Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2201  
Old 05-20-2013, 05:38 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.
By Jeffrey Lord




“For me, it’s about collaboration.” — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelleyon the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House

Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?

Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?

The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.

The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.

In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual.

On yet another occasion, Kelley’s presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU — the IRS union — a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already — which was considerable.

Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion:

Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30
The inclusion of “FLOTUS” — First Lady Michelle Obama — and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President’s home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor “activists”: Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Six days following Kelley’s attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: “Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services” applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to:

Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….

However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.

It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were beingurged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups.

Which, as the IG records, they did.

Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU’s Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal.

Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In anarticle titledIRS, union mum on employees held accountable in ‘sin’ of political targeting,” thePost quoted the following:

“NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,”NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.

A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”

The President approached things in a more evasive manner.

Q: Has the Obama staff been receptive?

A: Yes. We have worked with the transition team, given them suggestions; and throughout the campaign, President Obama talked about working with the federal employees and unions. He’s recognized the contributions federal employees make. I was just at the White House (Jan. 30) while he was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.

Catch that?

The boast?

“I was just at the White House…”

Which is to say, the election of 2008, in which the union had endorsed Obama, was no sooner over than the head of the IRS union had “worked with the transition team” and “given them suggestions.”Literally ten days after the Obama January 20 inaugural in 2009 —January 30 the article notes — Kelley was boasting that “I was just at the White House while he (the President) was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.”

And what did Kelley see as the IRS union’s relationship with the White House she had already visited ten days into the President’s first term?
Kelley responded candidly, again with the bold print added for emphasis:
We are looking for a return to what we used to call partnership. I don’t really care what it’s called. For me, it’s about collaboration.”

Catch those words?

Collaboration. Partnership.

In addition to Kelley’s three visits to see the President — in January of 2009, December of 2009, and March of 2010 — she is listed for three other visits, the contact names those of presidential aides:

“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 11/04/2009 10:00”

“Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 12/01/2009 12:00”

“Kelley, Colleen Nelson, Greg 01/14/2010 13:40”

The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally — the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party”.

Were the President of the United States and the President of the NTEU meeting in the White House at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 — and engaged in “collaboration” and “partnership”? A“collaboration” and “partnership” that was all about targeting the Tea Party?

And did that collaboration and partnership result in the IRS letting loose the hounds on the Tea Party and conservative groups— the very next day after the Obama-Kelley meeting?

To add to the administration’s IRS-NTEU woes is the fact that beyond the Inspector General, there is another IRS-connected agency in the Treasury Department: the IRS Oversight Board.

And on that board sits a presidential appointee named Robert M. Tobias. Tobias, oddly, was a Clinton appointee in 2005, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. He is still there. He is the longtime NTEU general counsel and Kelley’s predecessor as the union president. Here’s the statement, from the IRS Oversight Board, on all of this. It is headed:

IRS Oversight Board Deeply Troubled by Breakdown in IRS Process in Reviewing Tax-Exempt Applications.

There was no reference to the influence of the anti-Tea Party NTEU in the statement. Why would there be when the union’s ex-president sits on the Oversight Board itself?

Obama’s problem here is considerable.

By not forthrightly answering Goldman’s question, he seems to be evading the issue in the manner that brought so much trouble in the form of congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment threats to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency and Clinton brought to a Senate trial.

The President’s too-clever-by half evasion added to Kelley’s silence leaves open the question of whether the union and the White House, not to mention the IRS Oversight Board, are collaborating —collaborating right now — on a cover-up.

Nixon looked the American people in the television eye and flatly lied about his personal involvement in the Watergate scandal, lies that came from a frantic attempt to conduct a cover-up.

Clinton looked the American people in the eye and famously wagged his finger as he lied that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” In Clinton’s case this extended to lying to a federal grand jury.
For a good long while, the American people in fact believed both Nixon and Clinton. The stories are now legion of Nixon cabinet and staff believing their man, and Clinton’s cabinet and staff believing their man’s protestations of innocence as well.

Finally, in both cases, the truth was out.

As Washington and the country have long since twice-learned the hard way, the parsing of presidential words in cases like this, not to mention looking into the cameras and boldly lying on the prayer of getting away with the lie, always bodes ill for presidents. It leads inevitably to that simple question famously uttered by then-Tennessee GOP Senator Howard Baker and posed of Nixon at the Senate Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

Twice in recent American history the answer to this question, once for Nixon and once for Clinton, has landed popular, powerful presidents in impeachment hot water. Ending Republican Nixon’s presidency altogether and coming close to doing the same with Democrat Clinton. Leaving the legacy of each permanently scarred.

The notion that the players in the IRS scandal did what they did to get past the 2012 election will only add to an Obama presidential reputation as borrowing the Nixon playbook on skirting scandal in a presidential election year.

Ironically re-casting the image of America’s first black president as the black Nixon.

With the examples of how Nixon and Clinton dodged, evaded, and lied, Obama’s non-answer to Juliana Goldman’s question at last week’s press conference comes in for much more scrutiny. Matched to the silence of Kelley it begins raising obvious questions. Such as:

• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?
• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone?
• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?
• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?
• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?
• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff?
• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?
• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?

Doubtless there are others, considerable others and the list of questions will grow.

Not to be lost sight of here is the role of the NTEU in raising money for Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles — the exact period when the IRS was busy going after the Tea Party and the others to curb any possible influence the groups could have in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party.

So the motivations here — defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over — are clear.

What is particularly interesting here are the automatic assumptions of the mainstream media in all of this.

Like this “given” from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, bold print added for emphasis.

The most corrosive of the controversies is what happened at the IRS, which singled out tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status.That Obama knew nothing about it does little to quell concerns that one of the most-feared units in government was operating out of control.

But if in fact the President did know about it?

Here’s the Washington Post’s “Journolist” Ezra Klein:

The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions.…

If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.

Exactly.

Which is why it will be a curious sight indeed to see the efforts the media will go to ignore/dismiss the tight, on-the-record connection between the President personally and a vociferously anti-Tea Party union. A union that has the literal run of the IRS — and whose union chief is recorded as having met with the President in the White House the day before the IRS launched “a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases.” A decision with which, according to the IG report: “The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” Check those words from Mr. Klein again:

If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal.

The question now is a simple one.

In 1974, “the smoking gun” was a tape recording that ended the Nixon presidency.

In 1998, the smoking gun was a blue dress — and it almost undid Bill Clinton’s White House.

Now the all-too-familiar pattern of scandal and its day-by-day drip-drip-drip nature has begun to set in. Newsmax is nowquotingWashington attorney and conservative activist Cleta Mitchell as saying:

“There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations.”

Regular American all over the country are coming forward with their stories. Understanding the relationship between the Obama White House and the IRS union will be a must for congressional investigators.

President Obama is coming perilously closer to becoming the new Nixon. The next Bill Clinton.

And once again, as news of exactly what a president was doing in the Oval Office on a particular day and time goes public, yet again the old question becomes new.

What did the President know? And when did he know it?

Photo: UPI

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2202  
Old 05-20-2013, 07:53 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Report: DOJ Leaked Docs to Smear Fast & Furious Whistleblower, Says IG

Breaking - Report: DOJ Leaked Docs to Smear Fast & Furious Whistleblower, Says IG




The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a new report Monday that confirms former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked a document intended to smear Operation Fast and Furious scandal whistleblower John Dodson.

The DOJ IG said it found “Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney.”

“We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member,” the IG wrote.

Burke resigned from his post as U.S. Attorney over the incident in August 2011, the first major Department of Justice official to leave his or her post in the Fast and Furious scandal. He said after the fact, in interviews with congressional investigators, that he now views leaking the document as a “mistake.”

In addition to Burke’s involvement in leaking the document, emails the IG uncovered show senior officials at the Department of Justice discussed smearing Dodson.

One of those was Tracy Schmaler, the Director of the Department’s Office of Public Affairs, who resigned her position at the DOJ after emails uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed that she worked with leftwing advocacy group Media Matters for America to smear whistleblowers and members of Congress and the media who sought to investigate DOJ scandals under Attorney General Eric Holder.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-20-2013 at 07:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2203  
Old 05-21-2013, 02:49 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About

Washington Times Writer: Fox News Scandal Goes ‘Much Deeper,’ W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...rrified-about/


Washington Times columnist Joseph Curl on Monday said the Obama administration’s developing scandal involving the monitoring of Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email accounts goes “much deeper.”

Joseph Curl@josephcurl

Citing a “CIA source,” Curl claimed via his official Twitter account that the Fox News scandal was the “4th Shoe” and the White House is sitting on “something” that has top White House aides “terrified.”

CIA source says Fox News scandal the "4th Shoe"; says it goes much deeper; says WH also sitting on "something" that has top aides terrified.
12:40 PM - 20 May 2013

538 Retweets 77 favorites

TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story for additional details.

(H/T: Weasel Zippers)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...rrified-about/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-21-2013 at 02:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2204  
Old 05-21-2013, 02:37 PM
janetnjohn's Avatar
janetnjohn janetnjohn is offline
Dragon
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,346
janetnjohn is on a distinguished road
Default

the WH guy jay carney is now beginning to remind me of chemical ali from the second gulf war!
__________________
Passage Isaiah 62

I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence,


"I ask then, has God rejected His people? By no means! God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable."
(Romans 11:1,2,29)
Reply With Quote
  #2205  
Old 05-21-2013, 02:42 PM
janetnjohn's Avatar
janetnjohn janetnjohn is offline
Dragon
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,346
janetnjohn is on a distinguished road
Default

or bahgdad bob...
__________________
Passage Isaiah 62

I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence,


"I ask then, has God rejected His people? By no means! God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable."
(Romans 11:1,2,29)
Reply With Quote
  #2206  
Old 05-21-2013, 04:17 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Defense in IRS Case Is Pre-Election Ignorance

Obama’s Defense in IRS Case Is Pre-Election Ignorance

By Mike Dorning & Richard Rubin


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ignorance.html


Whether the Internal Revenue Service controversy explodes into something bigger comes down to this: Did anyone in the Obama administration know before the Nov. 6 election that the agency singled out Tea Party groups for extra screening?

Graphic: Who Knew What and When?

Obama Defense in IRS Abuse Case Rests on Pre-Election Ignorance


Susan Walsh/AP Photo

President Barack Obama walks in to speak on the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny in the East Room of the White House in Washington, on May 15, 2013.

President Barack Obama walks in to speak on the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny in the East Room of the White House in Washington, on May 15, 2013. Photographer: Susan Walsh/AP Photo

“The first question is who knew what when before the elections,” said David Gergen, an adviser to Republican and Democratic presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton.

“It’s a lot more relevant if people withheld sensitive information in a controversy that is, at its heart, about political power,” said Gergen, now a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

What’s now an embarrassment to President Barack Obama’s administration would be elevated to a lasting stain if evidence emerges that anyone outside the IRS knew or was involved, either in inspiring the selective scrutiny or in withholding disclosure to the public, during the sensitive election season. So far, no such evidence has emerged.

White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was briefed on the findings on April 24 and informed White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said yesterday. Obama said he wasn’t informed of the politically sensitive findings and said he first learned of the scandal when it was publicly disclosed on May 10.

Carney said yesterday it was Ruemmler who decided that the president shouldn’t be told earlier.

Administration Explanations




The account Carney provided yesterday went beyond previous White House explanations. Dan Pfeiffer, an Obama senior adviser, said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on May 19 that the White House had “no idea what the facts were” when Treasury officials informed Ruemmler of the audit.

Carney said yesterday that Ruemmler was told that certain words such as “Tea Party” and “patriot” were used to identify groups for extra screening.

A Treasury Department official said this morning that the department deferred to the IRS in deciding how to make the report’s findings public. The IRS first suggested using a speech by Lois Lerner, the head of the division overseeing tax-exempt organizations. While Treasury officials expressed concern, they deferred to the IRS, according to the official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The IRS also suggested using congressional testimony by the acting commissioner, Steven Miller, during which the agency expected he would be asked about the matter, the official said.

Planting Question

When Miller wasn’t asked in the congressional testimony, the agency suggested planting a question in the audience about the matter during a public speech Lerner was to make May 10, the strategy which the agency ultimately used to reveal the findings. The Treasury department deferred to the IRS in both instances, the official said.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Mark Childress was consulted on the first two strategies for disclosure, though not the third option ultimately deployed, said a White House official, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Congressional testimony today from Douglas Shulman, who was IRS commissioner through the election, might provide some more answers.

Miller, who was Shulman’s deputy, was aware of the improper targeting by May 3, 2012 -- six months ahead of the election, according to testimony Miller gave last week. Miller, who became acting commissioner after Shulman left last November, is being forced out of the IRS.

‘Not Surprising’

Among the questions Shulman will encounter is why he didn’t inform Congress of the improper targeting. In March of that year, Shulman testified there was no targeting, a statement which by May he learned was misleading.

“It’s not surprising to me that members of Congress took umbrage that the earlier testimony from senior leadership of the IRS was not clarified once they knew more about what was going on,” said Jack Quinn, a Washington lobbyist and White House counsel in the Clinton administration.

A clarification of misleading testimony is “expected” by veteran members of Congress, including Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Gergen said. The panel is holding a hearing on the IRS controversy today.

“It’s why Orrin Hatch has every reason to be angry,” Gergen said. Shulman’s failure to correct the record is “not just imprudent. It’s stupid,” he said.

Any evidence that shows administration officials knew details of the IRS activity before the election would undercut their story and open them to accusations of withholding information for partisan gain.

Independent Agency

Unlike the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, the IRS isn’t an independent agency. It’s housed inside the Treasury Department, and IRS officials work with Treasury counterparts.

Although the IRS is prohibited from sharing information about individual taxpayers, the tax agency routinely discusses emerging issues and priorities with the administration.

After Tea Party and small-government groups’ complaints became public in early 2012, the IRS could have informed Treasury as to what it was doing or Treasury could have sought an explanation from the IRS, said a former senior Treasury official.

Such a conversation would be expected, given the politically sensitive nature of the issue, said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of business contacts with the IRS and Treasury.

The barrage of questions Carney confronted yesterday, over the Obama administration’s response after it was notified last month of a Treasury Department inspector’s report on the IRS controversy, have more to do with the political positioning.

Informing President

“It’s a management question: What do we tell the president?” Gergen said. “I have been in White Houses where there have been fights about what to tell the president and when. Usually, it’s whether to tell the president tonight or tomorrow, not wait two weeks.”

A central theme of congressional complaints so far has been how the IRS singled out Tea Party and Patriot groups, which have been more friendly to Republicans than Democrats, for tougher scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status.

In 2010, IRS employees in Cincinnati began looking for a way to sort which applications for tax-exempt status they should scrutinize. Their job was to prevent groups that were primarily political -- involved in elections -- from being approved for tax-exempt status.

Setting Criteria

They settled on criteria that included such phrases as “Tea Party” and “patriot.” Those terms caught groups that favor Republicans and smaller government. Other criteria didn’t have the same effect and some groups with opposite views did.

Lerner, the mid-level Washington official who oversaw the effort, found out what was happening in June 2011. She tried to change the criteria, only to see Cincinnati workers change them back and send out to the groups extensive questionnaires, some of which asked for reading materials and donor lists.

In early 2012, after the questionnaires went out, Republican lawmakers started complaining. Shulman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush and then the IRS commissioner, assured them in March 2012 that there was no “targeting.” At the same time, Miller, a deputy commissioner, dispatched an aide to figure out what was going on.

Miller learned the details on May 3, 2012, and he said Shulman found out, too. “I’m sure Mr. Shulman knew,” Miller said at the hearing. “I’m not sure that anybody above Mr. Shulman knew.”

Inspector General

Even as the inspector general informed officials outside the IRS about the existence of his audit -- including Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican -- the knowledge of what the IRS had done remained inside the agency, at least based on the evidence that has become public.

It started spreading beyond the IRS in mid-March 2013, when the inspector general began sharing his draft report. The IRS informed the Treasury Department of the findings shortly after that, according to a Treasury statement.

The Treasury Department -- though neither Wolin nor Secretary Jacob J. Lew -- received an updated draft report in late April. The IRS acknowledged that it had singled out small-government groups on May 10, when Lerner responded to a planted question at a tax conference.

The inspector general’s report came out May 14, and by the next day, Obama announced Miller’s resignation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ignorance.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2207  
Old 05-21-2013, 04:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Gov’t Official Put on Leave After Benghazi Finally Breaks His Silence

Gov’t Official (and Poet) Put on Leave After Benghazi Finally Breaks His Silence — and He’s Making Some Big Charges Against Hillary and Her Team
Raymond Maxwell, one of four State Department employees recently disciplined by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made headlines this month for penning slightly cryptic verses critical of the agency’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

And now Maxwell, who was placed on forced “administrative leave” despite his claim had no role in consulate-related security issues, is back in the news for ditching the poetry and outright accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of making him the Benghazi scapegoat.

“The overall goal is to restore my honor,” Maxwell said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

The former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, who is currently stuck in a sort of legal limbo, has filed grievances regarding his treatment by the State Department’s human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, the report notes.
Maxwell is the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (i.e. the group responsible for Libya) to lose his job over the September 11 attacks.

“I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.
Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” on December 18, the day after the Accountability Review Board released its report on the Benghazi attack. The department placed him on leave so that it could decide whether he should be permanently “let go.” However, here we are five months out and no decision has been made.

The disciplined State Department official sits at home and waits.
A department spokeswoman declined to comment on why Maxwell and three other State officials were disciplined, saying only that the ARB suggested someone be disciplined over the death of four Americans.


“As a matter of policy, we don’t speak to specific personnel matters,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told The Daily Beast.

Maxwell said the reason for him being put on leave has never been explained to him, he has never seen the classified portions of the ARB report that detail personnel failures leading up to the attack, and because his “administrative leave” is not a formal disciplinary action, he has no legal means to appeal his status.

And although he planned on retiring in September 2012, Maxwell remained at his post voluntarily so that he could assist the department in responding to the disastrous attacks. Now, after being singled out for the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Maxwell refuses to let it go until his name has been cleared.

“They just wanted me to go away but I wouldn’t just go away,” he said. “I knew Chris [Stevens]. Chris was a friend of mine.”

“He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave,” the Daily Beast reports.

“For any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,” he said.

Maxwell said that soon after he was removed from his post, a State Department official visited him at his home one night and asked him to sign a letter acknowledging his removal and “forfeiting” his right to enter the State Department building.

He refused. He said that the letter amounted to an admission of guilt.
So who placed him on leave?

“The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events,” the report notes.

“On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately,” it adds.

But there may be a reason why Maxwell, of all people, was removed from his office the day after the release of the ARB report.

“One person who reviewed the classified portion of the ARB report told The Daily Beast that it called out Maxwell for the specific infraction of not reading his daily classified briefings, something that person said Maxwell admitted to the ARB panel during his interview,” the report claims. “The crime that he is being punished for is not reading his intel,” this person said.

When asked about this specific claim, Maxwell said he has not been “officially counseled” on any wrongdoing and has not been allowed to read the ARB’s classified report.

But here’s his bombshell claim: Maxwell believes Hillary Clinton’s staff headed the review of the disastrous Benghazi attack – not an independent review board.

“The flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership,” he said. “They should be called to account.”

Click here to read the full report
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2208  
Old 05-21-2013, 04:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Treasury Sec. Ready to Deploy ‘Extraordinary Measures’ as U.S. Hits Debt Limit (Again

Treasury Sec. Ready to Deploy ‘Extraordinary Measures’ as U.S. Hits Debt Limit (Again)


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...t-limit-again/



Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. (Getty Images)


The U.S. government on Sunday reached its borrowing limit — again.

“After a brief hiatus, the nation’s debt limit has returned as a major hurdle for Washington to overcome, and one that will play a central role in fiscal fights heading into the fall,” The Hill reports. “Congress agreed to suspend the nation’s $16.4 trillion borrowing limit the last time they approached it, at the beginning of the year. But that suspension expired May 19.”

During the suspension, U.S. debt grew by an estimated $300 billion, putting the total at around $16.7 trillion.

“With the government once again operating under a borrowing cap, the Treasury is back to employing special measures to free up space under the limit,” the report notes.

“In a nod to how common debt-limit battles have become in recent years, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress Friday he was prepared to deploy the ‘standard set of extraordinary measures.’”

“He told congressional leaders that the Treasury is preparing to employ its extraordinary measures to free up room to maneuver under the cap, and gave a hint as to how long Congress could haggle over raising it before a damaging default — after Labor Day,” the report adds.

Lew’s letter also made it clear that the Obama administration is not interested in bargaining over raising the debt ceiling
Here’s a full copy of his letter:


One of the “extraordinary measures” at Treasury’s disposal involves the issuance of State and Local Government Series securities (SLGS).
“State and local governments buy the securities as they work to refund municipal bond deals,” The Hill explains.

However, issuing those securities affects the debt limit bottom line, so Treasury would put the brakes on that until further notice.

“The Treasury also has the power to halt new investments in federal employee retirement funds, which would be reimbursed once the limit is hiked. It also can stop reinvesting in its Exchange Stabilization Fund used to buy and sell foreign currencies,” the report continues.

These options would be used to free up billions of dollars to supposedly give U.S. lawmakers more time to come to an agreement over the debt limit.

Of course, that all depends on whether Congress can agree on a plan – and whether the White House will play ball.

“We will not negotiate over the debt limit,” Lew wrote in a letter sent to Congress Friday. “The creditworthiness of the United States is non-negotiable. The question of whether the country must pay obligations it has already incurred is not open to debate.”

We’ll see where this goes from here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...t-limit-again/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2209  
Old 05-21-2013, 06:12 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama: Serial Liar

Obama: Serial Liar
Chronicling the lengths a desperate president has gone to conceal the truth.
by Daniel Greenfield




Will Rogers, the great humorist, once said, “If you ever injected truth into politics, you would have no politics.” If you injected truth into the teleprompter during one of Obama’s speeches, there would be nothing left but an empty chair.

Fourteen days after the September 11, 2012 attacks, Obama appeared at the United Nations to deliver a eulogy for the man he had not troubled to save and to declare that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Obama denounced the “crude and disgusting video” that had “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world” and explained that it couldn’t be banned only because of the pesky Constitution. Two days later, the man behind the video, a Coptic Christian protesting the Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt, had been arrested. The actual perpetrators of the attack still walk the streets of Benghazi.

That lopsided injustice appeared to have been the plan all along. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told Charles Woods, the father of murdered Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that the administration was going to arrest and prosecute the man who made the video.

It was the only promise that Obama and Clinton made about Benghazi which they faithfully kept. Everything else was a lie. Doubletalk had become an administration habit. Obama would say one thing and do another. Or he would loudly tell a lie and quietly speak some version of the truth in order to hedge his bets.

On May 13, 2013, standing alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron, Obama said, “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” The phrasing suggested an admission, rather than an assertion. A thing that had to be dragged out of him. But even that much was not true.

At the United Nations, Obama had not used the word, terrorism. On 60 Minutes, he carefully avoided calling it a terrorist attack. There and on The View, he took refuge in delaying tactics about a developing investigation that was doomed from the start because the FBI had no power to take any action in a city run by the same terrorist militias that had carried out the attacks.

In campaign speeches, Obama mentioned acts of terror, plural and unspecified, while administration proxies like Susan Rice blamed a YouTube movie trailer for the carnage and Obama and Clinton spent $70,000 on an apology commercial denouncing the video in Pakistan.

There was no question that the dominant message coming out of the White House after the attacks was that the trailer for The Innocence of Muslims was to blame. The infamous talking points trimmed away any mention of terrorism and reduced a heavily armed attack to a spontaneous protest over an online movie trailer.

This Sunday, Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer was sent to do a tour of the morning shows where he declared that Obama’s whereabouts during the attack were irrelevant and that the process by which the talking points were altered was likewise irrelevant.

At his joint press conference with Cameron, Obama had taken the same line, declaring the investigation a “sideshow” and insisting that there was nothing there and that no one had known what was going on. Gregory Hicks, the lead diplomatic figure in Libya, however had testified that everyone there knew that it was a terrorist attack and that it had nothing to do with the video.

At 2 AM, local time, Hicks had briefed Clinton. Despite everything the one man in the position to know what was happening was saying, the administration chose a disastrous and dishonest narrative instead.

The dishonesty isn’t ending any time soon.

At a joint press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, a known supporter of terrorism, Obama once again shifted the blame to Congress for a lack of security and the failure to intervene.

The myth that the State Department lacked the funds to provide security in Benghazi was the defense against accusations of administration malfeasance. But it’s a myth that fell apart when Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, testified in Congress that budget issues had not prevented the hiring of more security personnel.

The Washington Post had pointed out that Congress would have provided supplemental security funding if it had been requested. Despite pleas from diplomats on the ground, it was not. Instead the State Department’s bureaucrats and donor diplomats were busy squandering money on all sorts of wasteful vanity projects.

The State Department had plenty of money. It just chose to use it in the wrong ways. It had millions to spend on embassy art, ridiculously overpriced Kindles and even on an Afghan YouTube channel.

At the press conference, Obama went so far as say, “We’re going to need Congress’s help in terms of increasing the number of our Marine Corps Guard who protect our embassies” when under him, not only were 20,000 Marines being fired, but at the presidential debate, Obama had mocked Romney’s objections to his drastic naval cuts by saying that we no longer needed outdated horses and bayonets.

The real reason that the Marines had not been there protecting Benghazi was the same reason that no military forces came to the rescue once the attack began. It was the same reason that Obama blamed the video and used the United Nations as a forum for denouncing that video, instead of denouncing terrorism.

The issue was never the budget. It was appeasement.

The United States was not incapable of using armed force over Benghazi. Obama’s first Libya lie, the one that led to the war, was the claim that Gaddafi forces were about to carry out a massacre in Benghazi. No such massacre had occurred anywhere or was going to occur, but it was enough for Obama to go to war, without ever admitting that he was at war.

Was the military power that was leveraged to defend Benghazi incapable of being leveraged to defend the mission in Benghazi? Was overthrowing Gaddafi really easier than protecting American diplomats and security personnel under siege?

Benghazi was, from beginning to end, a story of appeasement gone bad. The serial lies by a serial liar have covered up the ugly truth that American lives were sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Four men are dead and a fifth has been locked up to keep the lie alive.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2210  
Old 05-22-2013, 04:12 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The IRS, AP, and Benghazi Scandals are Just Part of the Obama Administration’s War on

The IRS, AP, and Benghazi Scandals are Just Part of the Obama Administration’s War on the Bill of Rights
By Buck Sexton
National Security Editor




The once untouchable Obama administration is in trouble. Despite their best efforts, the President’s phalanx of propagandists cannot make the recent AP, IRS, and Benghazi revelations disappear. Partisans who pretend this is much ado about nothing discredit themselves for even the most vaguely impartial observer, and a media desperate for credibility has taken to asking real questions of President Obama.

Obama and his closest aides have been exposed. Not just as a cabal of lying, preening, and corrupt politicos, but an administration so wedded to authoritarian progressive doctrine they will hammer at the load-bearing walls of liberty in pursuit of their statist agenda.


President Barack Obama smiles during prayer at the Morehouse College Sunday, May 19, 2013, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

This is because the Obama administration’s vision of America is inherently in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Recent scandals are merely the latest skirmish in this ongoing battle.

This makes perfect sense when you put it in context. Authoritarian statists despise the Bill of Rights because of the plainness of its language and the clarity of its intent; it’s meant to protect us from them. And when government transgresses the protection the Amendments afford U.S. citizens, it is obvious that our freedoms are in jeopardy.

Which brings us to why the IRS targeting, AP investigation, and Benghazi debacle are, while disgraceful, largely unsurprising. The Bill of Rights stands in the way of just what the Obama administration means by fundamentally transforming America. They want a more collective, centrally planned America. To achieve that, they must disassemble the Bill of Rights, piece by piece, through legislation, executive fiat, and demagoguery.

Even a cursory review of Obama administration positions shows a constant, unnerving tension with core Constitutional protections. Here’s a breakdown showing how the Obama administration has twisted, ignored, or attacked the Bill of Rights.
1st Amendment– “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is necessary to show the entire 1st Amendment here because it has been so diligently savaged by the Obama administration. From top to bottom, clause-to-clause, the legal bedrock of our spiritual and intellectual freedom has suffered sustained assaults under the Obama regime.

In President Obama’s America, free exercise of religion is fine, so long as everyone accepts they can be coerced to both pass out contraceptives, and pay for the same. His disdain for people of faith—those who “cling to guns or religion”—is a well-established fact.

But Obama’s attacks on freedom of speech and the press have reached new heights. The AP phone records seizures proves that Obama and his team only like leaks that benefit them. Step out of line, and they will crush you, using the full weight of federal law enforcement to do it. Just ask those who wanted to speak out—and still do—on Benghazi.

Much has been made of the “chilling effect” on speech that the AP phone seizures will have, and that the IRS targeting did have, on free speech. Indeed, that was the point, and it is one that will not be forgotten anytime soon. Those who wish to challenge the administration or expose its misdeeds have been put on notice.
2nd Amendment– “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
There are few things that agitate the authoritarian mindset quite as much as an armed citizenry. The right to bear arms not only allows them to defend their homes and families, it would make them quite unruly should the ruling elites attempt to establish tyranny.

The Obama administration has waged an all-out, scorched earth campaign against the 2nd Amendment. Progressive-statist hatred for an armed population burns so hot, they pushed this beyond their own political benefit and lost embarrassingly on their first try to pass national gun control. But make no mistake, they will try again.
4th Amendment– “No Person shall be held to answer for a capital… unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

(For our purposes, dealt with simultaneously alongside)
6th AmendmentIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
The NDAA, and President Obama’s drones anywhere, anytime policy, seem to make a mockery of both the 4th and the 6th. Attorney General Holder’s parsing of “due process” and “judicial process” with regard to the targeted killing of Americans more or less summarizes their view, not just of these two Amendments, but our system of law in general. It’s great when it suits them, and irrelevant when it doesn’t.

8th Amendment… Nor Excessive fines imposed…

Perhaps someone should send around a copy of number 8 to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Obamacare enforcers, and every other federal agency that has the power of financial life and death over individuals and businesses. Leave your engine idling too long, and you get yourself thousands of dollars in fines. If your property is declared a wetland, you don’t really own it anymore. The stupidity of unaccountable bureaucrats knows no bounds. Neither does their lack of empathy.
10th Amendment–The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
While under more subtle assault than the others, the 10th Amendment received a bailout from the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare decision. In a smack down of federal overreach, the majority decided that funding for Medicaid under the ACA could not constitute, to borrow from Don Corleone, an offer the states couldn’t refuse.

That was just one of many examples of the Obama administration’s disdain for the separation of powers, and more specifically, the sovereignty of individual states within the Union.

There is no question now that President Obama, his senior-most advisors, and his left-wing base share an ideology that is inimical to individualism, liberty, and limited government. The Bill of Rights, as written by the Founders, stands athwart that agenda, which is why the Obama administration seeks to render it obsolete.

What remains to be determined is whether the American people, presented with irrefutable evidence of an authoritarian trajectory, will take to the bully pulpit and the polling booth to retrieve our liberties before it is too late.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2211  
Old 05-22-2013, 04:27 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s Scandals and Saul Alinsky

Obama’s Scandals and Saul Alinsky
Will the ghost of the godfather of community organizing help the president escape without a scratch?
by Jack Kerwick






In recent weeks, scandal after scandal has rocked Barack Obama’s administration. His presidency might be imperiled.

Or it might not be.

Obama steadfastly remains an activist, a “community organizer.” Nor has he forgotten that which he learned from the godfather of all community organizers, Saul Alinsky.

In his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes that the goal “of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’”

Now, given that he is the President of the United States, Obama’s should be recognized by the world as the face of “the establishment.” Obama, though, does not want this, for to be associated with “the establishment” is to be identified with the status quo, politics as usual. But Obama promised hope, change, and even “the fundamental transformation” of America. To make good on this promise, he needs the support of the electorate. Yet to elicit this support, he must convince Americans not just that he is not a member of the establishment. He must convince them that he is its enemy.

More specifically, he must have us believe that it is those in the establishment that view him as a “dangerousenemy.”

Alinsky explains that the term “‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people,” and that “the brand ‘dangerous’” proves that “the establishment” has “fear of the organizer,” “fear that he represents a threat to its omnipotence.” Once this fear is established for all to see, the organizer can get to work.

Doubtless, Obama did not want for any of these scandals to come to light. Now that they’ve arisen, though, they can be exploited to depict himself as a Washington outsider and his Republican nemeses as “the establishment” that has vowed to destroy him. Potentially, this strategy trades off short-term loss for long-term gain.

Again, Alinsky is instructive here: “If by losing in a certain action” the organizer “can get more members than by winning, then victory lies in losing and he will lose.”

There is another respect in which Obama will exploit “the crises” of government that the Republicans are trying to expose in his administration. Rahm Emmanuel warned us against letting “a good crisis go to waste.”Crises disorganize our ordinary categories and assumptions. At the same time, according to Alinsky, they both reflect and “stir up” the “dissatisfaction and discontent” of the people. This is great news for the organizer, for he can then “provide a channel into which” people “can angrily pour their frustrations [.]”

Your average person—the average voter—wants crises resolved. He longs for normalcy, some semblance of calm. Now, Obama remains more popular than his Republican opponents, and he long ago succeeded in convincing many Americans that the GOP is the establishment while he is their “dangerous enemy.” As long as they are perceived as “crisis mongers,” Obama counts upon the public growing weary—and frustrated—with them. At the same time, he can style himself the hero, the organizer par excellence, who will relieve Americans’ of their exasperation by conceding that there are crises and then swooping in to solve them. Of course, such “solutions” will come at the cost of an ever larger government, one that is even more amenable to his agenda.

But this is exactly what Obama wants, of course.

So, Obama, in spite of being among the most politically powerful people in the world, has many Americans believing that he is an enemy of the establishment. And though all of the crises of government over which his opponents are sounding the alarm are scandals for which his administration is responsible, it is Obama who will be able to take credit for resolving them. The country has never had a president, and not even many politicians of any sort, really, who were better suited to pull off these two seemingly insurmountable tasks than is Obama. Why?

That the media continually run cover for him obviously explains quite a bit. Yet the President’s rivals err gravely if they attribute his success solely to the media’s partisan loyalties.

In the popular imagination—reinforced daily by Hollywood, the media, and academia—the American political establishment remains under the control of whites generally and white men specifically (i.e. “the good old boy network”). And blacks remain victims of racial oppression. President or not, Obama’s blackness is seen as automatically rendering him an enemy of the establishment. His Arabic name, however, signifies an even wider gap between Obama and the latter.

Republicans must hold Obama accountable for his actions. At the same time, they must reckon with our current racial politics—and the ease with which Obama, the Alinskyite, will use these perceptions to his advantage.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2212  
Old 05-22-2013, 04:43 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Praises Jihad-Supporting Turkish Prime Minister

Obama Praises Jihad-Supporting Turkish Prime Minister
The president plays into the hands of Islamist Erdogan.
by Joseph Klein




Turkey’s jihad-supporting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan received effusive praise from President Obama last week during their joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden. Obama described the Islamist leader, who unapologetically called Zionism “a crime against humanity,” as “a strong ally and partner in the region and around the world.”

This is just a continuation of President Obama’s infatuation with Erdogan. When the two leaders met at the Seoul, South Korea, Nuclear Security Summit in March of 2012, Obama called Erdogan his “friend and colleague….We find ourselves in frequent agreement upon a wide range of issues.” Not content with this level of praise, Obama added that he considered Erdogan “an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend” who has displayed “outstanding leadership.” In fact, Obama so admires Erdogan’s “outstanding leadership” that Obama has allowed the United States to lead from behind Turkey in Libya and Syria, sucking the U.S. into a swamp inhabited by Islamist jihadists.

As Barry Rubin, the director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal explained:
“Once again the Turkish government has taken the lead on U.S. policy by pushing for direct U.S. aid to the rebels. That means giving money, weapons, and other aid to the Muslim Brotherhood and more radical groups to take power because the real moderates in the Syrian opposition are rare.”
Obama fancies Turkey as a model of a modern democratic Islamic state. At their joint news conference last week, Obama praised Erdogan’s “reforms” and said “we will support efforts in Turkey to uphold the rule of law and good governance and human rights for all.”

Erdogan’s idea of democracy is an electoral system that he can manipulate in order to remain in power. His Islamist party has moved inexorably to replace the secular republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk with an Islamic state. Erdogan’s jails have housed more journalists than any other country in the world, including Iran and Russia. And talking about Russia, Erdogan appears to be taking a page out of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s playbook. Like Putin, Erdogan plans to play musical chairs between the prime minister post he now holds but cannot run for again under his party’s rules, and the presidency which he is intent on taking over in 2014 and converting into the country’s most powerful position from the symbolic one it is today. Erdogan will ram through whatever changes to the constitution are necessary to make this happen if a consensus cannot be reached.

“Turkey would walk into a dark dictatorship,” said Riza Turmen, a deputy from the opposition Republican People’s Party. “Turkey is already on this path. The parliament is unable to fulfill its duties even in a parliamentary system. The judiciary is not independent, the press is not free,” he told Reuters.

At last week’s joint news conference, President Obama lauded Erdogan’s supposed efforts to “normalize relations with Israel.” Erdogan then proceeded contemptibly to use the joint news conference to announce in Obama’s presence that he will be visiting Gaza next month, after previously rejecting Secretary of State John Kerry’s request not to go there at this time because it could interfere with just such a normalization of relations. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh claimed that Erdogan’s upcoming visit to Gaza “emphasizes that the era of U.S. tutelage has ended.”

Aside from Barack Obama, Haniyeh has been one of Erdogan’s biggest cheerleaders. Back in 2010, Haniyeh said: “Mr. Erdoğan has become our voice and won hearts of all Palestinians. We began naming our children after Tayyip Erdoğan. The name of Erdoğan has been immortalized in Palestine.” He also called Turkey “the new Ottoman.”

In his description of Turkey under Erdogan’s leadership as “the new Ottoman,” Haniyeh has a much better idea of Erdogan’s true agenda than President Obama does. Obama thinks that Turkey, like the United States, is interested in removing President Bashar Hafez al- Assad from power in Syria in order to bring about a free Syria “that is intact and inclusive of all ethnic and religious groups,” as Obama put it in his joint news conference with Erdogan last week. That may be Obama’s naive aspiration but, as Hamas leader Haniyeh knows, Erdogan is interested in building “the new Ottoman” in the entire region, which means promoting revolutionary Sunni Islamism under Turkey’s leadership. Erdogan is using Obama to advance his Islamist agenda.

No doubt Erdogan will use his upcoming Gaza visit to further solidify Turkey’s prestige in the Muslim world, which will also help him politically at home. Expect, for example, Erdogan to push publicly for Israel to completely lift its embargo on the Gaza Strip. Expect him also to mark the three-year anniversary of the incident involving the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara vessel in which a number of Turkish radicals lost their lives as they attempted violently to break Israel’s legal naval blockade of Gaza. They had assaulted Israeli naval commandos trying to stop the blockade-running ship. The radicals were heard chanting the jihad call to arms honoring Muhammad’s massacre of the Jews of Arabia: “Khybar, Khybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.”

Erdogan has exploited the Mavi Marmara incident for propaganda purposes for three years. But this was not just exploitation of an opportunity that happened to present itself to Erdogan. In fact, Erdogan was reportedly supportive of the flotilla idea all along before it set sail, because it would create a confrontation with Israel that would cost Israel in the court of public opinion, which is precisely what happened. A journalist on board the Mavi Marmara with good connections to government officials and the IHH group that organized the flotilla stated: “The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: ‘The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.’ The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.”

Immediately after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the urging of President Obama, apologized to Erdogan for the Marmara operation and committed to reach final agreement on compensation, Erdogan began backtracking from his own promise to restore full diplomatic relations with Israel and stop certain legal proceedings brought against Israeli soldiers.

Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution,” Erdogan said.

Turkey is reportedly holding out for extraordinarily high compensation which, even if paid, would not satisfy some of the families of the radicals who became “martyrs” on the Mavi Marmara.

Yet, in the face of Erdogan’s continued anti-Israel rhetoric and his backtracking on his promises of normalization, Obama still made a special point at last week’s joint news conference “to note the Prime Minister’s efforts to normalize relations with Israel.”

Obama continues to play right into Erdogan’s hands as the devious Islamist leader prepares to visit with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza next month, to provide weapons and other support to Islamist jihadists in Syria and to consolidate his increasingly authoritarian power at home.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2213  
Old 05-22-2013, 06:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down U.S. Government Adopts Islamist Definition of 'Islamophobia'

U.S. Government Adopts Islamist Definition of 'Islamophobia'
Prayer is a religious right. The niqab is a political statement.
by DR. WALID PHARES
May 22, 2013




The State Department issued a report denouncing what it called "a spike in anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe and Asia." It said that "Muslims also faced new restrictions in 2012 in countries ranging from Belgium, which banned face-covering religious attire in classrooms, to India[,] where schools in Mangalore restricted headscarves."

The State Department report confuses religious persecution, which is to be condemned, with politicization of religions, which is a matter of debate and includes strategies of which the U.S. government should not be a part. If countries ban the right to pray, broadcast, and write about theology -- any theology -- this would be against human rights. But Belgium and India do not ban religions per se. In fact, they are more tolerant regarding diverse religious practice than most of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Obama administration is not criticizing secular European and Asian governments for deciding to ban prayer or theologically philosophical dissertations, but rather criticizing these countries for banning the hijab or niqab in public places.

The administration understands the wearing of the hijab as a religious injunction for all Muslims. This is not the case, as senior theologians have decreed, including al Azhar, and the niqab is not a universal Muslim obligation, as one can see in 53 Muslim-majority countries. It is a matter of choice. The organized groups calling for a systematic imposition of the niqab are Islamist forces. This translates politically into an official endorsement on the Obama administration's part of the Islamist political agenda under the camouflage of religious rights.

The Obama administration, by using the charge of Islamophobia against countries that oppose the political agenda of an ideological and political faction comprising those known as Salafists and Khomeinists, has become a partner with these factions against secular, liberal, reformist movements who do not abide by the niqab rule. It is one thing to defend religious communities and something else to defend the agenda of ideological factions. The niqab is part and parcel of the ideological agenda advocated by the Islamists, not a tenet held by all Muslims. If the Obama administration is worried about the Islamist agenda not yet met by European and Asian countries, it should claim so, but the administration cannot claim defense of a religious injunction to all Muslims while the latter have no consensus on the matter.

It has been noted over the past few years that U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East, the Arab world, and Muslim-majority countries has come increasingly under the influence of pressure groups, identified also as "lobbies," implementing the doctrinal and political agendas of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Khomeinist regime. The State Department has been made to believe that the Islamist agenda and the beliefs and values of all Muslims are one, which is a grave mistake.

The Obama administration should have learned from recent lessons as well as those from the past. First, it should have learned that popular majorities in the countries of the Arab Spring, particularly in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, are not necessarily followers of Islamist principles. Rather, strong oppositions representing a vast swath of civil society are demonstrating vividly against the Islamist regimes produced by the Arab Spring.

The issue of hijab and niqab is one of the many that divide Muslim-majority societies. The Brotherhood and the Iranian regime claim that the veil should be a matter of the female's uniform --not only in the region, but also for the women of Muslim communities in the West. This is the reason their lobbies are portraying the hijab and niqab as an obligation to all Muslim women -- and thus a collective religious right above all other considerations in secular societies, including gender equality and public security matters. Yet the veil, as simply an expression, cannot be imposed on all Muslims, nor can it be extrapolated to be understood as a fundamental right to all members of society.

We therefore recommend that the U.S. government and other governments around the world make a basic distinction. The rights of prayer and its offshoots are universal to Muslim communities; such rights should then have consequences in and on Western and other non-Muslim countries. But the matter of hijab and niqab is a political right, not a religious one. And as a political right, it follows the limitations placed on it by the laws of the land. Even political rights can be obtained given hospitable circumstances, but the United States should not be siding with one political faction against another in an ideological debate in the Muslim world and among Muslim communities in the West and Asia.

If Washington espouses the agenda of Islamists, it becomes part of the industry of Islamophobia -- that is, to create fear about religious persecution in order to support the political agenda of authoritarian Islamist factions.


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2214  
Old 05-22-2013, 09:10 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Administration Admits Drones Have Killed 4 Americans

In a First, U.S. Admits Drones Have Killed 4 Americans



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us...ikes.html?_r=1&



WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan.

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

While rumors of Mr. Mohammed’s death had appeared in local news reports in Raleigh, N.C., where he lived, his death had not been confirmed by the United States government until Wednesday.

According to former acquaintances of Mr. Mohammed in North Carolina, he appears to have been killed in a November 2011 drone strike in South Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal area. Mr. Mohammed’s wife, whom he had met and married in Pakistan, subsequently called his mother in North Carolina to tell her of his death, the friends say.

Mr. Holder, in a speech at Northwestern University Law School last year, laid out the administration’s basic legal thinking that American citizens who are deemed to be operational terrorists, who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” and whose capture is infeasible may be targeted. That abstract legal thinking — including an elastic definition of what counts as “imminent” — was further laid out in an unclassified white paper provided to Congress last year, which was leaked earlier this year.

But Mr. Holder’s letter went further in discussing the death of Mr. Awlaki in particular, an operation the administration had previously refused to publicly acknowledge. He said it was not Mr. Awlaki’s words urging violent attacks against Americans that led the United States to target him, but direct actions in planning attacks.

Mr. Holder alleged that Mr. Awlaki not only “planned” the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009, a claim that has been widely discussed in court documents and elsewhere, but also “played a key role” in an October 2010 plot to bomb cargo planes bound for the United States, including taking “part in the development and testing” of the bombs.

“Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences Awlaki’s involvement in the planning of numerous other plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed,” Mr. Holder wrote.

He added, “The decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.”

Mr. Obama announced the death of Mr. Awlaki on Sept. 30, 2011, and credited United States intelligence agencies, but he did not explicitly acknowledge that Mr. Awlaki had been killed by an American strike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us...ikes.html?_r=1&
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-22-2013 at 09:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2215  
Old 05-22-2013, 10:33 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Pleads Inefficacy on Scandals

Obama Pleads Inefficacy on Scandals



“The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of [her] concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath.”
-- March 27, 2007 statement from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the announcement that Justice Department official Monica Goodling would invoke her Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate herself during testimony on the firings of U.S. attorneys.

How is Lois Lerner still on the job and still responsible for the oversight of applications from small government groups for non-profit status?
With misconduct all around, Obama’s attempt to be above the fray and out of the loop may insulate him from specific charges of wrongdoing. But it will not insulate him from the growing sense that many in his administration are out of control and abusing their power.
Lerner is set to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate herself for her role in the IRS targeting of President Obama’s political enemies before a House panel today. She will not be saying how or why the agency did so or how many of her subordinates were involved. Most significantly, she will not be explaining who else in the Obama administration was aware of the misconduct.

One might have thought that the very fact that her office was at the center of the abuses would have been enough to earn Lerner at least an indefinite paid vacation from her duties. Surely when it was revealed that she had faked what appeared to be her spontaneous revelation of the internal investigation it would have been enough to get Lerner kicked off the job.

But as we learned Tuesday, the phony question and her response came after Treasury officials strategized with a top White House aide about rolling out the scandal. So it would hardly do for the department to place her on leave for that.

Refusing to testify on the grounds that she might incriminate herself should surely be cause for administration officials to push her out of the office while the investigation proceeds. Not only is it unhelpful to the probe to have one worried about her own potential criminal case in a key position, but how can voters even begin to trust the IRS when an official so intimately involved in this scandal is still behind the wheel?

Tuesday was a fairly tragic day for the administration’s effort to contain and control the problem: officials refusing to apologize or take responsibility and a third contradictory version of who knew what and when at the White House about the abuses. In the latest iteration from Press Secretary Jay Carney, not only was the knowledge more widespread but that the White House was working a communications plan in advance.

The topper came when Carney compared a reporter’s question about the secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, raising money from those her agency is charged with regulating to Donald Trump’s demand to see the president’s birth certificate.

And today, because she says she fears incrimination in a probe of the abuses, Lerner will not clarify matters. Nor will she answer the question put forward by Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and others on Tuesday: How did the abuses reoccur after they were first brought to the attention of supervisors?

And when she is done not answering, Lerner will return to her duties. The essence: “I won’t tell you what happened with abusing conservative groups because I could go to jail. Now, back to scrutinizing the applications of conservative groups.”

What a disaster, and yet the president and his team are working hard to create the impression that they are helpless in all of this.

If the IRS scandal was the only one dogging the administration, it might do to use a strategy of delay and denial to protect the president -- but not with the administration hemorrhaging credibility.

Let’s recap.

The White House has been forced to admit that they misled the press and public about the spin on a raid by Islamist militants on a U.S. diplomatic outpost. Whatever you think about Benghazi or what House Republicans claimed about it, the underlying admission that the administration answered truthfully but dishonestly still stands. That doesn’t exactly bolster confidence.

And now, Rosengate. Just as reporters were wrapping their heads around the fact that the Justice Department had engaged in an unknown number of secret document grabs targeting news outlets in the wake of the revelation of the fishing expedition at the Associated Press, the news got much worse.

A reporter for a news outlet that was explicitly targeted by the White House communications team was listed as a possible criminal conspirator for working a source at the Department of State. If James Rosen can be labeled a potential criminal for trying to get the latest on North Korea, what in the hell would become of a reporter who was digging on drones or the bin Laden killing or any of the other hot-button national security issues?

The answer: Obama supports the First Amendment and a free press.
Not very effectively, it would seem.

With misconduct all around, Obama’s attempt to be above the fray and out of the loop may insulate him from specific charges of wrongdoing. But it will not insulate him from the growing sense that many in his administration are out of control and abusing their power.

“No drama” is not an available option anymore.

And Now, A Word From Charles

“I repeat, Jay Carney is underpaid. Here he is saying the president or the administration -- which has just trashed the First Amendment, that he can't talk about it because it's under investigation when we can all see it in front of our eyes -- he is a believer in the First Amendment.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...y-on-scandals/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2216  
Old 05-24-2013, 06:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute

Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute
By Liz Klimas






Indeed, the press pool report notes the same thing:
In-town pool report #1

South Lawn departure for Annapolis

Under gray skies and intermittent drizzle, President Obama boarded Marine One at 9:30 a.m. EDT in an open press event.
A few White House regulars were atwitter (and on Twitter) when the President walked directly up the steps of Marine One without saluting the Marine on duty. He soon came out of the helicopter, walked down the steps, shook hands with the Marine and engaged in a brief conversation.
Here’s a photo sequence of the president’s departure Friday morning:




President Barack Obama boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, May 24, 2013, in Washington. (Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

(Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

(Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

(Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)


Now, you might be confused by the second photo in the sequence, as it does show the president offering some sort of salute. Even the Associated Press caption to the photo says, “President Barack Obama salutes at the top of the step as he boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House.”

So what’s that about? We contacted the journalist – Rick Dunham of the Houston Chronicle — who filed the report and he told us while the president may have offered some salute at the top, he definitely broke with normal and accepted procedure.

In fact, video of the series of events seems to show that the salute was offered to someone already on the chopper. Watch via ABC’s footage of the event:


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2217  
Old 05-24-2013, 08:02 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out (III)

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out (III)




May 24, 2013
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out-2-1-1/


Print This Post




Editor’s note: The essay below by Daniel Greenfield won one of two runner-up $500 prizes for our essay contest launched on April 5, 2013: “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.” The winner of the $1,000 first-place prize was N. A. Halkides (see his essay here). The other runner-up prize went to Oleg Atbashian (see his essay here).

There is a characteristic feature to tyranny. It isn’t the scowling faces of armed guards or the rusting metal of barbed wire fences. It isn’t the black cars of the secret police or the prison camps surrounded by wastelands of snow.

The defining characteristic of tyranny is the diversion of power from the people to the unelected elite. The elite can claim to be inspired by Allah or Marx; it can act in the name of racial purity or universal workers compensation or both. The details don’t matter, because in all instances, tyranny derives its justification from the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of the people.

The left launched two revolutions. One was the hard revolution of bombs and assassinations by those who did not have the time or patience to wait for the long march through the institutions of the state. This revolution was born quickly and died quickly. It killed millions and choking on their blood it died by stages, losing its ideas and then its power, until there were only a few old men and women in shawls clinging to red velvet portraits of Stalin.

But there was also the soft revolution that was slow and subtle. It was a revolution of laws, rather than bombs. It did not concern itself with 5-year-plans but with 50-year-plans. It proceeded by increments, raising the temperature so very gradually that the free world did not realize it was cooked until it could smell its own burning flesh.

The revolutions of the east failed. They rose quickly in fire and fury and only ashes and statues remain. But the revolutions of the west have been underway for generations in countries where millions of men and women go about their business without realizing what is taking place around them.
When H.G. Wells met with Lenin in 1920, he wrote, “Our essential difference, the difference of the Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to overthrow one social and economic system completely before the new one can begin.”

Lenin demanded a revolution that would directly attack the capitalist system, but Wells believed that, “through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system could be civilized into a Collectivist world system.”

That educational campaign is the soft tyranny we see all around us. The educational campaign is a nanny state in which we are forever being educated by our betters for our own good.

The nanny state has a short term purpose and a long term purpose. Its short term purpose is to educate us out of our selfish freedom of choice. Its long term purpose is to incrementally “civilize” or “evolve” a free people into collectivism through smaller measures undertaken in the name of the public good.

Instead of a single explosive burst of revolution, instead of terrorists rushing in with guns in hand, instead of bombs exploding and assassins gunning down public officials, there is the slow creep of laws that remake attitudes and accomplish the same purpose not in a day or a year… but over the decades.

Instead of one great revolution, there are a million smaller revolutions stripped of overt ideology and pretending to serve the public good.
Health care is nationalized. Gun control is implemented. Education is centralized. Environmental panic is used to enforce rationing. The successful are taught to be ashamed of their success. They are taught that they didn’t build that. The state did.

The new bureaucratic collectivism sets out to control the most minor habits of every man, woman and child. People are told to spy on their neighbors. Children are taught to report the politically incorrect habits of their parents. The media asserts that all property and even children belong to the state.

Each of these is a miniature revolution. A string of these revolutions over time transforms the soft tyranny into a hard tyranny.

The nanny state is outwardly benevolent and inwardly ruthless. Instead of a Big Brother who must be feared and worshiped, it puts forward a Big Sister who shames and controls you for your own good. But the difference never goes deeper than the mask that tyranny wears. Like the difference between Lenin and H.G. Wells, it is only a matter of the speed at which tyranny arrives.

The hard tyranny of the red revolutions and the soft tyranny of the bureaucratic collectivists both agree on the fundamental premise of tyranny.

A century before Bloomberg’s soda war, Theodore Roosevelt stood in New York City’s Carnegie Hall and delivered one of his most famous speeches, which began with the words, “The great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves?”

The answer of the liberal technocrats, the Bloombergs and Obamas, is a chorus of jeers. They make it clear with their policies that they believe that the American people are unfit to govern themselves in matters great or small.

If the American is unfit to be trusted with a soda cup or a gun or a lawn dart or any of a thousand other things taken away from him for his own good, then how can he be trusted with the ballot box?

That mistrust, more than any single abuse, reveals the scowling tyrant behind the smiling face, the Lenin in every H.G. Wells, the totalitarian face behind every liberal mask. The soft totalitarianism of the public interest technocracy is a tyranny that seeks to destroy the rule of the people and replace it with the rule of the left.

The creeping pace of the soft revolution forces the inner totalitarian to practice some discretion, mummifying his tyrannical aspirations in the embalming fluid of political correctness, but no flood of words can conceal the inner contempt behind the false benevolence of the tyrant who makes policies that deprive the people of their freedom for their own good.

“I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them,” Theodore Roosevelt said.

The hard revolutions showed the truth of his words when the red kingdoms fell and the soft revolutions are showing us the truth of his words as the nanny cities and states falter economically and fall.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out-2-1-1/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2218  
Old 05-24-2013, 08:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s War on the Middle Class

Obama’s War on the Middle Class
The real story behind “hope” and “change.”
by Mark Hendrickson




How many times have you heard President Obama express concern for the middle class? More than you can count. Even his website begins “Learn more about Barack Obama and why he’s fighting for the middle class.”[1]

But if we look at Obama’s actual record rather than his rhetoric, it is plain that the middle class has been one of the leading victims of his presidency.

The decline in median family and median net worth that began during George W. Bush’s presidency has continued under Obama. Citing recent Census Bureau data, the Pew Research Center published data showing that the only one of nine income levels whose net worth increased in the 2009-2011 period was the highest-earning cohort—those earning over $500,000 per year.

Income, too, showed a similar pattern: During Obama’s first term, the wealthiest 20% of households eked out a 2% gain while incomes for the rest fell.[2] Obama may talk tough about “the rich,” but they have been the only group that have gotten richer on his watch.

Further evidence of Obama’s silent war on the middle class is the explosion in the number of Americans receiving food stamps. When Obama took office in January 2009, there were approximately 32 million Americans on food stamps; as of April 5, 2013, that numbered had swollen by nearly 50% to 47.3 million.[3] Poor Americans already had been receiving food stamps before Obama became president; the increase came from members of the middle-class Americans that his policies had initiated into hard times.

Another dramatic indicator of economic hardship has been the unprecedented increase in the number of Americans receiving federal disability payments—8.8 million, a 19% increase in only four years. Working conditions haven’t become more dangerous; the disturbing rise in these numbers means that many have found it easier to get on disability than to get a job. The 1.4 million net increase in disability enrollments is five times greater than the growth in net jobs during the same period—a meager 291,000 jobs.[4]

Lowering The Economic Hammer
The three primary sources of income in a market economy are labor, investment and entrepreneurial business startups. All three have fared poorly under Obama’s policies.

Investment Income
Millions of middle-class Americans, especially seniors, prefer to stick to safe, ultralow-risk interest-paying investments, such a savings accounts, interest-earning checking accounts, money-market accounts, and certificates of deposit. A normal market rate of return on such investments would be around 3%, but today’s savers have been zeroed out by the Federal Reserve’s “Zero Interest-Rate Policy.”[5]

Obama’s extraordinary increase in federal spending is the culprit. His big-spending policies far exceeded federal revenues, so they had to be financed by borrowing. The massive amount of new debt that was incurred was beyond the capacity of capital markets to finance at interest rates low enough for the federal treasury to afford. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke became Obama’s compliant accomplice, essentially bailing out the treasury by employing extraordinary measures (the series of “quantitative easing” programs) to cram interest rates down to near zero. In doing so, Bernanke deprived millions of Americans of the option of earning safe interest income. The Fed has rigged the markets so that middle-class seniors who want the safety of U.S. Treasury debt instruments are losing income while, in effect, granting virtually interest-free loans to the federal government.

Entrepreneurial Income
Obama’s policies have had a dampening effect on business startups—foundation for the middle class. Citing a study by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in studying startups, respected social scientist Joel Kotkin writes, “…today fewer than 8% of U.S. companies are five years old or younger, down from between 12% and 13% in the early 1980s, another period following a deep recession.”[6]

There are several reasons for the sluggishness in small business startups, but one of the central ones is been the administration’s heavy-handed regulatory practices. The Mercatus Center, which maintains a database of federal regulations, tabulated an average of 17,212 regulatory rules and restrictions added per year by Obama, compared to 13,441 per year under George W. Bush.[7]

Obama’s second term will see even more new regulations—and therefore more trouble for the middle class– as his administration proceeds to implement the most significant, complex laws passed during Obama’s first term—the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Both of these pieces of legislation will remove people from the middle class and make it harder for those trying to climb the economic ladder to reach this rung.

Labor Income
The official unemployment rate has fallen at historically slow post-recession rates under Obama. At the end of April 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate was 7.5%—the lowest it has been since he became president.

On the surface, it might seem that this statistic points to an increasingly healthy job market. But Investor’s Business Daily reports, “The average workweek in April was 2% shorter than it was a year ago, marking the ‘steepest decline since 1980.’” Employers are reducing the number of hours they employ workers to avoid incurring the heavy costs of impending ObamaCare rules.[8]

The participation rate of the US labor force is lower than it has been in decades–63.30% as of April 30, 2013. This rate has been declining, counter-intuitively, in lockstep with the official unemployment rate.[9]

This means that the middle class is not only having a hard time finding jobs, but even giving up on the prospect of employment.

More than half of Americans under age 25 holding a bachelor’s degree are either unemployed or underemployed.[10]

Economic statistician John Williams, who maintains the well-known Shadowstats website, pegs the actual unemployment rate at the end of April 2013 at 23.0%.[11]

Obama channeled millions of stimulus dollars to increase employment for such favored constituencies as teachers, construction workers, and federal employees in his first two years without significantly reducing unemployment. The economic explanation is this: When a job exists (or earns as much as it does) only because of a government subsidy, then the job is costing more than the value it is producing. This imposes a net loss on society, and the wealth that is diverted from the private sector reduces its ability to create and sustain economically viable jobs.

Is the Obama-Caused Economic Weakness Intentional?
Was this Obama’s goal? Either he didn’t understand that his policies would be so detrimental, in which case he is economically illiterate and incompetent, or he knew what he was doing and was willing to sacrifice the middle class to achieve his overall goals. I think the latter is the case.

Signs of Antipathy
Five days before the 2008 election, Obama told a crowd of his supporters that “we” were on the verge of “fundamentally transforming” the country. Since the American system was designed to maximize economic opportunities and the standards of living, middle-class Americans might well wonder why Obama wanted to fundamentally change it.

Obama revealed his antipathy for middle-class values in the 2008 presidential campaign when he spoke contemptuously of Americans who cling to guns and religion. For 20 years, he attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church where the message from the pulpit was a vehement “God damn America!”

It is well known that Obama is a disciple and practitioner of the strategy and tactics of the late revolutionary Saul Alinsky, who despised the middle class, denigrating them as “materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt.”[12]

Obama repeatedly displayed his disrespect for the middle class in his policy approach to the deflating housing bubble he inherited. His proposals to bail-out underwater mortgage holders—many of whom had put little or no money down on their houses—was blatantly unfair to the tens of millions of middle-class Americans who had faithfully made the monthly mortgage payments for ten, twenty, or thirty years, and to those who had deferred Hawaiian vacations, new cars, and other enjoyments to save for large down payments on their houses. Obama pushed for bailouts not only to rich Wall Street firms, but to homeowners whose adjustable-rate mortgages had been reset higher—hardly fair to more financially prudent middle class Americans who had bitten the bullet and locked in fixed-rate mortgages that initially (and potentially permanently) were at higher interest rates than those who took out ARMs.[13]

The Green Agenda
President Obama is what I call a “mean green.” Like the radical environmentalists, he objects to the American middle class’s standard of living. He disapproves of Americans living comfortably when there are poor nations in the world. In his words: “We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes, you know, 72 degrees at all times…and then just expect that every other country is going to say OK…[when we] keep using 25 percent of the world’s energy.”

That explains why Obama chose Dr. Steven Chu to be Secretary of Energy for his first term. Chu’s most famous policy goal was encapsulated in his statement, “Somehow we have to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Well, Chu didn’t succeed fully, but the price of gasoline is approximately double what it was at the outset of the Obama presidency.

Chicagoland Politics and the “Curley Effect”
Chicago politicians are known for being particularly ruthless in their pursuit of political power. They play hardball. Their goal is to demolish their competition and forge a permanent majority. It hardly seems surprising, then, that Barack Obama is doing his best to take the Curley effect, historically an urban phenomenon, nationwide.

As defined by Harvard scholars Edward L. Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer in a famous 2002 article, the Curley effect (named after its prototype, James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston in the first half of the 20th century) is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.”

Translation: A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that reward their political allies and punish their opponents, even if the overall result is economic decline. Yes, strange as it seems, making a city poorer often increases the power of those who engineer that impoverishment.

Here is how the Curley effect works: Politicians adopt policies that bestow tax-financed favors on various special interest groups—welfare constituencies, unions, the public sector in general, and select corporations. In demonstration of George Bernard Shaw’s astute axiom, “The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul,” the recipients of those favors and handouts loyally support their political patrons, giving them reliable electoral support in the form of votes, campaign contributions, get-out-the-vote drives, etc.

Meanwhile, those segments of the population who bear the economic burden of supporting the favored special interests often flee. This reduces the number of political opponents on the city’s voter registration rolls, thereby tilting the electoral balance and making it more likely that the political party running the wealth redistribution scheme stays in power. So successful has this strategy been for Democrats that they have retained uninterrupted control of many large American cities for decades, and in the more extreme cases, have created virtual one-party fiefdoms.

Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest US cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24% and 32% and a vanishing middle class, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961, and those two (Cincy and Cleveland) haven’t had one since the 1980s. Democratic mayors have had a lock on City Hall despite these once-great and prosperous cities stagnating on their watch. This is the Curley effect in action.

The strategic mistake of the Democratic leaders of those poor cities have adopted policies so virulently anti-business that they have hollowed out the economic base of the city and caused stagnation, decline, and bankruptcy.

Obama is trying to achieve the Curley effect nationwide. He is striving to forge a political coalition that will give the Democrats a permanent electoral majority. He has adopted a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand, he has done everything he could to strengthen Democratic constituencies (e.g., stimulus spending steered predominantly toward unions and strategically allied state and municipal entities; waivers from Obamacare for unions; continual increases in the Index of Dependence on Government during Obama’s presidency);[14] on the other, he has endeavored to weaken Republican constituencies by strengthening alliances with Big Business while making things difficult for small businesses, because the latter are “a building-block of the Republican base.”[15]

If Obama and his fellow progressives succeed in achieving the Curley effect on the national level, Americans will no longer be able to move to a new city or state to escape the withering economic impact of Curley-style politics. Their only option would be to leave the country. However, it appears that Obama has anticipated that response. To close the escape hatch from an Obama-led, Curley-effect America, the president has signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act that mandates closer monitoring of Americans’ offshore accounts. He also seems to favor policies that would impose financial penalties on anyone desiring to give up U.S. citizenship, and he has called for “global minimum taxes.”[16]

An Enduring Crisis of the Middle Class
Obama’s policies are enlarging the twin millstones around the neck of the middle class– taxation and inflation. While it is true that income tax rates haven’t yet risen under Obama and inflation has surfaced only in a few areas (e.g., food and energy) these twin curses are quietly gathering strength for a future whirlwind of destruction. The six trillion dollars of new debt resulting from Obama’s spending binge (plus trillions more of accumulated unfunded federal liabilities) are tax hikes on future taxpayers. As mentioned earlier, the costs of this flood of red ink has been obscured by the Fed’s Zero Interest Rate Policy and its willingness to buy approximately 60% of new federal debt with newly created dollars.

Whenever ZIRP ends, some combination of massive tax hikes and/or raging inflation will ensue. .

Already, Obama’s economic policies have hurt the middle class. They have sapped the job market, raised food and energy bills, and resulted in falling incomes and net worth. Now the table is set for additional economic pain in the future.

A contracting middle class in retreat from the optimism and affluence that have always been its hallmark is, at this stage of his presidency, Barack Obama’s legacy.

Notes:
[1] www.barackobama.com/about/barack-obama/ accessed May 5, 2013.

[2] Obamanomics: Rich Get Richer, Everyone Else Poorer,” (unsigned editorial) Investors Business Daily, Posted 04/24/2013 6:69 PM ET. news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042413-653244-rich-get-richer-poor-poorer-under-obama.htm

[3] Matt Trivisonno’s blog, accessed May 5, 2013; www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts

[4] John Merline, “Nearly 90,000 Apply for Disability, December Record,” posgted 12/21/12 01:19 PM ETnews.investors.com/122112-637978-disability-ranks-continue-to-explode-under-obama.htm?p=full

[5] Mark W. Hendrickson, “We’ve Been ZIRPed,” Grove City PA: The Center for Vision & Values, October 12, 2011; www.visionandvalues.org/2011/10/we-ve-been-zirped/

[6] www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/03/13/wall-streets-hollow-boom-with-small-business-and-startups-lagging-employment-wont-pick-up/

[7] Joseph Lawler, “President Obama Leads in Regulations Issued,” posted on realclearpolicy.com on November 2, 2012; www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2012/11/02/president_obama_leads_in_regulations_issued_338.ht ml

[8] “The ObamaCare Train Wreck Is Already Here,” IBD Editorial, posted May 6, 2013 07:18 PM ET; news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050613-655037-the-obamacare-train-wreck-is-already-here.htm?p=full

[9] data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000; cf. “US Labor Force Participation Rate,” ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate

[10] Mark Hendrickson, “Myth-Busting 101,” posted on forbes.com August 16, 2012; www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/08/16/mythbusting-101-uncomfortable-truths-your-college-wont-tell-you/

[11] Bill Quick, A Reality Check from Shadowstats.com, posted on dailypundit.com, May 3, 2013; www.dailypundit.com/?p=71610

[12] Saul Alisky, Rules for Radicals, p. 185, quoted in James R. Keena, We’ve Been Had, Nahsville TN: Twin Creek Books, 2010, p. 68.

[13] Mark W. Hendrickson, “Tough Times for Wise Virgins,” Grove City: The Center for Vision & Values, posted February 18, 2009; www.visionandvalues.org/2009/02/tough-times-for-wise-virgins/

[14] Patrick Tyrrell, “Index of Dependence on Government Jumps for the Fourth Year in a Row,” posted on “The Foundry,” a Heritage Foundation blog Sept. 18, 2012; blog.heritage.org/2012/09/18/index-of-dependence-on-government-jumps-for-the-fourth-year-in-a-row/

[15] Kotkin, “Wall Street’s Hollow Boom.”

[16] Mark Hendrickson, “Team Obama: Tax Predators On The Prowl,” posted on forbes.com, 4/19/2012 @ 5:45PM; www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/19/team-obama-tax-predators-on-the-prowl/

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #2219  
Old 05-24-2013, 08:45 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation IRS Scandal Follows Old Obama Illinois Pattern

IRS Scandal Follows Old Obama Illinois Pattern
The president’s unblemished record of destroying the opposition through abuse of bureaucracy & regulations.
by Tom Thurlow




Boy, it sure makes a primary or election contest easier when your opponent pulls out, don’t you think? Barack Obama has been managing to do that since he won the Democratic nomination for state senator in Illinois in 1996, and it helps explain the IRS harassment of conservatives and Tea Party groups since 2010. Whereas once Obama targeted candidates to get them to pull out, from 2010 onward, he had the IRS and possibly other federal agencies target groups that represented a set of ideas, hoping to get those ideas to withdraw from the race. The pattern has been the same: get the opposition to leave.

In 1996, as he faced an incumbent state senator and two other challengers for the Democratic nomination for state senator in a heavily-Democratic district in Chicago, then-candidate Barack Obama directed his campaign staff to challenge the candidacy petitions of his opponents. By disqualifying signatures one by one, as one local columnist put it, Obama “made sure voters had but one choice.”

Then, in 2004, not only in the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Illinois, but in the general election, Team Obama perfected the art of getting confidential documents on Obama’s opponents unsealed.

First, Obama’s primary opponent had to try and explain to the voters the contents of recently-unsealed divorce records, which included allegations of spousal violence. The former front-runner finished third, far behind the winner, Barack Obama. Then, in the 2004 general election, Republican nominee Jack Ryan ended his race for the Senate after child custody records were unsealed, revealing allegations of wild forays at sex clubs with his actress wife, Jeri Ryan.

Is it any wonder that once President Obama’s signature accomplishment, Obamacare, came under scathing criticism from Tea Party groups in 2010, that the IRS suddenly began to give extra scrutiny, and in many cases deny non-profit status to groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name? The extra IRS scrutiny and audits were blamed on a few “rogue” IRS agents in Cincinnati, but the scandal is big enough to be blamed for the harassment of over 500 conservative groups. Reportedly, 63% of all Tea Party-related groups that applied for non-profit status since 2010 eventually withdrew their applications, obviously limiting donations to these groups, and their ability to promote conservative ideas. Government harassment works.

With the non-profit voter integrity group “True The Vote,” a delayed application for non-profit status was only the beginning. In the two years since the group applied for non-profit status, the founder and her family’s business became targets of other government agencies, including the FBI, the ATF, and OSHA

And despite denials to the contrary, evidence suggests direction from the top of the executive branch. An anonymous IRS official employee from the Cincinnati office confirmed that orders of singling out organizations based on political belief is something that would only “come from the top.”

Old Chicago habits die hard, and during the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign website posted the names of 15 prominent donors to Mitt Romney’s campaign, sending the message far and wide to investigate these people, possibly unsealing any confidential files, at the least dissuading other possible Romney supporters from donating to the campaign.

Apparently the IRS and the Labor Department took the bait and audited one of the listed Romney donors, Frank VanderSloot. Within weeks of being listed on the Obama website, IRS agents audited VanderSloot’s personal and business tax returns, and the Labor Department even investigated VanderSloot’s business. VanderSloot says he is not the only person on that list to be audited.

How extensive is this scandal? As far as we know today, the IRS took the lead in harassing conservatives and Tea Party groups, occasionally joined by the Department of Justice, OSHA, the ATF, and the Labor Department. If you were to add some news of spying on reporters – that was announced Monday — then it all becomes reminiscent of the following exchange from the 1976 movie All the President’s Men:

Bob Woodward: Segretti told me and Bernstein that…

Deep Throat: [interupting] Don’t concentrate on Segretti. You’ll miss the overall.

Bob Woodward: The letter that destroyed the Muskey candidacy… did that come from inside the White House?

Deep Throat: You’re missing the overall.

Bob Woodward: What overall?

Deep Throat: The people behind all of this were frightened of Muskey and that’s what got him destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged offices, they followed people, falsified press leaks, passed fake letters… they canceled Democratic campaign rallies, they investigated Democratic private lives, they planted spies, they stole documents… and now don’t tell me that all of this was the work of one Donald Segretti.

Substitute the phrase “a few rogue IRS officers from Cincinnati” for Doanld Segretti, and a few other updates, and this exchange gives a glimpse at how big and how far this scandal may go. But one thing is for sure: all of these actions are part of an old Obama pattern since his days in Illinois of doing whatever it takes to get one’s opponents, be they candidates or groups, to withdraw from the competition of ideas.

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-24-2013 at 08:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2220  
Old 05-25-2013, 01:50 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Talking The Drone Ranger


MAD debuts Obama 'Drone Ranger'




How is President Barack Obama like the Lone Ranger? MAD Magazine is having its say on the matter, featuring the president — in s**** form— as the masked, Old West ranger on the cover of its latest issue. (The Lone Ranger was a 1930s radio show that became a television program and comic series. Most recently, it was made into a movie, coming outin July.)

His Tonto, of course, is Vice President Joe Biden.

The subject? Drones. The headline? The Drone Ranger. The subhead? “Now Bombing Everywhere.”

“President Obama is scaling back the use of drones to kill terrorists and foreign enemies,” MAD writes. “Which is really a shame. Drones are destructive, extremely violent, and one of the laziest ways to destroy something. They’re just so American! Besides, the way Obama was mysteriously meting out a swift brand justice — it reminded us of someone else. …”

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 05-25-2013 at 01:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum