Oh, people, if only I was kidding about this, but here it is:

[snip] Emails among George Kaiser, head of the George Kaiser Family Foundation; Ken Levit, the executive director of the Foundation; and Steve Mitchell, who manages Argonaut Private Equity and was a member of Solyndra’s board; show that Vice President Joe Biden’s office were very gung-ho.”

They about had an orgasm in Biden’s office when we mentioned Solyndra,” reads a Feb. 27, 2010, email from Levit to Mitchell. A follow-up email from Mitchell to Levit later that day responds with: “That’s awesome! Get us a (Department of Energy) loan.” [snip]

Oh, yes, please do! Oh, no, wait – please don’t – the freakin’ company was on the verge of bankruptcy, but hey, why bother to let facts stand in your way? Apparently, that was the philosophy of the Obama Administration, too:

[snip] According to exchanges obtained by Fox News, in an email from Mitchell to Kaiser on March 5, 2010, Mitchell writes that “it appears things are headed in the right direction and (Energy Secretary Steven) Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra’s application and continues to talk up the company as a success story.”

In a Feb. 27, 2010, message from Levit to a party whose name has been redacted, Levit writes that there was a meeting with a group of people in “Biden’s office — they seemed to love our Brady Project — also all big fans of Solyndra.”

In an email from Mitchell to Kaiser on March 5, 2010, Mitchell writes that “it appears things are headed in the right direction and Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra’s application and continues to talk up the company as a success story.”

[...]

One email from Kaiser to Mitchell and Levit on Oct. 6, 2010, reads: “We can possibly reinforce the effort so long as it is in the form of ‘I thought you should know, in case it comes up’ rather than ‘can you help with this.’”

In another communique dated Oct. 6, 2010, Kaiser tells Mitchell and Levit that he is “concerned that DOE/Chu would resent the intervention and your problem could get more difficult. I would see an appeal as only as last resort an, even then, questionable. We need to discuss.”

In an email between Mitchell and Kaiser, Mitchell notes that the White House has “started a policy discussion as to whether a company should be able to get a second loan.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I have been focusing of late on how Eric Holder more than deserves to at least lose his job, and likely should end up behind bars for actions that have occurred under his tenure as DOJ Director. But I gotta say, Chu needs to be chunked out, too. This is despicable on his part to have propped up this company. I guess it was a turn on for him, too, and he just couldn’t help himself. Blech.

Oh, the DOE loan program chief, Jonathan Silver, has resigned. But Chu, with whom the buck stops, and who was CLEARLY involved in this boondoogle (or “heist”, if you prefer), is still safely ensconced. There is something seriously wrong there.

Holy cow. Meanwhile, the White House REFUSES to cooperate with a House subpoena for the release of more documents that relate to Solyndra. Gee, so surprised that the “Transparency” president is withholding that documentation. Ahem.

Aren’t you just so glad your tax dollars made Joe Biden so, um, happy? Yeah. Right. He can get off, alright, but it should be off the stage. Time for him to “take more time with the family” too, if you ask me.

In other news, an Atlanta PI said that Herman Cain is telling the truth, at least in the press conference he held the other day to address the allegations from Sharon Bialak. You may know that Cain offered to take a polygraph, but the investigator, TJ Ward, claimed that he utilizes a software that is even better at telling if someone is lying, one used by many law enforcement agencies:

[snip] CBS Atlanta’s Mike Paluska played Cain’s speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain’s every word.

If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here,” said Ward. “He is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of.”

The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.” According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.

During the section of Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”

During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.” Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.

“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired.”(Click here to read the rest.)

Well, THAT is certainly an interesting take, isn’t it?

Finally, on a totally different note, altogether, Happy Birthday, Marine Corps! It is the 236th birthday of this fine branch of the military. This is for you:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Semper Fi, Marines!

Consider this an Open Thread, friends!

Naturally, Obama’s Administration has continued the trend of Obama the Candidate. It has taken a major step back in that whole transparency thing, according to the AP. Even when he wins awards for being transparent, he has to do so in a closed ceremony – how much more hypocritical can one be?

Well, there is one bit of transparency that is now coming forth about Obama. And that is how he pays off his big campaign donors. Of course, it is not unusual for a president to give a plum position to a big contributor, but Obama has done so for about 200 – that is two hundred – of his supporters in government positions in just two years. By comparison, George W. Bush hired about 200 contributors over EIGHT years. Uh, yeah.

So much for that “change” in Washington from “special interests,” huh? I know, I know, I am not surprised, either, but I didn’t drink the Kool Aide and vote for the man who made this claim:

[snip] As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests. Kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“We’re here today to take it back,” he said.[snip]

Ahahahahaha – I know, I know, it is hilarious. Or it would be if so many people hadn’t bought this total BS.

And in direct contradiction to what the candidate said, here are some particulars of Obama the president’s sycophants:

Telecom executive Donald H. Gips raised a big bundle of cash to help finance his friend Barack Obama’s run for the presidency.

Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two other company executives collected at least $150,000 more.

After the election, Gips was put in charge of hiring in the Obama White House, helping to place loyalists and fundraisers in many key positions. Then, in mid-2009, Obama named him ambassador to South Africa. Meanwhile, Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states — though Gips said he had been “completely unaware” that the company had received the contracts.

[...]

• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.[snip]

The last one is particularly troublesome to me. I thought the nation generally frowned upon companies having inside tracks to getting our hard earned, tax paying dollars. I dunno about you, but for Level 3 to get that kind of cold, hard cash from the stimulus sounds like payback to me. (You know, the $3 Trillion stimulus that Obama thought was a joking matter the other day? When he flippantly, arrogantly, joked there weren’t as many shovel ready jobs as they thought, that one? What a piece of work. It is not a laughing matter to most of us, President Obama.)

Oh, but wait – there is more:

[snip] The appointment of George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton illustrates how the administration has rewarded many top fundraisers.

Overton wrote in 2003 that the influence big donors wield in elections means that an “overwhelming majority of citizens are effectively excluded from an important stage of the political process.” Yet Overton bundled at least $500,000 for Obama. He was named to the Obama transition team and in February 2009 was appointed principal deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy. Overton visited the White House more than 80 times from January 2009 through the end of 2010 for events ranging from small meetings with high-level staffers to social and entertainment events, sometimes with his wife, records show. Overton resigned the $180,000-a-year job in July 2010. He declined to comment for this story.

Overton is one of seven campaign bundlers who took jobs at Justice, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a $50,000 bundler. Holder had been deputy attorney general in the administration of President Bill Clinton. [snip]

Just to be clear, here is the problem with “bundling” contributions:

[snip] Bundling is controversial because it permits campaigns to skirt individual contribution limits of $2,500 in federal elections. Bundlers pool donations from fundraising networks and, as a result, “play an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns,” according to government watchdog Public Citizen. [snip]

Yes, that would be a bit of a problem. And it also helps explain how someone who has made such a mess of the DOJ got his position. Of course, I am referring to Eric Holder, who has been just a disaster in upholding federal law (the examples are too numerous to mention here, but the dismissal of the clear cut voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers case is the tip of the iceberg).

There is so much more to this story I cannot possibly recount it all here, so I urge you to read it all. It goes into more detail about those who got these positions, but I have to leave you with one more example:

[snip] In March 2009, Obama appointed $500,000 bundler and law school pal Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency. Two other bundlers at the FCC are chief of staff Edward Lazarus, a litigator and former federal prosecutor, and William T. Lake, a lawyer specializing in communications and e-commerce issues who serves as chief of the media bureau.

Genachowski had previously served as chief counsel to the FCC chairman in the 1990s, but his close ties to Obama have raised eyebrows. He has turned up so often at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that in March, congressional Republicans demanded an accounting of whom he has met with and what was discussed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know someone is spending a lot of time at the White House when US Representatives are demanding to know just what the hell they are doing there all of the time.

Ah, yes – the only thing transparent about Obama is how much “change” he is getting from his bundlers. I mean, members of his Administration. Heaven knows, they siphoned a whole boatload of it into his coffers. He is returning the favor with OUR change.

That is the kind of change I can do without.

But apparently, “Big Pharma” was just the beginning of the companies getting their hands into the Obamacare Pie. And how, as this headline attests, “Upton Expands Investigation Into ’Secret’ Obamacare Meetings.” Indeed, this confirms what many of us suspected to be true – Obamacare was not written with the American people in mind, but as paybacks, if you will, to certain groups. I guarantee you, you will not be surprised by some of the groups mentioned below:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton is expanding his investigation into the meetings between special interest groups and the Obama White House that set the stage for the passage of Obamacare, sending document requests to 12 industry groups and unions that played a key role in the negotiations.

In April 18 letters to the groups, Upton asks for extensive details and documents about each organization’s interactions with the White House in regards to the health care law.

The requests come as the Obama White House has so far declined to provide its documents about the meetings.

At issue are special deals struck between interest groups and President Obama to either garner the support of major industry sectors or soften their criticism of the health care law.

Oh, what a surprise, huh? Yeah, I know – I was being snarky. But what I particularly love is how the White House is refusing to cooperate with this investigation. Oh, yes, “Mr. Transparency” has proven to be even more secretive than Bush. Oh, but you don’t hear the same hue and cry over that, not by a long shot. Hey, you know the rules, “they apply to thee, not to me…”
In one major instance, the pharmaceutical drug sector agreed to back the legislation as long as the costs to that sector did not exceed $80 billion. The drug sector eventually spent over $100 million on television advertisements touting the law.

Now to the groups involved in this behemoth law affecting the entire country, and not in a good way:

The industry groups and unions subject to Upton’s request are AARP, AFL-CIO, AdvaMed, AFSCME, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Business Roundtable, Federation of American Hospitals, PHRMA, and SEIU.

Wow. That is quite a roll call. Is anyone surprised to see the AFL/CIO and SEIU listed above? I wasn’t either, but I have to wonder just what their medical expertise is that their opinions were even solicited. I guess they were making sure there were sufficient loopholes that they would never have to be a part of this. And they were successful in that regard. Unbelievable.

Now that we have this law, and the funding thereof, looming over our heads, investigating what is in it, and WHO helped craft it, seems a bit overdue, but I guess better late than never, right? Right. The investigation actually began two months ago:

Feb. 18, Upton wrote to Nancy-Ann DeParle, who served as Obama’s health care reform “czar” during the period during which Obamacare was considered in Congress and has since been promoted to the president’s deputy chief of staff, requesting a range of documents relating to meetings and negotiations over the health care law.

The letter requested a list of staff working for the White House Office of Health Reform, a list of their meetings on health care with special interest groups, notes or minutes from those meetings and all written communications between the White House and outside groups on changes to the health care system.

In response, White House counsel Robert Bauer suggested the inquiry was too time consuming to comply with.

The request “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking,” Bauer wrote in a March 4 letter. Instead, the White House sent Upton a series of public relations materials related to public events related to health care reform and a summary of the publicly available White House visitor logs.

Congressional Republicans say the administration has resisted complying with a series of inquiries such as the request for information on the Obamacare meetings.

This does not seem to be an unreasonable request to me. Isn’t this kind of information supposed to be available anyway? We’re not talking major secrets here, we are talking about how outside corporations and agencies influenced one of the costliest pieces of legislation ever. Show us the damn records already, and stop beating around the bush. Sheesh. That is, in essence, what the Republicans said, too, though a little nicer than that:

In a response to Bauer, Upton said in a March 10 letter Republicans were “concerned and disappointed,” and reiterated their request for the documents. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’ll say. I’m “disappointed,” too, that this Administration has made the Bush Administration look like an open book, but they surely have.

The Republicans are trying a different tack, though, to obtain the information they seek, “Faced With Obama ’Slow Walking’ Document Requests, GOP Aims At Outside Groups.”

Well, that’s one way to do it, though it is disturbing that a president, any president, would stonewall those who were elected to do the work of the people, in this case, protecting them from undue influence by certain groups:

[snip] “There is a coordinated effort, I assume being led by the White House, to, I would describe it as slow walking or slow rolling these things,” says an investigator on the Energy and Commerce Committee, “No one’s told us ‘no, we’re not gonna do that.’ They say they’ll do it every time. But they’re doing as much as they can to stall.”

The administration’s resistance to cooperate with requests that could expose damaging information about the president’s health care law and other issues is shaping the latest GOP salvo, aimed, not at the administration, but at a series of industry trade associations and unions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All I can do is just shake my head in disgust – at Obama, Pelosi, and those spineless cowards who passed this horrific, pork-laden, influence peddled, law. If they were capable of shame, they should surely feel it over this, this law that will increase our deficit higher and higher.

We knew this was happening – we knew it, they knew it, and they passed it anyway. Wow.

But then I remember that Biden didn’t have to follow this course and back an inexperienced academic in his bid for the Presidency — and I say, you’ve made your own bed now “lie” in it.

ABC’s Jake Tapper interviewed VP Biden who offered a fabulous example of the “bob and weave.” When Tapper asked Biden how many troops would come home from “America’s longest war” in Afghanistan when we reach President Obama’s July 2011 deadline, Biden first told Jonathan Alter:

“In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”

But now VP Biden is saying it’s not a deadline but a “transition…”

“The military signed on. Petraeus signed on. Everybody signed onto not a deadline, but a transition, a beginning of a transition,” Biden said.

Tapper pressed him – but what did he mean when he said “a whole lot of people” would be “moving out” of Afghanistan?

“What I was responding to was the idea that the president had been outmaneuvered. I was saying make it clear. And so it — it wasn’t so much numbers I meant. It could be as few as a couple thousand troops. It could be more. But there will be a transition,” Biden said.

A few thousand troops, eh? That oughta make everyone happy. But surely when President Obama fired General McChrystal and put General Petraeus in charge of ground operations, any firm timeline went out the window. Outmaneuvered, indeed. How tiresome for Biden et al to pretend that a “transition” is what they planned all along. Let’s go to the videotape!

In discussing the economy and the $787 billion stimulus package, Biden then complained:

“There’s a lot of people at the time argued it was too small,” he said. “A lot of people in our administration…even some Republican economists and some Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman, who continues to argue it was too small.”

He said they needed Republican votes to get it passed and finally found three. Biden also implied the real problem was Republican obstructionism:

But if it wasn’t for the legislative reality, Biden explained, “I think it would have been bigger. I think it would have been bigger. In fact, what we offered was slightly bigger than that. But the truth of the matter is that the recovery package, everybody’s talking about it [like] it’s over. The truth is now, we’re spending more now this summer than we — I’m calling this…the summer of recovery,” the Vice President said.

So let’s follow this logic – Obama/Pelosi proposed legislation they thought they could get through even though they wanted more. But it was those pesky Republicans who wouldn’t give more to them. Never mind the Democratic supermajority they had at the time and the Republicans, with a damaged brand and a minority voice were wandering like nomads in the wilderness.

Biden now says the stimulus should have been bigger to be successful. Yet they withheld half the dough last year, which they could have used to stanch the bleeding and stop the suffering of Americans in 2009. Perhaps they saved a good portion of the “stimulus” package for the “summer of recovery” – the summer of 2010 when Democrats need every vote they can get. Is it cynical of me to assume they held back those funds so they could pump money into the economy in advance of the midterms? Not likely.

Back in February 2009, President Obama sang a different tune. Via Reuters:

“It is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jump-start our economy and transform it for the 21st century,” Obama said of the more than $800 billion bill at a rally in Elkhart, Indiana.

“I can say with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will only bring deepening disaster,” Obama said.

Furthermore, Tapper himself had the goods to call Biden out on the carepet for this falsehood. In January of 2009, Tapper had this to say:

“Obama’s team is pitching a plan that will cost between $675 billion and $775 billion, one that creates three million jobs, 80 percent of them in the private sector,” Tapper said. “But they will face skeptics.”

Looks like they got more than what they wanted, not less. Biden has also gone on the record months ago claiming we would be creating several hundred thousand jobs per month going forward – that also has not come to pass.

Tell me, is any government official going to get on TV and make an honest statement. And is any reporter going to have the guts to call them out on their lack of honesty when they don’t?

Heck, just today, the Washington Post put out a poll it did with ABC News in which the headline says things might be a bit hairy for incumbents for the next election, but that overall, Obama is seen as trustworthy on a number of issues. But what you DON’T learn in that article is the breakdown of the 1001 people polled, and how Obama’s positive numbers could be higher now than they were in a recent Gallup poll. Well, HotAir explains:

Why did Obama and the Democrats still manage to hold more trust over their GOP opponents? The pollster talked to more of them, that’s how — and more of them than they did in the last poll, relative to Republicans. In the March 26th poll, the WaPo/ABC sample had a D/R/I split of 34/24/38, giving Democrats a partisan advantage of 10 points in the poll. This time, the sample’s split went 34/23/38, and even the independents split in favor of the Democrats, 19/17, up from 17/17 last month. Just to give some perspective, the partisan gap from their November 2008 poll just before the election was nine points — and 26% of the sample was Republicans, compared to 23% now.

Given the expanding partisan gap shown in this poll, small wonder that Obama winds up with more trust than Republicans among respondents. It’s also no mystery why the WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama adding to his job approval rating, 54/44, when every other pollster has Obama sinking. That ten-point swing in the sample makes quite a difference.

It also makes a big difference in the consolation news the Post and ABC offered Democrats. The 46/32 split for Dems on trust by party shows that Democrats would be considerably narrower than the 14-point lead this survey shows. The eleven point lead that Obama has over the GOP for trust on the economy would be completely gone, and the 4-point edge Obama enjoys over Republicans on the deficit would have more than reversed itself.

So you can see why I was a bit surprised to see the Politico story indicating the love affair with Obama was over. Yet that is the claim in this lengthy article. (Let me say up front, I will not be including the whole thing here for space reasons, but I urge you to read the whole piece.)

And now to the story itself:

One of the enduring storylines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

“They seem to want close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said the New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Okay. You know what I am going to say about this already. Had they actually done their jobs during the campaign, looked at who Obama really is, his job performance (or lack thereof), refrained from categorizing him as “cool” when he was being arrogant and aloof, maybe they would not surprised now.

And they sure would not be surprised by this, had they followed his “career”:

Much of the criticism is off-the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross-section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Obama’s White House aides can rightfully say they’ve set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors’ logs, expanding White House web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.

But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.

“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.

“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”

The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Hold the phone. Did they agree with Chris Matthews that a journalist’s job was to make Obama’s presidency a successful one and that’s why they gave him goodwill he did not EARN?? If so, they are unclear about the role of a journalist in a free society.

At least they acknowledged the total Obama/Gibbs “Transparency” meme with the response it deserved – laughter.

Here are their beefs with the Obama Administration:

The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: during his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q&A sessions—an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University Professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.

“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents’ association’s secretary.

Playing favorites

It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.

But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces – then, in their view, lied about it.

Say Whaaaaa?? The Obama Administration LIED about something? Yeah, like every time Obama or Gibbs open their mouths. For the rest of this particular tale of how the White House dissed a whole bunch of reporters and lied about it, click HERE.

As for the New York Times being a favorite of the Administration, Spokesweasel Gibbs had this to say:

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “Like every other journalist in Washington I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of the Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

This was news to me. I read a lot of news. How is it that this was NOT out there? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is a pretty big news source, so why was this not discussed more? If anyone knows, I’d like to hear it.

Anyone who watched MSNBC during the Primaries/Campaign is familiar with Richard Wolffe, the Obama sycophant. Well, guess who is a WH fave? You got it:

[snip] Another event that riled many in the press corps took place on March 20. The Washington Examiner’s Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress’ big health care vote.

“You’re not in the pool,” Mason recalled telling Wolffe. “You shouldn’t be joining.” Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of “a special invitation from the Obama administration.” Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

“Are you working for them officially now?” shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don’t know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It’s just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press.”

Oh, snap. And a “free press”? Yeah, I’d love to see what this country was like if we REALLY had a free press. You know, one that actually covered the differences in protests between, say, Tea Partiers and AZ Anti-Immigration people. I suppose a girl can dream, right?

As indicated above, this White House can be a tad vindictive:

[snip]Getting mad

And just what happens when you upset the White House?

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things….I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than the Bush administration,” one national newspaper who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people…you could reach in the Bush administration that now they say ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’ ’’

Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who have never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait ‘till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration under attack, wait ‘till there’s a scandal, wait ‘till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

Well, it seems like the press is going to have ample opportunity with the revelation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s phone calls with Obama. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see if there is a “feeding frenzy” over THIS scandal.

And if the press actually does their job, I am sure the level of push-back will be noteworthy given what the press is receiving now:

Getting even

While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.

One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.

Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.

While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship—to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.

And that is with a favored organization. I imagine we can extrapolate to those the WH does NOT like:

[snip]“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy handed and have cut some people off.”

Edward Luce of the Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source-greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.

“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause, that is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.

Um, YES!! For the gazillionith time, we tried to tell you so. We tried to get you to really, really look at this candidate instead of regurgitating whatever talking points Obama wanted you to spew for him. Or to quit transferring definitions for one word to another, like “even keeled” for “prickly,” “angry,” or “dismissive.” But would you listen? No. So on many levels, the press is getting what it has coming to it.

And that would be peachy keen-o if the press hadn’t given such a massive pass to this man who now occupies the White House, shoving through policies that are disastrous for our country, using the legal system as his personal bully under the guise of the Constitution (several things come to mind, but I’ll mention two: the DOJ supporting DADT, and Obama going after Arizona for trying to do something the Federal Government has failed to do – strengthen their border). Who knows, maybe when these reporters’ own outlets decide it’s cheaper to NOT cover their health care now that Obama got this god-awful law signed, they’ll wish they had actually done their jobs a bit better.

You know, come to think of it, they deserve pretty much what they are getting from the White House now. I’m willing to bet good money that a Clinton White House, even a McCain White House, would not be treating the press – our eyes and ears in the public arena – with such callous disregard, and even contempt. But they wanted Obama in there, and as he noted, they (most likely) voted for him.

So how does it feel now? Those Kool Aide fumes dispersing any?? If so, welcome to our world, the one you, the media, helped bring upon us. And thanks shitloads for that. Ready to do your jobs now?

*Bonus – Obama mentioned in his attack on Clinton’s foreign policy experience that he went to Pakistan in college. HOW??? Americans weren’t allowed to travel to Pakistan then. Maybe if the press did their jobs, they would have followed up on that little nugget. Newsflash! It’s not too late!!!! Sheesh.

The press ran with his lame-ass excuse that he was never all that close to Jeremiah Wright ANYWAY, since we were all learning what kind of pastor and church Obama attended. So, he referred to him as “uncle,” acting like he was some wacky relative you couldn’t get rid of, yet he CHOSE to sit in his church for over 20 years. And Bill Ayers? Oh, he was just some guy in his neighborhood. Never mind that Obama had known, and worked, with him for years. P-shaw, people – who are you gonna believe, the naysayers or The One?

As they say, the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. I am surprised it is happening this quickly, actually. Yep – Obama is blowing off the press, international as well as national, including breaking with protocol (oh THERE’S a surprise. The man cares nothing for decorum and protocol, which strutting in to “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” should have told anyone. And if THAT wasn’t enough, maybe this photo should have:

Oh, yeah – Jay-Z in the Situation Room at the White House. I think we can assume that Obama is pretty fond of his misogynistic music, wouldn’t you?

So, the press may finally be getting that smack upside the head they have needed for the past few years regarding Obama in this Dana Millbank article(I know, right? Maybe he got himself some smelling salts to snap out of it already.):

Obama’s Disregard For Media Reaches New Heights At Nuclear Summit.

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama’s eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”

Reporters for foreign outlets, many operating in repressive countries, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they’re cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of a limited press “pool”: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is.”

Alamiri’s counterparts from around the world had similar experiences. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”

Ah, yes – repairing the image of the United States around the world, that Obama, isn’t he? Sure, right:

Lalit K. Jha of the Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. Emel Bayrak of Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”

“When you only see the president for 15 or 20 seconds without him asking if you have any questions, it’s very frustrating,” said Laura Haim of France’s Canal+, which persuaded the White House to include foreign outlets in the press pool. “It’s very important for this president, who wants to restore the image of the United States, to have more access.”

Obama’s official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China’s Central Committee. Excerpts: “The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press.”

Hey, maybe THAT’S why he bowed to the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, at the Nuclear Summit he just finished hosting in Washington, DC (no excuses about “cultural expectations” this time, folks). he was thanking him for giving him the rubric for how to run meetings and cut off the press! Yeah, that’s the ticket! (and I LOVE that Media Matters refers to Obama’s bowing to foreign leaders, who do NOT bow back, as “supposed.” Are you kidding me with that kind of dissembling? Please. You know, Media Matters actually used to be a site for which I had respect. I thought it really did work to highlight improper reporting, regardless who was doing it. Nice to get those rose-colored glasses off. Because if they can’t accept that Obama has been bowing to other leaders (he was practically scraping the floor meeting the Emperor of Japan), they have zero credibility on this issue. (Photo by Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images)

Back to Millbank and the reporters being a bit taken aback by the “transparency” and “openness” of this “hopey, changey” president:

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restrictive set of meetings they had ever seen in Washington. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents’ Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the “protective” pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan’s prime minister, saying reporters “were very upset.”

Ahahahaha. Those silly, pesky little reporters! Isn’t it amusing that Obama broke with years of protocol (think back to his treatment of Prime Minister Brown, “rudeness personified,” press people) by shaking them off and not treating them like professionals trying to do their jobs? Oh, that’s a good one. I’m sure they are ALL laughing about it – not.

Back to the Millbank article and the Summit:

In “bilateral” meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama’s, there were only written “readouts”:

Canada: “The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership.” India: “The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries.” Pakistan: “President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan.”

Reporters, many in a “filing center” about a quarter-mile away from the leaders’ meetings, relied on dispatches from colleagues allowed in as the press pool. The dispatches, over three days, were uniform: “They were too far away to hear conversation. . . . Again, Obama had nothing to say of substance that pooler heard. . . . We were in for all of 30 seconds. No news; no quotes and again no statements. . . . Same deal folks.”

Finally, Obama walked over to a group of reporters Monday afternoon. Would he give them an account of his meetings? “I’ll let somebody else do it,” he said with a smile.

Oh, well, I am sure they all swooned and lapped up the fleeting attention. Right? Let’s hope not. Let’s hope they are FINALLY going to start looking at this man they helped get into the White House, OUR White House, on half truths, denials of relationships and reality, blessed little investigative reporting on, well, ANYTHING of substance when it came to Obama (remember, they couldn’t be bothered to send anyone to the distant lands of CHICAGO, but they could send a whole bunch to Wasilla, Alaska). Maybe now, just maybe, they will start to do their jobs in time to get this charlatan, this egotist, out of our White House in 2012. Actually LOOK at his record, FIND his records, stop buying rumors and innuendos from his people, QUESTION what you are told by this most nontransparent of presidents. Do your jobs. Hop to it already.

I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

“Who’s the best executive branch rodeo clown?”

“Don’t be the crook if you can’t handle the schnook.”

Barack Obama on Thursday stated the following:

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

But on Friday we learned the following:

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Where do we begin with Obama’s statement on Thursday?

“I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

I am confident you phrased this statement in the manner you did, for you knew Emanuel was in contact with Blagojevich through his Chief of Staff and through other advisors and operatives. I am also confident that Emanuel is avoiding reporters, for Emanuel knows his voice is recorded on wiretaps gathered by Fitzgerald and his investigators. It is time for Emanuel to resign and to vacate his House seat. And by the way, is not former Daley operative Valerie Jarrett Co-Chair of your Transition Team? Why was the Co-Chair of your Transition Team in contact with Tom Balanoff, the SEIU Representative, who according to page 69 of the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain “stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 [Valerie Jarrett] wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH.” Maybe it is time you answer questions about Valerie Jarrett’s contact with Blagojevich and his operatives.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject.”

You claim you did not speak to the Governor, but Emanuel submitted a letter with a list of candidates you preferred to Blagojevich. In other words, you communicated with the Governor about the open Senate seat. Moreover, news reports you and your operatives have attempted to remove from the Internet reveal you met with the Governor the week following the Presidential election. You met with him, and you sent him letters. This website contains two screen shots and a press release from Blagojevich’s office documenting that meeting. I recommend you read them and explain their existence to the media during your next press conference. Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.

“I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.”

Perhaps you need to think again, for the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain reveals that a line of communication existed between your team and that of Blagojevich. We also know that members of your team, including Emanuel, were engaged in conversation with members of Blagojevich’s team about the open Senate seat and the possibility of positions for Blagojevich since November 4, 2008. Maybe you need to read and reread the criminal complaint until its full import and significance is understood. And besides, no one cares what you “think;” we care about what is known.

“I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

Ask your staff again. Obviously they are incapable of compiling information, for it is Sunday, and no documents have been made available to the public. Do you have any intention of sharing any and all communications between your staff and that of Rod Blagojevich? And while your seemingly inept, incompetent and corrupt staff compiles these records for the perusal of the traditional media and writers online, I recommend you ask them to create a dossier on your dealings with Rezko. This staff, after all, is housed in the Kluczynksi Federal Building on Dearborn Street in Chicago. Access to records from your days as a state Senator of an inner city Chicago state Senate district should not be difficult for a group of overpaid operatives in your Transition offices to obtain. I imagine they are not very bright, but if they refrain from engaging in drunken gang rape simulations with your speechwriter Jon Favreau, the lazy and inept lot will probably have the energy and focus to locate and compile these documents in a timely manner.

=========================

One paragraph, one lie, two equivocations and one false promise: how and why does anyone take Barack Obama seriously?

UPDATE:

Times Online reports calls for Emanuel’s resignation as Obama’s Chief of Staff. I quote with emphasis:

THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.

Not only should Emanuel resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff; he should resign from the US House, where he is also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. According to the Chicago Tribune, he is yet to vacate his House seat. I quote:

Though now working full-time on Obama’s transition, Emanuel has yet to resign his congressional seat. Illinois law has a different process for filling vacant House seats than Senate seats. When Emanuel resigns, a special election will be held for his replacement.

Emanuel should resign as Chief of Staff and as member of the US House, as sources have confirmed his involvement in the scandal surrounding Obama and Blagojevich. I quote the Chicago Tribune again:

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Promising to rid Congress of what she called a Culture of Corruption, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the following after Democrats seized control of the House in 2006:

“The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house – for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. It is just not right.

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.

Communicating with Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff, submitting a list of candidates Obama approved to Blagojevich through operatives and advisors and participating in conference calls in which Blagojevich was attempting to forge a “pay to play” deal with Obama and Jarrett, Emanuel is engaging in the “pay to play” practices Nancy Pelosi decried on January 6, 2006. If Democrats are truly committed to ridding the House of ethical clouds, cronyism and corruption, then Emanuel must resign as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

He must also resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff, for Obama has promised “a new dawn of American leadership,” a new dawn that includes a “clean break from the broken politics of Washington.” Emanuel’s direct participation in conversations with Blagojevich reveals that Obama will never enact a clean break if Emanuel is one of his chief advisors. Barack Obama’s inability to disclose all communications between his staff and that of Blagojevich in a timely manner is also a sign that no clean break with the politics of the past will occur during an Obama administration.

I wonder if more calls for Emanuel’s resignation will surface. And if such calls surface, I hope they also include calls for him to resign from the US House. For not only should the White House be free of Emanuel’s corruption; Democrats in the House do not need to be tied to the scandal that is the “pay to play” politics of Washington, DC, and of inner city Chicago, where Democrats Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama were schooled in the art of corrupt machine politics.

“He is not one of my advisers. He’s not one of my foreign policy people,” Obama said at a campaign event in May. “He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

That is not true. In fact, Obama and Khalidi were close friends and their families frequently ate together and shared intimate moments. Michelle, for example, attended a wedding limited largely to family at the Khalidis.

“Khalidi was a frequent dinner guest at the Obama’s home and at his farewell dinner in 2003 Obama joined the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers in giving testimonials on Khalidi’s role in the community.” Based on an article Peter Wallsten wrote in April, someone finally put two and two together, and we now know that the Times is actually sitting on the video that they used to write this article.

So…why would the Times write this piece, then endorse Obama, and then put this tape in a *lockbox*? Perhaps this was a preemptive article, trying to sugar coat the ties between Obama and Khalidi, in case jouranlists actually ever did their job, and really looked into the story. Or perhaps Peter Wallsten was doing his job, and trying to expose this relationship. So, if his article is so accurate, why are they hiding the tape? hmmm

But it is weird that the Times wrote a story about this, and are now claiming they can’t release the tape, because they are protecting the source of the tape. I figure the tape either has to be really bad for Obama, and they were writing a fluff preemptive piece in case the tape ever came out. Or, the writer is now being pressured by the paper to cover it up (since they endorsed him, and all).

Either way, I don’t see how NOT releasing the tape is protecting a source. If someone gave them the tape, they can be protected by not revealing their name. But is covering up the content of the tape protecting a source? (“here mr. newspaper man, watch this tape, and write an article about it, but don’t ever show the tape”?? why?)

So, that begs the question: who would have given the writer the tape? It doesn’t make sense that someone opposed to Obama would have done it, and then insist that the tape not be released. They would want the tape out, no? So, is it someone pro-Obama who gave the tape to LA Times, so they could do a *CYA* piece for Obama, and they made the paper promise they would never release it, because it is baaaaaaad for Obama? The *source* gave the tape to Wallsten, and he was allowed to write an article about it. So, why the big secret on the content of the tape? However, the writer does make some rather potentially dangerous observations in the article. :OS

Based on my deductive reasoning (haha), it would seem to me that the LA Times is, pure and simple, covering this up for Obama. I don’t believe they are covering for any source. I think they are just in *puppy love* with Obama, and they won’t do anything to harm *that one*. I think the writer wrote his piece, and now he is pressured to stay quiet from the paper.

That makes the most sense to me… Oh hell I don’t know! I can’t figure it out. haha

All I know is Obama lied about the extent of their relationship, which is a pattern with him. And the tape should be released. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Here is the original article, with some snipits below.

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

…

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence.

…

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

The use of such language to describe Israel’s policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel’s defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said’s keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama’s specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

…

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Check out these articles about Tape Gate, from FOX and LA Times.

What am I going on about? Well, “The Hunt For Sarah October” is a Wall Street Journal article by John Fund, and it details the onslaught of people descending upon Wasilla, Juneau, and Anchorage, to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. By the Democrats. I am not making this up. They cannot be bothered to actually vet the top of the Democratic ticket (I saw a comment the other day at the San Francisco Chronicle in which someone took umbrage at any hint of a relationship between Bill Ayers and Obama), but they are going to make damn sure they vet the REPUBLICAN Vice Presidential candidate.

Wow. John Fund describes the move this way:

Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of Mr. Obama’s eight-point lead last month.

It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

They are digging into HER record. They could not be BOTHERED to do this with OBAMA’S record, but they are deploying 30 (THIRTY) people to try to get some “gotcha” information on Sarah Palin.

You may ask yourself, “Self, I wonder just what they are hoping to find out there in the frozen tundra??” (Hey, anything below, say, 75, is frozen to me!) Here’s your answer:

The main area of interest to the Democratic SWAT team is Mrs. Palin’s dismissal in July of her public safety commissioner. Mrs. Palin says he was fired for cause. Her critics claim he was fired because he wouldn’t bend to pressure to get rid of a state trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a bitter divorce battle with Mrs. Palin’s sister. Mr. Wooten is certainly a colorful character. He served a five-day suspension after the Palin family filed a complaint against him alleging he had threatened Mrs. Palin’s father. They also accused him of using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose.

Well, golly gee – just because he used a Taser on his 10 yr old stepson shouldn’t get him in hot water!! Or for threatening to kill the governor’s daddy! What the heck? How dare a state trooper be fired just for things like THAT? Sheesh! Those Republicans – no sense of humor, I tell ya!! Who cares if he was tossing back a few breskies in his patrol car while he was on duty? What could possibly go wrong from there?? He sounds like a real stand-up guy (that is complete and total snark, just in case you didn’t know).

Let’s just finish out the article:

Mrs. Palin will return to Alaska for the first time in nearly two weeks on Wednesday night, when she is scheduled to arrive in Fairbanks. Local Republicans will hold a “Welcome Home” rally for her. You can bet some of the Democratic opposition research contingent will be in the audience taking notes. They’ll be the ones arriving in rental cars and wearing fancy dress shoes from back east.

Ahem. Yes, Obama can hang out with Jeremiah “Goddamn America, and Don’t Think I’m Afraid To Have An Affair Or Two” Wright for 20 years. He can hang out with unrepentant domestic Bill “Could This Be Another Chance At The Capitol Building?” Ayers for over 20 years. He can get help from his good buddy, convicted felon Tony Rezko to get his mansion – which is in the same neighborhood as Ayers and Louis Farrakhan. Oh, and he got influence from Rezko, too, completely SCREWING the constituency who got Obama into office in the first place (well, not really so hard to do if no one else is on the dang ballot) by assisting Tony in getting a ton of money for his tenements. Or his relationship with Daley. The governor of IL. Auchi. The Nigerian money thing. The Annenberg Challenge thing and the mystery of the $110 million dollars, some of which made its way back to Jeremiah Wright (see how that comes full circle??). Oh, I could go on and on. The DNC should have used their bevy of lawyers and investigators to look a little more deeply into Obama rather than Palin. Heckfire, just finding out if he is eligibile to be PRESIDENT would be a good start, or did he ever have dual citizenship? See? These are just a few of the questions that need answering. It would have been good had they done that before giving Obama the nomination and treating Clinton like Pure-T crap – maybe then all those of us who actually care about democracy, women’s issues, social justice, and HONESTY, might still consider ourselves Democrats! But by all means, rather than focusing on the PLANK in your own eye, much better to focus on the speck in your competitor’s eye (paraphrase of Luke 6:42). Especially going after the bottom of the ticket instead of the top. Great job. I see the Republicans have taught you well, Grasshopper! Sheesh.

You know what? “At long last, (they) have no shame.” They really don’t. The DNC is spending its time and money vetting someone who, by all accounts, is a staight shooter (get it? She hunts and all.). What you see is what you get. Someone who believes in a transparent government SO much that she has the checkbook for Alaska online for the people to see. But they do not bother to vet the most secretive candidate I have ever seen, someone who will not allow his medical records or school records made available, who claims he has NO paperwork or date books for his entire time in the IL Senate, a man who will not even show his BIRTH CERTIFICATE or passport(s)!! And they are going to Alaska to vet Sarah Palin? Wow, it truly boggles the mind. As my good friend, the Divine Democrat, said:

If only the MSM would send as many people to Chicago as they are to Alaska to “vet” Palin. They’ve never vetted Obama and still refuse to do so. Let them go to Obama’s 13th District in Chicago and take a look around at the crumbling buildings, signs of high crimes and gang activity. Let them look at the performance of the public schools there. Let them all see what a bang up job he’s done for Chicago when he was the Illinois State Senator.

Oh…and we should only look at his performance as State Senator since he only wants to look at Palin’s time as Mayor. Right?

Yep, I reckon so! How about that State Senate record, Obama?? Hahahaha! Ahem. As I mentioned the other day (and Divine, too, in her excellent post, “The Making of a Messiah” at her site and No Quarter), there is an excellent article that does just that, one of the few. Of course, it was only in a small Chicago paper before it made it’s way to the Houston Press. So, naturally, since it was SO hard to fine, it’s understandable more people don’t know about it (that’s sarcasm). Here it is, “Barack Obama and Me.” It details how Obama had NO legislative accomplishments to his name until Emil Jones, a longtime Senator (who is retiring this year) decided to play Kingmaker. Give it a read, if youhaven’t already. It’s mighty telling.

Anywho – so the DNC is on a witch hunt against Sarah Palin. I don’t know how else to describe it. But the McCain camp is not sitting silently by while this happens. Oh, no – unlike the DNC, when a prominent woman is attacked by the opposition, they strike back. McCain’s campaign released the following yesterday: MCCAIN-PALIN 2008 LAUNCHES TRUTH SQUAD TO COUNTER ATTACKS ON GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

ARLINGTON, VA — With today’s Wall Street Journal report that pro-Obama Democrats have “airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage” to dig for dirt on our vice presidential nominee, the McCain-Palin campaign today launched the Palin Truth Squad to counter recent attacks on Governor Sarah Palin, her family, her friends and her record of accomplishment. The Palin Truth Squad will set the record straight against Internet and liberal smears of Governor Palin.

“We’re proud of Governor Palin’s leadership in Alaska and record of taking on entrenched special interests and the good old boys network,” said former Governor Jane Swift. “Governor Palin’s commitment to reform is well-known but there are those who would seek to distort that record with vile rumors and smears against her, her husband, her children and her friends. We will not allow those on the left and in the media to smear a woman who has always served her constituents with honor. We know the truth and are committed to ensuring it as well.”

In the event of false attacks, rumors and smears against Governor Palin, the Palin Truth Squad will issue alerts and statements to voters and the media to set the record straight. Additionally, the Truth Squad will be available to respond to inquiries from the media.

National Members Of The Palin Truth Squad:

· Former Governor Jane Swift (R-MA)
· Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)
· Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, (R-AK)
· Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
· Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
· Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
· Congresswoman Thelma Drake (R-VA)
· Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-OK)
· Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
· Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-TX)
· Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
< font face=Arial>· Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI)
· Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-FL)
· Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
· Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM)
· Jo Ann Davidson, RNC Co-Chair
· Rosario Marin, Former U.S. Treasurer
· Meg Stapleton, Former Aide To Governor Palin
· Kristan Cole, Lifelong Friend Of Governor Palin

State Members Of The Palin Truth Squad:

· Former Lt. Governor Jane Norton (CO)
· State Representative Amy Stephens (CO)
· State Board of Education Member Peggy Littleton (CO)
· State Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff (FL)
· County Commissioner Mildred Fernandez (FL)
· Former Iowa Senate President And Former U.S. Ambassador To The Eastern Caribbean, Mary Kramer (IA)
· State Representative Jackie Walorski (IN)
· State Representative Laura Brod (MN)
· Former GOP State Party Chairwoman And Former State Rep. Barb Sykora (MN)
· Jayne Millerick, Former NH GOP Chair (NH)
· State Senator Jennifer Beck, Honorary Co-Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose, Honorary Vice Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· Bergen County Clerk Kathe Donovan, Honorary Co-Chair NJ Women For McCain-Palin (NJ)
· DA Dona Ana County Susana Martinez (NM)
· Former Lt. Gov. Lorraine Bono-Hunt (NV)
· State Senator Barbara Cegavske (NV)
· State Assemblywoman Heidi Gansert (NV)
· Sue Lowden, Nevada GOP Chair (NV)
&# 183; Kay Ayres, OH GOP Vice Chair (OH)
· Betty Montgomery, Ohio Women For McCain-Palin Chair (OH)
· Mary Taylor, Ohio Auditor Of State (OH)
· Margie Hughes, Clackamas County Chair Of Women For McCain-Palin (OR)
· Linda Neace, West Linn Small Business Owner For McCain-Palin (OR)
· Deanna Smith, Women For McCain-Palin Chairwoman (OR)
· Renee Amoore, PA GOP Deputy Chair (PA)
· Joyce Haas, PA GOP Vice Chair (PA)
· State Senator Lisa Baker (PA)
· Diana Irey, Washington County Commissioner (PA)
· Christine Toretti, RNC National Committeewoman and McCain-Palin Pennsylvania Co-Chair (PA)
· Kim Ward, Westmoreland County Commissioner and McCain-Palin Pennsylvania Regional Chair (PA)
· Former First Lady Susan Allen (VA)
· Lori Ann Miller, Young Republican Federation Of VA Chairman (VA)
· Former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow (WI)
· Peggy Oban Boze, McCain-Palin Chairwomen For King County (WA)
· Susan McCaw, Former Ambassador To Austria (WA)
· Della Newman, Former Ambassador To New Zealand (WA)

I believe this is known as the (and I am paraphrasing just a little), “Screw me? Screw YOU screw me!!” strategy by the McCain camp.

Add to that the delight you KNOW the Alaskans are going to feel having these 30 interlopers coming in trying to dig up dirt on their WILDLY popular governor! Oh, yeah. I’m sure the good folk of Alaska will be all too happy to help you Armani, Prada, Jimmy Choo wearing Dirtmongers out – right back out of their state.

So you thought the problem of Barack and Michelle Obamas’ 2005 mansion purchase was dead and buried.

Well, not any more.

A reader of my website who is a tax accountant of many years, one who specializes in criminal matters, says he believes the Obamas have a tax problem.

Simply put, the allocation of purchase price between the Obamas’ lot and the lot next door, which were both owned by the same couple and had long been sold together, makes no sense unless the amount paid for the lot adjoining the Obamas’ by the wife of now convicted political fixer Tony Rezko was specifically meant as a favor to the Obamas so that they could afford their mansion.

If so, the difference between what Ms. Rezko paid for the side lot and what it was actually worth would be construed by the IRS as income to the Obamas.  After looking at the Obamas’ tax return for 2005, my source was able to say that in his opinion they did not declare any such income, and therefore did not pay taxes on it.

Barack Obama once called the house purchase a boneheaded mistake, but my source believes it is worse than that.

Much worse. If Barack Obama were to attain the White House, this problem could be devastating for the Democratic Party, says my source.

That is why he wants this information made public now.

Here are the specifics.

On June 15, 2005 , Barack and Michelle Obama bought a landmark mansion on Chicago’s South Side for $1.65 million.

The lot next door was sold the same day for $625,000 to Rita Rezko, wife of Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Tony Rezko was at that time under investigation for fraud and influence peddling, for which he was eventually convicted.

The specifics of these sale transactions were reported by the Chicago Tribune in an article published November 1, 2006 .

The information on the sale is also available online at the website of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

According to the Tribune, the Obamas’ price was “some $300,000 less than the asking price.”

The Rezko property, the article said, was purchased for “the full … asking price.”

That means the previous owners were paid $2.275 million for the two properties.

It is reasonable to assume, then, that when the previous owners listed the properties for sale, their asking price for the two was $2. 575 million or thereabouts.

How that total amount became the two amounts is what is at issue here.

Obama claimed in a long interview with Chicago media on March 14, 2008, as Tony Rezko was about to go to trial, that the sellers had tried to sell the house and adjoining lot together, but were not receiving offers as a result of the high price.

The sellers, he said, had already listed the properties separately by the time he and Michelle became serious about making an offer, and that the house, along with its lot, was listed for $1.9 million.

I understand from knowledgeable sources

that the multiple listing service for the area may have the records to confirm this assertion, but I do not have access to those kinds of records.

Archpundit, an Illinois  blogger and strong Obama supporter, somehow obtained access to 94 pages of related documents (pdf) he posted earlier this year, which contain documentation of the $1.9 million listing in January of 2005.  No earlier listings were printed.

Taking Obama at his word, we are led to believe that the sellers are the ones who allocated the $2.5 million or so that they wanted, in total, between the two properties. Since we do not have access to the original calculation and who made it, we can only try to determine if the allocation made at the time was reasonable.

Intrinsic Value

An empty lot only has value to a developer, or a developer’s wife, if he can build on it and sell for a profit.

Could the Rezkos have done that?

The Obamas’ house is in is an official landmark district, and I learned from a Senior Permit Reviewer at the Landmarks Division of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development that any construction in that district must be approved by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

She said the Commission makes sure that the construction conforms to the look and feel of the neighboring structures.

That means, for the district in question, that the structure could not be a high rise.

A one-unit home is a possibility, but would have to be very expensive in order to ensure a profit.

A small condominium building or several town houses might be a possibility, given the proper zoning, but they would also have to be expensive.

Of course, expensive is the norm for that neighborhood.

I am not an expert on real estate development, but it does seem that there might be potential for some profit in building on the empty lot bought by Rita Rezko.

The property, after 1,500 square feet was sold to the Obamas (see below), has changed hands twice since Rita Rezko bought it. According to the Cook County Recorder’s website, Rita Rezko sold the property on 12/28/06 for $575,000 to 5050 S Greenwood LLC.

Bloomberg reported on February 18, 2008 that the buyer’s name was Michael Sreenan.

5050 S Greenwood LLC sold the property to John D. and Marjorie S. Poulos on 3/17/08 for $675,000.

I do not know these people, nor do I know their relationship, if any, to the Rezkos.

If they do have business or personal relationships with Tony Rezko, these would not be the kind of arm’s length transactions that would ensure a market price for the property.

Comparison of Naked Land Values

It is common in the real estate industry to separate the house vs. land value from a total purchase price by assuming that 75% of the price is attributable to the house and 25% to the land.

And 25% of the $1.65 million that the Obamas paid for their house and land is $412,500.

By this test, the Rezko property should have been priced at less than that amount, as it had less square footage.   Instead, Rita Rezko paid one and a half times as much.

Assessment Associated with a Subsequent Transaction

Again from the 11/1/06  Tribune article (and also from the Recorder’s Office’s online records), we know that on January 11, 2006  the Obamas bought a strip of the Rezko lot that adjoined their property.

As the Tribune describes the transaction,

Using a standard formula, Obama’s appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land.

If an assessor valued 1/6 of the property at $40,500, wouldn’t that mean the market value assessment of the whole Rezko property at that time would be $40,500 x 6 = $243,000? Admittedly, the valuation of a strip of land may be lower because it is such a small portion of a property, but could that possibility account for the huge difference between the two values?The Times of London created a handy graphic to help visualize the properties and the transactions (extracted from this pdf file): 

Relative Assessed Values

The Cook County Assessor’s website shows only the current assessed values of the two properties, but by a call to the office I was able to find out the 2005 assessments for tax purposes. Be aware that assessed values for taxes in Chicago  are not anywhere near the market value.

I am only concerned here with the relative values, which should give us some indication whether the allocation of purchase prices between the two properties might have been reasonable.

The allocation between the two properties at the time of the listing was about 75% for the house and its lot ($1.9 million), and 25% for the adjoining lot ($625,000). That is very much out of kilter from the allocation above, based on assessed values.

What the Obamas Could Afford

At the time, the Obamas’ finances were good, but not good enough to buy a $2.5 million mansion.

The 11/1/06  Tribune article reports that the Obamas obtained a $1.32 million mortgage on their property (the information is also available on the Recorder’s Office website).

That means their down payment was $330,000 ($1.65 million – $1.32 million).

A venerable institution like the Northern Trust, which lent the Obamas the money, would never have engaged in any of the risky practices that later caused the housing market crash.

Therefore, they would have applied a formula to determine what the Obamas could afford to pay for their home, based primarily on the size of the down payment.

Apparently, the magic number turned out to be $1.65 million.

The Obamas wanted the mansion.

But the sellers, as we saw, wanted more for the two lots than the Obamas could afford or were willing to pay.

Who Determined the Relative Prices and How?

According to Obama’s 3/16/08 Chicago  media interview, he played no part in the determination of the properties’ prices.

The sellers have refused to speak to the media.

A member of the Obama campaign spoke with the husband of the couple, and exchanged emails, portions of which were shared with a Bloomberg reporter, who wrote on February 18, 2008,

The e-mail says that the sellers “did not offer or give the Obamas a ‘discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.” It also says that “in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,” Obama and his wife, Michelle, “made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer [the sellers] received on the house.”…

The e-mail between [the seller] and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had “stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.”

But no statement has been made public by the sellers about how the price allocation between the two properties was made, or when, or whether anyone influenced that calculation.Obama seems to believe that what he said at his 3/16/08 press conference with Chicago media is all he ever has to say on this subject.Neither of the Rezkos has spoken publicly about these land deals. But Tony Rezko was convicted in early June of 2008 for fraud and influence peddling by the office of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Presumably, that office is now negotiating with Rezko as to whether he will testify against any of his cohorts and any other information he can provide for further investigations by that office.Barack Obama has not been implicated in any of the wrongdoing for which Rezko was convicted, but might Rezko be tempted to reveal his side of this transaction? He was an experienced developer.

He was broke, $50 million in debt, and living on borrowed money at the time of the 2005 purchase, according to ABC News’ The Blotter on March 5, 2008. According to the article, Rita Rezko made only $37,500 per year, six months after the purchase and,

Rezko’s bleak financial picture raises the question of how the Rezkos were able to buy a vacant lot adjoining the home of Sen. Barack Obama in 2005, at a time Rezko says he was already in deep debt…

How were the Rezkos able to make the down payment, and qualify for the loan, on the lot?

The same story may give us a clue:

[Rezko] said he had an ongoing relationship with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire convicted on French fraud charges, who Rezko described as a close friend and business associate.

Did the “ongoing relationship” between Rezko and the Iraqi-born Auchi involve money changing hands prior to the purchase of the lot next to the Obamas?

It did in 2007, according to now retired Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak.

On February 28, 2008 Novak reported that Rezko “got $3.5 million from Auchi’s company in April 2007.”

In other words, did foreign money enable a U.S. Senator to buy his mansion?There could also be Senate ethical considerations for Senator Obama, if he did not disclose a benefit to him, as required by Chapter 5 of the Senate Ethics Manual (pdf).Judicial Watch has already filed ethics complaints over the house purchase, in regard to what it considers preferential treatment for Obama in obtaining the mortgage on the property.

From the press release:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today [date not given] that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.

Patrick Fitzgerald sent a former Illinois governor to prison.

He brought down the top aide of a sitting vice president of the United States.

He continues to investigate Rezko and his partners’ actions to determine if there were more illegalities, especially whether the sitting Illinois governor could be involved. He may be interested in what Rezko has to say about this property purchase next door to a U.S. Senator, now a presidential candidate.

And Rezko may be willing to talk, in exchange for a more lenient sentence, scheduled to be handed down on September 3, 2008.

Obama courts Middle America in attempt to counter ‘antiChrist’ image

If Obama thinks he has problems with us Just Say No Deal Pumas, he’s got much bigger problems with the very same Americans that he put down during the primaries, you know, those bitter, gun toting, bible clinging folks:

The Obama team’s strategy of picking up conservative, evangelical Christian voters has run into unexpectedly strong headwinds. This is especially true among the poor, white and working-class voters of Scots-Irish descent who live in the Appalachian mountain region that stretches across parts of seven states.

Barack Obama may wonder why many people aren’t falling in line behind him, but the truth is, he faces major public relation problems. Many people just don’t trust him to tell the truth about himself. Obama remains a mystery to millions of ordinary Americans. Who is he? What does he believe in? Is he a Christian? And if so, after 20 years in the church run by Jeremiah Wright, what kind of Christian is he? Doyle writes:

Along with Internet claims that he is a Muslim, some evangelical Christians have put it about that Obama may be the Antichrist. Glenda Kinzer, 41, from rural Ohio, believes the end of the world is about to occur. “A lot of people are talking about how Obama fits the description” of the Antichrist. “I always thought he will be from the Middle East.”

Obama is now advertising his Christianity by pushing Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Not long ago, liberal Democrats worried about Bush using religion, and now, Obama, the shape-shifter extraordinaire is hawking the same old wares (this is a new kind of politician?). Not only are these programs designed to replace social programs (and social programs have long been the mission of the Democratic party), even more troubling is that Obama’s plan “blurs the nation’s constitutional separation of church and state”:

Earlier in the week, he unexpectedly took a page from George W. Bush’s political playbook by embracing his controversial “faith-based initiatives.” He told voters in the evangelical heartland of Ohio that as president he would fund religious groups dealing with America’s social problems provided they did not discriminate in who they offer help.

He praises Ronald Reagan and copies George Bush. Yet Obama remains an unknown. Many of us will never vote for him because he is inexperienced, unproven and displays poor judgement. And Obama’s talking points consist of whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. What are Obama’s positions? As they say about the weather, wait five minutes and they’ll change. Just last week Obama appeared to throw MoveOn under the bus. MoveOn is one of his major contributors, but for the sake of appearances, they went quietly under the bus. Obama’s followers embrace his political position of never allowing values to come in the way of winning:

In the run-up to the July 4th national holiday, Obama has been on a “values” tour of middle America as he seeks to counter Republican attempts to label him as too liberal.

That’s the thing: Obama will say and do anything for the sake of appearances. And the good folks of Middle America are wise to question who he is and to wonder about his motives.

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.