The White House continues to avoid discussing details on whether Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a job if he skipped the Pennsylvania Senate primary but spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday that lawyers reviewed conversations and found “nothing inappropriate.” 

“I’m not a lawyer. But lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And  nothing inappropriate happened,” Gibbs told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” 

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were. People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way,” he said.

Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary last week, months ago said that the White House offered him a job to stay out of the race. 

Sestak refused to bow out then, and still refuses to say now what job was offered.

“I was offered a job. I answered that,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “Anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role. And that’s their responsibility.”

Gibbs said Republicans continue to “dredge this up” because Pat Toomey, the GOP nominee challenging Sestak is “already behind in a very important Senate race.” 

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll taken one day after Tuesday’s primary election showed Sestak leading Toomey 46-42 percent with 1 4.5 percent margin of error among 500 likely voters.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said if Sestak were offered a job, it would behoove the White House to “either corroborate that or call him a liar.”

“Is it proper, ethical and legal for the White House to try to get a sitting member of Congress out of a race because they have other plans? I don’t know. The White House has to answer the question,” Steele said.

President Obama must truly be getting desperate in light of the fact that his health care bill is on “life support”. And don’t think that he is just sitting there; that’s not what community organizers – or liberals, for that matter - do.

How desperate is Obama to get this health care bill passed this fall?  So desperate that he is turning to a page of his own playbook.  The president today is going to hold an online and telephone strategy meeting with some of his “devoted” grass roots backers as perhaps a backlash over his health care reform plan is spreading (believe it or not!) to the liberal media commentators.

Perhaps a question to be asked here is whether the mass numbers of Obama supporters will participate like they did when they helped him get elected. to recap a bit, here is where Obama has gotten to this point of desperation.

I guess the easiest starting point is the town hall meetings. As most of you already know, the people who have shown up at the town hall meetings are not in favor of Obamacare; they have for the most part been civil, despite the pro-Obamacare people showing up.  The president obviously has gotten the message as now he has changed his rhetoric in reference to his proposed health care bill.

As a matter of fact, the White House has spent the last two days attempting to deflect reports that they are softening up its proposal to create a goverrnment-ran health entity to compete with private insurers in order to bring down the cost of health care and to widen access – supposedly.

Last Sunday, a bunch of media accounts interpreted remarks made by WH spokesman Robert Gibbs and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as stepping back from the “government option”. Gibbs further added on Monday:

“As I’ve said, now, yesterday and earlier today, the administration’s position is unchanged. I think the suggestion somehow that anything that was said Saturday or Sunday as being new administration policy is just not something that I would agree with.”

The Obama administration is arguing that having a government option is still a key part of the health care plan yet at the same time says that the president is open to other options  that will increase choice and competition within the health care market.

And as I had said in the past, the Republicans and the vast majority of the general public do not approve – of which the public has made abundantly clear at the town hall meetings being hosted by Democratic lawmakers.

All of a sudden, the administration has tossing around the idea of a not-for-profit health care “cooperative”.  One thing that a cooperative will almost certainly do is basically lure people into centralized health care – meaning that because the government will be a part of these “cooperatives”, this is really no different than having your government-ran health care – the public option – as Obama originally proposed.

Of course, with all of these mixed messages, the liberal media is getting pissed, so to speak.  And who to lead the charge for the liberal print media than columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Obama Times and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post.

Herbert, between swallows of the Obama Koolaid, stated:

“If we manage to get health care ‘reform’ this time around it will be the kind of reform that benefits the very people who have given us a failed system, and thus made reform so necessary.”

Meanwhile, Robinson put in his two cents:

“Giving up the public option would send many of Obama’s progressive supporters into apoplexy, yet the administration has sent clear signals that this is the path of less resistance it’s prepared to take.”

See, here’s the thing. I think we can all agree on at least this one thing: that the government option in reference to Obamacare is not doable, is not sustainable and is just a tool in Obama’s quest for the United States to become this Socialist utopia – where the government controls our daily lives. And that’s exactly what a government-ran health care system will do.

Folks, our work is nowhere near done. We need to continue attending the tea parties and town hall meetings (while being civil yet forceful); in addition, please continue calling your local lawmakers and emphasize to them that you do not approve of a government-ran health care system. do whatever is necessary – within legal means, of course – to get that point across.

Again, for the sake of being redundant, if you choose to sit on your asses and hope for the best and assume that the bill is just going to die, then you may be in for a rude awakening.  Because there may be that day in either September or October when you discover that the House of Representatives and Senate pass this health care bill.  what will you do then?  Whine? If you do, then you have no one to blame but yourselves. You chose to just sit there while the lawmakers in Washington vote as they originally planned.

And God help you if you’re one of the apathetic ones, you’re a senior citizen and/or on Medicare.  You’ll suffer the most – trust me.  If you choose not to take control of your lives, then you probably are getting what you deserve. That’s not what America is all about. Not by a longshot.

Certainly it would be nice to get some consistency from the Obama administration in reference to the health care bill and its components; while they’re at it, they may want to make up their minds as to whether they’re for or against the “single-payer” program.

For those of you who have been following this health care debacle, Obama and other administration officials – proponents of socialized medicine – perhaps because of pressure from Republicans and more importantly we the people, suggested that a public option is not “do-or-die”.

Fortunately for us, the Associated Press did a little fact checking on Obama’s healthy care rhetoric.  I think you will be able to separate the fact from the fiction here:

CLAIM: “I challenge you guys all to go back and see what we’ve said about this over the course of many, many, many, many months, and you’ll find a boring consistency to our rhetoric,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

THE FACTS: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said a new public plan should offer comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal employees.

In the first half of the year, Obama said repeatedly in speeches, weekly radio and Internet addresses and town halls that he wants a health care overhaul that has a taxpayer-funded public health insurance option. He has said the plan would compete with private insurance to keep costs down.

“That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans — including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest — and choose what’s best for your family,” he said on July 18.

And in a June 3 letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Obama said: “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest.”

When Obama hedged this weekend in Colorado — and other administration officials followed suit — liberals cried foul and the White House insisted that the rhetoric hadn’t shifted.

“Must include” became “whether we have it or don’t have it.”

Gibbs repeated the claim, however, in a meeting with reporters Tuesday morning, saying news stories suggesting the administration was ready to abandon the public option were overblown.

Gibbs said there was no intention to indicate a change in policy. “If it was a signal, it was a dog whistle we started blowing weeks ago.”

So you see folks, you’re getting different takes on the health care bill from many different angles, although to be fair here, I find it hard to take seriously anything that Gibbs says anymore.  But I am pretty certain of at least one thing: the health care bill, when it comes up for a vote in either September or October, is sure to meet a timely death in Congress. 

But despite that, do not rest on your laurels, people. Keep attending the tea parties and town hall meetings; our work is nowhere near finished. Trust me when I tell you this: the politicians – especially the Democrats – are running scared. And most certainly, their careers are on the line. But regardless of political stripe, they will have to come to the cold reality that they are first and foremost public servants. 

They have been elected to serve the interests of the public – nothing more and nothing less. There is an election cycle in 2010 and they’re very mindful of that fact, which is why they need to come to their senses and vote smart – in this case, vote NO on all of the various forms of the health care bill that are sitting in both the House of Representatives and Senate.  Because if they don’t, that’s where we step in.  We simply will go to our local polling place and vote them out office. It’s just that simple.

Robert Gibbs, Shakesperean extraordinaire, talking about TurboTax Timmy, Cramer talking about the rare stock market rise and more.

Maybe I should’ve piled on insofar as the title of this piece, but I chose to stick with President Obama’s most recent mess-ups, instead.  First of all, I find it appalling that Obama, when he should be governing the nation that he has made a financial mess of, instead of goes to Hollywood and make an appearance on the Tonight Show last Thursday.  Then he makes a decision in the form of a statement that will haunt him for the rest of his presidency: He tells 60 Minutes that if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner offers his resignation, he wouldn’t accept it.

Some of the other “lowlights” in his 60 Minutes interview:

• He said that corporate executives need to better understand the public’s rage over bonuses.  He also said that executives should leave New York and go to either Iowa or Arkansas – where they’re “thrilled” to make $75,000 a year with no bonuses.
• Obama also discussed the Guantanamo Bay detention center.  He said that the U.S. hasn’t done a good job sorting out who should be released from Gitmo because some have rejoined terrorist groups.  He also said that U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining  which prisoners will be a danger once they have been released.
• Obama also said that the Bush administration’s policy of holding detainees for years on end without any trials is “unsustainable” and has only fueled anti-American sentiments.
• Obama also fired back at former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertions that his plan to close Gitmo would make the U.S. less safe, saying:

“How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?” he asked. “It hasn’t made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment.”

Lots of holes in his arguments, in my estimation.  Firstly, in light of the overall ineffectiveness of TurboTax Timmy, how can you not let him go?  Not to mention Geithner’s knowledge of everything in the AIG bonus fiasco.  But then again, Obama not only received money from AIG, I truly believe that he knows a little more about the AIG bonus provision in the $787 billion stimulus package than he is letting on.

Secondly, how dare Obama claim to speak for and at the same time insult the fine people of Iowa and Arkansas?  Saying that people of those 2 states are thrilled to make $75,000 a year with no bonuses speaks volumes about Obama and his Socialist mentality.  Another thing.  I do not understand for the life of me why Obama would slam Bush’s Gitmo policies.  Last time I checked, our country hasn’t been attacked since 9/11.  There is actually a good reason why these detainees have been held for as long as they have been.  Has it occurred to Obama that of the detainees who have been released, they simply went back to doing terrorist activities?

Folks, Obama is an idiot.  First of all, he messes up our economy.  Then he nominates Geithner to be Treasury Secretary – only to find out that he didn’t pay any taxes.  Then he insults the citizens of Iowa and Arkansas with that “$75,000 a year with no benefits” comment.  Then he decides to have Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General – the guy who anyone who follows the Clintons and their history know that Holder played a big part in the pardon of that fugitive Marc Rich.

Obama then appoints Melody Barnes as Director of Domestic Policy Council.  She’s from Chicago – thus a payback hire.  then there’s fellow idiot Christine Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.  She’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the toolbox.  Robert Gibbs – please don’t get me started about him, OK?  Lawrence Summers – yet another Clintonista in Obama’s Cabinet.  David Axelrod – not only is he from Chicago but another Clintonista. 

Then there’s Eric Shinseki.  He was appointed as Secretary of Veteran Affairs; you’d think that Shinseki, as a retired member of the military that he would be most sensitive to wounded veterans’ needs.  Apparently not.  Then there’s that Clintonista tool Leon Panetta, who is now head of the CIA – are you kidding me?  Panetta as CIA chief?  That’s like having Rod Blagojevich becoming the head of the Salvation Army.  Panetta is nothing more than a glorified office manager.

Of course, we can’t leave out the old Chicago Sopranos wannabe Rahm Emanuel – yet another Clintonista who now serves as Chief of Staff.  Let’s not forget – speaking of Clintons – good ole’ Hillary Clinton, our current Secretary of State.  Obviously, Obama chose her as homage to Abe Lincoln.  You know – keep your friends close and your enemies even closer?  Then there’s Carol Browner; she’s Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – and a known Socialist.

Then there’s Steven Chu – liberal whacko who is now U.S. Secretary of Energy.  He wants to make the entire nation “green” with a green electrical grid.  What is it with these wacky scientists, anyways?  Oh, let’s not forget that former governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, the current head of Homeland Security.  She uses the term “man-made disasters” instead of terrorists.  Memo to Janet – terrorists do in fact exist, and a man-made disaster is a poor choice of terms.  She has always reminded me of the bureaucrat who, when she leaves her worksite, goes home to her cats and is miserable.

Then there is the Colorado tool aka Ken Salazar, the current Secretary of the Interior.  Firstly, I find it real hard to take seriously a Democrat who dresses up like a poor man’s version of Will Rogers.  And points get taken away for his weird environmental policy.  They should create a Cabinet position that’s perfect for him – the Secretary of the Exterior.  In this position, Salazar would create policy on a deserted atoll – the Marianas way out in the Pacific Ocean is a good place for him.

And folks, for the sake of being redundant, it is exactly situations such as this which require immediate action from we, the people.  It is high time we start being proactive and help ensure that the GOP retake the House and Senate in 2010 and the White House in 2012. 

 How can you be proactive?  Writing your Republican senators and congressmen/women in your district is a good start; this is your forum to state your displeasure with the way out taxpayer is being spent like a bucnh of drunken sailors with no regard of the consequences.  You can also be proactive by volunteering at a campaign for the GOP senator and/or congressman/woman in your district.  they are a vital cog in the success of a politician’s campaign.  Last but certainly not least – get out there in 2010 and 2012 and vote.  Only 53% of us voted in 2008, which contributed to the Democraps taking not only Congress but the White House, as well.  Do you want that again?  If you’re a conservative like me, then it is obvious that you don’t. 

Now – if you choose to just sit on your ass, do nothing and hope for the best, then perhaps maybe you want the Dems to continue to run Congress and the White House for 6 and 4 more years, respectively.  That’s not being Republican is all about, and if you want your country back like I do,  then you need to take action and take it right now.

Way to go, Gibbs. Don’t ever let me accuse you of being a diplomat.

Well folks, it looks like President Obama, despite his pledge to reduce – no check that – eliminate earmarks (hey he said it during his campaign!!!), will sign that massive spending bill, perhaps as early as Wednesday (today) – even though it is chock-full of pet projects across the board.

Allegedly, he is “troubled”  by the earmarks that have been blasted by Republicans and even some moderate Democrats as a waste of taxpayer money; the president is expected to announce earmark reform sometime on Wednesday – I’ll believe that when I see it.  Here’s the contradiction in all of this: although Obama claims to want to champion earmark reform, his puppet Robert Gibbs said,

“This is necessary to continue funding government. It represents last year’s business. Although it’s not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better.”

Just from that statement alone, I would venture to say that a not-so-subtle jab at George W. Bush was placed in that statement.  And I seriously doubt that any true “earmark reform” will in fact take place.  Some of the highlights – or lowlights, depending on which side of the aisle you’re on:

• A $485,000 earmark for funding a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska.
• $1.2 million for the non-profit Helen Keller International; the money is designed to provide eyeglasses for students with poor vision.
• Significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs.
• A 14% increase in a popular program that feeds infants and poor women (I believe that’s called the WIC program).
• A 10% increase in for housing vouchers for the poor (I’m pretty sure that is the Section 8 program).
• A $2.4 billion, 13% increase for the Agriculture Department.
• A 10% increase for Amtrak – something that hasn’t made any appreciable money in quite some time.

Perhaps one thing in this bill is positive:  lawmakers will be denied a cost-of-living increase pay increase that they are due next January 1.  Regardless of all of this, if any earmark is to take place, it will have to be crafted within the House and/or Senate – preferably by Republicans as it is common knowledge that the Democrats’ only skill is to tax and spend.  But earmark reform is necessary – and it’s very doable.

Fortunately for us, we do not have to listen to the yappings of Gibbs for two days of the week – Saturday and Sunday. For the most part, anyways. In any case, here’s Robert.

The vast majority of us already know that White House press secretary/puppet Robert Gibbs updates the media on all things Obama, but he also has an added responsibility: media basher.

I believe that at least 3 media reps can attest to that fact: Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli and Rush Limbaugh.  In two weeks’ time, Gibbs has slammed all three in some shape, way or fashion, with not surprisingly, Limbaugh getting the brunt of the abuse – especially from within the walls of the White House.  Some examples such as Rahm Emanuel singling out Limbaugh because he said that he wanted Obama to fail.  What was actually said by Rush was that he did want Obama to fail but did not want the economy to fail.

Yesterday, Gibbs called on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air – like that’s going to happen; Gibbs followed up that dare with,

“Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether — whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.”

Gibbs went even further, as he slammed those who were in attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend, adding this:

“You know, I’d like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We’ll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh’s speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke.”

What has been discovered in all of this – and you do not have to be a political scientist to figure this one out – is that the Obama administration has a thin skin and cannot stand criticism of any kind – which probably explains why they embrace the Fairness Doctrine.  It kind of makes you wonder if the administration isn’t a big advocate of free speech, either.

Could there be the makings of a 2-on-1 power struggle between Congress, the Senate and President Obama?  I suppose that depends on who you ask, but it appears that Obama is getting some resistance from Congress and the Senate on the so-called “elimination” of earmarks as a top congressional Democrat bucked the president’s plan.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer is the second leading congressional Democrat this week to ignore Obama’s drive to curb earmarks on spending bills.  Obama also got hammered by the Democrats for his call to raise taxes on high-wage earners, especially his plan to limit some taxpayers’ itemized deductions for charitable donations.  Hoyer said that he was open to the President’s suggestions on earmark reform; however, to illustrate how arrogant the Dems in Congress and the Senate have become, Hoyer issued this caveat:

“I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do. I hope you all got that down.”

Those remarks aren’t too much different than those of Nevada Democrat Harry Reid who said that the earmarks process is a congressional prerogative.  To recap just a bit, on Monday, White House puppet Robert Gibbs said that Obama planned some new rules on earmarks before Congress acts on the $3.5 trillion budget for 2010; as has been the pattern thus far, Obama’s earmark reform will signify the first real rift between him and the leaders of his own party in Congress.

Proof that “business as usual” will eventually prevail between Obama and the minions in Congress, please note that Hoyer and Reid are saying that banning earmarks would undermine Congress’ ability to control the government’s wallet and would leave up to the president big decisions as to where federal taxpayer dollars are spent. 

Speaking of earmarks, the contrasts between the years when Bush was in office and the current number and dollar amount for earmarks is striking; according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, during the presidential election campaign, Obama proposed reducing earmarks to 1994 levels when Congress slipped in 1,318 earmarks costing $7.8 billion into the annual appropriations bill.

Meanwhile, last year’s spending bills under the Bush administration and a Democrat-led Congress found 11,610 earmarks totalling $17.2 billion; the current omnibus spending bill contains more than 9,000 earmarks worth $12.8 billion while it increases spending by 8% over 2008 levels – which is twice the rate of inflation.  Some of the earmarks in the bill?  Such junk as:

• $1.9 million for water taxi service at Pleasure Island, CT
• Over $950,000 for a “sustainable Las Vegas program”

Critics of the earmark process – yours truly included – say that it is the lightning rod that allows dumb pet projects to be delivered by members of Congress while ballooning the federal deficit and undermining the budget-writing process.  As is common practice amongst the Democrats, Hoyer and others in his party claim that the explosion of earmarks goes back to 1995 when the Republicans took over Congress – yes, once again the Democrats’ favorite pastime, the blame game – and that they have introduced reforms to identify earmarks in spending bills and identify the member who requested it.

Despite it all, Hoyer thinks that an overhaul of the earmarks process needs no fine-tuning, adding,

“We ought to keep that weapon but give confidence to the American people that we are exercising it in a responsible way.”

There certainly has to be a reform that needs to take place in eliminating earmarks, period as well as a method to where we, the people, should be able to view these earmarks and the morons who propose them – regardless of political stripe.  Although the Democrats are the kings of earmarks, the GOP is guilty, as well.  I understand that earmarks are key for members of Congress to curry favor with their constituents, but also understand that it is taxpayers’ dollars that pay for them.

This may be one of those times – since Congress obviously doesn’t listen to their Republican members – for a Democratic member of Congress to stand up, grow a pair of balls and request – no, demand – that earmark reform take place as soon as possible.  Earmarks are a waste of our money, pure and simple and the abuse of the process is rampant. 

Believe it or not, the citizens of this country of ours would respect members of Congress and the Senate if they simply were upfront about these earmarks and better yet – get input and approval before proposing them.