DOES ANY ONE HERE LOOK FAMILIAR??
See the white guy in the white suit, see the blond with the white dress, see the guy in the middle, this picture was taken a few years ago, it seems Obama has known these two phonys for awhile, at least when he was a senator, they are getting all this press now as party crashers and the secret service is taking heat, funny how this has not come out in the press, what has happened to the investigative reporter?

It is time for all Americans to stand up for what is right, to make the necessary distinctions for each other and for our children outlining what is right and what is wrong.

We need to quit being led and we need to start leading. It takes a long time for the public to let go of their old habits, but most people are fed up enough with everything enough to at least begin listening to reason. So, let’s start talking (and talking and talking and talking) – we may be surprised at how great the results will be, and we may make a bunch of new friends in the process.

Now this is where it gets fun. Why does America have to be so divided? If one side makes a mistake, the other side immediately jumps on it as a conspiracy or some type of evil plot to overthrow the world Don’t think that I am talking about a one way street here… if this had been a Democrat rally and their side showed the wrong footage, our side would have jumped up and down, too.

I think we all, as American people, need to take a deep breath and asses for ourselves whether the intentions of those in the media and out in front of the different political groups did something blatantly wrong, or if they just did not do their job well. Let’s not get into a tizzy everytime there is a bit of “being human” put into what is expected to be a very professional and polished media.

I would go so far as to say that we should call out the small things that are not arrestable offences, immoral offences or evil plots to take over the world. If a sincere apology is issued, take it at face value. We are the land of innocent until proven guilty. I think Hannity flubbed. He showed the wrong footage. I don’t think he ever tried to suggest that there were over a million people there, like there was at the 9/12 rally. It was just the wrong footage.

We have bigger things to worry about than this.

Jon Stewart highlights Hannity Error:

Hannity’s apology:

Read about how the first lady is living like royalty. I hope that all of you who are struggling to make ends meet can appreciate how much this administration really does not care about American citizens – it is all about them living like royalty!
_________________________

Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams

“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

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.

Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhowe had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband’s salary.

Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:

Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President’s salary

Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:

Michele Obama’s personal staff:
1.. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 – Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama.

Sorry America !

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

 Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

 CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

 All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

 “Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”

 The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.

 Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

 But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.

 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.

 Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

 Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.

 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.

 He’s hardly the worst off.

 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) each a net worth of less than zero, CRP says.

 One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers.

 Even so, Levinthal said, “It is clear that some members are struggling financially.

 “Over a calendar year, one’s wealth can change drastically. Many peoples’ investments took a nose dive over night in the last year,” he said.

 A number of lawmakers are estimated to have suffered double-digit percentage lossed in their net worth from 2007 to 2008. The biggest losers include Kerry, who lost a whopping $127.4 million; Warner lost about $28.1 million; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lost about $11.8 million; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost about $10.1 million.

It is insulting and a definite slap in the face to the good people of New York, no matter what the political affiliation of the constituents.

Stand up New York, surround Owens and let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. We the people of America, who love freedom and liberty, honesty and values stand with you!

Re-post from The Gouverneur Times:

Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04
GOUVERNEUR, NY – Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the “Affordable Healthcare for America Act” bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a ‘litmus test’ for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens’ campaign website.

Click to enlarge image

The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY’s 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.

Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that “This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go.”

When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries. Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits. Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.

HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place. Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi’s rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?

HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.

The Associated Press said this morning that: “House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus’ demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange.”

In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants – a statement for which he was called a “liar” by Rep. Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.

The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman. Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill. The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they’ve become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.

Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians… it’s a cliche. This is almost certainly a record though. Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office.

Organizer
TCU

Then Saturday morning we saw the people, donned in red, white and blue, wearing T-Shirts that expressed their frustrations, carrying homemade signs that ranged from clever, to very direct, to funny, to just raw emotion stating what they expect from their government. As we stood at Freedom Plaza, we watched in amazement as the crowds came in, a sea of people pouring into the city. It was calm, peaceful and everyone was in great spirits. There was chanting, there was singing, and there was a lot of smiling and chatting.

Then we marched—the size of the crowd was incredible. As far as we could see, surrounded by fellow Americans. We made our way down to the Capitol. We walked shoulder to shoulder with thousands of Americans who want a government that is free of corruption. The people came together in defense of their constitution—I felt so proud to be an American citizen.

Once we made it to the Capitol, the speakers spoke, the crowd responded and although we could not hear everything, we enjoyed being a part of this historical march. One of my favorite things was when the crowd would start yelling down beyond the Washington monument, and I would tell my children and husband “Listen, here it comes!” and we would hear the “wave” of yells travel up the road until it reached us at the Capitol where we joined in—the most incredible thing I have ever heard!

I am so proud of all Americans who support this movement—We DID surround them

I can’t wait till Judgement Day—Nov, 2010!

Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made effective use of his training in the methods of David’s late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul Alinsky.

David Alinsky gloated: “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

What was Saul Alinsky’s model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics?

What is known today as “the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power” are fully set forth in Alinsky’s 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” Alinsky’s worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: “the haves, the have-nots and the have-a-little, want mores.” His purpose was to teach the have-nots how to take power and money away from the haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he admitted “this means revolution.”

He wanted a radical change of America’s social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution.

He wanted to move the U.S. from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism. “Change” was Alinsky’s favorite word, used on page after page. “I will argue,” he wrote, “that man’s hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change.”

Alinsky used what he called “general concepts of change” to move us toward “a science of revolution.”

What he called change meant an alteration of our socioeconomic structure; what he called organizing meant pursuing confrontational political tactics.

Alinsky taught the have-nots to “hate the establishment of the haves” because they have “power, money, food, security and luxury.” He claimed that “justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the haves to justify and secure their status quo.”

Alinsky didn’t ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He was more devious; he taught his followers that “moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

To achieve his goals, he sought local community organizers who projected confidence and vision as well as change. Barack Obama fit the profile.

Alinsky didn’t want just talkers. He wanted radicals who were prepared to take bold action to organize the discontented, precipitate crises, grab power and transform society. He taught his organizers how to infiltrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties, gain influence in them and introduce change.

The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were ego (“reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God”), curiosity (raising “questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern”), irreverence (“nothing is sacred”; “detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality”), a sense of humor (“the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule”) and a personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only “as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.”

The organizer must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community, fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. . . . stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”

Alinsky trained his community organizers to adopt a “middle-class identity” and familiarity with their “values and problems.” After achieving “the priceless value of his middle-class experience,” he will “begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before.”

Alinsky’s trainees are instructed to return to the suburban scene of the middle class with its variety of organizations, from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches and clubs. Alinsky boasted: “With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. . . . Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class.”

Put “Rules for Radicals” on your must-read list if you want to understand much of contemporary politics.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc