Obama Challenges GOP to Work With Him

President Barack Obama has told congressional Republicans that it’s time to work more closely together to solve the country’s problems. He made the comments during a speech at a retreat of House Republicans Friday in Baltimore

Obama Lays Out Parameters for Bipartisan Health Reform

“If I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the experts and how it works – including doctors and nurses – ways of reducing people’s premiums, covering those who not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they’ve got pre-exisiting conditions that their coverage is not dropped just because they’re sick. That young people right out of college or as they’re entering into the work force can still get health insurance. If those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I’m game. And I’ve got a lot of these ideas.”

Obama on C-SPAN Coverage

Horrible answer, having committee meetings about a phantom bill while the real legislation is being written and negotiated behind closed doors both at the White House and in Congress is not transparency!

Obama on Earmarks

This is just ridiculous, Obama’s biggest cheerleaders – MSNBC, even pointed out the political slight of hand the Dems used to claim that the stimulus had no earmarks.

Obama on Lobbyists in Administration

Btw – PoliFact has already rated this fallacy as Obama promise broken and here’s a list of lobbyists Hot Air put out about a year ago… the list has grown since then:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Again violating it’s promise and guarantee of transparency, the White House has moved to block the testimony of former top aide to First Lady Michelle Obama, Jackie Norris.

Republican efforts to interview a former top aide to Michelle Obama in the controversial case of a fired inspector general have been stymied by the White House, the the top Republican looking into the case said Tuesday

The White House counsel’s office has blocked Republican investigators from interviewing Jackie Norris, former chief of staff for the first lady, about President Obama’s dismissal of former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

Republican investigators from the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform have wanted to question Norris — who is now senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps — since they discovered earlier this month that she met with Alan Solomont, chairman of CNCS on June 9, the day before Walpin was fired.

Solomont was heavily involved in the Walpin firing, according to the Washington Examiner, which first reported the response by the first lady’s office.

The White House move was revealed in a letter sent Monday to Norris by Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the oversight panel.

“Our request to meet with you was denied by (Corporation for National and Community Service) general counsel Frank Trinity,” Issa wrote to Norris. “Mr. Trinity told my staff that the White House counsel’s office has advised him that they were not permitting the corporation to make you available for an interview.

“The White House has averred that you had no role whatsoever in the president’s decision to prevent your testimony. If the information provided by White House officials is true, it follows that no colorable claim of executive privilege should impede your cooperation with the committee,” he continued.

Issa said in a statement Tuesday that he does not see a difference between this case and Democrats’ pressing the political nature of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys under President George W. Bush.

Judaical Watch has more at their Corruption Chronicles blog:

Norris is currently a senior advisor at the organization that oversees AmeriCorps, the country’s national services program which annually receives millions of federal dollars to conquer everything from illiteracy to affordable housing and the environment. During his tenure as inspector general, Walpin exposed a multi million-dollar fraud scheme in AmeriCorps’ most expensive program, a teaching fellow project at the City University of New York, and he busted a Sacramento charity, operated by a powerful Obama ally who happens to be the city’s mayor, for misusing nearly $1 million in federal grants.

The mayor (Obama pal Kevin Johnson) illegally used the money to pay volunteers for political activities, run personal errands and even wash his car. Johnson, a former professional basketball player, acknowledged that there “may have been administrative errors” and reached a settlement with federal prosecutors to repay about half of the money. This certainly indicates that Walpin did his job of rooting out government fraud, waste and abuse quite efficiently.

It also explains why Obama has yet to come up with a valid reason—other than retaliation for busting his corrupt friend—to fire Walpin. The president violated a law that safeguards the independence of government agency watchdogs and the Democratic senator (Missouri’s Claire McCaskill) who authored the measure blasted the commander-in-chief for removing an inspector general who exposed widespread waste in taxpayer-financed community service groups.

Dan Spencer reporting at RedState.com writes:

In his December 20, 2008 weekly address, President-elect Obama set forth some soaring rhetoric regarding science:

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.  It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient.  Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.  That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

This video shows the time line of the story:

Suppressing Science in the Obama Administration

The EPA Suppresses a 98-page internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming Declan McCullagh reports:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Our friend Dan Spencer reports:

E-mail messages released this week show that Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

The suppressed Carlin report was especially inconvenient for Obama’s cap and trade push:

Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

Just another case in point that clearly shows  Obama and his administration will do anything to advance his agenda up to and including lying to the American people and suppressing scientific data.

Today as ABC runs it’s “All Obama, All Day” programing dedicating huge chunks of its broadcast day to push the Presidents Health Care Reform – which I and many dub ObamaCare™ there is growing opposition to the presidents plan from all quarters including his own party.

A major issue most people are becoming very weary of is the continued lie’s the president has repeating a) that you can keep your own doctor and b) that the Public Option is competitive and levels the playing field.

I created a video today that addresses b) above:

Here’s ABC’s program schedule:

- Charlie Gibson will broadcast ABC Nightly News from the Blue Room at the White House
- A special edition of “Primetime” will air at 9 p.m. central time from the White House.

- “Good Morning America” will interview Obama, with a card-carrying member of the Obama Fan Club, Diane Sawyer, playing host. (Gee, wonder if she’ll ask Obama any tough questions. Maybe she’ll ask how “Bo” is getting along in the White House…or if Michelle has been shopping lately…)

- “Nightline”, “Top Line”, and “World News” will all dedicate special programming time to the President’s plans for health care reform.

What we know so far:

Now here is the very interesting part:

- the President will answer questions from the audience that have been pre-selected by ABC news.

- ABC news is NOT allowing Republicans to offer an opposing viewpoint or response to Obama’s presentation.

- ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising from conservative groups that want to offer an alternative viewpoint regarding the White House health care plans. This is unprecedented – a television station turning down advertising revenue!

Rick Scott, Chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights adds

It is unfortunate – and unusual – that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House healthcare event. Healthcare is an issue that touches every American… The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC’s decision – as of now – to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public.

Don Surber has a great post today detailing, what I think is one of the more honest polls on this issue, a Washington Post poll that points out Most Want Health Reform But Fear Its Side Effects

The Washington Post-ABC News poll’s key findings:

7. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)? 54% smaller. 41% larger. (Biggest gap in favor of smaller government in 7 years.)

15. For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

The quality of the health care you receive: 83% satisfied, 16% dissatisfied.

Your health insurance coverage (84% have it): 81% satisfied, 19% dissatisfied.

How concerned are you, if at all, that current efforts to reform the health care system will [ITEM] – very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned?

Reduce the quality of health care you receive: 81% concerned, 18% not

Reduce your health insurance coverage: 82% convcerned, 17% not.

Increase your health care costs: 84% concerned, 9% not.

Increase government bureaucracy in the health care system: 78% concerned, 19% not.

Limit your choices of doctors or treatments: 79% concerned, 20% not.

Sharply increase the federal deficit: 84% concerned, 8% not.

22. (HALF SAMPLE) Would you support or oppose a federal tax on health insurance benefits people receive through their employer if those benefits cost more than

17-thousand dollars a year? 24% support, 70% oppose.

26. Just your best guess, if the health care system is changed, do you think the quality of your health care will get (better), get (worse), or remain about the same? 16% better, 31% worse, 50% same.

For more on the counter infomercial see Healthcare Horserace for up-to-date info

From

Obama Closes Doors on Openness

Critics say the president has left a huge loophole for himself on the issue of transparency

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a “new era” of openness, “nothing has changed,” says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. “For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.”

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama’s much-publicized Jan. 21 “transparency” memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a “presumption” of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies “if practicable” for cases involving “pending litigation.” Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other “lawyerly hedges” means the Holder memo is now “astonishingly weaker” than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

It’s becoming increasingly hard for the left to deny the NeoCon label being ascribed to President Barack Obama

…about open transparent government…

Behold: Obama Blocks access…

“We are deeply disappointed,” said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, “that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration.”

I’m sure Phleger, Farrakhan, Wright and Ayers had a poker night at the White House Obama doesn’t want the press to know about.

Once again, the press is shocked, SHOCKED I say that Obama flip flops (more than a hippie commune) on his campaign rhetoric.

Well, one good thing about all this is the need for colonoscopy examinations  are down (especially in the MSM) given everyone’s head is shoved in their asses.

Who needs the 1st Amendment when you have Hope’n'Change instead?

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus project has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Ah, the incredibly elastic concept of “unique circumstances” being used to justify the stifling of free speech.

Politics, Chicago-deep-dish style.

Or, put differently, “How dare you petition the government!”

Thanks a flipping ton, 52%.

X-Posted at The Vent-O-Matic.

President Obama Promised “Sunlight Before Signing” bills in an attemp to provide more tranparncy and  openness… I Guess 1 out of the first 11 bills signed or 10%  is close enough for government work?

CATO, in the link above, has examed what they call “The Promise that keeps on breaking”

President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it’s the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.

To the thrill of technology and transparency advocates, candidate Obama promised sunlight before signing: “As president,” his campaign website said, “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

But nine days after taking office, he signed a bill into law without posting it on Whitehouse.gov for five days. Since then, 10 more bills have become law over the president’s signature, and only one has been posted online for five days — and that was for five days after it cleared Congress, not after formal presentment. Two bills have been held by the White House for five days before signing — but they weren’t posted online!

It is easy to dismiss the five-day promise as an idea that would not have changed much anyway. Bills coming out of Congress are faits accomplis, aren’t they? They are not.

Members of Congress are highly skilled political risk balancers, and the president’s firm insistence on leaving bills sitting out there, unsigned, after they pass Congress would have a significant effect on congressional behavior. It would threaten to reveal excesses in parochial amendments and earmarks, which could bring down otherwise good bills. Recognizing the negative attention they could draw to themselves, representatives and senators would act with more circumspection, and last-minute add-ons to big bills would recede. A firm five-day rule at the White House would also inspire the House and Senate to implement more transparent and careful processes themselves.

Whitehouse.gov has seen some bills posted, and some have been posted before the president signed them, but a few things have to happen for the president’s promise to see real fulfillment.

From, The Vent-O-Matic…

The President of the United States as Don Corleone…

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you (the CEO’s of big banking companies) and the pitchforks.”

Yep, the pitchfork wielding mob that you, Community Organizer in Chief, set-up, nursed, have now fed billions of our tax dollars of our money, and who’s Perpetual Outrage^TM you go out of your way to stoke daily.

It’s the Chicago Way, of course.

Fuck you, Mr. President.  The only thing standing between you and the pitchforks is apathy among the electorate – and that can change on a dime, bucko.

I ask again, is there anyone – anyone – still alive and breathing at RNC headquarters these days?