WH Defends Promoting Rapper With "Cop Killing" Lyricks While #2 House Dem Opposes WH Exec. Order
Today in Washington, D.C. - May 11, 2011:
What is that looming dark shadow over the White House? While the White House (WH) encourages President Obama to sign an Executive order that would be blatant thuggery that infringes on free speech as defined by the Supreme Court, the WH then invites a "Rapper" to perform at the White House and defend the speech of this "rapper" who has advocated "the killing of police" in his lyrics.
As of this posting, the WH stands by the invitation of "rapper" Common to participate in a WH East Room poetry event despite objections by New Jersey State Police and others who are very concerned about Common's glorification of the killing of police officers in his lyrics. While Jay Carney says President Barack Obama has spoken out against violent and misogynistic music lyrics, he was incoherent as to the reasons why Obama and WH liberals are defending this "cop killing rapper"'s invitation to the WH. Is Obama is confused between the topic of killing American policemen and killing foreign terrorists? Is he again allowing someone else to make decisions for him - wonder if it is the "other lady" in his life, WH adviser Valarie Jarret? [Update: News sources reporting that it was First Lady Michelle Obama who invited Common. She is now "proud of her country."] Imagine the outcry by the liberal left if GW Bush had invited this rapper to the WH. Looks like another WH example of no consequences for your actions for both the kids in the WH and for the kids of America.
The Senate proceed this afternoon to the nomination of Arenda L. Wright Allen, to be US District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Following up to an hour of debate, there will be a roll call vote on the nomination. Yesterday, the Senate voted 56-42 to confirm Edward Chen to be a district judge for the Northern District of California.
Multiple press accounts yesterday reported that House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the 2nd - ranking Democrat in the House, signaled his opposition to a proposed executive order from President Obama that would require federal contractors to disclose their political donations prior to being chosen for a contract.
The AP wrote, “The second-ranking House Democrat said Tuesday he opposes a White House proposal to require anyone seeking government contracts to disclose political contributions. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the party whip, placed himself on the same side as Republicans and the business community -- and against liberal groups demanding more disclosure. Hoyer told reporters that contractors should be chosen on the merits of their applications, their bids and their capabilities, not on their political donations.”
And The Hill reported, “A White House plan to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions could politicize the bidding process and undermine its effectiveness, the second-ranking House Democrat warned Tuesday. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said government contracts should be awarded based solely on the reputation of the company and the substance of its bid. The issue of political contributions, he said, has no place in the mix. ‘The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities,’ Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol. ‘There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.’ He added, ‘I’m not in agreement with the administration on that issue.’”
Felicia Sonmez in the The Washington Post added, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said later Tuesday that he welcomed Hoyer’s response to the issue. ‘I’m glad to see that somebody on the other side is standing up to this blatant attempt to intimidate people into either not contributing to causes the administration opposes,’ he said, ‘or, to the contrary, basically, as Senator [Susan] Collins [R-Maine] has pointed out on several occasions, basically repealing the Hatch Act by putting politics back into the procurement process -- a truly outrageous suggestion, which the White House still has an opportunity to not go forward with.’”
Leader McConnell has long fought against government interference in political speech, and raised the alarm about how this executive order could result in contractors being punished or rewarded based on their political contributions when former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky first uncovered the proposal a few weeks ago.
Today, Leader McConnell said, “I was happy to see the number-two Democrat in the House yesterday take a stand against the President’s proposed executive order, a proposal disguised as increased ‘transparency,” which would allow the administration to review a company’s political donations before deciding whether to award a federal contract. Here’s how he put it: ‘[The] White House plan to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions could politicize the bidding process and undermine its integrity.’
“Similar efforts have already been rejected by the Supreme Court, the FEC, and Congress. And now, there is bipartisan opposition to the administration’s Executive Order. . . . As I’ve said, no White House should be able to review your political party affiliation before deciding if you’re worthy of a government contract. And no one should have to worry about whether their political support will determine their ability to get or keep a federal contract or keep their job. The issuing of contracts by the federal government should be based on the contractor’s merits, bids, and capabilities. Under no condition should political contributions play a role in the decision. . . . Democracy is compromised when individuals and small businesses fear reprisal, or expect favor from the federal government as a result of their political associations.”
Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
What is that looming dark shadow over the White House? While the White House (WH) encourages President Obama to sign an Executive order that would be blatant thuggery that infringes on free speech as defined by the Supreme Court, the WH then invites a "Rapper" to perform at the White House and defend the speech of this "rapper" who has advocated "the killing of police" in his lyrics.
As of this posting, the WH stands by the invitation of "rapper" Common to participate in a WH East Room poetry event despite objections by New Jersey State Police and others who are very concerned about Common's glorification of the killing of police officers in his lyrics. While Jay Carney says President Barack Obama has spoken out against violent and misogynistic music lyrics, he was incoherent as to the reasons why Obama and WH liberals are defending this "cop killing rapper"'s invitation to the WH. Is Obama is confused between the topic of killing American policemen and killing foreign terrorists? Is he again allowing someone else to make decisions for him - wonder if it is the "other lady" in his life, WH adviser Valarie Jarret? [Update: News sources reporting that it was First Lady Michelle Obama who invited Common. She is now "proud of her country."] Imagine the outcry by the liberal left if GW Bush had invited this rapper to the WH. Looks like another WH example of no consequences for your actions for both the kids in the WH and for the kids of America.
The Senate proceed this afternoon to the nomination of Arenda L. Wright Allen, to be US District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Following up to an hour of debate, there will be a roll call vote on the nomination. Yesterday, the Senate voted 56-42 to confirm Edward Chen to be a district judge for the Northern District of California.
Multiple press accounts yesterday reported that House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the 2nd - ranking Democrat in the House, signaled his opposition to a proposed executive order from President Obama that would require federal contractors to disclose their political donations prior to being chosen for a contract.
The AP wrote, “The second-ranking House Democrat said Tuesday he opposes a White House proposal to require anyone seeking government contracts to disclose political contributions. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the party whip, placed himself on the same side as Republicans and the business community -- and against liberal groups demanding more disclosure. Hoyer told reporters that contractors should be chosen on the merits of their applications, their bids and their capabilities, not on their political donations.”
And The Hill reported, “A White House plan to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions could politicize the bidding process and undermine its effectiveness, the second-ranking House Democrat warned Tuesday. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said government contracts should be awarded based solely on the reputation of the company and the substance of its bid. The issue of political contributions, he said, has no place in the mix. ‘The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities,’ Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol. ‘There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.’ He added, ‘I’m not in agreement with the administration on that issue.’”
Felicia Sonmez in the The Washington Post added, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said later Tuesday that he welcomed Hoyer’s response to the issue. ‘I’m glad to see that somebody on the other side is standing up to this blatant attempt to intimidate people into either not contributing to causes the administration opposes,’ he said, ‘or, to the contrary, basically, as Senator [Susan] Collins [R-Maine] has pointed out on several occasions, basically repealing the Hatch Act by putting politics back into the procurement process -- a truly outrageous suggestion, which the White House still has an opportunity to not go forward with.’”
Leader McConnell has long fought against government interference in political speech, and raised the alarm about how this executive order could result in contractors being punished or rewarded based on their political contributions when former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky first uncovered the proposal a few weeks ago.
Today, Leader McConnell said, “I was happy to see the number-two Democrat in the House yesterday take a stand against the President’s proposed executive order, a proposal disguised as increased ‘transparency,” which would allow the administration to review a company’s political donations before deciding whether to award a federal contract. Here’s how he put it: ‘[The] White House plan to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions could politicize the bidding process and undermine its integrity.’
“Similar efforts have already been rejected by the Supreme Court, the FEC, and Congress. And now, there is bipartisan opposition to the administration’s Executive Order. . . . As I’ve said, no White House should be able to review your political party affiliation before deciding if you’re worthy of a government contract. And no one should have to worry about whether their political support will determine their ability to get or keep a federal contract or keep their job. The issuing of contracts by the federal government should be based on the contractor’s merits, bids, and capabilities. Under no condition should political contributions play a role in the decision. . . . Democracy is compromised when individuals and small businesses fear reprisal, or expect favor from the federal government as a result of their political associations.”
Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 4:05 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home