[Vision2020] Fw: [Spam 6.21] Weekly Update: Obama’s Healthcare Fight Gameplan: Lies, Smears, and Secrecy

[lfalen]

-----Original message-----

From: Tom Fitton info at JudicialWatch.org
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:38:50 -0700
To: LFALEN at TURBONET.COM
Subject: [Spam 6.21] Weekly Update: Obama’s Healthcare Fight Gameplan: Lies,  Smears, and Secrecy

August 7, 2009

>From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
JW Sues Treasury Department to Obtain Documents on Bailout of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac
What is the Obama administration trying to hide? That's a question I've
had to ask myself quite a bit during the last six months as the Obama
administration continues to stonewall the release of documents related to
the government's response to the financial crisis.
On July 29th, we were forced to
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/jw-v-treasury-fanniefreddie.pdf]
file yet another Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the
Obama Department of Treasury to obtain documents concerning the taxpayer
bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here's what we're
after:
a.	Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout,
capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Freddie Mac (records
include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and
documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).
b.	Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout,
capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Fannie Mae (records
include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and
documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).
The bailouts of Fannie and Freddie have already cost taxpayers $86
billion – and are expected to cost up to $200 billion by the end of next
year. We figure the American people deserve to know the truth about how
these massive bailout deals were made behind closed doors. The Obama
administration doesn't share our desire for transparency.

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/lobbyist-admits-bribing-indicted-mayor]
Lobbyist Bribed Indicted Mayor
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/ice-releases-violent-convicts]
ICE Releases Violent Convicts
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/negligent-firms-get-state-contracts]
Negligent Firms Get State Contracts
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/332-million-new-jets-ferry-congress]
$332 Million For New Luxury Jets To Ferry Congress
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/obama-gives-top-donor-key-hhs-post]
Obama Appoints Top Donor To Key Health Post
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/rep-jefferson-convicted-faces-150-years-jail]
Rep. Jefferson Convicted, Faces 150 Years In Jail
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/stripper-scandal-judge-guilty-fraud]
Fla. Stripper Scandal Judge Pleads Guilty To Bank Fraud
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/virginia-gov-pardons-3-serving-life-rape-murder]
Virginia Gov. Pardons 3 Serving Life For Rape, Murder
-
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/aug/legislative-voting-records-purged]
Legislative Voting Records Purged
Judicial Watch filed its initial FOIA request on February 5, 2009. By
law, Treasury had until March 6, 2009, to respond. Instead, Treasury
officials requested a 10-day extension to conduct a document review.
However, since that time, Treasury has provided no documents and no
indication when documents will be forthcoming. And that is why we filed the
lawsuit.
Of course, this wasn't our first FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Treasury
Department over the financial crisis (and likely won't be the last).
Earlier this year, you may recall, Judicial Watch had to
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-v-u-s-department-treasury] sue
the Obama Treasury Department in order to obtain documents regarding an
historic meeting held by former Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson
with top bank executives. The documents show that Paulson and other
officials, including then-NY Fed Reserve head and current Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner forced the executives to take the government's
$250 billion "investment" (and resulting government control).
On his first day in office, President Obama promised that "transparency
and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." The
president further declared that "the Freedom of Information Act is perhaps
the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and
transparent, and of holding it accountable."
Looks good on paper, but this has not been the Obama administration's
policy. Not by a long shot.
We shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail to obtain important information
from the Obama administration related to the federal government's response
to the economic crisis. When is the Obama administration going to start
keeping its promises of transparency?
JW Fights for Free Speech in Amicus Curiae Brief Filed in Supreme Court
In an unusual move, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a special session on
September 9th to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit that could spell the end
for the controversial (and unconstitutional) McCain-Feingold campaign
finance law.
At issue is a 90-minute documentary about Hillary Clinton produced by the
conservative organization Citizens United. In 2008, the Federal Election
Commission, citing McCain-Feingold, prohibited the program from airing on
television stations during election season. This prompted Citizens United
to file a lawsuit to vindicate its First Amendment rights (Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission).
This week, Judicial Watch filed
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/citizens-united-v-fec-amicus.pdf]
an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court that argues that the FEC's
decision to restrict the documentary's broadcasting violated the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court will now
decide whether to overturn two High Court precedents (Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission) that
restrict corporate speech (which not only affects Citizens United, but your
Judicial Watch).
Here are the four principle arguments in our brief (which can be read in
full by clicking
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/citizens-united-v-fec-amicus.pdf]
here):

- Political Speech Is at the Heart of the First Amendment and Is Entitled
to the Broadest Protection:
The [Supreme] Court...was solicitous to protect political speech not only
as a matter of individual liberty, and not only because it was the
intention of the Framers, but because political speech is crucial to the
survival of our representative government and its system of ordered
liberty. This principle, in turn, presupposes that First Amendment
protection of political speech is the precondition of all other freedoms
protected by the Constitution.
- Unlike Contributions to Candidates, Independent Expenditures, Which Are
Not Coordinated with a Candidate or Campaign, Do Not Pose a Danger of
Corruption or its Appearance:
In essence, because as a nation we value free speech so highly, our
government is permitted to regulate it only where the government's interest
is compelling and only to the extent absolutely necessary to achieve that
interest... Independent expenditures...are not coordinated with a candidate
or campaign [and] do not pose a danger of corruption or its appearance.
This is because a candidate does not necessarily benefit from (and may well
even be harmed by) an expenditure that is made independently of his
campaign.
- This Court Has Consistently Invalidated Legislative Attempts at Limiting
or Restricting Corporate Expenditures as Violative of First Amendment Free
Speech:
Clearly, this Court has consistently held that independent expenditures
are protected speech which require the broadest protection by the First
Amendment. This Court has also consistently invalidated legislative
attempts at limiting or restricting corporate expenditures as violative of
First Amendment free speech because the government's interest in preventing
corruption and the appearance thereof is inapplicable to independent
expenditures, as there is no threat of a political quid pro quo with this
type of core independent political expression.

- Austin and McConnell Deviated from Established Precedent, and, as a
Result, Should Be Overruled by this Court:
In Austin, the Court addressed a state statute that prohibited
corporations from using "corporate treasury funds for independent
expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in elections
for state office"... The Court did not find that the state had proven the
existence of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, "the only
legitimate and compelling government interes[t] thus far identified for
restricting campaign finances," NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 496, 497, but invented a
new species of corruption: "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate
form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the
corporation's political ideas." Austin, 494 U.S. at 654.
In McConnell, the Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge
Congress' amendment of the FECA provision prohibiting corporate independent
expenditures...In short, McConnell suppresses speech that this Court has
unambiguously held cannot be suppressed. It "compounds the error made in
Austin...and silences political speech central to the civic discourse that
sustains and informs our democratic processes." McConnell, 540 U.S. at 323
(Kennedy, J., Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., dissenting).
The bottom line in all of this, of course, is that McCain-Feingold
violates the First Amendment by preventing corporations from using their
own money independently to talk about politicians and public policy issues.
As it relates to Judicial Watch, this law could prevent us from telling the
truth about corrupt politicians close to an election. And that is something
the First Amendment forbids and the Supreme Court should not accept.
Obama White House Adopts Low-ball Tactics from HillaryCare (Circa 1993)
As I've said many times before, past is prologue. Remember back in 1993
when Hillary Clinton attempted her government takeover of the nation's
healthcare system? She failed miserably. But in watching the Obama
administration's healthcare reform pressure campaign, it is clear that not
only is Obama pushing Hillary-style government-run healthcare, he has also
resorted to the same low-ball tactics used by Hillary in 1993.
In the last few months, the Obama administration
[http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/22/citizens/] refused to
turn over a list of health industry officials who visited the White House,
spread disinformation on his proposed plan and
[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/Fight_The_Smears_Health_Care_edition.html]
mobilized a mob of minions to attack opponents of his healthcare plan under
the ironic moniker "fight the smears."
Does any of this sound familiar to you? It does to me.
In July 2008, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Clinton
Presidential Library related to Hillary Clinton's healthcare campaign.
Check out just a few examples:

- A June 18, 1993, internal
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareCritique_0.pdf]
Memorandum entitled, "A Critique of Our Plan," authored by someone with the
initials "P.S.," makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary's
health care reform plan were correct: "I can think of parallels in wartime,
but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for
such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy...Is the
public really ready for this?... none of us knows whether we can make it
work well or at all..." (Some
[http://headland.blogspot.com/2008/01/hillarys-task-force-schemes-ps-who-is.html]
guessed that the author of this memo is Paul Starr, who served as head of
Hillary's Health Care Task Force staff.)
- A "Confidential" May 26, 1993,
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareRockefeller_0.pdf]
Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled,
"Health Care Reform Communications," which criticizes the Task Force as a
"secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks'" that has engaged in "choking
off information" from the public regarding health care reform. The
memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton "use classic opposition research"
to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task
Force deliberations and to "expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of
lobbyists" in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also
suggested news organizations "are anxious and willing to receive guidance
[from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news]
coverage."
- A February 5, 1993, Draft
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcarePublicLiaison_0.pdf]
Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public
Liaison's plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes
the development of an "interest group data base" detailing whether
organizations "support(ed) us in the election." The database would also
track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home
phone numbers, addresses, "biographies, analysis of credibility in the
media, and known relationships with Congresspeople."  Lies, smears, and
secrecy. All of these were hallmarks of Hillary Clinton's efforts in 1993.
Obama hired many a Clinton hack to work in his White House (such as Rahm
Emanuel). So it is no surprise that the Clinton gang's despicable tactics
(some of which may be illegal) are being used by the Obama administration
in their aggressive drive for socialized healthcare.
The more things "change" in Washington....
Sotomayor Confirmed
Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate 68-31 on Thursday
afternoon. She became Justice Sotomayor this morning after her swearing in
ceremony. Here's the statement I offered to the press:
Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court is a pyrrhic victory
for President Obama. The president's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has
helped erode his popular support. Obama's nominee proved an unpopular
choice among the American people, including Hispanics, given her
race-conscious and activist judicial philosophy. Even Judge Sotomayor was
forced to disavow Obama's lawless 'empathy' standard in her quest for a
seat on the High Court.
Republicans may finally understand that conservatives expect them to
oppose activist judges who don't respect the U.S. Constitution. And
Democrats are surely hoping President Obama does not have any more Supreme
Court nominations – especially any which would upset the Court's current
ideological make-up. All in all, this confirmation fight is a 'job well
done' by the conservative voters and activists who made their voices heard.
Until next week...

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated
to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to
ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible
contribution in support of our efforts,
[https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate] click here.
[https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate]
 

This message was sent by: Judicial Watch, 501 School St. SW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024

Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com

Manage your subscription:
http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=6411607&l=2547&s=52ID&m=153262&c=157205

Forward to a friend: 
http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=153262&s=6411607&c=52ID&cid=157205



-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Tom Fitton <info at JudicialWatch.org>
Subject: [Spam 6.21]
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Weekly_Update:_Obama=92s_Healthcare_Fight_Gameplan:_Lies,
	_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Smears, _and_Secrecy?=
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:38:50 -0400
Size: 38925
Url: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090810/760a2b04/attachment-0001.mht