Sowing the seeds of Astroturf...

A portion of this video appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight, and I feel it is worth seeing in full. A young woman with a microphone and a camera, whose work is linked to http://www.sophiaelena.com/, explains that she is outside the offices of Senator Diane Feinstein in Santa Monica, CA. She very fairly describes that protesters have gathered "in support and in opposition of the health care bill."

It is worth mentioning that Victoria Jackson makes an appearance in this video. Any time Victoria Jackson speaks about Barack Obama I can't help but wonder if she is the least or most effective voice the Conservative movement could ask for. While she is incredibly correct in everything she says, and of course comes from Hollywood - land of the liberal, she is also dangerously simple which sadly leaves her open as a target for ridicule from the liberal elite.

There is a very well spoken description of the entire issue, at about 4:35 into the first clip.




In this second clip, notice the guy in the Obama shirt who tells her they "were told to be here at 3 o'clock" and then the guy who tries to sell "Organizing for America" as grassroots. And the guy at the end who "will sue you if you use my image on YouTube or anywhere else" - classic.

Drill Baby Drill

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, President Obama is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

Yes, you read correctly. The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells The Wall Street Journal it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount.

The Export-Import Bank does not receive appropriations from Congress, and therefore does not rely on taxpayer dollars. The bank will not be sending money directly to Petrobras; instead it will be extending lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling operations.

So it would appear at first glance that while the environmentally-friendly Obama administration is not willing to allow off-shore drilling along U.S. coastal regions, it is more than happy to facilitate such actions abroad.

When questioned Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was not prepared to comment.

One further and very important note: As reported by Bloomberg.com, Billionaire investor George Soros cut his stake in his biggest holding, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, in the second quarter while buying more shares of other energy producers.

His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares.

Soros is taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion. The common shares were 21 percent more expensive than preferred today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“He knows he held a voting right in the common shares that would never translate to actual power,” Maizel said in an interview from San Francisco. “He’s just playing the spread.”

"O" no...

It seems that once again, the radical, angry, astro-turf, extremist right-wing mob has made enough noise to cause the "Ogenda" to be changed, or at least the Oministration has been made to take a look at its policies and procedures.

In a step taken after much pressure from Fox News' Major Garrett on behalf of "We, the little people," The White House today announced changes to its website which should, they believe, stop Americans from receiving unsolicited emails. Following the controversy over the e-mails, the White House has added two new filter devices to its "Contact Us" section on its Web site, which could reduce the number of people who receive e-mails unsolicited.

Now, anybody who fills out a comment on that section must uncheck a box that says, "sign up to get e-mail updates." The box is automatically checked when the page loads, so commenters must take an action to uncheck it.

Anyone submitting a comment now also must type in two words that appear on the page in a strange font -- a security step similar to one that appears on many commercial Web sites (including this one).

"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individuals' behalf. We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individuals' behalf," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said In a written statement released to FOX News Sunday.

The White House indicated its Web site managers were going to seek out and block online petitions so that people can only sign up for information individually.

Additionally, Fox News reported that The White House has closed the controversial 'flag@whitehouse.gov' email account.

White House officials say they're not intentionally trying to contact people who don't want to be contacted, and they don't want the controversy to deepen.

But Scott Stanzel, former spokesman for President George W. Bush, said the White House, and not advocacy groups, are to blame.

"The Obama White House developed their own Web site. They are in charge of Whitehouse.gov and what people do on there. They are responsible for monitoring that and they are responsible for making sure that people can't misuse Whitehouse.gov," he said. "On that point, they failed.
From that respect, the explanation is not thorough and, in my view, places blame where it shouldn't be. They should be looking in the mirror instead of pointing the finger at third parties."

Fox News story here...

As I originally wrote about on Friday, August 14th, Fox News Channel's Major Garrett has raised questions regarding The White House sending unsolicited emails regarding health care reform. This led Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to give evasive answers, and Fox News Channel to file a Freedom Of Information request, to obtain the full e-mail distribution list for the Axelrod health care e-mail and all internal White House e-mails about the list's creation.

The White House for the first time Sunday somewhat acknowledged that people across the country received unsolicited e-mails last week on health care from the administration, suggesting the problem on third-party groups it claimed placed the recipients' names on the distribution list.

In a written statement released exclusively to FOX News, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the White House hopes those who received the e-mails without signing up for them were not "inconvenienced" by the messages.

"The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House Web site. The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list, again, all e-mails come from the White House Web site as we have no interest in e-mailing anyone who does not want to receive an e-mail," the statement said. "If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the e-mail, we hope they were not too inconvenienced."

The White House previously would not answer questions on how the e-mails landed unsolicited in so many inboxes. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday said he couldn't give an answer until he saw who received the e-mails because he doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."

Yet the White House ignored repeated offers from FOX News to share with the administration such e-mail addresses, to help determine how the recipients ended up on the White House distribution list.

"Further, we suggest that they unsubscribe from the list by clicking the link at the bottom of the em-ail or tell whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore. We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual’s behalf.""

Now, if there is truth to the statement put forward by The White House that "The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list," how exactly can The White House claim that the problem lies with "third party groups it claimed placed the recipients' names on the distribution list?"

Does this White House really have that little control over private information that may or may not need to be interactive with White House servers, and what does this tell us about... oh, let's say privacy with regards to our health records??

Full article here...

Support Whole Foods Market

While there are a few Whole Foods Market stores within reasonable driving distance of my home, I had never heard of them until this weekend. However, due to a Wall Street Jornal Op-Ed written by the company's chief executive, John Mackey, in which he criticized President Obama's health care plan and offered his own alternative, I am now a proud supporter (and soon to be consumer) of their stores.

I was particularly intrigued by the plan that Whole Foods Market offers their employees, as it is similar to that which my employer offers. We have a medium-deductible plan, for which employees are eligible immediately upon direct hire. This plan has a reasonable payroll deduction for the first year. Dental coverage and eye-care are available as well. Upon completion of one full year of service, 100 percent of all three services are paid in full by my employer. My employer does not offer "Personal Wellness Accounts," which I find to be a particularly impressive part of the Whole Foods Market program.

I took some time to look over the Whole Foods Market website. I found it very interesting that this company operates on the surface in a way that would typically be supported by the most extreme left of America. On their front page they have an article about a couple that "raises grass-fed beef and lamb and pastured chicken, turkey and pork." They talk about the "Green Children's visit to Bangladesh" and have a song inspired by this visit. On their blog is "Eating with Dave Matthews Band," and they have a "signature reusable shopping bag" endorsed by Sheryl Crow.

Honestly, this is a store I typically might never consider shopping in. I'm guessing it has a feel much like "One Earth" (if you watched The Goode Family you know what I mean) but today I'm making exceptions, in support of a great Capitalist who needs our help.

I hope you all consider Whole Foods Market if they have a store in your area. A tip of the hat to Nicke at The Goomba News Network for the article that gave me enough interest to learn more.

Sebelius: Public Health Care Option "Not The Essential Element"

As reported by The AP, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed "victory" on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Read more of the story here....

See some comments from those enraged liberal Obama supporters here...

Mixing Business with Politics at GEICO

Well, that didn't take long. I just checked my email, and received this letter from GEICO:

Please include the following line in all replies.
Tracking number: GT20090816_0000000251

GEICO Indemnity Company

August 15, 2009

Dear Soloman:

Thank you, first of all for your business and also for your interest in this matter.

This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why.

Well you deserve an answer.

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.

GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we’re saving customers’ dollars, we’re easy to do business with, we’re looking out for our policyholders. That’s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on.

As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.

As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.

Our business is auto insurance. We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message.

It is of little benefit to us if a program gets so much attention that our message is drowned out.

GEICO Corporate Communications


Now, let me get this straight... please - ANYONE correct me if you think I'm lost here.

They said - and I quote, "As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues." As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates. "

Yet they seem to have taken a position on this controversial issue?!?!

"It is of little benefit to us if a program gets so much attention that our message is drowned out."

However.. isn't it of great benefit to you if a program which you sponsor receives great attention???

"Our business is auto insurance. We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message. "

Again.. what better way to "reach a large audience with that message" than to advertise with the broadcast that has the largest audience. Last I checked, Glenn Beck has the best ratings in Cable News in his time slot...

Looks Like GEICO will be losing a customer...

On a side note... I received auto-replies from Roche and ConAgra as well.

{update 12:25am}

Here is the reply I sent to GEICO:

To whom it may concern;

Your letter to me stated "As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues"

Honestly, it seems that's exactly what you did. If your business interests were really "We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message" you would consider the ratings of the Glenn Beck Program and realize that one statement does not an entire program make.

I am very bothered by this decision, especially knowing that a majority owner of GEICO is owner of t he Berkshire Hathaway Company William Buffet, a large contributor to the DNC and to Barack Obama's Presidential campaign.

As I stated in my original communication, I will be monitoring this situation, and when my policy comes up for renewal I will take this issue into consideration. I also have posted both my letter and your reply letter on a personal blog, and will be communicating with my family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors, asking them to consider this "non-position" GEICO has taken should they decide to shop for insurance of any type.

Sincerely,

Soloman