Having a Tough Time Selling Obamacare, Obama Turns to School Children; Offers a “Contest”



From Weasel Zippers

White House Launching Video Contest Where Participants Will Sing About The Joys of Obamacare…

 August 19, 2013

Nice to see the White House outsourcing their Obamacare propaganda efforts.

WASHINGTON — With precious time remaining before the health care exchanges established by the president’s health care law are up and running, the Obama administration is rolling out new initiatives to encourage enrollment.

The latest of these is set to be unveiled on Monday, when the Department of Health and Human Services will debut a video contest — complete with cash prizes — designed to persuade younger consumers to get insurance.

The administration will partner with Young Invincibles, a non-profit youth issues organization, to run the contest, with the goal of reaching those younger Americans who are skeptical of the need for health coverage.

Participants will be encouraged to submit three different types of videos advertising the benefits of the exchanges: a song, an animated short, or a video designed to convince viewers that they aren’t invincible. Using funds from the Affordable Care Act’s education and outreach budget, HHS will award $3,000 each to the creators of the three most popular and persuasive videos, while second and third place winners will get $2,500 each.

Keep reading…


A Follow-Up by Weasel Zippers

White House Taps ACORN’s Former Top Lobbyist To Head Obamacare Youth Video Contest…

Update to this story.

Via Daily Mail:

A liberal organization tapped Monday to manage a new federal government-sponsored video contest aimed at encouraging young Americans to embrace Obamacare is run by ACORN’s former top lobbyist, MailOnline can reveal.

ACORN, the once-mighty Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, crumbled in 2010 just months after a video sting operation showed its employees advising activists posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to evade federal taxes and hide crimes including human trafficking and prostitution.

Congress voted officially to defund it shortly thereafter.

The far-left ACORN was also dogged for years by allegations – some proven, others not – that its street-level organizers engaged in widespread voter registration fraud.

In its heyday, ACORN’s legislative agenda was managed by Deepak Bhargava, an Indian-born community organizer. Bhargava left ACORN in 2002 after holding the top government affairs position there for 10 years. He is now executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Community Change.

In 2013 that organization sponsored a new youth outreach arm called Young Invincibles, which announced a partnership on Monday with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Their joint effort will award cash prizes to the creators of online videos that convince millennials to sign up for Obamacare health insurance exchanges, which open for enrollment on October 1.


The Young Invincible Partners:

[A]lso receive a small percentage of our funding as sub-recipients of state health care outreach grants in New York and the Washington, DC.

YI is fiscally sponsored by the Center for Community Change, a longstanding organization committed to building the power and capacity of low-income people across the country.

Click link above to see partners you recognize and some you don’t.



Communism’s 45 Steps; read into Congressional Record in 1963


For those unacquainted with Communism’s 45 Steps, I strongly advise that you study them. Many have already been accomplished. America has just elected a president who has more in common with communism than he does with America. If you love this country, fight to make sure Obama and his bots do not fulfill these steps. It is a fight too many of us are too late engaging in, but it ain’t over yet.

Congressional Record
Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

**Pay attention to the EMPHASIZED numbers***



And now a word from Samantha Power, Obama’s new Ambassador to the U.N. who is married to Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former Regulatory Czar…..


“When dictators feel their support slipping among adults, it is not unusual for them to alter school textbooks in the hope of enlisting impressionable youths in their cause.”   

Samantha Power



***Common core now being pushed in schools in America***

According to Common Core 4 x 3 = 11 is given credit because the student at least attempted to answer…..and we wonder WHY our children are failing in the Global Education system?


*******Influencing youths in Universities******

Where are a majority of Obama’s speeches?




IF Obama were Such a Great President, WHY are our inner cities and Low Income Families Failing? A Look at History



“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels quotes  **Propagandist for Adolph Hitler**

Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party were SOCIAL DEMOCRATS.



First they were called Democrats.


TAKE A MOMENT TO SMELL THE RACISM. Progressive Racism. Americans Need to LEARN the Sobering History of President Woodrow Wilson’s Segregation Policy.

Excerpt from above link:

Wilson, our first professorial president, was a case in point. He was the very model of a modern Progressive, and he was recognized as such. He prided himself on having pioneered the new science of rational administration, and he shared the conviction, dominant among his brethren, that African-Americans were racially inferior to whites. With the dictates of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement in mind, in 1907, he campaigned in Indiana for the compulsory sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded; and in 1911, while governor of New Jersey, he proudly signed into law just such a bill.


Margaret Sanger, a founder of Planned Parenthood rose in this era:

The Truth About MARGRET SANGER and Black Genocide

Excerpt from above link:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920)



Then they were called Liberals.


Black Americans Have Allowed Liberal Policies Based On Corrupt Motives To Destroy Their Families

Excerpt from above link:

The greatest, relevant example of what liberalism can do, not only to a society but to the entire people that make up the black population in the United States. Since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson and the great society programs that promised the black family freedom from responsibility, they have become more and more impoverished. That is because they have been lied to and told they do not have to try, and because of their ancestors history they are entitled. Surely, slavery was a great travesty against mankind but it was a worldwide phenomenon that saw European whites enslaved in Egypt as late as the 1880′s. The real travesty is not telling today’s blacks the truth about the history of their current slave masters. There has been a deliberate attempt to destroy the black family through welfare spending and government dependency by the Democrat Party in order to secure a permanent voting base and these politicians, in an effort to hide the facts of their racist past; which connects to the KKK and the lynching of blacks, as well as white republicans who fought for real equality, project their sins onto the rest of society acting as if they are the saviors of the black race. You can thank our education system, as well as the history books simply tell a story of Lyndon Johnsons great society as being a successful program while he was responsible for passing civil rights legislation. Never mind that as Senate Majority leader he ensured the same civil rights legislation put forth by republican president Dwight Eisenhower didn’t pass, only so he could usurp it upon assuming the presidency. To quote Lyndon Johnson “I’ll have those ni**ers voting democratic for the next two hundred years.”

Today we see young black men whose unemployment rates are the highest in the nation, whose inner city communities have been ravished by democrat politicians promising a free ride not knowing any other direction to turn but to lash out violently against those they have been taught to hate. They have been turned into monsters as across the country they muster into a mob mentality and attack innocent people because they believe they have been oppressed. The truth is, they are being oppressed. They are being oppressed by those that stand something to gain by a divided America. They are being oppressed by those that depend on their guaranteed vote so they can stay in power and keep the business of welfare funding going. Now these politicians turn their blind eyes as inner city blacks are killing each other off in the ghettos that liberal Democrats have created for them. I suppose it makes sense when you look at the liberals support for abortion and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger and she was actually pretty intent on getting rid of the Negro population.

Sadly, it seems that today’s younger blacks, through indoctrination as opposed to education, have been conned into supporting their own downfall through failed liberal policies. Affirmative action is another example. Liberal democrats intent on keeping a secure voting base have convinced black people that they are not as capable as whites and therefore are entitled to lower standards when it comes to college admissions and employment. The lower standard mentality is now even being applied in our high schools. Apparently, this is angering some black people, as it should, but when will they realize that their president supports this? Believing that one group of people is not as capable as another is an example of real blatant racism, yet because there is a free handout involved in it accepted. This is why the black population is where it is today, because they have allowed corrupted liberal policies based on corrupted motives to destroy their families and take away their choice.


Now they are called “Progressives”.  

The progressives are Democrats that have been usurped by the Communist Party. Most of the ideology of the Progressives MIRROR that of the Communist Party.

**Suggest you go to the link below and READ all 45 steps and COMPARE them to what you have witnessed/are witnessing today**

Communism’s 45 Steps


**Call themselves the BETTER Democrats. What? I thought they were ALL Democrats**

History of Segregation and Racism in America. Democrats Have Not ‘Evolved’ Since 1964. Democrats have put America in Neutral.

Excerpt from above link:

Through Dialectic ProcessThe art of deception by brainwashing and lying, the Democrats have been able to perpetuate the Big Lie to the lower income population of America. Democrats do NOT believe in individualism; they want to keep you in the peasantry class.


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels quotes  **Propagandist for Adolph Hitler**


‘Washington Post’ Catches Democrats Rewriting Civil Rights History. Since the Democrat Party Likes to Play the “Race Card” and “Racism”… Let Historical Facts Prevail

Excerpt from above link:

The history also highlights the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Certainly President Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, played an essential role, but it is worth remembering that 80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Albert Gore (Tenn.), father of the future vice president. Republican votes, in fact, were essential in winning final passage of the bill.

And let’s not forget that The Great Emancipator, the president who spent his legal and political career making some of the most persuasive, moral, common sense, and elegant cases against slavery in our nation’s history — was a Republican. Oh, and he freed the slaves.


What the Progressives like to hide from America are the FACTS.


#1  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. WAS A REPUBLICAN.



#2.  Racism and threats actually were initiated by Southern Democrats and the KKK.

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party

By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Fonerthe renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.  As a further testament to his impeccable credentials,Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan.  Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.  My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat.  My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….  My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….  My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.


Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him. Racism at its finest.

Excerpt from above link:

Moreover, decrying all Republicans as racists is a Democrat article of faith.  But why dredge up Jim Crow?

In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born.  By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems.  These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation.  Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous.  However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states:  They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.” [Emphasis added here]

When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964.  Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation.  Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book  Bamboozled:

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag.  It was our party’s flag.  That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats.  That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote?  Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.


The ones like Obama, Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. like to paraphrase from Lincoln and Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr. yet are ONLY using those “words” to stir up discontent and discord. That is HOW the Progressives move their ideology and agenda.

Rubbing Raw the Sores of Discontent; then Galvanize Them~~Saul Alinsky. What Alinsky Taught Obama to Create Civil Upheaval

For example, from “Rules for Radicals,” consider Alinsky’s words of wisdom for emerging community organizers:

[You must help]  the people in the community…feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. [An] organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives—agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. [You must] fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame of fight.



The Obama Administration NOT telling the TRUTH; Calls them “Phony” Scandals. Really?



Utopian Slavery Through Infantalizing via Progressivism/Socialism. Obama and the Progressives Know Exactly what They are Doing to Americans.


Barack Obama, on the other hand, does not trust this “individual impulse” and believes it must be “tempered by a central authority,” Ablow concluded, and that leads “to nowhere other than mediocrity and to the rise of despots.”


Bait And Switch on Obamacare. Obama and Progressives/Democrat Socialists Knew Exactly What They Were Doing to the American People


Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.


No matter HOW you look at it, they are suppressing the inner cities and low income Americans to keep them voting Democrat.


Allen West a Republican Conservative was chided by the Black Congressional Caucus for speaking against slave mentality.  West even described himself as the modern Harriet Tubman.

Allen West has:

1.  Exposed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a “liar” and “not a lady”.

2.  Exposed the Congressional Progressive Caucus as Communists (Rosa DeLauro is one, Dennis Kucinich backed by Communists), Progressives (look at the name of their Caucus. Progressives = Far left Social Democrats. Agenda: Social Justice and equality for all).  Jan Schakowsky is a Chicago Progressive, a BIG backer of Obama and is married to Robert Creamer (the one that says he devised the Obama Healthcare while sitting in prison).

3.  Called himself the modern “Harriet Tubman” to lead liberal Americans off the government “plantation”.  Government subsidized (now at 47% of Americans) welfare, unemployment compensation, now disability compensation and food stamps have let to infantilizing the lives of Americans.  Government = “Parent”….those on government assistance “children”. Whatever the government giveth; it can also take away.  Then what will these people do?  Cities in California now filing bankruptcy; soon other cities may follow this action.

4.  Has spoken out about radical Islam and the intent of the “Jihad”.  Allen West has been followed and attacked by CAIR and withstood.  Allen West is PRO-ISRAEL.

5.  Fully supports our military and their families.


Allen West American Eagle






Politico: Obama MUST Use ‘FEAR’. John Podesta: Obama can use executive orders, rule-making, and even the Armed Forces “to accomplish important change”?



From Breitbart:


June 24, 2013

By Joel B. Pollak

Despite mounting evidence of the federal government’s abuse of power, Politico’s analysts have decided that the cure for Obama’s second-term “doldrums” are that he must use “fear” to exert his will on Washington.

“Obama does not instill fear–one of the customary instruments of presidential power,” write John F. Harris, Jake Sherman, and Elizabeth Titus. The president should make clear “that people have good reason to be afraid of him,” they quote another analyst as saying. They add that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) believes Obama should be “more forceful,” and seem to lament, along with one Democratic strategist, that “there’s not a single member of either party who fears paying a political price” for disagreeing with Obama.

Though they acknowledge a few realities–such as that Obama “is not buoyed by the power of ideas” and that he has few political skills other than making speeches–the authors mistake incompetence for cowardice. In fact, on issue after issue–from the stimulus to Obamacare to the debt ceiling–Obama has done little except try to strong-arm his opponents. Lately he has resorted to using his Organizing for Action campaigns to do just that, pressuring members of the opposition–even those inclined to cross the aisle on common issues.

The idea that Obama might simply not have the skills, experience or interest to govern the nation seems not to have occurred to Politico’s writers. The possibility that he might be responsible for his own fate–instead of the hapless victim of external circumstances–likewise is one they are barely prepared to consider.

So they give him the same bad advice partisan Democrats have been giving him since 2009: make everyone afraid. Consolidate power. Punish your enemies.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to be listening.

**SOURCED from Breitbart.com/BigJournalism**

**Written by Joel B. Pollak**




November 18, 2010

The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the president from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.

“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”

How does one “move the country forward”? In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rule-making, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”

What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”

The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.

“The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy,” Podesta writes. ”Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still.”

The Center for American Progress is funded by liberal billionaire financier George Soros.

Read the entire report.



eagle trust the government?



While Americans are Exercising their Freedom to Vote….the Obama Administration is Busy Doing THIS! Pay Attention to the Progressive Agenda.



Death Knell for Coal

Obama Administration rushing policies to kill coal power after Nov. 6

November 5, 2012

The Obama administration is rushing to finalize regulations that will effectively kill coal power in America, the Washington Examiner reported:

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

The same Manhattan Institute report also notes that the new EPA regulations will not actually cut greenhouse gas emissions and that new coal power plants are clean by the usual EPA standards.

The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy points out coal’s importance to Virginia’s energy profile:

Coal is the most valuable single mineral resource produced in Virginia, with an estimated value in 2006 totaling $1.7 billion.  During 2006, about 29.5 million short tons of coal was mined. … Virginia consistently ranks among the top ten coal-producing states in the nation, making it an important contributor to the U.S. energy profile.

Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has complained in the past to theWashington Free Beacon about the Obama administration’s energy policies:

“Stop coming up with silly and unbalanced policies that hurt the ability of Virginia to use all of its God-given natural resources.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon


Waging War on Coal

EPA haze plans designed to circumvent court rulings

November 6, 2012


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expanded its control of state regulations known as Regional Haze Rule in order to impose more stringent regulations on coal-fired power plants and avoid the judicial injunction against air quality regulations that it tried to impose in 2011.

The EPA imposed haze plans on North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Nebraska in 2011 and 2012 that will increase energy compliance costs by almost $375 million. It also rejected plans in Wyoming and Arizona, demanding stricter regulations that would add at least $200 million to energy production, according to William Yeatman, an environmental regulations expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“Ultimately every state will face this; Ohio, Pennsylvania, everyone,” Yeatman said. “The EPA positioned Regional Haze to stand in for other regulations that didn’t pass constitutional muster. It is clearly moving aggressively to extend these rules to all coal-fired plants.”

The EPA attempted to usher in new regulatory processes for coal with the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which would have enabled the department to cap emissions for power plants operating in the states because pollution can travel across state lines. A federal appeals court blocked the rule from taking effect in 2011 and struck it down in August 2012, citing the rule’s onerous requirements and regulatory overreach.

The courts may have thwarted the rule from taking effect, but that did not prevent the department from using its costly guidelines on existing regulation such as the Regional Haze Rule, a 1999 standard that requires states to enhance visibility in federal parks. The EPA allowed the states to count existing air quality standards, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rules, toward its haze plans.

The EPA replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rules baseline with the more stringent Cross State Air Pollution Rule in May 2012 despite being on shaky legal ground. The agency then assumed the authority not only to approve haze plans, but also to replace them with federal plans if states refused to comply.

“EPA has been working with all states to take action on their regional haze plans for protecting visibility in our national parks and other areas. Most of these actions have been approvals,” spokeswoman Enesta Jones said.

Mark Lewis sits on the board of the Central Arizona Project, a public water management system that relies on the Navajo Generating Station’s coal plants to pump water throughout the state. He said the Regional Haze Rules proposed by the EPA would “destroy 65 years and $4 billion of infrastructure investments” because they would force the Navajo Station to spend $1 billion on upgrades. This has left the state no choice but to challenge the haze rules.

“This is targeted to shut down coal plants and they’re going to end up bankrupting the largest tribe in the country, as well as the farmers that use it for their water supply and the taxpayers who use it for electricity,” he said. “The EPA and environmental activists have overplayed their hands in these job-killing regulations.”

Keep reading here……………

**Emphasis added***




From Breitbart/Big Government



 6 Nov 2012

President Obama has not talked about ObamaCare much during the campaign, understandably because most Americans want the health care law repealed. But just wait. We’ll be hearing a lot more about the president’s signature legislation, because a “flood” of ObamaCare rules will be unleashed upon us immediately following the election.

While Barack Obama has been on the campaign trail, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her staff, along with those at the state level who are decision-making about the “exchanges,” have been busy working behind the scenes preparing for the “big reveal” of regulations.

On November 16th, the states face a deadline to inform the Obama administration whether they will implement the health insurance exchanges where consumers will purchase health insurance after 2014. States must have the exchanges ready to go in late 2013. If Obama wins and Democrats are still in control of the Senate, they will be sure the law is put in place as soon as possible.

With a Romney win, the lame duck session will not be so lame. Democrats will likely scramble to get all the regulations finalized by Nov. 22nd, which will be the 60-day mark before Romney’s inauguration on Jan. 20th. For the Obama administration, a “finalized” rule is one that cannot easily be undone by a Romney administration.

Perhaps one of the most significant, and controversial, ObamaCare regulations to be issued is one that will dictate what health insurance plans must cover. Other final rules to be issued include those governing the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate, employer penalties with regard to insuring “full-time” employees, and the now notorious HHS “contraception” mandate.

Regarding the likely onslaught of ObamaCare rules, Gail Wilensky, who has overseen the Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush, “My expectation is we will see a flurry [of regulation releases], but we’ll see the biggest flurry if Obama were to lose.” If Obama loses the election, time will not be on his side.

But, how will ObamaCare affect the pocketbooks of consumers who purchase health insurance in 2013? According to Ralph J. Nicoletti, Chief Financial Officer for Cigna, taxes on the health insurance industry related to ObamaCare will be passed on to customers in the form of higher premiums.

More here……………

***Emphasis added***





Creating Poverty Through “Social Justice”


From Biggovernment.com

Creating Poverty Through “Social Justice”

by Frank Salvato

We have been hearing a lot about “social justice,” during the tenure of the Obama Administration. From Eric Holder to John Holdren, Lisa Jackson to Van Jones to President Obama himself, the goal of social justice appears to be at the forefront of Mr. Obama’s agenda for the country. But while the term sounds innocuous enough, the goal itself is quite sinister and the road to getting there creates havoc and waste but for the chosen few.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle article proves this point beyond doubt:

“San Francisco’s much-heralded ‘social justice’ requirements for city contracts are costing local taxpayers millions of dollars a year in overcharges, according to workers in departments ranging from the Municipal Transportation Agency to the Department of Emergency Management.

“In one case, a Muni worker said the city paid $3,000 for a vehicle battery tray. Such parts can be found online for $12 to $300, depending on the type of vehicle…

“Other city purchasing policies, if followed, would mean paying about $240 for getting a copy of a key that actually cost a worker $1.35 to get done at a hardware store on his break, the employee said. Another city worker called the use of catalog pricing for supplies ‘Pentagon-style purchasing.’

“Markups from approved vendors range from 10 to 150 percent, employees said, with one calling the city’s requirement that contractors provide health care benefits for domestic partners ‘the expensive white elephant standing in the middle of the room (that) no one wants to mention.’

“Some vendors are suspected of being little more than middlemen who comply with San Francisco’s very specific requirements for contractors – like disclosing historic ties to slavery and providing domestic partner benefits, a provision known as 12B because of its chapter in the Administrative Code – then turn around and buy the products from companies that don’t meet the restrictions, city officials acknowledge.

“An analysis by the General Services Agency found that in the last complete fiscal year, 2009-10, the city paid $9.8 million to ‘possible third-party brokers’ – vendors that may be pass-through companies.”

Imagine that, a city with a $306 million budget deficit, from a state with a $15.4 billion deficit, justifying the over-payment of taxpayer dollars to what is essentially special interest affirmative action groups in the private sector by claiming it satisfies the quest for “social justice.”

If this is the path to social justice, then we have to conclude that social justice and free market Capitalism are not compatible. If this is the path to social justice, then we have to conclude that it only creates debt and poverty but for the chosen few. But, then, this should be no surprise seeing as social justice is a product of the Progressive Movement; a movement founded in the ideology of socialism derived from Marxism.

One of the Four Pillars of the Green Party, an ideologically Progressive group, social justice is defined as:

“…based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.”

The key words here are “progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution” and “more equality of opportunity than may currently exist.”

We are all familiar with the evils of the Progressive Tax. It unfairly and inequitably taxes the citizenry based on “classes”; that understood, it is fitting that it is named the “Progressive” tax system. One of the effective tactics of the Progressive ideology is the divide and conquer tactic, or at Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

By creating a tax system that divides the citizenry into classes, it is easier for the Progressives to demonize “the rich.” Once that is accomplished, the rationale is that “the rich” can afford to pay more in taxes. It becomes irrelevant that “the rich” are also “the productive” and “the job creators.” So, too, it becomes irrelevant that “the rich” are expected to pay a much greater percentage of their income so as to subsidize the class that is not productive; that contributes little to society.



“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

 -Samuel Adams”

Tunisian Revolt: Another Soros/NED Jack-Up? Next “Jasmine Revolution” attempted in China?


**This was written January 18, 2011 referencing the Tunisian revolt.  YET…..compare this to the increasing revolution in the Middle East.  Now the “Jasmine Revolution”that  is trying to spread to China.****


Tunisian Revolt: Another Soros/NED Jack-Up?

by Dr. K R Bolton

January 18, 2011

“Spontaneous” demonstrations of thousands of youths pouring out into the streets with such force as to compel the flight of a long-time president… To which country are we alluding: Georgia, Serbia, Myanmar,[1] Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Hungary…? This time it is Tunisia. All of these “revolts” followed the same pattern. Already the Tunisian revolt is being called a “color revolution” by media and political pundits, and it has also been provided with a name; the “Jasmine Revolution,”[2] like the abortive “Green” and “Saffron” Revolutions, and the successful Velvet, Rose, Orange, and Tulip Revolutions, etc.

Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country after demonstrators took to the streets demanding his resignation.Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country after demonstrators took to the streets demanding his resignation.

These “color revolutions” all have a common pattern because they are all planned by the same strategists; namely the Open Societynetwork of money speculator George Soros, who serves as a kind of modern-day Jacob Schiff in funding revolutions;[3] and the National Endowment for Democracy, the latter a post-Trotskyite founded, Congressionally-funded kind of “Comintern” promoting the “world democratic revolution” in the service of plutocracy and under the façade of liberty.

Here is a typical scenario of “color revolutions.” Check it off against the features of the “Jasmine Revolution,” and of the funding by the National Endowment for Democracy to “Tunisian activists,” as described further on:

[Soros’ Open Society Institute]… sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer, Mr. Soros’s foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution.[4]

Commenting on the “Velvet Revolution” that had just passed over Georgia, MacKinnon described the operations that went into play, following the same patterns as they had in other Soros targeted states[5]:

The Liberty Institute that Mr. Bokeria helped found was instrumental in organizing the street protests that eventually forced Mr. Shevardnadze to sign his resignation papers. Mr. Bokeria says it was in Belgrade that he learned the value of seizing and holding the moral high ground, and how to make use of public pressure — tactics that proved so persuasive on the streets of Tbilisi after this month’s tainted parliamentary election.

In Tbilisi, the Otpor link is seen as just one of several instances in which Mr. Soros gave the anti-Shevardnadze movement a considerable nudge: He also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for this week’s “velvet revolution,” and he reportedly gave financial support to a youth group that led the street protests.[6]

NED and Soros work in tandem, targeting the same regimes and using the samemethods. NED President Carl Gershman, in writing of the hundreds of Non-Governmental Organizations working for “regime change” throughout the world, pays particular tribute to the Ford Foundation and “the foundations established by the philanthropist George Soros.”[7]

Following the Money Trail

As the common adage goes, if you want to know who’s running things, follow the money trail. Looking at the recipients for NED grants we find the following, for 2009 (the latest available):

Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought (AJFFT) $131,000

To strengthen the capacity and build a democratic culture among Tunisian youth activists. AJFFT will hold discussion forums on contemporary issues related to Islam and democracy, debates between Arab scholars on societal problem, academic lectures on Islam, economic policy and international relations, and book review sessions. AJFFT will conduct leadership trainingworkshops, support local youth cultural projects…’[8]

The purpose of this is clear enough; to create a cadre of youth activists, including ‘leadership training workshops.” Again, it is exactly the same course as the strategy used by NED and Soros in other states afflicted with “color revolutions”.Exactly the same.

Association for the Promotion of Education (APES) $27,000

To strengthen the capacity of Tunisian high school teachers to promote democratic and civic values in their classrooms. APES will conduct atraining-of-trainers workshop for 10 university professors and school inspectors, and hold three two-day capacity building seminars for 120 high school teachers on pedagogical approaches rooted in democratic and civic values. Through this project, APES seeks to incorporate the values of tolerance, relativism and pluralism in Tunisia’s secondary educational system.[9]

The program seems to be for the purposes of spreading a doctrinal base for revolution; the “democratic and civic values” must be presumed to be of the post-New Left variety fostered by NED and Soros, based on values that generally run counter to the traditions of the societies where Sorsos and NED operate.

Mohamed Ali Center for Research, Studies and Training(CEMAREF) $33,500

To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists on leadership and organizational skills to encourage their involvement in public life. CEMAREF will conduct a four-day intensive training of trainers program for a core group of 10 young Tunisian civic activists on leadership and organizational skills; train 50 male and female activists aged 20 to 40 on leadership and empowered decision-making; and work with the trained activists through 50 on-site visits to their respective organizations.[10]

The terminology here is not even hidden with euphemisms: To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists…” Might one not be justified in suspecting that the intention is to create a revolutionary youth cadre for the purposes of “regime change”, following exactly the same blueprint that has orchestrated “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc and elsewhere?

Given the keen interest NED has shown in Tunisia, it would seem naïve to think that the “Jasmine Revolution” is simply a “spontaneous manifestation of popular anger” and that it has not been planned well in advance, awaiting the right moment for a catalyst.

Continue reading…….


Democracy Coalition Project

The Democracy Coalition Project “is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research and advocacy relating to democracy promotion policies at the national, regional and global levels. Begun in June 2001 as an initiative of the Open Society Institute, the Democracy Coalition Project relies on an international network of civil society organizations, scholars, foreign policy experts and politicians committed to democracy promotion as an essential element of international peace and human development.” [1]

Helps coordinate the UN Democracy Caucus.

US Advisory Board


International Advisory Board



About Us

The Democracy Coalition Project is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research and advocacy relating to the advancement of democracy and human rights internationally, particularly through the UN Human Rights Council and other multilateral organs. Begun in June 2001 as an initiative of the Open Society Institute, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) focuses its work on advocacy, research, and coalition-building toward the goal of democratic development as an essential element of international peace and human development.

DCP plays a leadership role in building an international coalition of organizations to monitor the foreign policies of governments as they relate to human rights and democracy promotion. DCP also works to encourage a more transparent and active Community of Democracies and an active Democracy Caucus at the United Nations. As of July 2009, DCP enjoys consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC, which allows for more direct engagement with UN bodies and mechanisms.

DCP’s policy agenda includes:

·         Strengthening the work of the United Nations in the area of human rights and democratic development

·         Monitoring the foreign policies of governments as they relate to human rights and democracy promotion

·         Promoting reform and strengthening of the United Nations through civil society participation and coalition-building

·         Improving international responses to democratic crises


DCP Releases New Publication: Regime Change by the Book

The Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) has released a new publication, Regime Change by the Book, examining how democracies should manage a crisis of leadership without provoking a crisis of regime. Building on the landmark report “Threats to Democracy: Prevention and Response,” issued by the Council on Foreign Relations, DCP examines four categories of legal regime change outside of national elections—recall and votes of no confidence, impeachment, succession, and criminalization of unconstitutional seizures of power. The report’s premise is that, in order to avoid sliding backwards to authoritarian rule, democratic governments should take steps to ensure continuity of democratic government when political leaders face pressures, sometimes violent, to step down from power.

The report offers a set of practical recommendations to politicians, their lawyers and advisors for constitutional reforms which would safeguard democracy during emergencies and further consolidate the rule of law.




China tries to stamp out ‘Jasmine Revolution’

Published February 20, 2011

| Associated Press

BEIJING –  Jittery Chinese authorities staged a show of force Sunday to squelch a mysterious online call for a “Jasmine Revolution” apparently modeled after pro-democracy demonstrations sweeping the Middle East.

Authorities detained activists, increased the number of police on the streets and censored online calls to stage protests in Beijing, Shanghai and 11 other major cities. Citizens were urged to shout “We want food, we want work, we want housing, we want fairness” — a slogan that highlights common complaints among ordinary Chinese.

Many activists said they didn’t know who was behind the campaign and weren’t sure what to make of the call to protest, which was first posted on the U.S.-based Chinese-language advocacy website Boxun.com.

China’s authoritarian government has appeared unnerved by recent protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Libya. It has limited media reports about them, stressing the instability caused by protests in Egypt, and restricted Internet searches to keep people uninformed.

The call to protest in China did not seem to garner much traction among citizens. In Beijing, 25-year-old Liu Xiaobai was stopped by police after he placed a white jasmine flower on a planter in front of a McDonald’s restaurant that was the planned protest site and took some photos with his cell phone.

“I’m quite scared because they took away my phone. I just put down some white flowers, what’s wrong with that?” Liu said. “I’m just a normal citizen and I just want peace.”

Security agents tried to take Liu away, but he was swarmed by journalists and eventually was seen walking away with a friend.

Two other people were taken away by police, including a shabbily dressed old man who was cursing and shouting, though it wasn’t clear if he was there because of the online call to protest.

Any potential protesters were far outnumbered by hundreds of rubberneckers at the busy Wangfujing pedestrian mall, who wondered if there was a celebrity in the area because of the heavy police presence and dozens of foreign journalists and news cameras.

In Shanghai, three people were taken away by police after scuffling in front of a Starbucks coffee shop in what appeared to be an attempt to attract attention. They were not holding placards and their intentions were unclear.

There were no reports of protests in other cities where people were urged to gather, such as Guangzhou, Tianjin, Wuhan and Chengdu.

Ahead of the planned protests, more than 100 activists in cities across China were taken away by police, confined to their homes or were missing, the Hong Kong-based group Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said. Families and friends reported the detention or harassment of several dissidents, and some activists said they were warned not to participate.

On Sunday, searches for “jasmine” were blocked on China’s largest Twitter-like microblog, and status updates with the word on popular Chinese social networking site Renren.com were met with an error message and a warning to refrain from postings with “political, sensitive … or other inappropriate content.”

Mass text messaging service was unavailable in Beijing due to “technical issues,” according to a customer service operator for leading provider China Mobile. In the past, Chinese authorities have suspended text messaging in politically tense areas to prevent organizing.

Boxun.com said its website was attacked by hackers Saturday after it posted the call to protest. A temporary site, on which users were reporting heavy police presence in several cities, was up and running Sunday. The site said in a statement it had no way of verifying the origins of the campaign.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/19/china-tries-stamp-jasmine-revolution/#ixzz1EVgZOeWh




Are George Soros, the Tides Foundation et.al funding the global revolutions?

Will anyone “follow the money”…..?


Obama’s Energy Sec. wants $7 to $9 Unleaded gas prices


Posted by williamjameson

January 20, 2011

The liberal media tried to bury this story as quick as Energy Sec. Chu suggested unleaded prices would solve our energy problems forcing people to buy alternative energy cars and sub compacts. Well that dog don’t hunt, this is America, not Europe.  I think Obama ran for office in the wrong country because beyond food, wine, tourism and other Euro products the majority of us don’t envision Euro anything.  Especially $7 gas.  When unleaded hit $3 a gallon many people began to cut back on spending because they spent a fortune just to commute to work and travel daily. [Emphasis added]

Interviews with Chu help to explain why the Gulf is in slow motion while oil rigs corrode waiting on the multi-tasker in chief to grant permissions again.  Democrats want to punish American success with a forced move towards cars that aren’t deemed reliable as of yet.  While to early adopters and the wannabee seen types will buy electric cars now, they’ll soon find the costs are higher than just the cost of electricity.  Steven Chu thinks we can make this shift in 5 years while most Americans will wait and see.  Economies of Scale will reduce manufacturing costs as more people buy alternative energy cars but the fact remains, till such cars can travel 300 miles or more on a single charge and or companies produce larger vehicles, the majority will sit on the sidelines.  And of course the majority can’t afford to switch cars every year so expect 2 decades till we see a major decline in gas powered cars…………before then we’ll need more power plants but nuclear is out all thanks to enviro-fascism coming from the left.  Solar and wind will take time to develop and Chu wants us to pay more now.   Looks more like a get rich scheme wrapped around a specious plan to reward their own success with our money.   R&D takes time, throwing more money around won’t speed up inovation, especially when the money comes from the people via Obama policy.  And I thought Obama said “no new taxes” too?  Yes he did!


Fact: President Barack Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants tofigure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.
Fact: Since taking office, President Obama’s entire energy agenda has made a gallon of gas more expensive:

All of these policies raise gas prices at the pump by either: 1) decreasing the availability of domestic energy supplies, or 2) increasing regulatory costs on gasoline production.




“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told the Wall Street Journal in September.

Chu said he favors gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to nudge consumers into buying cars that are more fuel efficient and homes which are closer to work. Chu spoke with The Wall Street Journal in September but the newspaper did not publish the gas tax comments until last week, shortly after the Nobel-prize winning physicist had been identified as Obama’s nominee for Energy secretary.

Continue reading here…….




Progressives Love, Love, LOVE Unions… (For Everyone But Themselves)


From http://www.redstate.com

Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)

January 20, 2011

There is something untoward—almost indecent—in listening to liberal-speak*. To hear them talk, liberals progressives love,Love LOVE unions. In fact, if it weren’t for unions out beating on doors and pounding the pavement every election cycle to get Democrats elected, most progressives would be relegated to the fringes of society to sit on street corners eating alfalfa sprouts and blogging about vegan pee.

However, when their Pavlovian unions-are-man’s-best-friend rhetoric comes to pay a visit on their own fire hydrants, progressives come unhinged. You see, all too often, they feel unions are great for everyone else…just not them.

The Case of the Union-Busting, Left-Wing Goddess

In 2006, Philadelphia restaurateur Judy Wicks was considered a “left-wing goddess.” A true believer in all things liberal: She served organic food, believed in paying a “living wage,” was a speaker at progressive conferences, founded Philadelphia’s Sustainable Business Network Conference and she turned out to be a…union-buster?

Judy Wicks founded the SBN in 2001; the White Dog, which she opened on the bottom floor of her home at 34th and Sansom streets in 1983, is considered a shining example of a sustainable business, one of the country’s most prominent adherents to the “triple bottom line” of people, planet and profit. That means it buys organic, local food when it can and pays “fair trade” prices for imported goods like chocolate, coffee and tea. It uses 100 percent wind power and recycles religiously. And in 1999, it made a commitment to pay employees, at minimum, a “living wage” of $8 an hour, as well as offering health benefits, paid vacation and other perks rarely found in the food-service industry. In short, it’s what other sustainable business owners hope to build.

However, after Judy’s staff chose to unionize behind her back, Judy did the unthinkable and the expected… She became a hypocrite. The “left-wing goddess” allegedly threatened and fired pro-union supporters.

If her place were unionized, Wicks fears, she would become an enemy in her own home; if her place were unionized, her model would become less appealing to others.

“If my place were unionized,” she says, “it would be a sign of my failure.”

The President’s Anti-Union Princess and Her Paupers

Billion-Heiress Penny Pritzker, President Obama’s campaign chairwoman (and overall rich woman) who sits on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (alongside former SEIU boss Anna Burger and AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka) is the epitome of good for thee, but not for me liberalism.

As a confidante of the union-backed Obama, and her opposition to the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act well documented, Pritzker has also been accused of destroying union jobs by the Boilermakers and union busting by the hotel union UNITE-HERE.


The Purple People Beaters

The SEIU, the bastion of progressive unions is also a model of do as I say, not as I do labor practices. With its far-reaching tentacles, the SEIU has several run-ins with unions and the SEIU’s unionized staff:

In January 2007, unionized members of SEIU Local 1.on, organized through the Teamsters, went out on strike against SEIU over complaints about low wages. Elsewhere, the union’s own employees filed a federal complaint against the union for its behavior as an employer. An announcement from employees said, “SEIU’s bullying of its staff continues to be met with resistance” after the union attempted to “force an unfair contract including a demand to waive legally protected rights.” It was just the latest evidence of a pattern of SEIU abusing its own staff.

Labeling SEIU’s management as a “well-oiled de facto politburo” former SEIU organizer Kevin Funk exposed his union’s hypocrisy, which he argued was “characterized by an often subtle yet convoluted net of deceit, fear-mongering, incompetence, and, in fact, union-busting.”

Progressives, it seems, love their labor unions through thick and thin…Except when unions come to unionize their businesses. Then, and only then, their Marxist ideals get traded out for their inner Gordon Gecko, their love for Lenin…Well, you get the point.

The funny thing is, there are so many so-called Progressive Business Leaders out there that it would be very interesting to see just how many are unionized…Or, whether they want to become unionized.

Rule No. 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.



Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans


January 8, 2011

President Obama is putting plans in motion to give the Commerce Department authority to create an Internet ID for all Americans, a White House official told CNET.com.

White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is “the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government” to centralize efforts toward creating an “identity ecosystem” for the Internet.

The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by the president in a few months.

“We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.

Locke added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.

The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.

“The government cannot create that identity infrastructure,” Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website. “If I tried to, I wouldn’t be trusted.”

Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the Internet, saying there’s no chance that “a centralized database will emerge.”

Click here for more on this story from CNET.com.

***Note: Emphasis added for focal points.***

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/report-obama-administration-plans-create-internet-id-americans/#ixzz1AX3NpagK


On the heels of the “Net Neutrality” bill.

Now we have the Commerce Secretary setting up government controls to centralize efforts toward creating an internet ecosystem?

What’s wrong with the current system called……..an ISP address?


Be vigilant America.

Question with boldness…..SPEAK without fear.


Obama to Name Gene Sperling to Top Economic Post. WHO Really Appointed him; John Podesta, Soros or Obama?



First this:

President Obama to Name Sperling to Top Economic Post

Published January 07, 2011

| Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is set to name Gene Sperling as director of the National Economic Council, a move that would place a veteran policy and political player in the White Hours to work with a divided Congress.

The role would give Sperling broad oversight of the administration’s economic policies as the White House contends with near-double digit unemployment and looming legislative battles on the budget and deficit. His appointment comes amid a broader shake-up of Obama’s senior staff as the White House ramps up the president’s re-election campaign.

While the White House has not confirmed Sperling’s appointment, his selection is all but certain. Obama was to announce Sperling’s new post, as well as other changes to the economic team, Friday morning during remarks on the economy.

The announcement coincides with the release of the December employment report, which economists expect to show a solid gain in jobs but not enough to make much of a dent in the nation’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate.

Sperling, currently a senior counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, would assume his new role as the White House seeks to accelerate the recovery and find an antidote to the sky-high jobless numbers. That would place him at the center of a debate with economic ramifications for the country and political implications for Obama when he seeks re-election in 2012.

Sperling, who advised President Bill Clinton and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, is perceived as the type of rare policy adviser who also has a deft touch communicating the message in a legislative and political environment.

“That skill becomes even more important when the Congress is controlled by the opposition party,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research group.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/obama-sperling-economic-post/#ixzz1ALrCnjEB


Do a little investigating and digging and you find this:

1.  Gene Sperling is the author of the book:

The Pro-Growth Progressive: An Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity Link

2.  Gene Sperling is/was a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CEO is John Podesta and funder is George Soros)

One written notice was from the Center for American Progress:


To: Interested Parties

From: Gene Sperling, Senior Fellow; John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer;

John Irons, Director of Tax and Budget Policy; and Neera Tanden,Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

Re: Repeal/Reform of the Estate Tax


Violating Core American Values


At the core of this debate is a simple American principle: we do not believe that because of accidents of birth one group should have unrivaled economic power. Efforts to completely or virtually eliminate estate taxes on even the nation’s most wealthy estates offend basic American values that have long held that economic success should depend on hard work, entrepreneurial spirit and merit rather than one’s original station in life. In the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.”

3.  Gene Sperling is also part of  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Evolution of the Center

The Center was founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities, with particular emphasis on the impact of various budget choices on low-income Americans.  Our work has broadened considerably over the years as we have responded to new developments and entered new areas of research.

Most notably, the Center initiated extensive work on budget priorities and low-income programs at the state level during the 1990s in response to the devolution of responsibility over many areas of low-income policy from Washington to the states.  State work, which we conduct in part through the Center’s State Fiscal Project, now comprises about half of the Center’s activities.  We provide information and technical assistance to state non-profit organizations and government officials on issues ranging from state budget priorities and revenue structures to the design and implementation of low-income programs.

At the state level, we also collaborate with non-profits — including members of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative — to build their capacity to conduct sound budget and policy analysis and participate effectively in policy debates.  With our assistance, a rising number of these groups are working on fiscal priorities and new directions in alleviating poverty.

At the international level, the Center established the International Budget Partnership in 1997 to help civil society organizations in new democracies (such as former Soviet republics) and developing countries conduct budget analysis designed to make these countries’ budget systems more open and more responsive to the needs of society.


25th Anniversary: Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Honorary Committee

  • David Abbott
  • Ellen Alberding
  • Kenneth J. Arrow
  • Robert M. Ball
  • Catherine Ann Bertini
  • Angela Glover Blackwell
  • Rebecca M. Blank
  • Alan S. Blinder
  • Hon. Rudy Boschwitz
  • Hon. Bill Bradley
  • Sheila P. Burke
  • Henry G. Cisneros
  • Dan L. Crippen
  • Hon. Tom Daschle
  • Hon. Tom Downey
  • Hon. David Durenberger
  • Alan J. and Suzanne W. Dworsky
  • Amb. Stuart E. Eizenstat
  • David Ellwood
  • Jonathan F. Fanton
  • Hon.Victor H. Fazio
  • Hon. Thomas S. Foley
  • Robert Friedman and Kristina Kiehl
  • Hon. Richard Gephardt
  • Hon. Dan Glickman
  • Fred T. Goldberg Jr.
  • Peter Goldmark
  • Ron Haskins
  • Wade Henderson
  • Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin
  • James A. Johnson
  • Donald Kennedy Nick Kotz
  • Gara LaMarche
  • Carol S. Larson
  • Deborah Leff
  • Richard C. Leone
  • Steven Melville
  • Hon. Marc H. Morial
  • Cecilia Munoz
  • Janet Murguia
  • Douglas W. Nelson
  • Hon. Leon E. Panetta
  • Rudolph G. Penner
  • Hon. Peter G. Peterson
  • John Podesta
  • Hugh B. Price
  • Alice M. Rivlin
  • Judith Rodin
  • Charles L. Schultze
  • Hon. Donna E. Shalala
  • H. Eric Schockman
  • Edward Skloot
  • Robert Solow
  • George Soros
  • Gene Sperling
  • Mary Ann Stein
  • Hon. Charles Stenholm
  • C. Eugene Steuerle
  • Hon. Lawrence H. Summers
  • Hon. Fernando Torres-Gil
  • Frank A. Weil
  • Mark A. Weinberger
  • Roger Wilkins


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Donors

The Center is supported by a number of foundations, including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, as well as individual donors. It accepts no government support.

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance.

According to Bai’s account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to “talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.”


***Leadership of Democracy Alliance found at this LINK.  WORTH A VIEW***



Don’t be fooled America.

Do NOT think for one minute Obama might be moving to the Center.  Obama is a shrewd tactician; he plans every move to each response of the government and Americans response to it.

Do NOT think for one minute that Obama is willing to work with the new Republican House.  He is setting up a counter-action to the Republicans trying to restore fiscal responsibility.

So America WHO appointed  Gene Sperling? John Podesta, George Soros or Obama?


We are not racists.

We are not violent.

We are just no longer silent.