And then what? I mean, what guarantee is there that the politicians with an “R” by their names won’t screw us over just like the politicians with a “D” by their names? There are precious few principled conservatives in Congress. Most Republicans are squishy, like Romney. And I believe that deep down, most Republican lawmakers secretly wanted Obamacare to become law, if for no other reason than to have an issue to rail against.

Obamacare is every politician’s dream come true. Now they will have the same hold over their constituents as rulers of old. People will line up in ever-lengthening queues just for the opportunity to plead for the life of a loved one. All politicians are narcissistic to some degree, and this kind of WORSHIP potential has the gravitational pull of a giant black hole. They won’t be able to help themselves. Of course the politicians with an “R” by their names want some form of Obamacare. Do they think we’re stupid?

Of course they do. They’re not intimidated by Town Halls or Tea Parties. They know we’re decent, God-fearing peope who mostly just want to be left the hell alone. We have taken the threat of civil disobedience off the table. Why in the world should they even consider repealing Obamacare when we’ve already promised not to do anything more than make a lot of noise and respectfully ask them to stop what they’re doing?

Of course they think we’re stupid.

Chris Rowan

The White House let Jones go after conservative Web sites and Fox News revealed his radical past, including signing a petition circulated by far-left conspiracists suggesting the government was behind 9/11.

But soon after hiring Jones, top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett celebrated his appointment, along with his radical activism, before an audience of liberal Democrats.

“We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House,” she gushed in a C-Span video. “We’ve been watching him for as long as he’s been active.”

Jarrett, a senior White House official and close Chicago friend of the Obamas, added that they were impressed with “all the creative ideas that he has.”

Those creative ideas include using the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy.

“The green economy will start off as a small subset” of a “complete revolution” away from “gray capitalism” and toward “redistribution of all the wealth,” Jones said during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles. “And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

“Transforming” society from capitalism to communism, is what he means. In fact, Jones is a self-avowed “communist,” something the Oakland street agitator confessed to the East Bay Express in 2005. He even named his son after a Marxist revolutionary leader. This was no secret.

Jones founded a communist group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. Storm worked with Bay-area communist Elizabeth Martinez, who sits on the board of the Movement for a Democratic Society with Weathermen terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the radical couple who launched Obama’s political career from their Chicago townhouse.

Jones, 40, later folded Storm into the Ella Baker Human Rights Center. The White House even credited him with co-founding the center in a March press release announcing his appointment as special adviser to the president. “We look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the president’s agenda.”

Did Jones slip through the cracks of the White House’s vetting process, as defenders say? Not likely. His radicalism was clear just days before his appointment.

As WorldNetDaily first reported, Jones spoke in February to young green activists attending Power Shift ’09 in Washington, spewing more revolutionary agitprop: “This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don’t stop there! Don’t stop there! No, we’re gonna change the whole system! We’re gonna change the whole thing! . . . We want a new system!”

Jones’ anti-police activism and advocacy on behalf of cop killer and death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal were also well known.

His idea to use government funding to build “a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy” — including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices — dovetails with Obama’s proposal, cited in his 2006 memoir, to create government-subsidized green jobs “to hire and train ex-felons on projects” such as “insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient.”

Both Jones and Obama claim the justice system is biased, due to the disproportionate share of blacks in prisons.

In 2006, as head of the same Ella Baker Center praised by the White House, Jones argued that Marxists must seek ways to emancipate black criminals from prison.

“Two million locked up, one million black, most of them young men, smoking the same dope you smoke, doing the same drugs that white folks do, but treated like animals and brutalized. It’s the right deed for this movement to take now: to stand in solidarity with those people living on the slave ships on dry land called prisons,” Jones wrote in the leftist Tikkun magazine.

“The powerful are trafficking in human flesh today,” he continued. “They’re trafficking in human bodies. The correctional corporations of America are traded on the stock exchange, turning the Dow Jones into a high-tech slave auction in American (sic) today. Let my people go.”

“We need a new theology of resistance,” he went on. “We need a new theology of liberation.”

All this leads us to wonder: How many more people of such radical ideology now have jobs in the White House?

How many of the unvetted cadre of White House czars — who don’t have to be approved by the Senate, yet in some cases may have sweeping powers — likewise hate the very system they’re supposed to serve?

Jones was an extremist. Unfortunately, rather than being an aberration in this White House, he just might be the tip of a very large iceberg.

-TTTP Webmaster

(From the U.S. Department of Education)

EVENTS

Media Advisories

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama to Speak Directly to Students in National Address on Educational Success

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As children across America go back to school, President Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school on Tuesday, September 8th at 12:00 PM EDT at Wakefield High School in Arlington. In advance of this address, the Department of Education is providing resources developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion about persisting and succeeding in school. The speech will be broadcast live on www.WhiteHouse.gov and C-SPAN. The speech is open to pre-credentialed media. The deadline to request credentials is 6:00PM EDT tomorrow, Thursday, September 3rd.

September 8, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA DELIVERS NATIONAL ADDRESS TO AMERICA’S SCHOOCHILDREN

Wakefield High School
4901 S. Chesterfield Rd.
Arlington, VA 22206

Media Pre-set: 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM (All equipment must be dropped at the site by 7:00 AM; media will not have access to their equipment from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM.) Media Access: 10:00 AM

Throw: 60 ft.
Cable run: 600 ft.
Live truck parking: Trucks should enter the entrance off Dinwiddie Street and will be directed on site. All live trucks must RSVP with vehicle information. Trucks must plan to park by 7:00 AM. Live truck operators must bring cable ramps.

Media entrance: Entrance number 2, off Dinwiddie St.

Media Coverage: This event is open to pre-credentialed media. To request credentials, please RSVP online at: www.WhiteHouse.gov/the_press_office/MediaRSVP-EducationAddress-9-8-09/. The deadline to RSVP is 6:00PM EDT tomorrow, Thursday, September 3rd.

All names submitted for credentials must be accurate and reflect the identification media presents at check points for entrance. RSVPs do not guarantee access. You will receive a confirmation e-mail if you will receive a credential to cover the event.

Contact for logistical and planning purposes only: Johanna Maska at jmaska@who.eop.gov.

Well, well, well.

The White House has re-written its activist talking points for teachers/administrators disseminated by the US Department of Education and removed the language about “helping the president.”

Whitewashing: It’s the Obama way.

What they can’t whitewash is the radicalism of many of the White House Teaching Fellows responsible for drafting the material — or the radicalism of the educational mentors with whom Obama served, starting with Chicago Annenberg Challenge/Woods Fund/neighbor Bill “education is the motor-force of revolution” Ayers.

You can take Obama out of Chicago. But you can’t take the Chicago out of Obama.

By NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON

President Barack Obama’s plans for a televised back-to-school address to students next week are drawing fire from some conservatives, who say he’s just trying to indoctrinate them to his political beliefs.

In the Sept. 8 speech, Obama will challenge students to work hard, set goals for their education and take responsibility for their learning, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a letter to principals.

The Education Department is encouraging teachers to create lesson plans around the speech, using materials provided on the department website, that urge students to learn about Obama and other presidents.

“He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens,” Duncan said in a press release.

But already, some conservatives are crying foul. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party is condemning Obama’s speech as an attempt to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.”

“The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power,” Chairman Jim Greer said in a press release.

Added conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce, in a Twitter feed: “Make September 8 Parentally Approved Skip Day. You are your child’s moral tutor, not that shady lawyer from Chicago.” And conservative author Michelle Malkin said the lesson plans have a “heavy activist bent.”

Texas school districts are discussing whether the president’s speech will be shown — some districts are leaving it up to individual teachers with an opt out parents who don’t want their children to view the speech, according to the Houston Chronicle.

In his letter to principals, Duncan said viewing of the speech is encouraged, not mandatory. It’s the first time a president has ever given a speech addressed directly to students.

By Ron Lipsman

Hollywood and the media routinely offer up two standard portrayals of government officials — inept and comical idiots or sinister characters. The latter is especially true of media depictions of NSA, CIA, and FBI employees, but both are quite typical of the reigning liberal elite’s opinion of all government agencies and their employees: bureaucrats are either hilarious nincompoops or dangerous evil-doers, and amazingly enough, sometimes both at once. Hollywood seems to think that the government is either screwing up the country because it doesn’t know what it is doing or it is destroying the country because it is trampling on the rights of its citizens.

However, the people who hold these convictions are the exact same people who want to turn over the operation of all the key components of the country to the government to manage. Health care, energy, education, the economy itself — these and dozens of other critical features of American society should be directed, according to the Left, from the hallowed halls in which the bumblers and betrayers work.

These liberal elites, who are now in positions of great power in the nation, seem to believe that the politicians and bureaucrats who populate the federal government, are on the one hand part fumbling meatheads who can’t tie their shoes and part evil plotters who want to screw John Q. Public. At the same time the left believes that those who run the bureaucracy should be entrusted with the management of virtually every aspect of American society. Is there not a fundamental disconnect here? What could possibly explain this self-contradictory faith in the power of the government to successfully solve the nation’s problems? I will offer three explanations and then speculate as to which applies to the celebrity who now occupies the White House.

The first explanation is ignorance. The people of our nation have been subjected to an intense liberal indoctrination for so long that there are a huge number of them for whom the tenets of liberalism are so deeply ingrained that they accept without question the proposition that the government must address any problem that arises anywhere in America. Under a relentless assault from the liberal dominated media, educational establishment, legal profession, arts community, foundations, and even segments of the business and religious communities, many have succumbed to the brainwashing.

Consequently, they believe:

• FDR’s New Deal saved us from the Depression rather than prolonged it;
• the Great Society helped to lift minorities out of poverty, rather than institutionalizing it;
• capitalism creates unjust, inequitable outcomes in the US, ignoring the fact that it has powered our economy to unimagined and unequaled heights of prosperity;
• government creates jobs by spending the tax payer’s money, rather than preventing their creation because of the tax dollars pilfered from entrepreneurs;
• government regulations improve the functioning of our economy, revealing obliviousness to the enormous drag they impose;
• the rich don’t pay their fair share, whereas in fact the “rich” pay the overwhelming majority of the income tax that Uncle Sam extracts, while the lowest 40% of income earners pay virtually nothing;
• the Constitution is a malleable document that serves as a guide to the making of law — in fact, it is a binding document that can be changed only by a demanding Amendment process and the American republic has survived and prospered precisely because continuing generations have agreed to abide by the deal struck by our founders with the people;
• radical change not adherence to tradition, is the American way.

I venture that a large proportion, perhaps a substantial majority of the folks who voted for Obama fit into this category — especially young people.

It is legitimate to ask how such hoodwinked people can accept the portrayal of the government as bumbling or sinister or both — laugh at it if it is the former, be mortified by it if the latter — and why does it not occur to them that it is lunacy to entrust their welfare to the bumblers and evil-doers?

I think the answer is to be found in the attitude teenagers exhibit toward their parents and teachers. The kids often see their elders as at best hopelessly square, out of it and even stupid and at worst as manipulating, tyrannical, and unfair. Most — not all — do not question the fundamental authority of their parents and teachers. The kids expect the adults to remove the obstacles that the youngsters encounter and the kids are willing to put up with the rules laid down by the adults because it is expected of them, because it is the natural order of things, and besides there is no choice. So too does the juvenile mass of brainwashed citizens view the authority of the federal government. They deride and lambaste it for its incompetence; they fear it for its omnipotence; but they accept unquestioningly its “legitimate” authority to control their lives.

The next explanation might be characterized as arrogance. Its practitioners understand that the government doesn’t have a particularly good track record of solving the nation’s problems. They recognize that previous government forays into health care, agriculture, housing, etc. have resulted in mismanagement, excessive waste, deleterious effects on the economy, fraud, and corruption. Nevertheless, they believe that the federal government is the correct mechanism to address the nation’s problems and under their tutelage one (or both) of two things will happen. First, they will do it better. They will bring better design, planning, execution, and supervision. Or, it won’t work any better, but they will profit personally from the results. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is chock full, from top to bottom, with these types — the naive ones who think they will execute the liberal agenda more perfectly and the corrupt ones who intend to profit from the agenda, however it is implemented.

The third explanation is malevolence. This characterization applies to the hard core leftists who believe the classic American political, economic and cultural systems are rotten and must be overthrown. I am thinking of revolutionaries like Saul Alinsky, George Soros, Michael Moore, and, yes, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. They don’t care that the government to which they wish to assign more and more responsibility is a combination of ineptness and corruption. So much the better; it will bring the system down more quickly. Radicals like these thrive on a crisis atmosphere (as admitted by Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel). They seek to create a perpetual crisis, which leaves the people panic-stricken and easily manipulated by those who, under the guise of addressing the dangerous ills they have identified, will divert more power to the government, and who are in fact at work destroying the system under the false cover of crises like climate change and health care. If they can enact universal, federally-controlled health care and the business-crippling cap and trade bill, their malevolent objective might be attained — America could be so fundamentally changed that there will be no hope of returning to republican principles.

I believe the vast majority of Americans on the left fit into category 1, a substantial number fall under 2 and a small, but dedicated cadre occupies the third position. Into which category does the guy in the White House fit?

Like most of America, my acquaintance with President Obama is recent and superficial. That he occupies the White House is a testament to the uncharacteristic recklessness of the American people, who have installed therein a person they know precious little about. Is he the leftist radical his voting record suggests or the relatively moderate politician he seemed to be during the campaign? Everyone who interacts with him insists he is very smart. If so, it is impossible that the rationale for his leftist mentality lies in the first explanation: ignorance.

Throughout the campaign, my impression was that he was a number 2: arrogant. Yes, there was no denying his far-left voting record — but he tacked right during the election and then he appointed a number of relatively moderate cabinet officials (to go along with the hard core leftists he selected as advisors and czars, to be sure).

But since the inauguration, the gloves are off and the trend is clear. President Obama is a leader of the malevolent, revolutionary forces in America who want to overthrow the system and replace it with a Euro-socialist, nanny State that repudiates much of American history, including the Constitution.

What is the evidence? Many of his opponents would cite: his promotion of cap and trade, which surely would cripple our economy; his drive for universal, government-controlled health insurance, which would make virtually all of us wards of the State; his foreign policy of appeasement and repeated apologies for American behavior; or his reckless spending, borrowing and taxing that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

For me it is as simple as this. I see no evidence that he loves America, that he (or his wife) takes any pride in the achievements of our country, that he subscribes to the idea that America, unlike any other nation, is founded on a political idea and is called to be a beacon of freedom to mankind. That is not Barack Obama’s America. His new America will be a bizarre combination of France, the Soviet Union and Canada.

By Kyle-Anne Shiver 

Alinsky’s 12^th Rule of Tactics:  The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. 

You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right – we don’t know what to do about this issue.  Now you tell us.’ 

Why is President Barack Obama suddenly drowning in a sea of widespread resistance to his centerpiece legislation?  Because it has now become quite clear to Harry & Louise Q Citizen that this was a man without a “constructive alternative” to the out-of-control healthcare system he has badgered and rhetorically beaten bloody to a pulp. 

Obama himself, Organizer in Chief, had no plan.  He proposed no plan to Congress.  He has let committee after committee of witless tax-and-spend, haggard old liberals write the convoluted mess they’re calling healthcare reform, and has virtually done nothing for own his part but bash the insurance companies, the doctors and even the patients, who ask for individual control over their own life-and-death choices. 

This, dear readers, is the fundamental difference between an empty-suited celebrity and a nuts-and-bolts executive:  flim-flam artistry vs. substance and real results. 

Barack Obama, the eternal campaigner, held a healthcare town hall, which even Helen Thomas and her just-as-liberal cohort, Chip Reid of CBS, called “orchestrated,” “tightly-controlled,” and seemingly “less transparent” than any previous White House occupants had ever dared.  The questions posed to the President, it’s now quite obvious, must indeed be orchestrated because he is tasked with selling legislation that he himself has neither read nor understands.  And the worst of this becoming-nastier-by-the-day conundrum is that the whole cockamamie plan is built upon a disastrously failed European-socialist model, which has proven again and again and again to raise costs, lower quality and ration care.  The only real difference seems to be that the Democrats’ plan will allow those already at the table to reap even more profits than before, and we will be the ones footing the outrageous tab. 

The President trips over his explanations with one real gaffe after another because he utterly failed to master Alinsky #12 before we allowed his ascension to the power-perch in the highest office in the land. 

This Obama failure to form workable solutions to gigantic problems should come as no surprise to any American.  When a supposedly literate public elects a man to the most powerful position in the universe upon a resume that would fit neatly upon the back of a postage stamp, the result is easily predicted long before Inaugural Day.    

Honey, even a nitwit knows that when a president must hire out his real job to 32 czars, he was never CEO material. 

When Saul Alinsky’s early observers voiced the concern that he was building a host of agitated mobs, who could be overtaken and controlled by a skillful “fascist demagogue,” those fears were well-founded. 

What happens when a stranger to one’s community comes in from nowhere and begins to ingratiate himself with the locals, with the sole intention of forming a political body of disgruntled folks, ready to demand from their government whatever the organizer tells them they really need?  

The result of such a deceitful maneuver is a lot of very angry people, making demands without a single clue that the organizer knows what he’s talking about.  If he were truly one of them, if they had known him all his life, if he lived down the street and had grown up among them, they would know whether his words could be trusted, whether his intentions were truly good and whether he had the real smarts to lead them. 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a perfect example of a true leader, and the antithesis of an Alinskyite community organizer.  Dr. King wasn’t leading a movement of complete strangers.  Nor was he dropped into Atlanta by a gang of professional troublemakers, intent on gaining political power.  Dr. King, and his father before him, were echelons of the black, upper-middle-class community in Atlanta.  They had lifelong friends in every black community south of the Mason-Dixon.  They were so well-known, so utterly respected by all, that when Martin spoke, people – black and white alike – knew there was absolute substance behind his thunderous voice.  Even the Democratic Party racists who opposed him, gave him grudging private respect.  

King had no need of deceptive Alinsky tactics; he had moral authority steeped in roots going back generations in the same home town. 

Such is not at all the case with what Alinsky euphemistically called the “community organizer.”  A community organizer is by definition an outsider, someone hired not by the community itself, but by outside political operatives attempting to gain a foothold in the community. 

Precisely the way a young Barack Obama was hired by outsiders to infiltrate a Southside Chicago community in the late 1980s.

Barack Obama dropped in for a few years on the Southside of Chicago.  Rather than actually doing anything to improve the community where he was sent to “work,” he made political friends and established a political base from which to launch his Organizer in Chief presidential campaign.  His chief liaison from those days was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., a very influential friend of Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington. 

By the time Barack Obama returned from his sojourn at Harvard Law to his adopted home base of Chicago, he was no longer a man who wasn’t sent by anyone.  He was a political somebody, about to launch a meteoric rise to a job for which he is utterly unprepared.  And this sad fact shows itself more apparent with every passing day. 

When Bill Clinton put forth the notion of Barack Obama as a “fairytale” and was trounced for it, Democrats should have listened.  They now have a man in the office of the presidency, for whom they must provide cover every single day.  Why?  It’s simple.  Barack Obama mastered Alinsky tactics of campaigning for power and working the crowds down to the last little letter, but he absolutely has no plan of governance, no workable solutions, and can’t even talk about such things without a live-feed teleprompter glued to each hip. 

Leaders don’t fall from the sky without proof they ever made friends and dated girlfriends and earned grades and had businesses and wrote papers, folks.  Leaders have visible trails; they have made a record of their successes and proudly show them whenever asked.  Barack Obama resides in the White House without ever showing a shred of genuine evidence that he is the greatly-gifted man he and his media sycophants say he is.  And 52% of the American electorate has bought this faster than they would buy a used car from a slick-suited salesman on a shady lot. 

Suckers United for Change.  Wow.  I’m impressed. 

Dr. Obama?  I would sooner trust Dr. Frankenstein.