Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010


While in Chicago, Barack Obama temporarily boarded a bus on Memorial Day for a 'man of the people' moment. He encountered something he likely didn't expect - hecklers. Aside from being asked when he was going to quit, why he hadn't been impeached yet, and called a liar, Obama was also heckled about the oil crisis in the Gulf. Obama's apparent deafness to that which he didn't want to hear was reminiscent of Bill Clinton, when the latter was approached by a reporter after the memo about his role in the Joe Sestak matter.

"When are you going to quit?"

"Impeach Obama."



Here's Clinton blatantly ignoring questions about Sestak. The similarities are striking:

h/t to Hot Air Pundit


From the guy who took down ACORN - James O'Keefe - we see courtesy of another one of his video expose's that the U.S. Census is more concerned with pleasing those in its employ than it is in paying for an honest day's work. O'Keefe, who got a job with the U.S. Census discovered that his bosses were much more frivolous with taxpayer dollars than private sector business owners would be with their own.

Welcome to the inherent problems of socialism. The upside for the Census workers is that they think their bosses are "cool". The downside for taxpayers is that they're getting ripped off. Not only is O'Keefe informed that he is to fill out his time sheet before his work is completed but he is dismissed early without having to correct his time sheet. He then complains, as a conscientious worker, only to find several levels of management all too eager to tell him to sweep his concerns under the rug.

Via Big Government:

Subsequent to the above video being released, O'Keefe and Breitbart appeared on ABC's Good Morning America. Watch as George Stephanopolous refers to O'Keefe as an "activist" instead of as a "journalist". Don't tell anyone but the mainstream media is like the wicked witch of the west and doesn't know it's drenched with water.

h/t to Big Gov't


Obama is quickly finding himself in the eye of a perfect storm. The Joe Sestak stonewall is beginning to crumble; the Blagojevich trial starts tomorrow; now the Denver Post has broken its relative silence since September of 2009, on the other alleged White House job offer - this one to Senate candidate and Colorado state house speaker, Andrew Romanoff. This storm doesn't even involve the oil disaster.

Via the Denver Post:
The Denver Post last September quoted unnamed sources that said Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, contacted former state House Speaker Romanoff, who hadn't yet announced his candidacy, with specific suggestions for Washington jobs in exchange for his staying out of the race against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet.

The White House denied any such offer, but sources told The Post's Michael Riley: "Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency."

Obama endorsed Bennet the day after Romanoff formally announced he was in the race.
The piece goes on to reference the subject matter of one of its own writers - Mike Littwin, a columnist with a distinct leftwing bent. Former U.S. Congressman from Colorado Bob Beauprez, who is doing interviews on these scandals, forwarded me Littwin's column and amazingly, Littwin appears to be getting quite frustrated with Romanoff, not because he thinks quid pro quo job offers are wrong but because hiding the details surrounding them is. Here is Littwin relaying an exchange he had with Romanoff's spokesman:
The question comes up because The Post's Michael Riley wrote a piece last September in which it was suggested that Jim Messina, the White House deputy chief of staff, did offer up job suggestions to Romanoff for just that purpose.

But Romanoff won't answer the question. And it's worse than that. According to Romanoff spokesman Roy Teicher, not only does Romanoff refuse to answer the question, he won't even say why he refuses to answer the question.

Let me give you a dramatic re-enactment of select parts of my conversation with Teicher:

Me: This Sestak/Romanoff thing keeps getting bigger. I'm wondering why you guys won't comment.

Teicher: That's been Andrew's position from the start.

Me: I get that. But why not?

Teicher: We're not going to comment.

Me: You have a campaign that's supposed to be based on transparency. Is this transparency?

Teicher: We're not going to analyze why we're not commenting. It's just a "no comment."

Me: So, you won't comment on why you're not commenting?

Teicher: You can come at this as many ways as you like, but we're not going to comment.
Be sure to read Littwin's entire column as well as Riley's article from September of last year.

h/t to Line of Sight


Rod Blagojevich's attempt to get Barack Obama to testify at his corruption trial failed last month when the judge denied the motion for subpoena. Nonetheless, with scandals involving the White House allegedly offering positions / jobs to Rep. Joe Sestak in exchange for dropping out of his primary race with Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Andrew Romanoff for dropping out of his race with incumbent Michael Bennet; the trial is likely to get additional play.

Obama may not be testifying but it's looking like the testimony of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a very distinct possibility. Emanuel has his fingerprints on both the Sestak and Romanoff scandals. The Blagojevich trial may just be the trifecta. Emanuel was identified by last week's White House memo as the person who dispatched Clinton to approach Sestak and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina was named by the Denver Post last September as the person who approached Romanoff.

Ukraine's KYIV Post is reporting on the Blago trial:
Judge James Zagel of the U.S. District Court ruled out a defense request to have Obama testify. But among those who may take the stand are senior White House staffers Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

"Given the former Governor's previous antics regarding this case, it's no surprise he is casting a wide net -- apparently from the President down to dogcatcher," a statement from Durbin's office said after the Senate Democrat was served.
This article also provides another angle of interest - Blago plans to testify and his attorney admits to having little to no control over him. Blago is scheduled to testify in his own defense. That alone would make for a great spectacle.
His attorney told an interviewer that he had neither the capability nor the intention of shutting Blagojevich up.

"He's a celebrity idiot, but he is a celebrity," Sam Adam Jr. told Chicago Magazine of plans to let his client testify.

Quieting Blagojevich would never work, he added.

"I can't. But you're going to see when he testifies. He's truly funny -- totally self-absorbed but truly funny," Adams said. "He's also one of the most insecure people I've ever met. It's such a strange dynamic."
Back in April, due to a glitch, the redacted portions of Blago's motion to subpoena Obama were revealed. Click HERE to read. The unredacted portions, read in the context of the two other scandals all but serves to create even closer parallels between Obama, Blago, Sestak, and Romanoff.


h/t to Free Republic


As the scandal involving the White House and Joe Sestak continues to get attention as a Watergate type scandal, Peter Ferrara's piece in the American Spectator likens Barack Obama to a president other than Nixon - Lyndon Johnson. Is it possible that Obama himself may be the primary victim in a perfect storm he has been helping to create? Will the stonewalling, the scandals, the disasters (both natural and man-made), the bad decisions, and the growing public disapproval clear the way for Obama's exit from the White House before 2012?

Ferrara implies there is a perfect storm brewing for Obama and points to three specifics as examples. First, the Sestak scandal, then the Oil disaster in the Gulf, followed by our exploding debt and deficits. He sounds rather certain of his prediction too:
Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn't even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being reelected. Like President Johnson in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won't even try to run for reelection.

I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership.
As bold as Ferrara's claim is, he actually leaves several things out that could serve to reinforce his argument further. The rise of state governments with Arizona's Jan Brewer and New Jersey's Chris Christie the best examples is also playing a role.

The Sestak scandal is likely to explode as a near exact scandal with the president's fingerprints all over it in Colorado begins to come to the surface as well. We also have the Rod Blagojevich trial starting this week and at its essence is something almost identical to what's at the heart of the Sestak and Romanoff scandals. - trading political positions for things of value. The Black Panthers case stemming from an incident at a Philadelphia polling station on election day in 2008 is still playing out too.

Perhaps all of the reasons that Ferrara left out of his argument that Obama may resign aided in his confidence.



It is becoming too apparent to anyone looking at this incident with eyes wide open that the flotilla launched and sanctioned by Turkey had no intention of delivering humanitarian aid as a primary goal. The goal was to break through an Israeli blockade during a time of war and cry victim. The videos released by Israel prove as much. Yet, the International community doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of its agenda.

Apparently, ditto the Obama administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now condemning Israel for defending itself against an act of war caught on video. Said Clinton:
"The United States supports the Security Council's condemnation of the acts leading to this tragedy."
Here is an excerpt from the U.N. Security Council's statement via BBC:
The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
Regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation?

Israel has a blockade set up for a reason. It was the thugs on the vessel from Turkey who attempted to break through that blockade and subsequently beat and stabbed the Israeli commandos who were doing their jobs. Oh, they also threw grenades.

h/t to Gateway Pundit
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive