One thing that you can say about the Obama administration: they really go all out to accomplish their goals, especially in regards of the slowly-dying healthcare bill that he has been trying to shove down our throats.

Their latest trick: seling some judgeships in return for some votes on the healthcare bill.

The President Wednesday night hosted ten House Democrats who had voted against the bill in November at the White House in the attempt to “persuade” them to change their minds.

What’s interesting in all of this is that the White House sent out a press release, which said that Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is important to note here that Matheson, Jr. is the brother of one of the aforementioned attendees, Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah.

So the obvious question here is this: Was this a case of a judgeship being given in the hopes of gaining a vote in the healthcare bill?

Well, here is Matheson’s voting record in that respect:

He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July 2009 and again in November 2009 when it passed the House. However, he all of a sudden went  to “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress.

I don’t want to come to any rash conclusion here, but the timing of the nomination looks real suspicious, especially knowing that Joe Sestak was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary; the job in question has been rumored to be the Secretary of the Navy position.

Again, I’m not going to just accuse someone or some branch of the federal government of wrongdoing, but you cannot ignore these findings. But it looks like a recurring theme as of late.

Congress should be made aware of this and be looked into in the form of an internal investigation. If this pans put like it appears, then some heads need to roll.

Blame it on the Democrats having an epiphany. Blame it on the Democrats coming to their senses, for a change. Nonetheless, the National Labor Relations Board did not get the pro-union guy that they were looking for.

The Senate, or at least as many as could make it to vote, convened on Tuesday to decide whether union lawyer Craig Becker’s nomination to the NLRB would happen. As it turned out, 52 senators voted to cut off debate on the nomination – eight short of the number needed – while 33 were opposed. The snowstorm that has shut Washington, D.C. down ensured that other senators wouldn’t make an appearance for a vote.

Other than the weather being a friend to the GOP, what does the vote mean? Let me give you an idea as to who Becker is.

Becker had served as an attorney for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). As we all know, during President’s campaign stops, he endorsed the unions (especially the SEIU) and said that their agenda was his agenda. In other words, he’s pro-union. After all, the unions put plenty of cash into Obama’s presidential coffers, helping him get elected.

Also keep in mind that the Democrats were pushing the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “Card Check”. Card Check basically makes it easier for employees to start unions – with the assistance of existing unions.

Becker, if he had been nominated, more than likely would have been pushing a union agenda; he obviously is sympathetic to card-check laws and union interests, in general. Interestingly, despite Becker’s pledge during a hearing last week that he would “respect the will of Congress”, a Democrat (believe it or not) actually spoke up against Becker. Who was this Democrat, you’re wondering? the architect of the Nebraska Purchase, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Nelson said:

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,”

“This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand.”

Of course, it took a Illinois Democrat (unions and Illinois…see a recurring theme there?) to expose the majority of Democrats for the pro-unions shills that they are. I’m referring to Dick Durbin. He apparently likes Becker as he stated:

“His job is to basically interpret the law as written and to implement the law as Congress has passed it. He said repeatedly, if confirmed, he will apply the law fairly and impartially.”

No kidding, Dick.

See, here’s the thing. anyone who is up for nomination for a post within the Obama administration is going to say whatever it takes to get nominated. Becker is just the most recent example, which leads us to the vetting process – or lack thereof.

Timothy Geithner was nominated despite obviously being a tax cheat. Kathleen Sebelius? She’s pro-choice, which is contradictory to what the head of DHHS is supposed to uphold. She’s not impartial, in other words.

Of course, Obama is oblivious to all of this as he has stated that he’s frustrated because “qualified, non-controversial nominees” have been held up despite overwhelming support. A curious statement coming from the “O” as I have no idea which nominees, other than Becker, he is referring to.

The president needs to let sink into his head that he isn’t always going to get what he wants, and whining to the MSM is not going to exactly enhance your standing with the people of the United States.

But don’t be surprised if the administration throws another pro-union nominee in the direction of Congress soon. After all, that’s the Chicago way.

Nat sent this in:

(WASHINGTON)—Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) released the following statement after voting against a measure to raise the debt limit, this time by $1.9 trillion, to $14.3 trillion enabling the administration and Democrat-led Congress to continue the same reckless fiscal policies of excessive borrowing and spending:

“The national debt limit has increased more than $2.9 trillion since President Obama took office and since the last debt limit increase Democrats have not passed a single bill to reduce spending or lower the deficit.  This is also the largest one-time increase in our nation’s history.  Enough is enough.  We must not continue to borrow and spend our children’s future away.  Just over a week ago this president looked Congress in the eye and proclaimed we needed to take meaningful steps to rein in our debt or it would damage our markets and jeopardize our economic recovery.   This is the Democrat leadership’s response?”

“Let’s also be clear about the “Pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) farce Democrats wrapped in to today’s debt limit increase.  The deficit has increased by $1.4 trillion in the little more than two years since the Democrats adopted the PAYGO rule.   What is going to be any different this time?  This is just cover for Democrats to feed their spending addiction through new tax increases and it does nothing to meaningfully increase fiscal accountability or reduce the deficit and debt.”  

Even the unions have a “social life”. A humorous look at the Obama Administration’s too-close-for-comfort relationship with Big Labor.

Jim sent this in:

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, accused the Obama Administration of an “Alice in Wonderland” approach to the nation’s anti-terrorism strategy.

Lieberman and other senators on both sides of the aisle are critical of President Barack Obama’s decision to try terrorists in civilian court in New York City as well as the Obama Justice Department’s decision to process the so-called “Underwear Bomber” captured on Christmas Day in the civilian criminal justice system.

Lieberman urged the Administration Monday to move Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from civilian to military custody because “he is an enemy combatant and should be detained, interrogated and ultimately charged as such.”

“Though the President has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the President’s words are reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice, responsible for fighting that war. The unilateral decision by the Department of Justice to treat Abdulmutallab – a belligerent fighting for and trained by an al-Qaeda franchised organization – as a criminal rather than a UEB and to forego information that may have been extremely helpful to winning this war demonstrates that very point,” Lieberman wrote in his letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder’s decision to prosecute murderous, fanatical terrorists—including the 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — in civilian courts continues to infuriate many Americans, but to no avail.

While President Barack Obama claims that he sees American intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement systems working together seamlessly. He wants the professionals in these areas to collect, share, integrate, analyze and act on intelligence “as quickly and effectively as possible to save innocent lives, not just most of the time, but all of the time,” he said. “That’s what the American people deserve. As president, that’s exactly what I will demand.”

But not everyone believes the president is serious about intelligence gathering and analysis during a time of war.. Some security experts believe that it wasn’t the intelligence people who failed in the prelude to the Christmas Day attempted airline bombing, but a clear lack of leadership.

“You have a Homeland Security Secretary who believes returning war veterans are extremists and an Attorney General who’s biting at the bit to prosecute intelligence agents,” said former NYPD detective and US Marine intelligence officer Mike Snopes.

“And when they get caught with their pants down, right away they blame the people — the intelligence community — whom they denigrate with their usual vitriol,” he added.

“We and many others have already expressed serious concerns about whether a trial in civilian court might compromise classified evidence, including revealing sources and methods used by our intelligence community,” said Senator Lieberman.

“We are also very concerned that, by bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists responsible for 9/11 to the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, only blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood, you will be providing them one of the most visible platforms in the world to exalt their past acts and to rally others in support of further terrorism,” he said.

“The moment [Abdulmutallab] was given Miranda [warnings], the guy lawyered-up. Which means investigators will have to negotiate with him and possibly trade intelligence for a lighter prison sentence or other break,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

When asked about his motives for not allowing the military justice system to try Gitmo detainees, Attorney Holder and his supporters blame President George W. Bush’s failure to try Gitmo terrorists in the so-called military tribunals.

However, the real reason there were so few military trials was that lawyers were continuously working to derail the military courts martial by challenging them in the civilian courts. And far too many of those lawyers are now working for Holder at the Justice Department, according to Holder and Obama’s critics.

In fact, during the Bush Administration, Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, provided pro-bono services for about 20 of the enemy combatants held at Gitmo. In lawsuits Holder and his firm brought against the American people, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to these violent terrorists.

“From a political standpoint, Holder reserves his vitriol and passionate opposition for US intelligence officers and those law enforcement leaders who fight terrorists, or police commanders who are tough on criminal aliens,” said Mike Baker.

Yet, Obama and Holder appear to enjoy immunity from any investigative journalism by the elite media, including questions regarding Holder’s ties to defending enemies of the United States in the past.

“My read of Holder and his boss Obama is that they are perfectly comfortable befriending and defending terrorists. Obama’s close friend — and ghostwriter — William Ayers was a bomb-maker for the fanatical Weather Underground. And Holder possesses a history of beneficence to terror organizations such as when he brokered a deal for releasing FALN bombers in New York just as Hillary Clinton began her campaign for that state’s US Senate seat,” claims former NYPD detective and US Marine Sidney Frances.

The old adage still applies today as it has in the past: “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”

For those of you who followed the campaign of Barack Obama prior to his election to the presidency, he specifically stated that there would be no more “no-bid” contracts, using Halliburton as the prime example. That folks is yet another broken campaign promise broken by Obama.

Here we are one year into his presidency and his administration has awarded a “sweetheart deal” to one of his larger donors. The contract, which was awarded on January 4, went to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi. The firm will receive $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in Afghanistan.

What gives this the controversial tag was when a source familiar with rule-of-law issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, said that this is unusual in terms of firms that are already doing this kind of work. It gets even weirder, folks. Especially in relation to Checchi & Company’s owner.

Checchi pretty much used the “Sgt. Schultz” defense as he stated that he knew nothing about the no-bid process that was used until after the fact. Personally, I find that hard to believe, as thus statement came from the company’s owner. USAID officials aren’t exactly forthcoming on this subject either; when asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too “busy” to comment on it. “I’ll tell it to the people in Haiti,” Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.

Now a bit about Checchi. He has donated at least $6,600 to Obama, dating back to March 2007; the contractor has also donated to various arms of the Democratic Party, to organizations such as MoveOn.org and ActBlue. Additionally, he has donated sizable chunks of cash to Sen. John Kerry, John Edwards and former Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont.

To read the official contract award, please click here.

Let’s be clear here, the no-bid process has been a standard part of how the federal government does business with the private sector for quite some time. The Clintons used it, as has the Bush administration and now the Obama administration, so this transcends party affiliation. This no-bid business needs to come to an immediate halt, as it obviously benefits the “big fellas” who have financially helped presidential candidates get into office. In other words, the abolotion of the no-bid process. Not reform, not a re-evaluation and not a revision. Simply abolish the practice. Not only will it eliminate the possibility of shenanigans, but it will save the government some money, as well.

Funny that the administration has not said one word about this since Obama took over the White House in Jamuary 2009. But you have to expect nothing less from a President who wouldn’t know transparency if it bit him in the butt.

All of this will start a snowball effect, which has already started with Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts, with the snowball gaining size and speed when the mid-term elections visit us in November.

There’s change coming around the bend, and the Obama administration will get a political smackdown in about 9 months.

Pepper sent this in:

(Washington, D.C.) – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) issued the following statement after the hearing held by Republican members of the House Education and Labor Committee on the Obama Administration’s labor agenda:

“Special interests, not American families and small business owners, have benefited most since liberals took control of both the White House and Congress.  Instead of focusing on job creation incentives for small businesses and tax relief for families, the liberal majority has threatened to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot and have rolled back union financial disclosure regulations. 

“The secret backroom negotiations and favoritism that finalize these deals have plagued Washington for too long.  The lack of transparency and preferential treatment is most recently seen in the health care negotiations and union exemption from taxes on so-called Cadillac health care plans. 

“It’s time to straighten out these misplaced priorities and I applaud Ranking Member John Kline and for continuing the discussion about these important concerns,” said Congressman Joe Wilson.

This morning, Republicans on the Education and Labor Committee examined the Obama Administration’s labor agenda, specifically its impact on the current labor market and the rights of employees and considered possible strategies to help rebuild the American economy.