DC Insurance Commissioner Fired After Being Critical of Obamacare “Fix”

When it comes to Godless liberals tolerance is not a two-way street:

A top deputy in the DC mayor’s office reportedly told the city’s insurance commissioner he wants to “go in a different direction” -- i.e., fire him -- one day after the latter released a statement raising concerns about President Obama’s decision to amend his signature health care law. This is another way of saying, “if you disagree with the president publicly, there will be consequences.” Or so it seems:

A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired. 

White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday.

White said the mayoral deputy never said that he was being asked to leave because of his Thursday statement on health care. But he said the timing was hard to ignore. Roughly 24 hours later, White said, he was “basically being told, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

White was one of the first insurance commissioners in the nation last week to push back against Obama’s attempt to smooth over part of the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act: millions of unexpected cancellations of insurance plans.

White evidently raised the warning bells because the president’s unilateral delay will discourage young people from enrolling in the exchanges, thus hastening the law’s death spiral. Curiously, the commissioner’s public statement was removed from his department’s website almost immediately:

White’s statement was removed from the department’s Web site sometime before Friday morning. Asked about the removal Friday, spokesman Michael Flagg said the department’s statement had changed. 

“Our statement now is that we’re taking a close look at the implications of the president’s announcement on the District’s exchange and we will soon recommend a course of action after taking into consideration the positions of all the stakeholders,” Flagg wrote in an e-mail.

An anonymous city official suggests White was fired not because of the content of his statement, but because he violated protocol:

A senior city official said White’s initial statement was sent to the mayoral communications director, Pedro Ribeiro, only minutes before it was issued publicly. It was not sent to Deputy Mayor Victor Hoskins, White’s immediate supervisor, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about a personnel matter. 

A formal statement critical of the president should have been closely vetted and approved by the mayor’s office, and White refused to acknowledge the misstep, the official said. White said Hoskins fired him Friday.

White disagrees:

White said he thought he would have been derelict in his duties to not quickly make a statement on the president’s announcement. 

“Everyone was looking for responses from the regulators. One of my chief concerns is always consistency and clarity in the marketplace — you can’t have something that big sitting out there without responding to it,” he said.

Either way, White no longer has a job. And politics seems to be the reason why. 

RELATED:  NBC’s Gregory Confronts Pelosi With ‘We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What’s In It’ Clip

Barack Obama Threatens Supreme Court

Conservatives have long known that Barack Obama is a severe narcissist, with an ego so huge that it'd make Beyonce blush. But the nerve to threaten the 9 justices within the Supreme Court if they don't declare Obamacare constitutional? Unbelievable, but only if you haven't been paying attention to Barry's head get bigger and bigger since he surprisingly won the presidential election in 2008. After all this this isn't the first time The One has tried to intimidate SCOTUS and it probably won't be the last:

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.


“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”


To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.


That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.


And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”


Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”


But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.


I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.


Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.

RELATED: GOP senator accuses Obama of threatening the Supreme Court

Think GOP Infighting Is Ugly? Check Out The Democrats…Of 2008

Great post by John Wilson at Mediate today just to remind everyone that it's not just Republicans who get into nasty battles during primary season:

Now that the attacks have sharpened between GOP candidates, many in the media are lamenting (or outwardly championing for Democrats’ sake) the possibility Republicans will cannibalize one another and leave the nominee just a political carcass that a DNC intern could lead President Obama to victory over. Not quite.


This kind of infighting — even with negativity making up a record 95% of the ads shown leading up to the Florida primary — isn’t new to presidential politics. It was worse four years ago, which is apparently too long a time for some folks to remember what the Democratic presidential primary looked like. So here’s a reminder: Hillary Clinton didn’t just get into the muck of linking the ‘70s era terrorist organization Weather Underground with then-candidate Barack Obama, she also drew a “direct” link between Obama, Bill Ayers, and 9/11, saying during a debate:


“If I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.”


Ayers was never convicted of any crime, however he was a member of the Weather Underground group, who did accept responsibility for detonating a number of bombs in government buildings. Clinton was referring to comments Ayers made in response to regretting his violent past:


“I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”


Reckless, especially in the midst of 9/11? Definitely. Somehow reflective of Ayers’ relationship with Obama? Not in the least. The Washington Post fact-checked the connection between Obama and Ayers and found what Obama had stated repeatedly: aside from serving as board members of an organization together and Ayers hosting a fundraiser, they had no real relationship. Clinton was so shortsighted in her utilization of this attack that she opened herself up to a weltering retort:


“Did Hillary Clinton believe that it had been appropriate in 2001 for President Bill Clinton to have pardoned two members of the Weather Underground as he left office?,” journalist David Corn asked Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director at the time.


Clinton didn’t stop her attacks at Weather Underground, though. When it came to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, she sidestepped it at first to avoid appearing opportunistic, and out of fear of angering black voters. But she wasn’t out of it for long. When she spoke with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board in late March, as the race was heating up and the general consensus was she could actually lose, she didn’t have any qualms saying, “He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” And just in case that wasn’t a big enough hint as to how Clinton perceived Rev. Wright’s sermons, she threw in another zinger: “You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that.”


And remember this was the race that brought the term “superdelegate” into the nation’s lexicon — “designated members of Congress, governors and distinguished party leaders” who are free to change their minds on which candidate to support. Had Clinton not suspended her campaign in June (bowing to pressure from dons of the party), the superdelegates would probably have decided who the Democratic nominee was at the party convention in August, just three months before the general election. Primary voters be damned.

Democrat Filmmaker Accuses Obama Of Stealing 2008 Primaries From Hillary Clinton

Hot Air:

Put me down as skeptical on this one. Fox News interviews Gigi Gaston, a Democrat who produced a new documentary, We Will Not Be Silent 2008 that alleges irregularities in the 2008 Democratic primaries committed by the Barack Obama campaign. Gaston accuses Obama and his team of stealing the election from Hillary Clinton through voter fraud, intimidation, and dirty tricks (via The Right Scoop):

The allegations appear to be entirely confined to caucus states, which is one of the reasons I’m skeptical. Caucuses are bare-knuckled brawls where the parties make the rules and the campaigns routinely and viciously fight over them. I have no trouble believing that Team Obama played hardball and cut as many corners as they could without getting caught. What I have trouble believing is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t doing the exact same thing in these states. After all, Hillary was hardly a babe in the woods. The Clinton Machine had been fighting these battles since Obama was in high school. Now we’re suddenly to believe that they were manning the Good Ship Lollipop in 2008 and were shocked, shocked to find that caucuses aren’t played by Marquess de Queensbury rules?

Considering how much of a favorite Billary was to win the 2008 Democrat nomination, something like this can't be easily dismissed.

Right America: "Feeling Wronged" Video

Really interesting stuff, but it's taped by Nancy Pelosi's daughter so any skepticism of being fair is certainly warranted.

Patty Murray Now Rated Most Liberal Senator

Of course this position once belonged to Barack Obama, and he's...ummm, the President now. So don't say you weren't warned:

According to the National Journal’s annual vote ratings, the 2008 honors for the Senate’s most liberal member went to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. Four Republicans – John Barrasso and Michael Enzi of Wyoming, John Ensign of Nevada and Jon Kyl of Arizona shared the distinction of being rated most conservative in that chamber.

Meanwhile, the House ratings saw 12 Democrats from six states ranked as most liberal. Three Republicans – Paul Broun of Georgia, Trent Franks of Arizona and Jeb Hensarling of Texas – were considered the most conservative.

Included in the list of the most liberal House members: Robert Brady, D-Penn., Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., George Miller, D-Calif., Jackie Speier, D-Calif., Louise Slaughter, D-NY, Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., and Nydia Velasquez, D-NY – all with a composite score of 93.2.

Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, didn’t quite make the top dozen – scoring a respectable 90.7 on the liberal meter.

The ratings, a National Journal tradition since 1981, are considered a definitive source of insight on congressional voting trends. Last year’s ratings ranked Barack Obama as the Senate’s most liberal member.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/19/09

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream Also Included Economic Justice

Obama Has Little In Common With Abraham Lincoln

Future Of Abstinence-Only Funding Under Obama Is In Limbo

Gay Bishop To Give Inaugural Prayer

Having Babies Is....SEXIST!!!

Wealthy Men Give Women More Orgasms

Nancy Pelosi Fighting Obama To Kill Tax Cuts, Wants Bush Investigated

Hugo Chavez: Obama Has 'Stench' Of Bush

Obama-Loving HBO, Will Ferrell Team Up To Bash Bush On Broadway

FISA Court: Warrantless Wiretaps Are Legal

Maryland Democrat Senator Lisa Gladden Doesn't Care If Her State Goes Broke

Senator Lisa Gladden (D-Maryland) is the perfect example of what happens when liberal pols become obsessed with race and start getting stupid:

Overexposed Beyonce To Sing To Obama's Inauguration Day

Beyonce's plan for world domination continues:

Beyonce has revealed the song she plans to serenade the Obamas with in their first dance as America's first couple _ and no, she won't be telling the president to "put a ring on it."

She will sing the Etta James classic "At Last."

Beyonce portrayed the blues great in the recent film "Cadillac Records" and sings the song in that movie.

Beyonce will sing to the Obamas at the Neighborhood Ball Tuesday night.

In a statement, Beyonce said: "I am so honored that I will be performing for President Obama and the first lady. To sing `At Last' while they have their first dance is a dream come true. I could not be more honored and excited that they have asked me to be part of this moment in history."

It was revealed on Thursday that Beyonce would be serenading the Obamas at the event. But the song choice was not revealed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Listen, I have nothing against Beyonce--I buy her CDs and appreciate her talent and work ethic, but can she just go away for awhile? Yunno, take a break and let us miss her for awhile? I swear one can't go a month without Beyonce coming out with a new movie or album or clothing line or commercial or tour or some news about whether or not she's really married (thankfully, thats over with). Now she's sneaks into the political world just to rain on Barack Obama's parade. I know Obama's homie Jennifer Hudson understandably couldn't make it, but what, was the more talented (and better singer) Alicia Keys too busy or something? How about Mary J? Not that I was planning on watching any of Barack's $150million Inauguration festitivies anyway, but being on Beyonce overload that I am, now I know I'm not watching.

Pentagon Says 61 Gitmo Detainees Have Returned To Terrorism

Reuters.com:

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.

"This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world," he told reporters.

Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

It's no secret that Barack Obama's base of leftwing lunatics are demanding that he close Guantanamo Bay because BO promised he would while on the campaign trail, the Bush administration dared to waterboard 3 terrorists for a total of 5 minutes during its run and liberals, in general, have more sympathy for criminals than their victims. But Barack better be careful on this one considering that yunno, liberals are generally ass-backwards on matters concerning protecting Americans and thanks to President Bush we haven't had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 7 years. Then too a terrorist attack on Obama's watch and The Messiah honeymoon would officially be over.

Smart Political Maneuvering By Barack On Hillary

The hearing on the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is over, she apparently did well, and now Billary is expected to be named with a vote tomorrow:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton smoothly took on policy questions, from the acute to the arcane, in a gentle job interview to be the nation's top diplomat, but she could not dispel tougher questions about whether her husband's charity work poses an ethical conflict.

Her confirmation as secretary of state is not in doubt, and she could be on the job as soon as President-elect Barack Obama's first full day in office. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to vote on the selection Thursday.

"I thought it was a very strong performance," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the committee chairman and once thought to be a top contender for secretary of state in the Obama administration.

"She clearly demonstrated a different path from the past administration in terms of engagement with Iran, I think, even talking about how they are going to walk a line in the Middle East as an honest broker in the effort to end the violence," Kerry said Wednesday on NBC's "Today."

In testimony Tuesday, Clinton offered well-prepared answers to questions on crises and trouble spots including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Cuba and Afghanistan. She offered few details about how she and Obama would handle those problems, except to say that in many cases they would offer a fresh approach after eight years of President George W. Bush.

This has to be one of smartest moves Barack Obama has ever made politically: turning Hillary Clinton into a subordinate. If Hillary had remained a Senator she'd be an independent force answering to no one. Now the cutthroat and always calculating Hillary, who only two years ago was the heads-on favorite to be taking the Presidential oath next week, will work for Barack Obama, a man I believe her and her husband still hold some contempt for even running in the primaries last year, much less winning. But Hillary shouldn't be too mad, at least now when she talks about ducking bullets in Bosnia there might actually be some truth to it.

Obama Threatens To Veto Democrats Over Bailout Dough

"Change" my ass. The Dems aren't even in control yet and their true colors are already starting to show:

Tested before taking power, President-elect Barack Obama privately delivered a pre-inauguration veto threat to fellow Democrats on Tuesday, saying they would not deny him use of the remaining $350 billion in federal bailout funds.

Obama coupled his threat with a promise to revise elements of the original bailout program that have drawn widespread criticism, pledging that billions will go toward helping homeowners facing foreclosure. Several Democrats said his commitments, to be made in writing, would be enough to prevent an embarrassing pre-inauguration drubbing for the president-elect when the Senate votes this week.

"This will be the first vote that President-elect Obama is asking us for. I'll be shocked and I'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut.

"This is a new beginning."

Behind closed doors, Obama also urged lawmakers to act quickly on the massive economic stimulus measure that his aides have been negotiating with congressional officials. The legislation will blend federal spending with tax cuts, and could reach $1 trillion in size, a measure of the nation's economic woes.

Put aside the quick fix for a minute. If Barack really wants a vote of confidence in his first 100 days as Prez, how about BO taking some time to consider making a clean sweep of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, whose co-heads, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, were the chief architects of this financial mess we're in? Now that'd be some "change" I'd like to see.

Liberals Hoping Obama Legalizes Marijuana

Liberal values at their best:

The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars waging its 40-year "war on drugs," responsible for the imprisonment of 500,000 of our fellow American citizens. Despite this enormous waste of money and lives, drugs are as easily available and cheap as ever. The drug-warmongers say it is all for the safety and protection of our children, yet high schoolers all over the country can easily obtain just about any illegal drug they are seeking in this unregulated market. Half of all high-school seniors will have tried marijuana before graduating. The government's latest Monitoring the Future report, released in December, indicates that more young people are now choosing to smoke pot rather than cigarettes.

Despite these disheartening facts, there is reason for optimism and hope. More and more people are joining the movement to end the failed war on drugs. Passionate people in every neighborhood and from every walk of life, liberals and conservatives, are joining this fast-growing movement. Though there are some compelling reasons drugs should remain illegal, we should at least begin an honest discussion about the root causes of the violence and the range of options to deal with the harms associated with prohibition. It is clear that the strategy of the past 40 years is not working.

President-elect Obama has been refreshingly honest about his current and past drug use. Obama has been making news recently because of his struggles to give up cigarettes. He has written and talked about his marijuana and cocaine use when he was younger. He has never run from or made excuses about his drug use or habits. Like Obama, tens of millions of Americans have tried marijuana and so far they seem not to be holding his past drug use against him. Having someone in the White House who continues to grapple with relapses from his nicotine addiction will hopefully create more empathy between the executive branch and others trying to give up drug addictions.

On the policy front, President-elect Obama has made some good commitments during the campaign: He supports repealing the harshest drug sentences, removing federal funding bans on needle-exchange programs to reduce AIDS, ending federal raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal, and supporting treatment alternatives for low-level drug offenses. President Obama will also have some key allies in the Democrat-controlled Senate and House. Senator Webb of Virgina has made our country's prison overcrowding crisis -- fueled by the drug war -- a top priority.

Ad Questions Barack Obama's Eligibility To Be President

Honestly at first I thought this stuff questioning Barack's citizenship was just Obama haters wasting time, energy and money on a silly conspiracy. But upon a closer they do make some valid points which is why I chose to post this ad. Of course, the Electoral College has already certified BO's election, but considering that there's still lawsuits out there on this stuff....hey, anything's possible.

Barack Wants To Get Rid Of The BCS

And he's right:

President-elect Barack Obama held a news conference today to announce his picks to lead the CIA (Leon Panetta) and to be Director of National Intelligence (Dennis Blair). He also talked about the latest unemployment report and called for urgent action on the stimulus plan he talked about yesterday.

But he might receive the most attention for what he said about the Bowl Championship Series when asked about Florida's win over Oklahoma last night.

As he has done before on ESPN and on 60 Minutes, the president-elect reiterated his call for a playoff to decide the national college football champion. "If I'm Utah, or if I'm USC or if I'm Texas, I may still have some quibbles," he said. "That's why we need a playoff."

The BCS is a disgrace. The fact that an undefeated team like the Utah Utes can beat a team that was ranked No. 1 for most of the season and not get a chance for the national championship proves what a joke the BCS is. And Obama isn't just speaking in the minority here. The media has been pining for a playoff system for years, so have the players, so have the fans--it's the only fair way to determine a true champion. It's what every single other sport does. But simple logic is being held back by a few college presidents who are more concerned about silly tradition concerning 50 different bowl games that nobody remembers who won a year later.

Dumb Atheists Sue To Keep 'God' Out Of Inaugural

Idiots with just way too much time on their hands:

Atheists and several non-religious organizations have filed a 39-page lawsuit to prohibit the use of religious phrases and references to God when President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Washington, demands the words “so help me God” and other “explicitly religious dogma” not be uttered at the end of the swearing-in ceremony, the Washington Post reports. In addition, the suit will try to prohibit ministers from invoking a benediction in which God and religion are discussed.

"There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists," says the lawsuit, posted online by a California lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies.

Parties to the suit, which states references to God during inauguration ceremonies violates the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion, include the American Humanist Association; the Freedom from Religion Foundation; atheist groups from Minnesota, Seattle, Washington and Florida; and a handful of other groups advocating religious freedom or atheism.

Atheists contend having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," the lawsuit reads.

Sheer stupidity. What's next, suing malls for playing Christmas songs during the holiday season? You don't want to believe in God, fine, I could care less. But Obama has made it clear that he does and lawsuits like this are nothing but attention-getters trying to force their views on someone else. Gotta' love liberals and their double-standards when it comes to intolerance.

Chris Matthews Decides Not To Run For Senate

NYTimes.com:

Chris Matthews, the host of the MSNBC program “Hardball,” told his staff on Wednesday night that he would not run for the Senate in 2010 from Pennsylvania.

For much of the last year, Mr. Matthews had been considering entering the Senate race as a Democrat in his home state at the same time he was renegotiating his contract with NBC News. He had attended several meetings that had included Pennsylvania representatives as well as some major fund-raisers in the Democratic Party.

But Mr. Matthews, who was once a top aide to the House speaker, Tip O’Neill of Massachusetts, and ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1974, never formally declared himself a candidate, a decision which would have forced him out of his position at MSNBC.

In an interview in October, Mr. Matthews said, “People have asked me about it. I’ve never told anyone that I’m running.”

There has been speculation that Mr. Matthews, 63, was flirting with a Senate run as a way to give him some leverage in his contract talks. According to at least one earlier report, NBC was planning to ask Mr. Matthews to return but wanted him to take a drastic pay cut — from $5 million a year to an amount closer to $1 million.

Guess ol' Chrissy-boy realized that he'd be far more effective making sure Obama's presidency is a success from his highchair at MSNBC than in the confines of the Senate.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/5/09

Obama Taps Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine As The New Chairman Of DNC

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson Bows Out Of Commerce Secretary Job

Rick Warren Is No Billy Graham

Wisconsin Congregation Breaks With Episcopal Church

Soldier Alleges Military Pattern Of Christian Bias

Voted For Prop 8? You're Fired

Al Franken To Be Declared Senate Victor In Minnesota

Roland Burris Lawyer Prods Senate Dems Leaders

Bush 41: Jeb Should Run For President

Liberal, HuffPo Writer Debunks Al Gore's Global Warming Hysteria

Indiana Court Sides With Internet Pedophiles, Limits Child Sex Stings

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/29/08

Barack Obama Bristles As The Bubble Closes In

Israel Deploys Tanks And Troops Around Gaza

The Awkward Co-Dependence Of Blacks And Liberal Democrats

Curable Disease Kills Thousands Of Children Every Year In Africa

Children's Book Depicts Santa Fighting Global Warming

Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling Against Illinois' "Choose Life" License Plates

Study: Murders Among Black Youths Have Risen Sharply Since 2000

Jeb Bush Signals That He's Poised To Run For Senate

Americans Drop Dead As Police Get Taser-Happy

Letter To The Editor: Free Ignacio Ramos And Jose Compean

Rahm Emanuel Facing Possible Subpoena From Blagojevich Attorney

CNN.com:

The Illinois House panel considering impeachment charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich has received a letter from the governor's attorney urging the panel to issue subpoenas to more than a dozen potential witnesses, including incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Steve Brown, spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, confirms to CNN that the impeachment panel received the letter from Blagojevich attorney Ed Genson.

"The committee has taken that letter under advisement," said Brown, noting the panel's next meeting is Monday morning.

Even if the panel moved ahead with such subpoenas, however, they could still be blocked by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has previously expressed concern about the impeachment panel interfering with his ongoing criminal probe.

Nevertheless, the maneuvering by Blagojevich's camp could provide a distraction for President-elect Barack Obama and top aides just days after they tried to turn the page on the matter by issing an internal investigation claiming no wrongdoing by the transition team.

Genson, Blagojevich's attorney, did not immediately return a call seeking comment on his letter.

Barack tried to throw a blanket on this mess by conducting his own investigation that pretty much concluded that Emanuel did no wrong here. Good thing Gov. Blagojevich isn't having it. Democratic corruption in Illinois has been going on for too long now, it's about time the feds get involved and do something about it because Rod Blagojevich is being scapegoated.