Cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty News.

Michelle Malkin exposes the theatrical collusion that has come to define Washington not only in the political arena, but between politics and big business:

The GOP wants SEC correspondence disclosed. Here’s that story. In related news, Goldman Sachs cheerleader and beneficiary Rahm Emanuel met with NYC business elite about the financial reform plan.

That’s not all:

While President Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them. The White House can no more disown Government Sachs than Da Boss-in-chief can disown Chicago politics.

Read the whole post.

Most troubling is Greg Gordon article at McClatchy exposing the White House visitor logs:

While Goldman Sachs’ lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman’s chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman’s political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

…Goldman’s connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.

…According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.

Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.

He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.

…Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks “kind of a feeding frenzy.”

“The administration has to be very careful,” he said, “because . . . they’re seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that’s going to create almost a mob scene.”

I am reminded of Dr. Larry Hunter’s lessons in political theater:

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES.

Oh, the consequences are real enough and can be catastrophic. And, the players are not fakes; some are marvelous performers and others are fine athletes (was there ever a better ball handler than Meadowlark Lemon or a political bone crusher better at the political Hammerlock and the High Crotch Takedown than Nancy Pelosi?); it is the contest that is fake; it is choreographed violence, cliffhanging drama; a blood sport with real blood carefully let that titillates a gullible audience. Although professional wrestlers appear to be bitter foes inside the ring, outside the ropes they are drinking buddies, just like U.S. Senators. Wrestling matches, like congressional debates, are carefully choreographed and the punches, gouges and kicks are pulled or exaggerated for effect. The blood in the ring is real enough—wrestlers frequently use a small razor to ‘blade’ (cut themselves) to draw blood—which completes the illusion and makes the match more exhilarating and dramatic for the fans.

So is this just more theater in the road to over-regulation of the free market? Did the actors already know their assigned parts before the drama began? One wonders.

In other news:

Update on Navy SEALs case

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Update: Nullification resolution with teeth: ResistDC: The State Authority and Anti-Racketeering Act:

If teeth is what you want, you need to go no further than Georgia. House Bill 880 (HB880), introduced by Representative Bobby Franklin, is called the “State Authority and Anti-racketeering Act.”

Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, HB880 is legally-binding legislation…

…that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

This bill would make it a crime – with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense – for “any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government” to attempt to “enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law” reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

As of this writing, the bill has had two readings in the Georgia House. Will such a strong piece of legislation go anywhere? Only time will tell. The reality, though, is this – it’s going to take some serious effort to push back against decades and decades of unconstitutional federal acts.

————————

News today at Hot Air via Townhall: Dem sources: Senate “fix” for ObamaCare could add another $300 billion to price tag; Update: Dems ready for reconciliation, says Kyl

As the saying goes – strike when the iron is hot.

Many of my friends will disagree with me this is the time or that healthcare is the issue to fight the nullification battle and start the long journey back to re-asserting states rights; it is a nasty and drawn out process, not an event as many would think. There is the beginning, a middle, and an end. The middle and the end are often, shall we say, fraught with peril. However, given the sheer level of contempt the Democrats are preparing to level at the American public it is clear the time for niceties is over. And I am not talking about the nullification of just the individual mandate which, if successful, may only serve to usher in more quickly the single-payer system, I am talking about the nullification of the entire bill. I’ll go even further and suggest that as many states as possible draft and pass legislation that would allow that state to nullify any federal law which violates state sovereignty. What I am talking about is an virtual (not literal) act of war by the states against the federal government. It would not be pretty; it would not be easy. Continuing a campaign of pressure against the federal government while steadfastly supporting state’s governors and legislators as they embark on this journey of defiance requires great skill, leadership, patience, and gumption. So get ready.

In his excellent piece A short history of the destruction of state sovereignty, a worthy read in itself, Dr. Hunter notes the following regarding the rolling back of tyrannical federal powers:

But, it won’t be simply a matter of untying the knot or walking this cat back. It is impossible to simply retrace the steps that brought the American political system to its present perilous situation; it will require courage, steadfastness, truculence, defiance and a will of iron to stand up to Washington and stand down the power of the federal government. It will be an undertaking not in principle different from but even more daunting and difficult than the Civil Rights Movement, namely reviving America and restoring liberty by overcoming oppressive government that is acting illegally and immorally with a pointed gun under the color of law.

Later, Dr. Hunter goes on to say (emphasis mine):

After spending several weeks traveling around the country speaking at grass-roots events and Tea Parties, I am impressed by the pent up anger at the federal government spilling out across the land. It is diffuse and largely unarticulated but it is real, and it is growing.

I also am impressed by the actions already taken and under consideration in several states to re-establish state prerogatives and “sovereignty”—from unilaterally withdrawing from the federal government the authority to regulate guns manufactured, sold and used solely within the confines of the state (MT & TN), to opting out of national healthcare (AZ) to consideration of refusing to be ensnarled in cap-and-trade (IN).

It is a messy, boisterous process and mass movements such as the Tea Parties frequently get it wrong in their enthusiastic assertions about what is and what is not constitutional. That said, there may be a kernel here—“state sovereignty”—around which a movement may be coalescing and the Spirit of ’98 revived.

But, the state sovereignty movement must be about more than simply unfunded federal mandates; it must go beyond making intergovernmentalism efficient and bearable; it must aim to revive genuine federalism in order to restore individual rights and personal freedom.

Certainly, to be a lasting political force, the Tea Parties need a focus rather than simply running around making noise and venting their frustrations. But time is not likely to wait for the intricate schemes and the best laid plans of man; from the sorry looks of states such as California and plans the current administration has in hand for a complete takeover of everything in sight, events may take on a life of their own.

In the not too distant future, America may face a spontaneous and violent crackup designed by no one but out of the control of anyone, followed by a backlash of severe national-government oppression and tyranny. That is why it is vital for citizens to get ahead of the curve and organize a peaceful rebellion against Washington—a restorative revolution led by the natural depository of power—the States—which were intended by the Founders to be the locus of resistance to check an oppressive and tyrannical national government.

If the states do not intervene to halt the national government’s takeover of everything and act to restore some semblance of balance to the American political system, there is a real danger that Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s prediction in The Road To Serfdom will come to fruition. Hayek feared that in times of turmoil and hardship, the appeal of dismantling the free-market system under the allure of central planning and the distemper of envy and fear would inevitably place society on “the road to serfdom,” which ultimately ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom.

Hayek argued that once a society progresses sufficiently far down the road to collectivism and consolidated central control, the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the national government to implement an otherwise good idea. According to Hayek, such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the national government, and ultimately allow a “strong man” to rise to power. Once a charismatic strong man who is perceived to be capable of “getting the job done” consolidates his power, Hayek foresaw the ultimate and ineluctable descent into outright totalitarianism.

Or, America may traverse the road to serfdom via another route. Rather than a strong-man takeover, a consolidated and centralized national government may instead visit upon the American people tyranny by committee every much as destructive of economic and personal liberty as the rule of any strong man.

Although all the wounds of slavery, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement may not yet be behind us, it may be, one hopes, that they are sufficiently healed to allow a critical mass of Americans from all walks of life to join together and rejuvenate their states. To revive American liberty and restore our constitutional republic, people will have to rediscover their courage to resist the way Martin Luther King and his followers resisted. But whereas civil rights activists looked to the national government as the font of legitimacy to take down immoral and oppressive state laws, a restoration of freedom from national-government oppression will have to look to state governments as the font of legitimacy in resistance.

The Revive America Movement must begin by electing and supporting governors and state legislatures who will act with the Spirit of ‘98 in truculent and defiant resistance to Washington. It will require citizens standing shoulder to shoulder with their governors and state legislators to confront the federal government where possible, defy Uncle Sam where necessary and restore some semblance of balance to the American democracy before it is too late.

Reviving America and restoring liberty to Americans won’t be simple because we are too far down the road to serfdom for simple unwinding and backtracking. It is not self-evidently obvious what a true Restorative Revolution would look like but the civil rights movement offers a model that may be the last best hope we have before passing a point of no return.

As Redstate’s Brian Faughnan reports, Democratic pollster James Carville’s recent poll indicated just one-third of voters support ObamaCare:

Democrats are currently saying that no matter what happens in tomorrow’s Senate election, they will pass a health care rationing bill.

Now there’s some audacity for you.

I am reminded of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

The train of abuses has been long, and with the Brown win, President Obama is promising a combative turn. Translation: more abuses of federal power and even less attention paid to the will of the people. Therefore, it is time, in this author’s opinion, for the Tea Parties to work with state legislators and governors, standing shoulder to shoulder with them, unbending and stalwart in the battle for the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, state leaders and citizens must stare down the federal tyranny with an icy glare. So perilous is this journey that the path must be carefully prepared, our leaders steadfast, and our own resolve unbreakable. What of federal repercussions and our legislative preparedness to deal with them? Are each of us prepared, as in the civil rights movement, to resist in a passive-aggressive manner the abuses of the federal government with acts of civil disobedience? When will the movement reach critical mass, causing the federal powers to crumble under their own weight and lucre?

If the Senate or the House passes the current and very unpopular health care bill, especially if the process of reconciliation is used, this very well could be the tipping point, forcing our hand to take measures to ensure a federal government oblivious to the will of the public is spanked hard and spanked often until it caves to our will. As Orrin Hatch recently stated, the use of the process of reconciliation in the Senate is will lead to an all out war in that chamber. The states would not be far behind.

Already, we have seen the Democrats in the Senate vote, along party lines, to increase the debt ceiling to 14.3 trillion. Combined with the soft on terror approach of the current administration, balooning deficits, a Congress that seems hell-bent on ignoring the American public to the point of brazen arrogance and dismissal, an appology tour by nothing less than the President of the United States, a recent Executive Order by the Presidet that surrenders U.S. sovereignty to Interpol, and a host of other abuses that would fill a book, there is a growing sense that enough is enough.

It is interesting to note that many today believe the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all things within the borders of the United States while in fact this Court is only a check against the other two forms of the federal government, not the states. Where the Constitution is silent, the states can govern themselves.

From The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

The public in each state must ensure its state government does not fold like a bunch of cheap suits when the federal government attempts its first act of retribution – the withdrawal of state funds. While money is a very powerful weapon, the stream flows both ways. Let us not forget our resolve nor allow our leaders in each state to ignore their constitutional duty to each citizen to fight for the rights of the state against the tyranny of the federal government. Let us not waver in the face of opposition from tyrants whose own audacity places them at odds with each of us. This is the time to use federal lucre and abuse of power to grab back the rights duly possessed by the states of this country. In this, the Supreme Court holds no sway over the authority of the states. The Constitution makes this clear. So long and slow has the erosion of state authority occurred, the we forget the people of this country and their respective states wield power over the federal government – not the other way around. Time has eroded our feeling of empowerment, and like pawns on a chessboard, we feel moved by the powers that be, forgetting that it is US that moves THEM. It is time to take back that power. It is time to save the future for our children and grandchildren. It is time to put the federal government back into its proper place. The road will not be easy, but if our resolve is strong, we can have back the country our forefathers left for us.

Update 1: While not a great Ron Paul fan, the an article at the Tenth Amendment Center basically lays out the same approach as above, but offers a few more details. I found the following to be highly interesting:

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

Living in Texas I am particularly interested in one of the comments:

We are developing nullification legislation for Texas that might serve as a model for other states. See http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/01/cautions-for-nullification-proponents.html

Proposed Components:

1. Commission. Establish “Federal Action Review Commission” – special commission with grand jury powers to meet continuously with rotating membership drawn from a pool of legal historians and constitutional scholars, appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, or Legislative Council; empowered to review the constitutionality of congressional legislation, or federal regulations or decisions, and if it finds such legislation, regulations, or decisions to be unconstitutional, to issue an edict, with the force of law, requiring that no state or local officials, employees, or contractors cooperate in the enforcement of it, and urging state citizens to refuse to cooperate. This Commission would be established by an amendment to the Texas Constitution.

2. Structure and procedure. The Commission shall consist of 23 members, who shall serve for staggered terms of 4-8 months, drawn at random from a pool of at least 230 constitutional scholars and legal historians, who shall meet for at least one hour once a week, with a quorum of 16, and a vote of 12 required to issue an edict, based on a presumption of nonauthority and requiring strict proof of constitutionality from logic and historical evidence. It shall be open to direct complaints of the unconstitutionality of federal actions from any citizen. It shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, and its deliberations shall be secret, except that it may disclose anything in its presentments. It may authorize criminal prosecution by issuing an indictment to any person, not necessarily a lawyer, upon a finding that the court cited has jurisdiction and that evidence of guilt is sufficient for trial.

3. Penalties. State and local officials, employees, and contractors shall be duly notified in writing of such edicts within ten days and shall have twenty days to comply or be subject to termination after one written warning and a second failure to refuse to cooperate.

4. Funding. Establish a state fund to pay for legal and financial support of state citizens and officials who refuse to cooperate with unconstitutional federal statutes, regulations, or decisions, with the intention to obtain judicial decisions that support the unconstitutionality of the federal actions.

Update 2: Another reason to start the nullification movement: Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Update 3: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

VERY CRITICAL UPDATE: Looks like Olympia Snowe has dropped out and Dems are on their own. What is at stake and how two Jim Demint amendments can stop reconciliation. The clock is ticking. While Joe Wilson is an interesting story, this is the moment when we can drop the hammer on ObamaCare.

Donate to Joe Wilson here.

So Obama can call Republicans liars, call Sarah Palin a liar, and imply the Tea Party Patriots are liars but boo friggin’ who if someone calls a spade a spade. And I don’t recall Obama apologizing, nor for that matter do I recall Democrats apologizing when they booed President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union.

Looks like our thin-skinned leader can now be called hypocrite as well – as if he did not already own the title:

Readers who frequent this website know I am no apologist for the Republican Party but I must question the high dudgeon in which Democrats, the media and even some RINOs have gotten themselves into over the heckling incident during the President’s address to a Joint Session of Congress last night. OK, I will admit, many Americans were offended by Congressman Joe Wilson’s calling President Obama a liar. But another group of Americans was equally offended by the President’s calling Republican Members of Congress liars from the Dias. Besides which, since when have Americans become so persnickety about the manners of politicians who are the very definition of rudeness and boorishness? Has anyone read Mark Twain or Will Rogers lately?

Well, it all set me to thinking, and so I pose a few questions and observations for you dear reader to ponder:

• What is worse, the President lying to the public before a Joint Session of Congress (The healthcare system is in extremis and requires urgent overhaul; I will not sign a healthcare bill that adds one dime to the deficit; Nothing in my plan will adversely affect your current insurance) or a Member of Congress calling the President a liar in public?
• What is worse, the President calling Republican Members of Congress liars from the Dias during an address to a Joint Session of Congress or a Republican Member of Congress calling the President a liar from the floor of the House?
• What is worse, the President abusing the privilege of addressing a Joint Session of Congress, making a partisan playhouse out of the People’s House for his own political theater and using the Members of Congress as stage props for his own drama or a Member of Congress refusing to go along with the travesty and heckling the President from the cheap seats like some Member of the English Parliament?
• What is worse, the Republican heckler later apologizing for calling out the President after the President first threatened from the Dias of the House to call out Republican Members of Congress for their lies (for which the President has not apologized to anyone), or the former Republican presidential candidate who gave us this President by his pitiful failure as a candidate blushing in the cheap seats demanding that his heckling fellow Republican apologize?

The real question is why didn’t the President exhibit courage and respect for the U.S. Congress and do what British prime ministers do regularly, namely take questions from the floor of the House from Members of the Opposition Party rather than hiding behind the majesty of the People’s House to avoid having to answer questions from average Americans or their representatives? More importantly, why didn’t Republican Members of Congress exhibit courage and respect for the respective bodies in which they serve and insist before turning the Floor of the House over to the President for partisan use that he at least participate in Question Time from the Well of the House during the Joint Session before the departing the Chamber?

Here is a note I sent to the Republican Leadership of both Bodies and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee a week before the Joint-Session fiasco unfolded:

“The President has sought the privilege of addressing the nation on healthcare in a Joint Session of Congress because he wants to speak directly to the American People without having to answer their questions, as he would have to in an unscripted, un-orchestrated town hall meeting. If the Congress extends this courtesy to the President and shields him from direct questioning by the American People, we believe he should be obliged at least to take questions from the People’s representatives.

“Therefore, as a condition of allowing the President to expropriate the People’s House as a playhouse and use the People’s representatives as stage trappings to make a political speech to the nation, Republicans should insist on the right of Members to ask the President unscreened questions from the Well of the House after he addresses the nation before he leaves the House Chamber.

“Specifically, the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Minority Leaders of each Body, or their respective designees, should be permitted to ask the President a set number of unscripted and unscreened questions from the Well of the House.

“We do not know the formal process by which the President requests and the Congress grants him permission to address a Joint Session but we presume there is a formal process of some sort. We believe the Republican congressional leadership should insert itself into that process and demand that the President answer questions from the Well of the House. Toward that end, we urge the Republican congressional Leaders to write the Democratic congressional leaders insisting that they obtain agreement from the President to take questions from Members of Congress after his remarks before he is granted permission to address a Joint Session.”

Read the whole thing.

We are all Joe Wilson’s Now.

In other news and opinion:

Unruly moment, manufactured outrage

Carlson: When did the Hopemeister turn bitter?

AP fact-checks Obama speech

Obama’s Lies Matter, Too

Obama accepts apology. Now I’m just waiting for his. Holding my breath, can’t breathe, everything is getting dark! Screw it, I’m not dying for this hypocrite.

HuffPo: Another Glenn Beck target resigns from Team Barry?

Durbin: Don’t expect cap-and-trade this year

I demand an apology

Hey, since Rahm Emanuel can get away with demanding an apology from Rep. Joe Wilson, and House Democrats can get away with demanding Wislon apologize on the House floor (Pelosi has called for House Dems to “move on” from the idea of demanding a House floor apology or censure), I demand an apology from every single Democrat lawmaker who has called opponents of ObamaCare every name in the book over the last couple of months. Hey, it’s all in the interest of NuCivility, so why not?

Last Friday, my wife and I attended the counter-protest in support of Whole Foods in Austin. The night before we learned of the planned boycott and that Austin was one of three major cities on this list. The boycott from leftists nutroots is directly related to CEO John Mackey’s audacity to disagree with Obama on health care reform. There is a strange twist to the story, though.

You see, John Mackey pays for his employees’ health insurance premiums – 100% of it to be exact. He is a proponent of organic foods, and a great philanthropist. While I don’t agree with Mr. Mackey on many issues, I feel he has the right, like any American, to voice his opinion. In 2006 Mr. Mackey wrote a letter to his staff announcing that he would reduce his own salary to $1 a year, donate his stock portfolio to charity and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems. He wrote: “I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart.”

While CEO of Whole Foods Market in 2008, he earned a total compensation of just $33,831, which included a base salary of $1, and a cash bonus of $33,830. He has instituted caps on executive pay at the company. Sounds like a really bad guy to me.

With only 12 hours notice, we equaled the number of protesters and stood in the stifling heat of Texas for over 1 1/2 hours – some on our side stayed longer. The protest started at noon and at the stroke of 1:00, all of the 18-25 year olds who made up the entire opposition all but disappeared. Hmm, I wonder how much they were paid?

At one point, some half-wit leaned out his car window and flipped us the bird. My wife yelled out “No, you’re number one”. We all joined the chant, relishing the look of consternation on the young man’s face and noting how disarmed he was by our response, especially since most of us were flashing the piece sign in response.

Shoppers stopped by to give us drinks, and Whole Food employees of the store came out in the 105 degree heat and offered both sides some water. I don’t know how many times others approached us, thanked us, and mentioned they never shopped at Whole Foods before, but intended to stop by whenever possible. The average spent was, by my calculation, about $100.00 per person. Whole Foods was busier than usual. How’s that boycott working out for ya? Oh, and thanks for going nuts all over Glen Beck – he is now stronger and more popular than ever. We could not have done it with you. You can’t buy that type of publicity, so I offer my deepest and sincerest thanks to every lefty working to move forward the cause of conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and making Obama and the liberal left look nuttier by the day. Thanks a bunch guys and keep up the good work.

By the way, how does it feel to be your own worse enemy?

It was then that Judy Holloway introduced herself. Judy runs the organization Texas Tea Party Patriots, and she was so impressed by my wife’s handling of the bird flipper, we soon found ourselves asked to attend an invitation only town hall inside the Austin capital building the following day, August 22nd. The speaker, C.L. Gray, M.D., is founder of Physicians for Reform. Democrats and Republican’s were invited and told to leave their signs at home. This was to be a cordial and informative town hall.

I taped most of the first hour, which dealt mostly with the philosophy of healthcare from Plato, through Hippocrates, onward to Frederick Nietzsche, the Nazis, and ending with modern day eugenics and some contemporary players in this movement – including the White House health czar Ezekiel Immanuel. It was chilling to say the least. Dr. Gray went out of his way to assure us he was not comparing anyone to the Nazis. Sorry Nancy Pelosi, but we have it on tape. He was a quite, well-spoken presenter and moderator.

I am still attempting to pull the first hour together in a video to upload to YouTube. It is a must see. The second hour centered on solutions to our healthcare problems – real solutions – with a subsequent Q&A session. I did not catch most of the second hour on video. However, I strongly recommend the following two links:

The History: Schools of Thought – Hippocrates vs. Plato and the main site.

Here you can check out solutions which include insurance reform, tax reform, tort reform, and secondary reforms. It is a real eye opener.

In other news and opinion:

“Let’s keep turning people out for these!”

So much for the Greatest Transition in World History

Culture of corruption: Daschle edition

Rasmussen: Obama passion index at -12. Hopeless and changeless.

Congresswoman says some senators ‘Neanderthals’. Did the Congresswoman read the bill? I think not. And let’s not forget Maxine at her best, intentions laid bare. If a Neanderthal is against Socialism, an ideology Maxine passionately identifies with as evidenced in the linked video, then count me in.

I am John Galt. I am a Neanderthal.

There is a story making its way through the blogosphere concerning the “white flag” from White House pertaining to the public option. Nobody is buying it. What is being bought is time – time to allow someone to turn the pressure relief valve and time for RHINOCare to make its way out of the Senate Finance Committee. Obama and the liberals in Congress, well aware that co-operatives are a Trojan Horse for a single payer system, are only to happy to assist in keeping the pressure off in the hope of one of two outcomes. The first – by removing pressure from the public, the administration is free to apply its own pressure to ensure a public option. Second, less public pressure increases the chance the RHINOcare option makes its way out of the Senate Finance committee. But as I have said before, there are already procedural amendments in place to kill ObamaCare as long as pressure is brought to bear on five Republican Senators in the Finance Committee. Read on.

Memorize and repeat the following like a mantra:

A cooperative is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare.

Remember these five Senators:

• Chuck Grassley
  United States Senator, Iowa
• Olympia J. Snowe
  United States Senator, Maine
• Susan Collins
  United States Senator, Maine
• Michael Enzi
  United States Senator, Wyoming
• Lindsey Graham
  United States Senator, South Carolina

You can contact them here.

What do they all have in common? All are members of the Senate Finance Committee, the only committee with a chance at a reaching a bi-partisan compromise on health care reform. Many are already touting the end of the public option, which is slated to be replaced by co-operatives. But is this really a victory? The answer is a resounding NO. These five Republicans with an annoying proclivity to reach across the aisle are about to sell out America.

Read the rest of this entry »

Update: The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal – RINOCare Gone Wild. Are you ready for governement controlled health insurance cartels? Socialized healthcare vs. fascist healthcare, the dangerous bi-partisan compromise.

The endgame is here and the most important aspect that could kill the above linked post concerning the Senate Finance Committee healthcare bill and any other form of ObamaCare is being ignored by not only the media, but major bloggers everywhere. The only other reference I can find other than on the Social Security Institute website (see link below) is from FreedomWorks. Given that these two amendments kill any chance of reconciliation, I am at a loss to explain the complete lack of interest in this topic.

There were two amendments offered by Senator DeMint prior to the health bill conferences and debate in the Senate – a point-of-order amendment and instruction to conferees. The following is taken directly from an email Mr. Uhler received from Dr. Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute that was forwarded to me and placed in the first link above. Dr. Hunter also has a very long and distinguished career and served as policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan during Reagan’s second term. He also served as a Member of the Board of Advisors for the NTLC:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Prior to the above statements by Dr. Hunter is information of great importance:

However, with a united Republican front in the Senate, Democrats would be hard pressed to jam a bill as comprehensive and detested as ObamaCare down Americans’ throats. Current polls indicate that more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. Moreover, Senate Republicans stand on very strong procedural grounds for resisting a bum’s rush on government-run healthcare through the Reconciliation process. It would take an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness for the Democratic Leadership to use Reconciliation this way.

If agreed upon to be enforced, the Demint amendments would in effect kill the reconciliation process and force 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in its present form – even with the co-operative option, which is nothing more than a Trojan horse for what ultimately will become a single-payer system. Mr. Uhler has identified five Republican Senators that need to align themselves with the party and forgo their proclivity to reach across the aisle. If this story goes national and pressure is brought to bear on these five Republican’s to stand firm with their party, then it is reasonable to assume the above conclusion from Dr. Hunter to be correct. Under these circumstances I do not believe the Democrats in the Senate would have the votes to commit “an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness”. However, wide public knowledge of the amendments and the subsequent pressure on Senators to follow their own rules requires national exposure. The average American is completely unaware of the procedural hurdles that Senator Jim Demint placed to block the ramming of a very unpopular plan onto the American people.

One could reasonably ask themselves why the public must follow rules, where the Senate can choose to ignore them. It will focus attention on the contempt that some Senate elitists have for the public. However, to date no major conservative talk show, media outlet, or think tank has covered this tactic. Everyone is talking about Blue Dogs killing the legislation. While certainly one strategy to pursue, I personally believe Blue Dogs have a habit of growling but, at the end of the day, many of them will roll over. I prefer a multi-pronged strategy that would include the above approach outlined by Dr. Hunter. On the legislative front, what is called for is combining public pressure on the Blue Dogs in the House and placing pressure on five Senate Republican’s to stand firm with their party and not negotiate ObamaCare Lite with the cooperative option replacing nationalized health care. Instead the public should insist the Demint rules be followed. This could very well kill the bill as it exists today. We could then press the reset button and start talking about real reform.

Using Reconciliation to force feed ObamaCare to an unwilling nation would backfire in ways that Democrats will find difficult to imagine. That is the type of atmosphere some liberals, such as Chuck Schumer are willing to create now and for the foreseeable future.

Here is the link to the story on the Social Security Institute article from Dr. Hunter:

In other news and opinion:

As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare

Co-ops a federal-subsidy trough

From Moe Lane at Redstate: Howard Dean threatens primary challenges on public option ‘no’ votes.

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

Blue Dog: Hey, maybe we should start over on ObamaCare. Won’t happen, but this can be killed in the Senate. I am still astounded nobody has picked up on this yet.

ObamaCare: Does the media matter?

The White House’s strategy of stonewalling the flagging operation becomes more difficult by the day. Here is yesterday’s exchange between Major Garrett and Robert Gibbs. Major Garrett was contacted by numerous people confounded as to how in the world they received an unsolicited email communication from the White House. It is unclear whether all of the complaints came from people who flagged themselves or were flagged by others using the flag@whitehouse.gov email. I love watching Robert Gibbs squirm whenever this issue is raised. It is quickly becoming one of my favorite pastimes. His reference to Organizing for America and Obama for America having nothing to do with the White House is completely unrelated to the question Major Garrett is asking. An indication of panic on the part of Gibbs?

Like many of my readers, I flagged myself – multiple times. It now appears the White House is not only collecting this data and is forced by the Presidential Records Act to keep this information, but they are also using the same information gathered by these emails to create an additional database or multiple databases which are subsequently used for list building – the process of collecting emails for marketing, advertising, or information sharing. As someone who does internet marketing on the side, there is a right way to collect peoples emails and a wrong way to do it. Collecting solicited emails – good. Collecting unsolicited emails – bad.

It is interesting to note this unintended consequence of the flag yourself campaign. White House staff, including lawyers now seem completely clueless. Unaware of the backlash created by spying on citizens, they never guessed the flag program would lead to evidence that emails are being collected and used to create additional databases for White House communications; communications that were never solicited in the first place. Lucy, you gotta lota of splainin’ to do.

Here is a partial screenshot of the email I forwarded to another account and that I received, unsolicited, from the White House. Just click on the thumbnail to see the full image.

Note the senders address (info@messages.whitehouse.gov). Hmmm, sounds like the White House to me.

I would recommend to anyone who receives an unsolicited email from the White House to save that email. Note how my email is from whitehouse.gov, and nothing to do with Organizing for America or Obama for America which, thanks to Gibbs own admission, are unrelated to the White House. Shout out to Mr. Gibbs for helping make our case for us – your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Related: Obama Could Be In Trouble: ACLJ Legal Analysis of White House Flag Program

In other news and opinion:

How to kill ObamaCare and get real reform.

Michelle Malkin’s culture of corruption a hate crime? I read it, and if telling the truth equates to a hate crime, then I agree, it’s a hate crime.

Green Czar vs. Glenn Beck; Britain vs. Michael Savage.

The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest

Democrats Having Trouble Getting Cap & Trade Passed Because of Democrats. Good news here, now if we can just kill that health care bill.

Is Palin getting ready to tweet again?

Is the White House losing urban Democrats on health care reform?

That’s a question asked by Joe Gandleman at The Moderate Voice (whatever that means). Channeling Marc Ambler from the Atlantic, Mr. Gandleman asks:

The emerging narrative in a lot of the major press coverage of heatlh care reform is that President Barack Obama has lost control of his message, which is why he was out on the hustings today at a town hall meeting. But now The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder writes that he now senses a slight relief at the White House.

Why? Because, according to Ambinder, there’s a growing feeling that the Republicans may have lost control of their message and that GOPers at Town Halls have provided a picture of some of the party’s most extreme, angry elements — which won’t convince the Blue Dog Democrats to panic and not support the plan and could well scare off independent swing voters.

Here are key portions of what he says in a post titled “How Conservatives Are Blowing Their Chance.” He notes that the mood at the White House has changed from one week ago:

A week later, and the Atlantic’s tricorder readings are picking up much calmer electromagnetic energy from the White House. Getting Democrats to attend the town hall meetings was really an intermediate goal. But Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. They ramped up much too quickly. When smaller, conservative groups Astroturfed, they inevitably brought to the meetings the type of Republican activist who was itching for a fight and who would use the format to vent frustrations at President Obama himself. There were plenty of activists who really wanted to know about health care, and some who were probably misinformed — scared out of their chairs — to some degree, but the loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock.

Ambinder suggests that conservatives had a window of opportunity to make their case seriously which “required a certain restraint — and a willingness to traffic in at least approximate truths — and an ability to make distinctions within their own ranks about which tactics were valid and which tactics were venomous. It also required a sophistication about the media.”

And what about the media? Ambinder contends media reports were not helpful to the GOP because reports were done in either two ways: “they credulously reported the louder, angrier voices (inherently damaging to Republicans in this case) or they reported on the political architecture of the town hall meetings, which plays down the substance of the protests.”

The Blue Dog Democrats’ swing constitutes aren’t angry,” he writes, “and the Blue Dogs know this. They’re political independents for whom the sanctity of the process is important. These are the type of voters who like President Obama because he appears willing to bring people together even though they don’t agree with their policies.”

In short, he argues, the right has lost control of its message, much as the left did under Bush. Lawmakers of both parties:

…found their meetings full of engorged spleens. Unrestrained, these town hall meetings are going to turn off the type of voters Republicans most need to pressure Blue Dog Democrats — independents who don’t have red genes or blue genes.

This has been the problem with the GOP in recent years: most of its pitches, when the rubber meets the road, eventually boil down to arguments that seem aimed at wavering Republicans and the style and tone of the rhetoric is — as we have called it here — the confrontional, angry and demonizing talk radio political culture. That works fine with Republicans, but it can only cause a counter reaction in wavering liberal Democrats who began to sour on Obama and independent voters wanting to follow a debate don’t get much substance hearing people yell about socialism, Marxism, Nazi Germany or Obama death panels.

In the end, this may come down to which side discredits itself first. Getting media coverage isn’t always positive if the images that come out are unpleasing to others who are not just not on your side but on the fence deciding which is the side worth joining.

So does this mean that Obama is on the descent as Ambinder suggests due to the images the meetings are emitting?

Not necessarily. Political veteran David Gergen has a different take on it and can foresee health care reform being defanged or even derailed due to the angry protests, which he notes don’t just involve talk radio and special interest group types but other Americans who distrust the change:

In this week’s issue of the National Journal, correspondents Brian Friel and Richard E. Cohen provide a valuable insight into possible endgames. They report that there are four possible outcomes:

(1) A major bipartisan reform bill is passed;
(2) A major Democratic reform bill is passed over nearly united Republican opposition;
(3) The Democrats cannot agree among themselves and pass Health Care Lite, a very watered down version of reform;
(4) Failure

Looking at the chances today, in the midst of all this brouhaha, one would have to say that the odds for outcomes one and two are going down. It is hard to see how a lot of Republicans will sign up for a bipartisan bill in the teeth of this opposition; similarly, it may be tougher for moderate Democrats, especially new members from Republican-leaning districts, to sign on to a Democratic-only bill. That means the odds are going up for outcomes three and, yes, four.

Does this mean that reform is dying? Not at all. It is still possible that if the protests continue at a high decibel level, more people in the middle will grow disgusted and rally to the President. And given his political and rhetorical talents, it is more than possible that Barack Obama himself can turn this around. But for the moment, the raucous clips coming out of Senator Specter’s session with his constituents along with other clips from other town halls — as offensive as they are to many (including me) — are also presenting a growing threat to reform.

So pick the theory of your choice — and come September, see which proved to be correct.

I could not help myself and commented as follows (I add additional information below not found in the original comment):

The first theory ignores the real data – polls. Nothing is mentioned about the polls because the first theory fails on its merits if polling data is included int the analysis.

Polling indicates a growing dissatisfaction with ObamaCare that drops by the day. He is losing seniors big time – and they are the largest voting bloc in mid-term elections. He is also losing independent voters big time. Many independents are experiencing buyers remorse and know the bait and switch Obama pulled on them. If you attempt to argue that no independents are attending town halls and shouting angrily as politicians literally lie to their faces, then you present an opinion that is patently absurd. As the town halls became more vocal, support for ObamaCare eroded further – not something one would expect of a backlash. Blue Dogs and other Democrats are quite aware of this and it is the poll numbers that will dictate their voting behavior. Should they choose to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare, look for a real backlash in 2010. So theory one looks like Swiss cheese upon further scrutiny and is not worthy of additional discussion (the extra CO2 required would exacerbate global warming).

Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic is following the media script of “backlash, backlash, backlash!” in an effort to silence the town halls, because they are eroding support for ObamaCare. Of course, nobody is listening to such nonsense. Whatever does pass – if anything at all – will be a watered down version of reform. August 22nd is national recess rally day – look for some real fireworks by millions, not a few hundred at a town hall. It won’t be so easy to dismiss that level of protest. I can’t wait to see Nanny State Nancy try. She is the gift that keeps on giving.

Blue Dogs are also aware of the opt out amendments in Florida and Utah and up to ten other states that will be using the 10th amendment to fight ObamaCare. Throw that dynamic in the mix.

If you want real backlash, check out Little girl at Obama town hall has not-so-random political connections. Documented, proved and case closed. Obama lies once again, stating the members of his town hall were not screened. Of course, anyone with half a brain knew better. Look for further plunging poll numbers, the obvious dynamic described as: Obama opens his mouth on the subject the numbers drop. Marc’s sense of “relief” at the White House belongs in the same boat as Obama stating he was never for a single payer system – fabricated.

Obama’s coattails are becoming an anchor.

Update: Backed up by Mickey Kaus (via Glenn Reynolds)

In other news and opinion:

Democrats now taking refuge at SEIU offices

BUSTED!: “Obama As Hitler” Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant At John Dingell Townhall! UPDATED with video interview!

If you are a liberal, how do you live with yourself? First, you have the tape where Obama admits he wants a single-payer system – exhibit A evidence. Then, his admission in yesterday’s town hall that he has never been for a single-payer system – exhibit B evidence. Conclusion: Obama Lies.

Now you have Obama claiming there were not plants or screening in his town hall – exhibit C evidence. Michelle Malkin dispels that myth – exhibit D evidence. Conclusion: Obama Lies.

Now a plant by Dingell at a Town Hall?

If one has to resort to lies and underhanded tactics to make a point or sell a product or piece of legislation, it stands to reason that a sane person would begin to question the peddled snake oil and become either cautious or outright distrustful of the whole thing.

Video: Nelson strikes back against ObamaCare

How much can we now trust this: GA congressman describes hate mail, Nazi graffiti after protests

Okay people, time to wake up. Gateway Pundit: Bus–ted… Obama Bussed In Supporters For New Hampshire Town Hall (Video).

Funny… During the meeting Barack Obama told his supporters:

“I don’t want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here.”

No, we sure wouldn’t want that to happen.

People might think it was all a staged dog and pony show.

One of the comments for the Gateway Pundit called it:

it was a pony and horseshit show, without the pony……..

Lies, lies, and more lies. The White House seems determined to draw itself into litigation. How stupid can these people be?

White House continues spy campaign: White House Launches Health Tattle-Tale Site on another .gov website. The site is here.

I describe in a previous post how the older now defunct White House flag site violates .Gov domain guidelines as outlined here.

What is interesting is that I am unable to use Firefox’s built in capabilities to look at the White House source code to discern what email address is being used in the section “Contact Us”. I find this a bit fishy. Perhaps someone with more computer acumen than I can figure this one out. I still think it good strategy to inundate the new website’s email address by using the contact form. Millions of emails equates to letting our voices be heard.

Amazing how many lies these people will attempt to propagate in a vain attempt to spread the meme of “ObamaCare” is good for you. Melt the phone (202-501-0282) and send those emails to Lee Ellis (lee.ellis@gsa.gov), policy administrator of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service (GSA FAS) which assign .Gov domains and creates the guidelines for the use of .Gov domains. Be courteous.

Most interesting is the following statement on the main page of the new site:

Links to Facebook, Twitter, and “More Ways to Share,” point to third-party sites that are not on the White House server.

Assume for a moment the White House is not in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, but is in violation of .gov guidelines which do not allow the use of a government second level domain to be used for political or campaign purposes. In my talks with Lee Ellis, I was informed that two actions that could be taken against whitehouse.gov website of which Macon Philips is the Chief Information Officer (macon@who.eop.gov). A request to take down the website or put a disclaimer on the site stating the page violates the .gov guidelines. Still nothing has occurred to date on the new site, and the old site is now down, whether at the request of the GSA FAS or their own volition unclear at this time.

I must admit I am disappointed in the lack of action on the part of the GSA FAS concerning the new site. The “Reality Check” site, although pointing to a non .gov location, would still be in violation of the guidelines by the very act of providing a link to a site dedicated to campaigning for ObamaCare.

Even with the closure of the old site, I believe the White House is open up to litigation as pointed out in this Fox News story:

But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that’s unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.

“That’s a silent violation of your right to privacy,” he said.

Any emails collected by the White House must be maintained via the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database as reported here.

I still think there is a case for Privacy Act violation by the White House or First Amendment encroachments. I believe these should be pursued with the utmost passion. It looks like the American Center for Law & Justice is doing just that.

New ACLJ petition here. Check out the ACLJ Legal brief here.

Remember, people have died for our freedoms. It is imperative that nobody fear the government, for a life lived in fear is a life not worth living. Protect your rights and freedoms. Obama and his propagandists be damned. Its your life, your future, and the future of your children. The time for sitting down and taking it on the chin are over. Let the battle for the hearts and minds of America be joined.

Contact the RNC – melt the phones (202.863.8500). Ensure they intend on using national television to expose Obama’s overt violation of the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Such a blatant violation of the First Amendment could very take down the Obama presidency. Talk about Waterloo.

Is there a Woodward and Bernstein team ready to take this on? Pulitzer Prize anyone?

In other news and opinion:

White House: You’re not un-American, but you are still corporate shills so just pipe down

Be careful: DOT inspector general challenges O’s stimulus spending.

Overflow crowd at Maryland town hall.

Specter faces angry crowd at town hall meeting

Internet Snitch Brigade disabled, but…Updated. Michelle is starting to cover the new site. To date, there has been no major player covering the violation of .gov guidelines (rules for thee but not for me?).

Don’t forget to check out my discussion with Lewis K. Uhler and how 5 Republican Senators may hold the future of healthcare in their hands. A must read.

__________
Original Post

Update: Contact Lee Ellis at 202-501-0282 and send an email to lee.ellis@gsa.gov. Provide the website URL, which is http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things and lodge a complaint against the .gov website. If he gets enough calls, I am sure someone will get the message this is getting pretty serious. I just called Senator Cornyn’s office and was very well received. The person I spoke with ensured she could reach the link for the guidelines and where the relevant sections were. I could hear a lot of typing in the background as I was talking to her. Also read White House Spy Program Violates .Gov Domain Guidelines And Privacy Act of 1974 – Updates And Who To Contact.

Here is a copy of the email I sent to Lee Ellis. I setup my email program to get a read and delivery receipt. I just received the delivery receipt:

It has come to my attention that the site http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ violates the guidelines for use in .gov websites as outlined at http://www.dotgov.gov/program_guidelines.aspx.

In particular, the wording “No political or Campaign Information: The Gov domain is for the operation of government, not the political, political party, or campaign environment”.

As you can see from the above referenced .gov site, a request is made to provide personal information of individuals to the email address flag@whitehouse.gov who are expressing their freedom of speech in
disagreeing with the President’s health care reform. This is blatantly political and the guidelines provide for domain suspension or for the site to experience operational issues or termination based on the severity of
the issue under two levels of incidents: Critical and Administrative.

I am sure you would agree this is a direct violation and will take the appropriate steps to ensure the guidelines are enforced as they would be for any .gov website.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Best Regards

Here is the link to the guidelines:

Here is the pertinent information:

This overview of Gov Internet domain registration requirements is meant to further explain and clarify some sections of the Federal Policy about registering second-level Gov Internet domains. The Federal Policy on Gov Internet domains focuses on purpose and jurisdiction.

The Gov Internet domain facilitates collaboration among government-to-government, government-to-business, and government-to-citizen entities. The domain hosts only official, government sites at the federal-, state- and local-government levels, including federally recognized Indian tribes, known as Native Sovereign Nations (NSNs). The Gov Internet domain provides the official and trusted Internet presence for these government entities.

Every Gov Internet domain name application is carefully examined to ensure domain names requested will not create misunderstandings about the purpose of domains and their Web site content. GSA arbitrates domain name issues and reserves the right to deny domain name requests that do not adequately meet requirements.

The Gov Internet domain operates in accordance with the Interagency Management Council for Telecommunications. The policies and guidelines construct have been developed through communications with Federal, State and Local government groups to provide the most effective management of the government web presence.

For further assistance with domain names and eligibility requirements, please refer to http://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx or call the Help Desk toll free at (877) 734-4688 or locally at (703) 306-6740.

1. Guidelines for All Second Level Gov Internet Domains

The following applies to all Gov Internet domains:

a. No non-Government Advertisements: A Gov Internet domain may not be used to advertise for private individuals, firms, or corporations, or imply in any manner that the government endorses or favors any specific commercial product, commodity, or service.

b. No Political or Campaign Information: The Gov domain is for the operation of government, not the political, political party, or campaign environment. No campaigning can be done using Gov Internet domains. The Gov Internet domain websites may not be directly linked to or refer to websites created or operated by a campaign or any campaign entity or committee. No political sites or party names or acronyms can be used. Separate webites and e-mail on other top-level domains (TLDs), such as .org, will have to be used for political activity.

Continuing:

Domain Suspension: Organizations that operate Web sites that are not in compliance with the Gov Internet conditions of use may have their domain name suspended or experience operational issues or terminated based on the severity of the issue. There are two levels of incidents:

1. Critical – Content restriction on the Gov Internet Domain does not allow criminal activities or obscene images, inappropriate sexually oriented material or material being accessed through a Gov domain URL could result in an expedient suspension. A process for resolution with escalation procedures is in place with the RRA. The RRA will contact the registratin points of contacts and the Authorizing Authority (AA) advising them of an imminent domain suspension. The AA is the CIO for Federal level domains. The Authorizing Authority (AA), for State and Local governments and Native Soverign Nations is the highest elected official that authorizes the domain to operate and contain information reference to their government responsibilities.

2. Administrative – Domains that have content with advertising materials, political or campaign information, substantial incorrect information, inappropriate web links (i.e. to sites that violate content policy), and incorrect redirects are not in compliance or not consistent with original intent or approved purpose. The domain POCs will be contacted by the RRA to get issues resolved. The expectation is these administrative compliance issues are handled in a timely manner and suspension is reserved as a last resort.

The actual suspension of a domain without concurrence of a registrant requires the internal GSA approval at the Senior Executive level. Generally, for GSA initiated suspesions, the suspension will become effective 3 hours to 24 hours after notification of the points of contacts (POCs), depending on the severity of the issue. The notification of the contacts is the time at which one of the URL points of contact is contacted or the time that the voice and email messages are sent to all contacts, which ever is first. This provides an opportunity for the registrant to remediate the issue to avoid suspension. The RRA will review the site to see if the policy violation has been remediated prior to the suspension.

Now the question: who to contact? The FCC and CIO?

While nothing may come of the matter – these are only guidelines and the language is not very stringent as sites “may have their domain name suspended or experience operational issues or terminated based on the severity of the issue”. However, it sure would draw attention to the fact Obama does not believe he is required to play by the same rules as us lowly citizens.

Related:

ACLJ Petition On White House Spy Program – Also Senator John Cornyn Joins Jay Sekulow Tomorrow

Is Obama Or Executive Branch In Violation Of The Privacy Act of 1974?

Bush Vs. Obama – Wiretapping Terrorists Vs. Spying on Citizens.

In other news and opinion:

“I hope Glenn Beck kills himself”

Thug life: Enter the unions

ACORN Watch: Louisiana investigates

Cornyn to Obama: Shut down Snitch Central