Soros-funded group urges media run by government

Soros-funded group urges media run by government
Marxist-led study has close ties to Obama White House officials
Posted: May 19, 2010
9:58 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney

NEW YORK – A George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization calling itself Free Press has published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

A newly released book, meanwhile, documents Free Press has close ties to top Obama administration officials.

"The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America," begins a 48-page document, "New Public Media: A Plan for Action," by the far-left Free Press organization.

"Commercial media's economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media, presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system," argued the Free Press document, which was reviewed by WND.

The hot new best-seller, "The Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein reveals the inside story on Team Obama and its members. Now available autographed at WND's Superstore!

The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient.

"We believe local news reporting should become one of public media's top priorities," said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron, one of the paper's co-authors.

"We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can't follow closely on their own," Aaron stated.

Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.

Avowed Marxist

A new book, "The Manchurian President," documents the founder of the Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled.

The book, subtitled "Barack Obama's ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists," also documents the close ties between Free Press and leading Obama administration officials. The new work was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and co-author Brenda J. Elliott.

McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.

In February 2009, McChesney recommended capitalism be dismantled.

"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,'" wrote McChesney in a column.

The board of Free Press has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar" Van Jones, who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist organization.

Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press's May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C, revealed "The Manchurian President" book.

"Manchurian" shows Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.

Issues of restrictions on speech are not limited to Crawford.

WND previously reported Obama's "regulatory" czar, Cass Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

WND also reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

Sunstein also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

Meanwhile, in a lengthy academic paper, Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing," WND reported.

Among the examples of speech that should be banned, Sunstein offered, is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" and disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

Earlier this week, a video at Breitbart.com showed Sunstein proposing Congress hold hearings about mandates to ensure websites post links to a diversity of views on issues.

"The Manchurian President," meanwhile, which just hit the New York Times best-seller list, alleges Obama has deep ties to an extremist nexus that has been instrumental not only in building his political career but in crafting current White House policy.

With almost 900 citations, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama's political background and radical ties.

Klein began investigating Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and broke major national stories. He first exposed the politician's association with Ayers in a widely circulated WND article.

The story prompted the Nation magazine to lament, via the CBS News website, that "mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein's articles."

It was in a WABC Radio interview with Klein that Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas, "endorsed" Obama for president, generating world headlines and sparking controversy. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly traded public barbs over Hamas' positive comments.

Klein was among the first reporters to expose that Obama's "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, founded a communist organization and called for "resistance" against the U.S. government. The theme was picked up and expanded upon by the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, leading to Jones' resignation last September.

Elliott, meanwhile, is a historian, author and investigative researcher known for her blogging during the 2008 presidential election about William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other controversial figures linked to Obama.

New coal plant equal to 2,000+ wind turbines | Face the State

New coal plant equal to 2,000+ wind turbines
August 13, 2009
By Face The State

Face The State Staff Report

As the Comanche unit 3 coal plant near Pueblo is scheduled to start commercial operation this fall, utilities are also seeking ways to comply with a 2004 ballot measure that requires 20 percent of the state's electricity to come from "renewable" sources. A Face The State analysis explores the relative power of Comanche versus two large wind and solar projects.

Comanche 3, under constructionaflcio/Flickr

In 2004, Colorado voters approved a statewide renewable energy requirement that mandates top utility companies to provide an increasing percentage of their retail electricity sales from renewable sources. Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, already gets 10 percent of its power from renewable sources and must reach 20 percent by 2020. Meanwhile, Xcel began constructing the new coal-fired electric generating unit in January of 2006. It was Xcel's first new coal plant in nearly 30 years, and will likely be the company's last in Colorado. When the Comanche 3 unit is complete, the site will provide enough electricity for about one third of Colorado’s communities. The plant is also designed to serve as 24-hour backup to less consistent renewable sources.

Environmentalists have come out strong against Comanche 3's construction. WildEarth Guardians has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, asking the judge to order Xcel to stop construction on the Comanche 3 unit. They argue that coal-fired plants produce unacceptable levels of greenhouse gases, endangering the environment.

WildEarth's objections and those of other environmental groups aren't likely to stop Comanche 3 from coming online. But what would it take in green energy terms to replace its output with wind or solar power?

Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter has made his "new energy economy" a policy centerpiece since taking office in 2007. He praised SunEdison for building a solar plant in Alamosa and BP America for constructing a wind farm in Weld County. These projects have taken advantage of generous government subsidies, and feed into the state's grid to help Xcel and other utilities meet their Constitutional mandate.

While solar and wind power are cleaner, they are not cheap and demand a larger geographic footprint than more traditional sources and other alternatives like nuclear. Face The State's analysis shows how the PV solar plant in Alamosa and the Cedar Creek wind farm in Weld County stack up to the the energy production of the Comanche 3 coal plant.

Comanche 3 is expected to generate 750 Megawatts of power at peak output (a Mw is a unit of power representing 1 million watts.) A standard light bulb is 100 watts, while a hair dryer or toaster demand around 1,000 watts. To generate as much power as the 750Mw Comanche plant, SunEdison would need 92 plants like the one in Alamosa operating constantly in prime conditions - with 24 hours of sunlight every day. The plant of course won't operate at night, and due to the earth's rotation around the sun produces less in the winter. Put another way, SunEdison expects to produce 17,000 Killowatt hours from the project per year, a Kw hour being 1,000 watts delivered to a retail user for 1 hour. Comparatively, Comanche 3 will produce energy 24 hours a day, and up to 18,000KwHr in one day, more than the expected yearly output of the SunEdison solar plant. In order for SunEdison to match the maximum output of Comanche 3, it would need to install 386 solar plants covering 30,720 acres, or 48 square miles.

Like the sun, wind has varying degrees of intensity. To compensate for this, industry standards dictate that it would take three wind farms spread out around the state to ensure continuous energy production. To match Comanche 3's output, the consortium behind the farm would need to more than double the size of the current Cedar Creek installation and build two more just like it in other parts of the state. That would total 2,051 wind turbines operating on 240,000 acres, or 375 square miles.

To provide constant output to match retail demand, each watt of energy produced by renewable resources needs to be backed up by a secondary source, like coal or natural gas. Comanche 3 is designed to meet this backup need as Xcel takes older plants offline and replaces these sources in part with renewables.

The numbers:

Comanche Unit 3 coal power plant - Xcel Energy, rural electric co-ops
Maximum output: 750Mw
Cost: $1.3 billion
Location: near Pueblo
Cost per Mw: $1.73 million

Photovoltaic Power Plant - SunEdison
Maximum output: 8.2 Mw
Cost: $60 million
Acreage: 80 acres
Location: Alamosa
Cost per Mw: $7.3 million

Cedar Creek wind farm
Joint venture between the investment firm Babcock & Brown and BP America
Maximum output: 300.5 Mw
Number of turbines: 274
Cost: $480 million
Acreage: 32,000 acres
Location: North-central Weld County, 8 miles east of Grover
Cost per Mw: $1.6 million

Politics aside, litigation to stop ObamaCare could have real legs | Face the State

Politics aside, litigation to stop ObamaCare could have real legs
May 13, 2010
By Peter Blake

The lawsuit filed in March against ObamaCare was widely dismissed in the media as a no-hoper, a mere political stunt promoted by a baker’s dozen Republican attorneys general seeking higher office, or at least re-election.

Not so fast. The number of states suing has grown from 13 to 20, and the amended complaint to be filed Friday in the northern district of Florida will include significant new plaintiffs.

The states’ biggest challenge may be establishing their right to sue. If they can get over the hurdle of standing, they could win on the merits, considering the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elena Kagan’s confirmation wouldn’t change that.

As Colorado Attorney General John Suthers put it, “The federal government does not want this to reach the Supreme Court.”

The additional plaintiffs will include the National Federation of Independent Business and some of its individual members. Their claim: We can afford to be self-insured and do not want to buy insurance or pay the penalty required by the law.

This is the key element in the constitutional challenge. The federal government has never before required anyone to buy specific goods or services as a condition of legal residence in the nation.

Yes, it can tax your income, but that was established by a separate constitutional amendment. Yes, it can draft you, but that comes under its power to “provide for the common defense.”

Suthers, in an interview this week, said his main reason for joining the suit (he was one of the original 13) was his “strong belief” that the Constitution’s commerce clause should never be expanded “to allow Congress to punish an individual American’s economic inactivity, for sitting on his butt on the couch.”

If we are forced to buy health insurance, then Congress has “total control over our independent economic decisions; they can force us to buy the fuel-efficient car they want; they can force us to buy healthy food.”

There’s nothing magical about health care, Suthers continued. “It just happens to be the vehicle they’re pursuing at the present time.”

Heretofore, Congress has regulated actual economic activity. “Here, they’re saying because you‘re a citizen and you’re not doing what we want you to do ... we’re going to fine you 2 percent of your adjusted gross income,” Suthers said.

He noted that starting in 1994, during the Clinton health care debate, the Congressional Budget Office has warned Congress regularly that “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

The states have another concern more important to them than mere individual liberty: The explosion of their Medicaid budgets because of ObamaCare’s mandates. Currently, Medicaid covers those whose incomes are equal to the designated federal poverty level. Under the bill, the coverage would rise to 133 percent. And the federal government won’t provide the dollars.

In Colorado, said Suthers, that means the state will have to extract an extra billion dollars from taxpayers between 2014 and 2020.

So why can’t states that don’t like the bill simply drop out of the Medicaid program? That’s not so simple, Suthers said. The way ObamaCare works, even if your state doesn’t participate, you still have to pay for everyone else. “It’s so coercive you don’t have a choice.”

As it says in the complaint, the new health care law “converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the plaintiffs and their sister states is removed.”

Suthers joined the lawsuit on behalf of Colorado despite the unhappiness of the legislature. Most of the majority Democrats signed a letter urging him to withdraw, but they took no further action since he is empowered by the state constitution to act independently.

Is Suthers, who is running for re-election in November, just pandering to his Republican base? If so, he has an odd style. At a speech the other day, after his GOP audience applauded his stand against ObamaCare, he told them that Arizona had gone too far with its new law turning illegal immigration into a state crime. The audience didn’t like his objections, the Arizona law being very popular with most conservatives.

“You loved me when I said there’s no enumerated [federal] power over health care,” he told the crowd, “but there happens to be an enumerated power over immigration. You gotta live with that.”

A successful suit wouldn’t nullify the entire health care bill, but it would require Congress to do a major overhaul. If the plaintiffs are successful, he said, Congress would have to “incentivize” state cooperation instead of mandating it.

That’s how it got states to pass seat-belt laws and minimum DUI standards. Establish them, or surrender federal highway cash. Still nasty, but not as bad as what ObamaCare demands.

Peter Blake writes Thursdays on Face The State. E-mail him at peterblake@facethestate.com.

American Thinker Blog: Graph of the Day for February 28, 2010

American Thinker Blog: Graph of the Day for February 28, 2010

Gallup

Graph of the Day for February 28, 2010
Randall Hoven
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." Michael Mann, "hocky-stick" climatologist.


Source: Pajamas Media.


Hoven's Index for February 28, 2010


Percentage of people polled in March 2009 (before Climategate) who were "worried a great deal" about eight specific environmental problems:
Pollution of drinking water: 59%

Water pollution: 52%

Toxic soil/water: 52%

Fresh water supplies: 49%

Air pollution: 45%

Loss of rain forests: 42%

Plant and animal extinction: 37%

Global warming: 34%

Source: Gallup.

American Thinker Blog: Graph of the Day for May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010
Graph of the Day for May 19, 2010
Randall Hoven
"The feds assume a relationship between the economy and tax revenue that is divorced from reality. Six decades of history have established one far-reaching fact that needs to be built into fiscal calculations: Increases in federal tax rates, particularly if targeted at the higher brackets, produce no additional revenue... a ratio of federal revenue to GDP of no more than 18.3% would be realistic."
David Ranson, Wall Street Journal.

Source: David Ranson, Wall Street Journal. HT: sedonaman.

Hoven's Index for May 19, 2010


Average federal revenues, as % of GDP, over various periods:

1950-59: 17.2%

1960-69: 17.9%

1970-79: 17.9%

1980-89: 18.3%

1990-99: 18.6%

1960-2000: 18.2%

2000-08: 18.2%

Source: US Government via GPO Access, Table 1.2.

American Thinker- Print Article

May 19, 2010
Democrats and Vote Fraud: On the Road to Rigged Elections
By Scott Swett

Lest we forget, Democrats were not given a mandate in 2008 to nationalize General Motors, the insurance industry, and health care. Most Americans want government to be less expensive, less intrusive, and more accountable. Yet despite the looming prospect of electoral dismemberment in November, the Democrats continue pushing a radical agenda: piling up debt and creating new entitlements, with crushing tax increases inevitably to follow. Why the evident lack of concern?

Perhaps they intend to cheat.

Examples of vote fraud by Democrats have not been widely publicized, thanks to the symbiotic relationship between the party and most of the media. In 2000, major TV networks wrongly projected Al Gore as the winner in Florida before the polls even closed in the state's heavily Republican Panhandle. Many prospective voters stepped out of line and went home. Later studies estimated that the error had reduced President Bush's margin by 8,000 to 11,500 votes.

In his book Stealing Elections, writer John Fund suggests that another 15,000+ Bush votes were destroyed in Democrat-controlled Palm Beach County. Palm Beach reported 19,120 "over votes" -- ballots marked for more than one candidate -- representing nearly ten times the error rate for the rest of the state. Former law enforcement officials told Fund that stacks of paper ballots had been altered by pushing a thin prod through the Gore column, invalidating votes for Bush while leaving those for Gore intact. National Democrats hired a telemarketing firm to make thousands of calls to Palm Beach County on Election Day, urging residents to say they were "confused" by the ballot.

Statistician John Lott and others asked for the suspect Palm Beach ballots to be examined when media teams conducted their own Florida recount the following year. The request was ignored.

Motor Voter: opening the door to fraud

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the "Motor Voter" law, which requires motor vehicle departments, welfare offices, and other government agencies to provide forms and register voters. Motor Voter made it illegal to check the IDs of applicants and ordered the states to allow registration by mail.

Motor Voter opened the door to a massive increase in fraudulent registrations. For example, the number of registered voters in Philadelphia increased by 24% from 1995 to 2004, even as the city's population declined by 13%. By 2009, an independent study estimated that America's voter registration rolls included more than 16 million invalid voters. This provides fertile ground for ACORN and other groups that seek to turn phony registrations into votes.

Democrats have consistently attacked anti-fraud proposals, claiming that they violate voters' civil rights. In particular, they oppose requiring voters to show identification. A recent poll found that 82% of Americans think a photo ID should be required to vote. However, only 25 states check any form of voter identification, and a photo ID is required by just seven.

A PowerPoint presentation available at ElectionCenter.org describes new election legislation proposed by congressional Democrats. They intend to nationalize voter registration and force the states to eliminate voter ID checks, provide absentee ballots to all voters, register voters on Election Day, and permit felons (who overwhelmingly support Democrats) to vote. Each of these measures would create new opportunities for fraud.

Voting early and often -- the risks of early and absentee voting

In 2001, the bipartisan National Commission on Election Reform reported that the increasing use of absentee ballots and early voting is inconsistent with five key objectives of fair elections:

* 1. Assure the privacy of the secret ballot and protection against coerced voting
* 2. Verify that only duly registered voters cast ballots
* 3. Safeguard ballots against loss or alteration
* 4. Assure their prompt counting
* 5. Foster the communal aspects of citizens voting together

Nevertheless, these trends have continued unabated. "No excuses" early voting (voting early without having to provide a reason) is now allowed by 36 states, starting as early as 45 days before the actual election. Large-scale absentee voting also creates delays in deciding elections -- delays that offer additional opportunities for fraud.

Non-citizens who vote

Many non-citizens use easily-obtained voter registrations to acquire other documents identifying them as U.S. citizens, along with other benefits such as Social Security and even government jobs. According to a recent Heritage Foundation study,

There is no systematic review of voter registration rolls by states to find non-citizens, and the relevant federal agencies -- in direct violation of federal law -- refuse to cooperate with state election officials seeking to verify the citizenship status of registered voters.

Local officials in several states who tried to remove felons and non-citizens from the registration rolls have also been sued by leftist groups alleging civil rights violations.

SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina advocates amnesty for non-citizens ("immigration reform") as a way of adding 8 million new Democratic voters.

Manufacturing an election crisis

The changes that have made our election system less manageable, less accountable, and more vulnerable to fraud did not come about by accident. They are entirely consistent with the Cloward/Piven strategy, which seeks to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with demands for services. The goal is to achieve a socialist state that will redistribute the nation's wealth. ACORN was specifically created to execute this strategy, targeting U.S. elections through its voter mobilization arm, Project Vote. Cloward and Piven themselves were longtime proponents of the Motor Voter Act, and they appeared on the podium with President Clinton for the signing ceremony. Earlier this year, Frances Fox Piven joined the Board of Project Vote.

Author Richard Poe writes:

The stated purpose of Project Vote is to ... secure the rights of minority and low-income voters under the U.S. Constitution. However, Project Vote's actions suggest that its true agenda is more radical. Its activities appear to be aimed at overwhelming, paralyzing and discrediting the voting system through fraud, protests, propaganda and vexatious litigation.


ACORN and Project Vote have been repeatedly cited and investigated for abuses that include turning in fraudulent registrations and destroying applications by Republicans. Nevertheless, ACORN may be slated to receive as much as $4 billion in Obama's fiscal 2011 budget.

Barack Obama ran the Chicago branch of Project Vote in the early 1990s, an effort credited with electing leftist radical Carole Moseley-Braun to the Senate. Multiple scandals and charges of corruption followed, and Moseley-Braun served only one term.

Buying the referee

The Secretary of State Project was created in 2006 by the Democracy Alliance, a 527 non-profit funded by anti-capitalist billionaire George Soros. SOSP seeks to place Democrats in crucial Secretary of State jobs that oversee elections in swing states. SOSP cash played a key role in electing Democrats in Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio in 2006 and in Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and West Virginia two years later.

Minnesota's fraudulent senator

Years of leftist planning and effort came together in Minnesota in 2008, where the nation's closest statewide contest pitted Democrat Al Franken against Republican incumbent Senator Norm Coleman. Presiding over the election was SOSP Secretary Mark Ritchie, whose extensive ties to ACORN were predictably ignored by the media. Shortly before the election, Ritchie was asked to investigate serious problems with the registration rolls, including 261,000 duplicates and 63,000 voters who had listed non-existent addresses. He dismissed the request as an attempt "to create a cloud over an election so people don't accept the outcome." After the polls closed, Secretary Ritchie reported that his office "received no reports whatsoever" of fraudulent voting.

The final tally showed Coleman with a narrow 725-vote victory. It wasn't enough. Over the next four days, his lead fell to 221 as officials "discovered" errors in the vote. Most came from three small precincts controlled by Democrats. Other irregularities included "misplaced" ballots turning up in an official's trunk, and vote total adjustments that affected only the Senate race. The manipulation continued during the official recount, as the Minnesota Canvassing Board detected just enough "ballot errors" to put Franken over the top. John Lott later analyzed the Board's inconsistent decisions, nearly all of which favored the Democratic candidate.

Some 17,000 more ballots were counted in the Minnesota Senate election than there were recorded voters. Mark Ritchie had dismantled the state's ballot reconciliation program, which previously required voting districts to validate the number of votes cast against the number of ballots issued. Outside investigators also found that 1,400 convicted felons had voted illegally.

The Secretary of State Project is supporting Ritchie once again in 2010, pleased with what the organization refers to as "a scrupulously fair and transparent election recount."

A spark in Houston

Last fall, 35 tea party members in Houston signed up to monitor the off-year Texas elections. The new poll watchers came back appalled at the abuses they saw. Precinct judges regularly failed to check voter IDs, and some even filled out ballots to "help" people vote. Investigating further, they made a second unpleasant discovery: Voting violation reports submitted to the District Attorney's office after the 2008 elections had yet to be processed or even reviewed. They resolved to make stopping vote fraud a top priority for 2010.

Now rebranded as the King Street Patriots, the group is greatly expanding its efforts to recruit and train election monitors. With more than 350 already signed up, KSP is well on the way to meeting an ambitious goal -- placing volunteers in each of Harris County's 874 precincts.

Other tea party and patriot groups might consider following suit. Eternal vigilance is often described as the price of freedom, and that promises to be especially true on November 2.

Scott Swett is the author of To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry and webmaster for TrueTheVote.org, SwiftVets.com, and WinterSoldier.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/democrats_and_vote_fraud_on_th.html at May 19, 2010 - 09:15:04 PM CDT