About This Blog
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder, who has at least twice given false testimony under oath to Congress (Fast And Furious, AP reporter scandal), described his Justice Department's collection of reporters phone records as being "a little out of whack". Holder said he was "a little concerned" that an investigative reporter, James Rosen of Fox News, was named as an "aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator" in crime just for doing his job. Holder's little concern for freedom of the press, however, did not prevent Holder from signing off on an affadavit naming Rosen as a possible criminal in order to obtain a secret warrant for his phone records. In fact, Holder was so little concerned with Rosen's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights that he shopped his Rosen secret warrant application around the courts until he found a judge who would agree to it. After two judges denied Holder's request for secrecy, a third compliant judge okayed it. Holder's actions regarding Rosen were revealed shortly after Holder told congressional investigators, "In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.“
President Obama said he still has confidence in Holder, despite the fact that Holder seemingly lies to Congress whenever it suits his purposes. If Holder does leave his post as Attorney General, perhaps he will become Obama's next Press Secretary or something. After all, Obama did name Susan Rice, who infamously misled the American people about Benghazi, as his next National Security Advisor. I'm wondering if putting forth falsehoods to cover the Obama regime's back, rather than being seen as disgraceful behavior, puts a faithful underling on the fast track for promotion in the administration's highly politicized world.To read more or comment...
As witness after witness misleads, lies to, and stonewalls congressional investigations into Obama administration scandals, I can't escape the feeling that we are witnessing the second coming of Richard Nixon, with all the inglorious Watergate-era trappings. The myth of "Hope And Change" is long gone. President Obama's claim to head "the most transparent administration in history," has been reduced to a cruel irony. It has been replaced by a series of thin denials, doubletalk, and coverups, which are proving to be ever more specious practically by the day. We have people being persecuted by the IRS for their political beliefs, investigative reporters being threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs, and investigations into the deaths of four American patriots in Benghazi being called a political witchhunt, as if the deaths themselves, and the failures leading to them, are meaningless. Is this America ? In the words of Sarah Palin, you betcha.
I remember how disillusioning it was for me as a young man watching the Watergate hearings back in the 70's. I had never been a Nixon fan, but the Watergate proceedings were when it first hit home to me that the government is a dangerous master which must be limited and controlled to the greatest extent possible. That's when I first truly understood the words, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's when I first started trending toward becoming an advocate of limited government, as intended by our wise founding fathers. I have seen nothing in the intervening years to convince me otherwise. If I have learned anything about politics, it is this - any power given to the government will be abused by the government. The more power the government acquires, the worse the abuse will be. This has been proven true not only here in America, but all over the world and all throughout history. Thomas Jefferson, who was likely the first man to advocate the ideal of individual liberty in newly-born America, described it as his life's work "to see the standard of reason at length erected after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles." There are various entities with the potential to enslave the people, but the government is chief among these. The government can take away your money. The government can take away your voice. The government can take away your liberty. The government can do all these things because the government is backed by force. The only thing that can stop the government is "we the people", and judging from recent elections, a good number of "we the people" seem more interested in directing the public treasury into our own pockets than in maintaining independence and integrity. The inevitable result of this attitude is more corruption and an ever-weakening republic.To read more or comment...
Before I leave town and change my name to avoid an IRS audit, I thought I'd leave you with some topical political humor:
"This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Watergate hearings. For those of you too young to remember, back then the administration had an enemies list. They were spying on reporters, and they used the IRS to harass groups they didn't like. Thank God those days are gone forever." –Jay LenoTo read more or comment...
With three scandals (Benghazi, IRS targeting, Justice seizure of AP reporters phone records) swirling around the Obama administration, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, went into full denial mode:
“I dismiss the premise, the idea that these are scandals,” Carney said flatly.To read more or comment...
When the Fast And Furious gunwalking scandal broke, following the deaths of border agent Brian Terry and a few hundred Mexicans, President Obama said he didn't know anything about it. Attorney General Eric Holder said he didn't know anything about it either, even though records proved that Holder's immediate underlings at Justice knew about it. Subsequently, it was discovered that Holder lied to Congress about his knowledge of Fast And Furious (in spite of that, he is STILL Obama's Attorney General. Go figure).
When the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed of references to an al-Qaeda affiliated group being behind the attack, and also scrubbed of the CIA's warnings about a coming attack at Benghazi, President Obama said he had nothing to do with it. He didn't know anything about it, even though the talking points were changed 12 times, and even though CIA chief David Petraeus said the altered talking points were "essentially useless" and were the White House's call. Obama also claimed to know nothing about requests for increased security at Benghazi being denied.To read more or comment...
- 2013 (62)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)