On Wednesday, Frances Fox Piven was included in an AFL-CIO sponsored National Teach In where she spent a little over ten minutes speaking to students about past protests and their affect on the country, and then she spoke about the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement as one of those momentous revolutions that is gaining ground. Her comments include the usual social and economic justice rhetoric that we have come to expect from socialists and communists (including strengthening the unions, a ‘big public sector’, and free higher education for everyone), but her comment that, “The slogan of our movement should be ‘Occupy everything because it belongs to us“ is downright disturbing.
“Well maybe, it’s the moment when another great movement is being born. I think it is. I really do think it is. It began pointing to Wall Street with the occupation in Zuccotti Square. That was a good place to point the sword.” – Frances Fox Piven
This woman reminds me of the mullahs that used the Iranian students to overthrown the government and sent Iran into the inner circle of hell that they are now fighting and dying to be free of.
Hopefully, the numerous Ron Paul supporters can enlighten their brethren on the message of freedom, liberty, and peace that is sorely lacking when it comes to socialists and communists who believe that one must take from another even to the point of violence.
The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” And, “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”
Yet her McDonald opinion shows her “understanding” that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.
To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is “settled law.” The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, “said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases.”
So by “settled,” she apparently meant “not settled; should be overturned immediately.”
It is my understanding that the Founders did not wish for a standing national army that could be used against “We The People”, and that is why the 2nd Amendment covers militias. I believe the problem comes in the fact that there should have been two amendments; one to cover individual ownership, and one to cover the militia aspect. I do not believe the Founders could have expected the stupidity that we have seen with the ‘interpretation’ of the very narrowly written 2nd Amendment.
What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ requires deciphering?
Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.
Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren’t taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.
“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn’t fix Medicare soon, there’ll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress’ promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”
More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.
The largest number of doctors opting out comes from primary care, a field already short of practitioners nationally and especially in Texas. Psychiatrists also make up a large share of the pie, causing one Texas leader to say, “God forbid that a senior has dementia.”
The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010. Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.
Meanwhile, it is just starting to dawn on the progressive socialists in power that America IS PISSED and we are about to show them just how much.
President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are using the levers of government to speed up and promote what they consider the most popular aspects of the new health care law before a highly skeptical public passes judgment in November.
Top administration officials, who meet regularly with outside special interest groups to coordinate the public relations effort, have so far focused on expediting and amplifying four key areas of the new law: expanding coverage to young adults, covering sick people with pre-existing conditions or high medical costs, providing tax breaks to small businesses and helping a select group of seniors pay for prescription drugs.
In one case, the administration moved so quickly to provide coverage to young adults under their parents’ health plan that it cut short the conventional period for the public to weigh in on the new rule.
In another, it used taxpayer money to alert small businesses that they will get a break on this year’s taxes.
Both are perfectly legal but also politically beneficial.
In every case, the administration’s objective is unmistakable: Make sure as many Americans as possible know as quickly as possible about the health care changes they will find most attractive.
There are two big reasons Democrats feel the need to step it up.
First, polls that show the public still isn’t backing the legislation. Most show mixed feelings at best and often hostile attitudes toward the law. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 44 percent think the health plan is a bad idea; 38 percent think it is a good idea.
Second, the heavy spending in anti-reform advertising: In the past month, anti-health-reform groups have poured $3.8 million into television advertising, nearly doubling the $2 million that has come from pro-reform forces, according to Evan Tracey, founder of TNS Media Intelligence.
The administration says there is no connection between its efforts and the looming 2010 congressional campaign. “Our mission as we work with the White House and other parts of the administration to implement this bill is to get Americans accurate, timely information about their health care and the benefits of the new Affordable Care Act so they are more empowered to get the best-quality care possible,” said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for implementing much of the law.
Glenn’s show today is all about how progressives are using our educational system to “evolve” our children toward the progressive agenda. Wait until you hear who is behind the National Day of Action To Defend Education. The groups involved are protesting “the current assault on public education”, and are almost, unanimously, socialists and communists.
(My apologies for the sound quality as fewer YTers are posting Beck programs.)
Glenn introduces a special that is going to be aired on January 22nd about the truth about Che, Mao, and Stalin as the murderers that they are, and a quote from one of his producers who is researching the special, and who has a degree in history saying “I’m pissed off, I never learned any of this. I want to know why.”.
Also Glenn covers the real story of jobs, and for those who want to read up, go here. The chart about job losses during past recessions is going to blow your mind.
Then Glenn goes into the similarities between Obama and Chavez, and interviews Pat Cadell after Pat sent him a letter this past weekend about the American Renaissance that is occuring right now, and how one stupid event could send our republic over the edge.
Since Glenn Beck’s revelation that Anita Dunn considers Chairman Mao to be one of her two “favorite political philosophers”, I of course, had to take a peek at Anita and found something very interesting; she’s married to Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie who is also Barack Obama’s personal lawyer and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee. Newsweek did an expose on power couples, here, image 6. My question would be, why is Robert Bauer listed as part of JohnMcCain2008? Anybody have some free time to dig and find out why? Let’s get back to Anita, and then on to another power couple you may not know about.
Dunn, began her career in the Carter White House, first as an intern for White House Communications Director Gerald Rafshoon and then worked for chief of staff Hamilton Jordan. She worked on the campaign of Senator John Glenn (D-OH), and on Capitol Hill before joining the firm founded by Bob Squier and Bill Knapp in 1993. She has been the top adviser to Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), including serving as the chief strategist for his presidential campaign, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). She was hired by then Senator Barack Obama in 2006 to direct communications and strategy for his political action committee, The Hopefund. This move signaled to many that Obama was nearing a run for the presidency. While advising Hopefund and Obama in 2006, she was instrumental in the preparations for the launch of Obama for America, and brought many key staffers to the Obama campaign with whom she had worked in Bayh’s and Daschle’s offices.
In April 2008, it was announced that Dunn, who had joined the Obama campaign in February, would be the director of communications, policy and research operations for Obama for America, where she held the title Senior Adviser and was one of the major decision makers of the Obama campaign. She was featured as one of four top advisers (along with David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Robert Gibbs) in a 60 Minutes interview held after then President-elect Obama’s November 4, 2008 victory speech at Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois. She was described, in the 60 Minutes interview, as, “a relative newcomer who handled communications, research and policy.” During the presidential transition of 2008-09, Dunn trained White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
White House Communications Director
A veteran political operative, Dunn, as interim White House Communications Director, took the lead in the Obama administration’s struggle with the Fox News Channel On Sunday, October 11, 2009, she appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources and was asked to clarify a statement she made to Time Magazine regarding Fox News, “it’s opinion journalism masquerading as news.” She responded by saying, “if you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.” Continuing to discuss Fox News, she later acknowledged. “It’s not ideological. I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal, centrist — and everybody understands that.”
On June 5, 2009, Dunn delivered a speech to students at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School of Potomac, Maryland, in which she stated “The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ‘you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.”  On October 15, 2009, Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck aired a clip of the speech and criticized her on his show. In response to the criticism, Dunn said “”The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat — at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.” She also stated that “the Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater.”
Dunn is married to President Obama’s personal attorney, Robert Bauer, a partner at Perkins Coie who has been the general counsel of Obama for America since January 2007. In 2008, Newsweek named Dunn and Bauer the new “power couple” in Washington, D.C.
While I was looking through the Newsweek expose about power couples, I ran across another that I did not know about, and one that you might find interesting considering the points of view involved.
WASHINGTON — Samantha Power, the Harvard University professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a “monster” while working to elect Barack Obama president, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, The Associated Press has learned.
Officials familiar with the decision say Obama has tapped Power to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, a job that will require close contact and potential travel with Clinton, who is now secretary of state. NSC staffers often accompany the secretary of state on foreign trips.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Power’s position, as well as that of other senior NSC positions, have not yet been announced. One official said the announcements would be made in the near future.
White House officials would not provide details of Power’s new role.
Sam’s mate? None other than Cass Sunstein, the new regulatory czar of the Obama administration.
Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama’s friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O’Leary, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech.” OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.
Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
It is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein’s 39-page paper, entitled “Climate Change Justice,” maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as “distributive justice” several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner
“It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid,” wrote Sunstein.
The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.
This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.
Economic crises can be used to usher socialism into the U.S., argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” Sunstein used the precedent of the Great Depression to point out that historic economic crises “provided the most promising conditions for the emergence of socialism in the U.S.”
“With a little nudge or a slight change in emphasis, our culture could have gone, and could still go, in many different directions,” wrote Sunstein in his book, which was reviewed by WND.
Last week, WND reported Sunstein wrote in the same book the U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country’s “white majority” opposes welfare, since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics.
Remember what I said a few weeks back about the true battle being between socialism and capitalism?
President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.
Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.
In his 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation
. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”
“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”
So, do you have a right to be secure in your person (Amendment IV) or does the state own you and your organs?
When she returned to the United States, she attended Harvard Law School, graduating in 1999. Her first book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, grew out of a paper she wrote in law school. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 2003. It offers a survey of the origin of the word genocide, the major genocides of the 20th century, as well as an analysis of some of the underlying reasons for the persistent failure of governments and the international community to collectively identify, recognize and then respond effectively to genocides ranging from the Armenian Genocide to the Rwandan Genocide. This work and related writings have been criticized by the historian Howard Zinn for downplaying the importance of “unintended” and “collateral” civilian deaths that could be classified as genocidal; and by Edward S. Herman for systematically ignoring genocidal projects sponsored by the United States in Guatemala, in East Timor, and Southeast Asia. 
In 2004, Power was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 top scientists and thinkers of that year. In fall 2007, she began writing a regular column for Time. Power appears in Charles Ferguson‘s 2007 documentary, No End in Sight, which alleges numerous missteps by the Bush administration in the U.S. war in Iraq.
Power spent 2005–06 working in the office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama as a foreign policy fellow, where she was credited with sparking and directing Obama’s interest in the Darfur conflict. She served as a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign until she was forced to resign for referring to Hillary Clinton as “a monster”. Power apologized for the remarks made in an interview with The Scotsman in London, and resigned from the campaign shortly thereafter.
Friends of Israel may remember Power for a different reason. She is a strong believer in the anti-Semitic notion that Jews Control foreign policy. She has also said that she would recommend that the US SHOULD SEND IN TROOPS TO IMPOSE A SOLUTION ON ISRAEL.
Take a look at the video below from 2002 when she sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an adviser to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power response is her advice to the President would be to 1) “Alienate” the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because 2) Israeli leaders are “destroying the lives of their own people.” 3) Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into “the new state of Palestine”; 4) Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a “mammoth protection force” and a “military presence” that will be “imposed” by “external intervention”? — in order to do the exact same thing that she considers the height of arrogance and foolishness in Iraq: an American campaign to remake an Arab society; 5) and Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat were on the same moral level:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called “Sharafat.” [Sharon-Arafat; this is actually an Amos Oz construction — NP] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.
But it gets better Power is an advocate of the anti-Semitic view of forign policy made famous by professors Walt and Mearsheimer
Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School’s website, Power was asked to explain “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy.” She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is “the US historic predisposition to go it alone.” A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:
Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.
Power is not just assenting to the Israel Lobby view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003–an appalling slander, and a telling one.
Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME magazine, titled “Rethinking Iran,” the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:
The war scare that wasn’t [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration’s allegations about the advanced state of Iran’s weapons program–allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.
Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama’s ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America’s greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy?
One day later Pollak followed up with more information:
Note that this wasn’t her response to a question about her personal views of the conflict, or about what she envisions might be a utopian solution to the conflict; it was a response to a question about what she would tell the President of the United States if she was his adviser. Yesterday Barak Obama took a large stride toward the presidency–helped in some small measure by the speeches on behalf of the Obama campaign that Power has delivered–and it is time that someone asked him, while he is still a candidate, what he thinks of the perverse things his many foreign policy advisers have said about Israel and the Middle East.
So back to the questions at hand:
Did Robert Bauer work for the McCain campaign, and if so, what was his role?
What is Samantha Power’s actual job description and what is she doing on our dime?