Obama Makes “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” List

Obama Makes “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” List

December 17th, 2010

Judicial Watch

Judicial  Watch, the public interest group that investigates and  prosecutes  government corruption, today released its 2010 list of  Washington’s  “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in  alphabetical order,  includes: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

President Barack Obama: Remember the promise President Obama made just after his inauguration in 2009? “Transparency   and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Instead,  Americans have suffered through lies, stonewalling,  cover-ups,  corruption, secrecy, scandal and blatant disregard for the  rule of  law…this has been the Obama legacy in its first two years.

In 2010, Obama was caught in a lie over what he knew about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to   sell the president’s vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich’s former Chief of   Staff John Harris testified that Obama had personal knowledge of  Blago’s  plot to obtain a presidential cabinet position in exchange for   appointing a candidate handpicked by the President. In fact, according   to Harris’s court testimony, Obama sent Blagojevich a list of “acceptable”   Senate candidates to fill his old seat. Obama was interviewed by the   FBI even before he was sworn into office. He claimed he and his staff   had no contact with Blagojevich’s office. Unfortunately federal   prosecutors never called the President or his staff to testify under   oath.

The President also broke his famous pledge to televise  healthcare  negotiations. And in 2010, we learned why he broke his  pledge. In what  is now known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”   scheme, Obama and the Democrats in the Senate “purchased” the vote of   one of the last Democrat hold-outs, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who   opposed Obamacare over the issue of covering abortions with taxpayer   funds. Nelson abandoned his opposition to Obamacare after receiving   millions of dollars in federal aid for his home-state, helping to give   the Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome a Republican   filibuster. Same goes for Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu,   who received a $100 million payoff in what has been called “The Louisiana Purchase.”   (The Kickback was so corrupt that Democrats stripped it out at the  last  minute. The Louisiana Purchase, on the other hand, became law of  the  land.)

Obama lied about his White House’s involvement in  this legislative  bribery that helped lead to the passage of the  signature policy  achievement of his presidency….

Read more.

Left-Winger Confirms Obama Corruption Scandal

Left-Winger Confirms Obama Corruption Scandal

August 18th, 2010

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Obama Convict

A radical left-wing activist has confirmed Republican charges that the Obama administration runs an extensive and potentially illegal propaganda campaign from the White House. We noted yesterday that Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a 36-page report noting that the president has used taxpayer dollars to finance “a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign” made up of “inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives.” Often, this involves “covert propaganda,” in which officials ask others to repeat White House talking points without mentioning their connection to the president. (Read our summary here.)

Evidently, 36 pages was not enough. The committee missed an event.

Sally Kohn wrote in The Huffington Post yesterday that she attended a May 12, 2009, meeting in which multiple Obama administration officials asked the radical Left to promote its legislative agenda.

I reported on this “cultural policy” summit called by Valerie Jarrett nearly a year ago. Dozens of the most extreme activists on the left-wing’s fringe met in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with eight Obama administration officials, all of whom report either to Jarrett or First Lady Michelle Obama. The meeting’s summary noted that “more than 60 artists and creative organizers…came together for a White House briefing on Art, Community, Social Justice, National Recovery.”

Among other things, Kohn confirms Jarrett was present, although the meeting’s notes tried to airbrush her out of the summit.

The Obama administration officials made it clear they wanted the fringe leftists to help shape the president’s agenda, then promote the Obama party line. Tina Tchen, who works in Jarrett’s Office of Public Engagement, told attendees, “The administration wants to sustain energy from the election process and turn it toward the agenda.” Buffy Wicks, who would later take party in the infamous NEA call, “asked briefing participants to think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.”

The activists then broke into groups to “ideate” on how to best promote the president’s legislative agenda. Michelle Miller of the SEIU suggested participants: “Create a counter narrative to the Luntz memo/Republican talking points designed to destroy health care reform. They can offer creative, humorous voices that can think outside of white papers or New York Times op-eds to communicate effectively about the importance of health care reform and diminish the increasing attacks on our movement for reform. For example, the satirical webisodes SEIU is producing with comedy writers with content from Lutz [sic.] memo.”

Sally Kohn’s panel lamented the failure of the 2007 amnesty bill but hoped, “Artists and cultural organizers can play a critical role this year on helping advance the legislation, as well as over the coming years helping bring the humanity and personal/family stories of the issue to light.”

Kohn revealed yesterday that this meeting was the beginning, not the end, of the radical Left’s collusion with Obama. “The White House convened a weekly meeting called ‘Common Purpose’ at which DC progressive organizations were invited,” she wrote. At these Common Purpose meetings, “the White House dictated its agenda and appealed to the professional left for back-up.”

In other words, Obama administration officials, led by Valerie Jarrett, have directed a year-long covert propaganda campaign from the White House aimed at securing support for its agenda from the most radical elements of the political spectrum.

Kohn is no right-winger. She is a self-described “Jewish lesbian” who once wrote a diary entry on DailyKos entitled, “Why I Have a Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Neither were the other participants anything but beyond the pale. The invitation list included several associates of Van Jones and a number of left-wing conspiracy theorists who believe the CIA sells crack in minority neighborhoods.

Perhaps the worst example of the people Obama is willing to play ball with is someone who calls herself “Rha Goddess.” Rha’s biography describes her as “the former International Spokeswoman for the Universal Zulu Nation.” That group teaches “The Bible has been tampered with and must be reinterpreted” in accordance with the Koran. Its manifesto teaches its members their opponents are “a race of Devils,” whom they “should fight in The Name of Allah, Jah, Jehovah, Eloahim, The Creator, The Most High Supreme One, God.”

Kohn’s revelations should provide fresh fodder for investigators, and a clear window into the radical bent of this administration.

The question we should all ponder is: Which is more frightening, the Obama administration’s covert propaganda campaign or the anti-American extremists they got in bed with in order to execute it?

Union Official: Obama used me as middleman to speak to Blago

Union Official: Obama used me as middleman to speak to Blago

June 29th, 2010

It seems as if Obama’s protestations that he was not involved with the Blagojevich nominations are turning out to be a little shaky.

Revealed today in the Chicago Sun Times:

“Tom, this is Barack, give me a call,” the soon-to-be President-Elect said on the message.

After Balanoff sent word through an Obama aide to call him back, Obama returned his call later that night.

“Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat,” Obama told him.

Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.
Obama said he wasn’t publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.
“I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria,” Balanoff said Obama told him. “I said: ‘thank you, I’m going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich.”

According to the article Balanoff met with Blagojevich 5 days later to recommend Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s choice.

Not exactly corruption, but it does fly in the face of Obama’s claims that he had no contact with Blagojevich. I call that a lie.

Will Obama Be the ‘Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century’?

06/17/2010 03:14 PM

The World from Berlin

Will Obama Be the ‘Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century’?

Can US President Barack Obama lead America away from fossil fuel dependency? German commentators don’t think so. Some say he is in danger of turning into an idealistic, one-term president like Jimmy Carter.

US President Barack Obama’s address from the Oval Office on Tuesday was supposed to be a moment of leadership during the worst environmental disaster in American history. But critics from across the political spectrum wondered afterwards whether he’d shown leadership at all. The geyser of oil in the Gulf of Mexico seems, technologically, to lie beyond anything either BP or the US government was prepared for, and Obama failed to mention any specific new ideas.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now,” he declared, without offering policy details. Of course, it wasn’t a policy speech. But the fact that Obama failed to outline a clear path toward this clean-energy future seems to have disappointed a lot of people. “He didn’t boldly push an agenda,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, to Politico, the Washington-based news website. “I think a lot of people took that to mean lukewarm support for anything big.”

One immediate result of White House talks with the American arm of BP, though, was a series of concessions on Wednesday. BP Plc agreed to set aside $20 billion (€16.1 billion) in escrow to cover damage claims by shrimpers, restauranteurs and other Gulf-Coast residents hurt by the spill. The energy giant also said it would suspend shareholder dividends until 2011, when it expects to have a clearer notion of the catastrophe’s costs. Another $100 million (€80.8 million) will be set aside for compensation to BP workers hurt by the spill.

These gestures from the energy giant are the most tangible form of good news local residents have heard in the two months since the spill began. German commentators on Thursday think BP’s concessions are genuine as well as worthwhile — but they warn that Obama will need to paddle harder to realize the shining future he promised in his speech on Tuesday.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“Obama wants to lead the US out of its dependence on oil. Absolutely right. In fact it’s the very thing people have been wanting to hear from Obama for weeks.”

“But how cautious he seems, and how vague his suggestions. In 1961 President Kennedy declared a national mission to place a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Obama has chosen not to name concrete goals. No numbers, no time frame. He doesn’t dare mention how things will have to change to favor the climate. Professor Obama waits for new ideas and looks forward to a public debate. He doesn’t dare push the Senate to settle on a climate-change bill. This president won’t lead America out of a crisis this way — and he certainly won’t usher in a new era.”

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung argues:

“International markets have started to take environmental problems seriously. BP stock has fallen by almost 50 percent since the start of the oil catastrophe. Ratings agencies have downgraded its creditworthiness to near-junk status. And banks have stopped sealing long-term contracts with BP.”

“This situation is new. When oil companies in the past soiled the Niger Delta or the Amazon, markets tended to reward them — because corporations that skimped on security also increased their profits, to the detriment of the environment and the public interest. Now the costs of environmental damage have started to weigh on the balance sheet, with consequences extending to the possible bankruptcy of a multinational.”

“This new environmental sensibility has been possible not through a sudden display of reason on the markets, but through political decision-making. President Barack Obama made it clear (in early June) that BP won’t be exempt from criminal investigation. He’s also maintained a moratorium on new oil exploration on the deep-ocean floor, and looks determined to end corruption in federal oil agencies.”

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

“The oil company could be prosecuted by shareholders for paying billions upon billions into a fund for damages without being legally required to do so … It’s therefore a good thing that the US government has not asked for a blank check to cover damages. With the high sum (of $20 billion), the government can now offer quick and unbureaucratic First Aid (to people living near the Gulf).”

“But the firm can’t just run free now that an arbitrary sum has been set. What the final cost for damages might be, and which mistakes were made by whom, have yet to be determined. Civil and criminal complaints against BP have to remain an open possibility. This fund is just a first step toward stopping the holes that the oil catastrophe has ripped in the finances of many affected people.”

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

“When Obama surprised people by lifting his opposition to offshore drilling, just before the , he meant it as one part of a package deal: Citizens who worried primarily about high fuel prices were meant to be placated by expanded domestic oil production — as a gambit to win more acceptance for the core of his new-energy agenda. This strategy is marked by a typical American pragmatism, unlike Europe’s forces of climate protection. The emphasis rests on incentives to save energy, on building more nuclear-energy plants and on developing new ideas in renewable energy.”

“This is the right way to make America independent of problematic nations. Going forward, the mix will also have to include exploitation of (America’s) domestic energy resources, even if it also means heavier regulation to avoid a new disaster. But if this oil shock accelerates America’s shift to new energies, and moves the West away from a dangerous dependency on fossil fuels, then the catastrophe will have at least one positive outcome.”

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

“If Barack Obama isn’t careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century.”

“In his speech, Obama tried to make a virtue of an emergency. He said a shift to new energy sources was now a ‘national mission.’ Just as the nation once mobilized its powers for World War II, now it needs to conquer its devilish dependence on fossil fuels … If Obama wins this debate, and achieves a true shift in energy dependence, then his name will perhaps be mentioned again in the same breath with great American presidents.”

“Politically, though, it’s fraught with risk. His opponents have already charged Obama with using the Gulf catastrophe to advance his climate agenda in Congress. Republicans rely on the tendency of Americans to prefer cheap fuel and big cars with a certain level of power. Over 30 years ago, after all, another president called for smarter American energy policies in a televised speech from the Oval Office. He wanted to know, ‘Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?’ That president’s name was Jimmy Carter.”

— Michael Scott Moore

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 5, 2010 10:46 AM

My syndicated column looks at the White House bribe-a-thon. On a related business-as-usual note: Campaign Donors Working On Policy At The White House. On another business-as-usual note: Cashing out of the Obama administration.

***
The Obama Way: Bluster, bully, bribe
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

The White House took great offense this week when conservatives suggested President Obama might be trading a judicial appointment for a wavering Democrat’s vote on his health care reform plan. “Absurd,” a miffed administration official told Politico.com. Wherever could the American people get such an impression? Let us count the ways.

On Wednesday, the very day President Obama hosted ten swing Democrats who had opposed the expansive health care takeover bill in November, the White House issued a press release trumpeting the nomination of Scott M. Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson just happens to be the brother of Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah – one of the 10 invitees invited to sip wine and nosh on calorically-correct appetizers with the arm-twister-in-chief.

The seat on the 10th Circuit has been vacant for nearly a year. When one of the judges, Michael McConnell, resigned to take a lucrative post at Stanford Law School last summer, Matheson – Rhodes Scholar, law school professor, and dean — let the White House know right away he wanted the job. For nearly a year, there was no action. Liberal groups have been complaining for months about the glacial pace of Obama’s judicial nominations – a predicament they blame not solely on obstructionist Republicans, but on Obama’s own team of incompetent, indecisive foot-draggers who put the issue at the bottom of their priority list. (It’s worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson’s candidacy.)

As the National Law Journal pointed out at the beginning of this year, the Obama administration has been slower than the Bush administration in sending judicial nominations to the Senate, “ submitting 12 circuit nominations last year compared with 28 for Bush in 2001. The White House last named a circuit nominee on Nov. 4.”

Now, out of nowhere, comes announcement of Matheson’s nomination – in the heat of White House vote-grubbing to salvage the Democrats’ government health care designs? To quote Dana Carvey’s old Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live: How conveeenient.

Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that this is all merely coincidence. Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson’s judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama was wooing his brother, Jim? Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.

The perception of a Judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position. But full blame for creating that unmistakable perception lies squarely at the feet of the rank opportunists in the White House whose timing is worse than a broken metronome.

This debacle comes on the heels of damning disclosures about other possible White House bribery. Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania admitted to veteran Philly newsman Larry Kane that Team Obama dangled a “high-ranking” position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate race and left incumbent Republican-turned Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter alone. In Colorado, the Denver Post reported last fall that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for an Obama administration job to far Left Democrat Andrew Romanoff if he withdrew his challenge to White House-backed incumbent Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet.

And earlier this month, the Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by Justice Department to oversee an internal investigation into the shady dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cases, is now “the leading candidate for a federal judgeship – for which she is being vetted by some of the same offices she supposedly is investigating.”

So, wherever did we get the impression that pay-for-play is the Obama way? Somewhere, Chicago corruptocrat Rod Blagojevich – who wanted to play, but didn’t get paid — is laughing bitterly.