From Politico:

Hillary Clinton calls historic meeting of ambassadors

Ambassadors from almost all 260 U.S. embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries are expected to convene at the State Department for what’s being billed as the first meeting of its kind.

Officials say the meeting will include discussion of foreign policy priorities for 2011, The Associated Press reported, as well as an assessment of the fallout from the release of secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. Clinton will meet individually with diplomats working in unstable countries.

…The ambassadors hold meetings with their regional bureaus Monday and Tuesday. Clinton is set to address the ambassadors Wednesday about “leading through civilian power,” after a welcome from her chief of staff and counselor, Cheryl Mills. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice will then forecast the year ahead at the United Nations, and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns will do the same for the year ahead in foreign policy.

The ambassadors will also hear from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen on civilian-military operations in the 21st century, and USAID chief Raj Shah will speak on results-based development.

After doing a little further digging I found this on the State Department’s website.

Secretary Clinton Convenes the Inaugural Global Chiefs of Mission Conference in Washington D.C. Media Coverage Opportunities on February 2

On January 31, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened the first ever Global Chiefs of Mission Conference. This will be the first time U.S. Ambassadors will gather from around the world simultaneously. The Conference, which runs through February 4, presents an unprecedented opportunity to mobilize and coordinate the work of America’s Ambassadors overseas.

A principal aim of the conference will be to prepare for the implementation of the recommendations in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which Secretary Clinton announced last month.

According to the State Department’s website, Clinton said this about the QDDR:

“How can we do better?…we will build up our civilian power: the combined force of civilians working together across the U.S. government to practice diplomacy, carry out development projects, and prevent and respond to crises. Many different agencies contribute to these efforts today. But their work can be more unified, more focused, and more efficient.

The State Department and USAID will take a lead role in making that happen.”

The QDDR provides a blueprint for elevating American “civilian power” to better advance our national interests and to be a better partner to the U.S. military.

Some of the objectives of the QDDR

* Creating an Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment
* Establishing a new Bureau for Energy Resources
* Creating an Under Secretary for Civilian Security
* Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
* Establish a Bureau for Counterterrorism
* Establishing a Coordinator for Cyber Issues

As I said before, I may be paranoid, but whenever I hear anyone from this administration talking about “civilian security” or “civilian military”, I get a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.

“Let’s do the people’s business in the light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats”.

That’s an upbeat bipartisan sounding sentiment isn’t it, I mean, who would argue with that?

The problem is, its the ‘administration’s business’ that Obama doesn’t want to be seen “in the light of day”.

In my January 25th post, Could this be the Democrats “Haliburton”?, I reported that in spite of his campaign promise that, “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House”, the Obama administration had awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

According to the original FOX News article…

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will “train the next generation of legal professionals” throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby “develop the capacity of Afghanistan’s justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair.”

The legality of the arrangement as a “sole source,” or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. “They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year,” a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

“That’s kind of weird,” said another source, who has worked on “rule of law” issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. “There’s lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.”

In my previous post I stated with tongue-in-cheek, that the ‘outrage’ and demands for prosecution would be just as strong as it still is for the “Haliburton Deal” when word of the Checchi & Company deal became widely known.

So, other than FOX News, what have I heard about it from the lame-stream media, MSNBC, CNN and the liberal bloggers?

Well, let’s just say that “the light of day” Obama referred to must be as bright as an Alaskan winter.

But, thanks to the sunshine provided by FOX News and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I’m happy to announce that The U.S. has canceled the Checchi & Company deal, and according to a statement from State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley, is now working on an appropriate resolution.

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News the no-bid contract in this case “disturbed” him.

Issa had written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency “produce all documents related to the Checchi contract” on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, told Fox News she, too, was seeking answers about the Checchi contract.

Of course, we knew it would somehow end up being Bush’s fault didn’t we? And what does the administration have to say about “the deal’?

“If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough,” Crowley told Fox News.

Hmm, what I want to know Mr. Crowley, is what is in the documents that Rep. Issa requested that this administration doesn’t want to be seen “in the light of day”?

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so”

The Dems may not realize it yet, but Obama’s appearance at yesterday’s GOP Retreat was a shot in the foot to the Democratic party. I’ll explain why in a moment, but first, during the televised Q & A session there was this exchange between Obama and Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). Be sure to catch the last 30 seconds of this video, where Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) sets Obama straight on who has been the real “obstructionists” in crafting bipartisan legislation over the last year.

During 2009 we heard sound-bite after sound-bite from Obama and his administration, Reid, Pelosi, the Democratic party and Liberal pundits, repeat the talking point that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions for the health care bill.

But as these remarks from Mike Pence after Friday’s retreat illustrate, we now have, in the President’s own words, proof that the talking points used ad nauseum are not true.

So why do I surmise that Obama shot the Dems in the foot with his appearance at the retreat?

By admitting that the Republicans have offered solutions and input into last year’s legislation – he took away their favorite line of attack, which I’m sure they were looking forward to using in the upcoming elections.

I know for a fact that several Kos activists were planning on using this line of attack.

After a new Pew Center study was released last week that showed fewer than one in three surveyed voters knew that Senate Democrats had advanced their health bill without a single Republican vote, I moseyed over to DailyKos to see what they were saying about it.

Paraphrasing what several of the commenters there said: “I know it isn’t true, but I’m going to push the ‘GOP is the party of No Solutions’ meme extra heavy during the 2010 GOTV.”

Let’s hope they’re arrogant and stupid enough to do it.

Let’s also hope the GOP is smart enough to realize the gift Obama dropped in their lap for the upcoming election season, ie; TV and radio ads using the President’s own words that prove he and the Democratic party have blatantly and repeatedly lied to the American people over the past year.

Something tells me that Mike Pence already has somebody writing the scripts.

“The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.”

I’m sure once this story gains ground, the Democrat’s ‘outrage’ and demands for prosecution will be just as strong as it still is for the “Haliburton Deal”.

Yeah, right. And I also believe Obama is the best president evah.

Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will “train the next generation of legal professionals” throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby “develop the capacity of Afghanistan’s justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair.”

The legality of the arrangement as a “sole source,” or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. “They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year,” a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

“That’s kind of weird,” said another source, who has worked on “rule of law” issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. “There’s lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.”

Contacted by Fox News, Checchi confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.

Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: “After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea.”

He declined to answer further questions, however, and again referred Fox News to USAID, saying: “I don’t want to speak for the U.S. government.”

Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too “busy” to comment on it. “I’ll tell it to the people in Haiti,” Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Fox News’ reporting on the no-bid contract in this case “disturbed” him.

Issa has written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency “produce all documents related to the Checchi contract” on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.

Yet “on its face,” wrote Issa to Shah, “the consulting contract awarded to Checchi to support the Afghan justice system does not appear to be so urgent or attendant to an immediate need so as to justify such a waiver.”

Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.

“We don’t want to be blackballed,” said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. “You’ve got to be careful. We’re dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business.”

Still, the rival executive confirmed that open bidding on USAID’s lucrative Afghanistan “rule of law” contract was abruptly revoked by the agency earlier this year.

“It’s a mystery to us,” the managing partner said. “We were going to bid on it. The solicitation (for bids) got pulled back, and we do not know why. We may never know why. These are things that we, as companies doing business with the government, have to put up with.”

As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.

“I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.”

Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates’ debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government’s online databases listing federal contracts.

“If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it’s going and who sponsored it,” he said to audience laughter, “and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too.”

Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would “dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government.”

Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts,” adding: “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that’s completely unacceptable.”

The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to “maximize the use of full and open competition” in the awarding of federal contracts.

Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama’s presidential campaign.

Read More…

The state-funded public TV outlet known as the Florida Channel, licensed to Florida State University, filed a copyright infringement complaint Thursday with YouTube. The offending video contained a snippet of (Marco) Rubio discussing a tax on carbon emissions and cap-and-trade legislation in a 2008 edition of Florida Face to Face, the station’s weekly newsmaker program.

WFSU general manager Patrick Keating said it is well-known among Florida candidates that a state law prohibits using its product for political purposes. “I’m just trying to protect our product and live up to the terms of our agreement with the Legislature,” Keating said. He emphasized that “we found it” on Crist’s website, and the decision to demand its removal was not prompted by a third party.

Ben Ginsberg, a Washington lawyer representing the Crist campaign, said WFSU’s action was an out-and-out case of censorship. “The Florida Channel has exerted its commercial interests and censored the exchange of information between two political candidates,” Ginsberg said. He said the video’s use should be allowed under the so-called “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law.

SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times, The Buzz

Talking point: since the video was generated by WFSU using state funds, is it a public record, or did Florida’s current Governor break a state law?

Thinking they had caught Rubio in a “gotcha moment”, you can almost hear the writer’s evil bwahhhhhhhh as they penned this article…

Boy we missed this one: former House Speaker Marco Rubio and U.S. Senate candidate was a Miami-Dade County lobbyist from 1997 (when he was a West Miami Commissioner) until 2005. By then, he secured the needed votes to become House Speaker. Also that year, he reported a new salary of $300k with his new firm, Broad & Cassel, which has had dozens of clients who do business with the state.

Rubio never talked about his lobbying and that’s because, his campaign said, he wasn’t really a lobbyist. He was a lawyer representing clients.

“The reason Marco Rubio never spoke about his “lobbying” is because he was never a “lobbyist,” in the Tallahassee-influence-peddling sense of the word that Charlie Crist is all too familiar with,” said campaign spokesman Alex Burgos, who has wayyyy more to say on this below****.

Still, it’s called a lobbyist registration by Miami-Dade. So the ‘L’ word is tough to avoid, though early stories on him running for the Legislature in 1999 merely identified as commissioner and a lawyer.

His entire bio underscores that Rubio, despite his supporters describing him as an outsider in his race against fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, is a consummate insider. Consider: City commissioner, lawyer, lobbyist*, one-time Republican Party of Florida American Express card holder, top echelon House leader and, ultimately, House Speaker, Jeb Bush sword-of-Chang bearer.

As a registered lobbyist, his clients ranged from developers to a couple fighting code enforcement to a company that wraps bags at Miami International Airport.

Here’s the response to the “lobbyist” charge from Marco’s campaign.

We just want to clarify something you reported on your blog, and ask for an on-the-record correction to the implications you made. Feel free to quote from or reproduce this in its entirety.

The reason Marco Rubio never spoke about his “lobbying” is because he was never a “lobbyist,” in the Tallahassee-influence-peddling sense of the word that Charlie Crist is all too familiar with. Marco Rubio worked as an attorney for law firms that did Request for Proposal (RFP) and land use work in Miami-Dade County. Out of an abundance of caution, law firms engaged in this type of work often register their lawyers as lobbyists. In fact, all lawyers representing clients on land use matters are supposed to register as lobbyists. While Marco worked on land use contracts and RFPs, he never met with elected officials to influence them on behalf of clients.

This has the whiff of a pitched story from Team Crist, which is kind of ironic since the bulk of Charlie Crist’s support these days comes from well-heeled special interests. It would be tough to walk down Monroe Street or the Capitol Rotunda without running into a lobbyist who has stroked a check to Charlie Crist. Or two checks for that matter – one for the primary, and one for the general election. It would also be difficult for those same lobbyists to resist the temptation to whisper that the only reason they have contributed to Charlie Crist is because he still holds the veto pen. Charlie Crist counts many lobbyists as backers and, come to think of it, even his most senior ranking political advisor is, you guessed it, a lobbyist.

But we digress.

The reality is that this campaign is bigger than these silly attacks from Charlie Crist and his allies. Marco Rubio earns a living as a lawyer, the same profession Charlie Crist purports to once have practiced. Marco is proud of how he has provided for his wife and four children, and the sacrifices he and his parents have made to put him through law school.

In the end, this campaign isn’t about Marco Rubio, it’s not about the lobbyists who support Charlie Crist, and it isn’t even really about Charlie Crist either. It’s about the issues Floridians care about. And what they care about most is how there are now 1,087,000 Floridians out of work despite Charlie Crist’s assurances to the contrary almost a year ago when he shared a stage with President Obama.

LETTER TO ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF REPUBLICAN PARTY OF FLORIDA

We, the undersigned, constitute a geographically diverse group of professional, civic, and business leaders from all regions of Florida. Nonetheless, we have been over the years, and more so now, singularly united in our firm conviction and support for the principles and values of the Republican Party here in our Great State of Florida.

Each one of us has spent many years and many election cycles helping candidates at the local, county and state levels in elections, raising money and doing whatever was needed for the election of Republican candidates in Florida as well as across our country. Our success to date is of course testament to the hard work and dedication of the thousands of workers and generous donors who made possible the incredible successes over the past twelve (12) years.

But, more importantly, our success could not have been possible without the highest ethical principles of not only our candidates for whom we have all supported and worked — but also our Party Leadership— holding to the values that make our Florida Republican Party relevant.

If any part of this essential triad relationship—–the Candidate, the Party Leadership and equally, if not most important, the volunteer army of donors at all levels along with campaign workers who give of their time, energy and largesse to willingly support a cause/candidate they believe in for the good of our state and country—does not meet these standards in an integrated and harmonious way so as to provide strong and trusting support of each other—-then we have an unstable alignment, and the chances of success are greatly diminished.

Based on the current state of affairs of the Republican Party of Florida today—first, the continued inability to raise the necessary resources to fund its budget; second, its inability to adjust its budget to eliminate unnecessary expenses; and third, its inability to motivate and unite all Republicans in a common effort for our collective benefit–it is evident that one of the elements of that essential triad relationship has fallen short.

This has resulted in a crisis of confidence in our Party with widespread uneasiness, lack of trust, lack of motivation, and raises questions about the leadership of Jim Greer, Chairman of the Party, among the grass roots active members of the Party, elected Leadership and those of us who have historically rallied financial support around the state of Florida.

Thus we can only come to the conclusion that there must be an immediate change of chairmanship of the Republican Party of Florida.

There must be a change in order to restore total confidence in our Party’s ability to conserve its assets, save and protect them for the specific purpose of electing Republicans in their campaigns; not only in 2010 election cycle but also to not carry forward debt if possible for the next 2012 election cycle. 
 
There must be a change in leadership to successfully execute the strategic plan for victory in 2010 election cycle for Republicans on the ballot in both federal and non-federal races.

There must be a change to reinvigorate, restore confidence and restart all elements of our Republican base so the Party can successfully raise the necessary financial resources to achieve these objectives. 
 
We do not take this Call for Action lightly. It is even more agonizing to publically call for this plan of action but it would not have come to this had Jim Greer heeded warning calls and implemented a strategic plan of action for our Republican candidates as a competent State Chairman should and would.

Many months have passed with no response from Mr. Greer to private appeals for a change in course of action, and now with less than a year until the primary elections, we must set our internal house in order straight away to achieve victory in November.

The best interests of the Party would be for Mr. Greer to resign now. Failing this, he should be removed as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious situation.

Mr. Richard Beard, Tampa

Mr. William Becker, Vero Beach

Mr. Seth Bernstein, Orlando

Ambassador Charles E. Cobb, Miami

Mr. J.C. Demetree, Jacksonville

Mr. Earl Durden, Panama City

Mr. Ed Easton, Miami

Mr. Mark Guzetta, Boca Raton

Mr. Charles Hilton, Panama City

Ambassador Al Hoffman, Ft. Myers

Ambassador Mel Sembler, St. Petersburg

Ambassador Ned Siegel, Boca Raton, Palm Beach

Contact: Kevin Bundy, (415) 436-9682 x 313, kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org

Report: President Obama Has the Clear Legal Authority to Make a Binding Commitment for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Copenhagen Without Waiting for Congress

COPENHAGEN— The Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute released a report today demonstrating that President Obama has clear legal authority to commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The report, titled Yes, He Can: President Obama’s Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress, concludes that the President need not wait for Congress to act before taking strong action to reduce U.S. emissions.

The report will be released in Copenhagen this evening at a side event hosted by Greenpeace.

Where: Niels Bohr
When: Tuesday, 8 December, 21:00-21:30 (Copenhagen time)

“President Obama’s hands are not tied by Congress’s lack of action or the grossly inadequate cap-and-trade bills currently under debate. President Obama can lead, rather than follow, by using his power under the Clean Air Act and other laws to achieve deep and rapid greenhouse emissions reductions from major polluters,” said Center attorney Kevin Bundy, the report’s lead author. “Obama can use his authority to make a binding agreement in Copenhagen without additional action from Congress. The Constitution and existing domestic environmental laws give President Obama all the power he needs to join with other nations in making a real commitment to solve the climate crisis.”

The report cites prominent legal scholars and U.S. Supreme Court opinions recognizing the President’s broad power to make binding international agreements that do not need to be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. For example, the President could enter into either a “congressional-executive” agreement under authority already granted by Congress, or a “sole executive” agreement based on his own constitutional powers.

The report also details the President’s broad authority to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions under existing environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. The release of the report follows yesterday’s important finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That decision will facilitate comprehensive measures to curb greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

“The President has the ultimate responsibility for enforcing domestic environmental laws, and those laws give him a wide variety of options for reducing greenhouse gas pollution,” said Bundy. “All he has to do is promise the international community to use the authority he already has.”

“It simply isn’t true that President Obama cannot make a commitment in Copenhagen. Yes, he can, and if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, he must.”

Click here to read the PDF report.

SOURCE: Center for Biological Diversity