is relatively difficult to improve upon these glowing characteristics of mental stability and leadership.
Rahm Emanuel is Ezekiel Emanuel, "Dr. Death's," brother.
9. Ezekiel Emanuel -- President Obama's Special Advisor for Health Policy to the Office of Management and Budget. Nicknamed in the press "Dr. Death" after former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey pointed out Dr. Emanuel's "healthcare" role assisting the White House in the preparation and administration of federal budget recommendations for guiding healthcare and healthcare initiatives, Dr. Emanuel (again, application of the absurdly ironic name, "God with us") is a "bioethicist".
He is also hailed as President Obama's "Rationer-in-Chief." Generally, Emanuel's idea of healthcare rationing is to greatly restrict many treatments, medicines, and procedures to anyone over 40 and more particularly to anyone over 65. Dr. Emanuel feels similarly about the newly born until they have attained several years of age at which time he begins to view them in Malthusian terms of potential communitarian utility.
As Lt. Governor McCaughey noted, "In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs." This is the man who was personally tapped to guide ObamaCare health initiatives - not only by President Obama and his Chief of Staff... but also by "the other side of Barack's brain," Valerie Jarrett.
Mr. Emanuel is yet another in a tedious yet frighteningly long line of unqueried, unquestioned, and unvetted Obama advisors and "czars" about whom nothing can be known until pulled from beneath labyrinths of liberal camouflage by interested citizens, conservative Internet bloggers, and the staffs of conservative talk shows. Mainstream media long ago forfeited its credibility as well as its societal role as the fourth estate.
Dr. Emanuel is a member of the President's Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (curiously enough authorized under the dazzling rushed-through and unread by a single Congressman, American Recovery and Investment Act... "the Stimulus Bill") which, if allowed, will make decisions about the validity, "relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions" as well as give clinicians...information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system.
Not improve medical care much less your medical care, but the "system." It's called "rationing," and it will very likely result in unnecessary and preventable early deaths. On a very large scale.
One final point. Due to the ambiguity of the relevant language in the Stimulus Bill as well as in the various ObamaCare "reform" proposals, there will not only be great latitude for interpretation of various laws' meaning, but these interpretations will require being instituted, oversight, and, of course, regulation. The necessity of regulation allows President Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein carte blanche to regulate whatever he likes.
Mr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff, and former North Side Chicago Congressman (5th District of Illinois) Rahm ("dead fish") Emanuel.
10. Cass Sunstein -- Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs. He is a Harvard Law School professor and newly-minted husband of President Obama's Senior Director, Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council, the Israel-phobic Samantha Power (one of several husband-wife teams in the Obama White House). Mr. Sunstein's belief structure could understandably be called "Leftist kook" or "fringe" if not downright lunatic. Herewith:
In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein called for banning all hunting in the United States.
All.
Everywhere.
He actually put in writing, in his 2004 book, Animals that, "Animals should be permitted to bring [law] suit, with human beings as their representatives...."
"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."
Mr. Sunstein, who openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism, wrote, "The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)..."
"[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
Were Mr. Sunstein to succeed as President Obama's head regulator of all things American, what might happen to those millions of hunting rifles and shotguns he doesn't want gathering dust in your cabinet?
Mr. Sunstein is a reputed "1st Amendment scholar."
Having attended law school myself and actually practiced law for a quarter century rather than retreat to the head-swelling-brain-shrinking environs of academia, I can assure you that if he is, America is in very deep trouble.
President Obama has made clear his White House Masterregulator is intended to regulate virtually every aspect of American's lives - including the environment, healthcare, finance, and the economy - regardless of your feelings about such matters much less your freedom and liberty. Sunstein has argued in his prolific literary works (one bookstore tour de force was a whopping 84 pages) that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing. He went on to assert:
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name.
As WorldNetDaily noted:
"It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein....Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission.... If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online - right down to our personal e-mail communications - would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."
11. Van Jones -- President Obama's former White House Environmental Adviser ("Green Jobs Czar"). Mr. Jones remains a self-defined Communist community organizer from the San Francisco Bay area (Oakland, California).
He is also an Whites-hating racist with a criminal arrest record, as well as a "9/11 Truther" true believer. The 9/11 Truther organizations proselytize that former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Richard Cheney either planned or knew about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks conducted by 19 Islamofascist members of Al-Qaeda who, aside from slamming a passenger jetliner into the Pentagon, did the same in New York City totally destroying the Twin Towers and killing almost 3,000 Americans.
When Mr. Jones, an ardent racist and Communist, was hired into the White House by "the other half of Barack's brain," Ms. Valerie Jarrett, she expressed overflowing praise in the press and in video-taped interviews for Mr. Jones and his work, noting that "we have been watching him for a long time.
12. Carol M. Browner -- Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Ms. Browner is a Socialist sycophant of Al Gore's conclusion that the earth is going to evaporate tomorrow. A former EPA director, Ms. Browner is married to Leftist lobbyist Thomas Downey and remains an ardent Socialist activist. She is one of 14 leaders of Socialist International's, "Commission for a Sustainable World Society," which calls for "global governance."
As Van Jones was an admitted Communist, Ms. Browner is an admitted and very active Socialist. What more really need be said about her with reference to President Obama who has been fully informed of her moral relativity and anti-Americanism for years since she has hardly kept it secret from either her associates, the public, nor the press.
13. John Holdren -- Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Other than Mr. Holdren's well known and oft repeated morally relativistic denial of American exceptionalism, one and only one thing need to be said here about President Obama's "Science" Czar - he is Barack Obama's twin on the matter of abortion and has advocated compulsory abortion. Here it is again: President Obama searched for, reached out, and chose as his chief "science advisor" a plasma physicist who advocates compulsory abortion.
As John Griffing wrote of Holdren in "Enough is Enough," for American Thinker:
...for a true outrage, consider new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, who, in a stunning display of unabashed evil, has actively advocated "compulsory abortion":
There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, consider his words, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons." Let that sink in: an American official supports forced abortion and the death of "grown persons." We know what that looks like. It has been official policy for years in Communist China.
President Obama quite literally has the single worst record of any elected official on the question of abortion.
While in the Illinois legislature he single-handedly prevented that state's Born Alive Infant Protection Act from leaving his committee much less being made into law.
As a result, for three more years until legislator Obama became U. S. Senator Obama, Illinois hospitals and doctors were permitted to allow otherwise healthy infants who survived an abortion to receive no medical attention whatsoever until they died. They were simply, and quite literally, "shelved."
The evidence of Mr. Obama's actions and callous disregard for the lives of infants is overwhelming.
14. Kevin Jennings -- President Obama's Safe Schools Czar. Jennings is a former schoolteacher who has very successfully advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, unashamedly and vituperatively expressed his utter contempt for religion, and detailed an incident in which he did not report to authorities his knowledge that an underage student told him he was having sex with older men - Jennings instead counseled the boy to "use a condom".
In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, [Jennings] founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education...."
In the past, Mr. Jennings has praised Harry Hay, the frequent and vocal defender of NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.
His organization, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, has successfully prodded some schools into making October the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Month, as well as established November 28th as "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
None of this belongs in any school anywhere, any time, and the fact that the Obama Administration chooses to support such people with such goals and then put them in positions of great authority and power should make even the most dyed-in-the-wool middle-class liberal Democrats cringe at the depth of either their negligence, uncaring, or stupidity regarding the real Barack Hussein Obama.
And I bet all the teachers in America didn't know this - according to Mr. Jennings (at a New York University "Education Policy Breakfast):
"... you cannot be an effective teacher if you are not aware of how [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] biases can influence how you interact with your students. Pure and simple."
To which Mr. Jennings added,
"It should be impossible to graduate from NYU or any other school of education without coursework - required coursework - that address issues of [LGBT] bias in the classroom and how it might influence your teaching. [It] should be a graduation requirement."
In 1999, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreward for an elementary education instruction book, Queering Elementary Education, the description of which states that it examines "five broadly-defined areas in elementary education: foundational issues; social and sexual development; curriculum; the family; and gay/lesbian educators and their allies. It seeks to provide scholarly insights, pedagogical strategies, and curricular resources for use in schools.
At the core of the book is the belief that public school educators have the responsibility to affirm sexual diversity..."
In elementary school?
It is Jennings himself, Obama's "Safe-School Czar," who coined the term "safe school" as a euphemism for "pro-homosexual" school. Children's physical safety had nothing and has even less to do now with Mr. Jennings educational background, "expertise," or agenda. "Jennings was obviously chosen for this job because of the safe schools aspect... defining 'safe schools' narrowly in terms of 'safe for homosexuality'," says Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
"Safe school" is hardly the only word commandeered by Jennings and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to support propagandizing his model "safe school" into mainstream elementary education.
Others include, and parents should be alert to "seemingly innocuous terms as ‘safe school,' ‘anti-bullying,' ‘safe space,' ‘hate-free, ‘tolerance,' ‘respect differences,' ‘be an ally,' ‘no name calling day,' ‘be who you are,' ‘free to be fully me,' ‘day of silence,' and so forth.
If these terms are present [in school instructional materials], they are [probably] defined by Jennings, not Webster, and the accompanying curricular material will probably be objectionable. Jennings' jargon and the mythical bullying epidemic even showed-up in the recent Presidential address to school children."
The Obama Administration was certainly aware of these facts long before the President and Ms. Jarrett selected Mr. Jennings, just as they selected Van Jones, and all the other members of the Obama Administration discussed here.
This is the type of colossal lack of judgment the President of The United States has not merely chosen to surround himself with, but in fact personally displays every day.
Feeling any "safer" about your kids?
15. Chai Feldblum -- Obama nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who signed a manifest seeking, inter alia, to legalize polygamy ("to protect households in which there is more than one conjugal partner").
See, online petition entitled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships. Feldblum is an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown University law professor.
She is "co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at [a] UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change ‘the American workplace and revolutionize social mores. This is a war that needs to be fought,'' Feldblum asserted, "'and it's not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them."
16. William Ayers -- Obama friend, neighbor, fellow board member, "respected" national educator, virulently anti-American, and dramatically unrepentant radical terrorist bomber. Mr. Ayers famously stated:
"I am a radical, Leftist, small ‘c' Communist...Maybe I'm the last Communist who is willing to admit it.... The ethics of Communism still appeal to me."
Perhaps Mr. Ayers most notable statement was made to the New York Times in a story released on September 11, 2001:
"I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,"
It has gradually come to light that Mr. Ayers, far from the casual acquaintance President Obama made him out to be during the 2008 election, is quite likely the real author of Mr. Obama's "autobiography," Dreams of My Father.
Mr. Ayers approach to education is as authoritarian as is his approach to society as a whole - otherwise he would not have planted terrorist bombs in an effort to compel his personal beliefs upon the rest of society. As Sol Stern of City Journal wrote:
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.
....
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.
The Ayers-Obama Socialist-conversion mission carried out with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's $100,000,000 was a total failure, producing zero results in student learning, but succeeded in massive transfers of wealth to Leftist, Socialist, and even the Communist causes of long-time Ayers ally, Mike Klonsky, a former S.D. S. leader, college professor and Director of the Small Schools Workshop. However, neither Mr. Ayers nor President Obama have given up on their radical Leftist agenda.
Ayers is married to unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bernadine Dohrn who was once jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members' robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed. Like her husband, she remains involved and influential in school programs.
For Mr. Ayers, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Chu, and President Obama's Secretary of Education, yet another Chicagoan, Arne Duncan - and far too many others in the Obama Administration - education is solely about pursuing then mandating the radicalization of children through indoctrination in Leftist policies, "social justice" curricula, and Socialism itself in public schools.
______________________________
The Obama Administration is currently making thousands of federal bureaucratic appointments.
Make no mistake.
These people are about Socialism, and they are about power. Their power.
____________________________
Do you now begin to see?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Can't We Read The Health Care Bill?
Can't We Read The Health Care Bill?
From IBD
Congress: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been asked repeatedly to put the proposed health care bill on the Web. They've refused.
From IBD
Congress: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been asked repeatedly to put the proposed health care bill on the Web. They've refused.
Do they have something to hide?
Even Democrats have asked their leadership to put the bill online at least 72 hours before a vote, so that any American can read the 1,000-plus-page monstrosity.
"At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low," a group of Democratic senators recently wrote to Reid, "we can begin to rebuild the American people's faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process."
We agree.
Even Democrats have asked their leadership to put the bill online at least 72 hours before a vote, so that any American can read the 1,000-plus-page monstrosity.
"At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low," a group of Democratic senators recently wrote to Reid, "we can begin to rebuild the American people's faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process."
We agree.
In the same spirit, at least one group, Let Freedom Ring USA, has posted an online petition calling for Congress to mandate that any bill be posted online at least 72 hours before it's voted on. If Democrats are serious, they might look into that.
Of course, Reid and Pelosi know very well that putting the bill online would jeopardize its passage.
Of course, Reid and Pelosi know very well that putting the bill online would jeopardize its passage.
Anyone who actually reads it will discover what it contains, and what the media have largely ignored — new taxes, fewer health care choices, the destruction of a successful industry and the creation of a massive new bureaucracy.
All at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
But what else can you expect from a Congress that is arguably one of the worst in the nation's history?
All at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
But what else can you expect from a Congress that is arguably one of the worst in the nation's history?
In power since 2006, this Democrat-led bunch has stood by as a financial meltdown led to a deep recession. Given the chance to reform our nation's financial system, they punted — instead spending trillions on bailouts, handouts, welfare and a phony "stimulus" that have done little for the economy.
In this context, putting a health care reform bill online would seem the least Congress could do — especially if that bill could lead to a de facto government takeover of 17% of the U.S. economy.
Even so, obsessive secrecy about the health care bill may be the least of the problems facing Congress right now.
Despite House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's vow last year to work four or five days a week on the people's business, a Politico.com report suggests the real schedule is more like that of a home for the partially retired:
In this context, putting a health care reform bill online would seem the least Congress could do — especially if that bill could lead to a de facto government takeover of 17% of the U.S. economy.
Even so, obsessive secrecy about the health care bill may be the least of the problems facing Congress right now.
Despite House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's vow last year to work four or five days a week on the people's business, a Politico.com report suggests the real schedule is more like that of a home for the partially retired:
"Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays," Politico says, "and they're usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays" (emphases ours)."
Gee, and we thought it was a full-time job.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Ayers Admits Writing "Dreams..."
Ayers Admits Writing Dreams
From American Thinker
By James Simpson
Last Friday we posted an article on these pages asserting Bill Ayers' authorship of President Barack Obama's 'Dreams From My Father,' based on claims made by Obama biographer Christopher Andersen.
It is possible that we have now gotten direct confirmation of this from Bill Ayers himself.
Anne Leary of Back Yard Conservative was passing through Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport yesterday, and was surprised to come across Bill Ayers at Starbucks: "scruffy, thinning beard, dippy earring, and the wire rims, heading to order."
She struck up a conversation with him and snapped the accompanying photo. (I interviewed Anne about it, and thank her for permission to run the photo she took.)
Ayers was in Washington, he told her, for a conference on education.
"That's what I do, education," he said.
"You shouldn't believe everything you hear about me... You know nothing about me."
To which she responded, "I said, I know plenty--I'm from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I'll post this."
I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.
But he didn't scowl, and didn't run off as he has been known to do.
Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: "I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father... Michelle asked me to." Then he added "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties."
Anne responded, "Stop pulling my leg!"
But he repeated insistently, "I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers' other writing.]"
Anne responded, "I believe you probably heavily edited it."
Ayers stated firmly, "I wrote it."
Anne ended the conversation by saying "why would I believe you?
You're a liar."
Good for her.
But we are left to wonder.
Despite her parting shot, Anne was convinced Ayers was in earnest.
He was making a public statement. He wanted this news out there.
Was he, as she had asked, pulling our collective legs?
Other sources report rumors that Ayers is very upset both about not getting any credit for helping Obama on ‘Dreams,' and may also be put off by being summarily thrown under the bus along with Rev. Wright and everyone else who becomes an inconvenience to this President.
My understanding of communists is that most would know better and keep their mouths shut.
But Ayers is a bit different.
He is, as he says, a "small ‘c' communist," but he is also, in a certain, slimy way, an entrepreneur, as we explained in Monday's post. (Apologies in advance to entrepreneurs everywhere.) He grew up a very rich kid, used to getting everything he wanted. Even as an adult his career has relied on a hand up from his wealthy father.
His past statements and radical activities also mark him as a megalomaniac. In youth he drew attention to himself by blowing things up. As an adult "educator" he merely attempts to subvert children. But that doesn't seem to be going so well.
He is under a lot of pressure, too. Ayers and his horrid wife Bernardine Dohrn are believed to have planned and executed the San Francisco Park Police Station bombing in 1970 that killed police sergeant Brian V. McDonnell and wounded several others.
Efforts to bring them to justice have been underway for some time, as brought to light this past March in a National Press Club conference put on by Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival.
Cliff's guests included Larry Grathwohl, the FBI's undercover agent who penetrated Ayers' Weather Underground and produced this stunning testimony about Ayers' plan to massacre 25 million Americans, retired S.F. policeman James Pera, first on the scene at the bombing, and veteran researcher Trevor Loudon.
Now, a recent exposé by San Francisco reporter Peter Jamison has revealed additional evidence, including testimony from other Weather Underground members, that Dohrn planted the bomb that killed Sgt. McDonnell.
Maybe in his overstressed state Bill's megalomania has just gotten the better of him.
From American Thinker
By James Simpson
Last Friday we posted an article on these pages asserting Bill Ayers' authorship of President Barack Obama's 'Dreams From My Father,' based on claims made by Obama biographer Christopher Andersen.
It is possible that we have now gotten direct confirmation of this from Bill Ayers himself.
Anne Leary of Back Yard Conservative was passing through Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport yesterday, and was surprised to come across Bill Ayers at Starbucks: "scruffy, thinning beard, dippy earring, and the wire rims, heading to order."
She struck up a conversation with him and snapped the accompanying photo. (I interviewed Anne about it, and thank her for permission to run the photo she took.)
Ayers was in Washington, he told her, for a conference on education.
"That's what I do, education," he said.
"You shouldn't believe everything you hear about me... You know nothing about me."
To which she responded, "I said, I know plenty--I'm from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I'll post this."
I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.
But he didn't scowl, and didn't run off as he has been known to do.
Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: "I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father... Michelle asked me to." Then he added "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties."
Anne responded, "Stop pulling my leg!"
But he repeated insistently, "I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers' other writing.]"
Anne responded, "I believe you probably heavily edited it."
Ayers stated firmly, "I wrote it."
Anne ended the conversation by saying "why would I believe you?
You're a liar."
Good for her.
But we are left to wonder.
Despite her parting shot, Anne was convinced Ayers was in earnest.
He was making a public statement. He wanted this news out there.
Was he, as she had asked, pulling our collective legs?
Other sources report rumors that Ayers is very upset both about not getting any credit for helping Obama on ‘Dreams,' and may also be put off by being summarily thrown under the bus along with Rev. Wright and everyone else who becomes an inconvenience to this President.
My understanding of communists is that most would know better and keep their mouths shut.
But Ayers is a bit different.
He is, as he says, a "small ‘c' communist," but he is also, in a certain, slimy way, an entrepreneur, as we explained in Monday's post. (Apologies in advance to entrepreneurs everywhere.) He grew up a very rich kid, used to getting everything he wanted. Even as an adult his career has relied on a hand up from his wealthy father.
His past statements and radical activities also mark him as a megalomaniac. In youth he drew attention to himself by blowing things up. As an adult "educator" he merely attempts to subvert children. But that doesn't seem to be going so well.
He is under a lot of pressure, too. Ayers and his horrid wife Bernardine Dohrn are believed to have planned and executed the San Francisco Park Police Station bombing in 1970 that killed police sergeant Brian V. McDonnell and wounded several others.
Efforts to bring them to justice have been underway for some time, as brought to light this past March in a National Press Club conference put on by Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival.
Cliff's guests included Larry Grathwohl, the FBI's undercover agent who penetrated Ayers' Weather Underground and produced this stunning testimony about Ayers' plan to massacre 25 million Americans, retired S.F. policeman James Pera, first on the scene at the bombing, and veteran researcher Trevor Loudon.
Now, a recent exposé by San Francisco reporter Peter Jamison has revealed additional evidence, including testimony from other Weather Underground members, that Dohrn planted the bomb that killed Sgt. McDonnell.
Maybe in his overstressed state Bill's megalomania has just gotten the better of him.
The Correct Mindset
The Correct Mindset
From The Shooting Wire
By Jim Shepard
In training, we talk about everything from how we walk, strip out a magazine, hold a rifle/pistol/carbine, and even how to adjust slings and gear. Ditto the OODA loop (and how to interrupt it), the advantage to closing on a threat rather than running away in certain situations (OK, I'm still vague on this one, but I know the unexpected action is frequently the right one, this is just a little counter-intuitive).
Fighting is, as they say, as much an art as the mechanics of its study are a science.
Last week, however, I was reminded that there's a part of the combat mindset - and preparation for dealing with a known threat- that many of us forget.
Our best weapon- in virtually any circumstance- is our mind and its correct usage to adapt and overcome in life-and-death situations. The training scenarios are, for me at least, one of the best ways to see - clearly- that on many occasions, I'm letting my natural instincts and that most immediate of drugs, adrenaline, take my mind out of the fight.
There's nothing like having that brought home to you by a world-class martial artist and trainer who looks more calm and unflappable than capable and experienced. John Hutchinson, one of Gunsite Academy's trainers, had his unflappability tested last week, trying to help me improve my shooting techniques.
I'm not a bad shooter, but I'm not practicing at the levels I once did. I'm also not at the physical skill levels of twenty years (or more) ago. So, Hutchinson reminded me, I should be applying my mind more to the fighting situations.
Having been more reactive than proactive in most physical situations, that's tough advice to comprehend.
Until you get in a situation with a little performance pressure. Standing on a line with eleven other shooters - most very experienced and trained - induces a little of that pressure. For me, that means the mind starts working against me. Instead of telling me to analyze the situation and respond in a sensible manner, I get the "ready-set-GO" thing from my brain, turning me from a logical guy into a pretty passable imitation of Jerry Lewis. The easy things get difficult, and suddenly, I'm missing shots I know I can make in my sleep.
Unfortunately, I'm too-wired to sleep. Having been in a real shooting situation, I fight old memories and matching reflexes. I don't know if it's happened to you, but I've sure seen if from both the personal and observational side.
After trying to correct me mechanically and not seeing a response, Hutchinson told me something that clarified my problem and gave me a way to instantly tighten shot groups and simplify prodedures.
"You're moving around too-much in your body," he said simply, "that's making you have to work against yourself to get a good shot off."
Eureka, he was right. I was guilty of the shooting equivalent of "moving over the ball" in golf. Instead of getting into a strong, neutral position with my rifle solid and stable in that position, I was moving head, eyes, arms, feet, knees, elbows. Let's just say I looked more like an explosion than a rational machine
I was violating the basic rule of a fluid situation: slow down physically and analyze mentally; then follow your mental mapping. It's amazing what a couple of deep, calming breaths and a solid stance will do to tighten your groups. It's even more effective when you're on the move. Strides may shorten or steps may drag, but the upper body remains still, strong and on target.
After shooting, Hutchinson reemphasized that fact by reminding us that when running indoor shooting simulations, he wanted us to concentrate on analyzing each problem individually, and to slow down rather than racing through the simulator as one large timed event.
"Err on the side of safety," Hutchinson says, "I'm going to be with you, and safety's what I want. Don't try to go high-speed, low-drag on a situation, try to make each motion deliberate and thought out. If you rush into a situation, you may find out you've put yourself in a situation you didn't anticipate."
What he didn't have to say was that in real life, those kinds of situations can get you seriously killed. After all, he reminded us, a single person clearing an unfamiliar building was already a bad enough deal. Trying to do it at the speed of Jason Stratham in an action flick was a good way not to get out the other side.
What's my point? THINK before acting in your practice. If you're on the range and suddenly start rushing shots and taking those short, sharp, jerky motions that are producing less than your optimal results, slow down and stop fighting with yourself.
That's one fight you're always going to lose. Instead, breathe, slow down and think before acting.
Now, if I could only remember to do that before I speak.
--Jim Shepherd
_______________________________________
Has this happened to you?
I just experienced the very same mental condition!
Last week at a match I shot awful! My squade mates were watching and silently discussing my problems. They were wondering what they could do to help!
One friend noticed a magazine problem, or so he thought. Another noticed I was 'out of sync' with my pistol. Finally, we hit upon the culprit!
I had installed a long SV trigger in my Colt XSE to prevent me from inserting my trigger finger too far into the trigger guard, (an old habit from my revolver days!).
No one considered - not even me - that I was riding the trigger, and not allowing the sear to reset! A simple, fundamental, mental error!
But that was the problem.
So... Jim is quite correct.
Examine your mindset each time you train. Take nothing for granted.
Even us old timers forget stuff that has long been basic habit.
Thanks Jim!
From The Shooting Wire
By Jim Shepard
In training, we talk about everything from how we walk, strip out a magazine, hold a rifle/pistol/carbine, and even how to adjust slings and gear. Ditto the OODA loop (and how to interrupt it), the advantage to closing on a threat rather than running away in certain situations (OK, I'm still vague on this one, but I know the unexpected action is frequently the right one, this is just a little counter-intuitive).
Fighting is, as they say, as much an art as the mechanics of its study are a science.
Last week, however, I was reminded that there's a part of the combat mindset - and preparation for dealing with a known threat- that many of us forget.
Our best weapon- in virtually any circumstance- is our mind and its correct usage to adapt and overcome in life-and-death situations. The training scenarios are, for me at least, one of the best ways to see - clearly- that on many occasions, I'm letting my natural instincts and that most immediate of drugs, adrenaline, take my mind out of the fight.
There's nothing like having that brought home to you by a world-class martial artist and trainer who looks more calm and unflappable than capable and experienced. John Hutchinson, one of Gunsite Academy's trainers, had his unflappability tested last week, trying to help me improve my shooting techniques.
I'm not a bad shooter, but I'm not practicing at the levels I once did. I'm also not at the physical skill levels of twenty years (or more) ago. So, Hutchinson reminded me, I should be applying my mind more to the fighting situations.
Having been more reactive than proactive in most physical situations, that's tough advice to comprehend.
Until you get in a situation with a little performance pressure. Standing on a line with eleven other shooters - most very experienced and trained - induces a little of that pressure. For me, that means the mind starts working against me. Instead of telling me to analyze the situation and respond in a sensible manner, I get the "ready-set-GO" thing from my brain, turning me from a logical guy into a pretty passable imitation of Jerry Lewis. The easy things get difficult, and suddenly, I'm missing shots I know I can make in my sleep.
Unfortunately, I'm too-wired to sleep. Having been in a real shooting situation, I fight old memories and matching reflexes. I don't know if it's happened to you, but I've sure seen if from both the personal and observational side.
After trying to correct me mechanically and not seeing a response, Hutchinson told me something that clarified my problem and gave me a way to instantly tighten shot groups and simplify prodedures.
"You're moving around too-much in your body," he said simply, "that's making you have to work against yourself to get a good shot off."
Eureka, he was right. I was guilty of the shooting equivalent of "moving over the ball" in golf. Instead of getting into a strong, neutral position with my rifle solid and stable in that position, I was moving head, eyes, arms, feet, knees, elbows. Let's just say I looked more like an explosion than a rational machine
I was violating the basic rule of a fluid situation: slow down physically and analyze mentally; then follow your mental mapping. It's amazing what a couple of deep, calming breaths and a solid stance will do to tighten your groups. It's even more effective when you're on the move. Strides may shorten or steps may drag, but the upper body remains still, strong and on target.
After shooting, Hutchinson reemphasized that fact by reminding us that when running indoor shooting simulations, he wanted us to concentrate on analyzing each problem individually, and to slow down rather than racing through the simulator as one large timed event.
"Err on the side of safety," Hutchinson says, "I'm going to be with you, and safety's what I want. Don't try to go high-speed, low-drag on a situation, try to make each motion deliberate and thought out. If you rush into a situation, you may find out you've put yourself in a situation you didn't anticipate."
What he didn't have to say was that in real life, those kinds of situations can get you seriously killed. After all, he reminded us, a single person clearing an unfamiliar building was already a bad enough deal. Trying to do it at the speed of Jason Stratham in an action flick was a good way not to get out the other side.
What's my point? THINK before acting in your practice. If you're on the range and suddenly start rushing shots and taking those short, sharp, jerky motions that are producing less than your optimal results, slow down and stop fighting with yourself.
That's one fight you're always going to lose. Instead, breathe, slow down and think before acting.
Now, if I could only remember to do that before I speak.
--Jim Shepherd
_______________________________________
Has this happened to you?
I just experienced the very same mental condition!
Last week at a match I shot awful! My squade mates were watching and silently discussing my problems. They were wondering what they could do to help!
One friend noticed a magazine problem, or so he thought. Another noticed I was 'out of sync' with my pistol. Finally, we hit upon the culprit!
I had installed a long SV trigger in my Colt XSE to prevent me from inserting my trigger finger too far into the trigger guard, (an old habit from my revolver days!).
No one considered - not even me - that I was riding the trigger, and not allowing the sear to reset! A simple, fundamental, mental error!
But that was the problem.
So... Jim is quite correct.
Examine your mindset each time you train. Take nothing for granted.
Even us old timers forget stuff that has long been basic habit.
Thanks Jim!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Obamas Violated First Three Rules of Selling
The Obamas Violated First Three Rules of Selling
From American Thinker
By C. Edmund Wright
Of course Barack and Michelle Obama failed in Copenhagen.
Their strategy could not possibly succeed.
In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC).
And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Anyone who has had to succeed in the real business world -- and that includes few if any on Team Obama -- instinctively knows that to get business done you have to believe in what you are doing and offer a product or service that is focused on the benefits to the customer.
In the Obama World of Chicago pay-to-play power, business gets done by flexing muscle and clearing the field of your competitors. You don't have to sell anything. You don't have to believe in anything. It is fine to be self-focused. You simply have to apply the power of the applicable political machinery and you win.
Which could explain why the First Couple was so apparently lost in an attempt to actually have to make a sale to an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, inoculated by our own fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in their life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they botched it so badly.
That is not to say that Chicago was a slam dunk in the first place.
I have no way of knowing what their ultimate chances were.
But the embarrassing first round knockout was a definitive rejection of both the Obamas and their approach.
Their hearts were in selling the Obama brand, not U-S-A.
The Obamas' sales pitch was awful by any definition. Of course. How can our President, who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country, sell our country to the IOC with a straight face?
The answer is he could not.
And although it would have been an out of body experience, I still thought he would at least attempt to sell America and some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on. I didn't think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.
Nope.
He and the First Lady did not even pretend to be proud of us.
They went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago.
Oh, BTW, the Obama family would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood.
So ask not what our country can do for your Olympics -- ask what your Olympics can do for our city. Heck, that was the First Lady's closing argument:
Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.
That was how she ended her speech.
That was her "please sign here" moment.
For the record, her talk mentioned NOTHING about what we could offer the games.
Not a word.
No wonder they didn't sign on the dotted line.
Before that, some 40% of her speech was about her Dad and his M.S. Apparently the IOC didn't see the relevance. When she wasn't talking about her Dad, she was fantasizing about what a Chicago Olympiad would mean to her and the children of the city:
But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago.... that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.
To which the IOC's answer was something like "get them ESPN and ESPN 2 if they need to be exposed to new sports and role models. And by the way, we're not so sure about that regardless of 'ability' concept either."
She was followed by the President -- who in all fairness did shelve some of his blatantly anti-American sentiment for the time being -- but who also would only couch positive things about the nation in terms of diversity or Obama-ness.
Nearly one year ago... people from every corner of the world ...gathered to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.
That our experiment in democracy was hanging on by the thread of whether he won the election or not was the point, not to mention the point that the world was interested only because he was involved. But his stance that modern history started with his inauguration continued:
Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest... (and) there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.
Well where do I sign?
How can I possibly turn down an opportunity to make the 2016 Olympics so convenient for family Obama? After all, they are the family that has finally started -- in earnest -- the work of, well, whatever it is they are transforming in America.
Amazing.
When you consider these words in light of what Obama said about the United States last week at the U.N and the G20, it is clear to see that this is a man who really does think history started when he was born and America's greatness started when he was elected. These thoughts dominate any sober analysis of the written words of his speeches.
While our own Jurassic media is totally under his spell, the IOC and the much of the rest of the world media is not. They saw the Copenhagen sales pitch and rejected it out of hand. It came in fourth place out of four.
There is analysis out of the D.C.-Manhattan corridor already that the racists in the United States and the Republicans and talk radio and Fox News and the right leaning blogosphere are to blame for the Denmark disaster.
They are not.
Neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld.
Elsewhere, there is talk that it was not-that-big-a-deal and that Chicago was done a favor by not getting the games. That may be true, but the Obama's and their Chicago buddies wanted it badly -- and thought they had it in the bag.
The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time.
And the world said, "No thanks."
________________________________
The IOC can see through the BS!
Why can't America?
From American Thinker
By C. Edmund Wright
Of course Barack and Michelle Obama failed in Copenhagen.
Their strategy could not possibly succeed.
In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC).
And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Anyone who has had to succeed in the real business world -- and that includes few if any on Team Obama -- instinctively knows that to get business done you have to believe in what you are doing and offer a product or service that is focused on the benefits to the customer.
In the Obama World of Chicago pay-to-play power, business gets done by flexing muscle and clearing the field of your competitors. You don't have to sell anything. You don't have to believe in anything. It is fine to be self-focused. You simply have to apply the power of the applicable political machinery and you win.
Which could explain why the First Couple was so apparently lost in an attempt to actually have to make a sale to an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, inoculated by our own fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in their life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they botched it so badly.
That is not to say that Chicago was a slam dunk in the first place.
I have no way of knowing what their ultimate chances were.
But the embarrassing first round knockout was a definitive rejection of both the Obamas and their approach.
Their hearts were in selling the Obama brand, not U-S-A.
The Obamas' sales pitch was awful by any definition. Of course. How can our President, who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country, sell our country to the IOC with a straight face?
The answer is he could not.
And although it would have been an out of body experience, I still thought he would at least attempt to sell America and some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on. I didn't think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.
Nope.
He and the First Lady did not even pretend to be proud of us.
They went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago.
Oh, BTW, the Obama family would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood.
So ask not what our country can do for your Olympics -- ask what your Olympics can do for our city. Heck, that was the First Lady's closing argument:
Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.
That was how she ended her speech.
That was her "please sign here" moment.
For the record, her talk mentioned NOTHING about what we could offer the games.
Not a word.
No wonder they didn't sign on the dotted line.
Before that, some 40% of her speech was about her Dad and his M.S. Apparently the IOC didn't see the relevance. When she wasn't talking about her Dad, she was fantasizing about what a Chicago Olympiad would mean to her and the children of the city:
But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago.... that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.
To which the IOC's answer was something like "get them ESPN and ESPN 2 if they need to be exposed to new sports and role models. And by the way, we're not so sure about that regardless of 'ability' concept either."
She was followed by the President -- who in all fairness did shelve some of his blatantly anti-American sentiment for the time being -- but who also would only couch positive things about the nation in terms of diversity or Obama-ness.
Nearly one year ago... people from every corner of the world ...gathered to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.
That our experiment in democracy was hanging on by the thread of whether he won the election or not was the point, not to mention the point that the world was interested only because he was involved. But his stance that modern history started with his inauguration continued:
Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest... (and) there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.
Well where do I sign?
How can I possibly turn down an opportunity to make the 2016 Olympics so convenient for family Obama? After all, they are the family that has finally started -- in earnest -- the work of, well, whatever it is they are transforming in America.
Amazing.
When you consider these words in light of what Obama said about the United States last week at the U.N and the G20, it is clear to see that this is a man who really does think history started when he was born and America's greatness started when he was elected. These thoughts dominate any sober analysis of the written words of his speeches.
While our own Jurassic media is totally under his spell, the IOC and the much of the rest of the world media is not. They saw the Copenhagen sales pitch and rejected it out of hand. It came in fourth place out of four.
There is analysis out of the D.C.-Manhattan corridor already that the racists in the United States and the Republicans and talk radio and Fox News and the right leaning blogosphere are to blame for the Denmark disaster.
They are not.
Neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld.
Elsewhere, there is talk that it was not-that-big-a-deal and that Chicago was done a favor by not getting the games. That may be true, but the Obama's and their Chicago buddies wanted it badly -- and thought they had it in the bag.
The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time.
And the world said, "No thanks."
________________________________
The IOC can see through the BS!
Why can't America?
Competition, Not Price-Controls, Will Save Medicare
The Heritage Foundation - Morning Bell:
Competition, Not Price-Controls, Will Save Medicare
“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.”
Or so President Barack Obama promised our nation’s seniors earlier this year.
Problem is, as we have pointed out many times, this is simply not true: Obamacare will absolutely cause reduced Medicare benefits for Seniors. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told Congress that and even the New York Times has grudgingly admitted as much.
Specifically, every version of Obamacare waiting to be merged into one bill on Capitol Hill cuts billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program.
One of the dirty little secrets about Medicare is that it actually only covers slightly more than half of all health care costs for seniors and disabled citizens.
Medicare recipients buy the balance of their health care coverage through private supplemental insurance or Medigap coverage. Most seniors, therefore, actually have at least two health insurance providers, the federal government through Medicare, and a private supplemental insurer.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to pay a single premium and receive a much broader range of health care services than just government-run Medicare provides, including prescription drug coverage, preventive-care services, routine physical examinations, and coordinated care for chronic conditions.
The Baucus bill, which will be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee later this week, is the least offensive Medicare reform plan currently being included in Obamacare.
However, the Baucus bill fails to achieve true reform in two ways: First, it takes all ’savings’ from Medicare reform and immediately plows them into a new deficit exploding entitlement.
Second, and more importantly, it preserves the old fee-for-service Medicare program which is based on central planning and price controls.
The better option would be to move Medicare towards a true “premium support” system where the government would make direct contributions to all beneficiaries who could then control how to spend their own health care dollars.
This would be the same model as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which provides health insurance to Members of Congress. Heritage fellow Bob Moffit explains:
With modifications, Congress could adopt a premium support system broadly similar to the FEHBP and secure the same positive results in intense competition, patient choice, high quality care, and patient satisfaction. Without such modifications, there is no real reform but just more of the same.
Instead of breaking the President’s promises, and raising health care costs for America’s seniors, Congress should hit the reset button and start over with real competition and state based reform that lowers costs and improves care.
_________________________________
Competition, Not Price-Controls, Will Save Medicare
“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.”
Or so President Barack Obama promised our nation’s seniors earlier this year.
Problem is, as we have pointed out many times, this is simply not true: Obamacare will absolutely cause reduced Medicare benefits for Seniors. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told Congress that and even the New York Times has grudgingly admitted as much.
Specifically, every version of Obamacare waiting to be merged into one bill on Capitol Hill cuts billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program.
One of the dirty little secrets about Medicare is that it actually only covers slightly more than half of all health care costs for seniors and disabled citizens.
Medicare recipients buy the balance of their health care coverage through private supplemental insurance or Medigap coverage. Most seniors, therefore, actually have at least two health insurance providers, the federal government through Medicare, and a private supplemental insurer.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to pay a single premium and receive a much broader range of health care services than just government-run Medicare provides, including prescription drug coverage, preventive-care services, routine physical examinations, and coordinated care for chronic conditions.
The Baucus bill, which will be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee later this week, is the least offensive Medicare reform plan currently being included in Obamacare.
However, the Baucus bill fails to achieve true reform in two ways: First, it takes all ’savings’ from Medicare reform and immediately plows them into a new deficit exploding entitlement.
Second, and more importantly, it preserves the old fee-for-service Medicare program which is based on central planning and price controls.
The better option would be to move Medicare towards a true “premium support” system where the government would make direct contributions to all beneficiaries who could then control how to spend their own health care dollars.
This would be the same model as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which provides health insurance to Members of Congress. Heritage fellow Bob Moffit explains:
With modifications, Congress could adopt a premium support system broadly similar to the FEHBP and secure the same positive results in intense competition, patient choice, high quality care, and patient satisfaction. Without such modifications, there is no real reform but just more of the same.
Instead of breaking the President’s promises, and raising health care costs for America’s seniors, Congress should hit the reset button and start over with real competition and state based reform that lowers costs and improves care.
_________________________________
Obama is simply trying to break the bank!
He wants America to fail and rebuild her as a socialist state!
DO NOT be fooled!
The Demise of The Dollar?
The Demise of The Dollar
In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading
By Robert Fish
UK Independant
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.
The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs.
Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."
This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy.
China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.
The decline of American economic power linked to the current global recession was implicitly acknowledged by the World Bank president Robert Zoellick. "One of the legacies of this crisis may be a recognition of changed economic power relations," he said in Istanbul ahead of meetings this week of the IMF and World Bank.
But it is China's extraordinary new financial power – along with past anger among oil-producing and oil-consuming nations at America's power to interfere in the international financial system – which has prompted the latest discussions involving the Gulf states.
Brazil has shown interest in collaborating in non-dollar oil payments, along with India. Indeed, China appears to be the most enthusiastic of all the financial powers involved, not least because of its enormous trade with the Middle East.
China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources.
China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.
Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls.
In a clear sign of China's growing financial muscle, the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, yesterday pleaded with Beijing to let the yuan appreciate against a sliding dollar and, by extension, loosen China's reliance on US monetary policy, to help rebalance the world economy and ease upward pressure on the euro.
Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements – the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system – America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.
The Chinese believe, for example, that the Americans persuaded Britain to stay out of the euro in order to prevent an earlier move away from the dollar.
But Chinese banking sources say their discussions have gone too far to be blocked now. "The Russians will eventually bring in the rouble to the basket of currencies," a prominent Hong Kong broker told The Independent. "The Brits are stuck in the middle and will come into the euro. They have no choice because they won't be able to use the US dollar."
Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.
The US discussed the trend briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh; the Chinese Central Bank governor and other officials have been worrying aloud about the dollar for years. Their problem is that much of their national wealth is tied up in dollar assets.
"These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."
Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. Bankers remember, of course, what happened to the last Middle East oil producer to sell its oil in euros rather than dollars. A few months after Saddam Hussein trumpeted his decision, the Americans and British invaded Iraq.
____________________________
It's Getting Weird Out There!
Let's just hope this is more 'scare tactics' from The Left!
In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading
By Robert Fish
UK Independant
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.
The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs.
Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."
This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy.
China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.
The decline of American economic power linked to the current global recession was implicitly acknowledged by the World Bank president Robert Zoellick. "One of the legacies of this crisis may be a recognition of changed economic power relations," he said in Istanbul ahead of meetings this week of the IMF and World Bank.
But it is China's extraordinary new financial power – along with past anger among oil-producing and oil-consuming nations at America's power to interfere in the international financial system – which has prompted the latest discussions involving the Gulf states.
Brazil has shown interest in collaborating in non-dollar oil payments, along with India. Indeed, China appears to be the most enthusiastic of all the financial powers involved, not least because of its enormous trade with the Middle East.
China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources.
China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.
Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls.
In a clear sign of China's growing financial muscle, the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, yesterday pleaded with Beijing to let the yuan appreciate against a sliding dollar and, by extension, loosen China's reliance on US monetary policy, to help rebalance the world economy and ease upward pressure on the euro.
Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements – the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system – America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.
The Chinese believe, for example, that the Americans persuaded Britain to stay out of the euro in order to prevent an earlier move away from the dollar.
But Chinese banking sources say their discussions have gone too far to be blocked now. "The Russians will eventually bring in the rouble to the basket of currencies," a prominent Hong Kong broker told The Independent. "The Brits are stuck in the middle and will come into the euro. They have no choice because they won't be able to use the US dollar."
Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.
The US discussed the trend briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh; the Chinese Central Bank governor and other officials have been worrying aloud about the dollar for years. Their problem is that much of their national wealth is tied up in dollar assets.
"These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."
Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. Bankers remember, of course, what happened to the last Middle East oil producer to sell its oil in euros rather than dollars. A few months after Saddam Hussein trumpeted his decision, the Americans and British invaded Iraq.
____________________________
It's Getting Weird Out There!
Let's just hope this is more 'scare tactics' from The Left!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Irreconcilable Differences - America in the Throws of Divorce
Succumb to Socialism or Reclaim Its Freedom...
Irreconcilable Differences
- America in the Throws of Divorce
By Ron Ewart
What begins with the trappings of good will, respect and even love, can often disintegrate into petty differences, resentment and rising anger. What starts out as mutual common ground in the building of a family, or the foundation for a country, can unravel if the common ground or the foundation is disturbed, distorted, or loses its meaning and significance.
When the spirit of love, or the spirit of freedom, that binds two people or a nation together, is fractured by forces that tear it asunder, marriages and nations begin to crumble. And so it is, as the divide between Americans grows wider, as the principles of our freedom are eroded by the actions of those who seek more power over the masses and those who seek to live off the sweat of others, America is beginning to come apart at the seams, as the resentment towards opposing views becomes even more acrimonious.
Resentment turns to heated discussions. Discussions turn to arguments and arguments turn to shouting and shouting can lead to violence. This is the path that many a man and woman take as their union, once blessed by God, is shattered by their differences over culture, money, religion, politics, abnormal behavior, cheating, abandonment and sex. This is the path our nation is taking, as cracks open wider in the foundation of our liberty.
Sometimes, marriages can be saved with counseling, but that only occurs when there exists the utmost good faith of the parties who seek reconciliation. If there is no good faith, the union dies. And thus, the union of states, our cherished America, is about to die, if good faith is absent and if there is no attempt to return it to the principles of freedom, upon which it was founded.
We have descended into a nation immersed in an arena of squabbles, some petty, some major. We squabble over who gets their piece of the Treasury first and how much. We fight like Hell to maintain “our share” and fight even harder to get more. We squabble over going to war, even though foreign enemies camp outside our doors and send spies into our midst to kill us and severely damage our infrastructure and our economy, as happened on 9/11. It will happen again, make no mistake.
For almost 100 years, we have let our government manipulate us while we looked the other way. We have bought into the propaganda, hype, distortion and lies about the degree of compassion we owe to those less fortunate, with the degree decided by government, or the fraud that is man-caused global warming. Way too many of us can’t wait to get “our share” of Nationalized Health Care that our government is going to shove down our throats, in spite of massive opposition and in spite of absolutely no constitutional governing authority to do so. In allowing government to “buy” us off for a few pieces of silver, the chains that come with those few pieces, subject us to self-inflicted slavery.
Any credible scientist knows that if you violate the laws of physics or chemistry, the violation often leads to unintended consequences, many times violent consequences. But violating the foundation of our liberty leads to enslavement, pure and simple, and could also have violent consequences.
America divided, now stands at the threshold of self destruction from irreconcilable differences. Primarily, those differences are in ideology and the opposing definitions of what it means to be free. Has America morphed into a Socialist Democracy, mob rule, or are we still the Constitutional Republic that was the design of our Founding Fathers?
As the opposing forces rise in amplitude and passion, the debates have turned to heated discussions, the discussions have turned to arguments, the arguments have turned to shouting and if something or someone doesn’t intervene between the opposing points of view, shouting will turn to violence. The voices on both sides are getting louder and louder. Outrage and hate are replacing cool heads, logic and objectivity.
But who will be the counselor that helps us back to reconciliation and the survival of the Union of States? Who has the right words that will bring the two, very different, sides together?
America has a very difficult choice right now. It can either succumb to the siren call of socialism, one party to the union, or it can reclaim its freedom, the other party. In the realm of opposing views, one side is usually more right and one is usually more wrong, depending on the perspective one has on whether freedom is the right way, or the common-good and the rights of the “collective” are the right way. Are individual, unalienable rights, as granted to us by our creator and codified into the law of man under our Constitution, the path we should take, or should we repeal the Constitution and give more sway to the rights of the many, as so many Americans who have their hand out to government and those in government, believe, for entirely different reasons?
If amicable reconciliation is to occur, one side is going to have to back up more than the other side. If those who seek freedom cannot convince those who seek the nanny state that they are wrong, our divorce is imminent. Divorces are painful, ugly, and expensive. If both sides are intractable, history has shown that violence can be the only outcome. If violence is to occur, the final outcome of a free America is totally unpredictable and left to the vagaries of random probabilities. Every means must be brought to bear to assure that violence does not happen, because another American revolution may not be guided by providence, as the first one appeared to be.
America is in the throws of a very painful divorce, due to irreconcilable differences. Only time will tell whether we can heal our differences, or pay the horrendous price in outright civil war, as we were forced to do almost 150 years ago.
A free America rests in the hands of those who will defend liberty, at any cost. A socialist America is all but assured if those who desire freedom sit on their hands and do nothing.
__________________________
Irreconcilable Differences
- America in the Throws of Divorce
By Ron Ewart
What begins with the trappings of good will, respect and even love, can often disintegrate into petty differences, resentment and rising anger. What starts out as mutual common ground in the building of a family, or the foundation for a country, can unravel if the common ground or the foundation is disturbed, distorted, or loses its meaning and significance.
When the spirit of love, or the spirit of freedom, that binds two people or a nation together, is fractured by forces that tear it asunder, marriages and nations begin to crumble. And so it is, as the divide between Americans grows wider, as the principles of our freedom are eroded by the actions of those who seek more power over the masses and those who seek to live off the sweat of others, America is beginning to come apart at the seams, as the resentment towards opposing views becomes even more acrimonious.
Resentment turns to heated discussions. Discussions turn to arguments and arguments turn to shouting and shouting can lead to violence. This is the path that many a man and woman take as their union, once blessed by God, is shattered by their differences over culture, money, religion, politics, abnormal behavior, cheating, abandonment and sex. This is the path our nation is taking, as cracks open wider in the foundation of our liberty.
Sometimes, marriages can be saved with counseling, but that only occurs when there exists the utmost good faith of the parties who seek reconciliation. If there is no good faith, the union dies. And thus, the union of states, our cherished America, is about to die, if good faith is absent and if there is no attempt to return it to the principles of freedom, upon which it was founded.
We have descended into a nation immersed in an arena of squabbles, some petty, some major. We squabble over who gets their piece of the Treasury first and how much. We fight like Hell to maintain “our share” and fight even harder to get more. We squabble over going to war, even though foreign enemies camp outside our doors and send spies into our midst to kill us and severely damage our infrastructure and our economy, as happened on 9/11. It will happen again, make no mistake.
For almost 100 years, we have let our government manipulate us while we looked the other way. We have bought into the propaganda, hype, distortion and lies about the degree of compassion we owe to those less fortunate, with the degree decided by government, or the fraud that is man-caused global warming. Way too many of us can’t wait to get “our share” of Nationalized Health Care that our government is going to shove down our throats, in spite of massive opposition and in spite of absolutely no constitutional governing authority to do so. In allowing government to “buy” us off for a few pieces of silver, the chains that come with those few pieces, subject us to self-inflicted slavery.
Any credible scientist knows that if you violate the laws of physics or chemistry, the violation often leads to unintended consequences, many times violent consequences. But violating the foundation of our liberty leads to enslavement, pure and simple, and could also have violent consequences.
America divided, now stands at the threshold of self destruction from irreconcilable differences. Primarily, those differences are in ideology and the opposing definitions of what it means to be free. Has America morphed into a Socialist Democracy, mob rule, or are we still the Constitutional Republic that was the design of our Founding Fathers?
As the opposing forces rise in amplitude and passion, the debates have turned to heated discussions, the discussions have turned to arguments, the arguments have turned to shouting and if something or someone doesn’t intervene between the opposing points of view, shouting will turn to violence. The voices on both sides are getting louder and louder. Outrage and hate are replacing cool heads, logic and objectivity.
But who will be the counselor that helps us back to reconciliation and the survival of the Union of States? Who has the right words that will bring the two, very different, sides together?
America has a very difficult choice right now. It can either succumb to the siren call of socialism, one party to the union, or it can reclaim its freedom, the other party. In the realm of opposing views, one side is usually more right and one is usually more wrong, depending on the perspective one has on whether freedom is the right way, or the common-good and the rights of the “collective” are the right way. Are individual, unalienable rights, as granted to us by our creator and codified into the law of man under our Constitution, the path we should take, or should we repeal the Constitution and give more sway to the rights of the many, as so many Americans who have their hand out to government and those in government, believe, for entirely different reasons?
If amicable reconciliation is to occur, one side is going to have to back up more than the other side. If those who seek freedom cannot convince those who seek the nanny state that they are wrong, our divorce is imminent. Divorces are painful, ugly, and expensive. If both sides are intractable, history has shown that violence can be the only outcome. If violence is to occur, the final outcome of a free America is totally unpredictable and left to the vagaries of random probabilities. Every means must be brought to bear to assure that violence does not happen, because another American revolution may not be guided by providence, as the first one appeared to be.
America is in the throws of a very painful divorce, due to irreconcilable differences. Only time will tell whether we can heal our differences, or pay the horrendous price in outright civil war, as we were forced to do almost 150 years ago.
A free America rests in the hands of those who will defend liberty, at any cost. A socialist America is all but assured if those who desire freedom sit on their hands and do nothing.
__________________________
Thank You Mr Ewart!
Firearms Freedom Act of 2009
The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Since its passage in Montana, a clone of the Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted in Tennessee, and has been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida. Legislators in many other states have announced that they will introduce FFA clones when their legislatures next convene.
The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise...
Additional LINK
_________________________________________
Stay tuned...
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Since its passage in Montana, a clone of the Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted in Tennessee, and has been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida. Legislators in many other states have announced that they will introduce FFA clones when their legislatures next convene.
The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise...
Additional LINK
_________________________________________
Stay tuned...
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
US Relinquishes Control of the Internet
US relinquishes control of the internet
- Icann ends agreement with the US Government
- Move will give other countries a prominent internet role
By Bobbie Jphnson
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.
Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.
The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.
Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.
But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.
"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."
He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.
While the issue reached critical mass in emerging economies such as China, it is not the only country that has lobbied for a change. Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.
Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said she was pleased that Washington chose to make the shift.
"I welcome the US administration's decision to adapt Icann's key role in internet governance to the reality of the 21st century," she said. "If effectively and transparently implemented, this reform can find broad acceptance among civil society, businesses and governments alike."
Meanwhile Nominet - the British organisation that handles the day-to-day running of .uk domain names - said that Icann had started a trend for companies with internet influence to appear more open and accountable.
"Putting public interest first will also be a focus for the UK internet community over the coming months as there is growing support for Nominet to develop more of a public interest role," said Nominet's chief executive, Lesley Cowley.
The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.
Beckstrom suggested that bringing more countries to the table was the best way of ensuring the long term future of the internet.
"We're more global, period.
The chances of the internet holding together just went up, the cohesion just went up," he said. "We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team…
This was, ironically, a power move from the US."
Monday, September 28, 2009
Leader of the Free World... No More...
Washington Times EDITORIAL:
Leader of the Free World No More
The Torch Has Been Passed
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World.
The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer.
This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation."
By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."
Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend.
But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed."
Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace."
Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity."
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought.
Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned.
Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."
Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight.
Well Said Folks!
Well Said!
Leader of the Free World No More
The Torch Has Been Passed
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World.
The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer.
This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation."
By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."
Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend.
But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed."
Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace."
Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity."
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought.
Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned.
Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."
Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight.
Well Said Folks!
Well Said!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Hubris, Weakness, and Naivete at the U.N.
Hubris, Weakness, and Naivete at the U.N.
From The Heritage Foundation
The United States elected 43 presidents before the current occupant graced the office with his presence.
We fought, and won, two world wars, liberated millions of people worldwide from tyranny, and worked cooperatively with other sovereign nations to rebuild entire continents.
Some might even say the character of our nation is well established considering we have been a democracy for just over 230 years now.
Not President Barack Obama, who told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.”
230 years versus just nine months.
No wonder, the New York Times reports, were UN delegates not only applauding Obama, but snapping photos of their hero like tourists.
But the audacity of self-promotion was not the most troubling part of Obama’s speech. No, what most threatens America’s security is what Obama didn’t say.
On March 27th of this year, while announcing his “New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”, President Barack Obama said:
"Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.
And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."
But yesterday at the United Nations, the Taliban magically disappeared from this formulation.
Instead, all we got was this:
“We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.”
This was no slip of the tongue.
On the morning talk shows this past Sunday, Obama openly questioned whether fighting the Taliban insurgency is necessary to stopping al-Qaeda.
We do not know what new intelligence the Obama administration has that leads it to believe that the Taliban is now irrelevant in the fight against al Qaeda.
We do know this though: At a time when the President is desperate to keep his base unified for his domestic priorities, polls show that, for the first time since the war began, majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.
Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Stephen Biddle explains: “Surely a big piece of the declining poll numbers for support for Afghanistan is that the public does not yet see the connection between Afghanistan and al-Qaida today.”
But people in the region sure do.
A recent public opinion poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 69 percent of Pakistanis worry that extremists could take control of their country.
The poll further indicated that 70 percent of Pakistanis now rate the Taliban unfavorably compared to only 33 percent a year ago.
The Taliban/al-Qaeda threat spans the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan; thus, failure in one country will contribute to failure in the other—just as success in one country will breed success in the other.
According to media reports, President Obama is considering implementing a plan supported by Vice President Joe Biden to scale back the American military presence in Afghanistan and focus on targeting al-Qaeda cells primarily in western Pakistan.
This strategy would be insufficient to curb the terrorist threat emanating from the region. Ceding territory to the Taliban in Afghanistan would embolden international terrorists in the region, including in nuclear-armed Pakistan.
In their combined 16 years as President, neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush ever felt the need to say they were not naive. For that matter, neither did President Clinton.
But for some reason, President Obama feels the need to reassure the world in every foreign policy speech that he is no naif. He did it again yesterday (”Now, I am not naïve”). How might Shakespeare put it today?
“The President doth protest too much, methinks.”
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Forced Swine Flu Vacination?
There is very scary informaion being circulated out there...
BE CAREFUL!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
How Close is Obama to Complete Destruction of USA?
From The Canadian Free Press...
How Close Is Obama To The Complete Destruction of the United States of America?
By Steve Zieve
How Close Is Obama To The Complete Destruction of the United States of America?
By Steve Zieve
One thing that seems to be fairly consistent about viewpoints on Obama is that people cannot seem to understand what he is doing…and why. Obama’s new huge slap in the face to US allies in Eastern Europe—via Obama’s dropping the US missile shield project—seems to have left many of the talking heads stupefied; not to mention further angering the US’ soon-to-be-former friends whilst drawing smiles from her enemies.
These same pundits—both liberal and conservative—are also ruminating and scratching their heads in reference to Obama’s seemingly scattered mind as he pursues his Afghanistan project. “Does he want to win?,” they ask, followed up with “What’s wrong with him and why isn’t he listening to the generals running his war?” A newly leaked report-to-Obama indicates that without more troops Obama’s war in Afghanistan will be lost.
Obama, who now heads up the UN Security Council—no doubt in direct opposition to the US Constitution that he hates—, told an audience in Troy, NY on Monday that he plans to take over the US economy almost entirely. and transform it from free market-based to Obama’s chaotic Alinsky-Marxist totalitarian power grab. Obama advises that he will “improve” the US economy with massive and apparently unbridled spending on education and some nebulous “innovation” that will further gut and bankrupt the country. Note: This is, of course, patently insane. But, Obama thinks that the majority of We-the-People are equally as stupid as his adherents and most of Congress.
White House Office of Public Engagement and the National Endowment for the Arts
Per Andrew Breitbart’s site BigGovernment.com, Dictator-in-Chief Obama has now been implicated in yet another corruption drama. There is an audio tape of Obama’s Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Buffy Hicks (who reports to Obama’s right-hand gal Valerie Jarrett) telling National Endowment for the Arts members how to push Obama’s agenda with their art.
As US taxpayer dollars are openly being used to push the dictator’s partisan programs, this has now become criminal behavior. The only question is “how many crimes has Obama-the-usurper broken?” Coupled with Obama’s almost two decades long close ties to the criminal enterprise ACORN, this new illegal activity shows a pattern of corruption that is daily being exhibited by this White House and its pretend president of the United States.
By the way, the answers to all of those who are confused about Obama’s behaviors is he’s trying to destroy this country as fast as he can before the public wakes up completely to what he is! Do you get it now?
Obama wants to take this country down…utterly and absolutely. And with no one stopping him, he WILL complete his masters’ mission. There is simply no other logical—or otherwise—explanation.
It has become increasingly evident that Mr. Obama must go. So, where are the elected leaders on the other side of the political aisle? Are they also frightened and submissive to Obama? If so, they are no longer doing our will. What good are they to us? At this juncture, Obama is a gnat’s eyelash away from destroying us all.
So, folks, what do you want to do?
________________________________
From a Canadian, no less!
Radicals Wrote Failed Stimulus
Radicals Wrote Failed Stimulus
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009 4:30 PM PT
Policymaking: If the stimulus isn't working, perhaps it's because it was largely written by a collection of leftist interest groups called the Apollo Alliance that counts among its directors a co-founder of the Weather Underground.
The Labor Department reported Friday that 42 states lost more jobs than they gained in August, and that 14 plus Washington, D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10% or more.
Michigan's rate rose to 15.2%, highest in the nation. Nevada, represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is second with 13.2%. California, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is tied for fourth with Oregon at 12.2%.
Clearly, the stimulus bill that no congressman read is not working. As it turns out, no congressman may have written it either. It's largely the creation of a coalition of leftist organizations called the Apollo Alliance, whose primary interests are saving the Earth, environmental justice and redistributing wealth. They are not friends of job-creating capitalism.
On Apollo's Web site, Sen. Reid, whose state also leads in foreclosures, is quoted praising the group of which former green czar Van Jones was a board member.
"We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades," Reid is quoted as saying. "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."
Jones, the former Oakland, Calif., community organizer and self-avowed communist, was on the board of the Apollo Alliance when he accepted the position in the Obama administration as green jobs czar.
As Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity told Glenn Beck, Jones has "described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes" that would tie elements of organized labor with community organizers and environmental groups into an outfit that would restructure American society.
Wade Rathke, founder of Acorn, was also on the Apollo board, as is Gerald Hudson, vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which provides the shock troops in the movement to pass government-run health care.
John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and now president of the leftist Center for American Progress, also sits on the Apollo board. Each day his group sends out talking points to the left side of the blogosphere. Mark Lloyd, diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission, was a senior fellow at CAP.
According to Kerpen, the Apollo Alliance put together a draft stimulus bill in 2008 that included almost everything in the final $787 billion package. Little did the voters know that the congressmen and senators they would elect would pass a bill written by activist outsiders.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all this is that an even more radical Jones (no relation) has a relationship with the Apollo Alliance. Jeff Jones was a domestic terrorist in the '60s and a fugitive from justice throughout the '70s who, with Bill Ayers, helped found the Weather Underground in 1969.
Ayers, Jones and the Weathermen participated in the violent Days of Rage riots in Chicago and a nationwide anti-government bombing campaign. Like Ayers, Jeff Jones has no regrets, saying: "To this day, we still, lots of us, including me, still think it was the right thing to do."
Today, Jones finds himself director of the Apollo Alliance's New York affiliate and a consultant to the national group. One of his clients is the Workforce Development Institute, a union-controlled organization.
As a consultant to WDI, Jones helps write the grant proposals for federal stimulus dollars — funds authorized in the bill that Apollo helped write — all to ensure that taxpayer dollars end up in the hands of groups that share Apollo's political agenda.
Welcome to government of the activist, by the activist and for the activist.
___________________
GOD help us all!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009 4:30 PM PT
Policymaking: If the stimulus isn't working, perhaps it's because it was largely written by a collection of leftist interest groups called the Apollo Alliance that counts among its directors a co-founder of the Weather Underground.
The Labor Department reported Friday that 42 states lost more jobs than they gained in August, and that 14 plus Washington, D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10% or more.
Michigan's rate rose to 15.2%, highest in the nation. Nevada, represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is second with 13.2%. California, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is tied for fourth with Oregon at 12.2%.
Clearly, the stimulus bill that no congressman read is not working. As it turns out, no congressman may have written it either. It's largely the creation of a coalition of leftist organizations called the Apollo Alliance, whose primary interests are saving the Earth, environmental justice and redistributing wealth. They are not friends of job-creating capitalism.
On Apollo's Web site, Sen. Reid, whose state also leads in foreclosures, is quoted praising the group of which former green czar Van Jones was a board member.
"We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades," Reid is quoted as saying. "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."
Jones, the former Oakland, Calif., community organizer and self-avowed communist, was on the board of the Apollo Alliance when he accepted the position in the Obama administration as green jobs czar.
As Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity told Glenn Beck, Jones has "described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes" that would tie elements of organized labor with community organizers and environmental groups into an outfit that would restructure American society.
Wade Rathke, founder of Acorn, was also on the Apollo board, as is Gerald Hudson, vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which provides the shock troops in the movement to pass government-run health care.
John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and now president of the leftist Center for American Progress, also sits on the Apollo board. Each day his group sends out talking points to the left side of the blogosphere. Mark Lloyd, diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission, was a senior fellow at CAP.
According to Kerpen, the Apollo Alliance put together a draft stimulus bill in 2008 that included almost everything in the final $787 billion package. Little did the voters know that the congressmen and senators they would elect would pass a bill written by activist outsiders.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all this is that an even more radical Jones (no relation) has a relationship with the Apollo Alliance. Jeff Jones was a domestic terrorist in the '60s and a fugitive from justice throughout the '70s who, with Bill Ayers, helped found the Weather Underground in 1969.
Ayers, Jones and the Weathermen participated in the violent Days of Rage riots in Chicago and a nationwide anti-government bombing campaign. Like Ayers, Jeff Jones has no regrets, saying: "To this day, we still, lots of us, including me, still think it was the right thing to do."
Today, Jones finds himself director of the Apollo Alliance's New York affiliate and a consultant to the national group. One of his clients is the Workforce Development Institute, a union-controlled organization.
As a consultant to WDI, Jones helps write the grant proposals for federal stimulus dollars — funds authorized in the bill that Apollo helped write — all to ensure that taxpayer dollars end up in the hands of groups that share Apollo's political agenda.
Welcome to government of the activist, by the activist and for the activist.
___________________
GOD help us all!
Friday, September 18, 2009
W.H. Collects Web Users' Data Without Notice
From Atlas Shrugs...
EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users' data without notice
Social-media messages go into archives
By Audry Hudson
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users' data without notice
Social-media messages go into archives
By Audry Hudson
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."
An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama "will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."
In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, "The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world."
The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a "chilling effect" on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.
Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.
"If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won't they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?" Mr. Boehm asked. "I don't think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved."
But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal "a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act."
"Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president's leadership on this issue," Ms. McDermott said.
Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.
"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.
According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.
David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush's Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.
The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.
The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.
The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.
________________________________________________
Did you know...
BIG Brother Is Watching YOU!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
