Category Archives: Gangsta Govt

Did the White House Shut Down NBC’s ‘The Playboy Club’?


“DVD sales are easy money and so are internet sales. While the first three episodes of The Playboy Club are on Hulu, the other seven episodes will not be made available on any internet service or DVD. The networks are not in the business of turning away easy money…”

Cast of 'Playboy Club' on NBC
Cast of ‘The Playboy Club’ on NBC

One might wonder why we would ask such a question, but by the end of this article you will not be so uncertain.

Sometimes television can reflect history, but sometimes it can be recreated too perfectly as is the case with NBC’s The Playboy Club.

NBC’s local affiliate said it well:

Old Man Daley and The Playboy Club

The new TV show The Playboy Club takes place in early 1960s Chicago. And if you’re going to do a series about Chicago, you have to include a political angle, right? As the saying goes, Chicago is to politics as Paris is to romance. The Playboy Club, of course, wants to be about both.

So one of the main characters is a young lawyer named Nick Dalton, who wants to leave his past as an Outfit mouthpiece behind and become Cook County State’s Attorney. The Outfit, though, doesn’t want to leave Dalton behind. Dalton constantly hounded by the son of crime boss Bruno Bianchi, who reminds him that the mob can help him get ahead in politics.

In 1964 Chicago, only one man could help you get elected state’s attorney: Mayor Richard J. Daley, chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Among local offices, state’s attorney was second only in importance to the mayor. It was important to have a Regular in there, who wouldn’t prosecute the Machine. In 1960, Daley handpicked Daniel Ward, who looked clean because he was the dean of the DePaul University Law School, to run against Republican incumbent Benjamin Adamowski. Adamowski had to go because he was investigating city workers for taking bribes to allow a trucking company to short-weight construction supplies. Legend has it that Daley stole the 1960 election for John F. Kennedy. But he stole just as many votes for Ward, who won by 25,000.

Given Daley’s concern with looking proper, it’s impossible to imagine him slating an ex-Mob lawyer. Daley wasn’t mentioned on The Playboy Club, but he’s an interesting part of the story, and not just because of his power to elect a state’s attorney.

The New York Times wrote about the political impact of the show:

Crime, Sex, Politics and Regular Folks

In the world of prime-time television, Chicago is home to rough-and-tumble politics, street-smart cops and robbers, and the sexiest nightclub of its time, as well as to plenty of down-to-earth folks who make you wonder how that nightclub arose in their midst.

That may not be the way Chicagoans see themselves, but it describes the city’s image as viewed through the lens of modern-day television. Most Americans get their idea of the nation’s cities from what they see on TV.

And that, Political Arena readers, is why ‘The Playboy Club’ had to go.

Indeed in one episode Hugh Hefner’s lawyer pays off the Daley machine with a “donation” of a Jaguar.

This administration has been rife with “pay to play: Chicago style corruption scandals such as Solyndra, BrightSource, and BP; the Goldman Sachs and lobbyist revolving door in the administration, the picking of winners and losers, the illegal offshore drilling ban, the shutdown “green energy competition” such as the Keystone Canadian Oil Pipeline, the yanking of perfectly valid coal mining permits, EPA regulatory shutdown of American power plants, the steering of stimulus funds to Democrat donors and political districts,  the favors handed out to White House allies in ObamaCare, the huge political payoffs to get the votes of a few resistant Democrats for key votes, the closing of GM dealerships owned by Republican political donors, the list can go on to fill the page.

A little Chicago style persuasion is nothing new for this administration.

Remember the Ford commercial with the average Joe who said that one of the reasons he bought a Ford was because it didn’t take bail-out funds? It struck a chord with many people and received a great deal of attention.

National Review:

On Tuesday, Detroit News reporter Daniel Howes reported that White House officials leaned on Ford Motor Company to yank a popular TV and Internet ad critical of competitors who took federal bailout money. According to Howes, “Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House” questioned the firm’s CEO Alan Mulally (who had earlier supported the bailout despite his company’s refusal to participate). Howes concluded: “You’re not allowed, in Obama’s America, to disparage the auto bailout, or — indirectly — Obama. Especially during the election cycle.”

Both Ford and the White House officially deny any political pressure received or applied. But White House press flack Dan Pfeiffer refused to answer when I asked him whether anyone at the White House had ever contacted anyone at Ford to complain about the bailout ad.

So the Washington Post comes to the administration’s defense:

A left-wing Washington Post writer immediately scoffed at concerns about the administration’s heavy hand because the Ford fiasco “is being denied by the parties on both sides.” Must be nice to mainline White House talking points for a living. For the rest of us, reality intrudes.

But the Post spoke too soon because they were the next target:

The Washington Post this morning ran an excellent piece about how President Obama has come up way short on his promises to help the housing market.

And so . . .

Today, Obama will travel to Las Vegas where he will outline new steps to help borrowers refinance. The White House leaked the story to the Post’s chief competitors on the national newspaper scene, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as Reuters.

But not the Post.

The White House launched a profanity laced tirade against CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson for her very responsible coverage of the Justice Department Gun Running Scandal:

CBS has been caving and is making Atkisson “unavailable”. She will be lucky to have a job after this is over:

Today, I called CBS News in an attempt to interview Attkisson. I was told by CBS News senior vice president of communications Sonya McNair that Attkisson would be unavailable for interviews all week. When I asked why Attkisson would be unavailable, McNair would not say.

I’ve also heard from a producer at another media outlet that has previously booked Attkisson that they tried to book her since she made news with the Laura Ingraham interview yesterday. They were also told that she would be unavailable.

Recall what Attkisson told Ingraham yesterday: [The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.

The White House banned a reporter from the press pool because she covered some citizens who were protesting President Obama. When called on this as the obvious intimidation that it was, the White House denied yanking her passes,  yet every reporter in the pool knows darn well that the reporter was banned.  SF Gate:

In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle’s report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we

would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

The White House froze out the Boston Herald for a time because the administration was offended that it ran an op-ed from Mitt Romney.

The White House has threatened to use regulatory action to punish insurance companies, health care providers etc to keep them from telling their customers about how ObamaCare and other Democrat legislation is going to raise proces and interfere with care:

Michael Barone: Gangster government stifles criticism of ObamaCare – LINK

Welcome to gangster government… – LINK

OPPRESSION: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS “SHUT UP” – THREATENS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR POLITICAL FREE SPEECH! – LINK

THUGOCRACY – OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THREATENS INSURANCE COMPANIES TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS DUE TO LEGISLATION OR ELSE – LINK

Democrats attacked Deere, Caterpillar, and AT&T for publishing in government mandated reports how ObamaCare was going to impact them. Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman threatened to have congressional hearings to trash them.

And how can we forget Gibson Guitar, who has been raided twice by federal agents with no charges filed. Gibson Guitar is suing to get its property back. The Administration said that it believed that Gibson Guitar was using tropical woods harvested improperly, but Gibson’s competition uses the same woods and construction methods. Gibson also has environmental watch groups that inspect operations.  There is one difference between Gibson Guitar and competition, Gibson donates to Republicans.

There are some, and I suspect many, Democrat operatives in the elite media who are all for this kind of behavior, so long as they are not the victim of it. CNN political analyst Roland Martin advocated that Obama Go “Chigaco-Style Al Capone Gangsta” on political opponents:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

Of course how can we forget what the Democrats did to ABC. I wrote this piece for my college blog in 2006:

Democrats Threaten Broadcast License of ABC Over Path to 9/11 Film

Democrats have issued a thinly veiled threat against ABC’s broadcast license over their 9/11 miniseries, The Path to 9/11, set to air last Saturday night, in a press release issued by the Office of the Senate Democratic Leader last Thursday. Bill Clinton contacted ABC CEO Robert Iger in an effort to yank the film. Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer and producer of the film, said in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity that political pressure from Democrats is causing edits to the film.

So partisan Democrats I have a question for you. Where is all the squawking about oppressing free speech now? Allow me to refresh your memory. When The Department of Defense issued a press release saying that they were hiring a public relations team to help counter enemy propaganda it was called an “assault on free speech.”

When the Justice Department investigated a series of classified leaks from the CIA to the New York Times it was called a “witch hunt” and a violation of the free speech rights of the Times. The leaker, Mary O’Neil, was appointed to Clinton’s National Security Council by former NSC Chief Sandy Berger, who later went to work for the Inspector General’s office in the CIA. Her job was to find leakers. Democrat talking heads in the media said that it would violate O’Neil’s free speech rights if she were prosecuted for leaking classified information….. no kidding. Let us not forget that Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to stealing and altering secret documents from the National Security Archive in preparation for the 9/11 Commission’s investigation.

The film was made in consultation with 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, “which praised the film’s ‘commitment to accuracy’ and ‘sincere respect for the subject’ ‘I worked closely with the filmmakers and the network to ensure the mini-series accurately reflects both the facts and the spirit of the Commission’s findings,’ wrote Kean” (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060908-045948-7634r).

Clinton attorney Bruce R. Lindsey, who runs Clinton’s foundation, “wrote Kean last night that he was ‘shocked’ by the former New Jersey governor’s role, saying: ‘Your defense of the outright lies in this film is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission and tarnishing the hard work of your fellow commissioners.’”

“Kean said the filmmakers have made changes — in one case, re-shooting an entire scene — based in part on his recommendations. ‘The suggestion that this is some right-wing group in Hollywood is absurd,’ he said” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701454.html).

So it boils down to this, who are we to believe: Bill Clinton, whose propensity to tell lies has not only been proven, but is renown in the American political lexicon; Sandy Berger, who stands convicted of stealing and altering documents from the National Security Archive to “prepare” for the 9/11 Commission investigation; or Thomas Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission? Even an NEA lobbyist knows the answer to this.

Be sure to read the rest of the piece HERE. ABC cowed to political pressure from  the Democrats and edited out parts of the film that were confirmed as accurate. Not only were members of the 9/11 Commission on hand during production to insure accuracy, Dr. Michael Sheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit” was also consulting. Dr. Sheuer wrote a book bashing President Bush so one cannot say that it was a “right-wing hit job” with any credibility.

The naked will to censor the film by the Democratic leadership inspired the production of a new documentary film called Blocking the Path to 9/11. Ironically those who produced The Path to 9/11 said that they expected to be on the receiving end of political heat from Republicans. Some things you just have to see for yourself:

NBC’s cable news channel also jumped on the anti-Path to 9/11 bandwagon.

ABC, in spite of high demand, refuses to release The Path to 9/11 on DVD. DVD sales are easy money and so are internet sales such as Netflix and Hulu. While the first three episodes of  The Playboy Club are on Hulu, the other seven episodes will not be made available on any internet service or DVD. The networks are not in the business of turning away easy money.

Like NBC, ABC sure has learned its lesson about airing anything that Democrats might not approve of:

ABC does an infomercial for ObamaCare yet refuses health care ads from Republicans – LINK (2)

ABC Calling Sarah Palin “Barbie” – LINK

ABC saying that “Limbaugh has a history of making racially offensive comments” – but offered no proof  – LINK

ABC: If you oppose Obama on policy, your racist – LINK

ABC cut out key substantive portions of the Palin interview (the parts that showed how knowledgeable she was) – LINK (More on that interview HERE and HERE)

Another ABC interview of Sarah Palin where substantive parts of her answers are edited out – LINK

ABC questions asked to Republicans vs Democrats – LINK

ABC’s Sawyer: ‘Protesters Roaming’ DC, ‘Increasingly Emotional, Yelling Slurs and Epithets’ – again no proof in the video – LINK

ABC Gushes Over Patrick Kennedy and Ted’s Fight for Health Care: ‘Dad’s Final Wish’ Came True – LINK

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Argues With McCain on Health Care: ‘What Would You Say’ to Ted Kennedy? – LINK

ABC’s Cokie Roberts: Glenn Beck ‘Corrupting’ Democracy, a ‘Traitor’ to American Values – LINK

Glenn Beck blasts ABC for doctoring clips in smear piece – LINK

ABC Casts Democrats as Profiles in Courage, Republicans as Grief-Exploiting Meanies – LINK

ABC News engages in blatant misrepresentation in anti- TEA Party hit piece – LINK

ABC News Managing Editor: I didn’t even know about the ACORN story – LINK

‘Liberal’ ABC Radio Boss Firing Profitable Conservative Hosts, Hannity Leaves ABC Syndicator – LINK

Howard Kurtz Blasts ABC for Dumping Andrew Breitbart from Election Coverage Because of “Newsroom Uprising” – LINK

Connecticut: Five Years in Jail for Teeth Whitening

Why? Because the State Dental Association used it’s political muscle to get a law passed to criminalize the competition. This is what government does when it gets too powerful and the money gets too fast and loose.  So the Institute for Justice is suing in federal court. They made this video to mock the state for this boneheaded maneuver:

Big Government.com:

Lisa Martinez was forced to shut down her businesses or face five years in prison.   Her crime?   Teeth whitening.

In 2008, Lisa opened Connecticut White Smile in the Crystal Mall in Waterford, Conn., where she sold an over-the-counter whitening product and provided a clean, comfortable place for customers to apply the product to their own teeth, just as they would at home.

As it turns out, teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls all across the country. People are so eager to use these services because they provide great results at a fraction of the cost that dentists charge.

As Lisa puts it:

My customers loved my convenient location and affordable prices.  Owning my own business gave me a flexible schedule that allowed me to spend more time with my family.

Unfortunately, as happens all too often, happy customers + happy entrepreneurs = unhappy special interests.

In June, the Connecticut Dental Commission decided to clamp down on teeth whitening.  The commission ruled that offering teeth-whitening services is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist.

The ruling even applies to businesses like Lisa’s Connecticut Smile White, where customers apply the product to their own teeth.  Some people may be wondering:  What’s the difference between whitening my teeth at home with a product I buy online and whitening my teeth at a shopping mall or salon with an identical product? Remarkably, in Connecticut the difference is that the shopping mall and salon entrepreneurs can be thrown in prison for five years.

Thankfully, economic-liberty expert Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice has teamed up with Lisa and other Connecticut entrepreneurs to change that.   This week IJ filed a federal lawsuit to end Connecticut’s government-enforced teeth-whitening cartel.  Paul explains:

The Dental Commission’s new teeth-whitening law has nothing to do with public health or safety and everything to do with protecting licensed dentists from honest competition.  Rather than trying to compete by lowering prices or improving their services, the dental cartel is using government power to put their competition out of business. That’s unconstitutional.  And that’s why we’re taking the dental cartel to federal court.

NBC shows flagrant bias in ObamaCare story

Political Arena Editorial by Chuck Norton

 

A textbook example of media bias. The subtext of the story “smart conservatives agree with Obama” and they push that bias by presenting a partisan view as “the expert’s view”

You might be thinking “Now wait a minute, it was fair because they had Jay Sekulow on”. That sounds good but look at the story again. NBC has Jay Sekulow on for the 29 states opposing ObamaCare, but then they have the Maryland politician who advocates the Obama point of view which is that the commerce clause gives the government unlimited power to control our lives, err I mean the economy [because you cannot control the economy with out controlling people /wink wink, nod nod].

So we have one advocate from each side, OK that is fair so far, but then the “expert” is brought in. We know this because NBC put the word “expert” right under Tom Goldstein’s name. Of course Tom Goldstein has experience covering the court, but he is no more of an expert than Jay Sekulow or Mark Levin.  What they don’t tell you is that Tom Goldstein was a lawyer for Al Gore.

When NBC or an elite media outfit looks for a talking head they wish to present as “the experts”, they do not pick an expert at random and ask him “What do you think?”. They find a person they can present as an expert who will say exactly what they want said. This is a very common practice in news rooms all across the country.

Of course ObamaCare is unconstitutional. The Maryland politician says that everyone uses health care so the Commerce Clause covers it. Well everyone eats too, and everyone needs shelter, everyone needs clothes. So was it the intent of the Founding Fathers to have a government that is totally unlimited?  ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it takes the entire idea of limited government and tosses it right out the window. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, addressed the idea of reinterpreting a clause in the Constitution to give the federal Government total power.

James Madison on the General Welfare Clause and limited government:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

So where did this crazy idea of a nearly unlimited Commerce Clause come from? Shortly before WWII FDR was not able to advance parts of his socialist progressive plan because the Supreme Court kept striking down laws his party was passing. So FDR threatened to add members to the Supreme Court using Article II of the Constitution to add perhaps a dozen seats to the Supreme Court all filled with cronies. In fear of this the Supreme Court capitulated ” and expanded the Commerce Clause in a way that had never been intended to please FDR. This became known as FDR’s court packing threat.

The Federal Government Rabbit Police

I wish I was kidding. The next time the government wants to raise your taxes, here is just one more place where a budget cut is in order.

Via Big Government.com:

What happens when your photo is taken for the newspaper with your fluffy little bunny rabbit? Great publicity, right? Well, not if a U.S Department of Agriculture agent buys a copy of that paper! Enter the Rabbit Police!

Yes, you read correctly, the RABBIT POLICE, and the above story is how my buddy Gary Maurer in Hilton Head Island, S.C., was “busted” in the summer of 2006!

Gary is a full-time performer working heavily during the tourist season at numerous resort areas and tourist attractions on the island. One day, the local newspaper showed up at the show and took some photos to accompany a short blurb about the tourist area. The photo that ran included one of Gary’s beautiful Angora Rabbits.

Imagine Gary’s surprise when, a couple of weeks later, a field inspector from the USDA contacted him explaining that he needed to have a license to use the rabbits in his show. He was so surprised, in fact, that he though it was a joke! He was quickly informed it was indeed no joke.

They made arrangements for the inspector to make the three-hour trek from Columbia, S.C., to Hilton Head and Gary went through the process to become licensed.

More (you just cannot make this stuff up):

Just a few weeks ago, Mark called and asked me to write this as an article rather than a post on the board, because he’d heard of yet another instance of the Rabbit Police striking in another state! He put me onto the trail of Brad Machette, one of the busiest fair and festival workers on the East Coast. Before I had a chance to call Brad to interview him, Mark called back and said, “You’ve got to talk to Marty Hahne of Dazzling Magic, too. He has an incredible story.” Since I have so much free time, I called both of them.

First, Brad’s bust: While working an agricultural fair in North Carolina, Brad discovered an issue which required local veterinarians to examine his livestock which include a rabbit and a chicken.Yes, Brad uses a chicken. We won’t get too deep in this issue other than to say if you are in North Carolina (and possibly other states) and use livestock that is handled or petted by the public (i.e. the people watching your show), you have to have a hand-washing station within sight of where you display the animals.

Brad didn’t have a hand-washing station. So, being the professional he is, Brad improvised and made what he called the “Redneck Handwashing Station.” He even called it that in his show.

The regulation required Brad to actually stop his show at the “point of petting” for he and the audience member to go over to the Redneck Handwashing Station to wash their hands. This improvised sanitation facility consisted of a few bales of hay, a longneck garden sprayer, a garden hose, a plastic container, soap and paper towels. Before you ask, no, hand sanitizer is not an acceptable substitute.

After Brad thought he’d satisfied all the regulations, along came the RP (Rabbit Police), N.C. Division!

They informed Brad of the law and told him they could have fined him on the spot for not having a license, even if he didn’t know about it. I’d guess that comes down to the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” clause. As I understand the law, you cannot use your rabbit legally even after you’ve applied for the license until you actually receive the documents, which have to be with you at all times.

Fortunately for Brad, they inspected and licensed him “on the spot” and gave him his license number even though he didn’t physically have his license. Interestingly enough, Brad was told his rabbit had to have at least as much off stage time as it did on stage time. Now THAT’S funny. Apparently, there is a rabbit union out there as well!

Marty’s story dates back to the summer of 2005 and has some really interesting moments in it. If you know Marty, you realize he has a very lively sense of humor. Keep that in mind as we proceed.

Marty was busted at a library show. He was working a library system he’d never worked before. He was all set up for his show, rabbit loaded and just about ready to start. Suddenly, the librarian came to him and said, “Marty, I need to see you in my office immediately” with a look of dread in her eyes. Marty couldn’t possibly imagine what was wrong.

Once they got in to her office, she informed him that there was an inspector from the USDA in the audience and that she would give him trouble about his rabbit. Marty, being quick on his feet, replied, “What rabbit?” “Exactly,” said the librarian, “Let’s hide him in my office until she leaves!” Sounded like a good plan.

Marty does the show, the whole thing, while scoping out the audience trying to figure out which person was the inspector. Then he spotted her. A burly-looking lady wearing boots, jeans and a denim shirt. He smoothly omitted the rabbit routine, and the show went fine. Afterwards, several moms were asking about his shows for schools, birthday parties, etc. Then, suddenly, the conversation was halted by a badge being shoved into the mix.

“I’m with the USDA, and I need to see the permit for your rabbit,” she said.

“There wasn’t a rabbit in the show,” Marty replied.

“I know, but there’s a rabbit with you in this photo from the show yesterday!” she countered. I forgot to mention that this was Marty’s second day of shows for this system.

Marty was able to put her off until she could come to his home for a proper inspection. Figuring he’d appeased the inspector, he planned on using his rabbit for the remainder of the shows. Upon getting to the second show that day, however, the librarian told him that she’d heard of the problems his rabbit had caused. Word traveled fast thanks to email! Every other librarian in the system — and even the entire county — had heard about the “problem” Marty’s rabbit had caused.

Finally, it was time for the inspection at the Hahne’s home. Marty decided to ask some questions.

“My friend has a snake,” he said. The inspector quickly told him they don’t regulate snakes.

“No,” Marty said, “I mean he feeds his snake rabbits. He breaks their necks and drops them in the cage for the snake’s food. Does he have to have a permit for that?” Again, she told him there’s no regulation for that.

“So I could break my rabbit’s neck and feed him to my friend’s snake and I wouldn’t need a license?” Marty asked.

“Correct,” she said, “But you need a license to use him in your magic show.”

Obama’s EPA: Jobs Don’t Matter

Daily Caller:

The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.

Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles.

Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.

The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.

“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs…  and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”

Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.

ABC’s Jake Tapper Blasts Obama’s Double Standard on Jobs and Outsourcing

ABC’s Jake Tapper on the double standard: “What would candidate Obama have said if Bush’s jobs adviser ran a company which outsourced thousands of jobs and paid no taxes on $14 billion in profits?

Jeffery Immelt with Obama

Politico (and Politico is very left friendly folks):

The results of GE’s tight relationship with the Obama administration are starting to show.

The company’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, went from being an Obama ally on green energy to being one of his top outside advisers on the economy in the last two years.

In the process, The New York Times reports, GE had one of its best years in 2010, in part by getting a huge tax benefit from Uncle Sam.

Last year, the company paid nothing to the government. Instead, the government paid GE $3.2 billion in tax breaks.

“Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore,” according to The Times.

Some combination of aggressive lobbying for green energy tax incentives — for which the administration had pushed aggressively in the Recovery Act and in President Obama’s budgets to Congress over the last two year — and strategies run out of its in-house tax department have made GE one of the leading companies in reducing its corporate tax burden.

When Immelt was named the chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in January, he acknowledged that his company has a reputation for running most of its business overseas, the result of more than three decades of reducing its domestic operations to minimize costs.

“I know that despite the fact that 60 percent of GE’s revenues are outside of the United States, I personally and this company share in the responsibly and the accountability to make sure that this is the most competitive and productive country in the world,” Immelt said in January.

But he neglected to mention that GE’s offshore operation also allows it to avoid paying most of its taxes to the federal government.

GE’s spokesman told the Times that reducing its tax burden is part of the company’s “responsibility” to its shareholders.

But it also appears to run contrary to Obama’s rhetoric about slowing the rapid offshoring of American jobs.

Obama Administration implemented policy to have political appointees review all FOIA requests….

So much for transparency…

Those who understand politics and corruption know what this means. This gives political appointees time to destroy documents, colluded to “get stories straight” and time to plan prior restraint and/or retaliation against those trying to gain information. This is the administration that promised unprecedented transparency. … If Bush had done this….

Yahoo News, with some editorial comments in red:

WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama’s administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa’s letter, Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of “significant and potentially controversial requests.”

Mary Ellen Callahan told them that political appointees reviewed the agency’s FOIA response letters for grammatical and other errors and did not edit or delay their release, the letter states. She also told the committee that Homeland Security abandoned the practice in response to the AP’s article, according to Issa’s letter. [WHAT!!. LOL – Political appointees are not going to have grammar nearly as good as a secretary/PR pro in a federal department. This reasoning is laughable. apparently the practice was not abandoned as the administration indicated – Editor]

On Sunday, Oversight panel spokesman Frederick Hill said Issa sent the letter “because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the veracity of DHS officials” on the matter. He did not elaborate.

Issa asked the agency to provide the documents by Jan. 29.

Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.

The agency’s directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for “awareness purposes,” regardless of who had filed them. The AP reported that the agency’s career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked. [This is disturbing because what we have seen from the NYT, Washington Post, CBS,NBC.ABC,CNN.MSNBC is that in unison, within minutes of the shooting in Arizona these elite media outlets immediately using the same spin blamed Sarah Palin and other conservatives. Several of these same outlets talking heads chastised Sarah Palin for not speaking out, and when they did they in unison said that she was injecting herself into the news. This reminds me of the 2000 election when G.W. Bush picked Dick Cheney for VP the news in unison said that Cheney was picked because he had “gravitas” (implying that Bush had none). Why have a state-run media when the so-called legit media is willing to act as the PR arm of the Democratic leadership? A reporter is looking into something he shouldn’t, so the administration leans on said reporter’s bosses and bye-bye FOIA. – Editor]

According to the directive, political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.

Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released, but they can be distributed without those officials’ approval.

Flashback: Rand Paul Launches on Busy Body Bureaucrat.

I disagree with Rand Paul on some foreign policy issues, but this day my hat is off to him. It must have felt SO good to tell one of these looters what we all are thinking.

Oh and if you do not know exactly what I mean by a looter please do not make yourself look silly by trying to guess.

My family had to buy one of these new, expensive “super energy saver” washers with no agitator and uses very little water and energy which is being pushed by the government. The washer is a disappointment. I always have to use the extra rinse feature and with heavy clothes I sometimes have to wash them twice.

Leftist conference of unions, students, legislators and leftist community groups: How we will disrupt capital and create economic uncertainty. How we can create a new financial crisis, bring down the stock market….

Editor’s Note – This was a post from just a few months ago and is a little reminder that the “Occupy” protest going on in New York right now was planned in a galaxy not so far away by the same usual suspects.

UPDATE – ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Organizer Is Marketing Analyst Whose LinkedIn Lists Work For Investment Bankers – LINK

Occupy Wall Street ‘Stands In Solidarity’ With Obama Front Group Funded by the Wealthy Financiers and Bankers They are Protesting – LINK

[Editor’s Note – and if these partially misguided protesters get their way the Democrats will pass a tax increase law that will not benefit the students, it will benefit the super rich because, as is the case with all of these “soak the rich” efforts, they either chase wealth out of the country and/or exceptions for those who are politically connected get included in the tax code and it will not be the GE’s and Google’s who pay, it will be the small and medium-sized competition who will get soaked.]

Steve Lerner SEIU

UPDATE Steven Lerner, the man in the video overtly plotting a new economic crisis, has visited the White House four times as well as the Treasury Department.

Watch this video:

Longer tape of this conversation:

Transcript and full article at Business Insider:

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

UPDATE I – Glenn Beck: This is a clear case of economic terrorism – LINK.

UPDATE II – SEIU sued under RICO statute (Via The Blaze):

Cockroaches, bugs, mold, and flies. These are just some of the props and rumors allegedly employed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) against the American unit of French catering company Sodexo. And the company’s had enough.

Fed up with tactics that include intimidation, extortion, and yes, sabotage that apparently includes plastic cockroaches, Sodexo filed a lawsuit against the SEIU last week under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

“We work constructively with unions every day but the SEIU has crossed the line by breaking the law,” Robert Stern, general counsel for Sodexo USA, said in a statement. “We will not tolerate the SEIU’s tactics any longer.”

SEIU has been fighting to represent 80,000 hourly Sodexo employees, which is above and beyond the 180,000 hourly employees who are already union members. The union regularly stages protests against the company to make its point, like this one last fall on the campus of George Mason University. The video alleges SEIU bused in protesters, who can be heard chanting, among other things, “As long as it takes, whatever it takes, we’ll be in your face!”

Sodexo’s complaint, filed in federal court in Alexandria, VA, alleges acts of SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from, and harm, the company.

And just what exactly might those acts look like? Sodexo gives the details:

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

  • throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
  • scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
  • lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
  • violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
  • harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

The complaint, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks an injunction against the SEIU and its locals and executives, as well as monetary damages to be determined by the court.

UPDATE III – Member of Congress to Attorney General Eric Holder – LINK.

EPA Using Tax Dollars for Partisan Advertising

Welcome to Chicago style corruption, just what we warned you about before the election. Just what you on the left denied would happen, is happening.

Via some great reporting at Big Government.com:

Your tax dollars at work…
The EPA is now paying the American Lung Association to attack Republicans:

[Editor’s Note – This is a billboard just a few miles north of where I live attacking Fred Upton. In a crazy ruling by the court, they handed the EPA the power to regulate CO2 as if it were a pollutant. The Constitution says that all lawmaking power rests with the Congress. It is with this “authority” under color of law (fake law) that Obama has instructed the EPA to create a Cap & Trade scheme against the will of Congress and the American people. This is profoundly and expressly unconstitutional and a complete violation of Separation of Powers.

So the Republicans are moving to take this power away.  This billboard is Obama’s response. The dishonest narrative is “Republicans want to poison the air and kill this child “.  CO2 is what we breath out and what trees and plants breath in, without it we would all starve. Almost any economic activity creates some CO2 so this is an “excuse” to regulate anything and everything by using unelected bureaucrats and ignoring Congress altogether.

This is abuse of power on its face, Democrats know this but just don’t care, and some Republicans are afraid of being accused of wanting to poison the girl on the billboard.  The only way to put an end to this is to vote for bold conservative candidates overwhelmingly.]

The ALA put up four billboards like this one near Rep. Fred Upton’s office in Michigan. Upton is the House Energy and Commerce Chairman. (PlowShareGroup)

The Environmental Protection Agency is paying the American Lung Association to run attack ads against Republican members of Congress.

JunkScience.com reported:

“The American Lung Association has targeted House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton for his efforts to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions by placing billboards within sight of his district offices linking climate change with increased childhood asthma,” reports E&E News PM.

But as we reported last week in “EPA owns the American Lung Association,” the EPA has paid the American Lung Association over $20 million in the last ten years, and has paid the ALA many more millions in a symbiotic relationship going back to at least 1990.

The EPA-ALA relationship works something like this: EPA pays the ALA and, in return, the ALA agitates for more stringent EPA air quality regulation, including by lawsuit. Now it’s billboards.

In addition to defunding National Public Radio, the House GOP should look at the EPA’s funding of American Lung Association.

It doesn’t matter that the EPA policies will cause your electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket. It’s all about fundamentally changing America.

David Gregory at NBC is all upset by Michelle Bachmann’s description of White House behavior as ‘Gangster Government’

Video – Michelle Bachmann: GM care dealers who donated to Republicans were targeted for closure. Those who donated to Democrats in many cases were taken off – LINK.

 

Michael Barone: Gangster government stifles criticism of ObamaCare – LINK.

 

Car dealerships being closed that are profitable are owned by mostly GOP donors LINK.

 

THUGOCRACY – OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THREATENS INSURANCE COMPANIES TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS DUE TO LEGISLATION….OR ELSE LINK.

 

CNN Analyst Advocates Obama Go “Chigaco-Style Al Capone Gangsta” on Political Opponents LINK.

 

How the EU Makes a Law – Stalin Would Be Proud

Do you think that politicians who brutally critique the EU are over the top? If you do you are about to change your mind.

There is sometimes a gulf of a difference between the law and the law as applied. Having heard lectures from Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s) and a lecture from England’s Lord Monckton this outline is how they describe how an EU law is made in actual practice.

Before we get into the details, think on these preliminary facts for a moment, 5/6th of all laws in member countries such as England are directives from the EU and  EU courts can overrule member nation courts.

When member states had referendums on the EU there were commercials lying to the people saying that the vote was just about a trade agreement creating a European Common Market. This was a lie as it was so much more as you are about to see. Ever since that time the governments of those who voted no (France etc) went ahead with it anyway. In Ireland where the referendum lost the EU said that Ireland will vote over and over again until it passes and that after it does pass there will be no more referendums. So Ireland did just that. The EU outspent the UKIP and the EU Democracy Group 10 to 1 and yet the state sponsored media accused UKIP of nosing into the votes of other countries and of trying to buy the vote. Ireland even broke its own laws when it comes to equal time when it came to the vote. Now the EU takes very careful steps to see to it that it does nothing that could trigger a referendum in other member states.

The problem is that in many EU member states such as England, until recently they did not have political parties that were interested in limiting the power of the state. The conservative party in England moved far to the left after Margaret Thatcher retired. We often here how the Democrats here in the United States are a socialist/corporatist leviathan state party and how the Republicans are socialist/corporatist light party and while these claims are slightly exaggerated for political effect, in Europe these claims are a genuine understatement.

The EU is in essence rule by bureaucracy and like government bureaucrats seeks to rule in secret to avoid public accountability or scrutiny.

So how does it work.

Step 1:

27 unelected commissars  are appointed and each member state gets a member to represent them. They are not elected and most people have no idea who they are. When they decide that they want to pass a law they meet in secret and make a rough outline for what they want the law (called a directive) to be.

Step 2:

The rough outline for the directive is sent to the Committee of Permanent Representatives which meets in secret (less chance of people rising up against it you see). They are not elected and no one outside of the bureaucratic elite knows who all of them are. Until recently they were not even mentioned on the EU web site. The only reason the group even gets a slight mention is because UKIP and the EU Democracy Group in the EU Parliament had a fit about it.

The Committee of Permanent Representatives does the markup session on the bill (directive) and makes it sound legally neat and tidy, but they hold no hearings, after all what is the point of hearings when you meet in secret? If this committee decided the proposed directive is dumb they can just ignore it and stop it right there.

Step 3:

The marked up and formatted bill is send to the Conference of Ministers, who is also not elected, and who also meets in secret, decides if they will accept the it or not (sensing a pattern yet)? With all of this secrecy and all of this bureaucracy how can anyone be held accountable? If something goes bad who is a finger pointed at? Finger pointing is next to impossible which is by design. By the way some of the known members of these various super committees are former Soviet era apparatchiks.

Step 4:

The directive is sent to the EU Parliament to a vote. The EU is elected and has meetings out in the open. They can vote yes or no, but if they vote no it becomes a law anyways. The EU Parliament is powerless to stop these directives nor can it amend or change them in anyway. This is like a school board when it wants to adopt “Outcome Based Education” to get the federal grant even though it has proven to lower test scored and be a failure in general; it has parental input meetings which mean nothing and will not change anything, but are made to provide the illusion of public input.

Step 5:

The directive (law) is sent to the member nations to have the local parliaments rubber stamp them which the larger parties in England usually do as there has been very little difference between them since Lady Thatcher retired. If the member nation’s parliament votes no, too bad, they enforce it anyways. If the member nation moves to actively resist such enforcement they are fined. The member nation can refuse to pay them, for now, but they have regulatory ways to suck money out of a member state anyways.

All is not lost. The Freedom & Democracy Caucus in the EU Parliament has been steadily growing and according to pills the UK Independence Party (UKIP) according to polls will leap to the second most powerful party in England in the upcoming elections. The best way to describe UKIP is the Tea Party of England accept their leadership is a bit more centralized and incredibly brilliant (I am not saying the Tea Party people are dumb, but rather that the UKIP leadership is a group of people who have incredible political savvy and candle power. UKIP Ideologically would closest resemble economic freedom wing of the Republican Party, but with more tolerance for collective action than many Republicans, the Tea Party’s zeal for popular sovereignty and process, and a Chris Christie like attitude. UKIP is devoutly anti-communist.

UKIP started out as a one man protest. That man is Nigel Farage a small businessman from London. When he realized what was going on he stood up and started giving speeches. He got in the reporters faces. he challenged his opponents to debates, and quite foolishly those opponents accepted that challenge and in debate after debate were rhetorically dismantled by Farage. His movement has grown and is now the UKIP which will be taking the UK Parliament by storm in the upcoming elections. Nigel Farage is Europe’s Sam Adams.

Would YOU buy a used car from this European Commission? – 

AARP Making Mega-Millions on Corrupt ObamaCare “Easter Egg”

This is how some corrupt corporations make millions and scam the taxpayers. The AARP is supposed to be non profit. That means that they are not supposed to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, they are not supposed to be engaged in partisan politics and they are not supposed to be engaged in a huge conflict of interest. AARP has done all of this at the expense of their members and employees.

Related:

AARP and Many Others Hiking Premiums or Dumping Coverage Because of ObamaCare

Corrupt AARP Health Care Deal Puts Seniors at Risk

CBO: Obama is wrong, cuts in Medicare will result in benefit cuts. The corrupt AARP angle. UPDATED!

Ethics You Can’t Believe In: Special Interests Dominate Fiscal Responsibility Summit

Michael Barone: Gangster government stifles criticism of ObamaCare – UPDATED!

Previously from my old college blog:

OPPRESSION: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS “SHUT UP” – THREATENS HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR POLITICAL FREE SPEECH!

THUGOCRACY – OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THREATENS INSURANCE COMPANIES TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS DUE TO LEGISLATION….OR ELSE

Barone:

“There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it’s actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans — the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Secretary Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law’s “key protections” take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that “according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact . . . will be minimal.”

Well, that’s reassuring. Er, except that if that’s the conclusion of “some” industry and academic experts, it’s presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that “any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law.” But she’s pretty vague about the numbers — “up to $1 billion in 2013.” Anyone who watches TV ads knows that “up to” can mean zero.

As Time magazine’s Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and “some” industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, “It’s a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs.”

But Sebelius has “zero tolerance” for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require “state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases” (which would presumably mean all rate increases).

And there’s a threat. “We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: Those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.”

That’s a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.

“Congress shall make no law,” reads the First Amendment, “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Sebelius’ approach is different: “zero tolerance” for dissent.

The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone’s business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration’s transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.

“The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?” economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, “Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this ‘misinformation’ be against the law.”

According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk — or not talk — about any issue they want.

But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. “Zero tolerance” means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.

The closing paragraph of Sebelius’ letter to AHIP’s Karen Ignagni gives the game away. “We worked hard to change the system to help consumers.” This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni’s organization. We roughed you up a little but we eventually made a deal.

The secretary goes on: “It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start.” In other words, shut your members up and play team ball — or my guys with the baseball bats and tommy guns are going to get busy. As Tyler Cowen puts it, “worse than I had been expecting.”

Michael Barone,The Examiner’s senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

 

 

UPDATEBarone continues:

A few days before my Examiner column accusing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of thuggery and gangster government for her threats against health insurers who contradict the administration line on the costs of Obamacare, my friend John Hoff, who worked on health care policy in the Bush administration, published a piece on the Heritage website describing some of the things the administration might be able to do under Obamacare. Including de facto price controls without explicit authority. Sounds like a primer on gangster government—taking away people’s property without due process of law. All the more reason to repeal this appallingly bad legislation.

CORRUPTION: 40% of top Obama fundraisers get posts

“Your doing a good job Brownie.” Those are the words spoken by President Bush to the soon after to be doomed FEMA Director Michael Brown. Democrats including Barack Obama chastised the Administration for appointing cronies to government positions. Obama promised to appoint professionals based on merit. As we can see this was just another lie.

USA Today:

WASHINGTON — More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees. Ambassadors earn $153,200 to $162,900 annually.

The list of donors who got jobs:

RAISED MORE THAN $500,0000

Nicole Avant     Ambassador to the Bahamas

Matthew Barzun     Ambassador to Sweden

Don Beyer     Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein

Jeff Bleich     Ambassador to Australia**

Richard Danzig     Member, Defense Policy Board

William Eacho     Ambassador to Austria

Julius Genachowski     Chairman of Federal Communications Commission

Donald Gips     Ambassador to South Africa

Howard Gutman     Ambassador to Belgium

Scott Harris     General Counsel, Department of Energy

William Kennard     Ambassador to the European Union**

Bruce Oreck     Ambassador to Finland

Spencer Overton     Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Thomas Perrelli     Associate Attorney General

Abigail Pollack     Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino

Charles Rivkin     Ambassador to France and Monaco

John Roos     Ambassador of Japan

Francisco Sanchez     Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade

Alan Solomont     Ambassador to Spain and Andorra**

Cynthia Stroum    Ambassador to Luxembourg**

RAISED BETWEEN $200,000 and $500,000

A. Marisa Chun     Deputy associate attorney general

Gregory Craig     White House counsel

Norman Eisen     Special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform

Michael Froman     Deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs

Mark Gallogly     Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Max Holtzman     Senior adviser to the Agriculture secretary

James Hudson     Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Jeh Johnson     General counsel, Department of Defense

Samuel Kaplan     Ambassador to Morocco

Nicole Lamb-Hale     Deputy general counsel, Commerce Department

Andres Lopez     Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino

Cindy Moelis     Director, Commission on White House Fellows

William Orrick     Counselor to the assistant attorney general

John Phillips    Chairman, Commission on White House Fellows

Penny Pritzker***    Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Bob Rivkin     General counsel, Transportation Department

Desiree Rogers     White House social secretary

Louis Susman     Ambassador to the United Kingdom

Robert Sussman     Senior policy counsel, Environmental Protection Agency

Christina Tchen     Director, White House Office of Public Engagement

Barry White     Ambassador to Norway


RAISED BETWEEN $100,000 and $200,000

Preeta Bansal     General counsel, Office of Management and Budget

Laurie Fulton     Ambassador to Denmark

Fred Hochberg     President, Export-Import Bank of the United States

Valerie Jarrett     Senior adviser to the president

Kevin Jennings     Assistant deputy secretary of Education

Steven Rattner     Treasury Department adviser

Miriam Sapiro     Deputy U.S. trade representative**

Vinai Thummalapally     Ambassador to Belize

RAISED BETWEEN $50,000 and $100,000

Eric Holder     Attorney general

David Jacobson     Ambassador to Canada

Ronald Kirk     U.S. trade representative

Rocco Landesman     Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts

Susan Rice     Ambassador to the United Nations

** Nominated, not yet confirmed by Senate

*** National finance chairwoman

Sources: Obama campaign, Public Citizen; White House; USA TODAY research

Government Motors Sponsors Chinese Communist Propaganda Film.

Washington Times:

In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party” is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. The auto website adds:

“According to an announcement posted on Shanghai GM’s official web site yesterday, whose title reads “joining hands with China Film Group, Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party…”

The report goes further:

“As the CCP marries totalitarianism with capitalism and fools the people with entertainment, only the “politically correct” or stupid–or those who pretend to be so–can get rich. And GM seems to know this very well. While Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volvo have all rushed to please China’s rich and powerful through physical enlargement (offering models of extended wheelbases), Cadillac gratifies the party orally, singing praises through a film.”

According to the above report, the film will discuss events that led up to the formation of the CCP following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the movie first went into production GM signed up Cadillac as the “chief business partner” with the Communist Party, stating: “Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party.”

Wow, how much suffering has the Chinese Communist Party caused, how many of it’s own has it murdered, how many dissidents jailed, how many Christians persecuted?

I have an older Chevy Caprice and an older Chevy Blazer and I have been satisfied with those vehicles so I am happy to keep fixing them up.  My family bought a Chevy Trailblazer but it started falling apart right after the warranty expired.

The bailout was bad, the way they stripped Republican dealership owners of their businesses was bad, the commercial that painted a false picture about the bailout money being returned was really bad;  no one likes being lied to.  I am now beyond the last straw. I do not see how I could ever buy another GM vehicle again in good conscience.

Patriot Act Warrants That Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing Triple Under Obama

This is exactly the opposite of what Obama promised.

KOAT News:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A special type of government search warrant that allows authorities to search homes without informing the owner for months is becoming more common, Target 7 has learned.Imagine someone walking through your neighborhood, coming into your home and rifling through your intimate belongings.“(They) search through your home, your dresser drawers, your computer files,” Peter Simonson, with ACLU New Mexico, said.These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or “sneak-and-peek” warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.

The warrants have always been around, but their use has spiked since the revamped Patriot Act in 2005. The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to close to 2,000 in 2009.Upwards of 200 approved during that same three-year stretch came out of the 10th Circuit Court, which covers a handful of states including New Mexico. The majority of those delayed search warrants aren’t even for terrorism-related cases. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s figures, the majority of the warrants are for drug cases.“While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations,” Simonson said.The warrants are so secret that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office wouldn’t go on record with Target 7 about them.The ACLU said it expects delayed-notice warrant numbers to keep growing each year as long as certain parts of the Patriot Act remain on the books.

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another

Polling shows that like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s energy policy is going to send him packing in 2012. So what is the new strategy, tell people you are expanding domestic oil production and just not do it.

But expanding leases does nothing because often it is discovered that a lease cannot be trilled upon for technical reasons. Also, the government and environmental groups are not allowing companies to drill on leases they have paid for. The lease is just the first step of a process that takes years and the government can halt it any step of the way, and has as you will see below.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said after he was confirmed by the Senate that we have to find a way to get the price of gas to European levels (around $8 dollars a gallon). Even the new Democrats National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman just went on the record with a repeat of the Democrats energy policy, less domestic production, and more deficit spending for Chinese made solar panels.

Obama’s illegal offshore drilling moratorium explained. This will infuriate you. UPDATE – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confirms: Democrat Energy Policy is To Push For Less Energy and More Deficit Spending

This is a no miss short film explaining how the government can stop all drilling with the stroke of a pen….

On top of that Obama’s energy policy is now threatening to shut down the Alaska pipeline.

Heritage:

Obama Oil Policy Threatens Alaska Pipeline’s Existence

The invaluable Alaskan oil pipeline isn’t doing well these days. A remedy to help fix this precious resource is available but overzealous environmentalists and over-regulatory politicians are standing in the way.  The ever-decreasing amount of oil flowing through the pipeline is disrupting its effective operation — and threatening its very existence.

This problem could easily be solved by opening up more domestic drilling in Alaska. This would allow more oil to flow through the pipeline, maintain the correct temperature (which falls to dangerous levels with insufficient supply). But access to drilling permits has been severely reduced. With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, it is inconceivable that the Obama administration would continue to hinder production and add regulations that could eliminate yet another standard domestic source of oil. Yet that is what is occurring.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Russell Gold writes about the threat to kill the pipeline:

Shell earlier this year canceled plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer because, after five years, it couldn’t get a federal air-emission permit for an offshore drilling rig. Its plans for drilling in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska’s northwest coast are also held up by a legal dispute. Exxon Mobil is also waiting for federal environmental approval, and in February, the federal government denied ConocoPhillips a permit the company had been working on for five years.

…Shutting the pipeline would force refineries to find new and more expensive supplies of crude oil. And President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease oil imports would suffer a major setback.

While opening more drilling in Alaska would help significantly, there are even more places where permits and environmental regulations are causing problems. Heritage’s Nick Loris writes:

We can’t drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earthjustice filed a petition to review the permits, causing the Appeals Board to act.

Environmental activists within the Obama administration are literally halting the much needed domestic oil exploration America needs to improve our economic well being and reduce gas prices for hurting consumers. Saving the pipeline should be top priority right now.

What If Oil Producers Actually Received Subsidies Like Wind Energy Producers? – LINK

Related:

Obama: If you’re complaining about the price of gas get a trade in….

GAO – Government Shut Down Yucca Facility for Political Reasons, Not Scientific Ones

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

The latest lie from the left: Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive – UPDATED!

Sarah Palin: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promises aid to Brazil to help drill. While at home imposes drilling ban.

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Now Russia, along with Mexico, Spain, Cuba, and China are building oil wells just miles off our shores while Obama keeps Americans out. UPDATE – Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes.

If You Ever Needed Proof that Democrats Want Higher Gas Prices…

Obama back to old tricks: Pushing banks to give high risk loans again…

… all because this policy worked out so well the last time right?

[LINK – start at the bottom of the linked page and start reading to get a great education on the mortgage crisis. It started with the abuse and deliberate misapplication of redlining regulations to accomplish political goals and economic social engineering. When the OFHEO regulator tried to warn Congress Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that the regulator was lying and even used the race card against them, of course the worst economy since the Great Depression has shown us that everything wasn’t fine – Editor]

Via Weasel Zappers and Business Week:

(Business Week) — Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren’t offering credit to the city’s poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.

Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group’s targets, Midwest Bank Centre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis’s predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don’t discriminate, Midwest Bank Centre’s latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining. The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. “The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access,” says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.