Obama Czars, Obama Appointments, Obama Associates
REALLY IMPORTANT:
First, please read this information with an open mind, and we IMPLORE YOU: bookmark this page,
send this link to your family, your friends, and anyone else who needs a wake-up call, and
post it anywhere you can. It is CRITICAL that you help get this information
out there so folks understand what's happening. This page will constantly be updated as we learn of
new, substantiated information that provides a glimpse into the people President Obama is surrounding
himself with.
We believe at HQ that the best way to understand someone is to take a look at the people he chooses to surround
himself with and assume those people either to be admired, influential, or reflections of his own character flaws.
Sometimes we surround ourselves with people we agree with, and sometimes we surround ourselves with people we WANT
to agree with. Sometimes we even surround ourselves with people we agree with in spite of ourselves.
Presidential candidates tap running mates from their own party. In high school, jocks hang with jocks, bookworms
hang with bookworms, and unfortunately, troublemakers find one another, too. We date people we substantial
commonalities with, and we marry such people as well. The reality is, we seek to be around, and work with, the
people who reflect our most positive aspirations right on down to our most negative flaws.
This theory is what makes President Obama's choices of acquaintanceship so puzzling. Obama revealed little about
himself during the campaign and has told us equally little since being sworn in. But is it possible that the
people around him have done all the talking? Who IS President Obama?
The cast of characters (click on any to go directly to our synopsis):
Michelle Obama - the president's wife
Rev. Jeremiah Wright - the president's preacher
Frank Marshall Davis - the president's childhood mentor
Valerie Jarrett - Sr. Advisor and Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement
Tim Geithner - the president's Secretary of the Treasury
Cass Sunstein - the president's "special regulatory adviser"
William Ayres - the president's coworker and early-career political connection
Jeff Jones - leader of one of the president's core allied special interest groups
Van Jones - the president's "special adviser" on green jobs
John Holdren - the president's "special adviser" on science and technology
Ezekiel Emanuel - the president's "special adviser" on health care
Mark Lloyd - the president's "chief diversity officer" for the FCC
ACORN - a large community organizing group the president has worked with
Carol Browner - the president's "special adviser" on the environment
Anita Dunn - White House Communications Director
How everything connects to: (click on any to go directly to our synopsis):
The President's economic agenda
The President's health care agenda
The President's education agenda
The President's energy agenda
Never let an emergency go to waste...
(click here)
Michelle Obama
Michelle Obama, the President's wife, was never proud of America until her husband won his
candidacy for President. This places her square in the Blame America First crowd
(watch Michelle Obama).
She also makes vague references to "hope" and "change" and "moving in that direction" and unifying around certain issues. She does
not articulate what any of this means.
Bottom line: Obama is married to the President and does not support America as it was before
the 2008 election.
Back to top
Jeremiah Wright
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the President's pastor for 20 years, whose disdain for America, or at least certain parts of it
(watch Jeremiah Wright),
is perhaps the most animated of anyone around the President. Wright, a preacher at the Trinity
United Church of Christ in Chicago, is a subscriber to the Black Value System
(the Black Value System, Black Nationalism, and Black Liberation Theology subscribed to by Rev. Jeremiah Wright outlined here |
view the PDF)
which includes, among other bullet points, the belief that the system in place in America compels the
general population to kill off black people and encourages black youth to kill off one another (see
concept #8 of the Black Value System). Wright also slammed Hillary Clinton, categorizing her as a
"rich white person" who "ain't never been called a n-----"
(watch this from Jeremiah Wright).
Further, he reveals his disappointment but not his surprise at the President's refusal to speak with him,
blaming "them Jews" for this decision
(watch this from Jeremiah Wright).
Bottom line: Wright connects racism, antisemitism, and hatred for America with the President.
Back to top
Frank Marshall Davis
Frank Marshall Davis, alleged mentor of the President in his younger years, member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.
Obama refers repeatedly to a man named "Frank" in his memoir Dreams From My Father, a man he develops a deep relationship
with while living in Hawaii in the 1970's. He is exposed to Frank's poetry and consults him for career and other advice. Obama does not
name Frank outright, but substantial evidence suggests that he was actually Frank Marshall Davis, heavily investigated by
the federal government for communist activity and a very
active member of CPUSA
(read here about Frank Marshall Davis ties to the Communist Party |
view the PDF).
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing member to the CPUSA journal Political Affairs, discusses this matter more thoroughly
(read Prof. Gerald Horne's remarks |
view the PDF),
linking Davis with Obama, helping Obama define his career, his sense of self-identity, and acting as his mentor
(read the entire article about Frank Marshall Davis |
view the PDF).
Bottom line: Davis connects communism with the President.
Back to top
Valerie Jarrett
Valerie Jarrett works for President Obama as his Senior Advisor and Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public
Engagement. As pointed out on her bio page on whitehouse.gov, she was a key advisor to the Obama-Biden campaign, and prior to this
she was a lawyer, an eight-year-long deputy under Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and a 12-year veteran of Habitat, a residential real
estate company where she served as CEO starting in 2007. Per the whitehouse.gov Web site, Valerie Jarrett was also Vice Chair of the Chicago
2016 Olympics Committee (the very same Olympic Games President Obama personally pursued several weeks ago).
A well-sourced write-up of Valerie Jarrett was published by FrontPage Magazine on September 14, 2009
(read the article on Valerie Jarrett).
The key points from this article are as follows:
Back to top
Timothy "Tim" Geithner
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary, leads the Treasury Department at the White House,
He is responsible for the IRS and plays a big role designing and executing the administration's
economic policies. As a confirmed cabinet official, Tim Geithner reports directly to President Obama.
As head of the IRS, one of Tim Geither's primary responsibilities is enforcement of tax law and execution
of IRS policy, and perhaps one of the biggest issues the IRS manages is tax evasion. In 2002, testifying
before the House, former IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti estimated the "tax gap",
the amount of tax owed that will never be collected, at a whopping $30 billion
PER YEAR
(read the article regarding tax evasion |
view the PDF).
Geithner is charged with tackling this challenge, but there's one problem:
Tim Geithner has repeatedly cheated on his own taxes
(read the entire article about Tim Geithner |
view the PDF).
As documented in the Wall Street Journal report, Tim Geithner's moral authority to lead
the IRS and conduct himself honestly on behalf of the public must be questioned
amid these facts: "On Dec. 5, Obama's transition team told Finance Committee
staff that Geithner hadn't paid social security or self-employment taxes on income
received from the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004...
Three years ago, the IRS audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, which
resulted in him paying back taxes and interest -- but no penalties --
totaling $16,732." The Senate Finance Committee characterized these errors as
"honest mistakes", but only an IRS audit compelled Tim Geithner to pay taxes owed
from 2003 and 2004.
Why was Tim Geithner not compelled to pay taxes from 2001 and 2002? The statute of
limitations had expired, and the IRS did not have the authority to enforce
any policies in these years. However, from the same article, "Geithner
voluntarily amended his 2001 and 2002 returns only after Obama expressed
interest in nominating him to the Treasury post. The total bill this time:
$25,970."
The two primary takeaways from these events are that
- Tim Geithner repeatedly failed to adhere to tax law, inadvertently or
purposefully, from 2001 through 2004. An IRS audit is all that compelled
him to pay taxes for the latter two years, and only When the opportunity to
become Treasury Secretary surfaced (i.e. only when it suited him for his own
purposes) did Mr. Geithner pay his back-taxes from the former two years.
- Barack Obama, upon learning of these indiscretions, chose to
ignore Mr. Geithner's tax failures and pattern of misleading behavior and
nominate him, with the Senate's consent, to the cabinet post anyway.
Bottom line: Tim Geithner's nomination and confirmation
represent a willingness for the President to install folks in his administration
who clearly lack the moral authority to do their jobs.
Back to top
Cass Sunstein
Cass Sunstein, "regulatory czar", heads up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Formerly
he was a Harvard law professor who has advocated for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "second bill of rights",
described in the annotation as "inherent economic rights" and "a vision of an America in which all citizens were free from
want." Note the rights that FDR spelled out, attributed as BASIC HUMAN rights
(read the FDR second bill of rights |
view the PDF):
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation (the RIGHT to a JOB)
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation (the RIGHT to a standard of WEALTH)
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give
him and his family a decent living (the RIGHT to a PLANNED MARKET)
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition
and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
- The right of every family to a decent home (the RIGHT to a GOOD HOME - without mention of RESPONSIBILITY)
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health (the RIGHT
to a standard of HEALTH CARE - without mention of responsibility)
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
(the RIGHT to RETIRE and the RIGHT NOT to face EVERYDAY RISK)
- The right to a good education (or more specifically, the RIGHT to a FREE EDUCATION)
These rights are much different from those spelled out in the Constitution, in which the focus, and the driver that
got this country off the ground, was FREEDOM (or more specifically, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").
These rights, in fact, are a precursor to a much different system altogether. It bears repeating: NOWHERE in the
Constitution are these rights spelled out. The Constitution instead enumerates your FREEDOMS and the rights
mentioned are those things the federal government CANNOT do to you to infringe upon your freedoms, not things
it MUST do for you as a matter of course.
Sunstein has taken extreme viewpoints in the realm of animal rights. In his 2004 book
Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Sunstein wrote: "I will suggest that animals should
be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law."
He further stated, "Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted
to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement
the efforts of public prosecutors."
Sunstein seems, then, not only to support equalization of people (as an advocate for FDR's "second bill of rights")
but he supports equalizing people and animals to the extent that animals, using people as proxies, should have
access to our court system.
He argues for the good of federal broadcast regulations in his book The Bill of Rights in the Modern State,
suggesting that regulation of content is akin to regulation of pollutants and endangered species.
He points out that that sheer number of outlets is surely not sufficient for consumer choice because of the
similarities in programming across those outlets today. Finally, he proposes that folks tend to seek the programming
they're used to, and that they'd benefit from different programming (pg. 287-288). This entire discussion,
incidentally, is premised by the attacks of the day on the Fairness Doctrine.
In his book Republic.com, he goes further, suggesting a common good in regulating Internet usage. He
writes
(read the Cass Sunstein passage |
view the PDF):
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest
of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected
in freedom's name.
He then puts forth a scary proposition regarding a "fairness doctrine" for the Internet, here described by writer
Adam Thierer:
Sunstein called for popular or partisan websites to be forced to carry links to opposing viewpoints. Think of it
as a combination of must carry mandates and the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Thus, the National Rifle
Association (NRA) would be forced to run links or editorials by anti-gun groups, and abortion rights groups would
be forced to contend with links and editorials from pro-life organizations. Apparently in Sunstein's world, people
have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one
desires.
Sunstein reverses himself later in an interview with Salon.com, stating
(read this article about Cass Sunstein |
view the PDF):
I have thought over the years of whether it makes sense for the government to have a regulatory role
[for the Internet]. But the Internet is too difficult to regulate in a way that would respond to these concerns.
The first book ["Republic.com"] had suggestions that government should consider fairness-doctrine-type mandates
on Web sites. It suggested that it's reasonable for government to think about creating the equivalent of
linking obligations and pop-ups, so that you'd be on one site — say, a conservative site — and there'd be a
pop-up from a liberal site. I now the believe that the government should not consider that — that it's a stupid
and almost certainly an unconstitutional suggestion.
Republic.com made a mistake of applying to the Internet some ideas that were developed in a world
of three or four television networks... But the kinds of regulation that would respond to my concerns
[about deliberative democracy], they're not really feasible and they probably wouldn't help. Most problems
are best solved privately, not through government. There's a problem of discourtesy in the world, which is
best handled through social norms, which are indispensable. But you wouldn't want the government to be
mandating courtesy.
No, you would not -- but you come away from his comments at best with the belief that he probably supports a
fairness doctrine for TV and radio. The fact that he has reversed himself on Internet regulation is a
small comfort, but his elitist viewpoint that "deliberative democracy" should be pushed upon people in his
own vision is scary and progressive to its core.
On a completely unrelated note, it's worth pointing out that Sunstein is ill-convinced on the existence of a
"right to keep and bear arms"
(read this report on Cass Sunstein |
view the PDF).
Bottom line: Cass Sunstein connects extremist animal rights views, intense regulation of
First Amendment rights, and opposition to the Second Amendment with the President.
Back to top
Bill Ayres
William Ayres, co-founder of the Weather Underground, a terror organization responsible for various bombings
of government buildings in the 1960's. Ayres founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1994 and coordinated with
a small panel to name a board, ultimately approving appointment of Barack Obama, who served on the board from 1995
through 1999. From Stanley Kurtz's article in the Wall Street Journal
(read Kurtz's article on Bill Ayres |
view the PDF):
In works like City Kids, City Teachers and Teaching the Personal and the
Political, Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated
to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative?
"I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron
Chepesiuk's, Sixties Radicals, at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming
CAC."
Bottom line: Ayres connects radical violence, terror, and communism with education
and has a history with the President.
Back to top
Jeff Jones
Jeff Jones, co-founder of the Weather Underground, a terror organization responsible for various bombings
of government buildings in the 1960's. Jones is now director of the New York chapter of the Apollo Alliance, the
very organization that takes credit (and is given it by Sen. Harry Reid)
(review the connection between the Apollo Alliance and the stimulus package here |
view PDF):
for crafting the stimulus package.
As discussed in Dan Berger's book Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity,
Jones himself penned Prairie Fire during his "underground" days, in part, to spread the doctrine that he
hoped would lead to the creation of a viable communist party. Since then, he has attached himself to
environmental causes.
Bottom line: Jones connects radical violence, terror, and communism with green initiatives
and is a director in the organization that informed/influenced/possibly WROTE the stimulus package.
Back to top
Van Jones
Van Jones, former special adviser to President Obama on "green jobs", resigned the position on September 6, 2009
over controversy surrounding his past as discussed here and other statements. He is a former board member of
the Apollo Alliance, founder of Green For All, founder of ColorOfChange. Van Jones landed in prison mixed up in
riots after the Rodney King verdicts were announced, and while there, in his own words
(read the quotes by Van Jones here |
view the PDF):
"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists
and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'... I spent the
next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to
be a revolutionary... I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came
down on April 29th... By August, I was a communist."
Also from the story:
He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the
changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left
need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift
in tactics. "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists --
shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the
economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our
protest signs," he said.
He also stated:
"Before, we would fight anybody, any time... No concession was good enough; we
never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work
with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing
to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of
radical ends."
Since then, Van Jones has attached himself to environmental causes and social justice.
His organization ColorOfChange is the group leading boycotts today of the Glenn Beck
program on Fox News.
At Power Shift 2009, Van Jones tells his audience that the environmental movement is
"deeper than a solar panel, much deeper than a solar panel." He connects the movement
to "how we treat each other", stating that if the movement is only about solar
panels, we'll be left witih "solar-powered bull-dozers, solar-powered buzz saws,
and bio-fuel bombers" fighting wars for batteries instead of wars for oil
(see the Van Jones appearance).
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Breitbart and Glenn Beck reveal SCARY audio from Van Jones in April 2008 laying out
the strategy of "minimum goals", often discussed as left-wing incrementalism, to use steps to move the country from
racial integration to "reparations for slavery" to "redistribution of all wealth". He discusses using "eco-green
capitalism" as a pathway from "suicidal gray capitalism" to "some sort of 'eco-green capitalism'" to "transforming the whole society".
Attached to this audio is another clip from the White House confirming that it has been watching Van Jones since his days of being "active back in Oakland"
(which throws out any White House claims of plausible deniability)
(see the Obama administration's endorsement of Van Jones here).
Van Jones also signed a 2004 "9/11 truther" petition signaling his support for an investigation into possible
U.S. government involvement in the September 11 terror attacks. Van Jones denies holding this view but
does not explain why his name is on the petition. The Obama administration has not denounced Jones,
and he remains in the administration
(read the Van Jones "truther" story here |
view the PDF).
Bottom line: Van Jones is a proponent of black nationalism and using green initiatives
for communist revolution, and he worked directly for the President.
Back to top
John Holdren
John Holdren, confirmed Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology. Holdren co-authored several books, including the 1977 text Ecoscience,
which discusses in depth the array of techniques available to governments to control and
reverse human population growth, often by forceful methods.
As discussed in a piece in the Washington Examiner
(read the article |
view the PDF),
Holdren writes:
Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have
to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some
involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the
socioeconomic measures suggested.
Holdren goes on to discuss spiking the "drinking water" of a population with a sterilant in
rather disassociated tone:
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to
horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed,
this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say
nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one
appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to
meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely
varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and
sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side
effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old
people, pets, or livestock...Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon.
And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate
against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of
avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate
against particular groups or penalize children.
This discussion glaringly lacks any real discussion of the moral question behind
mass sterilization. The authors ultimately look more favorably upon the following
approach:
Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive
capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring
reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive
action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the
reverse situation.
Sounds a lot like eugenics, does it not?
Bottom line: Holdren connects eugenics with green initiatives and health care reform
and works directly for the President. He was confirmed by the Senate.
Back to top
Ezekiel Emanuel
Ezekiel Emanuel, adviser of health policy in the Office of Management and Budget, member
of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel is also the brother of President
Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Nepitism aside, Ezekiel Emanuel has made numerous comments
that imply a bias toward reducing end-of-life care, mainly for financial and societal cost reasons.
As Betsy McCaughey writes for the Wall Street Journal
(read the article |
view the PDF),
Emanuel dismisses President Obama's proposed cost savings -- digitizing health records and cutting
fraud and waste, for example -- this way in a 2008 JAMA piece:
Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness,
installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely
'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.
Emanuel goes on to criticize doctors, seemingly for taking their Hippocratic Oath too seriously:
Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost.
Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic
Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . .
Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from
insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.
He more clearly explains his vision for end of life care here:
...the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more
palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is
possible.
Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity -
those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical
reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public
deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided
to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating
citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not
guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
Is this eugenics? Simple but deliberate health care rationing? Valuation of
human life based on any number of arbitrary qualities such as age, mental state,
and, well, tax-paying capability?
Bottom line: Emanuel connects denial of care with health care reform
and works for the President.
Back to top
Mark Lloyd
Mark Lloyd, Chief "Diversity" Officer, FCC, whose work prior was at the Center for American
Progress focused on "communications policy issues, including universal service,
advanced telecommunications deployment, media concentration and diversity." (from
the Mark Lloyd bio on Netcaucus.org)
On their face, we're unsure what most of these focuses actually mean in practical terms.
But in his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, Lloyd puts
his philosophy in these terms:
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the
press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least,
blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the
critical examination of other communications policies.
Perhaps this rings most true in a report he co-authored in 2007 for the Center For
American Progress called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio"
(read the report co-authored by Mark Lloyd).
In the report Mark Lloyd reaches the conclusion that neither the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine nor market demand
adequately explain the dominance of conservative talk radio. Rather, he believes the issue lies with the
structure of government content regulation, as described here:
Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is
the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly
the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination
of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of
ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.
This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced
radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio
station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three
ways to accomplish this:
- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest
obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Mark Lloyd's views on how his agenda dovetails (or doesn't) with the First Amendment are
clear. It's difficult to believe that his role in the FCC will be anything other
than to move this agenda forward -- namely, to override market demand and, through
the guise of "localism", to control broadcast content by pushing burdensome
regulations and disproportionate fees for undesirable content. It appears to be a
direct attack on free-market talk radio.
We'll also point out that Glenn Beck, on his Fox News program, featured video
(watch Mark Lloyd praise Castro and Chavez)
of a talk Mark Lloyd gave in 2008 referring to the Hugo Chavez crackdown and takeover in
Venezuela as "an incredible revolution -- a democratic revolution." A democratic revolution?
Bottom line: Lloyd is tooled to enact oppression of free speech to support his own
views supportive of and/or sympathetic to anti-capitalism and communism. He works directly for
the President.
Back to top
ACORN
ACORN, a community organizing group, is attributed to:
- Founding the New York Working Families Party in 1998, whose issue initiatives
include
(see the Working Families party platform |
view the PDF):
- Rent controls in New York City
- Mandated paid medical and care leave for full-time employees
- Higher taxes on the wealthy; lower taxes on the poor
- Free college education
- Extension of many rights and services to illegal immigrants
- The People's Platform, written in 1990 and captured via archive.org, as
published on their Web site
(see the ACORN platform in 1990 |
view the PDF). Just a few of the "planks" of this platform include:
- Deliver a piece of the present and the fruits of the future to every man, to every woman, to every family.
- In our freedom, only the people shall rule. Corporations shall have
their role; producing jobs, providing products, paying taxes. No more, no
less. They shall obey our wishes, respond to our needs, serve our
communities.
- Government shall have its role: public servant to our good, fast
follower to our sure steps.
- We will have our birthright. We will live in richness and freedom.
- Prevent the displacement of low and moderate income people from their homes
- Require companies which reap a large profit to hire and train the unemployed.
- Require companies which make workers "obsolete" through technological change and
automation to retrain these workers in new, employable skills at company
expense.
- Guarantee a minimum annual family income at a figure equivalent to the most
recent Bureau of Labor Statistics "medium living standard," adjusted for
inflation.
- Establish The right to company or government financed child care for
the worker's children.
- Establish the right to company or government financed health insurance.
- Permit striking workers to receive unemployment compensation, welfare,
and food stamps.
- MUCH more
- Participation in and/or allegations of:
- Voter registration fraud in 14 states
(read the article discussing ACORN voter registration fraud |
view the PDF).
- Financial misrepresentation, as charged by former workers
- Embezzlement of nearly $1 million from the organization by Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wayne Rathke,
and concealment of this from the ACORN board of trustees for nearly 10 years
- Advising possible partners and members to break laws and hide illegal
activity as needed, as recently demonstrated at the Baltimore chapter
(see the ACORN under-cover video).
President Obama proudly acknowledges his ties to ACORN and his work WITH them when
accepting their endorsement for President. From his Web site is his statement:
"I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three
and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago
was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the
importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my
entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter
registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we
appreciate your work.”
(read Barack Obama's statement on ACORN |
view the PDF)
Bottom line: ACORN connects President Obama directly with
a highly Marxist agenda and corruption.
Back to top
Carol Browner
Carol Browner, special adviser on environmental issues, works directly for the President and was hired
away from Socialist International, a global organization which promotes one-world governance to facilitate
environmental change and social justice. SI recently met with the Chinese Communist Party to discuss
environmental issues
(view their site).
Bottom line: Browner connects socialism and one-world governance to green initiatives.
She works directly for the President.
Back to top
Anita Dunn
Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, revealed her allegiance to Mao Zedong, the Communist
revolutionary who ran China for nearly 30 years and was responsible for an estimated 70 million murders during
his tenure. Anita Dunn regards Mao Zedong as one of her two favorite philosphers -- along with Mother Teresa --
as someone she "turns to the most" for inspiration on how to define your own fight and "fight your own war" -- to
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.
Watch Anita Dunn.
Back to top
What does it all mean?
You be the judge. Candidate Obama's domestic platform, as outlined on Change.gov
(view the site |
view the PDF), are
as follows:
- a plan to revive the economy
- provide affordable, accessible health care to all
- strengthen our public education and social security systems
- define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change
His plan to fix the economy is ill-defined, but the legislation he ties most closely to the economy is the
stimulus package. The stimulus package was influenced and crafted by the Apollo Alliance, an organization
of which Van Jones was a board member and of which Jeff Jones is a sitting director of the New York
chapter. Van Jones is a black nationalist turned communist turned environmentalist. Jeff Jones is a
terrorist turned communist turned environmentalist. Again, Van Jones now works IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
We don't understand why the President would hire a communist and revoluntionary to work inside the
White House as a special adviser. We also struggle to understand why key legislation is being written
and/or influenced by outside organizations that recruit terrorists and communist revolutionaries among
their ranks for economic or any other matters. Unless...
His push for national health care reform has been at odds with the gut instincts of a majority of Americans
(view the poll),
and generally the more that he and Congressional Democrats have discussed it, the lower support has fallen.
The tone of the debate has devolved in recent weeks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referring to health care reform
protesters showing up at Congressional town halls as "Astroturf" and as "carrying swastikas"
(watch this),
John Dingell comparing opponents to the KKK
(watch this),
Barbara Boxer linking the protestors to "stealing" the 2000 election
(watch this),
and Sheila Jackson Lee ignoring town hall questions to take a phone call
(watch this).
None of these incidents is material to the debate about the direction of health care reform, but they certainly seem to be
a concerted effort to marginalize and ridicule opponents and perhaps even infuriate supporters and opponents alike. Inside
the White House Obama has called upon John Holdren, an apparent eugenics scholar, and Ezekiel Emanuel, who has commented
at length about the cost-savings of denying care to all but the most contributory to society. Despite President
Obama's claim never to "pull the plug on Grandma" (a callous phraseology), his top advisers on health care matters have
explored not only doing just that but experimenting in population control and mass sterilization. Why has the
President chosen to recruit eugenics scholars and those who would deny end-of-life health care and health care to the
disabled to be his closest advisers -- techniques most associated with the most brutal fascist and communist regimes on
Earth? Unless...
Education reform proposals have been vague. President Obama has talked about national service as a goal of his
administration, referring to a national civilian defense just as strong and just as powerful as the U.S.
military
(watch this)
and talks about student loan forgiveness for those who serve in a program like this. Mr. Obama has never explained the
purpose of such a force or who or what, exactly, this force would defend against. Mr. Obama's formal exposure to education
in his life has been during his time in college, which he writes about in his memoir Dreams From My Father:
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black
students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and
punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night,in the dorms, we
discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes
in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting
bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.
We were alienated."
It's not uncommon for someone to dabble in far-left ideology in his college years, although it should be pointed
out that as an adult, he went on to endorse Bernie Sanders, an admitted socialist, for Congress
(watch this).
His next brush with formal education comes during his professorial years in Chicago, working along side many
instructors but also William Ayres, co-founder of the Weather Underground and admitted communist and terrorist.
His contacts with Ayres are already detailed on this page, but it should also be noted that Obama's political
career began in the living room of Mr. Ayres, introduced there at a gathering as the hand-picked successor to
State Senator Alice Palmer
(read the article).
Mr. Obama then hired Cass Sunstein, a teaching colleague in Chicago and former Harvard law professor, as his regulatory czar.
Sunstein has authored books discounting the First Amendment and editorials discounting the Second Amendment. He has explored
fairness doctrine-style regulation of the Internet, advocated for animal rights to our court systems, and penned a book supporting
FDR's "second bill of rights", a Marxist-style list of human rights to wealth, work, an education, health care, recreation, fixed prices, a "decent"
home.
A national civilian defense. Three separate working encounters and relationships with Bill Ayres, terrorist and
communist. Time in college full of the same experiences with Marxism, socialism, and black activism that he'd
learned about as a child under Frank Marshall Davis. Why do Barack Obama's education experiences seem to tie
back to communism? Unless...
The fourth plank of President Obama's campaign involves energy and climate change, for which he's leaned
heavily on an outside group called the Apollo Alliance for guidance on policy and to offer great influence over the
final contents of the $787B stimulus package. Obama even hired former AA board member Van Jones to work for him
directly as special adviser for "green jobs." But the AA's vetting process seems lax; Jones is an avowed black
activist, a black nationalist, a radical, and a communist. Another prominent AA member,
New York state chapter director Jeff Jones, possesses a similar history, having co-founded the Weather Underground
with one William Ayres. And so is demonstrated how two men, who together formed a group reputed for terrorism
in the interest of communist revolution, travel two different paths, neither renouncing his youthful viewspoints.
Ayres took the road into education, whereas Jones evolved into an environmentalist (as did Van Jones from similar
roots). It bears repeatingly: NONE of these men has ever renounced these views. Ayres has simply staked out ground
in higher education, and the Joneses have taken on environmental causes -- all seemingly infiltrating existing
causes to use them as hosts for a grander cause for which they all agree.
Wouldn't it be something if the model for success were simply to infiltrate feel-good causes and fundamentally
transform them into hosts for your own, fundamental cause? Didn't the President tell us five days before the election
that we were just five days away from "fundamentally transforming America"
(watch this)?
Mr. President, into what are you fundamentally transforming America? May I be so bold to ask, Mr. President: by
laying the ground work for national health care, government control of our medical records, government decision-making on
right-to-die matters, eugenics, and denial of care... by hijacking the "green" movement and misrepresenting its original
intentions much as your close adviser Van Jones and much like the Apollo Alliance and Green For All have done
to extend out to "social justice" and installing "a new system"... by creating a national civilian defense force without
a defined cause or a defined enemy in a "Hitler Youth" sort of way... by using "economic recovery" as a mechanism
to bankrupt the country, collapse the currency, and create a new financial emergency... by surrounding yourself with folks
who are against free choice, against free market determination of most forms of speech, against behaviors that they judge
as bad for "democracy"... by attacking the CIA and pushing your
Justice Department to investigate their day to day activities in a way that must certainly reduce their effectiveness and
scare them into letting slip through the cracks the witness or suspect who could have thwarted the next terror emergency...
Mr. President, what is your end game? Your Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, suggested that an emergency should never go to
waste.
Is health care an emergency? On April 26, 2009, the federal government already declared swine flu a "public health
emergency"
(read the article |
view the PDF). The state of
Massachusetts is already moving forward with emergency measures, passing "Pandemic Response Bill 2028" through
the state senate in April just two days after the emergency was declared giving the state government the power
to enter and search private property with just a verbal order from a "local public health authority."
(read the article |
view the PDF).
Is the economy an emergency? Van Jones used remarks in April 2008 to discuss economic crisis as a catalyst for
transforming the whole society
(view the clip).
Is Internet activity an emergency? A draft of legislation circulating in the Senate hands control of the Internet
over to the White House in the event of a "cyber-emergency"
(read the article |
view the PDF).
What will the emergency be? Will it be real or exaggerated? Will it be preventable? Will it be manufactured? Is an
emergency to one an emergency to all?
What power should the federal government grab in the face of an emergency? The rights of free speech, the right
to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Will it grab the right to life? Will
it grab the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your personal vision of the greater good?
Mr. President, what is happening? Who are the people you are surrounding yourself with? What is your plan? For
what are you laying the groundwork?
Is the next emergency, sir, going to be the last one?
|
|
|
Coming This Week:
The basic principles for which we stand -- can you disagree?
The people surrounding the Congress
Central government as a necessary evil ...our view
The history of the federal income tax
Why slippery slope theory is REAL
Our read of the Constitution
|
|
|
