"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore filmSun Sep 6, 2009 11:59am EDT




By Mike Collett-White
VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino.

Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.

The filmmaker also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

He says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment.

Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.

"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc."

GREEN SHOOTS?

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."

Moore also warned other countries around the world against following the recent U.S. economic and political model.

The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank.

And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down.

The film re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension.

But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and demanding that banks give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

And he interviews an employee of a firm which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

Michael Moore, that paragon of honesty and integrity is about to do it once again ... why do people listen to this ignorant man?
Does anyone wonder why this ball of human waste charges people to see his propaganda?
Does anyone wonder why he doesn't give away to the poor of the world, all of his profits? One of his homes?
Does anyone wonder why he chooses to live in a country that he so obviously hates and wants to completely change?
Does anyone think he travel's to Cuba to get the health-care he needs given his endless praise for their Communist health-care system in his "film", SiCKO?
Does anyone care that no one in the main-stream, dino-media ever questions his methods, conclusions or praise for all systems that would crush his form of idiocy?
The answers to all of these questions are very simple and easy. Mr. Moore and his other leftist-elitists in Hollywood would not be able to live in the life-style they have grown accustomed to if they did not work and take advantage of the benefits of the very economic and political system they trash. After all, as ignorant as they are, they are not stupid. If they lived in Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela, would they be able to generate the income that affords them the private jets, the chauffeur driven limos and the mansions? Only if they were held in favor by the current dictator and part of the ruling-class.
If they were not, would they be able to soak the very Capitalist system they hate for the wealth it generates? Would they be able to market themselves to the hard-working Capitalists who would be necessary in order to sell the tickets needed to generate the cash? Would they amass their fortunes in a state controlled film industry? I could be wrong, but I'd say it's doubtful.

To borrow a phrase, these "useful idiots", by peddling their wares in a system of marketing that exists only in the United States, are able to generate wealth far beyond anything a state run system would. The very Capitalist system those such as Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Oliver Stone, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Mike Ferrell, Jeneane Garofelo, Cher, Julia Roberts, et al trash and want changed to be "more fair", is the very system that allows them to spout anything they choose, regardless of how insane or without merit it may be. It is the very system that provides them with the ability to live the lifestyle they do.

Why do they not all leave this hate-filled, racist country that breads inequality and unfairness? It is a good question for I know that they all think that they would all have the priveliges of power and wealth for they would all be among the "ruling-elite" ... or would they? Once again, they are ignorant, not stupid.

Liberal Talk Show host claims that JFK & RFK were "murdered by the right-wing in this country" ...

Once again, the Leftist Progressives attempt to re-write history ... Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist and Sirhan Sirhan wa a middle eastern wack-job who opposed Bobby Kenney's pro-Israel positions. NEITHER WERE RIGHT-WINGERS! The outright lies of the Leftist never ends.

A little more from the Special Advisor to the President for Green Jobs

Mark Lloyd - FCC Diversity Czar

Our "Green Czar"

I've been doing some research on a few of our president's Czars. The first I am going to give you a little info on is Anthony "Van" Jones, the new green Jobs Czar.

The web that engulfs the people our president have surrounded himself with is amazing. The interconnections to each other and to organization after organization is difficult, intimidating and often boring to follow, but if you spend a little time to weave your way through the maze the web of connections and relationships are there. Organize, organize and then organize more. That is the mantra of the Leftist, whether Progressive, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist or Anarchist, Leftist ideologies all.

To one degree or another, the rules as written down by Saul Alinsky and carried around by most campus radicals of the 60's and 70's are used by today's Leftists. Yes, some who practiced these principles lived before him but it was Alinsky who consolidated them for use to America, who's book was used to ingrain his "rules" into the ideology of the American Leftist in order to work the American system to their advantage, to their political end.

I bring this up in my discussion of the unaccountable czars being appointed by our president because it is important to understand the background, the history of the Leftist movement and the "rules" by which they play the game. If you doubt our current president is not a Leftist, you are not paying attention or you do not know your history.

Remember that Saul Alinsky is "hero", is a mentor to today's Leftist-Progressives. Hillary Clinton, a self-described "early 20Th century Progressive", has referenced his influence on her as has our current president in his writings.

Read the "rules", think about how they relate to what is happening today, to our country, to those who oppose both Republican and Democrat Progressives, as both parties are at fault ...

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

Here's a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Rules For Radicals, must be kept in mind for it is the blue-print for what is happening. Think ACORN, think the Center for American Progress, think the Daily Kos, think the Apollo Alliance, think the Tides Foundation and on and on and on.

When you go to an organizations web-site, see who the "officers" or "board members" are. Type their names into your search engine and see where it leads you, see who they are, see who they associate with and what their world view is and more importantly to us, what their view of America is and where they want to take us. You may be surprised ...

Here are a few links related to Van Jones, special assistant for Green Jobs ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/25/771977/-Is-The-Green-Czar-Van-Jones-A-Communist-Still

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/07/obamas-green-czar-proudly-admits-hes-a-member-of-san-francisco-communist-organization.html

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/obamas-black-red-green-czar/

http://www.collinsreport.net/2009/07/14/obama%E2%80%99s-latest-%E2%80%9Cin-your-face%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cgreen-czar%E2%80%9D-he-admits-he%E2%80%99s-a-communist-with-arrest-record/

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/obamas-green-czar-is-a-terrorist.html

http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/apollo-alliance-and-obamas-green-czar-van-jones-greens-on-the-outside-reds-on-the-inside-big-greens-big-unions-big-foundations-big-business-big-bucks-big-taxes-videos/

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/03/10/obama-drafts-van-jones-as-green-jobs-adviser.html

Here is a link to three of the organizations Anthony "Van" Jones helped found ...

http://www.greenforall.org/

http://apolloalliance.org/

http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf

There are other Czars that we need to question, that we need to gather more information about. They are unconfirmed by congress; they answer to one man, President Obama; there is no public accounting of what they do, how much they spend or the powers they wield. Why?

President Obama is hardly the first president to appoint Czars or as they were originally called under President Franklin Roosevelt, "Dictators". President Nixon had appointed them, President GW Bush had them. The appointment of these unaccountable, powerful people are not exclusive of the Democrat or Republican parties. They are not a problem for the parties but they should be for American citizens.

Our government, on both sides of the aisle, is out of control. They both are taking us to the same, big government, nanny-state place. One is taking us there on a steam locomotive, the other on a super-sonic transport.

Those Americans who still believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom need to stand up to both parties. It is past time to say "ENOUGH"!

I know that I promised a more in depth look at all the Czars being appointed by our president but I thought the more immediate news regarding the move to Socialize our health care system too precedent. I'll get back to the Czars in short order.
Our president has learned well at the heel of Saul Alinsky and his "bible" for leftist-progressives, Rules For Radicals by over-loading the system with proposals, legislation, nominations, appointments and on and on and on ...
He throws so much at his opponants that he hops to simply overwhelm them causing distraction and confusion. Alway remember, our president is a "community orginizer", first and foremost. After all, what other experience of any consequence does he have? None! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFnP_wN8Z0&feature=fvw



CBO Deals Another Crushing Blow to Obamacare
Posted July 27th, 2009 at 9.38am in Health Care.

For the second time in less than two weeks, the independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has dealt a crushing blow to President Barack Obama’s health care plans. First, on July 17th, CBO director Doug Elmendorf sent a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), explaining that, in direct contradiction to President Obama’s promise that his health plan would not add “even one dime to our deficit over the next decade,” the House health plan would actually increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over ten years.
Reeling from this setback, the White House then put all of its cost-containing reform eggs in one basket: a massive transfer of power from Congress to the Executive branch in the form of an “Independent Medicare Advisory Council” (IMAC) that would be “the equivalent of a federal health board determining how health care was rationed for all seniors.”
But as draconian as that solution would be, the CBO again refused to toe the White House line. In a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Elmendorf writes:
The proposed legislation states that IMAC’s recommendations cannot generate increased Medicare expenditures, but it does not explicitly direct the council to reduce such expenditures nor does it establish any target for such reductions. … As proposed, the composition of the council could be weighted toward medical providers who might not be inclined to recommend cuts in payments to providers or significant changes to the delivery system. … In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … CBO estimates that enacting the proposal, as drafted, would yield savings of $2 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
Just $2 billion! That would leave the House bill still $237 billion short of meeting Obama’s promise to not add a dime to the deficit over the next ten years. Put another way, that $2 billion in savings is two tenths of one percent of what Obama wants to spend on health care over the next ten years. Now Democrats are pushing back against the CBO, claiming the official scorekeeper just doesn’t understand how wonderful their cost containment schemes really are. One senior House leadership aide told The Hill: “At CBO, they are accountants, but we still have to make our case. They are doing their thing and we are doing ours.”
Now Americans may ask, just how accurate is the CBO when scoring the costs of health care reform? Does the CBO have a track record of underestimating how much new health care entitlements will cost? Or is the CBO too conservative, often overestimating new health care spending? Scholars at the CATO Institute went back and compared past CBO estimates on health care to actual spending numbers and found:
When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was supposed to cost $100 million annually, but it already cost $11 billion by 1992. When Medicare’s home care benefit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion.
History clearly shows that the costs of new heath care entitlements are routinely underestimated. And what would American be getting for their $2 billion in savings from IMAC? The Washington Post’s David Broder wrote yesterday:
But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.
Huge cost estimates that are likely underestimated in exchange for a federal health board deciding the terms of your personal health care is not the reform people were expecting. But more importantly, if the Obama administration can’t trust a federal office to properly score their bill, how is it they trust a similar office to decide which medical treatments you receive?

UNFETTED EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWER GRAB? ... NAW

I have to wonder why the Democrats in congress are not standing on the steps of the Capital, screaming about the "Power Grab" being conducted by the current occupant of the White House? During the 8 years of the Bush administration, hardly a week, if not a day, went by without some Democrat Congressman or Senator complaining about the outrageous and "unprecedented power grab" underway by the President and his administration. Of course, no Democrat ever mentions the usurpation of power in the hallowed, sainted Franklin D. Roosevelt administration and his proposal for a "new Bill of Rights" that would have set the standard for Socialist Fascism in it's day.

We were then, according to the Democrats, on the verge of being turned into a "police state" and having "unaccountable bureaucrats in the Executive Branch" running the country and goodness knows, with all of our freedoms and liberties trampled. Now, don't get me wrong, the Bush Administration was responsible for some of the most bone-headed, anti free market, anti-American legislation and non-action in our history. President Bush exercised what was probably the single most idiotic NON-use of the veto pen when he signed the UN-Constitutional "Campaign Finance Reform" legislation; his inability to follow the law and close our borders to illegal immigration was an impeachable offense and of course, who could never forget the single most Liberal Progressive piece of legislation since the War on Poverty that created the largest entitlement in the history of our country by signing the Medicaid Drug Prescription Benefit. Yes, sir, George was our man!

Now to the reason for my confusion ...

Given, and we all know that they care so very much about "liberty" and "freedom" and the "average American" and have a passion for restricting "power grabs" by the government, why haven't we heard a peep out of these paragons of liberty and freedom when it comes to the President's CZARS? Do you know that there are 13? (At last count)

Do you know that there is absolutely NO OVERSIGHT of these people and those who work for them? (Outside of their boss of course. No, not you and I, the president, dummy. Yes, we pay them but we still can't talk to them and they don't have to answer anything we might ask them if we could talk to them, now leave me alone.)

Can anyone name more than 2 of them?

Has anyone ever heard a story about any of the CZARS on the evening news? Yes, every now and again, it is a one or two line blurb in passing but never anything in depth.

Well, here is a thumb-nail on each of them provided by Real Clear Politics:

1. Border Czar: Alan Bersin

Previous Experience: Bersin held a similar job under President Clinton in which he served under Attorney Janet Reno. He now serves under Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, putting him in charge of illegal immigration and drug violence problems.

2. Energy Czar: Carol Browner

Previous Experience: Former Clinton Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and member of Obama's transition board. Browner was head of the EPA from 1993 to 2001. She is said to bring much experience in environmental policy-making and consulting.

3. Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr

Previous Experience: Before being tapped for this newly created position by President Obama, Carrion served twice as New York City's Bronx Borough President with a degree in urban planning. He's worked as a minister and public school teacher in the Bronx.

4. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra

Previous Experience: Chopra worked in almost the same job in the state of Virginia for Governor Tim Kaine. He has significant experience in health IT, which President Obama has noted is key for reform. In 2007 Chopra was recognized by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society for his work and in co-chairing Virginia's Healthcare IT Council. Before working in government, Chopra worked at the publicly traded health care think tank Advisory Board Company serving as Managing Director.

5. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle

Previous Experience: Served from 1997 to 2000 as head of the HFCA (Health Care Financing Administration) in charge of the Clinton administration's Medicare program. Before that DeParle worked at the Office of Management and Budget.

6. Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney

Previous Experience: Devaney is a former policeman and Secret Service agent. He worked as chief of criminal enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency and prior to taking the job of Stimulus Accountability Czar was inspector general at the Department of the Interior. During his stint there since 1999, Devaney was responsible for discovering the illegal activities of ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff which ultimately led to Abramoff's sentencing to jail.

7. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg

Previous Experience: A Washington lawyer, Feinberg was Special Master of the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, a job which entailed dealing out approximately $7 billion to over 5,000 families and victims of September 11th. Feinberg also headed the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund for the families of victims in the 2007 Virginia Tech school shooting.

8. Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried

Previous Experience: Fried served as the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs since 2005. Fried was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council beginning in 2001. Fried has also worked as Principal Deputy Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the New Independent States from 2000 to 2001. He served as Ambassador to Poland from 1997 until 2000.

9. Science Czar: John Holdren

Previous Experience: Holdren first worked as a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, teaching global environmental change and energy, nuclear, and technology policy. Holdren was the chairman of the board of directors for the American Association of the Advancement of Science from 2007 to 2008. He is director of the Woods Hole Research Center. Holdren most recently served as the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and was director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

10. Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones

Previous Experience: Jones worked as an advocate for the environment before being tapped by Obama for the post. Based in Oakland, California, Jones is president of Green for All, which works to create a green economy to bring people out of poverty. Jones is also the founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Jones's first book, The Green Collar Economy, was a New York Times bestseller. Time magazine listed Van Jones as one of its 2008 "Environmental Heroes".

11. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra

Previous Experience: Prior to his new post, Kundra was a member of President Obama's transition committee on technology issues. Kundra also worked in DC Mayor Adrian Fenty's cabinet as Chief Technology Officer, gaining a reputation for his innovative programs. An initiative called Apps for Democracy garnered Kundra praise for his work creating programs that were more publicly accessible via the Internet. Before working for Fenty, Kundra was appointed by Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Technology.

12. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery

Previous Experience: Previous to his appointment, Montgomery was dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland. In Bill Clinton's administration, Montgomery worked as chief economist at the Department of Labor. From 2000 to 2001 he served as Deputy Secretary of Labor. Montgomery began his university work at Michigan State University where he worked from 1981 to 1990 as an associate professor in Economics. In 1992 he became a full professor of economics at the University of Maryland.

13. Climate Czar: Todd Stern

Previous Experience: With close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Stern worked as a senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. From 1999 to 2001 he worked at the Treasury Department where he served as an advisor on economic and financial issues. Stern was an advisor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, advising on environmental and global warming issues. Stern was an important member of the Obama-Biden transition team in which he helped orchestrate how Bill Clinton would agree to release the names of 200,000 donors of his charitable foundation allowing Hillary Clinton's nomination for Secretary of State to move forward.

It appears from how they read that the thumb-nail sketches featured on Real Clear Politics are so short and sweet that they were provided by the Obama Administration. Over the next few weeks, I'll be taking the Czars, one by one. I'll be providing a bit more in-depth info on the Czars and their backgrounds.
I think you'll find it interesting to see the people our president continues to surround himself with.

And Democrats, ... HEY, YOU!!! YEA, YOU!!!! ...

I am waiting to hear the first one of you ask about the power grab going on by the Executive Branch. Don't you care about the Constitution? Don't you care that it is YOUR responsibility for oversight? Who approves the money these people spend?

I won't hold my breath for the most hypocritical congress in our history to ask.