Banner ad

Friday, May 24, 2013

Cruising the Web

So Holder was the one who signed off on the warrant for James Rosen's records and labeling him as a "possible co-conspirator." How many more has he signed off on? He can't remember. So it makes perfect sense for Obama to put Holder in charge of an effort to review guidelines for leak investigations. It is quite clear that Holder has gone against what the Supreme Court has consistently ruled about prosecuting journalists for publishing leaks about illegally obtained information. The Espionage Act has never been enforced against journalists. Yet that is what Eric Holder signed off on. Did Obama even talk to Holder about what went on with the Rosen warrant before asking him to revamp these guidelines? Holder was already violating current DOJ guidelines on a narrow warrant to track down leaks.

How very un-Sweden-like. The Swedish have spent the past five nights seeing riots break out in immigrant nieghborhoods as people set fire to cars.

Conn Carroll writes: "Obama has droned more Americans than Bush waterboarded terrorists." Ha!

The Obama campaign began in 2008 to try to sic the government on opposition groups.

So what did Obama really announce yesterday that he would replace "nothing with nothing.
Yup. That about sums it up.

He is claiming victory but everyone knows that the War on Terror is not over. Even Obama, as John Podhoretz writes,
But this highlights a logical contradiction at the core of the speech. In the end, the use of drones as an anti-terror tool is only legal because of the Authorization to Use Military Force — the very thing Obama wants repealed.

That doesn’t make sense.

Indeed, in the end, this nearly 7,000-word speech failed to achieve the balance he wanted between Obama the 2008 Dove and Obama the 2012 Hawk. He can’t write the War on Terror out of existence while reserving to himself the right to go on fighting terrorists with the tools he is only permitted to use because that war exists.

Obama tries to blame the Republicans for his inability to close Gitmo, but that ignores the opposition he has had in the Democratic Party to his efforts.

The IRS story becomes even more disturbing. Now we find out that they were also targeting parents who adopt children. Why would that be a group that the IRS wanted to single out? David French, an adoptive parent, has a post describing what one family went through to comply with the IRS audit.

As Jonah Goldberg writes, don't forget that the First Amendment also preserves our freedom of religion, assembly, and petitioning the government.
The IRS scandal and the DOJ’s assault on the press may be two separate issues, but they are both about the First Amendment. The groups the IRS discriminated against wanted to exert their First Amendment rights to assemble, to petition government, and to speak freely. Then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi dubbed angry voters at local town-hall meetings “un-American.”

Some Americans wanted to exercise their religious conscience. (James Madison, author of the First Amendment, said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”) The IRS told one pro-life group in Iowa that it had to promise — on pain of perjury — not to protest Planned Parenthood. That is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment as disgusting as anything aimed at the AP or Fox News.

By all means, journalists should be outraged by the president’s attitude toward the press. But if you’re going to call yourself a defender of the First Amendment, please defend the whole thing and not just the parts you make a living from.

Scott Johnson publishes an interesting letter from a long-time IRS investigator about a part of the law regulating the IRS that may well have been violated by the IRS scandal.

It's to the point that one could think that this satire is actually true.
In a dramatic departure from existing White House procedures, President Obama requested today that his staff start cc’ing him on stuff.

“Look, I know a lot of you think I’m really busy and you don’t want to bother me,” the President reportedly told his staff in an Oval Office meeting. “But cc me anyway. It’s good for me to keep up on what’s going on around here.”

“It’s not good when I turn on the news and they’re talking about something at the White House and I’m like, whoa, when did that happen?” Mr. Obama added. “I think cc’ing me would go a long way toward fixing that.”
This is a rather embarrassing revelation about what a young JFK thought of Hitler before WWII.

Jay Leno is playing equal time in ridiculing President Obama. That's a real switch from the late-night comics.

4 comments:

elkh1 said...

"Did Obama even talk to Holder about what went on with the Rosen warrant before asking him to revamp these guidelines?"

Yes, Holder is uniquely qualified to incorporate what Holder did in the new guidelines, to make what he did retroactively valid. No guidelines broken, no scandals.

Brilliant, yes?

elkh1 said...

"Now we find out that they were also targeting parents who adopt children. Why would that be a group that the IRS wanted to single out?"

Because without the adoptive parents, the babies would be pro-choiced out. The IRS is doing Planned Parenthood's bidding. They would rather give a pass to Gosnell than the pesky parents.

Gahrie said...

The JFK thing isn't actually all that embarassing, if you acknowledge the histotrical truth....prior to say 1939 or so, Hitler was very popular with the Left, and the intelligencia (where they weren't the same thing).

Ron K said...

"So what did Obama really announce yesterday that he would replace "nothing with nothing.
Yup. That about sums it up."

it seems Obama is on a crusade to vindicate old leaders, first Carter, then Nixon and now Chamberlain