May 30, 2009 Obama seeks to stifle criticism of stim bill Rick Moran To a liberal, their axiom on free speech is, "You're free to speak your mind ... as long as you agree with me." Not surprisingly the Obama administration is seeking to cut off lobbying from everyone when it comes to the stim bill. This piece by Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner is an eye opener: Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added): "First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program. "Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest -after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see. "Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency's website documenting the contact." Source: American Thinker

Obama Administration Keeps Bush Policies/Regulations, etc. Bush Policy Kept By Obama Date Added to List Polar Bear Restrictions (5/18/09) Off Shore Drilling Reinstated (5/18/09) Military Tribunals Wants Bush 'Virtual Fence' (Links for these four here) Immigration Status Checked At Jails           5/18/09 5/18/09 5/18/09 5/19/09

President Obama refuses to meet with Governor Gibbons about tourism comments (Highlights mine) Carson City - The Office of Governor Jim Gibbons was notified today that President Barack Obama has refused to meet with the Governor and key business leaders from Nevada. Governor Gibbons requested the meeting in a letter to President Obama so the President could address statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State. Earlier this year, the President told an audience in Elkhart, Indiana, "You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime." That quote was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the Nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled. These cancelled events translate into 111,800 guests in Las Vegas and over 250,000 "room-nights". The cancelled conventions and meetings have cost the Las Vegas economy over $100-million, not including gaming revenue. "I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this Administration," Gibbons said, "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments." Governor Gibbons noted, "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the President, but our tourism, jobs, and economic future are not." Gibbons added, "This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada."

Obama Administration Keep Bush Policies/Regulations, etc. Polar Bear Restrictions Off Shore Drilling Reinstated Military Tribunals Wants  Bush 'Virtual Fence'

Read Rasmussen Here.

 

Christian Science Monitor Article: The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee says the issue cannot be rest until there’s some accountability. “She made some outrageous accusations last week where she said that the CIA lied to her and lied systematically over a period of years. That is a very, very serious charge,” Rep. Pete Hoekstra said appearing on CNN’s “American Morning.” “Either the CIA needs to be held accountable for their performance during this time or the speaker needs to be held accountable and be responsible for the actions and the statements that she made last week. One or the other is correct, one or the other is wrong,” he said.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner, who, along with Grover Cleveland, is the only president to skip the gathering. According to Clift's report on the Newsweek blog, Biden "said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment."  Clift continued: "The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn't be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."

Shining Light On Cheney's Hideaway (Newsweek)

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker (FOXNews)

Testimony from AG Eric Holder before the House Judiciary Committee: Holder:  No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them -- Lungren:  So it’s the question of intent? Holder:  Intent is a huge part. Lungren:  So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture? Holder:  Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding.  When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act -- that is not torture. We’re training our troops to deal with illegal acts? Can you imagine this guy in combat? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic. Rep. Louie Gohmert:  Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent.  If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct? Attorney General Eric Holder:  No, not at all.  Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question. Gohmert:  So what kind of intent were you talking about? Holder:  Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act?  Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person? Gohmert:  I said that in my question.  The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm -- there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm -- knew that for sure.  So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured.  Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm. Holder:  The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances.  That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.   I spoke with Rep. Gohmert in the hallway outside of the hearing about his assessment of Holder’s answers to his questions. (Ed. note: that question is from Connie Hill at Human Events) “Oh, did I get answers?” Gohmert asked.  “I didn’t think I got answers.  I must have missed them.  I heard statements being made after I asked questions but as far as the answers I requested, I didn’t feel I ever got those.  If I were an officer in the field and trying to figure out what to do and if I might someday be prosecuted, his answers would scare me to death, because there’s no way to know.  He did not give an answer that anyone out in the field could rely on.”

 

'Phantom Ray' to demonstrate advanced air system technologies     Phantom Works President Darryl Davis announced the new Phantom Ray program to employees in a webcast yesterday. Phantom Ray will be an unmanned flying test bed to develop advanced air system technologies. [Boeing photo] Phantom Works Thursday announced plans to develop and demonstrate an unmanned flying test bed for advanced air system technologies. The new program is called Phantom Ray. This effort will utilize the prototype vehicle developed under the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) program, and originally intended for use during the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/U.S. Air Force/U.S. Navy Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program. Phantom Works President Darryl Davis unveiled the program during a webcast with employees Thursday. Phantom Ray, which is being internally funded, is scheduled to make its first flight in late 2010. The aircraft will conduct 10 flights over a period of approximately six months, to support a variety of potential missions including; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses, electronic attack, hunter/killer and autonomous aerial refueling. Phantom Works is employing rapid prototyping techniques that facilitate the speed and agility needed to meet the 2010 flight schedule. "Flying and testing Phantom Ray clearly demonstrates Boeing’s commitment to rapid prototyping, and emphasizes our efforts to be a leader in the unmanned aircraft business," said Davis. "We have mobilized our assets to continue the tremendous potential we had developed, and now will fully demonstrate that capability." Phantom Ray will pick up where the UCAS program left off in 2006 by further demonstrating Boeing’s unmanned systems development capabilities in a fighter-sized, state-of-the-art aerospace system. The Boeing UCAS program began with the X-45A, which successfully flew 64 times from 2002 to 2005. Those flights included a demonstration exercise that utilized two X-45A aircraft as the first unmanned, autonomous multi-vehicle flight under the control of a single operator. "What is particularly exciting is incorporating the latest technologies into the superb X-45C airframe design," said Dave Koopersmith, vice president, Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft. "As we gradually expand the flight envelope, potential users will have access to a full range of unique capabilities that only this type of autonomous platform can provide." Lab testing for the Phantom Ray air vehicle is scheduled for late 2009, followed by ground testing in 2010. Phantom Ray’s first flight is currently scheduled for Dec. 2010.

The X-45A- This was the beginning prototype. It has evolved into the UCAS Phantom Ray which is designated the X-45C: The new larger Phantom Ray X-45C View from the side

 

More information on the Phantom Ray can be found at Wikipedia here.

 

These policy changes will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America. There will be many more public policy changes with similar goals—nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending. Additional tax advantages for lower and middle income people will be enacted: a 10% mortgage tax credit that would average about $500 per household per year, a $4,000 tax credit for college tuition, a tax credit covering half of child-care expenses up to $6,000 per year, and even a $7,000 credit for purchase of a clean car. ====================================================== Here are the seven points they had foreseen of a President Obama:   The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe. Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited. Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around." Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%). Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use. The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation. Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

Al Gore said Friday that fellow former Vice President Dick Cheney has jumped back into the political fray too soon into the new administration’s term. “I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.” Read more here.

 

GOP govs plan Tea Party sequel Govs. Mark Sanford and Rick Perry host a tele-town hall Thursday that’s being dubbed “Tea Party 2.0.” Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO Hoping to recapture the grassroots energy of last month’s “tea parties,” Republican Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perryof Texas will host a tele-town hall Thursday that’s being dubbed “Tea Party 2.0.” The Republican Governors Association said it is expecting 30,000 people to participate in the town hall, which will take place roughly one month after th much-publicized anti-tax tea party rallies held in hundreds of locations across the country on April 15, the tax filing deadline. Sanford and Perry will each speak for several minutes before opening up the town hall to up to an hour-long question and answer session. RGA Executive Director Nick Ayers said that while the effort Thursday will be on a smaller scale than the April tea party rallies, it still represents “a great opportunity to mobilize that support.” Both Perry and Sanford are favorites among the tax-averse tea party attendees. Sanford, who attended a tea party in Charleston, gained national notice for his high-profile battle with the White House over his resistance to federal stimulus funds designated for his state. The fate of those funds remains undecided as Sanford continues to battle with state lawmakers over how much of the $350 million in funds allocated for South Carolina his state will accept. Perry spoke at three tea parties across Texas and helped promote the rallies during numerous radio and television interviews prior to the events. The Texas governor generated widespread publicity after endorsing a state House resolution reaffirming the state’s sovereignty, a veiled shot at the president’s stimulus package. “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Perry said at the time. Perry drew praise from the conservative media for the move, but was widely derided by the left for suggesting that Texas may consider seceding from the union in protest of the stimulus. Ayers said both governors “heard the frustration” of the tea party attendees and “understand that our Republican governors are the best positioned to lead on these issues." The RGA, Ayers said, is hoping to use the town hall as a springboard for organizing support and fundraising for key gubernatorial races this year in Virginia and New Jersey. “We don’t have to wait until 2010 to send a message to Democrats in Washington that they are spending too much and borrowing too much,” he said. “We’ll have an opportunity to do that this year.”