“For years, journalists participating in the lockups have shown up at DOL at the appointed time, then entered a limited-access area to receive the new data and prepare news stories for release as soon as official embargoes end.

The system insures that major news organizations get the data as soon as possible and allows journalists covering the release get a jump on providing analyses and opinion about the data.

But Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ top communications advisor, circulated a memo earlier this week to interested media informing them that everybody is being required to re-submit their credentials requests.

He also offered a one-sentence assurance that ‘the department will not consider editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.’“

Bullshit!  Don’t believe for a minute that a politically-appointed member of the Obama Administration won’t consider “editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.” because that is precisely what they will do.  It is the entire purpose of the new plan.  The number of slots is limited.  They will use that to give an edge to those news organizations which favor them.  Granted, that is most news organizations already, but still…  They already do this with favorable treatment during press conferences.  If you don’t toe the line you’re out.

This is a Presidential election year.  Obama is desperate to keep his job.  One of his primary problems with re-election is the miserable state of employment.  Spinning employment statistics is critical and the first news releases are the ones remembered.  This sounds exactly like a scheme Rahm would come up with to make it sound like Obama is doing well, when in fact, the number of unemployed is disgraceful.  And the groups with the highest unemployment are Obama’s political base.  So basically the message he will send to his supporters through his favored news agencies is that everything is wonderful and if they don’t have jobs, its only a matter of a short time before they will.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”  Obama April 2, 2012

According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database),  between 1789 and 2002 158 Acts of Congress were held as unconstitutional.

• “unprecedented”: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.
• “extraordinary”: beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established
• “strong majority”: the vote was 220-215

So, was he lying, ignorant of the Constitution or just stupid?

In fact, lets compare Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe.

From Wikipedia: Mugabe’s government supported the Southern African Development Community’s intervention in the Second Congo War; expropriated thousands of white-owned farms; printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars, causing hyperinflation; and harassed and intimidated such political opponents as the Movement for Democratic Change.
Mugabe has described his critics as “born again colonialists”, and both he and his supporters claim Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism, aggravated by Western economic meddling.

Obama’s government supports ACORN’s intervention in the Mortgage Banking industry, the Internal Revenue Service and HUD. Obama has expropriated major financial, insurance and manufacturing businesses; prints trillions of dollars, which will soon cause hyperinflation; and harasses and intimidates such political opponents as FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Obama regularly denounces his critics, sometimes engages in name-calling, and both he and his supporters claim America’s problems are the legacy of racial prejudice, aggravated by personal and corporate greed.

That is not to say that the melding which occurred over the years of different cultures incorporated in American society has not had a beneficial effect because it has. We would not be what and who we are today without immigrants and the diversity in culture they brought with them. We could not have risen to the heights we have without the contributions and labor of those who came here hoping to live the American Dream or without the labor and culture brought by slaves and indentured servants.

However, thinking about it objectively, “the American Dream” is one developed primarily as a result of English-speaking, Christian, Western Europeans. They made it possible for all those immigrants to emigrate. They made it possible for all those immigrants to function freely, to vote and to achieve. Colonialism changed the world in a positive way. Yes, there are many instances where the indigenous population and culture were trampled along the way. But even with that, colonized countries grew, their economies prospered, their people gained a better standard of living than what they had when the colonists arrived, their children were educated, their lives grew longer, more of their babies lived, they were mostly able to speak and travel freely.

And then colonialists became “bad people”.

The children starving in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for “change” expecting the government to take care of all their needs. The unemployed in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for change. Those rioting in the streets today are the children of those who were dancing in the streets in anticipation of change. The owners of dusty unproductive farms piled high with broken, rusty once-high-tech farm equipment today are the children of those who once worked on productive farms which gave Zimbabwe the title of “breadbasket of Africa”. What wealth still exists there has been “re-distributed” to thieving politicians and their families – not the people who voted for change.

We are moving from a nation of self-reliant, self-starting, ambitious achievers to a nation of mooching “change-wanters” who don’t learn from history that big government never enriches anyone but the politicians and their henchmen. Be careful what you wish for….

Obviously he ran to Minnesota because he is well-supported there by the obambots.

But what is there to gain in that?  He won’t get as much coverage as the protesters in DC will.  He won’t win any new converts in a hall full of people who already blindly support him and his vague, blown-to-pieces-by-facts  ”plan”.

The clear outcome is even more division than there already is.  He continues his screed about “lies” and “scare tactics” and brings no new or persuasive information.  I guess he thinks if he continues to pound the same tired crap enough someone will begin to believe it.

The irony is that as the changer-in-chief he completely misses the NLP adage ”If what you’re doing isn’t working, try something else!” because he just keeps repeating it over and over – like a robot.  To his obambots.  What he needs is a playbook different than Alinsky’s.  Try something new Mr. President.  Try winning over your detractors with honesty and clarity.  If that doesn’t work, maybe you should rethink the plan.  Now there’s a novel idea – re-think something with a view towards finding something palatable to the majority of Americans instead of a minority of mooches who want something for nothing.

Presidential aides have promised Obama will take back the reins after allowing Congress to work its will on his idea, without one specific plan for Democratic lawmakers to defend back home. We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in an interview Tuesday. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26700.html#ixzz0Q26QqLTu From Politico, read more here..

If he lays out specific plans, he has no wriggle room. If it doesn’t pass It is his huge oboner. He owns it. This doesn’t seem like his normal strategy so I think its unlikely he’ll lay our specific plans without a lot of wriggle room. If he chooses this route the “plans” will seem specific but leave all his options for denial or taking the credit in place while leaving it up to Congress to compromise the bill to such an extent that none of them will survive the wrath of the voters.

If he “urges” Congress to get the job done it will be seen as weak by his constituents because they believe he has the power to do anything and will see this as going back on, or not fulfilling, a campaign promise. Congress will see it for what it is – a lame attempt to set Congress up for the fall when it doesn’t pass while immediately taking credit for it if it does. And reserving the option of wriggling, if after passing it, all goes bad.

This is a risky, desperate move. For his political career it has the potential to be the “mother of all oboners” until now and could lameduckize the balance of his presidency. It also has the potential to take down Pelosi and if you think she doesn’t see that…

If he was thinking smart rather than arrogant he’d sit quietly right now let Congress take the fall.