Source: http://www.breitbart.tv/welcome-to-obamaville-sign-marks-co-homeless-tent-city/
Date: Dec 10,2009
Source: http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11660020
By Political Reporter Marshall Zelinger
m.zelinger@krdo.com
Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/mzelinger
COLORADO SPRINGS – We now know the reasons behind the "Welcome to Obamaville" sign near a homeless tent city at I-25 and Cimarron.
"You mention his name, you get some attention, I think that was the whole idea behind it," said Spencer Swann of Colorado Canyon Signs. "I didn't dream it up, but I thought it was a good idea. I thought that it would help some of these guys down here."
Swann designed the "Welcome to Obamaville: Colorado's Fastest Growing Community" sign on behalf of someone else, whose identity he wouldn't reveal. Swann also designed a new sign Thursday that replaced "Obamaville". The new sign reads: "Please help, we need firewood, propane and canned food."
"I thought it was just something to draw attention and help those folks," said Swann.
On krdo.com, Mary wrote, "The person that had the sign made could have donated to the homeless shelter instead."
Harley agreed, writing, "…you should have taken this money for the sign and given it to them."
Swann says the "Obamaville" sign cost around $150. He didn't charge the unknown creator for either sign. Swann also tells NEWSCHANNEL 13, the person who put up the sign makes donations of his own to the homeless.
"He gives them money, he gives them food, he gives them support," said Swann.
A NEWSCHANNEL 13 viewer forwarded us an e-mail he received from a friend, which included a picture of the "Welcome to Obamaville" sign. The viewer wrote us, "I am disgusted by the sign."
"I've had 100 calls today and not a single one of them was negative," said Swann.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Putin says no plans to leave power; PRAISES STALIN FOR INDUSTRIALIZATION AND VICTORY... Russia has no evidence of Iran nuclear bomb...
Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B21GS20091203?sp=true
Date: Thu Dec 3, 2009 3:04pm GMT
By Michael Stott and Gleb Bryanski
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in power for over 10 years, ruled out a departure from politics on Thursday, telling a questioner: "Don't hold your breath."
The country's most powerful leader made the comment with a smile when asked on his annual televised question and answer session with the Russian people if he would like to leave politics and start a quiet life.
Putin, 57, also said he "will think about" taking part in the 2012 presidential election, when many Russians expect him to return to the Kremlin for a six-year term.
Looking relaxed and confident, Putin said Russia had passed the peak of the economic crisis and reassured callers worried about job security, pensions and living standards.
"The economy has grown by an average of 0.5 percent per month over the last five months," Putin said in the session, broadcast live nationwide by state television and radio. "I'm counting on these positive trends in economic development becoming more significant in the middle of next year."
Putin's eighth annual phone-in entitled "A Conversation with Vladimir Putin. The Sequel" showed the premier back on form after an uncharacteristically subdued performance last year amid the economic crisis.
Commenting on everything from Russia's football performance to the brand value of Lada cars, Putin showed the mastery of detail, firm command, trademark frankness and humor which has made him the country's most popular politician.
An increase in oil prices has pulled the Russian economy back from the brink of collapse this year but despite billions of dollars of government aid, Russia still lags far behind emerging market peers such as Brazil, India and China.
Many questioners asked Putin about their jobs and their pensions, including workers in the town of Pikalyovo, which the premier visited in the summer to help a cement factory threatened with closure and scold its oligarch owner.
"The situation in one-industry towns, including Pikalyovo, is under control," Putin said.
RUSSIAN NOUVEAUX RICHES "A PROBLEM"
Asked why nobody was in jail for allowing the crisis to hit Pikalyovo, the prime minister shot back: "If we put everyone in jail, who would work?"
Putin had harsh words for Russia's new rich, saying the way they flaunted their wealth was wrong, and implicitly condemning a group of young Russians whose Lamborghini and Bugatti luxury sports cars crashed recently in Switzerland.
"The nouveau riche all of a sudden got rich very quickly but cannot manage their wealth without showing it off all the time. Yes, this is our problem," Putin said.
"In Soviet times some of our rich showed off their wealth by having gold teeth put in, preferably at the front. The Lamborghinis and other pricey knickknacks -- they are simply today's gold teeth which are shown off to everybody."
The televised question and answer session was conducted in a specially built Moscow studio with invited guests.
It included video links to Pikalyovo, to an aircraft plant in a Far Eastern city and to the turbine room of the giant Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric dam in Siberia, damaged in an August accident which killed 75.
All questions were screened in advance and access to the Moscow studio and the video link-up locations was by invitation only. Journalists were not given access to the questioners.
Enthusiastic presenters beamed as they counted more than two million questions submitted by phone, internet and text message.
Foreign affairs were barely mentioned in a session dominated by domestic issues.
Putin reassured a grieving widow from the dam about her children's education, calmed factory workers worried about their jobs, joked over his sometimes awkward relationship with the leader of neighboring Belarus and condemned terrorism.
Islamist rebels have claimed responsibility for detonating a bomb under a luxury express train as it traveled from Moscow to St Petersburg last week, derailing and wrecking carriages and killing 26 people, including some senior officials.
Putin said Russia would "break the spine" of terrorism and demanded tough action against "criminals" who attacked their own people. "The threat of terrorism remains very high," he added.
A caller said that an old woman near the train crash site who cared for the victims, lived in horrible conditions and her fence was damaged during rescue work.
"You have a good heart. Just like this old woman. Do not worry, everything will be fine with her," Putin said, adding that Russian Railways had already doubled the old woman's pension and would fix her fence and the house.
Helped by lavish coverage on state media and an absence of credible political opponents, Putin still dominates Russian politics 10 years after he was first picked as a successor by ailing then-president Boris Yeltsin.
Although his ratings have drooped slightly to an eight-month low of 65 percent, down from 72 percent in mid-October, according to the FOM pollster, they remain numbers most politicians would envy after 10 years of rule.
They also outshine those of his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who most Russians believe has little real power. It was almost two hours into the question session before Putin mentioned Medvedev's name at all.
He later told a questioner asking about their "tandem" system of government that he and Medvedev worked well together and shared common values.
"We graduated from the same university, had the same teachers, who not only gave us the same knowledge but also a common approach to life. Those common principles allow us to work efficiently today," he said.
(Editing by Ralph Boulton.)
Author's Google docs:
Fall of Capitalism Rise of Islam
Is Barack Obama a Marxist? Jerry Stokes 2009
"the world as it is" v. "the world as it should be"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFMDIwNTM5Y2UtNTQ2Zi00N2UxLTgxZDQtOTE4YmU2OWU4ZjEx&hl=en
Obama’s B.A. Ddegree Columbia in I.R. Redefines Constitutional godly Government as a Global Enemy to be Developed into Marxism Who Benefits the Most
Are We Sliding From Liberty to Serfdom?
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.f098d02d-0fd8-4b28-a157-b51c97e1e8a9&hl=en
Date: Thu Dec 3, 2009 3:04pm GMT
By Michael Stott and Gleb Bryanski
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in power for over 10 years, ruled out a departure from politics on Thursday, telling a questioner: "Don't hold your breath."
The country's most powerful leader made the comment with a smile when asked on his annual televised question and answer session with the Russian people if he would like to leave politics and start a quiet life.
Putin, 57, also said he "will think about" taking part in the 2012 presidential election, when many Russians expect him to return to the Kremlin for a six-year term.
Looking relaxed and confident, Putin said Russia had passed the peak of the economic crisis and reassured callers worried about job security, pensions and living standards.
"The economy has grown by an average of 0.5 percent per month over the last five months," Putin said in the session, broadcast live nationwide by state television and radio. "I'm counting on these positive trends in economic development becoming more significant in the middle of next year."
Putin's eighth annual phone-in entitled "A Conversation with Vladimir Putin. The Sequel" showed the premier back on form after an uncharacteristically subdued performance last year amid the economic crisis.
Commenting on everything from Russia's football performance to the brand value of Lada cars, Putin showed the mastery of detail, firm command, trademark frankness and humor which has made him the country's most popular politician.
An increase in oil prices has pulled the Russian economy back from the brink of collapse this year but despite billions of dollars of government aid, Russia still lags far behind emerging market peers such as Brazil, India and China.
Many questioners asked Putin about their jobs and their pensions, including workers in the town of Pikalyovo, which the premier visited in the summer to help a cement factory threatened with closure and scold its oligarch owner.
"The situation in one-industry towns, including Pikalyovo, is under control," Putin said.
RUSSIAN NOUVEAUX RICHES "A PROBLEM"
Asked why nobody was in jail for allowing the crisis to hit Pikalyovo, the prime minister shot back: "If we put everyone in jail, who would work?"
Putin had harsh words for Russia's new rich, saying the way they flaunted their wealth was wrong, and implicitly condemning a group of young Russians whose Lamborghini and Bugatti luxury sports cars crashed recently in Switzerland.
"The nouveau riche all of a sudden got rich very quickly but cannot manage their wealth without showing it off all the time. Yes, this is our problem," Putin said.
"In Soviet times some of our rich showed off their wealth by having gold teeth put in, preferably at the front. The Lamborghinis and other pricey knickknacks -- they are simply today's gold teeth which are shown off to everybody."
The televised question and answer session was conducted in a specially built Moscow studio with invited guests.
It included video links to Pikalyovo, to an aircraft plant in a Far Eastern city and to the turbine room of the giant Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric dam in Siberia, damaged in an August accident which killed 75.
All questions were screened in advance and access to the Moscow studio and the video link-up locations was by invitation only. Journalists were not given access to the questioners.
Enthusiastic presenters beamed as they counted more than two million questions submitted by phone, internet and text message.
Foreign affairs were barely mentioned in a session dominated by domestic issues.
Putin reassured a grieving widow from the dam about her children's education, calmed factory workers worried about their jobs, joked over his sometimes awkward relationship with the leader of neighboring Belarus and condemned terrorism.
Islamist rebels have claimed responsibility for detonating a bomb under a luxury express train as it traveled from Moscow to St Petersburg last week, derailing and wrecking carriages and killing 26 people, including some senior officials.
Putin said Russia would "break the spine" of terrorism and demanded tough action against "criminals" who attacked their own people. "The threat of terrorism remains very high," he added.
A caller said that an old woman near the train crash site who cared for the victims, lived in horrible conditions and her fence was damaged during rescue work.
"You have a good heart. Just like this old woman. Do not worry, everything will be fine with her," Putin said, adding that Russian Railways had already doubled the old woman's pension and would fix her fence and the house.
Helped by lavish coverage on state media and an absence of credible political opponents, Putin still dominates Russian politics 10 years after he was first picked as a successor by ailing then-president Boris Yeltsin.
Although his ratings have drooped slightly to an eight-month low of 65 percent, down from 72 percent in mid-October, according to the FOM pollster, they remain numbers most politicians would envy after 10 years of rule.
They also outshine those of his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who most Russians believe has little real power. It was almost two hours into the question session before Putin mentioned Medvedev's name at all.
He later told a questioner asking about their "tandem" system of government that he and Medvedev worked well together and shared common values.
"We graduated from the same university, had the same teachers, who not only gave us the same knowledge but also a common approach to life. Those common principles allow us to work efficiently today," he said.
(Editing by Ralph Boulton.)
Author's Google docs:
Jesus “Truth” Contrasted to Quran, Darwin or Marx
Hamas Intl Terror Group [Are Our Eyes Open to this Threat]
Are We Holding Our Current Leaders Accountable to Their Oath?
Is Barack Obama a Marxist? Jerry Stokes 2009
"the world as it is" v. "the world as it should be"
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFMDIwNTM5Y2UtNTQ2Zi00N2UxLTgxZDQtOTE4YmU2OWU4ZjEx&hl=en
Obama’s B.A. Ddegree Columbia in I.R. Redefines Constitutional godly Government as a Global Enemy to be Developed into Marxism Who Benefits the Most
Are We Sliding From Liberty to Serfdom?
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.f098d02d-0fd8-4b28-a157-b51c97e1e8a9&hl=en
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Obama's Marxist Administration
Source: http://www.socialists.com/
Jesus: I have come to set you free. John 8:32
Marx: I have come to send you to a gulag.
OBAMA'S MARXIST QUOTES
HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT OF OBAMA'S MARXISM
OBAMA'S MARXIST 32 CZARS
OBAMA: Our Constitution is Deeply Flawed
Author's Google docs:
Are We Sliding From Liberty to Serfdom?
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.f098d02d-0fd8-4b28-a157-b51c97e1e8a9&hl=en
Friday, August 28, 2009
War News: U.S. Senate Bill Will Give Control Of The Internet To The White House In The Event Of A National Security Emergency
Source: http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/
Date: Friday, August 28, 2009
Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at declan@cbsnews.com.
Bill Would Give President Obama Emergency Control Of Internet
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
nternet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Date: Friday, August 28, 2009
Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at declan@cbsnews.com.
Bill Would Give President Obama Emergency Control Of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
nternet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Saul Alinsky War Room Wins the White House
Author's Google docs:
Decepticon’s Alynsky War Room
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFOWY4NGNjYTQtZmU2OC00ZWZkLTlmMTktOWQxYTk3NTI3OGQ3&hl=en
Is the Media Presenting Democratic Candidates as Having Conubial Rights?
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFMGRjNDEwMGYtZTg5NC00MWYzLTkwYzctY2M5NmVlMDQyNmJj&hl=en
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Ethics Problem: Former Senator Tom Daschle's Law Firm Doing Work for the White House Helping Spin Facts to Promote New State Health Care Program
Source: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/25/what-is-going-on-2/
Date: Aug 25, 2009
New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick
Ethics Problem: Former Senator Tom Daschle's Law Firm Doing Work for the White House Helping Spin Facts to Promote New State Health Care Program
Do you like the idea of Former Senator Tom Daschle being so cozy with the White House while his law firm is deeply involved in lobbying for health care providers? Daschle is, in my opinion, candy coating what he does and calls himself a "resource" and not a lobbyist. Resource? He might be right -- he gets info at the White House, or gains info of which way the "wind is blowing" and then returns and tell his partners who represent (make $) who have a giant interest in the health care bill. He knows or is part of the "inside track" ....and then pedals it to others he works with. He calls it being a resource. I call it way too cozy. Is this transparency?
Author's Google docs:
Life and Human Dignity Jerry Stokes 2009
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFODA0NjNhYjYtY2VkNi00MDA4LWI2YjktNjhmMTBhOWU0YmM3&hl=en
Date: Aug 25, 2009
New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick
Ethics Problem: Former Senator Tom Daschle's Law Firm Doing Work for the White House Helping Spin Facts to Promote New State Health Care Program
Do you like the idea of Former Senator Tom Daschle being so cozy with the White House while his law firm is deeply involved in lobbying for health care providers? Daschle is, in my opinion, candy coating what he does and calls himself a "resource" and not a lobbyist. Resource? He might be right -- he gets info at the White House, or gains info of which way the "wind is blowing" and then returns and tell his partners who represent (make $) who have a giant interest in the health care bill. He knows or is part of the "inside track" ....and then pedals it to others he works with. He calls it being a resource. I call it way too cozy. Is this transparency?
Author's Google docs:
Life and Human Dignity Jerry Stokes 2009
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0jE9taMWseFODA0NjNhYjYtY2VkNi00MDA4LWI2YjktNjhmMTBhOWU0YmM3&hl=en
Saturday, August 22, 2009
First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants
Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13827
Date: Aug 17, 2009
By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, August 17, 2009
“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”— Michelle Obama.
We were wrong.
Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.
She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.
The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.
Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.
The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.
Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.
The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:
$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
$36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.
Get Stoked Google docs:
Are We Sliding From Liberty to Serfdom?
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.f098d02d-0fd8-4b28-a157-b51c97e1e8a9&hl=en
Q: Are We Just Whining What Did Past First ladies Spend?
Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush’s staff attendants is as follows:
McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00
Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00
Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00
Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00
Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00
Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00
Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00
Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00
Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00
King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00
Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00
Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00
Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00
Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00
Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00
This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00. Laura was no piker when it came to spending. But she pales in comparison with Miz Michelle, who requires eight to ten additional attendants at an extra cost to taxpayers of $700,000 and change - - the only change American taxpayers can believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)