Archive for June, 2009

Barack Banana Bolshevism Doctrine–Marxists Forever–Republicans–Not Legal–Obey Obama Or The Stink Eye!

Posted on June 30, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Foreign Policy, Law, Life, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Authoritarian Regimes, Barack Obama, drug cartel, Manuel Selaya, Paul Johnson, President Obama, Progressive Radical Socialists, rule of law |

bananas

The most important political development of the second millennium was the firm establishment, first in one or two countries, then in many, of the rule of law. Its acceptance and enforcement in any society is far more vital to the happiness of the majority than is even democracy itself. For democracy, without the rule of law to uphold the wishes of the electorate, is worthless, as the history of the past half-century has shown again and again in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The Soviet Union had, in theory, a wonderfully democratic constitution, But it lacked the rule of law entirely, and as a result Stalin was able to murder 30 million of its citizens and die safely in his bed, unarraigned and unpunished.

“What do we mean by the rule of law? We mean a judicial regime in which everyone is equal before the law, and everyone–and every institution–is subject to it.”

~Paul Johnson, Laying Down the Law, The Wall St. Journal, March 10, 1999,

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000285

Banana Boat Song–Now Obama’s Signature Song

Honduras president seeks constitutional change

Obama on Honduras

Honduras – The Truth not being told in CNN!!!

Honduras ex-President Manuel Zelaya Allegedly Tied to Drug Trafficking

Krauthammer et al. on the Honduras coup

Barack Obama Blasted on Honduras Developments: “Shame on You”

The Honduran constitution has a provision that presidents of their country can serve for only one four year term.

“…Section V, Chapter 6 of the Constitution of Honduras of 1982 establishes the President as the executive branch of government and sets forth the powers and qualifications for the office. Qualifications are extremely stringent, designed to prevent a dictatorship by political, military, or business figures. To be eligible to run for president, the candidate is required to:

Be a natural-born Honduran.
Be older than 30 years old at the time of election.
Be able to enjoy the full rights of Honduran citizenship.
Not be an official of any church or religious denomination.

Not be in active military service during the six months prior to the election.

Not be a Presidential appointee, secretary or under-secretary of state, judge, member of the electoral court, attorney general or deputy attorney, Comptroller General or Deputy Comptroller General, or an executive of a privately held institution for at least six months prior to the election.
Not be an officer of the armed forces or law enforcement, or an active soldier therein for at least 12 months prior to the election.
The spouse or relative of the President or any military leader.
Not have been president already.

The President of Honduras serves one four-year term and is not eligible for re-election. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Honduras

The Honduran people do not want a repeat of either their own past history nor for that matter the successful attempts by Latin American and South American leaders to be elected for life.

When President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum or election to see if the people wanted to change the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Honduras acted by removing him from office and expelled him to Costa Rica.

When a clear choice between another lifetime potential dictator and the rule of law presents itself, who does President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton side with–the dictator of course and not the rule of law.

Our Green President also sided with noted Red Communists and Socialist dictators including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and Cuban Fidel Castro.

The Obama Banana Boshevism Doctrine–Marxist–Forever–Republican–Not Legal!

Michael Savage – Obama, Hillary Support Honduras Dictator – Side with Chavez and Castro

CNN Interviews Honduras President Zelaya After Military Coup

The stink eye

Obama Poster

Harry Belafonte & Nat King Cole

Background Articles and Videos

2009 Honduran political crisis

“… The ongoing 2009 Honduran political crisis resulted from a non-binding referendum on changing the constitution proposed by President Manuel Zelaya but ruled illegal by the country’s Supreme Court, attorney general, top electoral body, and human-rights ombudsman.[1] Zelaya nonetheless asked the Army to distribute ballots in accordance with its role in conducting elections. After Army chief Romeo Vásquez Velásquez refused to distribute ballots, Zelaya dismissed him from office. The dismissal was declared illegal by courts and the parliament. On June 28, 2009, shortly before polls were due to open for the referendum, the armed forces deposed Zelaya.[2] Most news media and government sources outside Honduras refer to this change in power as a coup d’etat.[3] Some members of the Honduran government maintain that ousting President Zelaya was entirely legal. The broadcast of at least some news media is currently suppressed in Honduras, with members of the Honduran military reportedly shutting down at least one radio station and halting TV transmission of teleSUR and CNN en Español.[3]

The armed forces of Honduras seized President Manuel Zelaya at his home,[4] holding him at an airbase outside Tegucigalpa[2] before flying him to Costa Rica.[5] During the action, communications and electricity in the city were interrupted for about six hours. Government officials and other politicians suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been detained. Later in the day the Honduran Supreme Court said that it had ordered the removal of the president.[2]

Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament and next in the Presidential line of succession was sworn in as President by the National Congress.[6]

The Honduran government says that Zelaya was arrested in compliance with the constitution and that the succession has been a completely legal process as set out in Honduran laws,[7] but no foreign governments have endorsed this view and many of them have described the events as a coup d’état.[8] The General Assembly of the Organization of American States is scheduled to meet in a special session on Tuesday 30 June to discuss the situation.[9] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_coup

Manuel Zelaya

“…José Manuel “Mel” Zelaya Rosales (born September 20, 1952) is a Honduran politician who was elected President of Honduras in 2006. Zelaya’s attempt to hold a constitutional referendum caused a political crisis and his ousting.^[2] He was deposed by the Army on June 28, 2009, but is seen as the legitimate president by the international community.^[3]^[4]^[5]

He defeated National Party candidate Porfirio Pepe Lobo in a national election on November 27, 2005 and was inaugurated on January 27, 2006, replacing Ricardo Maduro and becoming the fifth President from the Liberal Party.

“…General opinions about his presidency were very divided by political, ideological, party and class lines. The traditional left praised him for his economic policies and social reforms which on occasion have put him at odds with the economic powers which traditionally have ruled in Honduras. The more conservative part of the population expressed their opposition to both his foreign policy, particularly his alliance with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and his adhering Honduras to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas as well as for his periodic attacks on the United States, and periodic confrontations with the business sector.

The Economist gave Zelaya mixed reviews for his first year in office, saying that “Despite success in fulfilling some of his campaign promises [...] Zelaya’s lack of a coherent programme has limited the government’s ability to address Honduras’s long-standing problems,” and that “introducing far-reaching reforms will be difficult” in the face of vigorous opposition and “simmering social tensions.”^[6] In 2008, Zelaya’s popular approval dropped amid the 2007–2008 world food price crisis and worsening drug-related violence that gave Honduras one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America. ^[7]…”

“…In 2009 Zelaya caused uproar with his call to have a referendum in June to decide about convening a Constitutional National Assembly to approve a new political constitution.^[11] The constitution explicitly bars changes to some of its clauses.

The question to be asked was: “¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente que apruebe una nueva Constitución política?” This is roughly translated as “Do you agree to the installation of a fourth ballot [box] during the November 2009 general election to decide whether to convene a National Constitutional Assembly to approve a new political constitution?”^[12]

The referendum was ruled unlawful by Honduras’s highest court.^[13] Zelaya rejected the ruling and sacked Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the head of Honduras’s armed forces. Velásquez had refused to help with the referendum because he did not want to violate law. The sacking was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court as well as by the Congress.^[13]^[14]

In addition to the Supreme Court, Zelaya’s referendum was declared illegal by the Congress, the country’s attorney general, and the country’s top electoral body.^[15]^[16] The Congress began discussing how to impeach Zelaya.^[17] On June 27, 2009, thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya’s rule marched through the capital city.^[17]

The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the military have recommended that voters stay home because the referendum would be neither fair nor safe to voters. The National Human Rights Commissioner, Ramon Custodio, said “I would tell the people to stay calmly at home in order not to get involved in any incident or any violence by going to vote ‘no,’ because they might be assaulted by these mobs,” referring to Zelaya’s supporters. However, unions and farm groups supported the referendum as a necessary precursor to economic reforms favoring Honduras’s poor majority.^[7] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya

Banana Democrats

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 29, 2009

“…That’s the sorry story as Honduras’ now ex-president, Mel Zelaya, last Thursday defied a Supreme Court ruling and tried to hold a “survey” to rewrite the constitution for his permanent re-election. It’s the same blueprint for a rigged political system that’s made former democracies like Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador into shells of free countries.

Zelaya’s operatives did their dirt all the way through. First they got signatures to launch the “citizen’s power” survey through threats — warning those who didn’t sign that they’d be denied medical care and worse. Zelaya then had the ballots flown to Tegucigalpa on Venezuelan planes. After his move was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, he tried to do it anyway.

As a result of his brazen disregard for the law, Zelaya found himself escorted from office by the military Sunday morning, and into exile. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro rushed to blame the U.S., calling it a “yanqui coup.”

President Obama on Monday called the action “not legal,” and claimed that Zelaya is still the legitimate president.

There was a coup all right, but it wasn’t committed by the U.S. or the Honduran court. It was committed by Zelaya himself. He brazenly defied the law, and Hondurans overwhelmingly supported his removal (a pro-Zelaya rally Monday drew a mere 200 acolytes).

Yet the U.S. administration stood with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya’s lawful removal “a coup.” Obama called the action a “terrible precedent,” and said Zelaya remains president. …”

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=331168876783926

Meddling, Are We?

Peter Wehner

“…In the first instance, Obama was clearly trying to pacify the theocratic leadership of the repressive, terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. In the case of Honduras, Obama is “meddling” in order to protect the legitimacy of an authoritarian president who is acting as if he were above the law, is violating Honduras’s Constitution, and is supported by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro (see this Wall Street Journal column for more).

As a general matter, I’m not in favor of military coups. On the other hand, I’m not in favor of Zelaya doing to Honduras what Chavez has done in Venezuela. In any event, there doesn’t seem to be any consistency on when Obama decides to meddle, beyond his tendency to take actions that make life easier for those who do not wish America well.

This is all getting rather confusing, isn’t it?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/71822

Authoritarianism

“…Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by nonelected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom. ^[1]

Theodore M. Vestal of Oklahoma State University–Stillwater has written that authoritarianism is characterized by:

“Highly concentrated and centralized power structures,” in which political power is generated and maintained by a “repressive system that excludes potential challengers” and uses political parties and mass organizations to “mobilize people around the goals of the government”;^[2]
The following principles:

1) rule of men, not rule of law;

2) rigged elections;

3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;

4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;

5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power;^[2]

Leadership that is “self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens’ free choice among competitors”
No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;^[2]
Weakening of civil society: “No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organisms, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers,” with instead an “attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society”;^[2] and
Political stability maintained by “control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society; 2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime; 3) control of internal opposition and dissent; 4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization.”

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through “inadequate performance to demands of the people.”^[2] Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to “adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system.”^[2] Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.^[2]

Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.^[2] The transition from an authoritarian system to a democratic one is referred to as democratization.^[2]

John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both are in opposition to individualism.^[3] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.^[4] Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, is based on consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup

Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras’ national palace Monday, leaving at least 15 people injured, as world leaders from Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup.

Leftist leaders pulled their ambassadors from Honduras and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala would cut trade with neighboring Honduras for at least 48 hours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally, Manuel Zelaya.

“We’re ready to support the rebellion of the Honduran people,” Chavez said, though he did not say what kind of support he was offering.

Protests outside the presidential palace grew from hundreds to thousands, and soldiers and police advanced behind riot shields, using tear gas to scatter the protesters. The demonstrators, many of them choking on the gas, hurled rocks and bottles as they retreated. At least 38 protesters were detained, according to human rights prosecutor Sandra Ponce.

Red Cross paramedic Cristian Vallejo said he had transported 10 protesters to hospitals, most of them with injuries from rubber bullets. An Associated Press photographer in another area saw protesters carrying away another five injured people. It was not clear how they were hurt.

Obama: Sure, I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

Dallas Tea Party, Honduras, Government Worker Raises

Background Articles and Videos

Gestapo

The Gestapo (help·info) (contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei: “Secret State Police”) was the official secret police of Nazi Germany. Under the overall administration of the Schutzstaffel (SS), it was administered by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) (“Reich Main Security Office”) and was considered a sister organization of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) (“security service”) and also a suboffice of the Sicherheitspolizei (SIPO) (“security police”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

Join The Second American Revolution

Tea Party Patriots Invite Janeane Garofalo for America’s Tea Party on July 4, 2009!

Stop The Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Stop The Spending and Deficits

US Federal Government Deficits

federal_spending

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Daniel J. Mitchell – USA: Drowning In Debt?

You are invited to attend a Tea Party on July 4, 2009, Independence Day!

Happy_July_4

Join the Second American Revolution

The Meaning of Independence Day

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Independents Lead The The Second American Revolution Surge–Independence Day–Saturday July 4, 2009 In Washington D.C.–Tea Party Time–On To Washington–Dare You To Move!

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

“Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.”

Let Freedom Ring

Thomas Paine on to Washington

switchfoot-dare you to move(live)

God Bless the USA – Lee Greenwood

tea_parties

Background Articles and Videos

The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill

by Ben Lieberman

“….But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they’ll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.

Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it. …”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm

Tea Party Watch: Protesting the cap-and-tax cramdown

captax

By Michelle Malkin

Photoshop: Leo Alberti

“… It’s not just what’s in the bill. It’s the way they rammed it through the House.

Just like the porkulus: Under-handed, transparency-defying, and stuffed with earmark payoffs and bribes concocted in middle-of-the night, backroom deals.

Taxpayers are mad again. And they’re not going to sit still.

Impromptu flash protests are taking place today at state capitols and federal buildings across the country.

In Chicago:

If you are anywhere near Chicago’s Federal Plaza this afternoon, where the Tax Day Tea Party took place, then be there at 1:00pm for a cap-and-trade protest. Federal Plaza is at 230 S. Dearborn.

In Orlando. And in Canton, Ohio.

In Upland, Calif.: noon at the corner of Foothill/Euclid.

In Atlanta via Barracuda Babes:

Saturday, June 27, 200912:00 noon
State Capitol

Bring signs in Opposition to Cap and Tax
Ideas include: Cap and Tax, Cap and Traitors, Cap and tr8tors, No Taxation without Reading the Bill, Tea Party Patriots Vote

If you are not in metro Atlanta, protest at the Federal Building in your county.

Arizona protest info at Arizona Tea Party.

San Diego: Noon, 880 Front St # 4236

Temecula, CA: Noon, Ynez & Rancho California Road @ Duck Pond (This is Cap-and-Trade 8 member Mary Bono Mack’s district.)

More at Tea Party Patriots. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/27/tea-party-watch-protesting-the-cap-and-tax-cramdown/

Gestapo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 1

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 2

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 3

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 4

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 5

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 6

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 7

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 8

OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA

ACORN Convention – Maxine Waters Speaks About Obama

Obama, Acorn, And Election Fraud

Background Articles And Videos

Joe Cocker Web Site

Pam Cocker: Cocker Kids, Life with Joe Cocker

“Delta Lady” – Joe Cocker, Mad Dogs and Englishmen tour

Joe Cocker – Hard Knocks (EPK)(Official Video)

Joe Cocker Interview (Tavis Smiley) HD

Joe Cocker – Civilized Man + Interview (LIVE) HD

Joe Cocker – Interview + Feels Like Forever – Aspel 1992

Joe Cocker – Heart & Soul Album Interview

Joe Cocker Interview (Rock for Nature)

Interview vérité : Joe Cocker

Joe Cocker, coming to Colorado

Joe Cocker

“…John Robert “Joe” Cocker OBE (born 20 May, 1944) is an English rock/blues singer who came to popularity in the 1960s, and is most known for his gritty voice and his cover versions of popular songs, particularly those of The Beatles. He is the recipient of several awards, including a 1983 Grammy Award for his song “Up Where We Belong”, a duet which he performed with Jennifer Warnes. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Cocker

Background Articles and Videos

Ray Charles on Johnny Carson (Pt. 2) – Interview

Ray Charles Interview On David Letterman 5/9/94

The Ed Bernstein Show – Interview with Ray Charles Part 1

The Ed Bernstein Show – Interview with Ray Charles Part 2

Background Articles and Videos

Lionel Richie

“…Lionel Brockman Richie, Jr. (born June 20, 1949) is an American singer, songwriter, record producer who has sold more than 100 million records. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Richie

Lionel Richie

http://www.lionelrichie.com/

Lionel Richie interview – Parkinson – BBC

Lionel Richie Remembers “We Are The World” on Retro Rewind

Background Articles and Videos

Michael Jackson

“…Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, entertainer and businessman. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he made his début to the professional music scene at the age of 11 as a member of The Jackson 5 in 1969, and began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group. Referred to as the “King of Pop”^[2] in subsequent years, his 1982 album Thriller is the world’s best-selling record of all time^[3] and four other solo studio albums are also among the world’s best-selling records: Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995).

In the early 1980s, he became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV. The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV, such as “Beat It”, “Billie Jean” and Thriller — widely credited with transforming the music video from a promotional tool into an art form — helped bring the relatively new channel to fame. Videos such as “Black or White” and “Scream” made Jackson an enduring staple on MTV in the 1990s. With stage performances and music videos, Jackson popularized a number of physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced many hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists. While Jackson was a member of Generation Jones ^[4]^[5], his influence impacted multiple generations.

Jackson donated and raised millions of dollars for beneficial causes through his foundation, charity singles and support of 39 charities. Other aspects of his personal life, including his changing appearance and behavior, generated significant controversy, damaging his public image. Though he was accused of child sexual abuse in 1993, the criminal investigation was closed due to lack of evidence and Jackson was not charged. The singer had experienced health concerns since the early 1990s and conflicting reports regarding the state of his finances since the late 1990s. Jackson married twice and fathered three children, all of which caused further controversy. In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further sexual abuse allegations and several other charges.

One of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, his other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records — including one for “Most Successful Entertainer of All Time”—13 Grammy Awards, 13 number one singles in his solo career — more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era and the sale of 750 million records worldwide.^[6] Jackson’s highly publicized personal life, coupled with his successful career, made him a part of popular culture for almost four decades. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, aged 50.^[7] The specific cause of death is yet to be determined.^[2] Before his death, Jackson had announced a 50 date sell-out This Is It comeback tour, in London, England.^[8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson

Michael Jackson

http://www.michaeljackson.com/

Michael Jackson Fan Club

http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php

Merv Griffin interview with the Jacksons

Michael Jackson – Black Or White

Push Me Away and interview – 1979

Prime Time 1995-part1

Prime Time 1995-part2

Prime Time 1995-part3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5AsVoLKtyM

Prime Time 1995-part4

Prime Time 1995-part5

liza presley talks about michael jackson

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 1

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 2

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 3

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 4

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 5

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 6

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 7

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 8

Living with Michael Jackson, Take Two part 9

Michael Jackson and Vitiligo

Michael Jackson’s Vitiligo

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 1

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 2

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 3

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 4

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 5

Michael Jackson – Making of we are the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IweJ0g39I

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 7

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 8

michael jackson–making of we are the world parte 9

Michael Jackson: We Are The World USA Africa

michael jackson thriller 25 video

Background Articles and Videos

Tea Party Watch: Protesting the cap-and-tax cramdown

By Michelle Malkin

captax
Photoshop: Leo Alberti

“…It’s not just what’s in the bill. It’s the way they rammed it through the House.

Just like the porkulus: Under-handed, transparency-defying, and stuffed with earmark payoffs and bribes concocted in middle-of-the night, backroom deals.

Taxpayers are mad again. And they’re not going to sit still.

Impromptu flash protests are taking place today at state capitols and federal buildings across the country.

In Chicago:

If you are anywhere near Chicago’s Federal Plaza this afternoon, where the Tax Day Tea Party took place, then be there at 1:00pm for a cap-and-trade protest. Federal Plaza is at 230 S. Dearborn.

In Orlando. And in Canton, Ohio.

In Upland, Calif.: noon at the corner of Foothill/Euclid.

In Atlanta via Barracuda Babes:

Saturday, June 27, 200912:00 noon
State Capitol

Bring signs in Opposition to Cap and Tax
Ideas include: Cap and Tax, Cap and Traitors, Cap and tr8tors, No Taxation without Reading the Bill, Tea Party Patriots Vote

If you are not in metro Atlanta, protest at the Federal Building in your county.

Arizona protest info at Arizona Tea Party.

San Diego: Noon, 880 Front St # 4236

Temecula, CA: Noon, Ynez & Rancho California Road @ Duck Pond

More at Tea Party Patriots.

Don’t forget to let the GOP Cap-and-Tax 8 hear from you. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/27/tea-party-watch-protesting-the-cap-and-tax-cramdown/

The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no

By Michelle Malkin

“…Introducing the GOP’s Cap-And-Tax 8…
Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

I listed them earlier tonight, but am breaking out a separate post to spotlight them again.

The 8 cap-and-tax Republican turncoats again are:

cap_tax_eight_republicans

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765 …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/the-8-cap-and-tax-republicans/

Melt the phones: Cap-and-tax target list

By Michelle Malkin

“…The House will vote on the cap-and-tax bill today. Make your voice heard. Phil Kerpen at AFP has compiled a very helpful list, which I’m reprinting in full here. Check AFP site for latest updates and alerts.

Ask ‘em how they can ram through this eco-boondoggle with EPA hide-and-seek games on global warming science going on unchecked:

We need your help to stop the cap-and-trade energy tax!

The time has finally come for a vote on cap-and-trade, H.R. 2454. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called a vote just before the 4th of July recess, hoping to use the specter of keeping everyone in DC and ruining their holiday, to force cap-and-trade legislation through.

This is the key target list based on our most recent information. If your Congressman is on an undecided or leaning list below PLEASE click here and enter your zip code to get your representative’s number and talking points on this issue.

If you have new information please let me know at pkerpen at afphq.org.
Republican List (Unlisted are solid no) …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/melt-the-phones-cap-and-tax-target-list/

Cap and tax liveblog: Democrats limit debate, stampede toward national energy tax

By Michelle Malkin

STAMPEDE!

“…Scroll for continuous updates…there will be 3 hours of general debate and a grand total of 1 GOP amendment…

9:36am: GOP Rep. Pete Sessions is on the House floor right now blasting Dems, who just moved to limit debate. It’s “unacceptable” and “undemocratic,” says Sessions. Proposals to protect farmers and agriculture won’t be considered. Sessions recounts meetings at 2am, being handed massive, new 300-page amendment. “No one has read this bill.”

“Why are we rushing to do this with a trillion dollar spending plan that will result in killing jobs and make it more difficult for us to come out of recession?”

9:57am: Dem. Rep Castor claims this mad-rush boondoggle will “bolster science.” (Insert bitter laughter). Channels all the previous apocalpytic rhetoric swilled before every bailout: “What if we don’t act!? We can’t afford not to act?!”

Chicken Little with a green coat.

10:02am: GOP Rep. Pence blasts “embarrassingly short” debate on behemoth bill. Says there are reports that there are new trade restriction in the bill, but who knows. No has read the bill. The way the bill is coming to the floor should be disturbing to every American. Last night at 3:00am, House Dems filed 309-page amendment and denied 224 GOP amendments. Three hours, 1 amendment filed. What’s the hurry? What are we hiding – that we can’t afford more time for Americans to examine what’s in the bill? What’s in it? Corporate welfare? Special provisions to placate members? Majority just denied us one additional minute of debate?! This is not Congress! I don’t know what this is…a travesty!

Pence also mentioned that Dems shaved another minute from the GOP’s time.

10:14am: Crikey. Sheila Jackson Lee is babbling about “getting the carbon out of the air.”

10:20am: GOP Rep. Biggert talks about the five amendments that she proposed and Dems rejected. Calls attention to national building codes.

10:22am: Dem Rep. Quigley preaches cult of global warming science. Says there are no contrary studies. Gee, I wonder why: Ask Alan Carlin!

10:24am: GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn: We are the party of KNOW. We want the people to KNOW what’s in this bill! You go, girl.

10:38am: Philip Kerpen at AFP says Dems. Ortiz and Mollohan are now no votes.

Another prominent fence-sitter: Blue Dog Dem Chair Allen Boyd.

The pay-offs: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/cap-and-tax-liveblog-democrats-limit-debate-stampede-toward-national-energy-tax/

The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill

by Ben Lieberman

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm

Obama Admits Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket

Inhofe Explains the High Cost of Cap and Trade on Fox News

Obama Admits Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket

Cap-and-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit

By Martin Feldstein

Monday, June 1, 2009

“…The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have proposed a major cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction. The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households. And to get political support in key states, the legislation would abandon the auctioning of permits in favor of giving permits to selected corporations. …”

“…The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. …”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.

“…Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag — now Mr. Obama’s budget director — told Congress last year that “Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”

Hit hardest would be the “95% of working families” Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat “unless you use energy.” Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office — Mr. Orszag’s former roost — estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels — particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It’s no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade – Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey — come from California or the Northeast.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked. …”

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

“…

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

Waxman Markey Cap and Trade’s Biggest Losers: Paper, Plastics and Rubber

“…The Waxman-Markey bill would destroy over 33,000 plastics and rubber jobs on average, which would hit a high of over 80,000 fewer jobs by 2035.

waxman-markey-paper-and-plastics

The paper industry fares a little better, but it’s still not good news. It’s like chopping off one foot as opposed to both. Heritage analysis found that with cap and trade there would be 15,000 fewer jobs on average in the paper industry, reaching 36,291 fewer jobs by 2035.

waxman-markey-paper-11

But don’t worry because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill. And Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill) Do the workers in paper, plastics and rubber like their odds? …”

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/25/waxman-markey-cap-and-trade%e2%80%99s-biggest-losers-paper-plastics-and-rubber/

The climate change e-mails EPA doesn’t want you to see

By Michelle Malkin

“…Another day, another Obama cover-up.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained internal EPA e-mails that show the agency willfully and recklessly disregarded scientific data that undermined the bureaucracy’s global warming zealotry.
This information is especially relevant as Congress rushes to pass the cap-and-trade nightmare on Friday.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman has notified the EPA and requested that the internal communications and suppressed study be released to the public and added to the public record. Will another whistleblower be disappeared? Note especially this warning to the dissenting scientist: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Read: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/the-climate-change-e-mails-epa-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

ManBearPig to the rescue: Gore lobbies for cap-and-tax; Update: Pelosi tells Gore to stay home!

By Michelle Malkin

“…Al Gore is traveling to Washington today to whip House Democrats on tomorrow’s cap-and-tax bill.

No word on the amount of bogus carbon offsets ManBearPig’s trip to the Hill will cost:

Former Vice President Al Gore will meet with House Democrats Thursday to appeal to reluctant lawmakers to approve the controversial climate change bill on Friday, FOX News has learned.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is rolling the dice with her plan to lug the bill to the House floor without the full confidence that the legislation will pass.

Senior Democratic leaders are whipping and cajoling skeptical lawmakers to side with them to approve the measure that could have significant economic impact on the energy bills of many Americans and even drive up the price of food.

Excelsior!

*** …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/25/manbearpig-to-the-rescue-gore-lobbies-for-cap-and-tax/

Cap and tax liveblog: Democrats limit debate, stampede toward national energy tax

By Michelle Malkin

Scroll for continuous updates…there will be 3 hours of general debate and a grand total of 1 GOP amendment…

“Why are we rushing to do this with a trillion dollar spending plan that will result in killing jobs and make it more difficult for us to come out of recession?”

9:41am:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/cap-and-tax-liveblog-democrats-limit-debate-stampede-toward-national-energy-tax/

Background Articles and Videos

Lucky Luciano

“…Charles “Lucky” Luciano (born Salvatore Lucania; November 24, 1897 – January 26, 1962) was a Sicilian-born American mobster. Luciano is considered the father of modern organized crime and the mastermind of the massive postwar expansion of the international heroin trade. He was the first official boss of the modern Genovese crime family.

Time magazine named Luciano among the top 20 most influential builders and titans of the 20th century.^[1]

^…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_%22Lucky%22_Luciano

Charles “Lucky” Luciano

Founder of the National Crime Syndicate

By Charles Montaldo, About.com

“…

Assassinating of Joe Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano

Lucky Luciano – Night of the Sicilian Vespers

Meyer Lansky Interview 1971

Background Articles and Videos

The ACORN Obama knows

By Michelle Malkin

obama

“…My syndicated column today spotlights the whistleblower report on ACORN, which I’ve been blogging about (here) and which deserves more attention in the media and in Washington–especially in light of the radical activist group’s embrace of Barack Obama. The Consumer Rights League e-mailed to let me know that three GOP congressmen (Hensarling, Feeney, and Royce) have called on Barney Frank (D-Housing Boondoggle) to investigate ACORN’s taxpayer abuses. Snowball’s chance, I know, but conservatives ought to be turning up the heat and using every ounce of energy they have to, well, act like conservatives and push to de-fund the Left.

For excellent background on Obama and ACORN, see Stanley Kurtz’s NR piece here, plus City Journal pieces here and here. Also here and here.

*** …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows/

Steve King

http://steveking.house.gov/

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN

“…ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues. ACORN has over 400,000 members and more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado.^[1] Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990.

ACORN’s priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, and other social justice issues.^[2] ACORN pursues these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.^[2] ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and progressive causes. It is made up of numerous legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization, and the ACORN Housing Corporation. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

Racket (crime)

“…A racket is an illegal business, usually run as part of organized crime. Engaging in a racket is called racketeering.

Several forms of racket exist. The best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of “protection” against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid (see extortion). A second well known example is the numbers racket, a form of illegal lottery.

Traditionally, the word racket to describe a business is based on the example of the “protection racket” and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed. Example: in a protection racket, a representative from the racket informs a storeowner that a fee of X dollars will be required every month for protection money, though the “protection” that is provided comes in the form of the racket itself not causing damage to the store or its employees.

The term “racketeering” was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime in the Teamsters union.^[1]

…”

“…On October 15, 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act,” became law. The RICO Act allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group of people with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a 10 year period. The purpose of the RICO Act was stated as “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1961(10) of Title 18 provides that the Attorney General may designate any department or agency to conduct investigations authorized by the RICO statute and such department or agency may use the investigative provisions of the statute or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. Absent a specific designation by the Attorney General, jurisdiction to conduct investigations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations constituting the pattern of racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.^[2]

In the U.S., civil racketeering laws are also used in federal and state courts. The National Federation of Independent Business challenged these civil laws in 2006 for being excessively abusive.^[3] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering

Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog

Author of Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families

http://chieforganizer.org/2009/06/17/global-action-on-remittances/

Document drop: The story behind the “ACORN changed its name” story

By Michelle Malkin

acorn_international

“…There is some confusion over the story about ACORN “changing its name” that needs to be cleared up and given context. Getting it right is important.

I provided a link to the piece by Kevin Mooney at the Examiner on Monday in my post focusing on Project Vote/ACORN’s lawsuit against whistleblower Anita Moncrief.

The link was a sidebar to my main story, but I should have spelled out the facts on the name change more clearly, and so should everyone who has mischaracterized the story and glossed over the real reason for the name change:

ACORN hasn’t changed its name. ACORN International has.

What’s missing in soundbite-length TV coverage of the story is the fundamental distinction between ACORN and ACORN International, and why it matters.

They are two separate entities — and there is considerable tension between them. It’s confusing because, of course, ACORN runs a vast network of affiliates across the country that facilitate its money-shuffling racket.

Here’s the deal:

ACORN International, now Community Organizations International on paper (but not on the web yet), is the breakaway baby of disgraced ACORN founder Wade Rathke — who clung to the outfit after being deposed from ACORN over his brother Dale’s embezzlement of nearly $1 million. Acorn International is not new. It’s been around since at least 2004. In addition to his world travel for the organization, Rathke blogs and mobilizes at “Chief Organizer.org,” his old title at ACORN, and still appears to be using the ACORN name on his Twitter account. His obstinate refusal to leave has caused massive heartburn on the Left — and they’ve tried hard to keep all the legal machinations hush-hush.

Inside ACORN, the new generation of power brokers has been fighting for a year to wrest control of the ACORN empire from the Rathkes. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/document-drop-the-story-behind-the-acorn-changed-its-name-story/

Hot Botton

“…ACORN name change

Plagued by accusations and convictions of voter registration fraud across the country, a global offshoot of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now is changing its name to lower the profile of its ties to the beleaguered nonprofit group.

ACORN International, led by former ACORN President Wade Rathke until 2008, is now Community Organizations International.

“ACORN International is a totally separate corporation from ACORN,” Mr. Rathke told Hot Button in an e-mail sent from Sicily, where he was conducting training activities. “We are changing our name, especially in the USA, not to be confused with ACORN.”

Matthew Vadum, a senior editor at the Capital Research Center who has written extensively about ACORN’s various allied groups, says Mr. Rathke is trying to escape any blame for ACORN’s missteps.

“The brand is tarnished and he doesn’t want to be associated with ACORN because of all the problems that he is, ironically, largely responsibly for,” Mr. Vadum said. “He just wants to keep up his community organizing without being burdened by the bad public relations.” …”

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/23/hot-button-43839462/?feat=home_showcase

ACORN denies name change but former board members remain convinced of re-branding

By: Kevin Mooney

“…Former national board members with the National Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) remain convinced the current leadership is working to reconfigure and rebrand itself despite an official denial.

Wade Rathke, who founded the organization, announced on his blog that ACORN International, one of many affiliate organizations, had officially changed its name to “Community Organizations International.” This move should be viewed a prelude to a larger reorganization effort designed to deflect attention away from on-going investigations, according to whistleblowers who have formed their own organization called ACORN 8.

Scott Levenson, a spokesman for organization’s national leadership, has issued statement claiming that the name has not been dropped and that Rathke is no longer connected with ACORN. It is as follows:

“ACORN is not changing its name. ACORN International, is a five-year old organization from which ACORN withdrew a year ago as part of an overall restructuring process and requested that they stop using the ACORN name, which they have now done. Wade Rathke was fired as Chief Organizer of ACORN in June 2008.” …”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ACORN-denies-name-change-but-former-board-members-remain-convinced-of-re-branding-49034011.html

ACORN Web Site

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=17851

“…Who is ACORN?

ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.

Community organizing: Each of the 1,200 local ACORN neighborhood chapters in 110 cities and 40 states brings neighbors together to work for stronger, safer and more just communities.

Issue campaigns: Each ACORN office carries out multiple issue campaigns. ACORN members across the country work to raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools; rebuild New Orleans; and pass a federal and state ACORN Working Families Agenda, including paid sick leave for all full time workers.

A recent study shows that our issue campaign victories have delivered approximately $15 billion in direct monetary benefits to our membership and constituency over the past 10 years. ..”

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342

ACORN International Is Now Community Organizations International, Will ACORN Follow Suit?

“…Wade Rathke is at it again on his Chief Organizer site, this time he told us that ACORN International is now known as Community Organizations International. He bragged about all the ACORN thuggery going on in other countries. Here is a small sampling of their (ACORN) thuggery: …”

http://msplaceddemocrat.com/http:/msplaceddemocrat.com/acorn-international-is-now-community-organizations-international-will-acorn-follow-suit/

10.9.2008: Garrett on CNN, appears on Lou Dobbs regarding ACORN

Background Articles and Videos

1 Of 5 What To Expect With OBAMA’S Proposed “HEALTH CARE REFORM” / March 12, 2009

2 Of 5 What To Expect With OBAMA’S Proposed “HEALTH CARE REFORM” / March 12, 2009

3 Of 5 What To Expect With OBAMA’S Proposed “HEALTH CARE REFORM” / March 12, 2009

4 Of 5 What To Expect With OBAMA’S Proposed “HEALTH CARE REFORM” / March 12, 2009

5 Of 5 What To Expect With OBAMA’S Proposed “HEALTH CARE REFORM” / March 12, 2009

Single-Payer National Health Insurance

“…Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. …”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

4 reasons why Obama’s health plan is no bargain

Analysis: While a goal of reform is to cut costs, the emerging package may do just the opposite.

By Shawn Tully, senior editor at large

“…The plans contain four proposals that will substantially weaken the ability of the market, already limited by burdensome regulation, to restrain medical spending.

First, they will impose rich, standard packages of benefits, with low deductibles, for all Americans. Those policies, typically containing everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits, are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money.

Second, the plans would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today’s 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.

Third, Obama would ban consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today’s fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.

Fourth, both plans propose what’s known as a “public option,” or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous three proposals would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business. …”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/11/news/economy/obama_health_plan_no_bargain.fortune/

Obama’s Health Care Reform: What Will It Do to Seniors?

by heritage.org

Fact Sheet #31

Seniors Pay for It

Cuts Medicare to Pay for New Public Plan: Some of the projected savings for financing Obama’s health agenda, including the creation of a new public plan, would come by squeezing savings out of Medicare. At a time when Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare.
Undercuts Private Plan Options in Medicare: Another key element of Obama’s Medicare agenda is to chip away at current government payments to highly popular Medicare Advantage plans. The program is popular among seniors, especially those on a fixed income, because it offers an integrated benefit package that gives better benefits and better value.
Price Controls on Prescription Drugs: Under the guise of “negotiated prices,” the Obama agenda also includes the imposition of a price-control regime on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The government doesn’t “negotiate” prices; it fixes them. Ironically, this part of the Medicare program is the only one that has shown budget savings over the past two years.

Seniors Lose Choice and Access

Jeopardizes Access to Doctors: Medicare savings would largely result from a ratcheting down of existing payment formulas and lowering reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Cutting reimbursements often encourages medical professionals to increase their volume of services, resulting in higher program costs, undermining the objectives of the original cuts. Cuts in reimbursement also discourage doctors from seeing new Medicare patients.
Millions of Seniors Could Lose Their Coverage: Today, one in five seniors is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage private plan, including 40% of black seniors and over 50% of Hispanic seniors. In spite of their growing popularity, key congressional leaders oppose these private health plans and want to cut them.
Limits Access and Choice to Prescription Drugs: Many supporters of government direct purchasing of prescription drugs highlight Veterans Affairs (VA) as a model. As a matter of fact, one-third of veterans who had been in the VA system actually paid to join Medicare Part D to get better access to needed prescription drugs. …”

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0031.cfm

Obama’s Health Care Agenda: How it Will Hurt American Families

by heritage.org

Fact Sheet #33

“…What It Will Do

It Undermines Parental Authority: Instead of empowering parents, President Obama’s health care plan will chip away at the fundamental rights parents have in key health care decisions for their family by centralizing crucial health care decision-making over plans and benefits in Washington.
It Puts Federal Bureaucrats in Control of Health Care Decisions: The President’s health agenda would result in a major transfer of regulatory authority over health insurance and the kinds of benefits and medical treatments that families get in their health coverage. This could also compromise the rights of families to secure the kind of health coverage that is compatible with their ethical, moral, or religious convictions.
It Shackles Families with Unknown Costs: President Obama promised American families that under his health plan the average family would save $2,500. But independent analysis shows that less than 11 percent of American families would actually see that level of savings with the reforms proposed by the Administration. …”

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0033.cfm

The Obama Health Care Plan: A Closer Look at Cost and Coverage

by Greg D’Angelo and Paul L. Winfree

WebMemo #2114

“…Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has put forth an ambitious health care plan.[1] The plan proposes:

Expanding eligibility for existing public programs, including both Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);
Creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to serve as a federal regulator of private insurance plans that would compete alongside a new National Health Plan;
Providing income-related subsidies for those without employer-sponsored health insurance while mandating that children have coverage; and
Requiring that medium and large employers provide coverage or pay a tax, while extending tax credits to small businesses and creating a government reinsurance program to cover businesses’ catastrophic health costs.

Differing Estimates

Analyzing proposals based on campaign documents and media accounts is inherently difficult, as these materials lack the level of detail necessary for a rigorous econometric analysis. Nonetheless, several organizations have done so, using a variety of assumptions and methodologies.[2] Most notable are the Lewin Group,[3] Health Systems Innovations Network,[4] and the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.[5]

The best independent research shows that the Obama plan would cover roughly half of the 45 million uninsured through an expansion of public coverage; rely on soft methods of cost-savings; and require significant increases in federal expenditures.

Coverage. According to the Lewin Group, the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.6 million in 2010 if fully implemented in that year. The plan would also bring about significant shifts in sources of coverage. While 21.6 million people would lose their private health insurance, 48.3 million people are projected to obtain public coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP, or the new National Plan. Private employer-sponsored coverage would decline by 13.9 million, and private non-group coverage would decline by 7.7 million. Meanwhile, 18.6 million employees would buy into the new public plan through their workplace (as their employers switched to this plan from private coverage), 13.1 million individuals would buy into the public plan in the non-group market, and 16.6 million individuals would become newly enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Therefore, the expansion of coverage under the Obama plan would be driven by enrollment in public coverage. This would entail a crowd-out of existing private non-group and private employer-sponsored insurance.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2114.cfm

How to Talk to Washingtonians About Health Reform

A presentation by Herndon AllianceDecember 5, 2007

http://www.herndonalliance.org/pdf/states/WashingtonPresentation12-07.pdf

Why Americans Don’t Want Single-Payer

“…But we progressives are not the ones who need to be convinced. In any great national political debate, there are partisans on our side and partisans against us. To achieve victory, we have to persuade people in the middle—and they don’t know what we know about health care.

Consider three central facts:

Nearly all persuadable voters—those who don’t automatically side with or against us—have health insurance. (In fact, about 94 percent of voters are insured. The uninsured, unfortunately, don’t tend to vote.)
About 3/4ths of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance.
When Americans hear about a health care proposal, they immediately think “how is it going to affect me and my family.” That’s their overarching, overwhelming concern.

That means when average American voters consider a new health care policy, their paramount concern is that the policy allows them to keep the health insurance they have. Union members—who usually can be counted on to support progressive policy—are among the most adamant that they be permitted to keep their health insurance. Why? Because unions tend to negotiate better insurance for their members than the rest of us have! …”

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140513/why_americans_don’t_want_single-payer/

Single-Payer Health Care

“…Single-payer health care is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool. It is often mentioned as one way to deliver universal health care. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. Australia’s Medicare, Canada’s Medicare, and healthcare in Taiwan are examples of single-payer universal health care systems.

According to the National Library of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus, a single-payer system is:

An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying health care providers. The scope may be national, like the Canadian system, state-wide, or community-based. The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs.^[1]

Single-payer health care does not necessarily mean that the government or some government agency delivers or controls health care services. It may pay for health professionals and services that are delivered in either private or public sector settings according to the needs and wishes of the patient and his or her doctor.

Single-payer is one alternative proposed for health care reform in the United States, and as such, has been the subject of active political debate for decades. A national health insurance system, though not necessarily a single payer system, is the reform proposal that has the greatest level of support amongst medical professionals^[2] and the general public,^[3] though some in Congress and the health insurance industry have tried to deflect calls for such reform by insisting that the U.S. should adopt a “uniquely American solution”^[4] that would protect the profits of private insurers, thus ruling out a single-payer system. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_payer

Fact Sheet: America’s Uninsured
The media repeat claims of 40 million to 50 million uninsured Americans, but facts from the Census Bureau and research organizations discredit it.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
6/23/2009

“…The media claim that there are 40 million to 50 million uninsured Americans and use that statistic to bolster calls for universal government-run insurance coverage. The inaccuracy has been repeated by print and broadcast journalists for years, but the true extent of the uninsured “crisis” is much smaller than those reports let on.

Myth: There are between 40 million and 50 million uninsured Americans. President Obama referred to “46 million uninsured Americans” in May 2009.

Fact: Anyone who reports that there are more than 46 million uninsured is exaggerating since the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45,657,000 people.

Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong. …”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007

“…For reporting purposes, the

Census Bureau broadly classifies health insurance coverage as private

coverage or government coverage. Private health insurance is a plan provided

through an employer or a union or purchased by an individual from

a private company. Government health insurance includes the federal programs

Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care; the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and individual state health plans.*

People were considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of

health insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were

considered “uninsured” if they were not covered by any type of health

insurance at any time in that year. …”

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

“…Health Insurance Coverage: 2007

Highlights:

Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007. The percentage without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006, and the number of uninsured was 45.7 million, down from 47.0 million. ¹
The number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million in 2007 (up from 249.8 million in 2006). The number of people covered by private health insurance (202.0 million) in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 83.0 million, up from 80.3 million in 2006.
The percentage of people covered by private health insurance was 67.5 percent, down from 67.9 percent in 2006. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 59.3 in 2007 from 59.7 percent in 2006. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006.
The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs increased to 27.8 percent in 2007, from 27.0 percent in 2006. The percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid increased to 13.2 percent and 39.6 million in 2007, up from 12.9 percent and 38.3 million in 2006.
In 2007, the percentage and number of children under 18 years old without health insurance were 11.0 percent and 8.1 million, lower than they were in 2006—11.7 percent and 8.7 million. Although the uninsured rate for children in poverty decreased to 17.6 percent in 2007, from 19.3 percent in 2006, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children.²
The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites decreased in 2007 to 10.4 percent and 20.5 million (from 10.8 percent and 21.2 million in 2006). The uninsured rate for Blacks decreased to 19.5 percent in 2007 from 20.5 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured Blacks in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, at 7.4 million.
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics were 32.1 percent and 14.8 million in 2007, lower than 34.1 percent and 15.3 million in 2006.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html

The Obamacare Show: Bombed

By Michelle Malkin

gong

“…In a rare show of good taste, America TV viewers turned off the ABC News/White House infomercial on Obamacare.

They should have listened to me and included John Stossel in their programming!

Via The Live Feed:

President Obama’s town hall meeting on health care delivered a sickly rating Wednesday evening.

The one-hour ABC News special “Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America” (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour. The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/25/the-obamacare-show-bombed/

President Obama’s Health Care Town Hall, Green Bay

Why Doesn’t America have Single-Payer Health Insurance?

Barack Obama’s Health Care Plan (Ad)

Understanding Obama’s Health Care Plan

The Future of Health Care: The Candidates’ Plans

http://fora.tv/2008/09/16/The_Future_of_Health_Care_The_Candidates_Plans

The NCPA Story

The National Center for Policy Analysis

http://www.ncpa.org/

Dr.John Goodman–Free Our Health Care Now

“…I believe the best features of the US health care system are greatly at risk in the health care reform considered by Congress. If you agree with me, go to http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/ and sign the petition today. If you have already signed the petition, feel free to post your comments below.

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/free-our-health-care-now/

Background Articles and Videos

An invitation to Janeane Garofalo

By Michelle Malkin

“…You remember Katrina Pierson. She was the feisty speaker who rocked the Dallas Tea Party on Tax Day. Katrina has issued an invitation to race-baiting actress Janeane Garofalo to attend the next Dallas Tea Party on Independence Day. I’m delighted to let you know that I’ll be joining Katrina and thousands of others at the Southfork Ranch.

Janeane, get out of your little cocoon and meet us face to face. Celebrate diversity: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/01/an-invitation-to-janeane-garofalo/

Sen. Coburn: Our watchdog

By Michelle Malkin

government_waster

Wrecovery.gov!

“…It’s a good thing the White House can’t fire GOP Sen. Tom Coburn the way it fires inspectors general for blowing the whistle on waste.

He’s doing the job no one else in the administration is allowed to do — telling us the truth about porkulus fraud and abuse.

While Bozo the VP Joe Biden clowns around and Obama’s keystone cops dawdle on the useless Recovery.gov website, Sen. Coburn has released a stimulus oversight report documenting 100 examples of stimulus waste.

You can read the whole report here.

The press release:

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., today released an oversight report 100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion that discloses 100 of the worst examples of waste in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill. The projects included in the report – worth $5.5 billion – range from Maine to California, and even two from the state of Oklahoma. Click here to read the entire report.

“The American people have a right to know how their stimulus dollars are being spent. In too many cases stimulus projects are wasting money we don’t have on things we don’t need,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Rather than growing our economy, the overall impact of stimulus spending may prove to be harmful to our economy. For example, Washington’s efforts to ‘stimulate’ the economy are increasing utility costs, repairing bridges nobody uses, building tunnels for turtles, and renovating extravagant train stations in remote areas while widely-used bridges and roads in poor shape are passed over,” Dr. Coburn said.

“I opposed the stimulus bill because I was concerned that 80 to 90 percent of the spending would not be true stimulus. I hope I am proven wrong. Yet, our initial findings continue to show that taxpayers are not getting the value they deserve and need,” Dr. Coburn said.

Dr. Coburn added that Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, estimates that at least $55 billion of stimulus funds may be lost to waste, fraud and abuse. However, the final number will likely be much higher. If stimulus funds do not promote economic growth history may indicate that the vast majority of stimulate dollars would have been better off staying in taxpayers’ pockets.

Ten examples of wasteful stimulus projects in the report include: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/sen-coburn-our-watchdog/

White House pushing to gag stimulus critics

By Michelle Malkin

“…Caution: Obama gangland tactics at work.

In keeping with his past campaign tactics to shut critics up through brute force, the White House appears to be taking steps to crack down on critics of the trillion-dollar porkulus law.

Is anyone surprised? Mark Tapscott at the Examiner reports:

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus project has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/30/white-house-pushing-to-gag-stimulus-critics/

What is the FairTax?

FairTax Prebate Explained

The Fair Tax

Bill Moyers: Thomas Paine & the Promise of America PT 1

Bill Moyers: Thomas Paine & the Promise of America PT 2

Background Articles and Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin

“…Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American conservative political commentator, radio host, lawyer and bestselling author. Levin earned his B.A. and J.D. at Temple University.^[1]^[2] His nationally syndicated talk show, The Mark Levin Show, airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks. His book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto debuted at #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list (hardcover nonfiction) the week of April 3, 2009.^[3]

^…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin

Mark Levin Show

http://www.myspace.com/marklevinshow

Background Articles and Videos

Obama Erases Pro-Democracy Money for Iran

Friday, June 19, 2009 2:40 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

“…Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”

The funding ramped up dramatically two years later, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested $75 million for pro-democracy programs. More than half of the $66.1 million Congress finally appropriated went to expand U.S. government-funded Persian language broadcasting services at Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

But no money has been earmarked for such programs in the administration’s fiscal 2010 foreign operations budget request. Congressional sources told Newsmax they doubted that a Democrat-controlled Congress would add it when the budget comes before a committee next week.

Controversy has surrounded the programs from the start, with pro-regime lobbying groups, such as the National Iranian-American Council urging the State Department to cancel the funding.

And although Bush administration officials told pro-democracy activists they wanted to fund projects inside Iran (as called for in the original legislative language), State Department desk officers intervened to block funding for any projects other than cultural exchanges and “think tanks and studies,” insiders told Newsmax.

One key opponent of the funding, who weighed in at meetings to block specific grant requests aimed at helping pro-democracy groups inside Iran, was Suzanne Maloney, who is now at the Brookings Institution.

Speaking at a Washington forum that the National Iranian-American Council sponsored Wednesday, Maloney applauded President Obama’s do-nothing policy. “The best thing we can do for Iranian democracy is sit back and let Iranians fight it out for themselves,” she said, echoing the president’s own words from a brief press statement the day before.

Program supporters say the efforts of people such as Maloney inside the State Department to blunt the original intent have made the funding virtually meaningless.

“The State Department never did a lot with all the funding we gave them, so I’m not sure that zeroing it out is a huge loss,” an aide to a key congressional supporter of the funding told Newsmax. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_Democracy_Iran/2009/06/19/227155.html

Supreme Leader of Iran

“…The post of Supreme Leader (Persian: رهبر انقلاب, Rahbare Enqelab,[1] lit. Leader of the Revolution, or مقام رهبری, Maghame Rahbari,[2] lit. Leadership Authority) was created in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation, in accordance with the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.[3] The title “Supreme” Leader (Persian: رهبر معظم, Rahbare Moazzam) is often used as a sign of respect; however, this terminology is not found in the constitution of Iran, which simply referred to the “Leader” (rahbar).

More powerful than the president of Iran, the Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts – the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[4]

Iran has had two Supreme Leaders; currently the post is occupied by Ali Khamenei.

The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and also has the power to dismiss him. As the name indicates, the Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran’s president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of all of the armed forces (Army, Revolutionary Guards, Police), and control of state broadcast and others (see below). The head of the Judicial branch (in Persian: قوه قضائیه) is also directly appointed by him.

The President of Iran, who is elected by universal suffrage, is the Executive President (Head of government). In 1989, the Prime Minister’s office was merged with the President’s office to form the current post of President of Iran. However, certain executive powers, such as command of the armed forces and declaration of war and peace, remain in the hands of the Supreme Leader.^[5] Furthermore the Supreme Leader may even dismiss the president and prevent the legitimation of any law (appointed by assembly) by the institutions under his control, the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. …”

Marja

“….Marja (Arabic/Persian: مرجع), also appearing as Marja Taqlid or Marja Dini (Arabic/Persian: مرجع تقليد / مرجع ديني), literally means “Source to Imitate/Follow” or “Religious Reference”. It is the label provided to Shia authority, a Grand Ayatollah with the authority to make legal decisions within the confines of Islamic law for followers and less-credentialed clerics. After the Qur’an and the Prophets and Imams, marjas are the highest authority on religious laws in Usuli Twelver Shia Islam.

Currently, marjas are accorded the title Grand Ayatollah (Arabic/Persian: آية ‌الله العظمی Ayatollah al-Uzma), however when referring to one, the use of Ayatollah is acceptable. Previously, the titles of Allamah^[1] and Imam^[2] have also been used.

The marja’yiat of an Ayatollah transpires when he becomes a celebrated figure in the hawza and his students and followers trust him in answering their questions, and ask him to publish his juristic book, the resalah amaliyah – a manual of practical rulings arranged according to topics dealing with ritual purity, worship, social issues, business, and political affairs. The resalah contains an ayatollah’s fatwas on different topics, according to his knowledge of the most authentic Islamic sources and their application to current life. Traditionally only the most renowned Ayatollahs of the given time published a resalah, while today many Ayatollahs of various illustriousness have published one, while some of the renowned ones have refused to do so.

Where a difference in opinion exists between the marjas, each of them provide their own opinion and the Muqallid will follow his/her own marja’s opinion on that subject. ^[3] A mujtahid, i.e. someone who has completed advanced training (dars kharij) in the hawza and has acquired the license to engage in ijtihad (ejazaye ijtihad) from one or several ayatollahs, is exempted from the requirement to follow a marja. One should note, however, that ijtihad is not always comprehensive and so a mujtahid may be an expert in one particular area of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and exercise ijtihad therein, but follow a marja in other areas of fiqh.

Several senior Grand Ayatollahs constitute the hawza, a religious institution. The hawza of Qom and Najaf are preeminent seminary centers for the training of Shia clergymen. However, there are other smaller hawzas in other cities around the world, such as Karbala in Iraq and Mashhad, and Isfahan in Iran. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah

Consumer Sovereignty

Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of purchasers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use the this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. ^[1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically choices to buy a good or service. Furthermore,the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence — or even the ubiquity — of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces. However, it has also been argued (e.g., by Goutam U. Jois) that even a “pure” market system violates the consumer sovereignty norm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty

Glenn Beck and John Bolton Discuss Iranian Protests

Glenn Beck and John Bolton Discuss Iranian Protests Part 2

Saving The Jews

http://www.savingthejews.com/

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Channel 4 in FULL [pt 1 of 2]

Governments Cause all the Worlds Problems…

Background Articles and Videos

Cloward-Piven Strategy

“…Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

ACORN

“…Largest radical group in America, with more than 400,000 dues-paying member families and more than 1,200 chapters in 110 U.S. cities

Was implicated in numerous reports of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams during recent election cycles
Pressured banks to lend money to underqualified minority borrowers
Maintains close ties to organized labor
Opposes capitalism
Calls for more government control over citizens and the economy
Favors a government monopoly in healthcare
Advocates an open-door immigration policy.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley’s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), whose members in the late 1960s and early 1970s invaded welfare offices across the U.S. — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. In the late Sixties, ACORN co-founder Wade Rathke was an NWRO organizer and a protegé of Wiley. Rathke also organized a draft-resistance campaign for the militant group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the same period.

In 1970 Rathke – along with the aforementioned Wiley (who was best known for his effective use of the so-called “Cloward-Piven strategy”) and Gary Delgado (a lead organizer for Wiley’s NWRO) — formed a new entity called Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group’s name was later changed to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, but the acronym ACORN remained. Instead of focusing only on welfare recipients, ACORN’s mandate now included all issues touching low-income and working-class people. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess

by Mona Charen

“…ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare “the party is over” for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. …”

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2008/09/30/acorn,_obama,_and_the_mortgage_mess

Caution: ACORN thugs at work

By Michelle Malkin

“…This is how ACORN rolls…

Physical intimidation:

Watch Fox News video here (h/t: William Amos).

Legal intimidation:

Read here. Whistleblower Anita MonCrief has been sued by Project Vote/ACORN to shut her up. Read her latest reporting at the Hot Air Green Room and on her blog while you can.

As long as you tolerate your tax dollars feeding these thugs, they will keep bullying their critics and opponents who threaten their criminal racket.

It’s going to take more than one or two GOP members of Congress to expose them and de-fund them once and for all.

What the hell are they waiting for?

***

More at Radio Patriot.

…”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/18/caution-acorn-thugs-at-work/

The U.S. Department of Injustice

By Michelle Malkin

justice_department

“…My column today looks at the political corruption of the Obama Justice Department. With the crime-coddling crony Attorney General Eric Holder in charge, no one should be surprised, of course. Members of Congress who care about electoral integrity need to press the administration on who intervened in the New Black Panther Party case and why. Members of Congress who care about voter fraud need to press the administration on its decision to undermine Georgia voter verification rules. And members of Congress need to continue connecting the dots to ACORN and the larger plan to wield power to preserve and protect a permanent Democratic majority.

*** …”

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case

Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls

“…Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident – which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube – had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

…”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1#

New Black Panther Party

“…The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose formal name is the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a U.S.-based black supremacist organization founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989. Despite its name, the NBPP’s founding was independent and it is not an official successor organization to the Black Panther Party.^[3] Members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that this party is illegitimate and have vociferously objected that there “is no new Black Panther Party”.^[3] The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center identified the New Black Panthers as a hate group.^[4]^[5]

The NBPP attracted many breakaway members of the Nation of Islam when former NOI minister Khalid Abdul Muhammad became the national chairman of the group from the late 1990s until his death in 2001. The NBPP is currently led by Malik Zulu Shabazz, and still upholds Khalid Abdul Muhammad as the de facto father of their movement. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panthers

New Black Panther Party

http://www.newblackpanther.com/home.html

New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense

“…Conclusion

By feeding off of the nostalgia for, and presenting itself in the image of, the original Panthers, the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense has been able to survive the death of its most controversial leader and maintain its influence in the black community. While the NBPP still attracts some followers under the guise of championing the causes of black empowerment and civil rights, its record of racism and anti-Semitism has overshadowed any of its efforts to promote black pride and consciousness.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Black_Panther.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther

O’S DANGEROUS PALS

By STANLEY KURTZ

“…IT would be tough to find an “on the ground” community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early ’90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama’s legal services for a “motor voter” case and partnered with him on his 1992 “Project VOTE” registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN’s up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott’s drive against Chicago’s banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago’s Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation’s board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers – and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee’s report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama’s organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott’s ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted. …”

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

New Party

“…Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials – most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members. …”

“…Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party’s endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. By 1996, Obama had become a member of the New Party.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party’s support.

The New Party’s various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

Background Articles and Videos

Peter Schiff

Peter David Schiff (born March 23, 1963)[1] is an American economic commentator, author and licensed stock broker who currently serves as president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a brokerage firm based in Darien, Connecticut which he owns.[2]

Schiff is best known for his bearish views on the United States economy and for his prescient predictions of the economic crisis of 2008.[3][4] He has risen to media prominence following the publication of his book Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse, published in 2007.

Schiff appears on American financial news programs on networks such as CNBC, CNN, CNN International, Fox News, Bloomberg TV and Fox Business.

Schiff is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute[5], and was an economic adviser for Ron Paul’s campaign in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, through which Schiff also expressed support for sound money, limited government, and free market capitalism.

As of June 2009[update], Schiff is eyeing a run for the Republican nomination to challenge Democrat Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut’s five-term senior senator.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff

The World Won’t Buy Unlimited U.S. Debt

We’re asking others to sacrifice for our ‘stimulus.’

By Peter Schiff

“…What he might have said was that the nations funding the majority of America’s public debt — most notably the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis — need to be prepared to sacrifice. They have to fund America’s annual trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. These creditor nations, who already own trillions of dollars of U.S. government debt, are the only entities capable of underwriting the spending that Mr. Obama envisions and that U.S. citizens demand.

These nations, in other words, must never use the money to buy other assets or fund domestic spending initiatives for their own people. When the old Treasury bills mature, they can do nothing with the money except buy new ones. To do otherwise would implode the market for U.S. Treasurys (sending U.S. interest rates much higher) and start a run on the dollar. (If foreign central banks become net sellers of Treasurys, the demand for dollars needed to buy them would plummet.)

In sum, our creditors must give up all hope of accessing the principal, and may be compensated only by the paltry 2%-3% yield our bonds currently deliver. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266988914308217.html

Background Articles And Videos

Eccles Building Boardroom

Federal Reserve System

“…The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (signed by Woodrow Wilson), it is a quasi-public and quasi-private (government entity with private components) banking system^[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils. Since February 2006, Ben Bernanke has served as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Donald Kohn is the current Vice Chairman (Term: June 2006–June 2010).

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

Summary Of Obama Financial Regulation Plan

“…WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A summary of President Barack Obama’s regulatory plan, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation.”

For the regulation of financial firms, the proposal:

–Creates Financial Services Oversight Council, which would coordinate activities among regulators, replacing the President’s Working Group.

–Ensures that any financial firm big enough to pose a risk to the financial system would be heavily regulated by the Federal Reserve, including regular stress tests.

–Gives the Fed oversight over parent companies and all subsidiaries, including unregulated units and those based overseas.

–Says the Treasury will re-examine capital standards for banks and bank-holding companies.

–Tells regulators to issue guidelines on executive compensation, with the goal of aligning pay with long-term shareholder value, including a re-examination of the utility of golden parachutes.

–Creates a new bank agency, the National Bank Supervisor, and kills the Office of Thrift Supervision. The new agency will look over national banks, including federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

–Forces industrial banks, non-bank financial firms and credit-card banks to become more traditional bank holding companies subject to federal oversight.

–Kills the SEC program that supervised Wall Street investment banks.

–Requires hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture-capital funds to register with the SEC, allowing the agency to collect data from the firms.

–Subjects hedge funds to new requirements in areas such as record keeping, disclosure and reporting. The oversight would include assets under management, borrowings, off-balance sheet exposures.

–Urges the SEC to give directors of money-market mutual funds the power to suspend redemptions, and take other action to strengthen regulation of money-market mutual funds to prevent runs.

–Beefs up oversight of insurance by creating an office within the Treasury to coordinate information and policy.

–Kicks off a process by which the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will figure out the future of mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and the federal home-loan banks. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090617-712735.html

Obama’s new financial regs – worse than we imagined

Rick Moran

“…Hey kids! Let’s create a brand, spanking, new federal bureaucracy to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards, and other financial instruments from their own stupidity!

That’s just one of the nanny state goodie being proposed by the Obama administration to address what they say were the causes of the financial meltdown.

The plan seeks to overhaul the nation’s outdated system of financial regulations. Senior officials debated using a bulldozer to clear the way for fundamental reforms but decided instead to build within the shell of the existing system, offering what amounts to an architect’s blueprint for modernizing a creaky old building.

The White House makes its case for this approach in an 85-page white paper that describes the roots of the crisis. Gaps in regulation allowed companies to make loans many borrowers could not afford. Funding came from new kinds of investments that were poorly understood by regulators. Big firms paid employees massive bonuses, while setting aside little money to absorb potential losses.

Surely some loans were made by criminals. The laws are already in place to deal with them. But how can you close a “gap” in the stupidity of the borrower? Never fear, the government is here!

The government would create a new agency to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

We welcome our ACORN overlords. …”

“…The problem, of course, is vastly expanding the mandate of the Federal Reserve – to give the quasi-independent agency regulatory power not answerable to Congress. If you’re a company and have a complaint about how the Fed is regulating your business, I wish you good luck and bon chance. You will get no satisfaction from our lawmakers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamas_new_financial_regs_wors.html

More Perspective – Geithner Calls for Financial Regulation Overhaul – Bloomberg

Another Look – Geithner’s Plan for Financial Overhaul – Bloomberg

The Founding of the Federal Reserve

The Future of Austrian Economics

How the Federal Reserve works. Part One

How the Federal Reserve works. Part Two

How the Federal Reserve works. Part Three

How the Federal Reserve works. Part Four

How the Federal Reserve works. Part Five

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 1/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 2/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 3/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 4/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 5/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 6/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 7/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 8/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 9/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 10/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 11/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 12/13

G. Edward Griffin in Austin, Texas 4/29/2008 – Part 13/13

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin

“…G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer.^[1] Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. After writing for the 1968 Wallace campaign, he began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah’s ark, and the Federal Reserve, as well as on right-libertarian views of the U.S. Supreme Court, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted Laetrile as a killer of cancer cells, a view not accepted by a majority of scientists.^[2]^[3] He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah’s ark, against skeptics as well as near-Ararat Creationists. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.^[4] In 2002, Griffin founded the individualist network Freedom Force International. …”

The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island

“…Griffin enrolled in the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado,^[23] became a Certified Financial Planner in 1989, and described the U.S. money system in his 1993 movie and 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island.^[1] This popular book^[24]^[25] has been a business bestseller;^[26]^[27] it has been reprinted in Japanese, 2005, and German, 2006. The book also influenced Ron Paul during the writing of a chapter on money and the Federal Reserve in Paul’s New York Times number-one bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, which recommended Griffin’s book on its “Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America”.^[28]

The title refers to the November 1910 meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia, of seven bankers and economic policymakers, who represented the financial elite of the Western world.^[29]^[30] The meeting was recounted by Forbes founder B. C. Forbes in 1916,^[31] and recalled by participant Frank Vanderlip as “the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System”.^[32] Griffin states that participant Paul Warburg describes the Jekyll Island meeting as “this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy”.^[33]

Griffin’s work stresses^[34] the point which Federal Reserve chair Marriner Eccles made in Congressional testimony in 1941: “If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.”^[29] Griffin advocates against the debt-based fiat money system on several grounds, stating that it devours individual prosperity through inflation and it is used to perpetuate war. He also described a framework of central bankers underwriting both sides of an ongoing war or revolution.^[35] Griffin says that the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Bank are working to destroy American sovereignty through a system of world military and financial control, and he advocates for United States withdrawal from the United Nations.^[10]

Edward Flaherty, an academic economist,^[36] characterized Griffin’s description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as “conspiratorial”, “amateurish”, and “suspect”.^[37] Griffin’s response was that Flaherty had miscategorized the book with other publications and had labeled all criticisms of the Federal Reserve as the results of conspiracy theory.^[38]

Griffin’s dreams of a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to deploy such a system in 1998. Griffin states that von NotHaus’s private silver certificates, known as Liberty Dollars, are “real money”.^[39]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

Background Articles and Videos

Death to Dictatorship: U.S. Must Support Revolution in Iran

Iranian dissidents are risking their lives fighting for their future. The silence from the White House is deafening.

By Nicholas Guariglia

“…Foreign journalists have been kicked out of the country. Revolutionary Guard thugs have taken to the streets as well, as have regime-loyalist Basij paramilitaries who are out in full force beating, clubbing, machete-slicing, tear-gassing, shooting, arresting, and killing the protesters. One report said upwards of 100 people were killed in Tehran alone. That number is unconfirmed, however.

Should these protests be nurtured and encouraged to proceed to their logical conclusion, this could turn into the best development to come out of the Middle East in sixty years. Should the protesters and rioters be aided, our greatest adversary could become one of our greatest allies overnight. This is a perfect opportunity to advantageously exploit. But how is the United States responding?

Vice President Biden said, “We’re going to withhold comment.” Secretary of State Clinton said, “The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran.” The State Department has refused to condemn the regime’s brutal crackdown. Press Secretary Gibbs said, “Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.” One unnamed White House official said, “There’s no reason to think the [Iranian] regime is not in control.” Another said, “[The election result] might also cause engagement to proceed more swiftly.” …”

“…President Obama’s silence is deafening. This will undoubtedly be considered the most important moment of his first term and he is as quiet as a lamb. According to reports, Obama has received updates on the situation in Iran but “did not convene any high-level White House meetings or conference calls.” Like so many times throughout his short and unlettered Chicago career, Obama has once again decided to vote “present.” Except this time, the issue is not some mundane community organizing red-tape dilemma. The issue is the lifespan of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and the future of war and peace in Southwest Asia.

Where is the condemnation of Ahmadinejad? Where is the criticism of Khamenei? Where is the denunciation of this stolen election? Where is the show of support and solidarity with the protesters? Where is the rhetorical support for the dissidents and democracy? Better question: where is President Obama, the man who campaigned and effeminately talked the talk about “soft power” until our ears bled? …”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/death-to-dictatorship-us-must-support-revolution-in-iran/

Iran Election: The Beginning of the End

By Amil Imani & Dr. Arash Irandoost

“…Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Islamic Republic’s repressive Revolutionary Guard, took office on August 3, 2005, after unexpected win in a sham presidential election — there are no democratic elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran. All candidates are prescreened by the Guardian Council before they are allowed to run for office. In practice, a president of Iran is already chosen through a farce process of giving the voters a chance to elect one of the men hand-picked from the regime’s functionaries, as was the case with President Ahmadinejad.

During the previous “election,” only a small percentage of the voters bothered to vote, since voting under the pre-screening and undemocratic system of the mullahs is more like selection than election. The result of staying away from the polls materialized in the person of the fascist Ahmadinejad.

The great majority of the people of Iran are disillusioned and even disgusted by the mediaeval incompetent, oppressive, and corrupt rule of the mullahs, irrespective of which mafia gang is in power. The votes, more than anything else, are protest ballots cast against the entire system, rather than indications of support for the so-called conservative-moderate coalition.

It took less than 4 years for Iranians to realize that boycotting the so-called elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran can only bring to power even a worse bunch of Islamofascists. This time around the people turned out to vote for the lesser of two camps of evil — the mullah dominated gang of conservatives and “moderates.” …”

“…The vicious attacks on people by the hired thugs of the regime are failing more and more as the mullahs’ instrument of rule by terror. The police and official security apparatus are less and less willing to exercise brute force to suppress the people. That’s exactly why the regime has imported Arab speaking terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hizbollah and Palestinian thugs.

In short, Iran is in a state of serious upheaval. Replacing Ahmadinejad with the already tried and proven wanton gang of Rafsanjani-Khatami-Mousavi is not going to change matters much.

As for the West, it is prudent that it does not embark on a trigger-happy, self interested policy. The mullahs’ lease on life, [short of brutal massacre of the Iranian people in the absence of any foreign media] is just about over. A concerted political, economic, and moral support for the long-suffering and valiant Iranian people and the secular opposition can put an end to the shameful and hate-driven Islamofascists of any and all stripes. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/iran_election_the_beginning_of.html

Iran: What next?

By Michelle Malkin • June 16, 2009 10:44 AM

maydar

Photo via #iranelection twitterer maydar

Michael Ledeen weighs in:

What’s going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors. The regime has the guns, and the opposition has the numbers. The question is whether the numbers can be successfully organized into a disciplined force that demands the downfall of the regime. Yes, I know that there have been calls for a new election, or a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinezhad. But I don’t think that’s very likely now. The tens of millions of Iranians whose pent-up rage has driven them to risk life and limb against their oppressors are not likely to settle for a mere change in personnel at this point. And the mullahs surely know that if they lose, many of them will face a very nasty and very brief future.

If the disciplined force comes into being, the regime will fall. If not, the regime will survive. Can Mousavi lead such a force? If anyone had said, even a few days ago, that Mousavi would lead a nation-wide insurrection, he’d have been laughed out of the room. Very few foresaw anything like the current situation, although I will claim credit for predicting that neither side in the electoral circus would accept the official verdict.

Does Mousavi even want to change the system? I think he does, and in any event, I think that’s the wrong question. He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him. The real revolutionary is his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. And the real question, the key question in all of this, is: why did Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permit her to become such a charismatic figure? How could he have made such a colossal blunder? It should have been obvious that the very existence of such a woman threatened the dark heart of the Islamic Republic, based as it is on the disgusting misogyny of its founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/iran-what-next/

More scenes from Iran’s uprising; Update: Gunfire at protest

By Michelle Malkin

“…You can see real-time photos pouring in over Twitter/Twitpic via this PicFog page. A small sample: …

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/15/more-scenes-from-irans-uprising/

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

“…In the Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) during the Lebanese Civil War, two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 servicemen, including 220 U.S. Marines. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah—or a group that would later become part of Hezbollah[1]—receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.[2]

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs, and the explosives used at the Marine barracks were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT. Two minutes later, a similar attack levelled the eight-story ‘Drakkar’ building, killing 58 French paratroopers from 1er RCP (Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes). In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[3] In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War.[4] In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines’ building was killed in the first blast.[5]

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Hamas

“…Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.^[2]^[3]. On January 25, 2006, Hamas won the legislative elecions held in the Palestinian Territories, gaining the majority seats in the Palestinian parliament.^[5] This further complicated matters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is considered wholly, or in part, a terrorist organization by certain countries and supranational organizations. Since June 2007, after winning a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament and defeating rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israel,^[6] the first of them in April, 1993.^[7] Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.^[8] Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced those operations in 2005 and 2006.^[9] In 2008 the rockets reached their peak and then once again went down after Operation Cast Lead.^{[citation needed]}

In January 2006, Hamas was successful in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43.^[10] After Hamas’s election victory, violent and non-violent infighting arose between Hamas and Fatah.^[11]^[12] Following the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and replaced by rival Fatah members and independents. Hamas retained control of Gaza.^[13]^[14] On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia.^[15] Israel immediately thereafter imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, and Hamas launched rocket attacks upon areas of Israel near its border with Gaza.^[16] After the end of a six-month ceasefire the conflict was escalated, and Israel invaded Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008.^[17] Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in mid-January, 2009,^[18] but has maintained its blockade of the Gaza border and airspace.

Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a “well-entrenched” presence in the West Bank and Gaza.^[19] An estimated 80 to 90 percent of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.^[20]^[21]^[22]

Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.^[23] However, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s Damascus-based political bureau chief, stated in 2009 that the group would accept the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and, although unwilling to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel, has offered a temporary, long-term truce, or hudna, that would be valid for ten years.^[24]

Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as neither religious^[25] nor antisemitic,^[26]^[27] the head of Hamas’s political bureau stating in early 2006 that the conflict with Israel “is not religious but political”, and that Jews have a covenant from God “that is to be respected and protected.” ^[25] Nonetheless, the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders are believed by some to be influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories.^[28]

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,^[29] the European Union,^[30]^[31]^[32] Israel,^[33] Japan,^[34] and the United States.^[35] Australia^[36] and the United Kingdom^[37] list the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.^[38]^[39]

^…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Hezbollah

“…Hezbollah^[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-’llāh(i),^[2] literally “party of God”) is a Shi’a Islamist political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon.^[3] Hezbollah is now also a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and plays a significant force in Lebanese politics.^[4] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.^[3] Many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah while others have praised the party.^[5]^[6] Six western countries, including Israel^[7] and the United States,^[8] regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah first emerged as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee, in 1982, set on resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war.^[3]^[9] Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.^[10] Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto listed its three main goals as “putting an end to any colonialist entity” in Lebanon, bringing the Phalangists to justice for “the crimes they [had] perpetrated,” and the establishment of an Islamic regime in Lebanon.^[11]^[12] Recently, however, Hezbollah has made little mention of establishing an Islamic state, and forged alliances across religious lines.^[10] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a “Zionist entity… built on lands wrested from their owners.”^[11]^[12]

Hezbollah, which started with only a small militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.^[13] Hezbollah maintains strong support among Lebanon’s Shi’a population, and gained a surge of support from Lebanon’s broader population (Sunni, Christian, Druze) immediately following the 2006 Lebanon War,^[14] and is able to mobilize demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.^[15] Hezbollah alongside with some other groups began the 2006–2008 Lebanese political protests in opposition to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.^[16] Later dispute over Hezbollah preserve its telecoms network led to clashes and Hezbollah-led opposition fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods from Future Movement militiamen loyal to Fouad Siniora, this areas then handed over to the Lebanese Army.^[17] Finally, on the basis of Doha Agreement, Hezbollah was granted veto power in Lebanon’s parliament. In addition, National unity government was formed which Hezbollah has one minister and controls eleven of thirty seats in it.^[4]^[18]

Hezbollah receives its financial support from Iran, Syria, and the donations of Lebanese and other Shi’a.^[19]^[20] It has also gained significantly in military strength the last few years.^[21] Despite a June 2008 certification by the United Nations that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory,^[22] in August of that year, Lebanon’s new Cabinet unanimously approved a draft policy statement which secures Hezbollah’s existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to “liberate or recover occupied lands.” Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Edwards Calls Out Obama on Lame “Present” Vote

Two Guys in a Newsroom (June 17, 2009)

Karl Rove on Obama’s reaction to the election in Iran

Fox Report on Unrest in Iran – Post Election

Iranian Riots – Protesters show the Riot Police some kindness (Jun 16th)

Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 1

Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 2

Laura Ingraham goes nuclear on Obama over Iranian crisis

Iranian Nuclear Power Plant Open For Business

John Bolton about Iran nuclear testing

Dennis Miller interviews Mark Steyn, June 16, 2009. Part 1/2

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures

Background Articles and Videos

Gerald Walpin speaks: The inside story of the AmeriCorps firing

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

“…The White House’s decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin’s investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe — which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant — might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired.

Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. “He said, ‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls. “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.’” …”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html

The White House Fires a Watchdog

The curious case of the inspector general and a Presidential ally.

“…President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week’s dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs. …”

“…Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a “senior adviser.”

If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html

The curious firing of Gerald Walpin gets … curiouser

“…Senator Charles Grassley has demanded records from the Obama administration over the dismissal of the Inspector General for Americorps and raises the possibility that Barack Obama broke a law he co-sponsored in the Senate that protects the independence of the IGs. The firing comes as the Obama administration cut a sweetheart deal with a major Obama backer that allows him to receive federal funding as mayor of Sacramento, and fails to repay taxpayers for the money Kevin Johnson admittedly took illegally: …”

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/15/the-curious-firing-of-gerald-walpin-gets-curiouser/

Gerald Walpin firing controversy

“…A controversy arose in June, 2009, over the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin by U.S. President Barack Obama, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, Obama said that the reason for the firing was because “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general… That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.”^[1]

The firing was considered controversial. For example, a Wall St. Journal editorial on the matter stated, “President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week’s dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules… last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama.”^[2] According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend and supporter of Obama.^[1]

According to Associated Press, during September 2008, Walpin discovered misuse of federal grants by Johnson and the St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit educational program founded by Johnson. Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. Associated Press also reported that Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for how he handled the investigation of Johnson and the academy. Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said that Walpin’s conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered from the investigation.^[3]

On June 16, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), said the president failed to follow a law that she had sponsored, which requires that the President give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general’s firing, along with the cause for the firing. McCaskill stated, “Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason.” She also stated, “I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.” That same day, a White House lawyer said that Walpin was fired because he was “unduly disruptive” and engaged in “trouble and inappropriate conduct.”^[4] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Walpin_firing_controversy

Obama Fires CNCS Watchdog

Inspector general removed after scathing report on AmeriCorps grantee.

By Nancy Lewis

“…Officials insisted that Walpin’s removal was not connected to recent controversies but was merely a routine change that came with a change in administrations. But those routine changes are rarely announced or characterized as “removal.”

A statement issued by Nicola Goren, acting CEO of the corporation, said that board chairman Alan Solomont and vice chair Stephen Goldsmith fully supported the move. CNCS spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer would not say if they requested Walpin’s removal. The announcement said he has 30 days to vacant the office.

The action leaves the top four positions at CNCS – chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and inspector general – vacant or filled temporarily, at a time when the corporation is charged with increasing its capacity to 250,000 volunteers by 2017. By then the budget is expected to rise to nearly $6 billion annually, from $1.19 billion.

Maria Eitel, a Nike vice president chosen by Obama to lead CNCS, abruptly withdrew her name late last month, five weeks after her selection was announced, citing health problems. The president’s announcement of the choice of Eitel was made with great public fanfare, but her withdrawal was also announced through a statement from Goren, released late on the Friday before Memorial Day. …”

“…At the same time, Walpin was challenging the resolution of charges against Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson stemming from the Hood Corps, a project of St. Hope Academy, which he started in one of the city’s low-income neighborhoods. The IG audit found that the program misused virtually all its funds and did little of what was outlined in its grant proposal.

Specifically, the audit found that Johnson and other officials of Neighborhood Corps used AmeriCorps volunteers to recruit students for a charter school run by its parent program, improperly paid at two school employees with AmeriCorps funds for duties they did not perform, improperly used volunteers to perform personal errands for Johnson (including washing his car and driving him to personal appearances) and used the AmeriCorps volunteers to engage in political activities in connection with a board of education election.

Johnson, who was elected mayor in November, was barred from receiving federal grant money – the most serious action that the agency can take again a person or program.

When questions were raised about whether Johnson’s city would therefore be ineligible to receive federal stimulus funds, a settlement was reached with the U.S. attorney’s office calling for repayment of about half the grant money. Johnson was to pay a portion of the money, with the agency he had headed paying the remainder over five years. The ban on funds to Johnson was also lifted.

In a letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), head of the Senate committee that oversees the corporation, and other congressional leaders, Walpin objected to the settlement, saying St. Hope was insolvent and likely would not be able to repay the money. …”

http://www.youthtoday.org/publication/article.cfm?article_id=2949

Obama’s AmeriCrooks and cronies scandal Updated

By Michelle Malkin

“….My syndicated column today digs further into Obama’s AmeriCorruption. We now have the White House in full Chicago thug mode — maligning fired AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin as “confused” and “disoriented.” Yep, that was the response after Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill weighed in and pronounced herself unsatistifed with Obama’s “loss of confidence” rationale.

Implying that Walpin has lost his marbles is desperate and lame. Walpin has been consistenly lucid and laser-sharp in every TV and radio interview I’ve seen or heard — including on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday, where he noted that evidence in the Sacramento mayor/NBA star/Obama crony Kevin Johnson case was destroyed.

Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/17/obamas-americrooks-and-cronies-scandal/

Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling

By Michelle Malkin

“…President Obama is hoping you won’t notice his abrupt change of inspectors general over at Americorps, the government-run, taxpayer-subsidized “community service” boondoggle (which Republicans helped expand as part of the $6 billion GIVE/SERVE Act in March despite its wasteful track record. Thanks, Republicans).

With intervention from Michelle Obama, the Americorps inspector general was given the boot and replaced — for doing his job too well, it seems, and uncovering squandering of funds by favored contributors, educational institutions, and left-wing groups.

This Associated Press article only scratches the surface: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/12/obamas-americorps-scandal-and-the-first-ladys-meddling/

Your AmeriCorps grant dollars at work

By Michelle Malkin • June 16, 2009 03:25 PM

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

Spend, spend, spend — and no one to watch over all this new AmeriCorps spending. The Obamas wouldn’t have it any other way: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/your-americorps-grant-dollars-at-work/

Saul Alinsky

“…Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909, Chicago, Illinois – June 12, 1972, Carmel, California) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing in America, the political practice of organizing communities to act in common self-interest.^[1]

Community organizing

Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities.

In the 1930s, Alinsky organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made infamous by Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle for the horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”^[4]

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing in the prologue,

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”^[4]

Views and approach

Alinsky was a critic of mainstream liberalism, which he considered passive and ineffective. In Rules for Radicals, he argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice. In 1969, he was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

Obama signing the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, April 21, 2009

Background Articles and Videos

Tea Party Day

“…Thank you for your willingness to organize a TEA Party rally in your community on July 4.

I suggest you call a few of your friends and ask them to help you organize and invite others to participate.

Check the locations button on the TEAPartyDay.com home page and see if there is anyone else organizing a TEA Party in your community. If so, call that person and see if you can work together to promote the event.

Tell your friends, family, church members, co-workers and everyone else you know about the protest. Invite them to attend with you. We have a few TEA Party buttons and stickers remaining. To order, go to TEAPartyDay.com.

Make signs with legible slogans that send a clear message to the public and the media to use at the rally. You might want to bring some American flags as well.

Call your local talk radio hosts and ask them to announce the location, date and time on the air for a few days leading up to the protest. Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper announcing the protest. Write a press release and email, mail and fax copies to the local TV stations, radio stations and newspapers. Call the reporters that cover local events or politics and leave messages on their voice mail.

To help you get the word out, below is a sample press release which you should mail to your local paper, radio stations, and television stations. Feel free to adapt the press release. Make sure you are listed on the press release as the contact person and put your phone number where you can be reached at the top of the press release.

A group of citizens in (name of your community) are organizing a TEA Party rally in front of city hall on July 4, the day we celebrate our nation’s independence. The TEA Party is part of a national movement to protest the spending of trillions of dollars which will leave our great-grandchildren a debt they must pay.

Nationwide rallies are being promoted by American Family Association. Rallies are schedule in over a thousand cities across the nation. More information about the rallies can be found on the Internet at TEAPartyDay.com. …”

http://teapartyday.com/Organize.aspx

ABC: The All Barack Channel

By Michelle Malkin

“…ABC News should be required to register as a federal lobbyist.

On June 24, Drudge reports, the network will broadcast from inside the White House to air a propaganda special for Obamacare.

Opposing voices will reportedly be excluded. ABC News says “thoughtful” and “diverse” points of view will be allowed. In other words: Shills of all colors!

ABC: The All Barack Channel.

Rush calls ‘em our state-run media.

I call it government-controlled stenography.

Sharpen your pencils, boys and girls, and look spiffy when Dear Leader comes to greet you.

***

Doug Powers creates a new logo for the All Barack Channel.

Here’s my via Logobama:

***

…”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/abc-the-all-barack-channel/

Obama’s Health Cost Illusion

The President’s main case for reform is rooted in false claims and little evidence.

“…A far better alternative is to increase individual responsibility for medical decisions. In 1965, the average American paid more than half of his health care out of pocket. Spending has since increased sevenfold, but the amount that consumers pay directly hasn’t even doubled. When people aren’t exposed to the true cost of their care — though it is paid in foregone wages and higher taxes for public programs — they consume more care. The research of MIT economist Amy Finkelstein suggests that roughly half of the real increase in U.S. health spending between 1950 and 1990 is due to Medicare and the spread of third-party, first-dollar insurance.

Increasing cost-sharing would discipline the health spending curve and give it a more rational bent. As societies grow richer, it makes sense that people will invest more in their own well-being. Health is a superior good, while the utility of wealth is fairly low if you’re dead. The U.S. health cost “crisis” is that we spend so much without incentives to weigh the costs against the benefits.

Yet the entire Obama agenda is about increasing political, rather than individual, control of the health markets. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124442772329993085.html

Sally Pipes on Why Universal Health Care Will Kill You

“…President Obama is promising universal health care for Americans.

God help us.

Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, explained on the “Mark Levin Show” last night why government health care has been a disaster everywhere it’s been tried and would be a catastrophe for the United States.

Americans hate standing in line and they won’t tolerate the health care rationing the government is planning to impose on Americans.

“They don’t like standing at line at the post office, as you know, Mark, they don’t like standing in line at the DMV. When the government takes over their health care, they’ll be standing in line waiting for care,” said Pipes, a native Canadian who knows whereof she speaks.

Canadians, Pipes pointed out, come to the United States to seek treatment instead of dying on Canadian government waiting lists. …”

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8840

“…Introduction

Most Americans have health insurance through their employers. But employment is no longer a guarantee of health insurance coverage.

As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable. The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts. Further, an increasing reliance on part-time and contract workers who are not eligible for coverage means fewer workers have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.

Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.

Who are Who are the uninsured?

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.¹
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.¹
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.²
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.¹ Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.³
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.²
The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.^{4, 5}
In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.⁶
In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.¹
The number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million – or 10.7 percent of all children in the U.S.¹
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 – 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.¹
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.¹
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.¹ A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers. …”

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Why That 48 Million Uninsured Number is Wrong

“…Numbers in the 40-million range regularly used by proponents of health care “reform” are based on reports from the Census Bureau which show, for example, over 45 million people “not covered” in 2007. However, these numbers are extremely misleading for several reasons, and the difference is critical not simply as a debating point but as a context for appropriate government policy changes.

The Census Bureau itself says that “Health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported…” (See Appendix C of THIS report) For example, “16.9 percent of people with an MSIS record indicating Medicaid coverage reported…that they were uninsured.”
According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “as many as 12 million uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program–but they haven’t signed up.”
More than half of the uninsured are between 18 and 34 years of age, a group which has relatively few expensive health issues and for whom self-insuring (paying their own medical bills) makes sense. Only 14% of people over the age of 55% are uninsured.
Over 9 million of the “uninsured” have household incomes over $75,000.
Roughly 30% of the uninsured are without insurance for less than 6 months (though this statistic will likely worsen during the current recession).
And finally, estimates are that between 7.5 million to over 10 million of the uninsured (15% of them or more) are illegal immigrants.

The number of chronically uninsured people who would prefer to have insurance but can’t afford it is likely 10-12 million people, or one quarter of the number often repeated by the media. Reporters who cite the 48 million number without providing a full context do their readers a great disservice. …”

http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=134

Bad medicine: Obamacare poster art, Round 3

By Michelle Malkin

The Obamacare government takeover plan has provided a welcome stimulus of creativity and fighting spirit on the Right. Last week, we featured Rounds One and Two of the Obamacare photoshop poster contest. They just keep getting better. Print, save, and fax your favorites to your congressional reps. Bring one to an Obamacare protest near you — like the ones in Seattle and Green Bay. Give one to your favorite doctor, nurse, or other health care professional as Obama urges them to swallow their socialized medicine. (Details on Obama’s upcoming speech to the AMA in Chicago today here.)

Make your views seen and your voices heard. It’s making a difference: “Votes seen lacking for Obama healthcare program.” …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/15/bad-medicine-obamacare-poster-art-round-3/

Death, taxes & Obamacare: Poster contest, Round Two

By Michelle Malkin

“…We kicked off the Obamacare poster contest yesterday with some fantastic entries — spearheaded by Scott G. at Ah, Shoot.

Readers have risen to the challenge! Here’s round two. Vote on your favorite. Print ‘em out. Spread the word. Counter the ACORN/SEIU mob taking to the streets to take over your health care. Resistance must be met not just in the halls of Congress, but in your neighborhoods, at the grocery store, in your car window, everywhere at the grass-roots level: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/09/death-taxes-obamacare-poster-contest-round-two/

Obamacare poster contest: Coming to a hospital near you!; Updated with new entries

By Michelle Malkin

(Update: Round Two is here.)

Okay, Army of Photoshoppers. Scott G. at Ah, Shoot is fighting the government takeover of the health care industry with all of his artistic power — and has issued a challenge for an Obamacare poster contest. He has adapted old WWII art to inform the public of the consequences of Obamacare. (The posters are all in the public domain and you can find a huge collection here. Longtime readers will recall the incredible WWII-inspired Pshops readers sent in to counter the NYTimes’ blabbermouth reporting.) As I’ve said before, this battle must be won not just in the halls of Congress, but on the ground, in the airwaves…and in the culture. There’s work to be done and a fight to be won.

Get to it: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/08/obamacare-poster-contest-coming-to-a-hospital-near-you/

41% Favor Public Sector Health Care Option, 41% Disagree

“..Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults believe it would be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that an identical number (41%) disagree.

President Obama is now aggressively campaigning to build support for creating such public-sector competition. Later today, he is expected to give a major address to the American Medical Association that outlines his health care reform goals including the creation of a government-run health insurance company.

Just 32% of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care. Forty percent (40%) say it would not.

Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s likely that a government insurance company would lose money and require taxpayer subsidies. Just 20% say that’s not likely.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe private insurance companies will provide better service and more choice than the government option. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold the opposite view. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/41_favor_public_sector_health_care_option_41_disagree

Republicans Offer Health Care Solution, the Patients’ Choice Act

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt. 1

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt. 2

Ideas Changing the World

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (1/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (2/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (3/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (4/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (5/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (6/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (7/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (8/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (9/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (10/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (11/12)

Universal Healthcare Debate 1: Introduction (12/12)

http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

Please take a minute to sign this petition keeping Government control OUT of healthcare.

http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

LOL

Don’t Let Them Get Your Goat

Holocaust Museum, Abortion Doctor, Army Recruiter

Illegal. What is so confusing about this word?!!!

Background Articles and Videos

The Great Pretender by Freddie Mercury

Queen

“…Queen were an English rock band formed in 1970 in London by guitarist Brian May, lead vocalist Freddie Mercury, and drummer Roger Taylor, with bassist John Deacon completing the lineup the following year.

The band were noted for their musical diversity, multi-layered arrangements, vocal harmonies, and incorporation of audience participation into their live performances.^[3] Their 1985 Live Aid performance was voted the best live rock performance of all time in an industry poll.^[4]

Queen enjoyed success in the UK in the early 1970s with the albums Queen and Queen II, but it was with the release of Sheer Heart Attack in 1974 and A Night at the Opera the following year that the band gained international success. They have released fifteen studio albums, five live albums, and numerous compilation albums. Since Mercury’s death and Deacons retirement, May and Taylor have performed infrequently together at special events and programmes as members of other ensembles. From 2004 to 2009 they collaborated with Paul Rodgers, under the moniker Queen + Paul Rodgers. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(band)

Freddie Mercury

“…Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara) (5 September 1946 – 24 November 1991) was an Indian British singer-songwriter, pianist and guitarist, best known as the frontman and co-founder of the rock band Queen (inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001). As a performer, he was known for his vocal prowess and flamboyant performances.^[3]^[4]^[5] As a songwriter, he composed many international hits, including “Bohemian Rhapsody”, “Killer Queen”, “Somebody to Love”, “Don’t Stop Me Now”, “We Are the Champions” and “Crazy Little Thing Called Love”.

In addition to his work with Queen, he also led a solo career and was occasionally a producer and guest musician (piano or vocals) for other artists. Mercury, who was of Parsi descent and grew up in India, has been referred to as “Britain’s first Asian rock star.”^[6] He died of bronchopneumonia induced by HIV (AIDS) on 24 November 1991, only one day after publicly acknowledging he had the disease. In 2006, Time Asia named him as one of the most influential Asian heroes of the past 60 years,^[7] and he continues to be cited as one of the greatest singers in the history of popular music. In 2008, Rolling Stone ranked him number 18 on their list of the 100 greatest singers of all time.^[4]^[8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury

Queen Online

http://www.queenonline.com/home

Freddie Mercury Himself – Part 1 (1/5)

Freddie Mercury Himself – Part 2 (1/5)

Freddie Mercury Himself – Part 3 (1/5)

Freddie Mercury Himself – Part 4 (1/5)

Freddie Mercury Himself – Part 5 (1/5)

Brian and Roger – One Week Later, Part 1

Brian and Roger – One Week Later, Part 2

Freddie Mercury Interview Musical Prostitute part 1

Freddie Mercury Interview Musical Prostitute part 2

Freddie Mercury The Last Interview

Interview with Freddie Mercury (April 1985, Australia)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1985 (Part 1 of 4)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1985 (Part 2 of 4)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1985 (Part 3 of 4)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1985 (Part 4 of 4)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1987 (Part 1)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1987 (Part 2)

Freddie Mercury Interview 1987 (Part 3)

The last appearance of Freddie Mercury (1990)

Roger Taylor (Man on Fire) – 1984 TV-am Interview

Roger Taylor & John Deacon – 1984 Breakfast Time Interview

Brian May Interview This Morning Jan 2008

Background Articles and Videos

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

In the United States, the term progressive emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.^[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressive Era

“…The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.^[1]

Responding to the changes brought about by industrialization, ^[2] the Progressives advocated a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms.^[3] Initially the movement was successful at local level, and then it progressed to state and gradually national. Both the reformers and their opponents were predominantly members of the middle class.

Significant changes achieved at the national levels included the income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women’s suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Muckrakers were journalists who exposed waste, corruption, and scandal in the highly influential new medium of national magazines, such as McClure’s. Progressives shared a common belief in the ability of science, technology and disinterested expertise to identify problems and come up with the best solution.

Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly and circumvent political bosses; California, Wisconsin, and Oregon took the lead.^[4] California governor Hiram Johnson established the initiative, referendum, and recall, viewing them as good influences for citizen participation against the historic influence of large corporations on state assembly.^[5] About 16 states began using primary elections. Many cities set up municipal reference bureaus to study the budgets and administrative structures of local governments. In Illinois, Governor Frank Lowden undertook a major reorganization of state government.^[6] In Wisconsin, the stronghold of Robert LaFollette, the Wisconsin Idea, used the state university as the source of ideas and expertise.^[7] Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind’s ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

Liberal Fascism (1) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (2) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (3) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (4) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism (5) — Jonah Goldberg UNEDITED

Liberal Fascism Q-A (1)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (2)

Liberal Fascism Q-A (3)

The Next Progressive Era

The Progressive Era

George Soros and Acorn in the 2008 Elections

Background Articles and Videos

Eight business technology trends to watch

From the McKinsey Quarterly

“…Technology alone is rarely the key to unlocking economic value: companies create real wealth when they combine technology with new ways of doing business.

Through our work and research, we have identified eight technology-enabled trends that will help shape businesses and the economy in coming years. These trends fall within three broad areas of business activity: managing relationships, managing capital and assets, and leveraging information in new ways. …”

http://news.cnet.com/Eight-business-technology-trends-to-watch/2030-1069_3-6223397.html

Technology Trends and Gadgets: April, 2009

http://www.trendhunter.com/archive/category/Technology-Trends-and-Gadgets/2009/4

The Future of Technology

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/05_25/B393805it100.htm

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: LNS13000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level Labor force status: Unemployed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
1999	5976	6111	5783	6004	5796	5951	6025	5838	5915	5778	5716	5653
2000	5708	5858	5733	5481	5758	5651	5747	5853	5625	5534	5639	5634
2001	6023	6089	6141	6271	6226	6484	6583	7042	7142	7694	8003	8258
2002	8182	8215	8304	8599	8399	8393	8390	8304	8251	8307	8520	8640
2003	8520	8618	8588	8842	8957	9266	9011	8896	8921	8732	8576	8317
2004	8370	8167	8491	8170	8212	8286	8136	7990	7927	8061	7932	7934
2005	7759	7972	7740	7683	7672	7551	7415	7360	7570	7457	7541	7219
2006	7020	7176	7080	7142	7028	7039	7167	7118	6874	6738	6837	6688
2007	7029	6887	6737	6874	6844	7028	7128	7123	7221	7295	7212	7541
2008	7555	7423	7820	7675	8536	8662	8910	9550	9592	10221	10476	11108
2009	11616	12467	13161	13724	14511

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: LNS14000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent Age: 16 years and over
1999	4.3	4.4	4.2	4.3	4.2	4.3	4.3	4.2	4.2	4.1	4.1	4.0
2000	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
2001	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.5	4.6	4.9	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.7
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.2	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.1	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.8
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.9
2008	4.9	4.8	5.1	5.0	5.5	5.6	5.8	6.2	6.2	6.6	6.8	7.2
2009	7.6	8.1	8.5	8.9	9.4

Archive for June, 2009

~Paul Johnson, Laying Down the Law, The Wall St. Journal, March 10, 1999,

Banana Boat Song–Now Obama’s Signature Song

Honduras president seeks constitutional change

Obama on Honduras

Honduras – The Truth not being told in CNN!!!

Honduras ex-President Manuel Zelaya Allegedly Tied to Drug Trafficking

Krauthammer et al. on the Honduras coup

Barack Obama Blasted on Honduras Developments: “Shame on You”

Michael Savage – Obama, Hillary Support Honduras Dictator – Side with Chavez and Castro

CNN Interviews Honduras President Zelaya After Military Coup

The stink eye

Harry Belafonte & Nat King Cole

Background Articles and Videos

2009 Honduran political crisis

Manuel Zelaya

Banana Democrats

Meddling, Are We?

Authoritarianism

Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup

Obama: Sure, I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

Dallas Tea Party, Honduras, Government Worker Raises

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 1

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 2

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 3

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 4

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 5

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 6

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 7

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 8

Background Articles and Videos

Gestapo

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 1

Scalise: ‘We’re Setting Up A Global Warming Gestapo!’

JOHN BOEHNER SLAPS DOWN WAXMAN – PART 4

JOHN BOEHNER SLAPS DOWN WAXMAN – PART 5

Glenn Beck: ACORN In A Nutshell [FOX News] (AmeriCorps, Gerald Walpin)

ACORN march to raise minimum wage

ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign

Representative from ACORN

New Black Panthers Stand With NYC

“Security” patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation – Bill O’Reilly Reports

Obamanoff & The Carbon Clowns killing economy and ending family vacation?

Glenn Beck on Waxman-Markey Bill, from 06/29/09 Part 1

Glenn Beck on Waxman-Markey Bill, from 06/29/09 Part 2

And then they came for me…

Join The Second American Revolution

Tea Party Patriots Invite Janeane Garofalo for America’s Tea Party on July 4, 2009!

Stop The Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Energy Tax

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Stop The Spending and Deficits

US Federal Government Deficits

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Daniel J. Mitchell – USA: Drowning In Debt?

You are invited to attend a Tea Party on July 4, 2009, Independence Day!

Join the Second American Revolution

The Meaning of Independence Day

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

“Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.”

Thomas Paine on to Washington

switchfoot-dare you to move(live)

God Bless the USA – Lee Greenwood

Background Articles and Videos

The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill

by Ben Lieberman

Tea Party Watch: Protesting the cap-and-tax cramdown

By Michelle Malkin

Gestapo

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 1

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 2

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 3

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 4

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 5

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 6

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 7

Gestapo – Hitlers Secret Police 8

OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA