Geee Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Breitbart: In Part One of this series, published on Monday, I used the word “Watergate” seven times, openly comparing the scandalous Obama administration to the scandalous Nixon administration. I didn’t know the half of it. Just hours after Part One ran, we all learned the disturbing news of the rogue Justice Department wiretaps on the Associated Press. Now, even the liberals in the MSM are in an uproar, and the chief target is Attorney General Eric Holder. Former MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted, “I want him fired,” and even a veteran liberal such as Esquire’s Charles Pierce agreed: “Holder must go." Speaking for the prognosticating pundits, Laura Rozen tweeted, “Hard to see how this ends without Holder leaving one way or other.” Let’s hope, and the sooner the better. Those of us who can’t help thinking about Watergate redux will, of course, be forever comparing Holder to Nixon’s surveillance-crazed attorney general, the notorious and criminal John Mitchell. Holder has his own long pedigree as a cover-upper, too. Back in the 90s, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, Holder was in charge of shutting down the investigation of Clinton campaign finance violations. Who can forget all those Chinese agents, Indonesian bankers, and even Buddhist monks who were financing the Clinton re-election campaign with money that came from who-knows-where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Confronted with a backlash against the leak-campaign, Obama called upon--you guessed it--Eric Holder to lead an “investigation” of the leaks. But he's the attorney general. The chief Law Enforcement officer....I'm sure he'll do a bang up job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 Chris Matthews sours on Obama President Obama "obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch," Chris Matthews said tonight. Yes, you read that right: The MSNBC host who in 2008 felt a "thrill going up my leg" after hearing Obama speak has grown disenchanted. Tonight's episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News. "What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft," Matthews said. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/chris-matthews-sours-on-obama-164095.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righteousmomma Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 I was just telling NCT about Matthews and his response was: "Oh, yeah?? they are getting ready for Hillary. Playing the game." NCT has a good point. We must keep in mind - as Rush used to say - " a tiger is a tiger, is a tiger. He can't change his stripes." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 I was just telling NCT about Matthews and his response was: "Oh, yeah?? they are getting ready for Hillary. Playing the game." NCT has a good point. We must keep in mind - as Rush used to say - " a tiger is a tiger, is a tiger. He can't change his stripes." Still, it was very fun and satisfying to hear Chris Matthews say those things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 I can forgive Richard Nixon for many things, But for putting the word Gate into the political lexicon....Never! I was waiting for Robert Gates to get involved in some scandal then we could have Gatesgate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 Obama Media Lapdogs Turn, But For How Long Is Unknown Media Bias: The MSNBC talking head who was most "head over thighs" over Barack Obama is one of many news fixtures now coming down to earth. That thrill going up Chris Matthews' leg is gone. 'I felt this thrill going up my leg," Matthews infamously declared on Election Night 2008, as he "covered" Obama's presidential victory. Nearly two years later, he was bestowed with the Media Research Center's far-from-coveted Quote of the Year award for revealing that "I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me . . . He's talking about my country and nobody does it better." But on word of the IRS harassing conservative groups and the Justice Department secretly seizing cell and home phone records of Associated Press journalists, Matthews' leg has ceased quivering, at least for now. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051613-656378-obama-loving-media-turn-perhaps-not-permanently.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 What Did the President Know About the IRS Scandal and When Did He Know It? Describing the White House reaction relating to the IRS scandal, that old Mitchell Trio song from the 1960s by Tom Paxton comes to mind: We didn’t know at all. We didn’t see a thing. You can’t hold us to blame. What could we do? It was a terrible shame. But we can’t bear the blame. Oh no, not us, we didn’t know. “What did the president know and when did he know it” is a question asked by both parties through the years of Washington scandal and administration wrongdoing. It may seem trite, even tiresome. But the purpose behind the question is deadly serious. The answer is measured against previous statements by the president to determine if he has been lying about the extent of his involvement in whatever scandal has rocked his administration. In this case, everyone wants to know when President Obama found out about conservative groups being targeted by the IRS. At Thursday’s press conference with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, the president was specific about when he found out about the Treasury Department’s inspector general’s report: I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press. Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. They tend to be a process that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of. But as Lucy Madison of CBS News points out, the White House was informed of the IG report several weeks ago: According to White House Spokesman Jay Carney, the White House counsel learned of the IRS targeting last month, but Mr. Obama says he had only learned of it through the press. Asked why he was not informed earlier, by the White House counsel, Mr. Obama noted that “typically the I.G. reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared” in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-did-the-president-know-about-the-irs-scandal-and-when-did-he-know-it/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 The end of ‘hope and change’ In then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, he ran to the left of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a moral reformer. Mr. Obama promised to transcend the old politics and bring a new era of hope-and-change transparency to Washington. Five years later, those vows are in shambles. True, the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, has become a mess of partisan bickering, but the disturbing facts now transcend politics. The Obama administration — the president himself, Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney — all at various times blamed an obscure video maker for the “spontaneous violence” that killed Americans last September. The problem is not just that such scapegoating was untrue, but that our officials knew it was untrue when they said it — given both prior CIA talking-point briefings and phone calls from those on the ground during the attacks. One theme ties all the bizarre aspects of the Benghazi scandal together — the doctored talking points, the inexplicable failure to beef up diplomatic security before the attacks and to send in help during the fighting, the jailing of a petty con artist on the false charge that his amateur video had led to attacks on our consulate, and the shabby treatment of nonpartisan State Department whistleblowers. There was an overarching pre-election desire last year to downplay any notion that al Qaeda remained a serious danger after the much-ballyhooed killing of Osama bin Laden. Likewise, Libya was not supposed to be a radical Islamic mess after the successful “lead from behind” ouster of Moammar Gadhafi. Facts then had to change to fit a campaign narrative. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/17/the-end-of-hope-and-change/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 17, 2013 Author Share Posted May 17, 2013 A staggering abuse of power - Rand Paul When I filibustered over domestic drone use, critics said that I was being ridiculous. They said that no American had been killed by a drone on American soil and that no one was likely to be anytime soon. President Obama responded that he hadn’t killed anyone yet and didn’t intend to — but he might. That wasn’t the point. The filibuster was about the limits of power. It was about how much authority the president imagined he had. Lincoln wrote that nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power. SEE RELATED: Tea party groups join with GOP in IRS protest on Hill I think Mr. Obama has failed that test of power. From the cover-up in Benghazi to letting the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) target the Tea Party to First and Fourth Amendment violations in obtaining records from the press, Mr. Obama has shown disregard for the Bill of Rights and his responsibilities as commander in chief. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/a-staggering-abuse-of-power/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted May 18, 2013 Author Share Posted May 18, 2013 THE LOSS OF TRUST - George Will WASHINGTON — Leaving aside the seriousness of lawlessness, and the corruption of our civic culture by the professionally pious, this past week has been amusing. There was the spectacle of advocates of an ever-larger regulatory government expressing shock about such government’s large capacity for misbehavior. And, entertainingly, the answer to the question “Will Barack Obama’s scandals derail his second-term agenda?” was a question: What agenda? The scandals are interlocking and overlapping in ways that drain his authority. Everything he advocates requires Americans to lavish on government something his administration, and big government generally, undermines — trust. Liberalism’s agenda has been constant since long before liberals, having given their name a bad name, stopped calling themselves liberals and resumed calling themselves progressives, which they will call themselves until they finish giving that name a bad name. The agenda always is: Concentrate more power in Washington, more Washington power in the executive branch and more executive power in agencies run by experts. Then trust the experts to be disinterested and prudent with their myriad intrusions into, and minute regulations of, Americans’ lives. Obama’s presidency may yet be, on balance, a net plus for the public good if it shatters American’s trust in the regulatory state’s motives. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/16/the-loss-of-trust/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrWoodchuck Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 H/T:iOTW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now