VIDEO: OBAMA HECKLED ON BUS, IGNORES

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."

"Liar!"

"Quit!"



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



h/t to Hot Air Pundit

VIDEO: O'KEEFE GOES AFTER THE CENSUS

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

DENVER POST CALLS OUT ANDREW ROMANOFF

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