Is The Health Care Fight Obscuring A Criminal Cover-Up In The Obama White House?

Great investigative journalism by The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord:

Even as the drama of health care carries the headlines, beneath the surface, visible now, the iceberg of scandal ripples.

First, the timeline on the blossoming scandal upon which we will now officially fix the dreaded “gate” descriptive. Jobsgate.

• September 27, 2009 — The Denver Post reports that Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina allegedly offered a job in the Obama administration to ex-Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff if Romanoff dropped his planned primary challenge to incumbent U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Romanoff refuses comment and runs anyway.

• February 18, 2010 — Philadelphia TV anchor Larry Kane reports that on his just taped Comcast show, he had asked Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, who is challenging incumbent Senator Arlen Specter whether it was true that the Obama administration had offered Sestak a job if he would withdraw from his primary challenge to Specter. Sestak answers “yes,” specifically saying the offer came from someone in the White House and that he, Sestak, turned down the offer. Sestak refuses to name who it was that made the offer. Two hours later, Kane calls the White House, plays them the tape, and asks for comment. The White House never calls him back.

Lord continues…explaining why Holder’s Justice Department might not be investigating:

One former high-ranking Justice Department official, after telling me that there were indeed problems with the Department’s silence on this issue, said that in the current political climate at the Holder-run Justice Department, any Justice official who sought to go to Holder with thoughts of investigating Messina or his boss Rahm Emanuel or anyone else in the White House would have to have “brass balls.” A colorful way of saying that Justice Department officials are being intimidated from pursuing the truth, no matter where it leads. Let’s go back to Congressman Darrell Issa.

Issa has stepped up to the plate and sent his letter to White House Counsel Bauer, who now holds the job in the legal precincts of the White House one frequented by Nixon’s John Dean. Bauer, it should be noted, is the husband of now-departed Glenn Beck foil Anita Dunn, briefly the Obama White House Communications Director. Bauer and Dunn have been featured in Newsweek as one of ten “global power couples,” ranking them alongside — honest — Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Bill and Hillary, Beyonce and Jay Z, and Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s back-to-back presidents. All of which means, according to Newsweek, the Bauer/Dunn power-combo has power, lots of it. The Congressman has formally requested an answer to his letter — from Bauer — by March 18.

And here are the implications [I hope you'll go read the whole thing. The story is damning.]

If in fact Sestak is telling the truth, if in fact the Denver Post story about Andrew Romanoff is correct — and neither Sestak nor Romanoff reported these offers to federal authorities — Specter is saying both could in fact do jail time for committing a felony.

Even more remarkable is to comprehend why Robert Gibbs may now be standing at that White House podium five different times and refusing to answer questions from Jake Tapper and Major Garrett. If Sestak has told the truth, if the Denver Post got it right — then not only is the person or persons within the White House who made these job offers in big trouble, but anybody else on the Obama White House staff who currently knows this has happened and has not reported it to the proper authorities — the FBI, just for starters — is, according to Specter, a potential prosecution target for “misprision of a felony.” For which this person or persons could also go to jail along with whomever offered the jobs in the first place.

Quite possibly, that could include Robert Gibbs, if in fact he knows these job offers occurred.

So, keep an eye on this story guys. The President and his staff could be in big trouble. This administration is laughable on transparency. What a disgusting mess.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The White House and pay-for-play (michellemalkin.com)
• The Sestak stonewall (powerlineblog.com)

Posted in Barack Obama, Crime, Democrats, Political Animals | 3 Comments »

President Obama Again Challenged By A Citizen: Ingrid Martin Plays Joe the Plumber

Matt Lewis gets the exclusive story. Setting: Townhall, Somewhereville, America. Mood: Stacked crowd…except for this lady. Here’s what happened:

Martin said she opposes Obama’s health care plan for philosophical, not parochial reasons, and after his speech, she caught the president’s attention.

“I didn’t clap and I didn’t smile, and I just sort of held firm to my beliefs and held my tongue so I didn’t get into any trouble,” she recalled. “And I think that, being in the front row, he noticed that because when he came down off the stairs and started shaking hands, when he got to me, he said, ‘Thanks for coming,’ and he looked at me and said, ‘Are you okay?’ And I said, ‘Yes sir, I just don’t support your bill’.”

Ingrid Martin said she then entered into about a 2-minute-long debate reminiscent of Obama’s meeting with another Ohioan, Joe Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. “Joe the Plumber“), telling him she worries about the long-term implications of his sweeping legislation. She told the president he was focused on insurance reform, as opposed to the rising cost of health care, which she believes to be the fundamental problem. Martin stressed her view of the need for tort reform. She also noted: “He said things like, ‘Medicare is not going to be affected by this bill,’ which is not right.”

When Obama said that his bill addressed her concerns, “I just kind of shook my head and said, ‘I don’t believe it does’ — oh my gosh, I’m calling the president a liar,” she added with a nervous laugh. Obama then took Martin’s business card and promised to send her information on the bill. While she was not persuaded to change her mind and support Obama’s policy, she was impressed with him for engaging her. “He took the time to stop and listen, which I appreciated,” she said.

Matt has much more at the link.

Why is it that common citizens are the ones asking these tough questions and bringing up the obvious?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama pitches health-care bill in Ohio (cbc.ca)

Posted in Barack Obama | No Comments »

New York Times Deifies Obama

From the New York Times the Obama Jesus. Says Jammie Wearing Fool [photo at link]:

Not content to show Obama with a halo, the New York Times is now creating images of him with a cross in the background.

Good grief. I guess the separation of church and state no longer applies when it comes to The Sainted One.

This is the definition of sacrilege. But I’m not sure the editors at the New York Times know God–that’s why they’re fooled by Obama.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bias, Christianity | 1 Comment »

President Obama Plans A “Combative Turn”?

Would the Presidents combative turn be in contrast to his bipartisan chumminess up until now? Oh wait….

Via Politico:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”

A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.

A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president’s first year in office.

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.

Let’s see, Scott Brown is making a game of it in Massachusetts where he ran a positive, optimistic, cheerful campaign. The American people were hoping for a brand new political day and got the Chicago machine. Ergo, President Obama is going to be defiant.

Well, at least he’ll be consistent. I can’t see this helping him at all. So he’s blamed Bush his first year and we see how well that’s worked. And this year, he plans to get combative with the American people.

Pure genius, this guy.

Posted in Barack Obama | 1 Comment »

Valerie Jarrett On Double Dipping The Tax Payer By Way Of Bank Fees

Does it make sense to give banks fees when the consumer will ultimately pay? No. But that’s exactly what President Obama is doing. His best friend Valerie Jarrett explains why this makes sense:

Tom Elia says this:

Obama Administration officials estimate that losses from the TARP program are around $120 billion, and argue this new tax will pay for those losses.

However, much of the estimated loss from TARP comes from the auto industry bailout.

So what appears to happening here is that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats are attempting to levy a tax on financial institutions — some of which never received TARP funds, some which have already paid them back — in large part to pay for the bailout of the auto industry, a bailout which greatly favored the autoworkers’ unions, a Democratic Party constituency.

Michelle Malkin calls it “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” = The Cover Tim Geithner’ A** Tax and says:

2. The tax won’t apply to non-banks, black holes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the bailed-out auto companies.

3. This isn’t about getting “our money” back. It’s about redistributing it again under the guise of faux populism.

More to the point, this is what I call the Cover Tim Geithner’s A** Tax. Making banks the whipping boys takes the heat off Geithner for his incompetent, complicit, and transparency-subverting tenure as New York Federal Reserve chair.

Team Obama wants you to keep your eyes on its fatcat barbecue charade.

But don’t be distracted. Geithner will be on the hot seat next week in Congress. And that’s where the real scrutiny of “financial crisis responsibility” lies.

Yup. Man, the Obama administration has the faux-populism schtick down. The words are like honey, but they give a terrible case of indigestion once you eat them.

They count on people being stupid. They hope people are distracted by their sweet words. And people have been in the short term, but when people get deeper in, they feel taken. Over and over again.

It’s the utter contempt for the American people that’s so disgusting.

Posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Socialism | No Comments »

Obama Knew The Crashers? He Met Them Before–UPDATED

In case you missed it this weekend…

Is there more to this story? The Anchoress thinks so. Gateway Pundit has more details about how the Crashers are buddies with Obama’s buddy terrorist-loving Rashid Khalidi.

Anyway, American Power has more. I just wanted you guys to know that there might be more story behind the fame-grabbing meme–which is for sure true.

At the very least, this is more evidence of an amateurish administration.

UPDATE:

Amateur hour, indeed. From the Washington Post:

E-mails turned over to the Secret Service show that Tareq and Michaele Salahi had sought a top Defense Department official’s help to gain access to last week’s White House state dinner.

People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to attend Tuesday’s gala, even though they weren’t on the official guest list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis’ lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.

These people surprised no one. Via The Anchoress

Posted in Barack Obama, Entertain Me, Political Animals | 8 Comments »

Michelle Goldberg Has A Snit On Bloggingheads, Ann Althouse Calls Her Rhymes-With-Snit

I got lost in the vortex of Bloggingheads hell and ended up listening to Michelle Goldberg and Ann Althouse yelling at each other. Michelle threatens to bail on the call when Ann pins her down on her inarticulate defense of Barack Obama’s memoir Dreams Of My Fathers. Michelle can’t defend analogizing Obama to Tolstoy and threatens to bail. She smoothed her hair and soldiered on.

The whole conversation was quite illustrative of liberal thought. Or rather, liberal emotionalism. There wasn’t much thought to be had, although Michelle knows her way around 25 cent words. I found myself rolling my eyes. A lot.

So, according to Michelle Goldberg, the Obama-voting Ann Althouse is a conservative. And according to Ann, she’s miffed that Bloggingheads couldn’t find one conservative to defend Palin. That is a valid criticism. Really, Bloggingheads, is there no one who can defend Sarah Palin or is it that you just don’t like conservatives who might defend Sarah Palin?

For what it’s worth, Ms. Goldberg, Ann is a social liberal and libertarian who supported the war effort after 9/11. How, in anyone’s world, does that qualify as a conservative? Mind you, I’m glad to have Ann Althouse’s voice and like her and respect her views. Still, she voted for Barack Obama which to me was a vote for a man weak on foreign policy, indecisive even, and an economy-killing statist. She was not alone in her vote and those from the middle who swung to favor Barack Obama did not win me to the cause of moderation. That vote simply struck me as naive. Still does.

So, whatever, I was watching Bloggingheads and so clicked on Michelle and Ann to see what they talked about. Topic: Sarah Palin. Ann thought Sarah was dumb (I had read her review and thought it harsh). Since Ann finished the book, her review was more charitable. Michelle Goldberg’s feelings of hatred have abated somewhat but she still vehemently dislikes Sarah Palin. She trots out the old trope, “But she’s really good for the Democrat party.”

Between Ann and Michelle, they decide (Ann with a self-aware sparkle in her eye, Michelle utterly beyond self parody) that Sarah Palin is stupid as are those who support her. But don’t say anything about the elites being obnoxious. That characterization is so undeserved. They are people like you and me; they’re just better people.

“She has a reputation for mendacity,” says Michelle Goldberg of Sarah Palin.

“Reality has a liberal bias,” says Michelle regarding why the AP has 11 fact checkers on Sarah Palin’s book, but none of Barack Oama.

“She is a screen onto which conservatives project hopes, just as Barack Obama is a screen onto which liberals project hopes,” says Ann Althouse

“I don’t want to be saved. I want a President to take care of things….preserve us,” says Ann Althouse.

Michelle responds,”And that’s what we’ve got” [in Barack Obama].

You need to watch this interchange if only to get a better understanding of why Barack Obama will always be popular with a certain segment of the population. His actions don’t matter. If he never acts, that’s a bonus because it demonstrates his urbane thoughtfulness. His inaction is a sign of his intelligence. Dithering is nuance because people who take direct action, by definition, act without thinking. Can you see how a liberal would think that Barack Obama is fabulous? One of his greatest weaknesses, the weakness that could land America in the worst position and is doing just that, is actually a strength.

In short, Barack Obama can do no wrong because he is doing nothing.

Posted in Barack Obama, Liberals, Political Animals, Sarah Palin, Sexism | 6 Comments »

Is Trying 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed The Dumbest Obama Idea Yet?

Trying the evil Sheikh in New York City under the American legal system is the dumbest idea ever in the history of dumb presidential legal ideas and that’s when compared to the biggest poop pile of dumb Obama ideas generally which are the worst in any American presidency ever.*

If you disagree, please share an example of a dumber Obama idea.

*I keep wondering if perhaps that I might be being hyperbolic here. Maybe I should rewrite that obnoxious run-on sentence and couch a little. Maybe I should say,”It seems most unwise to bring a mastermind terrorist to New York City, home of the injustice, try to seek a fair trial, give him the right to explore all evidence against him, fund his defense by the taxpayers, etc. Most, problematic, that.” But no. It’s just plain dumb. Or insane.

Posted in Barack Obama, Islamofascism, Isms, Political Animals, Terrorism | 15 Comments »

President Obama’s Defensive Posture: No Hand Over His Heart During National Anthem–Update

Go over to Pamela Geller’s place and check this out and then come back.

Why won’t President Obama put his hand over his heart, a sign of devotion, during the National Anthem? Even better, why does President Obama protect the family jewels (symbolically) by interlacing his fingers in front of his crotch when the National Anthem plays?

Does the President feel threatened and therefore feels the need to be self-protective during the National Anthem? Is he just bored and trying to figure out what to do with his hands–anything, but show devotion to his country?

It seems to me that President Obama is not comfortable around any patriotic displays. In fact, it seems that any shows of patriotism make him feel defensive. He seems to want to protect himself from the assault.

Update:

@Techaskew on Twitter noted that it could be just another narcissistic display–that President Obama is taking the National Anthem in as if it’s being played for him. Like he’s the perpetual birthday boy and being sung to every time there’s a big event.

Oh blech. I think that might be more wretch-inducing.

Updated again:

“L’etat, ces’t moi”

“I got your salute right here.”

Via Lucianne

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

President Obama And His Hasan Problem–UPDATED

How does a man weened on politically correct thought, race grievance, and collective versus individual responsibility deal with this:

American born
Muslim man
Soldier
Psychiatrist
Murderer
Terrorist

Here was the President’s response:

President Obama gave a shout out before his statements about the rampage at Ft. Hood. Does that seem dissonant to you? Bookworm calls it “frightening insensitivity“.

Robert George of NBC in Chicago writes:

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.

As more uncomfortable information comes out, information President Obama probably knew even yesterday, it will raise more questions. For example, the killer yelled “Allahu Akbar” while he shot his fellow soldiers. In addition, Hasan gave a weird presentation on the Koran during Grand Rounds. Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack, said on Twitter:

It is this simple: 12 people were murdered yesterday by a man who holds political views the MSM has guaranteed us aren’t dangerous.

And when Jake Tapper just asked Robert Gibbs when an attack becomes a terrorist attack, the response, according to David Almacy also reporting on Twitter was this:

In an answer to @jaketapper, Robert Gibbs just said that he doesn’t have the theoretical background to define “terrorist attack.” Wow.

When faced with the uncomfortable facts, President Obama and his administration are having a collective psychic break. Reality is not conforming to the fantasy they’ve built.

So far, it seems that this killing spree, this terrorist attack, could have been prevented. This man’s radical Islamist views were widely known. He did not hide them. He did not hide that he didn’t want to go to Iraq. He did not hide that he disagreed with America’s wars. He did not hide his frustration about President Obama. He even praised evil–beheadings and terrorism.

Since it’s politically incorrect to “profile” for terrorists or look for threats proactively, how is one to prevent such events? President Obama’s answer has been to pretend. If he ignores threats, they will go away. But they’re not going away. Neither individual or group or State-sponsoring terrorists are going away. And pretending they don’t exist or aren’t serious and deadly is liable to get a man killed. Or many men.

And so, President Obama’s decision to make light of the Ft. Hood killings by burying the story into a pre-planned press-conference makes sense. This act of terrorism revealed all the lies liberals tell themselves and tell others. There are two choices in this situation, then: One, admit the lie and speak the truth. Or two, continue the delusion.

President Obama has chosen to continue the delusion. If he can, and the mainstream media continues to aid and abet him, he’ll reframe this “unfortunate incident” as the actions of one “troubled individual” who should have “received help sooner.” And it looks like he’ll get help in that regard.

But for normal people, this attack was a terrorist attack by a Muslim man schooled in hate-filled ideology. Hasan would have rather killed his fellow soldiers rather than go to an Islamic nation and help his own country find justice there. That is, Hasan was a Muslim first, and a radical one at that, and a countryman second. And because no one can name Islamism evil, because that might make someone uncomfortable, what is there to say?

So the President and his press people fumble around, trying to find some politically correct verbiage to describe evil. And they can’t. What this man did was wrong and heinous. There are no excuses. He was an individual and he’s responsible. He was an educated doctor, a psychiatrist, and enlightenment did not prevent the taint of radical ideology. And he was also a murderer who intended not just to kill, but terrorize.

He is everything President Obama wants to pretend doesn’t exist. Well. America can’t afford to indulge President Obama and his liberal minions their p.c. fantasies. It gets citizens killed. The Ft. Hood massacre was a reality-check.

Updated:

Michelle Malkin reports that Hasan had “extra weapons training”.

Michael Goldfarb on Obama searching for the “real cause” of the massacre.

Updated:

Shrinkwrapped discusses the psychology:

When the immediate reaction of Islamic spokesmen is to warn everyone of Islamophobia, they too are supporting the projection and externalization that is the hallmark of radical Islam and the “lone, psychiatrically deranged” paranoid.

Every effort should be made to resolutely maintain a posture that specifically and emphatically denies the use of projection and externalization to the radical Islamists. Groups like CAIR should be confronted by our MSM and government on a regular basis to expose their use of such psychological processes for all to see. Whenever a “lone, psychiatrically deranged” individual commits an atrocity, we must be alert to attempts to shift the psychological impetus for the attack from the attacker to the surround. It is an unhappy reality that confronting a paranoid’s projection and externalization does not work in a therapeutic context. It either convinces the paranoid that you are part of the persecutory conspiracy or, if accepted and internalized, leads to significant depression. However, we cannot treat terror as a therapeutic situation. When Muslims support, in their speech and writing, convictions that reflect the use of projection and externalization, they must be considered potential dangers to the community. This requires a form of “racial profiling” but the alternative is to wait for an atrocity of such significant proportions that “lone, psychiatrically deranged” non-Muslims begin to take things into their own hands.

Posted in America, Isms, Mind, Political Animals | 19 Comments »