Where Are My Keys?

Best policy money can buy..

After the White House said there weren't any kind of deals with Big Pharma regarding Obamacare, the truth comes out:

Drugmakers led by Pfizer (PFE)Inc. agreed to run a “very significant public campaign” bankrolling political support for the 2010 health-care law, including TV ads, while the Obama administration promised to block provisions opposed by drugmakers, documents released by Republicans show.

The internal memos and e-mails for the first time unveil the industry's plan to finance positive TV ads and supportive groups, along with providing $80 billion in discounts and taxes that were included in the law. The administration has previously denied the existence of a deal involving political support.

The documents were released today by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They identify price controls under Medicare and drug importation as the key industry concerns, and show that former Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Kindler and his top aides were involved in drawing it up and getting support from other company executives.

“As part of our agreement, PhRMA needs to undertake a very significant public campaign in order to support policies of mutual interest to the industry and the Administration,” according to a July 14, 2009, memo from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We have included a significant amount for advertising to express appreciation for lawmakers’ positions on health care reform issues.”

The goal, the memo said, was to “create momentum for consensus health care reform, help it pass, and then acknowledge those senators and representatives who were instrumental in making it happen and who must remain vigilant during implementation.”

Can't say I'm surprised.

"But WAMK, deals like this are always done in D.C.  You're just mad it is a Democrat making the deals."

Really?  Then why did the Administration previously deny any kind of deal was struck?

Are you happy that part of the deal was to "kill" a portion of the Democrats legislation to allow imported drugs help lower the overall costs?

Included in the documents released by the Republicans was an October 2012 e-mail from Bryant Hall, a PhRMA lobbyist,

In it, Hall wrote that the Obama administration had agreed to block a proposal by Democrats in Congress that would let people import pharmaceutical products from outside the U.S., where price controls offer them at lower costs than they can be obtained inside the U.S.

The White House “is working on some very explicit language to kill it in health-care reform,” Hall wrote in an e-mail sent to Kindler and Sally Susman, a current Pfizer executive vice president and head of the New York-based drugmaker’s public policy and communications operations.

Why did the President kill a portion that was so important to members of his own Party, and a position he campaigned for himself?

Why my daughter will never go to public school, Chapter 132..

Full story here:

 

 

Funny, isn't it?

I don't recall Huffington Post running a top-of-the-page story on the Bush Administration re-writing the rules when it comes to whistleblowers and reporters.

Probably because the Bush Administration didn't follow through on that threat.

You don't even need to click this link to find out what I'm talking about, do you?

Risen was originally subpoenaed in 2008, after the publication of his book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration." Risen fought the order, which expired in 2009. But Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder authorized a second subpoena in 2010, and when that was quashed, a third in May 2011.

Two months later, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Risen had a qualified privilege not to testify against Sterling. "A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter’s notebook,” she wrote.

Brinkema also noted that Risen's testimony didn't seem necessary, since the government had plenty of phone and email records it could use to try to prove a link between leaker and source.

Risen's lawyer, Joel Kurtzburg, mostly argued that the appeals court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as Brinkema hadn't actually ruled out Risen's testimony yet. She agreed to a DOJ request to revisit the question when the trial was nearly over.

Risen didn't attend Friday's hearing, but discussed the case earlier this month at the National Press Club.

"They've said in that there is no reporter's privilege," Risen said. "I think they want the court to rule on a fundamental constitutional issue of whether or not there is a reporter's privilege in a criminal case, which makes this case kind of have a broader import than it might otherwise have."

"That's why I think it's become a pretty important case," he continued. "It's a fairly basic constitutional issue for the press, whether or not there is a reporter's privilege. It's something a lot of people outside the press don’t really understand, don't really care about. I think the basic issue is whether you can have a democracy without aggressive investigative reporting and I don't believe you can. So that's why I'm fighting it."

The hardline stand against reporter's privilege -- the DOJ briefs always put the term in quotation marks -- is a hallmark of the Obama administration's unprecedented crackdown over leaks. So is trying to throw the book at the alleged leakers.

At least the Obama folks have only done this once, right?

The Obama administration has charged six different people with violations of the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law intended to prohibit aiding the enemy. That’s more uses of Espionage Act than under all previous presidential administrations combined.

While the Obama administration hasn't prosecuted those responsible for torture during the Bush years, it is taking a strong stand against a former official believed to have supplied information to the media about use of torture and other controversial tactics during the previous administration.

In January, the Justice Department charged former CIA officer John Kiriakou with disclosing classified information to the media; The FBI claims to have evidence linking him to a 2008 New York Times storydetailing the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.

In another notable case, the DOJ charged Thomas Drakeunder the Espionage Act, claiming the former National Security Agency official provided classified information of gross NSA mismanagement to a Baltimore Sun reporter. The government's case collapsed in 2011 and Drake pleaded guilty only to a misdemeanor.

The crackdown hasn't gone unnoticed among reporters, with tension recently spilling out into the White House briefing room after the administration praised Anthony Shadid and Marie Colvin, journalists who died while covering the bloody conflict in Syria.

Jake Tapper, the senior White House correspondent for ABC News, askedWhite House Press Secretary Jay Carney how public support of those journalists' work "square[s] with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court."

"There just seems to be a disconnect here," Tapper added. "You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States."

Whoops.  Well, at least Obama has been consistent on his feelings about whistleblowers and the Press, right?

In April 2008, then-candidate Obama told the audience at an AP luncheon that he believed a federal judge, and not a sitting administration, should decided if a confidential source should be protected. Obama also supported a federal shield law, but during his first year in office, the White House sent Congress "sweeping revisions" to a proposed bill that "would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify," according to the Times. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about Obama's current views on the matter.

During the May 1 panel -- which Drake and Kiriakou attended -- Risen said he doesn't "understand the Obama administration's incentives and motivation in becoming much more aggressive on leaks than even the Bush administration was."

It's notable that Risen describes the Obama administration as more aggressive, considering his experience with the Bush administration, which successfully lobbied Timessenior editors in 2003 not to publish Risen's story on a bungled CIA plan to provide flawed nuclear blueprints to Iran -- a story that later appeared in his 2006 book. The Bush administration also persuaded the Times to hold Risen and reporter Eric Lichtblau's bombshell investigation of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program for more than a year -- until after Bush's reelection -- citing national security concerns. The Pulitzer Prize-winning piece finally ran in Dec. 2005, with "State of War" on shelves two weeks later.

Risen joked that he must have "sold a lot of books in the FBI and the Justice Department, because they seemed to investigate things in almost every chapter I wrote."

I'll at least give HuffPo credit for noticing the hypocrisy from the Obama Administration.

Mission Accomplished?

Way to bring Chicago-style politics Nationwide, Mr. President:

Businessman Frank Vandersloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, has been targeted by the Obama campaign after donating money to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, 'Keeping GOP Honest,' took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney," Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal reported. "Titled 'Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors,' the post accused the eight of being 'wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.' Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being 'litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"

The attacks are working. Vandersloot revealed in an interview on Fox News that his business practice is being hurt by the attacks from the Obama team. 

"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," said Vandersloot. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."

"Really?," the Fox News host asked. "How many did that?"

"A couple hundred that we can track," Vandersloot replied. 

 

Stop talking with forked tongue, Ms. Warren..

This issue isn’t going away until Ms. Warren either makes this statement or offers verifiable proof of her claim. Fessing up is the best option for a campaign that is presently on life support. I can with certainty say that dozens of genealogists are going to take a very close look at any new evidence offered up by the Warren campaign. Based on the results of their previous efforts to offer “corroborating evidence,” who knows where that may lead?

Read the whole thing.

Chicago Politics being played in D.C...

You guys on the Left are okay with tactics like this, right?

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

Is this the new "normal" in politics now?  Used to be, qualified, capable people shied away from public office because they didn't want people digging through their trashcans for dirt.  The Obama Crew is now doing that with donors.  Politicians wonder why people hate them so much.  Perhaps this latest tactic will help educate them.

Disgusting.

Why does the Left even pretend to care about the budget and deficits?

It's pretty obvious that they don't:

Last summer, as part of the agreement that resulted in raising the federal government’s debt limit, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which set spending caps for future years. These spending caps represented “cuts” in the Washington sense; that is, spending was allowed to increase, but not as fast as might otherwise have been projected. When it has suited their purposes, the Democrats have been champions of the Budget Control Act. Thus when House Republicans adopted a budget that would have spent less than the maximums under the BCA, Democrats alleged that the budget “violated” the Act. They thus turned the Budget Control Act on its head, pretending that the maximum spending levels agreed on in the Act–caps–were actually minimums.

Now, with no fanfare and no press coverage, the Democrats are attempting to negate–effectively, to repeal–the Budget Control Act by adopting spending bills that exceed its limits. Harry Reid and his Senate confederates have offered a bill to increase spending on the Post Office, S. 1789. The bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing the federal deficit by $34 billion, and no provision has been made to recoup that money somewhere else in the budget. (Of course, we don’t have a budget because the Democrats in the Senate won’t pass one. But spending could still be cut somewhere else.)

Read the rest for a great piece by Jeff Sessions.

Hey, Politifact, did President Obama eat a dog, or not?

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?  One only has to pick up a copy of POTUS' book, or listen to the link readily available online these days to get it straight from the source.

So Politifact rated it as "true", right?

Not so fast, Sparky.

Keep this in mind next time someone uses Politifact as a source to back up (or disprove) any claim.

Wow.

While the accolades of how great a journalist Mike Wallace was continue to rain down, take a few minutes to watch this clip, and read this.  Make sure to watch the brief comments after the NewsBusters logo at the end of the clip.

 

Remember when the one guy punched the other guy of a different race in the face, robbed him of his possessions, onlookers laughed and filmed, and no one helped the victim?

No?  It was all over the news.  Happened on St. Patricks Day, a clear case of a racial hate crime.  Dude got laid out from a punch to the face, his head smacked the pavement, and he was stripped and robbed while people stood by and did nothing.  Lots of onlookers even filmed it.

Then Jesse and Al and the MSM descended on Baltimore to decry the racial violence, and screamed for justice for the victim, staged protests and rallies, and begged for Federal involvement.  President Obama even called the victim, to make sure he was okay.  He gave a speech about how he would have to explain to his daughters about the bitter racial divide in our great Country.

You don't remember this?  Maybe this video clip will refresh your memory then: