Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama...United in Hate: The Left’s Romance w
6/30/2011 1:50:30 PM

For those that say don't touch my Medicare. Guess What? He Is!


The President's Plan To End Medicare Part D As We Know It

Grace-Marie Turner, 06.29.11, 05:00 PM EDT

The first principle in health care and economics should be: ''First, do no harm.''


Part of President Barack Obama's deficit reduction plan is to allow Medicare to "negotiate" prescription drug prices. This sounds sensible, except that government never "negotiates" anything. It sets prices and then tells sellers to take it or leave it.

The president's plan is misguided, would lead to shortages and other market distortions, and would wind up undermining the most successful and cost-effective entitlement program the federal government runs--the Medicare prescription drug benefit, also known as Part D.

The first principle in health care and economics should be: first, do no harm. The president's plan will cost taxpayers more in the long run and undermine seniors' choices.

The prescription drug benefit was controversial when it first passed in 2003. Many worried about creating an expensive new entitlement program where taxpayers once again would find themselves on the losing end of runaway costs.

Instead, Part D has shown that it is successful and could even be a model for overall Medicare reform. It gives seniors a choice of prescription drug plans offering different cost and benefit structures, it relies on choice and private competition to keep costs under control, and it is coming in far below expected costs.

Part D works because it relies on the power of the market, not top-down central planning. Rather than a massive government-run insurance mega-program, Part D offers set subsidies toward the purchase of private prescription drug plans, which then compete for seniors' business. These private plans have different costs, work different ways, and cover different drugs. The competition creates more choices for seniors with plans constantly forced to balance costs with providing the broadest coverage possible.

Part D is now expected to cost taxpayers about 46% less than originally estimated for the period of 2004 to 2013. This is unprecedented in the history of entitlements. Premium costs for seniors are 43% lower than expected. In recent polls, 84% of enrollees say they are satisfied with their coverage, and 95% say their plans work well. Enrollment in Part D has grown steadily, from 11.6 million in 2005 to 27.6 million last year.

Private insurance companies offering prescription drug coverage typically negotiate with drug manufacturers and pharmacies to obtain lower prices. They can get bulk discounts, and through setting their drug lists to favor one medication over its competitors, they can obtain further price concessions from the favored manufacturer. All parties are attentive to the bottom line, and seniors can pick which drug plan they prefer.

This program is working. So what's the problem? The president said in April he has a different plan. He wants to use Medicare to try to lower the federal budget deficit and "limit excessive payments for prescription drugs by leveraging Medicare's purchasing power." What he means by that, unfortunately, is that he wants to impose mandatory Part D "rebates" on pharmaceutical companies similar to those in the Medicaid program.

Rebates are a fancy term for kickbacks to the government--a bribe that must be paid for companies to participate in the program. Because seniors are the biggest consumers of prescription drugs, it would be hard for companies to say no. But we would all play a high price for this misguided policy.

Medicaid follows a rigid formula: If a manufacturer wants its drug available through Medicaid, it must offer a rebate of at least 23.1% off average wholesale prices for brand-name drugs and 13% for generics. If the company offers a bigger discount to any one of its other customers, it must match that price for Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, one consequence is that to make up for the revenue lost on Medicaid patients, drug manufacturers have to charge everyone else more.

That only works when there is someone else to shift costs to. But now, President Obama wants to multiply the damage that Medicaid rebates already cause by extending them to Medicare as well. Through Part D, Medicare pays for drugs on a vast scale. There's no way companies will be able to cost-shift their way out of this big squeeze on their revenues.

There is a huge difference between a mix of private insurance companies negotiating with drug manufacturers and a massive government program that simply rules on prices by decree, ordering all drug manufacturers to offer a specific, steep discount. The first system allows the market to do its work. The second is a command-and-control exercise in central economic planning and price controls.

In the short run, the president's plan will cut investment in research and development. In the longer term, the diminished incentive for success will have companies thinking hard about whether it's worth it to invest $1.2 billion to bring a new drug to market when the government may set prices below their costs of development and production.

Is a promising Alzheimer's treatment going to be worth developing if Medicare will be dictating a lower return? The CBO already has determined that mandatory rebates reduce the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for seniors. Without market feedback, the cost of the program to taxpayers will likely move higher, not lower.

A loss in medical innovation and in access to cutting-edge treatment is something no one wants. Yet that is where Obama's plan would lead us. We should stick with the competition and consumer choice that are working in Part D and not switch to government price controls that have failed for centuries.

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, is a co-author of the new book Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Boadside/HarperCollins).

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama...United in Hate: The Left’s Romance w
7/1/2011 2:41:26 PM
WHY WON'T HAWAII LEGISLATURE INVESTIGATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY?

By: Devvy
July 1, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The issue of Obama/Soetoro/Dunham (and other variations of his known aliases) regarding his eligibility to be elected president continues to grow. In an incredibly stupid move, the usurper released a new and improved long form birth certificate, April 27, 2011.

Immediately, individuals with decades of experience in being able to recognize fraudulent documents cried foul. Intense analysis of said document, by an overwhelming consensus of qualified experts shows the purported long form birth certificate to be nothing more than a crude forgery.

It has become quite obvious to anyone following this massive fraud on the American people that Congress is not going to anything about it despite the growing anger by millions of Americans.

Last month, Doug Vogt, "An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent." The FBI does not comment on on-going investigations. But, is it realistic to expect anything to come out of the FBI? Not with Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, who has never let the U.S. Constitution stand in his way as he shreds it for the "war on terrorism". Not from the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, joined at the hip with his boss and good friend who will be the target of an investigation.

But, what about the Hawaii State Legislature? Sen. Sam Slom, has been interviewed by WND on several occasions regarding Obama/Soetoro's birth certificate:

"I'm not a 'birther,'" Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom told Jeff Katz of WXKS Radio in Boston, "and I followed this from the very beginning. At first I followed it with amusement, and then I got really concerned about it, because the question was if it was not just the birth certificate, but other records as well – school records, academic records, work records – why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?"

On May 23, 2011, I sent a letter to Sen. Slom and recommended everyone should do the same. My request was for an investigation of the April 27, 2011, birth certificate being an obvious forgery.

Let's look at the facts as we know them, which I listed in my letter to Sen. Slom.

On April 25, 2011, the putative president sent his legal representative to Hawaii to retrieve the document. He boasted about it to the media, April 27, 2011:

"And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going. We've had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this, confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital.

"We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on going."

Of course, the first part of his statement is nothing but provable lies. However, the second comment is carelessly worded and will come back to haunt him - a certification has been posted given by the State of Hawaii and only posted on the Internet.


The usurper has confirmed that the State of Hawaii provided the document, he posted it for the world to see and he knows it's a forgery. A criminal act.

Apparently, fiscal considerations were of no importance as overnight Express Mail would have delivered the document within 24 hours. That begs the questions: Why not use overnight mail? Could it be that only a warm body would be able to retrieve a "desired" document?

The document in question was allegedly released by someone at the Hawaii Department of Health.

The Hawaii State Legislature as jurisdiction over state agencies. They have the power to open an official investigation based on charges a document issued by one of their state agencies is a forgery. No political stink attached. It is their obligation and duty to investigate.

When was the individual in the Hawaii Department of Health contacted for the new and improved document? What was the date? Who made the initial contact?

From what source, i.e., book, register, microfilm, was the document generated from?

Who inside the Hawaii Department of Health authorized release of the document?

The Hawaii State Legislature has subpoena power and their committee which has oversight dealing with the Hawaii Department of Health can subpoena the document and all related documents, correspondence and memos directly from the source.

However, despite a massive letter writing campaign to Sen. Slom, so far if appears the Hawaii State Legislature has no intention of investigating the birth certificate issued by the White House when all available evidence and intense scrutiny and analysis show it to be a forgery.

Surely, Sen. Slom isn't blind and has seen at least some coverage of allegations the birth certificate released April 27, 2011, is a forgery?

So, why then nothing but silence from Sen. Slom and his colleagues?

Is it only convenient to speak out about the birth certificate when no action is required? After all, Sen. Slom did speak out when his hands were tied by Obama/Soetoro's refusal to release the document. But, now that the document is released and there is an obvious and real problem with it, do you turn a blind eye?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Is this what our beloved republic has been reduced to? Elected officials who will speak out, but then don't seem to have the courage to follow through on an issue that has evolved over a period of time into a crisis?

I urge you to write a snail mail letter to Sen. Slom to open an investigation into the document released by the Hawaii Department of Health. His address is: Hawaii State Senate, Hawaii State Capitol, Room 214, Honolulu, HI 96813. With enough heat, we can force the issue so they can't continue to ignore the1,000 pound elephant in the room.

Links:

1- New Wash Times Ad: We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House!
2- Why Isn’t Speaker John Boehner Investigating? – 27 Jun 2011
3- Wash Times National Weekly pg 5
4- Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony

© 2011 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama...United in Hate: The Left’s Romance w
7/1/2011 3:13:56 PM
Van Jones was hand picked by the Obama Administration for some reason can you figure out why from his history?

Jones's Visual Map
  • Became a Communist in the aftermath of the 1992 "Rodney King riots" in Los Angeles
  • Founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in 1996
  • Was active in the anti-Iraq War demonstrations organized by International ANSWER
  • Served as a board member of the Rainforest Action Network and Free Press
  • In March 2009, President Barack Obama named Jones to be his so-called “Green Jobs Czar.”
  • Resigned in early September 2009



Born in 1968 in rural West Tennessee, Van Jones (whose birth name was
Anthony Jones) attended the University of Tennessee at Martin. As an undergraduate aspiring to a career in journalism, he founded an underground campus newspaper as well as a statewide African American newspaper. After earning his BA degree, Jones abandoned his plan to become a journalist and instead enrolled at Yale Law School, where, as an angry black separatist, he first arrived wearing combat boots and carrying a Black Panther bookbag. "If I'd been in another country, I probably would have joined some underground guerrilla sect," he reflects. "But as it was, I went on to an Ivy League law school.... I wasn't ready for Yale, and they weren't ready for me."

Though Jones contemplated dropping out of Yale, he
realized that a law degree would furnish him with perceived credibility as a critic of the criminal-justice system -- which he believed was thoroughly infested with racism; thus he persevered and earned his Juris Doctorate.

During his years at Yale, Jones served as an intern with the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), which views the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation and “
champions the legal rights of people of color, poor people, immigrants and refugees, with a special commitment to African-Americans.”

Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the now-infamous
Rodney King were exonerated in court. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th,” says Jones, “and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”

In early May 1992, after the L.A. riots had ended, Jones was dispatched by LCCR executive director Eva Patterson to serve as a legal monitor at a nonviolent protest (against the Rodney King verdicts) in San Francisco. Local police, fearful that the event would devolve into violence, stopped the proceedings and
arrested many of the participants, including all the legal monitors. Jones spent a short time in jail, and all charges against him were subsequently dropped.

Recalling his brief incarceration, Jones
says: “I met all these young radical people of color. I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”

After leaving Yale in 1993, Jones relocated to San Francisco, where he helped establish Bay Area Police Watch, a hotline and lawyer-referral service that began as a project of LCCR and specialized in demonizing local police. In 1996 he founded the
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which, claiming that the American criminal-justice system was infested with racism, sought to promote alternatives to incarceration. Jones headed the Baker Center from 1996 to 2007. Between 1999 and 2009, the Baker Center received more than $1 million from George Soros's Open Society Institute.

By the late 1990s, Jones was a committed Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist who viewed police officers as the arch-enemies of black people, and who loathed capitalism for allegedly exploiting nonwhite minorities worldwide. He became a leading member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a Bay-Area Marxist-Maoist collective that had ties to the Ella Baker Center.

Jones
helped organize an October 1999 rally in Oakland, California, calling for a retrial on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal. Around 2002, Jones, who had experience as a record producer, produced (for the Ella Baker Center) an album that starred Abu Jamal. That album featured lyrics depicting America not only as a place where "terrorists are made," but also as "a piece of stolen land led by right-wing, war-hungry, oil-thirsty ... mother f***ers" who "got people of color playing servant to do that sh** for them."

In 2000 Jones
campaigned aggressively against California Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that established harsher penalties for a variety of violent crimes and called for more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. Jones' efforts incorporated a hip-hop soundtrack that aimed to attract young black men clad in such gang-style garb as puffy jackets and baggy pants, who would call attention to the alleged injustices of the so-called "prison-industrial complex." But infighting and jealousies between various factions of Jones' movement caused it ultimately to fall apart. "I saw our little movement destroyed over a lot of sh**-talking and bullsh**," said Jones.

After the demise of his anti-Prop 21 movement, Jones decided to change his political tactics. Specifically, he toned down the overt hostility and defiant rage that previously had animated his activism. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time,"
he said in 2005. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward.... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."'

Added
Jones: "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs."

Jones' new approach was modeled on the tactics outlined by the famed radical organizer
Saul Alinsky, who stressed the need for revolutionaries to mask the extremism of their objectives and to present themselves as moderates until they could gain some control over the machinery of political power. In a 2005 interview, Jones stated that he still considered himself a revolutionary, but a more effective one thanks to his revised tactics.

Just hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jones stood in the streets of Oakland, California with his fellow STORM members to
denounce the United States for having brought the disaster on itself. In October 2004 he joined a host of notable leftists in signing the 9/11 Truth Statement (signature #46), which called for a federal investigation into whether President Bush had been privy to advance knowledge of – or perhaps had colluded in – the destruction of the World Trade Center.

In the early 2000s, Jones and STORM were active in the anti-Iraq War demonstrations organized by
International ANSWER, a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. STORM also had ties to the South African Communist Party and it reveredlauded Lenin as “the greatest champion of the national liberation of the peoples.” (In 2006 Van Jones would name his own newborn son “Cabral” -- in Amilcar Cabral’s honor.)
Amilcar Cabral, the late Marxist revolutionary leader (of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands) who
During his tenure with STORM, Jones collaborated on numerous projects (including antiwar demonstrations) with local activist Elizabeth “Betita” Martinez, who served as a “mentor” for members of the Ella Baker Center. Martinez was a longtime Maoist who went on to join the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and SocialismCommunist Party USA splinter group, in the early 1990s. To this day, Martinez continues to sit on the CCDS advisory board alongside such luminaries as Angela Davis, Timuel Black (who served on Barack Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign committee), and musician Pete Seeger. Martinez is also a board member of the Movement for a Democratic Society, the parent organization of Progressives for Obama. Martinez and Van Jones together attended a “Challenging White Supremacy” workshop which advanced the theme that “all too often, the unconscious racism of white activists stands in the way of any effective, worthwhile collaboration” with blacks.
(CCDS), a
In 2005 Jones and the Ella Baker Center produced the “Social Equity Track” for the United Nations’ World Environment Day celebration, a project that eventually would evolve into the Baker Center’s Green-Collar Jobs Campaign -- “a job-training and employment pipeline providing ‘green pathways out of poverty’ for low-income adults in Oakland.”

During the George W. Bush administration, Jones
likened the President to "a crackhead" because of Bush's commitment to oil drilling.

Soon after attending the
Clinton Global Initiative in September 2007, Jones launched Green For All, a non-governmental organization "dedicated to building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty." A major funder of Green for All was George Soros's Open Society Institute.

According to Jones
, America is plagued by "eco-apartheid," where low-income people typically live in more polluted environments than wealthy people. In a January 2008 speech, Jones said: "The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities because they don’t have a racial justice framework."

In 2008 Jones published his first book,
The Green Collar Economy, which focused on environmental and economic issues. The book received favorable reviews from such notables as Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Laurie David, Winona LaDuke, environmentalist Paul Hawken, and NAACP President/CEO Ben Jealous.

After the Bush administration had drawn to a close, Jones
lamented that "an authoritarian sentiment [had] seized control of the reins of power in our country, burned the Constitution, enshrined torture, launched an unjust war under false premises ... turned [the American flag] into a war flag, and used it to beat and whip and lynch anybody who didn’t agree that we should be bombing people and torturing people."

Jones has served as a board member of numerous environmental and nonprofit organizations, including the
Rainforest Action Network; Free Press; the Apollo Alliance; Bioneers (which accepts the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Report’s warning that “[h]uman activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted”); the Social Venture Network (which aims “to build a just economy and sustainable planet”); and Julia Butterfly Hill’s “Circle of Life” environmental foundation.

Jones also co-founded
Color of Change (COC), an organization that views the United States as a profoundly racist country, and whose mission is "to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone."

At a February 11, 2009 speaking engagement, Jones
asserted that congressional Republicans had been able to pass some of their legislative initiatives, even without majorities in the House and Senate, because "they’re assholes."

Later that same month in Berkeley, California, Jones made clear his desire to
incrementally socialize, by stealth, the U.S. economy:

"Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether ... until [the green economy] becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."

In late February 2009, Jones spoke at a Washington, DC event called Power Shift ’09, which was billed as the largest-ever youth summit (attended by 12,000 young adults) on climate change. There, Jones advocated what WorldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein saidFor example: “can easily be interpreted as a communist or socialist agenda.”

  • Jones said that the concept of "clean coal" was as "fictitious," "fantastical," and "ludicrous" as notions about the existence of "unicorns" and "a tooth fairy."
  • He said that the "green economy" would emphasize "gender equity," in contrast to "the pollution-based economy" wherein women "are making 70 cents to the dollar" as compared to men.
  • He said that the United States was built on land that had been "stolen" from "our Native American sisters and brothers," who had been "bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy." But under a "renewable energy" system ( i.e. the solar and wind power), he explained, Native Americans would "now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources." "Give them then wealth!" he shouted. "...We owe them a debt!"
  • He said that the U.S. is "willing" to exploit immigrants who work "out in the fields with poison being sprayed on them ... because we have the wrong agricultural system," but "we don't want to give them rights, and we don't want to give them dignity, and we don't want to give them respect."
  • He said that "our sisters and brothers that are in prison right now" or who were "formerly incarcerated" ought to be among the prime beneficiaries of a green economy "that doesn't have any throw-away species,... resources,... [or] any throw-away people either."
  • He emphasized that "a clean energy revolution" would merely be the first step toward wholesale societal transformation: "[W]e gonna change the whole system! We gonna change the whole thing!"

During a February 26, 2009 lecture on energy issues in Berkeley, California, Jones, referring to the economic crisis in which the U.S. was mired at the time, sarcastically asked a questioner: "How's that capitalism working for ya this year?"

On March 10, 2009, President
Barack Obama named Jones to be his so-called “green jobs czar”; the formal title for the position was “Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation” for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. At the time, Jones was a senior fellow with John Podesta's Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress. He described his new role with the Obama administration as that of "a community organizer inside the federal family."

In a July 2009 interview with
Newsweek magazine, Jones was asked to explain exactly what a “green job” is. He replied: "Well, we still don’t have a unified definition, and that’s not unusual in a democracy. It takes a while for all the states and the federal government to come to some agreement."

Amid mounting controversy over his radical past, Jones
resigned his post as "green jobs czar" on Labor Day weekend 2009, claiming that he had been victimized by "a vicious smear campaign."

Jones was later asked whether President Obama had been aware of Jones' controversial history before appointing him as green jobs czar. Jones
replied: "I was fully candid, I mean, about my past, about the ideas that I explored...."

After stepping down from his administration post, Jones
was offered office work space in the DC offices of the Center for American Progress (CAP). In February 2010, he officially rejoined CAP. That same month, he received the NAACP's President's Award, for achievement in public service. He also announced that he had secured a one-year assignment to teach a seminar on environmental and economic policy at Princeton University, beginning in June 2010.

In April 2010, Jones
said the following about the nature of the Obama administration: "You look at the New Party, which is now the Working Families Party, the idea of a new politics -- that you could actually in this country bring together labor and civil rights and feminists, etc., and actually make a difference ... is the basic framework for what just took over the White House."

Jones serves as one of 20 advisers to the Presidential Climate Action Project (based at the University of Colorado), which makes climate-policy recommendations for the Obama White House. He has been praised for his environmental work by such notable leftists as Thomas Friedman, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington, Ben Jealous, Laurie David, Gavin Newsom, Carl Pope, Tavis Smiley, Fred Krupp, and John Podesta.

During a January 19, 2011
speaking engagement at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, Jones said that "in a society where there's social justice," any particular individual would be perfectly willing to trade his or her life with that of any other randomly selected person, knowing "with total confidence" that he or she would "have a roughly equal chance to have a good life."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama...United in Hate: The Left’s Romance w
7/1/2011 3:22:15 PM
What is the NEW Party?

  • Socialist political coalition
  • Was active from 1992-1998
  • Endorsed Barack Obama for Illinois state senate seat in 1996

See also: Joel Rogers Wade Rathke Barack Obama

Working Families Party ACORN




Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers, the New Party (NP) was a socialist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. Cantor and Rogers wanted NP to be “an explicitly social democratic organization, with an ideology roughly like that of Northern European (e.g., Swedish) labor movements.” NP's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist third party. According to author Stanley Kurtz, NP "is best understood as an attempt to build a mass-based political front for a largely socialist party leadership." Around the time of NP's founding, Joel Rogers himself penned a piece in the Marxist journal New Left Review, wherein he made it clear that the organization was a socialist enterprise at its core.

The initial strategic meetings to plan the New Party were held in Joel Rogers' Madison, Wisconsin home in the very early 1990s. Present at these gatherings were Rogers and his wife Sarah Siskind; Dan Cantor; Steve Cobble (affiliated with the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS); Harriet Barlow (who would later become an IPS board member); Sandy Morales Pope (of the Teamsters union); Barbara Dudley (then-executive director of Greenpeace); and ACORN leaders Wade Rathke, Zach Polett, Steven Kest, and Jon Kest.

In the fall of 1994, a New Party publication listed more than 100 activists “who are building the NP.” Of these, twelve were affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), six with the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, five with ACORN, and fourteen with IPS. Notable names among the list of 100+ were John Cavanagh, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Randall Forsberg, Maude Hurd, Manning Marable, Frances Fox Piven, Zach Polett, Wade Rathke, Mark Ritchie, Joel Rogers, Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, Quentin Young, and Howard Zinn.

The New Party's influential Chicago chapter began to coalesce in January 1995. Its members consisted mainly of individuals associated with ACORN, DSA, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Committees of Correspondence.

NP's modus operandi featured the political strategy of “electoral fusion,” where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, NP often was able to influence candidates' political platforms. (Fusion of this type is today permitted in eight states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)
 NP's overriding goal was to elect leftist Democrats rather than third-party candidates, as evidenced by a 1994 New Party Executive Committee announcement that said: "Joining the New Party doesn't end your relationship with the Democrats, it changes it."

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 the political neophyte Barack Obama nonetheless sought NP's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of NP volunteers as campaign workers. By 1996, Obama himself had become a member of the New Party. A key figure in NP's Chicago chapter was Carl Davidson, a Marxist who became one of Obama's earliest political supporters.

In 1996, three of the four NP-endorsed candidates in Illinois won their electoral primaries -- Obama in the 13th State Senate District, Danny Davis in the 7th Congressional District, and Patricia Martin (a judge) in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party’s support. NP chapters elsewhere in the U.S. similarly helped to elect dozens of additional political candidates.

To a large extent, NP functioned as an electoral front for ACORN—particularly in Chicago. Indeed, the DSA's national newsletter characterized NP as essentially the “electoral arm” of ACORN and its allied SEIU locals.

NP's hostility to capitalism was made plain in the party's assertion that “our major economic problem is not the government, as conservatives claim, but American enterprise itself.” internal ACORN/New Party documents give evidence that NP sought to employ a “pragmatic” leftism that rejected ideological purity and instead sought to “organiz[e] the private economy to serve public ends”; i.e., rather than nationalizing the entire economy, the aim was to fight for government regulations that would empower community groups like ACORN to create “popular and democratic control over the economy.”

In 1997, NP's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Cantor and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama...United in Hate: The Left’s Romance w
7/1/2011 3:25:58 PM
Who is the Working Families Party?
88 Third Avenue
Brooklyn, NY
11217
Phone :718-222-3796
URL: Website
Working Families Party (WFP)'s Visual Map

  • Front group for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)
  • Functions as a political party in New York State and Connecticut, running or cross-endorsing candidates for local, state, and federal office
  • Works closely with Hillary Clinton


Currently composed of some 30,000 members, the Working Families Party (WFP) is a front group for ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). WFP functions as a political party in New York State and Connecticut, promoting ACORN-friendly candidates. Unlike conventional political parties, WFP charges its members dues -- about $60 per year -- a policy characteristic of ACORN and its affiliates.

According to the party's website, WFP is a coalition founded jointly by ACORN, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Automobile Workers. However, ACORN clearly dominates the coalition. New York ACORN leader Steven Kest was the moving force in forming the party, and WFP headquarters are located at the same address as ACORN's national office, at 88 Third Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

An outgrowth of the socialist New Party, WFP was created in 1998. According to a 2000 article by the Associated Press, its objective was (and still is) to "help push the Democratic Party toward the left." In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike.

In order to gain “permanent” status on the New York state ballot, WFP needed to win a minimum of 50,000 votes in at least one political election. The fledgling party accomplished this in 1998 by cross-endorsing Democratic City Council Speaker Peter Vallone in that year's election gubernatorial race. Vallone lost the election, but his moderate Democrat politics -- which were utterly incompatible with ACORN's doctrine of militant class struggle -- helped to lure 51,325 unwitting New Yorkers into voting on the WFT line, thus qualifying the party for ballot status.

Having established itself in this surreptitious manner as a legitimate political party, WSP began seeking concessions from the major-party candidates, gaining leverage through its power to grant or deny its endorsements. Shortly after the party's launch in 1998, co-founder Bob Master said, “We are very clear that we are not abandoning the Democratic Party.” As another WFP organizer put it, the Working Families Party sought to move the Democrats “toward the progressive end of the spectrum.”

WFP benefits from a quirk of New York State (and Connecticut) election law which allows parties to "cross-endorse" candidates of other parties. Thus when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she ran on both the Democratic Party ticket and the Working Families Party ticket. After receiving WFP's endorsement, Hillary vowed to wage a "people's grassroots campaign." "I consider this the beginning of a partnership," she told a cheering crowd of supporters. During the campaign, Mrs. Clinton spoke at numerous WFP events, most memorably at the party's debut convention, held March 26-27, 2000 at the Desmond Hotel in Albany -- an event which the Communist newspaper People's Weekly World approvingly called "a turning point in New York politics."

"Candidates know that when they're on our line, they're committed to certain things," said Bertha Lewis, who served as WFP co-chair and New York ACORN Executive Director. Speaking days before Mrs. Clinton won her Senate seat in 2000, Lewis noted, "Hillary knows that if she wins, we're going to be knockin' on her door. She won't be able to hide."

Of the 3.4 million popular votes Mrs. Clinton received from New Yorkers in the Senate election, the Working Families Party delivered 103,000.

In the November 2000 election, WFP also cross-endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, winning 80,000 votes for him. "[T]here have been few candidates in history more supportive of our issues than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton," proclaimed WFP campaign literature.

In the 2004 election cycle, a new force entered New York politics: billionaire financier George Soros. The Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance -- a drug legalization lobby through which Soros often funnels political contributions -- gave $81,500 to the Albany County District Attorney campaign of Democrat David Soares. Instead of donating the money directly, however, the Drug Policy Alliance laundered Soros' contribution through the Working Families Party -- an illegal act according to New York State law.

WFP expanded into Connecticut in 2004, and promised that it would soon be active in all ten states where "fusion voting" -- that is, cross-endorsement of candidates by multiple parties -- is still legal. Those states include Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont.

In 2006, WFP exhorted voters to “help stop the Bush agenda and elect a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives” by supporting its “Take Back Congress” project.

In 2008, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were listed on the WFP presidential ticket as well as the Democratic Party ticket.

In 2009, WFP supported New York State's newly increased "millionaire's tax" on the income of individuals earning $500,000 or more per year. When New York billionaire Tom Golisano (whose tax liability rose to $13,000 per day as a result of the tax hike) announced that he would be moving to Florida (which has no state income tax), WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor Called Golisano's move "selfish." "It's a disgrace," said Cantor, "that this is how he pays back the state where he was presumably educated and that's been so good to him. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization."

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!