Republicans stepped up their campaign Thursday against the Obama administration’s controversial contraception rule, using the pulpit of the premier conservative conference in Washington to assail the policy as an unconstitutional “attack on religious freedom.”

The sustained GOP criticism, including a letter of opposition Thursday from three state attorneys general, came as key Democrats continued to peel away from the president on the issue or at least call for compromise. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the party’s 2004 presidential nominee, told Fox News on Thursday that the policy should be adjusted to include a conscience clause.

“I think it can be implemented effectively in a way that protects women’s access but at the same time protects people’s rights and conscience,” Kerry said. “I think it’s an unnecessary debate.”

Vice President Biden, who is Catholic, also reportedly said Thursday he’s “determined to see that this gets worked out.”

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, a string of high-powered Republican speakers singled out the policy, which requires religious schools and hospitals to provide contraceptive coverage to employees.
“This isn’t even a social issue. This is a constitutional issue,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said onstage. “What (the Constitution) says is that the federal government does not have the power to force religious organizations to pay for things that that organization thinks is wrong.”

House Speaker John Boehner, who a day earlier took to the House floor to vow to repeal the policy unless the Obama administration backs off, said Thursday that a “fundamental American value” is at stake. He said at CPAC that lawmakers would debate the issue, adding: “One thing is for certain — this attack on religious freedom cannot and will not stand.”

The President is even losing members of his own party over this one:

At least nine Democratic members of Congress have spoken out against the policy or suggested it should be changed. Among them, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a newspaper interview he has told the White House he opposes the policy.

President Obama: A uniter! But not in the way he claimed to want to be.

Janet Daley, writing for the Telegraph, sees this as another disturbing example of the Europization of America:

So why has the President chosen this high-risk path? The White House spokesman says simply that the administration is committed to giving women access to these services “no matter where they work”. In other words, this is an issue of equality: everyone must have the same access to identical provision even if they (knowingly) work for an employer who is opposed in principle to such provision. This is a classic case of government-backed equality vs individual freedom of conscience, of a kind with which we are very familiar in Britain. It is, in fact, a direct consequence of the uniformity which any national healthcare plan must involve.

But it is also a departure from the traditional American view (enshrined in the Constitution) that the government shall not interfere in the people’s right to religious assembly and practice. What the Obama White House has effectively decided is that religion can not be allowed to interfere with the secular values which government has decreed – such as the right to equality in contraception services. Religion itself is being firmly put in its box. If the state decides that contraception must be available to all, then no church or theological text will be allowed to stand in the way. Once again, the US is following where Europe leads: to a future in which all values will be determined and enforced by the state.

As noted earlier, the push back against against this has been pretty significant and wide-ranging. It will be interesting to see how the administration tries to play the middle, especially during an election year. Who would he rather alienate the least – Catholics or “feminist” pro-aborts? That is how the administration views this issue, not whether it is right or wrong from a Constitutional standpoint, which should have been their first and foremost concern.

In an ideal world where leaders in positions of power actually care about the Constitution, anyway …

… is not what we have.

Instead we have a guy who spews left-populist, class warfare rhetoric at his State of the Union addresses campaign speeches while raising beau coup bucks at a high-end fashion show that even some of the Evil One-Percent(tm) might have trouble affording.

Republicans are hammering President Obama for his reelection campaign’s New York City fashion-show fundraiser in a new Web ad debuting Tuesday, arguing the optics of the event are inappropriate while the economy continues to struggle.

The ad opens with shots of the invitation to the event, co-hosted by actress Scarlett Johansson and Vogue editor Anna Wintour. Both have been prominent donors for the president in the past. Subsequent shots of the invitation reveal other big-name attendees, including pop stars Beyonce Knowles and Sean Combs and fashion icons Marc Jacobs, Diane Von Furstenberg and Vera Wang.

The RNC wasted no time turning this into a commercial:

Yeah, I can see all those out-of-work Obama voters who lost out on the opportunity for thousands of good-paying jobs when President Common Man killed the Keystone pipeline just rushing out to buy $95 scarves, or tote bags with the symbol of Hope and Change plastered all over them. They must be thrilled to see his campaign pandering to millionaire glitterati while they themselves may be choosing between making the mortgage and getting the car fixed.

Keystone. The new HHS contraception regulations. The Gulf drilling “permitorium.” Fabulous taxpayer-paid vacations for Marie Antoinette Michelle. Attacking the Supreme Court. “I won.” And now this. Sometimes I wonder if the Obama campaign isn’t going out of its way to hand the opposition political prime beef in some subtle trap meant to goad conservatives into overreacting and thus scaring moderates.

Or maybe it’s much simpler. Maybe this administration is simply an egregious example of leftist urban academic elitism mixed with a remarkable political tone-deafness.

My bet is on the latter.

via Jazz Shaw

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Obama personally signed off on his campaign’s decision to actively encourage donations to Democratic Super PAC Priorities USA, according to senior campaign officials who spoke on a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning.

But an official would not characterize the tone of Obama’s agreement to back a policy that is at odds with his previous vocal opposition to the Citizens United decision that allows Super PACs to solicit unlimited donations.

Conversations among top advisers about the need to “lend support” to the outside fundraising effort have been going on for “weeks,” and the decision was made after a review of FEC filings from the Super PAC committees supporting the GOP presidential candidates, officials said.

As a result of the decision, some White House officials, campaign aides, and cabinet members will appear at Priorities USA events to “amplify [Obama's] message” but will not directly solicit donations. The president, First Lady, and vice president will not attend any Priorities USA events, however.

The campaign said Tuesday that it will not encourage donations to a related 501(c)4 organization that does not disclose its donors to the FEC as the Priorities USA SuperPAC will.

The reversal opens Obama — who has long bemoaned the influx of money into the political process — to accusations of hypocrisy as his campaign now hopes to lure big donors to the fundraising body founded by former White House aide Bill Burton.

The rationale being, of course, that they need the money to “counter GOP lies” or some other such “politi-speak.” I guarantee you they could have managed just fine without going back on the pledge – after all, this President and his minions always find ways around laws (and “pledges”) restricting “big money donations” (including playing word games) all the while putting on a public “man of the people” facade. This just enables them to snag even more money to use to saturate key voting markets with lies, demagoguery, and other various and assorted nonsense against Republicans.

Hey, if this is what they want to do – fine. “They all do it.” Just wish they’d stop lying about their motivations and their current fundraising situation! I know, won’t happen – but it sure sounded good, didn’t it?

Bill Whittle returns in Afterburner to skewer Our Betters on the Left (all bow) for on the one hand publicly proclaiming the evils of America and the free market while, on the other hand, making big profits from it.

Or maybe that should be two faces instead of two hands.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Encounter Books recently published “The Grand Jihad: how Islam and the Left sabotage America,” by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. It’s a book I highly recommend as a study not of the threat of terrorism, per se, but of the assault on the Western liberal tradition of tolerant, pluralist politics. It is a battle waged by political, legal, and cultural means, in which jihadist Islam and the secular Left are allies.

The following video, narrated by Bill Whittle, looks at one aspect of this struggle: the Muslim Brotherhood and the feckless response of the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”

Obama infused his remarks on spirituality with a populist message of economic fairness, echoing rhetoric he unveiled in December in Osawatomie, Kan., and returned to in his State of the Union address last week. Without countering his Republican presidential opponents head on, Obama offered a contrast to Mitt Romney’s positions on class and wealth.

“When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us,” Obama said, “I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but I also do it because I know far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Where does this guy get off spouting this garbage? Mark Whittington at Yahoo sets him straight (via @andylancaster):

The Bible verse that Obama choose to support this opinion with was from Luke 12:48, which states, in the King James version, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required.” It is perhaps a more decorous Bible verse than Mark 12:17 which states, in part, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” meaning give to Obama what is his. The latter verse may better capture the true attitude Obama has toward taxes, but he showed some discretion in not invoking it.

Most people reading the Bible verse that Obama invoked would marvel at his interpretation of it. It has been assumed that God would do the requiring and not the president of the United States, even if he sees God every time he looks in the mirror. The admonition is understood to be a call to perform charity and to help one’s neighbor, not to pay ones taxes.

To be sure, Obama invoked Islamic and Jewish doctrine to support his soak the rich proposals as well. But under Islam, a believer is required to directly give alms to the deserving poor, not to the Department of Health and Human Services to hire bureaucrats to in turn give money to other bureaucrats to run programs that might or might not help the poor. Judaism has similar requirements of its adherents.

The problem is that the three great religions were founded long before the bureaucratic welfare state was created or even conceived of. It was well understood that helping the least among us was a highly personal act, which benefits the giver as well as the recipient. The welfare state model that Obama favors is not only more impersonal, but far more wasteful.

Obama’s invocation of religion is also very offensive. Imagine if George W. Bush, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, had said it was God’s will that we end the reign of terror and misrule of Saddam Hussein. The outrage would have been heard around the world. But Obama feels that he can get away with enlisting Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed in a partisan fight over tax policy.

Got that right!

This guy has a nasty habit of invoking the bogus “Jesus was a liberal” argument whenever it suits both his purpose and audience.  It’s something he learned from his spiritual  mentor – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – who was a proponent of “social justice” from the pulpit.  Anyway, remember when Obama said the Sermon on the Mount justified civil unions? How about the time he bizarrely suggested to roomful of black evangelicals that if he were elected President, “we [could] create a Kingdom right here on Earth”? Or how about Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech in which she declared that Barack Obama could “heal this nation” and “fix our souls” if elected? Deeply disturbing.  All of this is just more effort to support the frequent assertions made by conservatives – Christian and secular alike – that this guy really does believe his own press, supporters, and family when it comes to favorable opinions about him being a “messiah-like” figure.

It’s an election year, so except these types of outrageous invocations by this absolutely shameless President and his minions to continue.  He and they will stop at nothing to try and keep him in the WH for another four years, even if it means using scripture (that he and they obviously don’t understand – more on that here) to justify his positions in such a way that would have had George W. Bush testifying before Congress had he made similar statements.

Buckle up, peeps. A long, bumpy, windy-road ride is ahead of us.

Imagine government singling out private citizens for attack and innuendo, to serve as whipping boys in order to distract the public from the president’s failings and boost his reelection chances. Imagine having your tax returns publicly questioned by government officials, thus planting the idea of wrongdoing in the public’s mind whether you’ve done anything or not. Imagine being turned into a focus for a national “two minutes hate” by desperate politicos.

That’s what’s going on with the Koch brothers, libertarian-leaning billionaires who oppose President Obama’s policies, and their representative, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, has had enough: Obama’s Enemies List.

What Messrs. Koch do, in fact, is manage businesses that provide employment to more than 50,000 people in North America in legitimate, productive industries. They also give millions of dollars to medical researchers, hospitals and cultural institutions. Their biggest offense, apparently, is that they also contribute generously to nonprofit organizations that promote personal liberty and free enterprise, and some of those organizations oppose policies advocated by the president.

Richard Nixon maintained an”enemies list” that singled out private citizens for investigation and abuse by agencies of government, including the Internal Revenue Service. When that was revealed, the press and public were outraged. That conduct will forever remain one of the indelible stains on Nixon’s presidency and legacy.

When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable bullying, oppression and slander from his powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in disgrace.”McCarthyism,” defined by Webster’s as the “use of unfair investigative and accusatory methods to suppress opposition,” will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army counsel Joseph Welch’s “Have you no sense of decency?” are words that evoke the McCarthy era and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him.

He then explains the larger problem this presents to civil society and the rule of law, beyond its inherent injustice toward the Koch brothers:

In this country, we regard the use of official power to oppress or intimidate private citizens as a despicable abuse of authority and entirely alien to our system of a government of laws. The architects of our Constitution meticulously erected a system of separated powers, and checks and balances, precisely in order to inhibit the exercise of tyrannical power by governmental officials.

Our Constitution even explicitly prohibits bills of attainder so that Congress may not single out individual citizens or groups for disfavored treatment or unequal application of the force of government. Prosecutorial power is rigidly constrained and judicially supervised so that government may not accuse private citizens of crimes or investigate them without good cause.

Whoever may be the victim of such abuse of governmental authority, the press and public almost invariably unify with indignation against it. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be the target tomorrow. If we fail to stand up against oppression from one direction, we abdicate the moral authority to challenge it when it comes from another.

So, for freely expressing their opinions, as is the right of every American, Charles and David Koch become Obama’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Lucky them.

Of course, as Conn Carroll points out, Obama and the Democrats have to resort to these cheap, vile tactics because they cannot run on their record: ObamaCare is hated and the administration’s economic record is nothing short of miserable. All that’s left is class warfare and the personal vilification of American citizens.

This isn’t anything new, however; targeting individuals is a habit for them, an instinct. Early in the administration, Obama went after FOX News and Rush Limbaugh, and his allies in the media spent years demonizing and harassing Sarah Palin, even after she had resigned her office. Their main political strategy comes from Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Once this line of attack has played out in a few weeks or months, you can bet Obama will find another target, and another, and another.

Again, he has nothing else to run on, save hate.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

When he has a record like this?

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

Source: House Ways and Means Committee (1)

The only reasons I can think of for voting to reelect this miserable Socialist failure are:

• One actually likes what Obama is doing and believes these trends are a necessary price to pay to transform the nation and that “more cowbell” is the solution. In other words, a progressive;
• One is addicted;
• One is simply ignorant.

Forget Obama’s disastrous energy policies that will beggar the poor and the middle classes; forget his topsy-turvy foreign policy that slaps friends, hugs enemies, and makes the world a more dangerous place; forget his arrogance and his contempt for the Constitution, adherence to which is at the heart of our common bargain.

And forget that you’re unhappy with the Massachusetts Moderate, the Angry Muffin, or Mr. Sweater Vest, based on what they might do in office.

Forget all that.

Looking at the numbers above, which represent the president’s record, tell me how could any rational voter who cares about the fate of the United States of America and, indeed, the future of the world make a positive case to vote to reelect Barack Obama?

Well?

via Joel Pollak (2)

UPDATE: And here’s a nice graphic courtesy of Pirate’s Cove that further illustrates the point:

(Click the Pirate’s Cove link for the full-sized version.)

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, a Republican-controlled committee. So what? Statistics can be manipulated. And? Show me how those numbers are wrong.
(2) Who tried to unseat “Red” Jan Schakowsky in 2010 and is considering running again. Go, Joel!

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Obama spent much of his recent State of the Union address declaring that the rich need to pay their “fair share” of taxes. (1)

Maybe he should have given that speech to his staff, first:

How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Because how unfair — indeed, un-American — it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet’s secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate.

Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

(Emphasis added)

On a scale of 1-10 on the Public Secrets Hypocrisy Meter(tm), this hits an “11.” But, coming as it does from the administration of the most cynical, fork-tongued president since Richard Nixon, it also isn’t surprising.

May I suggest that Congressman Issa’s Oversight Committee, in the moments when it isn’t digging into Operation Fast and Furious, summon these federal employees to explain to Congress why they are not obeying federal law and paying their fair share?

Meanwhile, have a look at the rest of Andrew Malcolm’s article; it seems tax evasion is a favorite sport for federal employees.

LINKS: More from Moe Lane and Hot Air.

Footnote:
(1) As determined by Obama and his allies, of course.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

If you’re like me, you were too busy with urgent, pressing matters to watch the President’s State of the Union address last night. You know, things like alphabetizing your DVD collection, or playing Angry Birds. In fact, on Twitter last night I said that I wish presidents would go back to the old tradition of sending a written report to Congress; they’ve become such a pompous event anymore that they feel like a speech from the throne. Instead, just mail it in.

It seems Obama agrees with me; as this video from the Republican National Committee shows, the President just took his old speeches , rearranged the order, and mailed it in:

Should’ve gone all the way and put a stamp on it, sir, and spared people the disruption of their TV night.

PS: I wonder if “Professor” Obama would ever have let his law-school classes get away with such cheap work?

PPS: On a more serious note, here’s the official Republican response, delivered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

SOTU drinking card.

(full version here)

Courtesy of the one and only @TXTrendyChick, who offers up these game rules:

Basically, every time one of the words, phrases, or camera shots occurs, you take a drink. If President Obama tells one of his personal, heartstring stories, take two drinks because you know he’s playing you – that’s why it’s on the card twice. There aren’t any winners or losers, if you get a whole row, you don’t win anything. The whole purpose is just to make this spectacle all the more bearable. Also, on a personal note, I’ll be taking an additional drink every time they show Sheila Jackson Lee falling all over herself to shake Obama’s hand. Wait, no… Anytime they show Sheila Jackson Lee at all. Yah, that’s reason enough. Happy watching!

I think it’s missing a few phrases, like “some say” and “let me be clear“, but it’s a great starting point. Just make sure you’re at home doing this and not at a bar where you’d have to drive home. I mean it! Of course, who in the heck would patronize a bar carrying the SOTU, anyway?

Hmmm. Oh yeah, we political junkies would, that’s who!

For the record, tonight’s SOTU is scheduled to start at 9 ET, but of course the President will arrive fashionably late, as always. The focus of the speech? The NYT lays it out here. Hint: Expect it to be heavy on class warfare (no surprise there). Excerpts of the President’s speech are here.

As always, if you can’t get to a TV, you can watch the speech at C-SPAN.org (or listen to it via their Blackberry and iPhone apps!). Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will be giving the Republican response. Excerpts here.

Update – 7:37 PM: Just found out Herman Cain will be delivering the Tea Party response to the SOTU – right after the GOP response.

Me? I won’t be watching. I’ll be busy praying America elects a Republican President so this will be the last time we hear President Obama give a SOTU.

Update – 7:15 PM: Was just informed by Sam Rosado about another SOTU drinking game, this one from Misfit Politics. Here are some of the phrases to drink to:

- If Obama says, “Let me be clear…”, take 1

- “Millionaires and Billionaires”, take 1

- “Fair share”, take 1

- “high-speed rail”, take 2

- There’s an outburst during the speech, take 4

- You notice Joe Biden nodding in agreement, take 1

- “We can’t wait”, take 1

- If Speaker Boehner is seen shaking his head, take 2

Heh.

BONUS: Don’t forget the “Presidential BS Bingo card”!

This year’s Democratic National Convention will shrink from four days to three, and include public events at the Charlotte area’s two largest venues — Bank of America Stadium and Charlotte Motor Speedway.

Officials announced the changes this morning at a news conference on the sidelines of Bank of America Stadium, which featured the convention logo on its electronic scoreboards.

President Obama will deliver his acceptance speech at the 74,000-seat stadium on Sept. 6, the last night of the convention, just as he did four years ago in Denver.

“From the start, this convention has been about engaging more people in the process,” said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee. “We saw in Denver in 2008 how holding the president’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field allowed more people to be part of the process….

“We wanted the convention to be about more than the pageantry and speeches you see on TV.”

In lieu of the convention opening on Monday, Sept. 3 — Labor Day — organizers plan to hold an event at the speedway to showcase not only the Charlotte region but the South. What exactly that will entail is unclear.

Several speakers, including Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx, appeared to go out of their way to say the event would “celebrate North Carolina and Virginia” as well as the South. Obama carried both states in 2008.

I watched the presser this morning on News 14 Charlotte (see local media coverage of it here) and the hateful Wasserman Schultz all but admitted what we’ve known all along: That this city was chosen for political reasons more so than any other.   While it’s true President Obama won this state and turned it blue for the first time since Jimmy Carter, he won this state by the smallest margin of any of the states he won in 2008  and Wassserman Schultz said that with the pick of Charlotte as the host city the Obama campaign was showing it wants to be competitive here in North Carolina again this year. And with hosting a so-called “non-partisan” event at Charlotte Motor Speedway – which is actually in Concord, on the Charlotte line – Democrats are showing that they’ll fight for the Southern blue collar vote, which they’ll buy if they have to (which is usually the case).

As to the irony of President Obama giving his acceptance speech at a stadium named for the bank which his liberal Occupiers have made one of the primary symbols of “corporate greed” in America, Iowahawk sums it up well (via Jim Treacher):

When President Classy McWarfare gives his acceptance speech at the Bailout Bowl, this time he can use REAL Greek columns. #nomorestyrofoam

Heh.

This really is what the intelligentsia in the MSM, academia, and the leadership of the Democratic Party think of most of the nation:

I don’t know about you, but I prefer this honest contempt to the patronizing variety we usually get.

For those not familiar with Andrew Sullivan, he had been blogger for The Atlantic, until he went off the deep end with wild conspiracy theories about THE TRUTH behind the birth of Trig Palin. Now he writes, supposedly as a conservative, for (what’s left of) Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

But we’re the dumb ones.

via Newsbusters

UPDATE: Joel Pollak asks, “Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is considering moving the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, to Bank of America Stadium to sell more skyboxes to wealthy donors, according to three Democrats involved in the fundraising.

The almost 74,000-seat home of the Carolina Panthers professional football team would also have room for the convention to sell more floor passes close to the stage. Planners for the event are struggling to meet a $36.6 million fundraising goal, according to the Democrats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter.

Obama’s advisers are aware of the political downside of the president delivering his nationally televised acceptance in a stadium named for a bank that considered imposing a fee that he said would have “mistreated” customers, they said.

That would be outweighed by the chance to lure more big- dollar contributors, including corporate foundations, to cover the convention’s costs, the three Democrats said. The rest of the convention, scheduled to begin Sept. 3, will be conducted at the Time Warner Cable Arena.

Joanne Peters, press secretary for the Charlotte convention, said, “We plan to hold the convention at the Time Warner Cable Arena.”

LMAO. This is so rich – literally and figuratively speaking.

Continuing:

The Charlotte host committee is having difficulty raising money because it’s prohibited from taking funds from corporations and lobbyists, which parties have relied on in the past for nominating conventions, the people said.

The host committee is trying to work around the restrictions, imposed by Obama, by asking for “in-kind” contributions from corporations and accepting unlimited funds from non-profit organizations such as charitable foundations associated with major corporations.

Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp. and chairman of the Charlotte host committee, has tried to clarify the rules for potential donors.

At a Dec. 15 briefing at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington, Rogers, along with Steve Kerrigan, the convention’s chief executive officer, sought to enlist federally registered lobbyists, who are barred from contributing directly to Obama’s campaign or convention, to get corporate clients to help underwrite the convention, according to two of the people.

What a surprise. Not.

President Obama dishonestly claimed in the lead up to the 2008 elections and beyond that he was a man responsible “only to the people”, and skirted around the technical definition of the word “lobbyist” so he could try to credibly claim that he didn’t take money from lobbyists – and here we are closing in on four years later and the song remains the same … and the players liars, of course, haven’t “changed” a bit, including our celebrity President himself.

Just to be clear, if a candidate wants to wine and dine wealthy donors, go for it. However, I do and WILL take issue with the hypocrisy of a Chicago Way type like Barack Obama lecturing the GOP on supposedly being beholden “to the rich” because they put on ritzy, glitzy fundraisers from time to time, too. The President and the other demagogues in his entourage need to fess up – no, MAN up is the appropriate word here, and stop demonizing his opponents for doing what he himself (not to mention many other politicos in his party) routinely do.

Not holding my breath, tho, waiting on that to happen. I’m sure you all understand why.

And how amusing is it the The One’s big speech could very well take place in the stadium sponsored by the “big bank” that became one of the main symbols of “corporate greed” by Occupiers nationwide and which was targeted accordingly, including by Occupy Charlotte?

Oh well. Maybe to make it up to the Occupiers and other various and assorted anti-capitalism types on the left the President and the DNC could just recycle the Greek temple he used back in 2008 …

I’d seen hints of this over the weekend, but really didn’t know what was going on until I read this piece by Nile Gardiner in the Telegraph. He quotes from another Telegraph article about Jody Kantor’s new book, The Obamas, to show how the New Versailles partied as the nation suffered outside its doors:

The party was staged by Hollywood director Tim Burton and his leading actor Johnny Depp ahead of the release of their Alice in Wonderland film. Alex reports:

“Depp greeted guests in the costume he had worn in a film version of the Lewis Carroll story released around the same time by Burton, who was given carte blanche to transform the state dining room into a Mad Hatter’s tea party in “his signature creepy-comic style”.

A long table was “set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies”, writes New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor in The Obamas, which is released on Tuesday. Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar, she adds.

… The president’s aides decided the party would send the wrong message at a time when the Tea Party was on the rise with its message against Washington’s excesses and unemployment had risen sharply to ten per cent.

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” Miss Kantor writes.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US unemployment in November, 2009, when the party was held, was 9.9%. I can see why Obama’s flunkies were worried about how this would look to the public, especially those on the dole.

Now, I’m old enough to remember when the Reagans were criticized by the sanctimonious media early in his first term for throwing a lavish state dinner for a visiting dignitary, complete with some of their Hollywood friends in attendance, during a bad recession. But that at least was part of the president’s normal duties as Chief of State. I didn’t begrudge Reagan then for doing his job, nor would I do so for Obama for throwing a lavish reception for, say, a visit by the Prime Minister of India.

But this was not a state dinner; it was a private party thrown by a powerful couple who wanted to revel in their power and hobnob with their elite friends. It was like the dance from Poe’s Masque of the Red Death:

But the Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and sagacious. When his dominions were half depopulated, he summoned to his presence a thousand hale and light-hearted friends from among the knights and dames of his court, and with these retired to the deep seclusion of one of his castellated abbeys. This was an extensive and magnificent structure, the creation of the prince’s own eccentric yet august taste. A strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had gates of iron. The courtiers, having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from within. The abbey was amply provisioned. With such precautions the courtiers might bid defiance to contagion. The external world could take care of itself. In the meantime it was folly to grieve, or to think. The prince had provided all the appliances of pleasure. There were buffoons, there were improvisatori, there were ballet-dancers, there were musicians, there was Beauty, there was wine. All these and security were within. Without was the “Red Death.”

Gardiner goes on to point out that the British Prime Minister would never do something like this:

For starters, the robust British press would have a field day showcasing the vulgarity of it all – in contrast to the Establishment US media, which is typically ignoring the Obama story (even though it comes from a New York Times source). More importantly though, David Cameron would probably have the good sense not to turn Downing Street into a ghoulish theme park, and would be sensitive to both the perception and actual cost of this kind of lavish event, especially at a time when the general public is being called upon to make sacrifices as the government wrestles with a towering national debt.

Nor, to reverse the now-shopworn comparison “What if Bush had done this,” do I think you would ever have seen George and Laura Bush being so self-indulgent. They may have been from Texas and spoke with a twang, both things anathema to the urban elite, but at least they had some class.

UPDATE: J. Christian Adams in a related article quotes the words of President John Adams, which are engraved on the fireplace in the state dining room, where the party was held:

May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.

Mr. Adams must be spinning in his grave.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)