Our world continues in its upside down state!….You can’t make this stuff up! Absurdity is the order of the day in Washington and around the country!…
It just goes on and on and on and on……
Our world continues in its upside down state!….You can’t make this stuff up! Absurdity is the order of the day in Washington and around the country!…
It just goes on and on and on and on……
It’s been noted over the years of his reign, that King Barack simply decides to rule by decree. Ignoring what he doesn’t like and enforcing what he does. The ‘rule of law be damned’. There was his fiasco on oil exploration, permits, etc., following the Gulf oil well disaster. His so called ‘welfare reform’, an effort to relax the requirements for applicants, and now the delaying of the employer mandate in ‘Obamacare’. HIS signature piece of legislation. The irony here being he had little to do with crafting the law. However, he undoubtedly approved of the final mess of a bill.
Michael McConnell, writing at The Wall Street Journal, takes a look at the latest tangled web the administration finds itself in…
OBAMA SUSPENDS THE LAW
Like King James II, the President decides not to enforce laws he doesn’t like. That’s an abuse of power.
President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”
To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to “refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.”
Attorneys general under Presidents Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all agreed on this point. With the exception of Richard Nixon, whose refusals to spend money appropriated by Congress were struck down by the courts, no prior president has claimed the power to negate a law that is concededly constitutional.
In 1998, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional grant of line-item veto authority to the president to cancel spending items in appropriations. The reason? The only constitutional power the president has to suspend or repeal statutes is to veto a bill or propose new legislation. Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, JusticeJohn Paul Stevens noted: “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.”
The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Imagine the outcry if Mitt Romney had been elected president and simply refused to enforce the whole of ObamaCare.
This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced. In June of last year, for example, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16, lived here at least five years, and met a variety of other criteria. This was after Congress refused to enact the Dream Act, which would have allowed these individuals to stay in accordance with these conditions. Earlier in 2012, the president effectively replaced congressional requirements governing state compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act with new ones crafted by his administration.
The president defended his suspension of the immigration laws as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He defended his amending of No Child Left Behind as an exercise of authority in the statute to waive certain requirements. The administration has yet to offer a legal justification for last week’s suspension of the employer mandate.
Republican opponents of ObamaCare might say that the suspension of the employer mandate is such good policy that there’s no need to worry about constitutionality. But if the president can dispense with laws, and parts of laws, when he disagrees with them, the implications for constitutional government are dire.
Democrats too may acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s action, as they have his other aggressive assertions of executive power. Yet what will they say when a Republican president decides that the tax rate on capital gains is a drag on economic growth and instructs the IRS not to enforce it?
And what of immigration reform? Why bother debating the details of a compromise if future presidents will feel free to disregard those parts of the statute that they don’t like?
The courts cannot be counted on to intervene in cases like this. As the Supreme Court recently held in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the same-sex marriage case involving California’s Proposition 8, private citizens do not have standing in court to challenge the executive’s refusal to enforce laws, unless they have a personal stake in the matter. If a president declines to enforce tax laws, immigration laws, or restrictions on spending—to name a few plausible examples—it is very likely that no one will have standing to sue.
Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress “would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”
Mr. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, is a professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
A version of this article appeared July 9, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama Suspends the Law.
THE FIASCO THAT IS OBAMACARE – The Weekly Standard
OBAMACARE IS COMING UNDONE – Reason
You know, Barack is right!….
While you and the media are distracted by…..
We seem to have forgotten all about….
It goes on and on, folks!…While Mr. Obama and the Democrats jockey for whatever the position of the day is, they know the nation has an attention span of about 5 minutes. And that plays perfectly in their plans.
So the mess continues. Nothing actually improves while they tell you it is.
We have no one to blame but ourselves….
YOUR world…a.k.a. THE REAL WORLD!
I could go on…but, I think you get the point….
The federal government has a long tradition of ignoring the REAL problems Americans face in their day to day lives. And though I applaud yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions, they will have little, if any impact, on the lives of most. Gay or straight.
We have a nation struggling with debt, unemployment, rising costs in nearly every sector, along with countless other valid, significant problems. And as long as President Obama and the Democrats can distract you with gay marriage, immigration, women’s reproduction, etc., etc., etc….you name it…then these troubles can be ignored. But the time will come when all of this comes tumbling down and we will be left to pick up the pieces…if we can.
Think about it!…
Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh. Love him or hate him, he never fails to provoke thought and discussion. As it should be.
This segment from yesterday’s show absolutely NAILED the problems we face in this nation! It is undeniable!…
“RUSH: We have the NSA. We have the IRS. We got Benghazi. We got Syria. We got all kinds of stuff. And let me tell you what’s really important in the mainstream news. Audio sound bite number one. This is it. We have a montage of CBS, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, all kinds of talk shows all day yesterday. This is the big news in America yesterday and last night.
JULIE CHEN: Are Kim and Kanye in crisis? A curvy model claims Kim’s baby daddy Kanye West cheated on Kim.
MARIO LOPEZ: Kanye caught cheating on Kim?
NANCY O’DELL: Did Kanye cheat on pregnant Kim?
THEA ANDREWS: Did Kanye cheat on pregnant Kim?
SHAUN ROBINSON: Did Kanye cheat on Kim?
BILLY BUSH: Did Kanye cheat on Kim?
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: A 24-year-old model is claiming she had an affair with Kanye West while Kim Kardashian was pregnant.
WENDY WILLIAMS: Her name is Leyla. She’s swirly and good though, right? (laughter) Okay, so Leyla is claiming that she had sex with Kanye..
WILLIAMS: …while Kim was pregnant.
WILLIAMS: Allegedly they had sex on two different occasions.
WILLIAMS: And Kanye even tried to meet up with her as recent as last week.
RUSH: Yeah. That’s it, folks, Kanye cheating on Kimmy while Kimmy is carrying Kanye’s sperm. That was the big news all over American television yesterday and last night. That was what mattered to low-information America. But it wasn’t just those cheesy shows. Let’s go to ABC’s World News Tonight. You want to hear the lead story on ABC’s World News Tonight last night?
SAWYER: Good evening. We begin with a severe storm rolling across the nation right now. Weather experts putting out a kind of all points bulletin. One in five Americans in the path of what could become a weather phenomenon called a derecho, a 240-mile stretch of wicked wind.
RUSH: That was what led the ABC World News Tonight last night, and then, after reporting on a line of thunderstorms, the ABC reporter then demonstrates to Diane Sawyer how to duck-and-cover in your car if you are caught in a thunderstorm.
SAWYER: Ginger, I know you said that people should stay indoors, but what’s your defense if you’re caught and you’re caught outside?
GINGER ZEE: Right. Well, we want everyone to be in shelter always, but if you’re outside, if you’re in your car, say, you want to be inside the car, put yourself there, and seat belt, of course, put that on. We want to put the head down, the flashers on, and cover your head from debris. So that’s the best. But, again if you can get to shelter, please do.
RUSH: We’re talking here, folks, the lead story on ABC’s World News Tonight, what in the name of Sam Hill to do if you’re in your car and it starts raining. Not even a blizzard. Now it’s a thunderstorm that creates the lead news item on ABC’s World News Tonight, and, lo and behold, the danger you face if you’re in your car when it starts raining. Make sure you turn on those flashers. Make sure you cover your head. The roof might not provide enough protection. And the windshield might not provide enough protection. Make sure you cover your head from the debris. And make sure before you do this you pull off to the side of the road so you don’t drive where you can’t see where you’re going. The lead item on ABC’s World News Tonight.
So, as far as who knows how many millions of Americans are concerned, Kanye West is cheating on Kimmy. Kimmy’s father, Bruce Jenner, is upset that Kanye isn’t around much. Now we know why. He’s out riding dirty, in the words of Reverend Wright. And now it’s raining over 240 square miles of America, and it’s the lead story on ABC’s World News Tonight. Let’s go to NBC. The NBC Nightly News, a portion of chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, reporting about Senator Mikulski, who responded to a Twitter post during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
MITCHELL: In a social media first for any Senate hearing, Committee chair Barbara Mikulski denied she was cutting off questioning, in response to a tweet from BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray sitting across the room.
MIKULSKI: I want to respond to a tweet about me from Rosie Gray. There is no attempt here to muzzle, stifle any Senator. So, Rosie, it’s an open hearing. Hi. Look forward to keeping in touch.
MITCHELL: That’s @SenatorBarb.
RUSH: They had a hearing on the NSA listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mails. That is what made the NBC Nightly News. Mikulski pausing the hearing to deal with a tweet that she got from somebody named Rosie Gray at BuzzFeed. “
Only one thing Rush forgot to ask: ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID, AMERICA?????
Do you REALLY believe this is going to get better?…I’ve got news for you. It isn’t.
In the past, a deaf ear and a blind eye was turned to those sounding the alarm about the excesses of government, it’s abuse of power, and it’s growing intrusion in the lives of American citizens. The media dismissed…and STILL DOES, to some extent…those warnings as sensationalist, conspiratorial, and simply rooted in hate for President Obama.
In the past six months or so, we’ve had lies about Benghazi, lies about the IRS and it’s tactics, lies about the government monitoring the press, and NOW we find the National Security Agency added to the list! That’s right! Seems the NSA has been expanding the scope of mining the data of millions of phone calls placed by Verizon customers!
The single most frightening aspect of all of this is the indifference of the American people. Now, there are those making an effort to fight this ever growing pattern of abuse by the Obama administration. But, by and large, it seems to be ignored. Ignored by those that this serious injustice is perpetrated upon! The press, for the most part, plays down the Justice Department’s obtaining the phone records of the Associated Press. And a large portion of the American people don’t even seem to be AWARE of what’s happening to them!
Alabama tea party figure, Becky Gerrittson, got it right (see yesterday’s post) when she pointed out that the government no longer knows its place and we are ALL in danger of losing what this nation stands for!
Barack Obama’s response?… simple, vague lip service. Why doesn’t he say and do more?…Because it runs counter to his political agenda and his core beliefs. THAT’S WHY! Yet he presents himself as unattached to any of it. If you’re foolish enough to buy into that premise, I fear for your future and your family’s!
The Obama administration has effectively turned the nation’s citizens into enemies of the state. Nevertheless, outrage is tempered, if expressed at all. Every day the federal government is exposed for tactics which should have the American people fuming. Have we become that complacent? that jaded? If the answer to that is “yes”, then we are finished as a people. Our entire experiment in liberty has been in vain. It’s been a fraud and a sham.
I’m not ready to believe that! Are you?….
Considering I have personal ties to the area, this feature story from The American Spectator was definitely worth sharing. Wetumpka, Alabama’s (a small town northeast of Montgomery) Becky Gerritson slices through all of the crap and gives the federal government a piece of her mind…and surely the sentiments of millions of other Americans!….
WASHINGTON GETS A WETUMPKAN!
“Becky Gerritson and other IRS victims put the federal government in its place.
The IRS has called its targeting of conservative groups “horrible customer service”—a cold and trivializing apology befitting a federal government that sees itself as a corporate Leviathan. Officials who understood that they serve a government of, by, and for the people would never speak in such odd terms. What happened was not poor customer service but tyranny.
Appearing on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Becky Gerritson of Alabama’s Wetumpka Tea Party, along with other targets of the IRS, gave the federal government a well-deserved shafting along those lines. Gerritson effectively put her finger on the central issue underpinning the scandal:
Others at the hearing testified to the perversity of the IRS’s abuse: absurd delays, outrageous and intrusive questions, imperious demands.
Sue Martinek of the Coalition for Life of Iowa said that her group was asked to furnish the IRS with the “contents” of its prayers. Under Obama’s government-as-God model, such questions apparently become thinkable. She also said that an IRS agent wanted an assurance from her that the group wouldn’t be picketing outside of any Planned Parenthood clinics.
John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said that the IRS leaked confidential information about his donors to gay activists with ties to Obama. Kevin Kookogey, the founder of Linchpins of Liberty (which hasn’t received tax-exempt status yet), said that he was told to detail his political views and associations.
In one form or another, members of the groups were all asked: Are you now or have you ever been a conservative?
Naturally, Obama is working hard to make sure that the scandal is framed in terms of isolated, individualistic error. But it goes beyond a handful of IRS employees. It goes at the very least to the bad judgment of his appointees (who have known about it since 2011) and to the tone his ideological biases set in government agencies. His repeated denunciations of the tea party as extremist, his view of “campaign finance reform” as a justification for inhibiting political speech, and his hyper-statist conception of taxation (where the burden always falls on the taxpayer, not the government) all ripened the IRS up for his kind of scandal. Indeed, much of his rhetoric turns on the contention that conservatism is “political” while liberalism embodies “social welfare.” Double standards at the IRS surely fed off that bogus contrast.
Such a raw abuse of power won’t happen again, vows Obama. Anyone who believes that should pay attention to Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott’s remarks at Tuesday’s hearing. “None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We’re talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We’re talking about a tax break,” McDermott told the witnesses. “Without oversight, a status meant for charity becomes a machine for political money laundering.” He added that “each of your groups are highly political.”
Obama can’t afford politically to agree with McDermott at the moment, but he shares that sentiment. Left to his own devices, Obama would vaporize these groups in the name of campaign finance reform. He also holds the same perverse view of a public subsidy, which is defined not by giving these groups money but by allowing them the high honor of keeping their own. Under such warped thinking it becomes possible to force groups into contortions in order to prove their worthiness for a “public benefit.”
It is the unlimited conception of the federal government built into this arrangement that Gerritson was decrying. Under the Constitution, the people are masters, not servants. But under the anti-Constitution of liberalism, the people are servants, not masters, or at best hapless customers of a monopoly that gives “horrible customer service” from time to time while still holding a contract on their freedom.”
THIS IS WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT, FOLKS!…WATCH AND LEARN!….
As Barack Obama continues to coast through the scandal gauntlet, it could be sadly reported the President’s “fundamental change” notion has firmly taken root. Mr. Obama and the Democrats have successfully managed to change the rules from ideas and debating the issues to simply demonizing ANY opposition as evil, hateful, and downright demonic. That practice has convinced the ever shrinking minds of so many Americans on practically any concern. An alliance with the media has been the largest component in convincing the weak and the willing that THIS President can do no wrong. Despite the reality of just how WRONG his administration is on so many fronts.
Barack Obama’s disdain and disregard for what used to be worthy aspirations of the nation as a whole is propped up by his claim that those values are so yesterday..so old fashioned..so close minded…so discriminatory.
A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times – Dispatch outlines how the President has declared war on the Constitution. You know..that document which WAS the basis for law in what USED to be a nation of laws…
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION
The President, who first campaigned on a claim to constitutional expertise, is now the document’s biggest threat.
“A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.
As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.
But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.
The president’s principal first-term achievement was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The law greatly increases government’s role in health care and includes an expansion of government power unprecedented in American history: a requirement that all citizens purchase a consumer good irrespective of their personal behavior.
The administration also has pressed relentlessly – and successfully – for tax hikes, which shift control over economic resources from private hands to government. It also has indulged a regulatory binge, which shifts control indirectly, by cranking out burdensome new rules at a rate far faster than the Bush administration ever did. (This holds true even if you count only “economically significant” rules – those costing $100 million or more – and rely only on administration-friendly accounts.)
The result: Government not only is taking more of your money, it increasingly is telling you how to spend what’s left. A recent study estimates the cost of regulation at nearly $15,000 per household. This means the three principal drains on the family checkbook, in order, are: (1) taxes, (2) housing, and (3) regulation. And Washington is working hard to move regulation into the second slot.
While trends like these drive conservatives nuts, they gladden liberal hearts. Yet liberals are not happy with the Obama administration these days – for exceptionally good reasons.
Most saliently, the Justice Department has been trolling through the phone records of reporters for the Associated Press and, even worse, has accused a reporter (Fox News’ James Rosen) of acting as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the unlawful leaking of classified materials. Rosen’s offense was to do what reporters are supposed to do: break a story. This, too, is unprecedented, and it goes too far even for Obama’s most knee-jerk defenders. The New York Times views the investigation as “threatening fundamental freedoms of the press.”
The Rosen matter alone would suffice to disqualify the administration from any Friends-of-the-First Amendment society. Yet it is only one of several such assaults. Others include the administration’s campaign, through its insistence on a contraception mandate underObamacare, against religious liberty, and the president’s suggestion after Citizens United that “we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process” to limit the free-speech rights of persons who incorporate their social organizations; and its thuggish targeting of its political opponents.
If the IRS’ treatment of tea-party groups were an isolated story, you could swallow the explanation that a few low-level bureaucrats went rogue. But that account does not explain why the EPA has been far more generous to freedom-of-information requests from liberal groups than from conservatives. Or why, shortly after the Obama campaign slimed Romney supporter Frank Vander Sloot as a disreputable fellow, he was audited three times – twice by the IRS and once by the Labor Department. Or why, after Texas resident CatherineEngelbrecht started a Tea Party group, she received scrutiny not just from the IRS but also from the FBI. And OSHA. And, just for good measure, the ATF. Or why the IRS took 17 months to respond to an initial tax-exempt status from the conservative Wyoming Policy Institute. Or why it shared confidential files from conservative groups with the liberal ProPublica. Or why. . .
Enough on the First Amendment. The president also has tried with considerable vigor to undermine the Second, and has succeeded in subverting the Fourth: Under Obama, who has gone to court to defend warrantless wiretaps he once condemned, warrantless “pen register” and “trap-and-trace” monitoring has soared to unprecedented heights.
In 2011 the president signed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act with just one regret: Congress approved an extension of only one year, while Obama wanted three. He signed into law a defense reauthorization bill allowing the indefinite detention, without charge, of American citizens, thereby gutting the principle of habeas corpus. Granted, he issued an executive order promising not to exercise that power. But the order does not constrain future presidents or, technically, even him.
From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse. When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.
This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Now we all know about the track record of this President. He’s managed to disassociate himself from just about every single negative event or aspect of HIS administration. That’s not an easy feat. But, with a willing media and lots of help from various characters in the political arena, he’s done just that. And it’s played well with his base. Several recent polls have reported his popularity rating unchanged, and in some cases, rising slightly! How puzzling is that?…It can all be attributed to the ignorance and obliviousness of the President’s supporters.
Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily has chronicled the unsavory events of the Obama administration. Perhaps this trip down memory lane will persuade a few…a VERY few, mind you…to scratch their head and ask a few questions….we’ll see…
OBAMA’S LONG HISTORY OF SCANDALS — AND ESCAPES!
“The standard rule for handling bad news in politics is to get it all out at once. Take your hits for a news cycle, two or three. And then try to move on.
The conventional wisdom has been that the worst thing to do is allow the bad news to dribble out, poison drop by poison drop, for days, weeks, even months.
Yet that is precisely what Barack Obama has done — and continues to do in his current epidemic of embarrassments — over a decade of controversies and scandals. The amazing thing is, so far, it’s worked like a charm. So, why should he change?
Ignore it. Dismiss it. Dissemble it to death. Didn’t know about it. Point at others. Have others point at others. Have others suggest the criticism is really racial. Stay aloof. Stretch the whole thing out as long as possible. Then call every ensuing question old news, that you’ve discussed it many times. Hope the problem goes away.
And, by golly, usually it has for Obama.
Whether that will work this time in the face of three major, simultaneous scandals and the independent investigations certain to grow from them remains an open question. Will the Chicago Democrat skate again? Or will the events, the lies, the half-truths, the cover-ups forever stain his once-historical presidential legacy?
Barack Obama is no stranger to scandal. Here’s a recap of a few:
– Benghazi should be the most serious scandal since it involved the deaths of four Americans from unpreparedness and inaction in the face of violent attacks and misleading ensuing excuses devised and spoken by the president and those around him.
When Osama bin Laden was whacked by SEALs, we got a minute-by-minute account of what Obama was doing, as if watching on Dronecam from a secure White House basement bunker was some kind of feat.
Truthless TV talking points aside, on Benghazi we still don’t know A) where Obama was throughout the violent night of 9/11, possibly packing for another fundraising foray in Las Vegas, B) Who forbid prepared Special Ops forces from racing to the rescue or C) Why Benghazi consulate security had been reduced despite pleas for more in preceding weeks.
The commander-in-chief has even professed ignorance of eyewitness accounts being muzzled by State Department officials.
– Probably the most serious scandal for Obama, however, is the selective targeting of conservative political groups by the Internal Revenue Service, whose coercive tentacles touch virtually every American.
Typically, Obama says he knew nothing about it. He didn’t even know there was a bombshell investigation about to come out because — wait for it — his chief attorney and chief of staff didn’t think to tell him about the approaching political IED in the weeks before.
This disdain for detail from the man who meticulously designs his own NCAA brackets for a sports special each March.
He has now succeeded in focusing the public discussion on when someone else knew and why she didn’t tell him.
– Obama’s so-called press secretary claims the chief executive has the highest regard for freedom of the press — as in the very First Amendment. However, Obama does not regard as a scandal or violation the FBI naming a reporter professionally pursuing information as a criminal conspirator in order to access his private email account and his parents’ to identify a State Department leaker.
Nor is Obama concerned over the FBI pursuing phone records of AP journalists without even seeking their help. Safe to bet, however, that this administration does not mind the aura of intimidation that hangs over would-be whistle-blowers and their potential press contacts.
The Justice probers, however, have not shown similar diligence in tracking leakers of information that made Obama looked good in the war on terror, which he doesn’t like to call a war on terror.
– The Fast and Furious scandal offered Atty. Gen. Eric Holder the opportunity to claim ignorance of the gun-running operation by agents within his department. They successfully helped drug dealers smuggle hundreds of weapons from the United States into Mexico, resulting in the deaths of scores.
So eager were Obama and Holder to get to the bottom of this lethal mess that when congressional investigators sought internal messages and memos, Obama refused, claiming executive privilege. This claim is now being litigated, which conveniently stretches out the incident.
– Solyndra was a solar-panel company that received more than a half-billion taxpayer dollars before going bankrupt. But it’s just one of dozens of such so-called green energy projects that received billions of dollars in Obama administration subsidies before going belly-up and/or being sold to China. It is perhaps an amazing coincidence that many of these defunct firms had connections to Obama campaign fundraisers.
– Remember the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? He was the Chicago pastor who over 20 years married the Obamas, baptized their children and somehow delivered his startlingly racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American sermons only on Sundays when Obama was absent.
Back in 2008 Obama said he had no recollection of such videotaped outrages and could no more renounce the reverend than his white grandmother — until six weeks later in his bitter primary contest with Hillary Clinton, Obama did renounce Wright. Wright later told Edward Klein, author of “The Amateur,” that he’d been offered a large sum of money to stay quiet about his close relationship with Obama.
– During Obama’s presidential transition in late 2008, suspicions arose that his team had been in contact with Illinois’ governor over which Democrat should be named to fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat. The governor was later convicted of trying to sell the nomination.
Obama named his own lawyer to investigate his own team and you might not be surprised to learn that Obama’s lawyer completely exonerated Obama’s team.
– The grease of Chicago’s machine politics is a bevy of shadowy, unelected men who fundraise, broker deals and otherwise assist Democrat pols so their hands can look clean. Tony Rezko was one.
We say “was,” because the Syrian-born Rezko now resides in federal prison. But beginning in the 1990s he was a close friend of Obama and Rod Blagojevich, a congressman who would go on with the help of Obama and Rezko to become governor and, now, also a resident of federal prison.
Here’s how it works in the Windy City: After Obama’s Senate election in 2004, he wanted a nicer house. He found one on the South Side but could not afford the asking price, which was enlarged because the seller wanted to include a vacant lot next door.
Obama went to his “friend” Tony for “advice.” Then, here’s what happened: On the very same day that Barack and Michelle closed on the house at a reduced price, Tony Rezko’s wife, who had no visible means of income, purchased the vacant lot at full price. She then peeled off a strip of it to sell to the Obamas.
This made the lot remainder too small for any development, which was OK because it guaranteed the Obamas no close neighbor on that side.
In 2008 the future president dismissed most questions on this as old news. He has never really offered full explanations of the amazing coincidences that benefited him in those deals, though he did once confess poor judgment dealing with Rezko, even as those nosy feds were investigating him.
Oh, by the way, the real estate agent collecting the commission for that land deal was Patti Blagojevich, the then-governor’s wife. So, as usual in Chicago, it was win-win-win financially for the bigs — except, of course, for the prison sentences.”
Leave it to The Economic Collapse blog to approach the scandal ridden Obama administration as NO mainstream media outlet would have the guts to do!..Never mind that it’s only what we would like to see happen…hard hitting, nonetheless!
AN INTERVIEW WITH BARACK OBAMA ABOUT THE IRS SCANDAL, AP PHONE RECORDS, AND BENGHAZI
“Does Barack Obama have any idea what is going on in the government that he is supposedly running? Scandals are erupting all around him, and he supposedly was not aware that any wrongdoing had taken place in any of those instances. It is almost as if every major government agency has gone rogue and Obama has no idea what the heck they are doing. According to Obama, he often doesn’t learn what those under his authority are up to until he sits down and turns on the news. Should we believe him when he claims ignorance over and over again, or is Obama just trying to protect himself? Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, the revelations that have come out in recent days about the IRS, the seizure of AP phone records and Benghazi should be very alarming to you. Taken together, these scandals paint a picture of a federal government that has become drunk with power, and no matter where you may fall on the political spectrum that is something that nobody should want.
Posted below is a fictional interview that I have created between an anonymous reporter and Barack Obama about the IRS scandal, the seizure of AP phone records, Benghazi and other sensitive topics. Yes, this interview is a bit absurd, but so is the notion that Barack Obama is completely ignorant about so many important things that are going on inside his own government…
REPORTER: “President Obama, the IRS has publicly admitted that they were specifically targeting patriot groups and Tea Party organizations for ‘extra scrutiny’. When did you first learn about this?”
REPORTER: “But how is that possible? We have now learned that the targeting of patriots and Tea Party groups began as early as March 2010. The head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations division was informed about this targeting in June 2011, the chief counsel for the IRS knew about this targeting by August 2011, thedeputy commissioner for services and enforcement knew about this targeting byMarch 2012, and IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller knew about this targeting byMay 2012. Throughout this period of time, the IRS repeatedly lied to Congress when they were specifically asked about the targeting of conservative groups. Are you claiming that nobody from your administration ever had any contact with anyone from the IRS about this?”
REPORTER: That is what the IRS was claiming at first. But now the Washington Post is reporting that “IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups.” That would seem to indicate that this was being coordinated on a nationwide level by someone at the IRS. Would you care to comment on that?
REPORTER: But you were just commenting on it. Don’t you think that the American people deserve the truth about this?
REPORTER: Okay, let’s switch gears. Did you know that the Justice Department was spying on AP reporters just months before the 2012 election? Did you know that two months of cellular, office and home telephone records were secretly obtained without any explanation last April and May?
REPORTER: The Associated Press is now the enemy? Without a free and independent media, what would keep us from descending into tyranny?
REPORTER: But shouldn’t we be alarmed when government agencies target specific groups of people for their political beliefs? Breitbart is reporting that the EPA “has routinely charged conservative and watchdog groups fees that the agency has waived for the mainstream media and ‘green’ groups”. Do you know anything about this?
REPORTER: I understand that these are tougher questions than you normally get from the media. But I think that the American people deserve some answers. For example, would you like to discuss Benghazi?
REPORTER: Very funny Mr. President. What about the Fast and Furious scandal? Would you be willing to talk about that?
REPORTER: Are there any difficult subjects that you would be willing to discuss? I have questions here about the Secret Service prostitution scandal, Solyndra, the new NSA spy center out in Utah, government ammunition stockpiling, the NDAA, drone strikes, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers. Would you be willing to answer any of those questions?”
There you have it, folks! All of your questions answered! The air has been cleared! Happy now?…..
Washington: Where nobody gets fired and everybody eats lunch! - Charles Hurt @ The Washington Times
Is anyone home in the White House? - John Hinderaker @ Powerline
Democrats in triage mode on White House scandals - Shane Goldmacher @ National Journal