Parents Beware! Obama Organizing In High School

 

Hat tip to Beckwith at http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

Obama Organizing In High School

Atlas Shrugs has an exclusive report about a student in the eleventh grade in an Ohio High School.  Her government class passed out this propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama’s Organizing for America (OFA is the former mybarackobama.com site.)

Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired “people’s organization.”  Organizing for America is (and I quote) recruiting in our high schools to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda” …………of national socialism.

The Ohio High School is Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio.

This is incredible.  And evil.  Suffer the little children — enlisted like SS youth.  This is no accident.  Obama is poisoning our public school system.  He acts as if it’s his own private breeding farm.  Once again academic learning and achievement is hopelessly abandoned, and supplanted by radical leftist activism from the leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators in the perverse public school system.

Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda.  Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated.  Parents, warn your kids.  Better yet, home school.

Check out this story and the “recommended reading” list here . . .

 

Obama is using the power of the office and gazillions of tax-dollars to build his political base — he’s still organizing — why? — what’s next?

 

TARP Inspector General Investigating ‘Suspect Trades’ by TARP Investment Management Firm

 

Peter Barnes writes an article about trades being scrutinized as suspect regarding TARP investments.

January 31, 2010

A government watchdog is investigating “suspect” securities transactions made last year by an unnamed investment management company that partnered with the Treasury Department in a program under its $700 billion bank bailout.

Treasury, which detected the trades through its own internal monitoring system and brought them to investigators’ attention, denied any impropriety by the firm.

In a new report to Congress, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP], said he launched an investigation into “a series of unusual trades” undertaken by the investment company, which he declined to identify. He also did not disclose the value of the transactions. [Emphasis added]

The firm is one of several financial companies that partnered with Treasury in the “Public-Private Investment Program” [PPIP], which the department launched last year to purchase billion of dollars in toxic assets from banks, including securities backed by souring mortgages. Together, the firms and the department have set up eight public-private investment funds [PPIFs] to buy bad assets; Treasury has already invested nearly $20 billion in TARP resource to the ventures.

In his report, Barkosky suggested taxpayers may have been cheated in the flagged transactions.

“A series of suspect trades…has already occurred within one of the (funds),” Barofsky wrote. “A portfolio manager directed the sale of a security from a non-PPIF fund under his management to a dealer after the security had been downgraded and then, minutes later, purchased from that dealer the same security at a slightly higher price for the PPIF.” [Italics added by Barofsky.]

Providing additional details, Barofsky said the “series of unusual trades” were made by a firm that “operates both a PPIF and one or more non-PPIF funds that invest in similar securities [i.e., mortgage-backed securities [‘MBS’]]. In the case of this fund management company, the same person is the portfolio manager for both the PPIF and (a) non-PPIF fund. In late October, the portfolio manager directed that a particular MBS from the non-PPIF fund be sold after the security…had been downgraded by a rating agency. According to the company, multiple bids were received, and a quantity of the security was sold to a dealer. Within minutes of the sale, however, the same portfolio manager purchased, for the PPIF, the same amount of the same security from the dealer at a slightly higher price. Later in the day, the portfolio manager bought more of the security for the PPIF from the dealer at the original price.”

The report said the investment management company involved in the PPIF “asserts that there was nothing inappropriate about these trades, and Treasury has concluded that the trades did not violate PPIF rules.”

Barofksy said, however, that “the facts…give rise to difficult questions. Was the initial purchase really arm’s length, or was the dealer aware that the portfolio manager was prepared to repurchase the securities immediately? How can a manager conclude that it is wise to sell a security at one price but then almost simultaneously repurchase the same securities at a higher price? Were these trades designed to push the risk of this downgraded security from the private, non-PPIF fund onto the taxpayer supported PPIF? SIGTARP will seek the answers to these questions as part of its ongoing investigation.”

Barofsky disclosed the probe as part of his effort to push Treasury to adopt stricter conflict-of-interest rules in PPIP, including barriers or “walls” between investment managers – in effect, requiring separate managers for PPIP funds — within participating financial firms.

In a letter to Barofsky, Herbert Allison, the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial stability, said PPIP compliance rules designed to monitor trading activity “effectively protect taxpayers without the need of segregated investment teams.”

Allison said separate teams “would be detrimental to the program because it would reduce our ability to retain experienced PPIP fund managers and as a result would reduce performance of PPIP funds.” He noted Barofsky “initially became aware of the circumstances of the trading activity…because Treasury discovered them through its PPIP compliance surveillance program.”

Some of the investment management firms in PPIP include Blackrock, AllianceBernstein and Wellington Management.

Link

===============

Taking one of the investment management firms above, it is noted from their own website:

AllianceBernstein

The US Department of the Treasury has selected AllianceBernstein as one of nine pre-qualified fund managers in its Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). Under the program, AllianceBernstein will partner with the Treasury—which will be a co-investor and will provide various leverage options for PPIP funds—to create a Public-Private Investment Fund (PPIF) which will invest in distressed “legacy securities” that are clogging the balance sheets of many financial institutions.

The Treasury selected AllianceBernstein after an extensive evaluation of submissions from over 100 unique applicants. As part of our application and to most effectively leverage this opportunity, AllianceBernstein has formed a strategic relationship with Greenfield Partners, LLC, Rialto Capital Management, LLC and Altura Capital Group, LLC. Our selection is strong evidence of our firm’s investment management capabilities within the fixed-income space, the differentiating characteristics that our strategic relationships bring to the team, and our commitment to creating innovative investment solutions.

http://www.alliancebernstein.com/investments/us/StoryPage.aspx?nid=5324&cid=62785

Press release: http://www.alliancebernstein.com/CmsObjectABD/PDF/SpecialAnnouncements/090600_PPIP_External_PressRelease.pdf

 ———————–

 

End notes:

Will another Inspector General be intimidated? Thrown under the bus for inquiring about the “series of unusual trades” within the PPIP?

Will this story be swept under the rug?

Will any of the MSM’s do an in-depth reporting of  some of the investment management firms in PPIP including Blackrock, AllianceBernstein and Wellington Management?

 

Stay tuned.

Know Thine Enemy Patriots: AFSCME,SEIU,Change to Win,etc. Behind Anti-Tea Party Movement

 

A brilliant move of sorts.  Call yourselves Patriots, yet you represent the opposition.

Beware true fellow Patriots.  Investigate, Ask BOLD questions and beware of intimidators.

This article by Rick Moran, at American Thinker, whet my inquisitiveness to look further into its background.

January 30, 2010

SEIU behind anti-tea party website

We received numerous complaints yesterday from AT readers who were concerned about a Google Ad that bashed the tea party movement. It turns out, that the website the ad was linked to was created with funds contributed at least partly by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

It should be noted that the ad itself was placed by Google and in no way reflected our views. But, as our Editor in Chief Thomas Lifson pointed out, the editorial and advertising functions of the website are completely separate entities – for obvious reasons. Our opinions are not for sale and keeping a wall between these functions is necessary to ensure that. The ad has since been taken down.

But the question of who sponsored it in the first place wasn’t answered until Lee Doren did a little digging:

I just came across a new website titled: http://www.TheTeaPartyIsOver.org

It is paid for by the American Public Policy Committee. Well, according to opensecrets.org, the two donors for American Public Policy Committee this year are Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West.

However, according to opensecrets.org, the 2nd largest contributor in 2008 to Patriot Majority was SEIU and other top Unions around America.  I imagine the diversion of Union money gets much deeper than this.  Please spread the word before they start getting their message out now.  Thanks. (H/T: Jim Hoft )

Good to know where your enemies are coming from.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

=========================

From: http://www.TheTeaPartyIsOver.org

Our Mission

Our Mission

To prevent the Tea Party’s dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction.

Our Strategy

Our Strategy

Our Strategy is simple. This movement is a fad. Some of their ideas include the belief that programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialistic and should never have been created in the first place and that President Obama is a Socialist. Other ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical rightwing form of state’s rights. We need to prevent their dangerous ideas from gaining a legislative foothold. So our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America.

=====================================

Patriot Majority: Top Contributors, 2008 Cycle

Rank Contributor Total
1 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $5,800,000
2 Service Employees International Union $770,000
3 Change to Win $500,000
4 Patriot Majority West $300,000
4 Communications Workers of America $300,000
6 Teamsters Union $250,000
7 Patriot Majority Midwest $161,000
8 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $125,000
9 Bauman Foundation $25,000
10 American Affordable Health Care $11,874
11 Oklahoma Freedom Fund $10,469
12 Pennsylvania AFL-CIO $6,500
13 Bluegrass Freedom Fund $5,000
14 Public Security Now $920
15 American Public Policy Cmte $861

This data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail_contribs.php?cycle=2008&ein=203985568

===========================

American Public Policy Committee: Top Contributors, 2010 Cycle

Rank Contributor Total
1 Patriot Majority West $25,000
2 Patriot Majority $5,000

 

==========================

A Post by InvincibleArmour spells this out even further:

Thursday, October 02, 2008

ACORN, Bankers & Now Union Dupes, Patriot Majority For Obama

It isn’t just ACORN mining fraudulent votes, it isn’t just failed Wall Streeters and bankrupt banks in the tank for Obama, it’s also 527 groups fronting for unions that are spreading the money and the lies for Obama and Democrat campaigns in all the important swing states.

Instead of being honest and using names including progressive, democrat, labor or other liberal buzz words, many of these groups, under the leadership of Craig Varoga (worked on 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign; former communications director to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) ), now list themselves as Patriot Majority. They ain’t patriots and they might just lie their way into the majority, but they all are unions that want the good old days of crippling business back.

 

PATRIOT MAJORITY

Patriot Majority West used to be called Citizens for Progress
Patriot Majority Midwest used to be the Oklahoma Freedom Fund
Patriot Majority New Mexico
Patriot Majority For A Strong America this year
Alliance for North Carolina,
Bluegrass Freedom Fund
American Alliance for Energy Independence
American Public Policy Committee
American Affordable Health Care
Midwest Alliance for Better Government (formerly Public Security Now).

FUNDING

In 2008,
$1.2 million from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
$500,000 from the Change to Win labor federation (which is spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union)
$125,000 from the United Food and Commercial Workers union

In 2006,
$400,000 from SEIU Local 1199
$250,000 from the Massachusetts Teachers Association
$200,000 from the Democratic Governors Association
$50,000 from Patricia Cornwell of CEI Enterprises.

Patriot Majority West: In 2008,
$2.18 million from AFSCME

In 2006
$250,000 from the Democratic Governors Association
$200,000 from Colorado Education Association
$120,000 from AFSCME
$100,000 from SEIU
$25,000 from Tim Gill.

Patriot Majority Midwest: In 2006
$370,000 from the Democratic Governors Association.

Alliance for North Carolina: In 2006
$45,000 from Democratic Governors Association.

Bluegrass Freedom Fund: In 2007
$1 million from William Yung of Columbia Sussex
$640,000 from the Democratic Governors Association
$238,000 from AFSCME.

American Public Policy Committee: In 2008,
$60,000 from the Democratic Governors Association.

Midwest Alliance for Better Government: In 2008,
$50,000 from AFSCME
$45,000 from the Democratic Governors Association.

 

OTHERS INVOLVED

 
MIKE RICE: former research director for the California Democratic Party and gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Brown in 1994

DAVE CONTARINO: manager of former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign; former chief of staff to Gov. Richardson

PATRICK J. HALL: former executive director of Oklahoma Democratic Party

JOE HOUSEHOLDER: former communications director for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY); former communications director for former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack

GEORGE RAKIS: former political director of the Democratic Governors Association; former regional political director for the Democratic National Committee; led planning process for America Votes; coordinated campaign director for Michigan Democratic Party during 2000 elections

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s union money being masked as just a group of patriots that think like the majority instead of being honest that they are unionists that are attacking Republicans that do represent the real majority, hard working Americans that hate unions.

=============================

My own end note:

I WONDER how the members of these Unions feel when their dues are spent toward election campaigns INSTEAD of benefits for their own members.

The Union members retirement pension funds, their healthcare fund, their education fund, etc. squandered toward the Union bosses agenda; not the members needs……

UNIONS are Pr0gressives = Communists/Marxists/Maoists.

Will Union members eventually WAKE UP and realize they are nothing but pawns and slaves to their “controlling committee” of bosses and stewards; motivating to carry signs, make phone calls and march in the streets at their whim? 

Will Union members ever ask HOW MUCH of their dues goes to the bosses and stewards’ agenda

Will a Union member ever ask one of the top echelon of their Union what their yearly salary is?

How many of you in the Unions don’t have jobs right now?  You are scrounging to find money for food, while the bosses and stewards live the life of luxury.

 

Andy Stern visited the White House…..22 times between January 2009 to June 2009.

Anna Burger is tied to the SEIU, Change to Win and is ON OBAMA’s Economic Recovery Advisory board.

 

Former Disgraced Obama Czar (Van Jones) Re-emerges: Still has Ties to White House. Action in San Francisco?

 

Disgraced former Obama czar reemerges

 

Communist-group founder to address world’s leading corporations

 


By Aaron Klein

Van Jones, President Obama’s controversial former “green jobs” czar, is slated to address a major environmental forum next week alongside speakers from such major corporations as Microsoft, IBM, Yahoo, Intel, Best Buy and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Jones resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Jones also called for “resistance” against the U.S. government. 

Jones is one of 22 speakers at next Thursday’s State of Green Business Forum in San Francisco. The day-long event, sponsored by the environmental activist website GreenBiz.com, focuses on corporate environmental trends, carbon management and “green” business initiatives.

Other scheduled speakers at the forum include Rob Bernard, chief environmental strategist for Microsoft; Rich Lechner, vice president of energy and environment for IBM; Christina Page, director of climate and energy strategy for Yahoo; Rick Rommel, senior vice president of emerging business for Best Buy Co., Lorie Wigle, general manager of the eco-technology program office for Intel Corporation. Also two speakers will be on hand from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Jones has not remained in the background since stepping down from his White House position.

White House still listening to Jones’ advice

WND reported Jones serves on the advisory board of an independent environmental organization actively working with the White House.

Jones is one of 20 advisers to the University of Colorado-based Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, which draws up climate-policy recommendations for the White House and has been working with members of the Obama administration. The PCAP released a lengthy proposal last September to guide the environmental policies during the first 100 days of the 44th U.S. president, regardless of whether Obama or Sen. John McCain won the election.

William S. Becker, the PCAP’s executive director, confirmed to WND his group is “about to propose a new and more assertive strategy for President Obama to raise the bar on the U.S. climate goal, with or without Congress.” [Emphasis added]

Becker told WND his group’s initial proposals have received a “very positive reception from the moment we delivered (the 100-day proposal) last November to John Podesta, co-chair of Obama’s transition team.”

“We continue to work with some colleagues inside the (Obama) administration, as well as continuing to push for bold action from the outside,” he said. 

Becker said the White House “adopted quite a few of our recommendations or variations of them.”

 

Excerpted: Story continues HERE.
 
 
 
========================
 
Guess who else will be at this State of Green Business Forum:
 
 

 

    Kevin Surace

 
CEO
Serious Materials
Mr. Surace, a noted speaker and writer on climate change and the built environment, is on a mission to drive energy efficiency in the built environment, and bring green jobs and manufacturing back to the US. As CEO of Serious Materials, Kevin leads the company in its mission to reduce energy usage and CO2 generation of the world’s largest contributor, our buildings.

 
Read this blog about Surace:
 
 
 
==============================================
 
 
One of the sponsors of this Forum is Sodexo.
 

SodexoSodexo, Inc. (www.sodexoUSA.com), a member of Sodexo Group, is a leading provider of Comprehensive Service Solutions serving more than ten million customers daily in corporations, health care, long term care, retirement, schools, higher education, government and remote sites. Headquartered in Gaithersburg, Md., Sodexo, Inc. operates in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with $7.7 billion (USD) in annual revenue and 120,000 employees.

 
Sodexo has been targeted by the SEIU. 
 

Who is “Clean Up Sodexo”?

Clean Up Sodexo, a project of SEIU, is meant to shed a new light on how people think about Sodexo, one of the largest contracted food and facilities companies in the world.

http://cleanupsodexo.org/a/about/

Will the Purple Shirts demonstrate at this meeting?

============================================

Sodexo’s response to the SEIU claims:

Setting the Record Straight

by Tom Mackall VP Employee & Corporate Relations 28. January 2010 11:36

Recently, the labor union Service Employees International Union has made misleading accusations against Sodexo. The SEIU is in an intense fight with other unions, which have traditionally represented food service workers. This dispute includes competing claims to organize various workforce sectors. This infighting has generated several lawsuits and charges of unethical behavior between the unions. The SEIU’s campaign against our industry has arisen out of this dispute.

As one of the nation’s leading employers, providing more than 120,000 jobs — most of which are in the food service industry — Sodexo is the target of a campaign by SEIU that attempts to embarrass the company and force it into dealing with the SEIU to the exclusion of other unions.

The SEIU’s tactics include loosely combining a host of unrelated issues affecting the economic conditions of workers, including the national health care debate; federal housing policy; and the lingering effects of a historic recession, and somehow blames the impact of these issues on Sodexo.

The SEIU even provided an all expenses paid trip to Paris for their hand-picked Sodexo employees to attend the company’s annual shareholder meeting. The purpose? To spread more misinformation to European audiences.

Read the entire article here:

http://www.sodexousa.com/blog/post/Setting-the-Record-Straight.aspx

 
============================
Will Tea Party Patriots demonstrate outside against the appearance of Van Jones?
 
Will MSM’s appear to ask Surace about his connections to Obama and Surace being married to  someone at the DOE?
 
Will the Purple Shirts (SEIU) appear there to protest Sodexo being one of the sponsors of this forum?
 State of Green Business Forum 2010

February 4, 2010

PG&E Auditorium, downtown San Francisco

 

What Was SEIU’s Eliseo Medina Doing in New Zealand? Hint: It Wasn’t a Vacation

 

hat tip to Trevor Loudon at newzealblogspot.com

 

US Marxist Union Boss Promotes Ties to Kiwi Mega Union

What was US union boss Eliseo Medina doing in New Zealand?

The new New Zealand Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) is the rough eqivalent of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in the US.

Both unions represent low paid service workers, both are Marxist led, are highly political and very influential with the main left party in their respective countries-the US Democratic Party and the NZ Labour Party.

Eliseo Medina, vice president of the SEIU visited NZ in October 2009, where he worked with the SFWU and apparently met with Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe.


Left to right: Len Richards, SFWU Lead Organiser, Hospitals Campaign (Northern Region); Eliseo Medina, SEIU; Jill Ovens, SFWU National Secretary; SFWU Pacific Islands Komiti Matriarch Fili’iamata Fiu, David Cunliffe MP, Labour Party Finance Spokesperson.

Read about “boss hating” mad Marxist Jill Ovens here and her husband loony left Len Richards here.

Eliseo Medina was a guest speaker at the SFWU’s October National Delegates Conference in Auckland.

Eliseo gave a powerful speech to the conference about the need for unions to not only operate internationally to win power over the large international companies we were facing, but to also campaign internationally around immigration, healthcare and housing issues.

Eliseo related the struggle of the SEIU in the United States to win immigration and healthcare reform as part of an overall goal of Justice for All.

On the days before and after our conference Eliseo visited Wellington and Christchurch talking to SFWU members and organisers about the SEIU and the international partnerships to organise in cleaning and security.

Justice for All-nice codeword for socialism.

When a leading US marxist union boss like Eliseo Medina is linking up with Labour’s cash cow the SFWU and Labour’s finance spokesman, should we be concerned?

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-marxist-union-boss-promotes-ties-to.html

The Other Side of The Story: Statement by James O’Keefe

 

 

BigGovernment.com has published the statement of James O’Keefe and the incident at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.

 

January 29, 2010

Statement from James O’Keefe

by James O’Keefe

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Link

====================

Now you have the “accused” person’s statement.

Will the MSM’s end up with egg on their faces?

Will the government release the video tapes taken during this incident, so James can publish them?

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

Rahm Emanuel Contradicts Obama’s Clean Hands Claim on “Cornhusker” Kickback

 

Big Government.com is reporting:

Video by Real Clear Politics

Hours before his embattled boss gave his first State of the Union address, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contradicted President Barack Obama’s claim made just two days before that he had nothing to do with the much maligned deal to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) for the Senate’s healthcare bill just before Christmas.

Speaking to ABC News’ World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview on Monday, Obama denied being involved in what has come to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida…

OBAMA: Let’s hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let’s just clarify. I didn’t make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that’s point number one.

 

In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on Wednesday, Emanuel flatly stated that he and the Obama administration were heavily involved in the Cornhusker Kickback as well as the other deals that provoked outrage from the public and helped Republican Scott Brown win the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Couric: As you know, people were pretty disgusted by deals that were made up on Capitol Hill like the one given to Ben Nelson to win his support. If the White House was so involved, was this done with your blessing? But…

Emanuel: Look, we were involved in the legislation all the way through.

Couric: Were you involved in that?

Emanuel: Yeah. I’m not gonna go through all of it…

Couric: But in the Ben Nelson deal?

Emanuel: We were helpful in getting the bill off the Senate floor. And in retrospect the things – as I said to you just earlier, things you woulda done different.

To repeat what Obama told Diane Sawyer about the Cornhusker Kickback:

So let’s just clarify. I didn’t make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked.

The mainstream media has thus far ignored Obama being exposed as a liar by his own chief of staff. A few conservative outlets have noted a Washington Post article from December 20, 2009 that reported the involvement of Emanuel and other White House staff in the Senate negotiations. With Emanuel himself confirming the Obama administration’s involvement with the Cornhusker Kickback, Obama has some explaining to do.

Entire article HERE.

After Obama Rips Lobbyists during SOTU Address: The Next Day The White House Gives K St. Insiders Private Briefings

 

Bob Cusak of The Hill writes on January 28, 2010:

A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.
 
The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”

The calls are scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, with the first topic being job creation and economic growth.

Another call, at 1 p.m., is on government reform and transparency. Republicans have criticized the Obama White House for not being more transparent in its discussions with Congress on healthcare reform. Obama recently acknowledged that the legislative process has not been as open as he promised on the campaign trail.

Other issues that will be addressed on Thursday include education, climate change and healthcare reform.

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.
 
One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”
 
In his State of the Union on Wednesday, Obama once again targeted K Street: “We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.  To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”
 
The Treasury Department referred The Hill’s request for comment to the White House, which at press time had not responded to questions on this issue.

On Thursday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated in an e-mail, “As part of our effort to reach out and engage with the public and policymakers, it is standard for our outreach team to organize a conference call, so that we can include people who are not in Washington, after a major speech or announcement through the president’s priorities. These calls are targeted at a diverse group of community and government leaders including mayors, governors, faith groups, women’s organizations, representatives from the African American and Latino communities to share as much information about the administration’s agenda as possible. The calls, which include question-and-answer sessions, typically include hundreds of people from across the country…”

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.
 
For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”
 
Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.”
 
And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag.

Entire article HERE.

 

=======================

 

End note:

“Lobbyists” are BAD; but when you want donations of $$$ they are GOOD.

Obama two-faced?  Deceitful?  YOU DECIDE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stealth move? Is Obama using SEIU to Force Unionization/Nationalization of Banks?

 

 

**Excerpted for length** ALL CREDIT goes to the author of this article.

  

SEIU’s Secret Weapon: If Obama Plan Fails; Brandish the Shareholder’s Resolution.

by Liberty Chick

We saw their fury throughout 2009:  “Capitalism is Dead”, “Kill the Corporation”, “Bust Up Big Banks”, “Greed Kills”, “Bank of America, Bad for America”.  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) led an all-out assault on Wall Street – and on capitalism and corporations – coining words and phrases that have since become common staples in the vocabulary of the bank-bashing craze.  That fury hit a fever pitch last March when word of the AIG bonuses went public.  It was the SEIU out in front of the protests, at AIG offices, and bussing protestors to the homes of AIG executives.

AIG_Rally_AndyStern_March19

The months that followed saw more of the same.  In April, SEIU hailed the ousting of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner.  That same week, it stepped up its battleplan with the Mother of all Corporate Campaigns against Ken Lewis, Bank of America CEO and Chairman – complete with videos, rolling billboards, smear sites, petition drives, letter campaigns, media blitzes and more, while it placed equal attention on Bank of America, forcing the company to respond with a $40 million image boosting campaign of television and print ads.

SEIU & progressive groups stage a 3-day “Showdown in Chicago” at the annual ABA meeting. Of course, when non-progressives protested the bailouts, they were shunned as “extremists” & a “dangerous mob”, but I digress…

And by October, SEIU’s bank bashing crusade climaxed again at the American Bankers Association annual meeting, with its greatly publicized “Showdown in Chicago“, where some of the protestors dressed in Grim Reaper garb chased down meeting attendees, brandishing cleavers and butcher knives emblazoned with bloody-looking slogans such as “Making a Killing” and “Greed Kills”.  Clearly, the aim was to intimidate, yet none of the media outlets apparently felt any duty to call out such theatrics.  That event also featured a star-studded cast that included everyone from Andy Stern, to Anna Burger, Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, and even Armando Robles of the now infamous Serious Materials, which was recently featured on Stossel’s Crony Capitalism special

In November came the much anticipated Goldman Sachs protest.  While the event was promoted in advance by media outlets like Politico, it turned out to be more of a letter delivery than a protest.  Nonetheless, Andy Stern was once again the notable headliner. 

All told, there’s certainly been no shortage of bank bashing tirades.  Labor unions like SEIU in particular have been especially dramatic in both prose and propaganda.

 

[snip] 

 

Now, I am certainly not defending the practices of some of the banks – the behavior of some has been irresponsible and reckless.  I think we all acknowledge that.  But considering that labor unions like SEIU represent such a small minority of “the American People,” why have we seen such constant, organized angst on a widespread scale from SEIU? No other outfit has been anywhere near as visible or as aggressive as SEIU on this front.  While everyone else made their points, said their peace and moved on after April, SEIU continued and escalated its attacks month after month.  One has to wonder, how much of it is truly in the sincere interest of “protecting the American people”?  (Especially considering that labor unions represent only a tiny portion of all Americans – and all of us have been greatly impacted by the financial crisis).  And why no protests against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the auto industry?

Even noted law firms, like Hunton & Williams, and Morgan & Lewis took notice, and published their suspicious of the sincerity of the labor union’s motives.

You could almost have predicted the storyline and its lead-up to the populist outrage. If you kept your eye on Andy Stern and the SEIU Master Trust.

In a 1972 book, “The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America,” author Peter Drucker studies the role that government and labor union pension funds play in the financial sector. He described that unknowingly, the US over time has “socialized” our economy without actually “nationalizing” it, by way of the pension funds of America’s workers.

[snip]

 

You Don’t Want a Union?  This is My Baseball Bat & I Call It “Shareholder Resolution”

Of all those companies that have been SEIU’s protest targets, most have been the very same corporations in which the $1.9 billion SEIU Master Trust and some of parent Change to Win Investment Group’s $217 billion are invested. Is it also coincidence that many of these corporations were also the very targets of SEIU unionization efforts?

In early 2009, Andy Stern and Anna Burger wrote to the White House and Congress, demanding a list of financial reforms be legislated immediately, including a central regulator, and control over executive compensation and bonuses.  Then in April, SEIU Master Trust director Stephen Abrecht sent a letter to 29 financial firms in which the trust holds investments, demanding that the companies’ directors investigate more than $5 billion in paid bonuses that SEIU says were based upon false metrics. Among those firms on the list were AIG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, PNC Financial Services and others.

Shortly thereafter, SEIU proposed a number of shareholder resolutions to the boards of many of the companies on that same list, requesting everything from ousting CEOs or board members to controlling employee compensation structures.  Meanwhile, outside on the streets, SEIU’s protests were often coordinated with company meetings and events.  As banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fought against the Employee Free Forced Choice Act legislation, SEIU levied shareholder resolutions against them and issued more demands to Congress for immediate consumer protection and financial reform.

When Anna Burger then testified in front of the Congressional Financial Services Committee in September, not only did she push for a central bank regulator and other financial reforms, but she concluded her testimony by calling for the unionization of bank workers, insisting that the bank workers could then “speak out in protection of consumers” without fear to prevent future crisis.

Not surprising, since SEIU has had its eye on unionizing bank workers for quite some time, placing repeated pressure on banks for years and conducting endless rounds of their infamous corporate campaigns.

I was also interested when SEIU celebrated the victory of Brazilian bank workers who in October had won a wage increase and other concessions after a 10-day strike there, through the efforts of SEIU’s partnering coalition Central Unica dos Trabalhadores (CUT). In November, SEIU sent a delegation of its own members down to Brazil to learn more about their partner union’s bank campaign.

Prior evidence of SEIU’s bank organizing attempts had already surfaced one year earlier after emails between Inga Skippings of SEIU and ACORN were publicized, revealing their collusion on the effort to unionize bank workers, since, as Skippings put it, “the banking industry is now being infused with billions of taxpayer dollars.”

“We need to get a handle on who these workers are, working conditions, etc.,” Skippings wrote.

“Do you have ACORN members who work for banks or Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae? Is there anyway [sic] you could check? The banks we’re most concerned about are:

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Chevy Chase/B.F.Saul, BB&T, SunTrust, Bank of America/Countrywide, Wachovia/Wells Fargo, PNC Bank/National City, Citigroup

Please let me know and if you have other suggestions, I’d love to hear them.”

Of course, after months of SEIU’s repeated and relentless attacks against Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, demands that Bank of America fire him, and finally a shareholders resolution to oust him, Lewis stepped down as CEO in September 2009, while Andy Stern took full credit for Lewis’ resignation on Twitter.  SEIU even went so far as to demand that Kenneth Feinberg, in his duties as the newly created Pay Czar, stop all payments to Ken Lewis, after he’d already been ousted from the board.

[snip]

Other attempts, some successful, some not, have been made over the years in similar SEIU fashion. Just a few examples of their Pension Fund activism to note:

  • 2003:  California’s Lucia Mar school board privatizes school bus operations to save taxpayers money.  SEIU and the California School Employees Association (CSEA) union team up and force pension fund California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to sell off shares in any company that competes for public sector jobs, and to prohibit investments with any firm that builds or staffs charter schools, demanding “a strong anti-privatization stand”.
  • 2005:  SEIU teams up with The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and proposes shareholder resolution demanding FirstService Corp end dual class share voting, which was voted down.
  • 2005:  As SEIU seeks to organize consultants and protests outsourcing, they’ve had Sun Microsystems in their sights.   SEIU proposes a shareholder resolution to change Sun’s bonus compensation, but was voted down by other shareholders.
  • 2007:  SEIU files a shareholder resolution against Wells Fargo, demanding they set Greenhouse Gas emission reduction goals. Later withdrawn when Wells Fargo voluntarily committed to performing GHG assessments in key related portfolios.
  • April 2008:  SEIU files a shareholder resolution against Washington Mutual to force out Kerry Killinger from his role as Chairman.
  • April 2009:  SEIU sends letter to 29 companies demanding investigation into practices based upon what it called “false metrics” and that the boards overhaul executive compensation.

Institutional investors certainly have a responsibility to protect their pension funds, and no one faults anyone for doing so.  But in SEIU’s case, there has often been a pattern of abusing that responsibility to achieve other goals.  Over the years, SEIU has teamed up with a multitude of co-investors and pension fund activists to gain unionizing and pay control from inside these corporations.  This activity is rampant in the private sector companies, and much of it is not in the best interest of the taxpayers or the workers at these companies.

The financial reforms Obama has proposed of late match up nearly word for word with what’s been proposed by SEIU’s leaders.  Much of what’s included in H.R 3126,  The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, also lines up with SEIU’s language. And in the midst of them all are the renewed calls to pass EFCA, the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act.

And all the while, SEIU has continued on its mission to use the shareholder resolution as a weapon against nearly every business in which their Master Trust has been invested…that is, if that business opposes the Employee Free Forced Choice Act.

So, who’s proposing the financial reforms – is it Obama, or is it SEIU?  Who and what is all this legislation designed to protect, really?  The American People?  Or just a few leaders in purple t-shirts?

Read the entire article HERE.

Obama’s View of Self-Image? America’s Crash Course In Narcissism

 

A hat tip and all credit to http://www.theobamafile.com on this one.

America’s Crash Course In Narcissism

January 27, 2010

Joy Tiz says the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR) is the diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals.  A diagnosis of narcissism requires five out of nine characteristics.  Note these traits must endure overtime and must not be reactions to a particular situation or environmental stressor:
  

1.  Grandiose sense of self-importance.
2.  Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, or ideal love.
3.  Sense of specialness, belief he can only be understood by or should associate only with other special or high-status individuals or institutions.
4.  Need for excessive admiration.
5.  Heightened sense of entitlement, leading to unreasonable expectations that others should treat him especially favorably or comply automatically with his expectations.
6.  Tendency to be interpersonally exploitive. A person with NPD does not hesitate in taking advantage of others to meet his own ends.
7.  Lack of empathy, an inability or unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.
8.  An envy of other people, or conversely, a belief that other people envy him.
9.  A tendency toward arrogant behavior or attitude.

     
In his essay on Obama’s narcissism, Sam Vaknin references Obama’s haughty body language and condescending attitude.  Vaknin also points out Obama’s “emotion free language.”  Commentators frequently describe Obama as cool and aloof.

Some narcissists learn to mimic normal human emotions.  Clinton is the master of this; he claimed to feel our pain, and plenty of Americans believed him.  Clinton learned how to win people over with his pseudo empathy.  Obama has yet to demonstrate anything we could call true empathy; irrespective of the words he uses, there is no real emotional content.

When children experience overwhelming trauma, they protect themselves as best they can with a variety of defense mechanisms.  There is no question that life for little Barry was traumatic, full of chaos and abandonment, as well as genuine fear.  The adults in his life betrayed him and taught him hate and mistrust.  Otto Kernberg, in his research on narcissism, states that it evolves as a defense against a cold and unsympathetic parent.  The child withdraws part of himself from the unavailable parent and turns it back toward himself, creating a grandiose sense of self.  Healthy emotional development was just not possible in young Barry’s environment.
 
If five out of nine indicates narcissism, what does nine out of nine indicate?

=============

THEN ADD THIS:

Obama Mentions Himself 132 Times In Speech

 

 

Then says, “It’s Not About Me”

========================

HotAir asks — Try to picture any other president doing this.

This is an “official White House photograph.”  What’s worse, the fact that Obama treats the Oval Office like this, or the fact that they are arrogant enough to upload it on the White House website — and remember this, and this — do you think his mother let him put his feet on the furniture in her house — do you think Michelle allows this boorish behavior in the residence — or in her mansion in Chicago?

============================

Romanticpoet end note:

Does this explain the haughty position of his nose/head?

Go to fullsize image

Go to fullsize image

And to think I used to hate Bush’s smirk.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers