Category Archives: Barack Obama

UPDATE II: A Miracle @ MSNBC: Matthews Emerges, For A Moment, From BHO Delirium (Lois Lerner’s Dream Job)

Barack Obama, Ethics, Government, Journalism, Media, Politics, Taxation

This is historic in the annals of the corrupt MSNBC. “Chris Matthews—a proxy for this president, who cloaks himself in the raiment of a newsman”—has for the first time come out swinging (in as much as a co-opted “girlie-boy” can speak truth to power) against what is SOP (standard operating procedure) at the IRS, an agency of thieves and extortionists.

Matthews, naturally, still frames the Obama administration’s conduct as a mere strategic mishap, urging an administration he has spent lauding uncritically for the past 5 year that, “When in doubt, get it out.”

Here’s MSNBC’s much appreciated if higgledy-piggledy transcripts:

>>> start tonight with this. There are two ways to look at this IRS scandal. One is to blame it on the bureaucrats. The other is to blame it on the white house. Someone through mind control perhaps somehow got a line into that Cincinnati office. I’m inclined to buy the first perspective. I see why millions of people might think it’s all the work of Obama. Why? That tired old government game of ducking and covering. First denying. Then a bit of information. Then some more until finally the press pummels you into telling the straight story. Why did the Obama white house not get on the top of this story in the beginning? Why didn’t the chief of staff tell the president what the report was going to say? Get the president in front of a lectern turn and tell us what happened before anyone else did. Why didn’t the president himself lead the public demand for cleaning up that office in Cincinnati? Why didn’t the president’s team react the way a smart political operation should? Seizing the reins of this galloping story. The first rule to follow in these cases, when in doubt, gets it out. Why didn’t the president answer immediately to his clients, the American people? They have a right to know what’s happening in the American government. Why didn’t the president tell them? And why is the person who ran that operation in Cincinnati, the one running this whole thing, why is she taking the Fifth Amendment? Howard fineman is director at the Huffington post. Steve Schmidt is republican strategist, both msnbc political analysts. Steve, I want to start with you. You’re the kind of mind I’ve come to respect. Strategic mind. Howard has one too, of course. Howard is trying to analyze the news. You run campaigns. When in doubt, put it out. The president had nothing to do with screwing around with whom to give tax free status to out there in the Cincinnati office. Why did he act like he had something to do with it? Why didn’t he just come out and say I’m the prosecutor, I want to get to the bottom of this?

>> Well, they’re trying to keep the president distanced from it. Republicans are obviously trying to implicate the president in it. Even though there’s any — there’s a lack of evidence that he is implicated in it. But that whenever something like this happens, when you’re at this stage of it, the administration is trying to gather the facts to communicate to the American people. And they botched it. They’ve handled this about as badly as they possibly could. And whether they’re innocent or guilty, they’re doing everything they can to make themselves look bad in the eyes of the American people with their response and the shifting storyline. So I think the IRS situation as we understand the facts, it’s a very serious situation. When you have an enforcement agency of the U.S. government bridging the first amendment rights of American citizens. And so we have that, of course, now with the justice department and the leak scandals with the press combining together to form a really troubling narrative for the administration. And they just don’t have their footing on it yet. They’re doing a very poor job of responding to it. And they’re making it worse, not better.

>> It’s like they’re on the police interrogation room with simple wits. Slowly — oh, maybe I was there at the time. Maybe I knew something about it. Everybody should pay attention to this. Let’s look at the heart of the current mess facing the administration. It’s called rolling disclosure. Instead of getting ahead of that IRS story, they’ve taken a bumbling and piecemeal approach explaining what they knew and when they knew it. Let’s look at the timeline. May 10th. Not so long ago. IRS official Lois Lerner reveals the agency had inappropriately scrutinized conservative groups. President Obama says he learned about the issue from news reports on that very day. White house press secretary jay carney sidesteps questions about the administration’s prior knowledge telling the press corps I learned about it today. May 13th. Three days later. Carney says the white house was actually first told about the investigation of the matter sometime during the week of April 22nd. What were they told? They were informed the inspector general was finishing a review but that’s all they were informed. Turns out that wasn’t true either. This Monday carney said that white house officials were actually told key details about the IG report. That it focused on the improper targets of 501-c4 organizations that had tea party and patriot in their names. We learned the chief of staff had been briefed by white house counselor a month ago but chose not to tell the president. Other senior staffers were briefed as well. And the timeline gets pushed back even further. Carney now says the white house was actually told of the IG report on April 16th, not April 24th. That brings us to yesterday. It turns out officials at the white house not only knew about the IG findings, they discussed with treasury officials in April when the information must be made public. Carney said I answered the questions that were asked of me. In other words, the questions weren’t precise enough to get the full truth from jay. Howard, you come in the white house. You have been here before. This rolling disclosure sends a big signal they know more than they’ve told us as of now. All these days they’ve been telling us more. There’s more coming. And they’re telling us at their convenience. You got to wonder why they didn’t blow it out day one.

>> That was an interesting chronology, Chris. Even that is — there’s more to that that came out in the house hearings today. Because there were earlier investigations. There was an internal investigation within the IRS that they started themselves long ago last year. And they came sort of to the same conclusion last may just as the inspector general was starting up his own investigation. so the notion that this was not widely known, at least within the IRS and probably within the treasury, that they had a problem and that the conservatives and tea party people were right to be complaining in 2010 and 2011 and 2012. They were right. It’s hard to believe that the echo of that didn’t somehow reach the ears of some people in the white house. Not that they instigated it. But they made a fateful decision to stay away from it and not shut it down. They didn’t shut it down. And their argument is, you don’t mess with the IRS. I talked to a top Obama person today who said, look, I’m not so stupid that I’m going to mess around with the IRS. Maybe that’s true then. But the moment that Lois Lerner said on May 10th that we done wrong, the president shouldn’t have waited another instant. He should have fired everybody. He could have gotten his hands on. He should have been the —

>> I think he should have been the chief prosecutor in this case. Steve Schmitt, would you advise the president if you were chief of staff, Mr. President, you’ve got little time. You better get out in front, or else Mr. Issa is going to get out in front. How about this, Mr. President? You be the good guy. You blow the story.

>> It’s inexplicable why they didn’t do it. There’s has to be an awareness that Barack Obama was elected on the presidency on the premise that he was going to restore faith in politics.

>> Transparency.

>> The themes of hope and change. This is so dissident. Of course he had to do what Howard said. Clean house and fire everybody who was tangentially involved in this, knew about it. It’s too late now. Now, that’s ultimately going to happen. But I suspect it’s going to happen after there’s been a fair amount of political damage done to the administration.

>> You know, I like a lot of what Obama’s trying to do. I hope he gets a big immigration bill that really works. I think the health care thing has got to work. There’s a lot of things that are important to this country regardless of what happens here on this story. I got to ask the simple question myself all the time when I sit here at this desk. Suppose it was the other way around. Suppose w. was still president and they were picking off every progressive group and screwing them around on the tax policy. And the president was saying, I’ll get to that. We learned a little more today. We heard a little more. They were dribbling out. I’d say, wait a minute. These guys had something to do with it. I would immediately think guys around w. in the white house had something to do with the IRS. Most people think like that.

>> Of course. But let’s do what Steve did which is hold the president to his own standards. Forget about George w. bush. I think Steve’s right about the brand. About the Obama brand. And that’s what’s at risk right here.

>> The transparency.

>> Yes. That’s why he should have been more aggressive a few weeks ago. We all know how this works. I’m sure that there were echoes of this thing rattling around from the IRS like — like noise from a barrel somewhere during the fall campaign. They didn’t want this — somebody didn’t want this coming out. Even maybe the IRS people were smart enough politically to say, let’s not put this out now. I’m not blaming the white house for that. Okay. Things happen during the midst of a campaign in an administration that administrations don’t want to have got out. Okay? That’s happened from the beginning of time. But if you’re president, what you do after you’ve won is you say, I was shocked — I’m shocked.

>> Yeah.

>> I’m shocked to find that out. I’m going to get rid of —

>> okay. The only thing is, I don’t believe — I’m a little different than you. I don’t see, Steve, how anybody in the white house would have the brass to call up somebody in the IRS in Cincinnati and say we want you to put the fix in.

>> I’m not saying that.

>> If that didn’t happen, I don’t think it did, why doesn’t the president play prosecutor here? My same question. Why doesn’t is president come in like a prosecutor. Start putting people on administrative leave. Start promising to do what you can. Give civil service rights to remove people who made the decisions. Be the leader. I go back to Reagan. The minute he fired those guys for break z their oaths not to go on strike, the minute he did that, they heard that all around the world. God, this guy’s president. This guy’s a leader. What’s wrong with being a leader?

>> George Schultz always said that was the most important foreign policy decision Ronald Reagan ever made. People understood immediately he did what he said he was going to — that he did what he said he was going to do. Look, in this instance, the president had it within his ability to come out and to say, this is what we know. This is what we’re going to find out. This is who we know is involved right now. We’re going to hold them accountable immediately. And we’re going to get to the bottom of this. To make very clear that dissent is as American as apple pie. That his political opponents are not his enemies. And that his political opponents, people who profoundly disagree with him, have a constitutionally protected right to do so. And as commander in chief, as president of the United States, he is first in line to defend it. And that’s what he should have done. And the slow roll of information, the evolving story that comes out every day, it hasn’t impacted his approval numbers yet. But we’re still very, very early in this. This is trending in a bad way. Because a lot of these situations, a lot of these scandals are puffed up. They’re overblown. It’s not a big deal. But the overreach of the justice department with members of the press, the overreach of the IRS here with these other groups, it’s profoundly disturbing.

>> I think your dog thinks you’re overreaching right there, by the way, Steve. That last line. I’m telling you one thing. This could be a time of shining opportunity for this president. The unemployment rate is coming down. The stock market’s going up. The deficit is coming down. This could be a time for him to come into bloom. And to really fight for things important like immigration reform. Instead, we’re playing defense instead of offense. He should have been on offense. It’s so easy; I got to say I wonder. I just wonder. Howard fineman, thank you. Steve Schmidt. Great to have your strategic thinks.

>>> What happened in the Cincinnati IRS? We are going into the bowels of that office and talk about what happened to screw that up. Who directed those workers to target their enemies? What happened? We’ve got really good reporters coming up. also experts who ran that lonely IRS outpost that has given us so much trouble.

UPDATE: Robert, this is progress for the man from the “Lean Forward” network. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” spent the first two years of the Obama presidency in a state of delirium bordering on the sexual. Famous for experiencing something akin to a (daytime) nocturnal emission during Obama’s coronation — “thrill up the leg” Matthews called the incident — Chris later begged Barack to be his ‘Enforcer.’ Chris is well-known for his carnal affections for Barack Obama…”

(From “Beware Of Wolves In Bipartisan Clothing.”)

UPDATE II (5/22): For her “troubles,” Lois Lerner got what in the oink sector is, no doubt, considered a dream job. She’s been placed on administrative leave.

Join the conversation on my Facebook Page.

From Sexting To Snooping In Surveillance-State USA

Barack Obama, Intelligence, Journalism, Law, Technology, The State

“From Sexting To Snooping In Surveillance-State USA” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“…A pesky detail has eluded all those invincibly stupid special interests who’re piping up for the privacy of the press, as opposed to fighting for the privacy of all Americans.

Have the various tele-lawyers, the director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and protesting members of the House Judiciary Committee forgotten the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, whose provisions were extended until December 31, 2017, by the people’s representatives?

There is nothing new about warrantless wiretapping—other than that the American people haven’t been particularly exercised about them. They’ve trusted Uncle Sam to go about this activity judiciously.

Peeping Sam had promised, after all, that covert surveillance would never be executed against ‘United States persons.’ Were a “United States person” to fall under suspicion, he or she would not be subjected to surveillance without ‘judicial and congressional oversight,’ puled the same perverts. …

…The incontinent coverage of the AP outrage has a delusional quality. Contra those whose job it is to feign indignation on TV—America is not a free country. Media convulsions notwithstanding, the government is reading over your shoulder—has been doing so for some time. It can spy on Americans without breaking the law.

It is perfectly permissible for the state to monitor you, me or The Other Guy, without a ‘perfunctory nod to due process and legal restraint.’ In other words, without a court order. …”

Read the complete column, “From Sexting To Snooping In Surveillance-State USA,” now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

At the WND Comments Section, and on Facebook.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason.”

Blah, Blah, Blah Benghazi

Barack Obama, Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq

“On the atrocity scale,” I wrote on 11.19.12 “Bush’s badness dwarfed Benghazi-gate.” Any one with a moral compass and a cerebral cortex recognizes that, as scandalous as it is, Benghazi is small scale compared to the immoral, fraudulent invasion of Iraq, and the cost in blood and treasure George W. Bush wrought with that one.

It would be an entirely different matter if Republicans had the intellectual moxie to examine the human toll, for decades to come, of Obama’s “murder by multilateralism” in Libya. For that was what the invasion of Libya amounted to.

But they don’t. To the Republicans, Benghazi-gate amounts to no more that a “procedural mishap.” Namely, finding out “what happened? How did it happen? Who covered it up? And, above all, how do we return to doing what we did before IT happened. ‘IT’ being the Sept. 11 attack on the embassy in Libya that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and ‘three other,’ mostly faceless Americans dead.”

In any event, ABC homes in on the meat of the scandal, tracing it directly to the Obama administration:

…ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. …

The bare-bones of Benghazi is laid out by STEPHEN F. HAYES of the neoconservative Weekly Standard:

….Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.
Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy?—?al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.
The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”
In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA. …

MORE.

As the always outspoken and interesting Michael Scheuer put it, not so long ago, “Barack Obama is a despicable man.”

Indeed. On par with George Bush.

A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma

America, Ancient History, Barack Obama, Bush, Ethics, History, Islam

“A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

… While dhimmis contemplate what to do with the decaying corpse of a Muslim mass murderer, consider what General Sir Charles James Napier counseled about the valiant defense of Western values. The general (on an admittedly imperial mission to India) was confronted with the local Hindu practice of Sati, “the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband.”

When “Hindu priests complained to him,” as Wikipedia tells it, “about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities,” Napier replied:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

In the West, we do not dispose of the dead on open-air funeral pyres, as is still done in India, Bali, south of Indonesia, and Nepal. But we do cremate. Cremating Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s remains is commensurate with what ought to be American values: It conserves resources and leaves (almost) nothing behind.

Incinerate Tsarnaev’s corpse. It’s the moral thing to do.

It matters not that “Islam strictly forbids cremation.” True Christians and Jews forbid the murder of innocents. Those are the values that trump Islam.

Besides, Islam is a highly derivative (and distorted) belief system. Tamerlan believed that “the Bible was a cheap copy of the Koran.” However confused Muslims like him are about historical chronology, they do claim to accept the Ten Commandments, bequeathed in the Hebrew Bible’s Exodus and Deuteronomy, centuries before Muhammad. If so, the Sixth Commandment is unequivocally clear: “Thou shalt not kill.”

He who kills innocents has forfeited his right to religious burial rites—especially if these are to be administered by the killer’s victims. …”

The compete column is, “A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

At the WND Comments Section, and on Facebook.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason.”