Saturday, May 29, 2010

Globalizing the Resistance: U.S. Social Forum 2010, June 22-26 in Detroit

Ms. Elliot is coauthor of the best-seller, The Manchurian President.
The book is conclusive, but the story advances upon us.


by Brenda J. Elliot, in RBO / Real Barack Obama

The U.S. Social Forum meets June 22-26, 2010, in Detroit, Michigan, where “Tens of thousands of progressive activists are expected to attend.”
    Detroit was chosen as the site for the 2010 USSF because it is considered ground zero of the current capitalist economic crisis with record levels of foreclosures, evictions, utility shutoffs, unemployment and police terror. Detroit also has a long history of progressive and revolutionary struggle, which the organizations participating in the USSF are intent on building on to bring a better world into birth.

Globalizing the Resistance

What should be of great concern is the USSF goal to globalize resistance:

    A global movement is rising. The USSF is our opportunity to prepare and meet it! The World Social Forum (WSF) has become an important symbol of global movement convergence and the development of alternatives to the dominant paradigm. Over the past nine years, the WSF has gathered the world’s workers, peasants, youth, women, and oppressed peoples to construct a counter-vision to the economic and political elites of the World Economic Forum held annually [since 2001] in Davos, Switzerland.

The 2010 World Social Forum (Forum Social Mundial) held January 25-29 at Porto Alegre, Brazil, called for social revolution (emphasis added):

    We need another society, another economy, a new relation between humanity and the Earth and a more radical democracy.

    All over 2010, everywhere in the world, we will meet to strengthen our alternative responses to the global crises, to involve new actors, to mobilize new social energies, to challenge the existing power.

However, Chico Whitaker, one of the World Social Forum founders, told IPS reporter Mario Osava (emphasis added):

    [It] is a mechanism, “an instrument to unite people. The Forum will not change the world; it is up to society to do that, through a multifaceted global justice movement,” added Whitaker, who rejects the label “movement of movements” for the WSF because it sounds too directive, like a political party. [...]

    Thinking in the United States has changed since the advent [in June 2000] of the WSF, and this will be reflected in the second national Forum, to be held in July in Detroit, a symbol of the country’s way of life. And the WSF has also accelerated development of a “solidarity economy,” Whitaker said.

    Changing the world is the WSF’s goal, without dictating “perfectly finished models, or a single strategy” as a fait accompli, while demanding changes “at all levels, including personal change,” he said.

Socialist Speak

Note the use throughout of “Socialist Speak”. For example, progressive = socialist. It is the U.S. Social Forum, a gathering of members of numerous international socialist groups, including a number of “unions, coalitions, federations and workers’ centers.”

The USSF 2010 website employs “movement.” The Forum is to serve as a “movement-building” event.

    It is not a conference but it is a space to come up with the peoples’ solutions to the economic and ecological crisis. The USSF is [an] important step in our struggle to build a powerful multi-racial, multi-sectoral, inter-generational, diverse, inclusive, internationalist movement that transforms this country and changes history.

The Forum will “come up with the peoples’ solutions”: peoples denotes socialism. (For a clear explanation, comparing socialism to capitalism, see James Ostrowski’s June 2003 Why Socialism Is the People’s Choice.)

Large Presence: Unions and Youth

by Brenda J. Elliot, RBO (link to original post)

Unions will play a prominent role at the Forum. There will be about “70 labor-themed workshops” and labor will have a “large presence at the opening march on June 22.”

Another group to have a “large presence” at the Forum will be the youth-oriented, “revolutionary, socialist-oriented Fight Imperialism, Stand Together or FIST.” (See RBO’s January 2010 article, Cultural Marxism: FIST (Fight Imperialism Stand Together).)

    FIST will be co-hosting a workshop along with the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal on building a new youth organization in defense of Mumia. An entire decade of youth has grown up without mass consciousness about the implications of Mumia’s case, and we are organizing to counteract that and expose the roots of racism, the role of the police, police brutality and repression of groups fighting for national liberation,” Dante Strobino, a FIST leader from North Carolina, told Workers World.

(FYI: The Free Mumia Movement [is] a Project of Van Jones’ Ella Baker Center.)

FIST was involved in the March 4 National Day of Action to Defend Public Education. (See RBO’s article, Hard Left: March 4 Day of Action and Strike in Defense of Public Education, for details.)

Dante Strobino, a FIST leader from North Carolina, told Workers World, the online organ of the socialist Workers World Party: “We see the USSF as a crucial moment to meet young people in motion and introduce them to socialism and to raise fundamental questions that challenge the entire foundation of our current capitalist system that has wrecked so many people’s lives.”

Planning 2007 for 2010

Tara Lohan wrote June 1, 2007, at AlterNet:

    In 2003 the World Social Forum International Coordinating Committee asked Grassroots Global Justice to begin to formulate a plan for a U.S. forum. Today, there are 35 organizations currently on the National Planning Committee, which will grow to include 50 organizations.

Planning for the event was reported in a July 4, 2007 blog post by marc. While at the Midwest Social Forum on the first U.S. Social Forum held the last week in June in Atlanta and attended by about 10,000, marc wrote:

    The USSF adopted the World Social Forum’s slogan “Another World is Possible,” and added to it the line “Another US is Necessary.” The week’s events demonstrated the dedication of social movements in the United States to building a new and better world.

    The USSF built on the two main issues that drives the WSF: opposition to corporate globalization and repressive neo-liberal policies that leave deep marks on marginalized communities. [...]

    Lead organizers of the USSF (Project South and Grassroots Global Justice) consciously and deliberately organized the forum out of communities of color. It took time and effort and at points was a painful experience, but the result was one of the most participatory, horizontal, and grassroots forums in history. Skeptics wondered whether a forum could be successfully held in the heart of the empire, but rooting the forum in local community struggles provides a challenge and model for other forums to follow.

Note: The 2003 Another World is Possible: Popular alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum by William F. Fisher and Thomas Ponniah is available online as a Google book, as is the 2005 World Social Forum. Strategies of Resistance by José Corrêa Leite and Carolina Gil.

National Planning Committee 2007 for 2010

The 2007 U.S. Social Forum’s website for the National Planning Committee lists a number of organizations.

  • 50 Years is Enough NetworkU.S. Network for Global Economic Justice (USNGEJ): “coalition of over 200 U.S. grassroots, women’s, solidarity, faith-based, policy, social- and economic-justice, youth, labor and development organizations dedicated to the profound transformation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”
  • American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).
  • Center for Social Justice (CSJ).
  • Center for Third World Organizing (CWTO).
  • Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), AFL-CIO, describes itself as “both a social movement and a labor union.”
  • Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (GGJA).
  • The Independent Progressive Politics Network .
  • Jobs with Justice (JwJ).
  • Labor / Community Strategy Center (LCSC).
  • National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights (NNIRR).
  • Miami Workers Center (MWC).
  • NYC AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN).
  • People Organized to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (PODER).
  • People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER).
  • Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign (PPEHRC).
  • The Praxis Project.
  • Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty & Genocide.
  • The Ruckus Society.
  • St. Peter’s Housing Committee.
  • SEIU.
  • Sister Song Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective.
  • Socialists Without Borders.
  • SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP).
  • Southwest Workers Union (SWU).
  • UNITE HERE.
  • United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS).

    National Planning Committee 2010

    Fastforward to January 2009, when, on behalf of the USSF National Planning Committee, Alice Lovelace, USSF, Cindy Wiesner, GGJA, and Josué Guillén, The Praxis Project, announced that Detroit, Michigan will host the 2010 U.S. Social Forum.

    The Detroit Greens, a local of the Green Party of Michigan, announced five organizations to serve as local anchors for the process: El Centro Obrero de Detroit, Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, East Michigan Environmental Action Council, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and South Eastern Michigan Jobs With Justice.

    STORM-Van Jones Connections

    The following individuals are either associated with USSF organizations or with groups discussed in RBO’s April 2009 STORM Stories series — and to avowed STORM communist leader, POTUS Obama’s former “Green Jobs Czar”, Van Jones.

    Danielle Mahones, executive director at USSF member Center for Third World Organizing, is a board member of SOUL (School of Unity and Liberation).

    Maria Poblet is affiliated with USSF member St. Peter’s Housing Committee.

    Frances Fox Piven, widow of Richard Cloward with whom she co-authored the Cloward-Piven Strategy, is affiliated with USSF member Socialists Without Borders.

    There are a number of Grassroots Global Justice Alliance member organizations, as well as members of GGJA’s Coordinating Committee, that include names and/or groups which may be found in RBO’s previous “STORM Storie” articles:

  • Asian Pacific Environmental Network (Mei-ying Williams)
  • CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities (Ai-jen Poo)
  • Domestic Workers United (Ai-jen Poo, Marisa Franco)
  • Jobs for Justice (NY – Cindy Wiesner, Ilana Berger, Paul Booth (here)
  • Just Cause (Oakland – Adam Gold)
  • Labor/Community Strategy Center (Jaron Browne)
  • Miami Workers Center (Cindy Wiesner)
  • POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights) (Steve Williams, Jaron Browne, Cindy Wiesner, Marisa Franco, Ilana Berger)

  • And I like the quotes. Marxists use words funny, don't they? - I.O.

    Sestak Was Ineligible for 'Board' & GOP asks FBI to Help -- Byron York

    In the Midnight hour, Saturday, 5/29/2009

    Sestak Was Ineligible for job Clinton Offered
    Byron York, Washington Examiner:

    In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
    The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

    the remainder...
    Friday, last afternoon:

    GOP Asks FBI to Investigate ‘Collusion,’ Obstruction of Justice in Sestak Case
    Byron York, Washington Examiner:

    All the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have joined Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking GOP member of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, in writing a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over the Joe Sestak affair. The lawmakers urge Mueller to investigate “collusion” and possible obstruction of justice involving the White House, former President Bill Clinton, and Sestak’s brother, who was consulted during the drafting of the new White House report.

    “Not surprisingly, the White House’s own report clears White House officials and former President Bill Clinton of wrongdoing,” the lawmakers write. “But assurances by the Obama White House that no laws were broken are like the Nixon White House promising it did nothing illegal in Watergate. Clearly an independent investigation is necessary to determine once and for all what really happened.”

    and on it goes...

    Meanwhile, Bill Clinton did not answer questions (see Tolbert Report video). And as mentioned previously, keep watching Darrell Issa. (I wonder if he'll be offered anything.) He is the point man, apparently very willingly. Track Byron York here.

    Update: Also see comments, linked below.

    Friday, May 28, 2010

    It was Bill Clinton, Woops (not good enough) um... Sestak's Brother? ...um ...It Was Just a Volunteer Job!

    Reporting this throughout the afternoon in sequential fashion, the lower the later.

    Orginal post, 5/28/2010, 12:07pm CT - Listening to the joint Obama/Sestak story now, on Fox News. They think this will pass the sniff test, by honest news watchers, whether conservative, moderate, or even liberal?

    After all this time for Obama and Sestak to confer/collude on a story, they come up with, "aw, shucks, it was just a volunteer gig?" This makes Nixon's plumbers and axe-men look pretty competent.

    Megyn Kelly, "...still illegal." Soon after that, she discusses the subject with former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, who seems to take a White House lawyer's point of view....

    Then, Megyn asks Rep. Darrell Issa if it is likely that Obama and Sestak collaborated on their story. Issa laughs, "Ya think?" Note to I.O.: This Kelly-Issa interview must be shown by video.

    Meanwhile, MS-NBC and CNN are covering the Obama Makes it to the Gulf Shore story. I bet he's itching for a cig. These pesky leaks, anyway....

    Obama's news conference at the Gulf of Mexico is coming up shortly. Will he even allow a "conference" with questions? Will he issue the pronouncement, to allay our worries?: "I am not a crook."

    Also, Sestak will do a presser very soon. More to come.

    In the meantime, Phil of TRSoL has issued a new Sestak / White House article: "The Sestak Scandal: Obama Blames Bill, Coordinates with Sestak’s Brother, Claims Position 'Unpaid.'" Excellent work, Phil. And hey, Obama's presser now, sleeves rolled up and Gulf shore in the background, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist at his side. And now, Obama has switched from saying BP is not doing this and that, to saying "We" are doing this and now this other here. And whaddya know, no questions allowed and no questions shouted from reporters, to my ear.

    So that was Ruling Class Barry, who has been spending up to five hours per day lately, on the golf course and who just, finally, today, did a three hour gig with the Gulf Gusher, according to reports.

    Sestak's Capitol steps presser (quotes are pretty much good): Here's the man of the hour, "...a pres-i-dential board, or something..." Can't remember, Joe? Typical skulking. "Oh, pfff, if I'd thought there was something wrong with this, I'd have reported it." "Nobody ever asked me about this..." until February. Like reporters knew to ask you, Joe? His coat is draped over his shoulder, he acts... surprised about the hub-bub; Mr. Casual.

    He's reminded that his campaign was supposed to be about no more "Washington stuff." and he stiffens up, coat still frozen to two fingers on his shoulder. Trying to begin to finish up now, in Senate campaign mode, complete with the hackneyed JFK closed finger thrusts. "I didn't feel comfortable at all, talking about it with a former president of the United States...."

    "Yu'know, at the time, I heard the words 'presidential board' and..." then oh, no, didn't even pay attention to the rest of it (from President Clinton, as the Bill Clinton we know attempted to finish his sentence with Sestak). Referring now to his daughter's brain tumor. Got that in. That suit jacket is still very fixed to that shoulder, now with a third finger holding it up. To one reporter, "You're from Pennsylvania! You know people aren't interested in this, up there!"

    Someone said, "Thank you very much," a reporter actually closing it off? And there Joe is getting pics with fans, coat... hanging... over his shoulder. Taking a few more questions, unheard on the air. The coat holds up through the whole occasion.

    At the same time, apparently, Rep. Darrell Issa is also talking to reporters, though we can't hear it. That may do it for this particular post. Keep your eye and ear out for Issa. Oh, and there's Sestak walking down the sidewalk to his car... security blanket, er, jacket still there, baby.

    Scroll down for background through this morning, on today's broken breaking story.
    If you like, start with "Joe Sestak White House Scandal 101"
    Please ask and promote The Three SOVEREIGNTY NOW Questions. - AW

    The Sestak Scandal: Obama Blames Bill, Coordinates with Sestak’s Brother, Claims Position 'Unpaid'

    by Phil, of The Right Side of Life

    Cue Michelle Malkin quote (emphasis original):

    And I ask again: What did Bob “The Silencer” Bauer know, when did he know it, and how long does the Most Transparent Administration Ever plan to play dodgeball with the public?

    OK, so: apparently, Bubba is the fall guy…

    At the behest of the White House, former President Bill Clinton urged Rep. Joe Sestak to drop out of a Senate primary, according to a White House report. (AP)

    FoxNews (excerpted):

    The White House asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Rep. Joe Sestak about the possibility of obtaining a senior position in the Obama administration if he would drop out of the Democratic primary race against establishment-backed Sen. Arlen Specter, the Obama administration will say in a report to be released Friday morning, Fox News has confirmed.

    The report, by the White House Counsel’s office, will describe the Clinton conversations as informal and unhinged from any precise job offer since, as a former president, Clinton could not guarantee Sestak anything.

    The conversations with Sestak were initiated by Clinton at the behest of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel was Clinton’s political director when he was president. Clinton had promoted Sestak to vice admiral and made him his director of defense policy. Sestak was a loyal and tireless supporter of Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in 2008.

    WaPo (excerpted):

    Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he’d be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

    But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton’s involvement.

    According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It’s unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the adminstration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks.

    …and Sestak’s brother — his campaign manager — gets contacted to “coordinate” the news:

    Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), left, has said the White House offered  him an administration job in exchange for not running for the Senate.

    Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), left, has said the White House offered him an administration job in exchange for not running for the Senate. (Harry Hamburg/associated Press)

    Again, WaPo (excerpted):

    Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) said Thursday his brother has spoken with White House officials about the congressman’s allegation that he was offered an Obama administration job if he would stay out of a Democratic Senate primary. …

    He told reporters Thursday that he would not expand upon his prior statements until the White House releases its report on the matter. President Obama said in his news conference such a report would come “shortly.”

    Richard Sestak, who has served as his brother’s top political adviser and campaign lawyer, spoke with administration officials Wednesday, Joe Sestak said.

    “They got ahold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House . . . about what’s going to occur,” said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother.

    RollCall provides further details (excerpted; see additional verbiage via the Malkin link, above):

    …Sestak said his brother and an unnamed White House official or officials spoke about “what was going to occur.” Sestak declined to identify who made the call for the administration, adding that he has had no direct contact with the White House.

    Sestak called Obama a “pretty legitimate person.” He added, “But we’ll find out shortly what they have to say.”

    Sestak was tight-lipped about the situation, declining to comment on whether he would agree with the White House’s take on the situation. He pledged to say more — and even to return to Washington for a Capitol Hill news conference over the weekend or early next week — once the White House had made its announcement.

    “When the president speaks — or whoever speaks from the White House — we obviously will have something to say,” he said.

    HotAir reports (via NYTimes) that the issue is a matter of whether or not Sestak was offered a paid position (emphasis original):

    Mr. Obama promised on Thursday to release an account of the matter, which White House lawyers have been drafting in recent days in consultation with Mr. Sestak’s brother, Richard, who runs his campaign. The White House plans to release its statement later on Friday. Until now, the White House has said publicly only that whatever conversations took place with Mr. Sestak were not inappropriate.

    The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activitybecause the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

    The same blog (via TheAtlantic) presents the memo:

    Sestak Memorandum

    HotAir asks plenty of worthy questions (all emphases original):

    Obama yesterday claimed that the repor[t] would exonerate him; if so, why hold it until Friday afternoon? That would limit the media coverage of the exoneration. The answer appears to be that the report mayexonerate Obama and his staff from violations of the law — but that it clearly shows Obama attempting to manipulate an election in Pennsylvania for his own political purposes. That may be legal, but it’s certainly not indicative of the “most transparent/ethical administration ever,” as Obama promised to provide. …

    What kind of unpaid position would be attractive enough to get Sestak out of the Senate primary? …

    Shouldn’t [the memo] have been released at 5 pm or so? And the memo itself seems to be evidence of potential wrongdoing, rather than an exoneration…

    …[I]sn’t that at the least an admission of attempting to tamper with the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania? If this didn’t violate the law, why did Rahm Emanuel ask Bill Clinton to make the pitch rather than do it himself?

    Then, Sustek [shall we say] confirms the above (MSNBC emphases original):

    Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.

    There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.

    HotAir’s response (emphasis original):

    Excuse me, but a position on a Presidential Board is not a “job” in any sense of the word. Sestak has repeatedly insisted that the White House offered him a job to get him to withdraw from the race. Now we’re at the who’s-lying stage, and it may well be everyone.

    Remember:

    In other words, my take on what just went down:

    From somewhere within the deep, dark recesses of the White House (or maybe a pre-paid cell phone in a parking garage somewhere):

    “Hey, Richard. We really need to get things straight on your brother. Joe’s gotta stay in the race, because we cannot afford any more scheduled losses in the Senate than we already think are going to happen. Also, Barry needs this story out of the way to push his agenda and it absolutely cannot point back to him, otherwise heads are really going to roll. So, here’s what we’re going to do…”

    No, what I would have liked to have been the proverbial fly on the wall for was the conversation(s) that went on before Obama’s presser yesterday.

    Let’s sum up, shall we?

    1. Sestak says he was promised a job to get out of the Democratic primary in PA and never changes his story for months;
    2. The White House admits conversations occurred, but that no wrongdoing came out of it (while simultaneously outright denying any conversations with Colorado’s Romanoff);
    3. The White House calls up Sestak’s brother to confirm [what will likely be the first version of the first] story;
    4. The White House leaks that it’s all Bubba’s fault
    5. The White House releases the memo just before noontime, likely to get it just enough media coverage for interest, but [hopefully] not too much to make a bigger deal out of it, claiming that whatever was offered was unpaid (and so must make it all right);
    6. Sestak picks up on this and suggests that the offer was essentially a non-job job.

    Oh, this is so not going to end well…

    See the Impeachment category for general background on this story.

    -Phil (email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com)

    Sestak's Lose-Lose Dilemma -- Nan Matthis

    The hint of a White House bribe helped U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary for the Pennsylvania US Senate seat. But it will be a liability in the general election.

    In an environment of massive anti-incumbent sentiment, it was advantageous to Sestak to differentiate himself from the self-serving Arlen Specter, who had switched parties to gain Obama’s sponsorship in hopes of saving his place in the Senate. One does not reach a high level in the military without being socially and politically prudent, and Sestak rose to the rank of three-star Admiral. He was also street-savvy enough to win two terms in Congress after that. Yet one can understand how he was tempted to let the story of the White House job offer, purportedly made last July, slip during the taping of a mid-February public affairs television show.

    U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak … stands behind his contention that the Obama administration offered him a federal job if he would back away from a Democratic primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

    “Yes, I was offered a job,” Sestak said….

    Sestak said top party officials urged him to abandon his Senate bid when Specter joined the Democratic Party….

    “Look, I am comfortable that I answered honestly,” Sestak said. “I said I would never agree with the type of deal that was done with Specter, so I would never go for a deal for myself.”

    As early as last June, establishment Democrats were lining up against his then unannounced candidacy.

    The public mulling of a Senate bid by Sestak – a retired admiral who’s just begun his second term in the House – is giving heartburn to many influential Democrats in Washington and in the Keystone State. Democratic leaders painstakingly worked to recruit Specter, potentially the Democrats’ filibuster-breaking 60th vote in the Senate, under the assumption that the former Republican would be able to coast through his adopted party’s primary on his way to another term.

    Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell personified the great disconnect between Democratic incumbants and public sentiment, and proved himself a dismal prognosticator, when he assumed a loss for Sestak last June:

    Gov. Ed Rendell (D) offered especially blunt words against a Sestak candidacy, telling MSNBC that “Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary. He would get killed. … [If] Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he is out of the Congress after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity.”

    Now Sestak has handily won the primary, and the spectre of Specter has instead faded into political obscurity. Within Democratic circles, Sestak is diametrically opposed to the incumbent administration. He was a Hillary Clinton supporter. And there is a more painful fact, one that most political pundits overlook — Obama’s minion Admiral Michael Mullen, currently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was responsible for ending Sestak’s 31-year naval career.

    Sestak’s Navy career ended in a less-than-ideal fashion. In July 2005 – within a week of Adm. Michael Mullen’s swearing-in as chief of naval operations – Sestak was dismissed as deputy chief of naval operations due to a “poor command climate,” according to the Navy Times…. The ouster represented a stunning (albeit temporary) reversal of fortune for Sestak.

    In fact, Mullen fired Sestak his first day on the job, so it most likely was a political move, and not based on performance.

    So much for the machinations of the Democratic primary. The story of the job offer, potentially a bribe intended to interfere in the electoral process, has taken on a life of its own. The White House denies it, but Sestak is sticking by his story.

    Democratic Senate Nominee Sestak Repeats Claim: White House Offered Him Job to Drop Out of Race Against Specter
    Friday, May 21, 2010

    Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat, said again this week that the White House offered him a job to keep him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

    Darrell Issa, a Republican Congressman from California, wants to find out whether Obama committed an impeachable offense.

    Rep. Joe Sestak’s allegation that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter is a crime that could lead to the impeachment of President Obama, Rep. Darrell Issa said….

    Issa, R-Calif., is one of many inside and outside Washington who want the Democratic Senate primary candidate to explain in detail what offer the White House made.

    “It’s very clear that allegation is one that everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime, and could be impeachable,” said Issa, who is threatening to file an ethics compliant if Sestak doesn’t provide more details about the alleged job offer.

    ….Sestak, a former vice admiral in the Navy, first alleged in February that the White House offered him a high-ranking position in the administration last summer if he would sit out the primary against Specter, who won the backing of the White House and state Democratic leaders for switching parties.

    If this event happened as described, here is the legal basis for impeachment:

    U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4 – Disqualification – The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    And here is the definition for impeachment:

    Impeachment – Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

    An article in the Washington Examiner details the dilemma facing Sestak in the general election:

    During his bid for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania Sestak claimed that he was offered a job in the Administration if he would agree to drop his bid to challenge the incumbent, Arlen Specter.

    This is a felony according to the law.

    The U.S. Code specifically forbids anyone from seeking to tamper with an election by offering a bribe or anything else of value or substance to a candidate. This is known as ‘quid-pro-quo.’ And it is a serious offense for which a person who is convicted of the crime could spend up to 5 years in prison….

    How could the White House claim that nothing inappropriate took place when the very fact that Sestak was engaged in conversations with Administration officials during a hotly contested campaign is a highly suspicious act in and of itself?

    Why would the White House even wish to talk to Sestak at all when it had clearly thrown its support to Specter?

    Someone in this sordid mess is lying. And there are only 2 choices–Sestak or Robert Gibbs at the White House, who as press secretary must state to the public whatever he is instructed to say by the President and his advisers.

    If Sestak is lying and the entire story is bogus, then his chances of beating the Republican in the Fall will drop like a lead balloon. But if he is telling the truth and continues to refuse to name the parties at the White House who offered him this deal, then he is protecting a felon. Either way Sestak loses.

    Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement:

    This latest bribery allegation reflects a disturbing pattern by the Obama White House. We still don’t have all the details about involvement of Obama administration officials in the sale of Obama’s former Illinois U.S. Senate seat by Rod Blagojevich. And we still don’t have answers about the charge that Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offered a federal job to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff to keep him out of the Senate race. There is also the report that President Obama tried to push disgruntled White House Counsel Greg Craig out of the White House by offering a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And now we have Joe Sestak.

    The Chicago Machine has truly come to Washington.

    Other than impeachment, other parts of the law might be relevant, according to Judicial Watch:

    According to Judicial Watch, the following laws (among others) may have been violated in the Sestak matter: 18 USC 210: Offer to procure appointive public office; 18 USC 211: Acceptance of solicitation to obtain appointive public office; 18 USC 595: Interference by administrative employees by Federal, State or Territorial Governments; and 18 USC 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

    That legal opinion is reinforced by Jay Sekulow of The American Center for Law & Justice, who said in an interview:

    Well, article 2, section 4 of the Constitution is there for a reason. And … this is spinning out of control, as far as the White House is concerned right now. This is getting big coverage and it’s getting big coverage because something’s wrong here. It’s undercutting democracy if, in fact, offers were made to have someone not run.

    And it’s not just one or two sections of federal law that’s been violated here. We’ve done an analysis of this. There could be four or even five sections of the federal criminal code that was violated….

    These are serious allegations here. …. I understand why Mr. Sestak is trying to not say anything right now because he’s now obtained the nomination and he may want the White House support. But the reality is, somebody’s going to have to speak. And if, in fact, it is established that an offer of employment was made so that he would not run, that is interference with a political campaign, it’s interference with elected office, it’s the promise and solicitation of a job opportunity in order to forego something. That violates … not only the Constitution, it violates federal law….

    The opinion by most legal observers seems to be that Obama must have known if a job offer was made, but that someone else in the administration will take the fall for it. We, as ordinary citizens, watch this play out and have to decide who is not telling the truth — a high ranking military officer or a community organizer from Chicago. Hard choice that!

    Related:

    Michelle Malkin — "Obama responds to Sestak scandal: Just trust me"

    Dick Morris.com"Penn AG Tom Corbett Should Empanel Grand Jury in Sestak Affair"

    Hyscience"Just ‘trust him’"

    Obama Promises a Sestak Explanation “Shortly;” Outright Denies Offer to Romanoff -- Phil, TRSoL

    See also today's articles:

    "The Silence of the Sestak: The Big Me involved?; Update: WH memo released," by Ed Morrissey, HotAir

    "White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race," by Fox News.

    by Phil, The Right Side of Life

    As one Democrat Senator thinks that Obama will “pay a political price” for the Gulf oil spill, Mr. Obama began circling the proverbial wagons on a leg-growing story in the press: he finally broke silence on the Sestak scandal.

    The actual quote:

    “There will be an official response shortly on the Sestak matter,” Obama said, when asked about the issue by Fox News at the president’s press conference. “I mean shortly — I don’t mean weeks or months. … I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, claims in an email reported by TheHill that this could be Obama’s Watergate (excerpted):

    The campaign e-mail says the allegations would amount to three felony charges of bribery and corruption.”Congressman Sestak has continued to repeat his story whenever asked without varying from the original version. The White House however has arrogantly and wrongly assumed that they can sweep this matter under the rug,” Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, says in the e-mail.

    “This may be the way business is done in Chicago, but it’s not the way things are done in our nation’s capitol [sic] and I am intent on getting to the bottom of this.”

    We’ve already heard what former Clinton advisor Dick Morris had to say, and Bush advisor Karl Rove went further:

    One of two things is true, you can’t have two things true. One or the other is true. Either Joe Sestak is lying and he was not offered a position in the administration in return for getting out of the primary.

    Democrat president Barack Obama and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel in  the Oval Office

    Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and President Barack Obama (LATimes.com)

    You know he’s a liar, in which case not worthy of public service.

    Or, he’s telling the truth, in which case somebody inside the White House committed a felony. 18usc211 says that, a government official cannot promise a job in return for anything of value and it has a long list of values.

    Saying to a member of Congress if you drop out of the primary and give a free ride to the general election for our Democratic nominee in return for which we will give you a government job, is clearly receiving something of value. The value is a clear path to the nomination of your favorite candidate…..

    What he in essence is saying is that there’s a felon inside the White House and I am going to stonewall and protect that individual. He has an obligation to tell. Either you’re a liar, Joe Sestak, or you’re protecting a felon.

    Here’s 18 U.S.C. Sec. 900:

    Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Recall also that Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution specifically mentions “bribery” as a specifically impeachable offense:

    Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    RedState went on to recount how Admiral Sestak was offered (by someone) a “high-ranking” job (“Navy secretary?” received a “no comment”) and that Obama advisor David Axelrod essentially said that the White House had looked into the allegations and that the White House found nothing improper.

    Or something like that.

    Yikes.

    Sestak doesn’t want to go into any more detail or he’ll risk his candidacy for the Senate, but he’s not backing down from what he says he knows. And apparently the White House won’t go into any more detail because someone has to take the fall for this thing, and everyone knows it. Taking time to come up with a formal response will subsequently move this political issue in the legal arena, thereby making the chess moves necessary — in theory — for both the Administration and Sestak to maneuver through, at least until after the mid-term elections.

    Yet, in a similar case out in Colorado, the White House flatly denies any wrongdoing at all. According to NewsMax:

    Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

    On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

    The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency. …

    The White House denied that Romanoff had been offered a job.

    “Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.

    Nevertheless, the Denver Post disclosures may have worked against Bennet.

    “People in Colorado have an adverse reaction to the external forces coming down and telling them how to think,” said Colorado state Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Romanoff supporter.

    The casual observer can clearly see that the Obama Administration is flatly denying the latter, but hedging on the former. If nothing is amiss, you come straight out and admit it, else you’ll forever have to maneuver around it until something or someone — such as a potentially majority-changing election — stops you.

    This won’t end well.

    -Phil (Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com)

    Thursday, May 27, 2010

    Hearing about 'Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.' Notices? Feel Free to Email Me

    BTW, this has nothing to do with Sentinel Radio.

    You may have seen documents from "Sentinel Intelligence Services LLC" and Lyle Rapacki, Ph.D. If you wish to converse about them, please don't hesitate to send me an email: arlenwilliams/at/yahoo/dot/com. - AW

    Joe Sestak White House Scandal 102

    I am watching the presidential oil leak press conference and Obama's statement about Joe Sestak, saying his administration will respond more fully "soon," and "not weeks or months." Suddenly a morph occurred in my mind's eye. Jowls grew, nose lengthened, and skin blanched and there he was, Richard Nixon. Well, we'll see what the White House response finally is. We know they have already covered up, by their prior months of failure to answer questions about it.

    I'll be looking for more on this, from Phil, as per below. You may also wish to see Allan Erickson's pointed essay, "Obama's Katrina, Obama's Watergate."

    Joe Sestak White House Scandal 101

    by Phil, The Right Side of Life

    If you haven’t heard about this story, it’s time to brush up on it, because it’s a potentially big, huge deal for the White House.

    This story has to do with Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial nominee Joe Sestak; the following video — h/t LibertarianRepublican.com — will catch you up:


    "Who is Wrong" video

    WND.com (excerpted):

    If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there’s someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

    “This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

    “Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

    “In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked.

    “Absolutely,” said Morris.

    Slate.com (excerpted):

    The problem with both responses, of course, is that we can’t just take the word of White House officials. Sestak says the offer was made, and the White House admits there were conversations. At least three laws might have been broken, according to Darrell Issa, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. With that many, it shouldn’t be up to one of the interested parties to decide whether any laws were broken.

    Michelle Malkin covers who’s behind the White House stonewalling (hint: it includes attorney Bob Bauer — you know, the attorney at the Perkins Coie law firm, the same firm that represented the Administration through dozens of eligibility suits), and both RedState and HotAir point out that all 7 GOP Senators on the Judiciary Committee are asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the job offer.

    So, what laws are allegedly being broken? Prof. Jacobson has the run-down:

    18 U.S.C. section 210 provides:

    Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value,to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    18 U.S.C. section 211 provides:

    Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, inconsideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both….

    In the same posting wherein Prof. Jacobson recommends that Mr. Sestak needs to start talking, he poses some great questions:

    Is Sestak refusing to talk on advice of counsel so that there is no waiver of his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? Or is Sestak refusing to talk just because Admirals don’t talk?

    Legally, Sestak is right to keep quiet.

    Politically, there is only one thing which can keep Sestak’s ship from sinking — loose lips.

    I have been following this story off and on for a few months, with thanks to those concerned citizens who have emailed me about it from time to time. The bottom line is that the nominee’s stance has never changed; he simply refuses, to date, to go into further details about it.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time that questionable actions have occurred with this Administration. In fact, as Jim Kouri of the Law Enforcement Examiner points out, Judicial Watch claims that the White House has attempted to “bribe” Democrats with federal judgeships.

    -Phil (Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com)

    Radical Royalty - Obama's Federal Reserve Pick - Sarah Bloom Raskin

    Obama File 104, by Trevor Loudon, of New Zeal

    A seat on the U.S Federal Reserve Board, carries tremendous power. The seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A full term is fourteen years. During that time, a board member can influence the financial policies of the world's most powerful economy. In some ways the seven men and women, have more power than Congress or even the President himself.

    That's why appointments to the Federal Reserve Board deserve as much scrutiny as those to the Supreme Court.

    President Barack Obama recently made three nominations to the Federal Reserve Board, Janet Yellen, Peter Diamond and Sarah Bloom Raskin.

    Janet Yellen, Peter Diamond, Sarah Bloom Raskin

    While most "Obama watchers" said little, some commentators from the left did take notice;

    Democratic Socialists of America member, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute was pleased with the appointments;
    I think these are all great choices, and ones that will move Fed policy in the needed direction -- responsive to the needs of middle-class and working families.
    Of the three named, one stands out in particular- Sarah Bloom Raskin. That surname should ring alarm bells.

    That's because Sarah Bloom married into what is perhaps the closest America has to a radical "royal family".

    Sarah Bloom Raskin is the wife of Jamin (Jamie) Raskin, a legal academic, Maryland State Senator and the son of Marcus Raskin - founder of the deservedly notorious Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

    In 1963 Marcus Raskin and his partner, the late Richard Barnet founded their radical "think tank" in Washington DC. IPS quickly grew to become a highly influential, source of ideas, guidance and training for the U.S. and international left. Its critics claimed that IPS consistently supported policies that aided the foreign policy goals of the Soviet Union and weakened the position of the United States.

    Since its founding, IPS has consistently followed a pro-socialist line on foreign policy, defense and the economy and has spawned a large number of spin-offs, other think tanks and public affairs organizations following the same radical agenda.

    In 1978, in an article in National Review, Brian Crozier , director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict described IPS as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB".

    IPS became a place where leftist Congressmen, Senators and Capitol Hill staffers could mingle with third world radicals, East Bloc diplomats and even a few identified KGB agents.

    The FBI was intensely interested in Raskin's institute, until IPS sued the agency and extracted a written agreement forbidding any further FBI surveillance - an agreement, I believe, that still stands today.

    In the early 1990s IPS worked with Democratic Socialists of America and socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders to set up the now more than 80 strong Congressional Progressive Caucus. In 2003 IPS also helped set up the communist dominated "peace" umbrella organization, United for Peace and Justice.

    Jamie Raskin admits that he grew up "in an environment of progressive politics".

    An Harvard graduate and a "lifelong progressive Democrat", Jamie Raskin has brought "innovative ideas and a hands-on approach to government and politics at every level."

    He has served on the Montgomery County Hate Crimes Commission, the Takoma Park Election Redistricting Task Force, and the Takoma Park Gun Policy Task Force.

    In 1992, he served on President Clinton's Justice Department Transition Team for the Civil Rights Division. He was elected as a Kerry-Edwards Delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

    A member of the board of FairVote, the nation’s leading electoral-reform group, Raskin is best known as "a champion of voters’ rights". In his 2003 book, “Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court versus The American People,” Raskin documented the Rehnquist Court majority’s "assault on voting rights" in the 2000 election, and "placed Bush v. Gore in the context of a series of Supreme Court decisions undermining the participatory rights of the people."

    Focusing on the Rehnquist majority’s statement that the “individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote” for president, Raskin argued for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote (and to get one’s vote counted) to all Americans.

    Raskin has served as a Washington-area Board Member for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's heavily communist infiltrated National Rainbow Coalition.

    He has worked closely with far left Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. to advance a voting rights amendment in Congress, and with IPS affiliated Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton to "advance a voting rights agenda for the people of Washington, D.C."

    Unsurprisingly Jamie Raskin has done pro bono legal work for SEIU, ACORN, Greenpeace and the radical led Students Against Sweatshops. He has written for two Democratic Socialists of America and IPS affiliated journals, The Nation and In These Times.

    Raskin has also served on the board of Progressive Democrats of America, an IPS spinoff , which is effectively the activist wing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    On March 10, 2006, IPS supporters, Yolande Fox and former Algerian Ambassador, Cherif Guellal hosted a book launch, in their Washington home, for Jamie Raskin's most recent book entitled "Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus the American People" at their home in Georgetown, Washington, D.C.

    Fox was a former Miss America (1951) from Alabama. Cherif Guellal was a former top lieutenant to Algerian revolutionary leader Ahmed Ben Bella - winner of the 1964 Lenin Peace Prize. Guellal also had ties to the British Fabian Socialist Society in the early 1960s. During the 1967, Six-Day War, Algeria severed diplomatic relations to protest United States support for Israel. Instead of returning to Algeria, Guellal became a Fellow at IPS.

    Other attendees included Jamie's father and Marcus Raskin, , James L. Hudson and Ira Lowe.

    Cherif Guellal, Marcus Raskin, James L. Hudson

    Jim Hudson, a long time Washington "insider' was recently appointed by President Obama to the Directorship of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    Ira Lowe is a trial lawyer and IPS supporter. He formerly represented IPS affiliate and Progressives for Obama founder, Tom Hayden.

    Incidentally, IPS Trustee , Democratic Socialists of America member and Progressives for Obama co-founder Barbara Ehrenreich said of Raskin's book "This brilliantly argued and meticulously researched book both alarms and inspires"

    Sarah Bloom has no known direct ties to the Institute for Policy Studies, but she did work for IPS connected Washington law firm Arnold & Porter from 1988 to 1993.

    A current Arnold & Porter partner , Jeremy Karpatkin, is a former Democratic Socialists of America youth organizer. In 1992, in Chicago Karpatkin directed field operations during the successful Senate run of far left Democratic Party operative Carol Moseley Braun. Coincidentally Barack Obama ran the Project Vote voter registration drive that year that helped Moseley Braun to win. In 2004 Obama took over the same Senate seat.

    Nearly three decades earlier, pioneering trial lawyer Charles Halpern became involved with IPS through Arnold & Porter. The firm handled IPS's legal work and partner Thurman Porter had been an IPS trustee.

    Halpern became corporate secretary to IPS, keeping minutes and records. he began to attend IPS seminars and parties at the Institute and at the home of founder Marcus Raskin, where he met radicals "like Paul Goodman and Ivan Ilich".

    When Raskin and several other activists were arrested for conspiring to obstruct the military draft, Halpern helped with the defense. Halpern flew with Raskin to a meeting with the other defendants and their lawyers at the Greenwich Village home of radical lawyer and secret Communist Party USA member Leonard Boudin - father of Weather Underground terrorist Kathie Boudin. Fellow terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn would later raise Kathie Boudin's son Chesa Boudin after she was jailed for her terrorist crimes.

    The radical Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) was founded in 1968 by Charles Halpern and three other lawyers, with the assistance of former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, who chaired the CLASP board.

    A veteran of several communist fronts, Goldberg was, in the late 1940s, a Chicago law partner of Abner Mikva. A life long time associate of communists and socialists and an IPS affiliate, Mikva went on to employ a young law clerk named Elena Kagan and to mentor and befriend a young Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama.

    In 1999 Charles Halpern went on to found a New York based "think tank" Demos, an official partner organization of IPS. Among those recruited to set up and join the first board of Demos was a then obscure Illinois State senator named.......Barack Obama.

    Several years later a young San Francisco communist named Van Jones was also recruited to serve on the Demos Board.

    Strangely, Jones was suggested as a possible "Green Jobs Czar" for the Obama administration by Demos and IPS staffer Chuck Collins, in an article written several months before the 2008 Presidential elections.

    Robert Kuttner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos and serves on the board of the Economic Policy Institute with Larry Mishel. He is closely aligned to to Democratic Socialists of America, which has described Kuttner as a "socialist".

    Kuttner was very pleased when Obama nominated Sarah Raskin to the Fed. He wrote in the Huffington Post March 14, 2010;
    Obama has also just appointed three relative progressives to the Federal Reserve, including Sarah Bloom Raskin of Maryland, widely considered the best of the state financial regulators. There is not a single businessman or banker in the lot...
    Will Sarah Bloom Raskin sail into fourteen years at the helm of the U.S. economy, on a pleasant face and zero scrutiny?

    Or will Senate Republicans and the media do their job and ask some serious questions?

    Obama file 103 here // Obama file 105 to come