Obama #IRS #DOJ #Benghazi Publicity Stunt Tonight: Most Transparent President Ever – We See Right Through Him

Update III: Obama should be asked about what we wrote in Update II at tomorrow’s Turkish PM presser. Obama’s lies today about firing the temp while the temp says he is leaving as scheduled should be an issue.

Also today there is really one question that requires an answer as to the Benghazi document dump: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails:

“…Why do the e-mails start on September 14? There’d been three days of government verbiage, some of it blaming the Mohammed video, before this. When do we get those e-mails?

Released emails may be read HERE. Special prosecutors needed, select committees needed. Sharpen the Guillotine!


Update II: Holy cow! Did Obama also lie about firing the temp? The temp says he was leaving in June anyway and stays on the job until then:

“In a hastily called press conference in the East Room of the White House, Obama told reporters that he had asked Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to find out who was responsible for a program that targeted tea party groups and other conservative organizations for a special level of intrusive questioning after they applied for tax-exempt charitable statuses.

‘Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting director of the IRS,’ Obama said.

‘It’s important,’ he added, ‘to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.’

But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.

‘It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June,’ Miller wrote.”


Update: Big News Breaking: Obama fires a temp at the IRS. But… One scrawny sacrificial lamb won’t be enough for the hungry lions. Anyone seen tax cheat Tim Geithner lately? Wasn’t he the one in charge of Treasury and IRS?

Tonight’s publicity stunt was an attempt to say “we have an investigation going so I can’t answer any more questions.” Most importantly this is to prevent something Obama fears – a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor means the Mud House, er, White House aides lawyering up and giving each other the skunk eye and squealing like pigs to prosecutors. Skunks and pigs can make a mess in a house.

Tonight’s big Obama publicity stunt is an attempt to shore up support by generating headlines in tomorrow’s papers and getting his say in the evening news shows. But it is not nearly enough. Tonight’s publicity stunt by Obama was just more Obambi Oblah-blah:


Open thread: Obama to address IRS scandal at 6 p.m. ET. He’s already late. Obama wants to be on the evening news to lie to Americans in prime time.

We’ll have updates. Earlier there was a Benghazi news dump of emails. It’s kinda sad that Obama is using Benghazi to change the conversation from the only topic Big Media is interested in. Big Media cares most about the snooping into Big Media phone records.


80 thoughts on “Obama #IRS #DOJ #Benghazi Publicity Stunt Tonight: Most Transparent President Ever – We See Right Through Him

  1. It does not look to me like Holders appearance before congress, or his hissy fit was a social or political success. Not only AP and the Republicans find his actions to be eggregious, even when he tries to pass the buck to his subordinate. The ACLU, a bastion of the hard left deplores his actions.

    ‘The First Amendment is first for a reason,’ Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, told MailOnline.

    ‘If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.’
    Outraged: AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt, pictured, said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation

    Outraged: AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt, pictured, said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation

    A spokesman for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the move is representative of a broader ‘pattern of intimidation.’

    ‘Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration,’ Doug Heye said.

    The American Civil Liberties Union was equally critical.

    ‘Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power,’ said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. ‘Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources.’

    AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation.

    He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

    ‘There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,’ Pruitt wrote in a letter of protest to Holder.

    ‘These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324501/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-defends-deputys-decision-secretly-obtain-journalists-phone-records-saying-searching-leak.html#ixzz2TP4trQGV
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  2. Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals — will buck ever stop with Obama?

    Doug Shoen

    The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday’s press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

    In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?”

    That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

    What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

    Benghazi may not be “Obama’s Watergate,” as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

    On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

    The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

    But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

    We have Attorney General Eric Holder — he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president’s first term — revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.”

    The bipartisan response to Monday’s disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner’s office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

    Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he’s “outraged” — but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

    But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency’s targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread.

    Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

    Again, who’s in charge here?

    And finally there’s what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi:

    On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice’s talking points — we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit — even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.

    This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions. The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover, their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

    What’s next?

    Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

    Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

    Perhaps it’s time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law — clean house if and when necessary — and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/14/benghazi-irs-ap-scandals-will-buck-ever-stop-with-obama/#ixzz2TP8fFnH6

  3. Update: Big News Breaking: Obama fires a temp at the IRS. But… One scrawny sacrificial lamb won’t be enough for the hungry lions. Anyone seen tax cheat Tim Geithner lately? Wasn’t he the one in charge of Treasury and IRS?

    Tonight’s publicity stunt was an attempt to say “we have an investigation going so I can’t answer any more questions.” Most importantly this is to prevent something Obama fears – a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor means the Mud House, er, White House aides lawyering up and giving each other the skunk eye and squealing like pigs to prosecutors. Skunks and pigs can make a mess in a house.

    Tonight’s big Obama publicity stunt is an attempt to shore up support by generating headlines in tomorrow’s papers and getting his say in the evening news shows. But it is not nearly enough. Tonight’s publicity stunt by Obama was just more Obambi Oblah-blah:


  4. foxyladi14
    May 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm


    foxy…good clip…if anyone can capture tonight’s hardball…I will credit matthews for picking up where he left off this am…he is revved…it is funny to even hear him say something like (paraphase) ‘I don’t care if they don’t love me’…

    CM can’t be trusted but when he gets going without taking a breath and O is his target…it is worth taking a look…


    wbboei…good article from Goodwin…better late than never..

  5. Holy Smokes Admin, you are really crankin’ out the new threads and posts! I am lovin’ it, still reading on the last thread and this Friday, instead of being a day of….


    it’s like DC has caught on fire and I don’t even have time to make popcorn.

    Back to reading.

    You are on fire Admin, thank God for you! 😉

  6. “What the IRS did is an outrage! Show outrage. Oh, wait a second, I’m not supposed to read that.”

    – Barack Obama

  7. Drudge is working overtime like Admin
    so much unraveling at same time
    Yes. And yes. Most nights I’m perched in front of tee vee during the dinner hour. But this nite was different after I picked up on Obama’s expected presser and that it would be soon. I hi-tailed to Big Pink/Facebook/Twitter mode.
    Thanks be.

  8. Reports: IRS Spared Liberal Groups as Tea Party Languished, More Conservative Orgs Targeted Than First Thought (500+)


    These burdensome requests were apparently designed to bury the victimized groups in paperwork. Carol reported last night that some 58 percent of these applicants were asked for unnecessary information and data, according to the Inspector General’s review. Some inquiries asked for screenshots of organizations’ Facebook posts and even lists of what books (!) its members were reading.


    I wanna join a class action lawsuit against the IRS…the sooner the better.

    Bonar finally is growing some coconuts, he said he wants to know who is going to JAIL over this. I would settle for Barry resigning.

  9. Hold ‘um

    I picked up on Obama’s expected presser and that it would be soon. I hi-tailed to Big Pink/Facebook/Twitter mode.

    Good for you, screw the housework. It will always be there until the cows come home. 😉

  10. Update II: Holy cow! Did Obama also lie about firing the temp? The temp says he was leaving in June anyway and stays on the job until then:

    “In a hastily called press conference in the East Room of the White House, Obama told reporters that he had asked Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to find out who was responsible for a program that targeted tea party groups and other conservative organizations for a special level of intrusive questioning after they applied for tax-exempt charitable statuses.

    ‘Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting director of the IRS,’ Obama said.

    ‘It’s important,’ he added, ‘to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.’

    But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.

    ‘It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June,’ Miller wrote.”


  11. And just who released the info that the press had there phone records spied on? I understand the DOJ sent a letter to the AP to tell them!!!! The press had to be told so they would know enmass to toe the line. One can not be intimidated unless you are afraid! So I expect the obsequious press to pretend outrage and then put their well worn knee pads on and proceed as before!
    What good is information of this nature if you don’t tell them you have it? All the better to intimidate them with!

  12. When he was first challenged on Benghazi, Obama showed House Republicans a handful of documents pointing the finger at Hillary.

    Now he is releasing 100 pages of emails, and Bill Jacobsen suggests that he may be attempting to implicate the CIA in the changing talking points.

    One can only wonder how Langley will react to that–and what they are holding on them.

    Maxine Waters claims Obama has information on ever US citizen. Perhaps.

    But I would be willing to bet that whatever he has on the American People is nothing compared to what they have on him, or could simply conjure up.

    If they get the idea that he is sticking the turd in their pocket, it stands to reason that they will get even.

    I make certain assumptions here. But the law of probability suggests this is not only possible but rather likely.

  13. alibe
    May 15, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    Wow! did I miss that one. That is critical. Great point! If it is correct, then it will only add to the sense of outrage by the press.

  14. alibe
    May 15, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    Again, if that is true, then it would come close to blackmail, would it not?

  15. Bonar finally is growing some coconuts, he said he wants to know who is going to JAIL over this. I would settle for Barry resigning.

  16. Obama should have appointed Mullen and Pickering to investigate the Justice Department surveillance of the AP.

    It is like the old joke about actuaries:

    Q: what is 2 +2?

    A: whatever you want it to be.

  17. Update III: Obama should be asked about what we wrote in Update II at tomorrow’s Turkish PM presser. Obama’s lies today about firing the temp while the temp says he is leaving as scheduled should be an issue.

    Also today there is really one question that requires an answer as to the Benghazi document dump: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails:

    “…Why do the e-mails start on September 14? There’d been three days of government verbiage, some of it blaming the Mohammed video, before this. When do we get those e-mails?

    Released emails may be read HERE. Special prosecutors needed, select committees needed. Sharpen the Guillotine!


  18. Shadowfax
    May 15, 2013 at 7:18 pm
    Drudge is working overtime like Admin…so much unraveling at the same time…

    Actually Drudge is often late, very late. When the Boston terrorists were having their shoot out, Drudge was asleep, didn’t come on line till about 0530, 0600.

    Admin and I were up all night hunting the Bastards down!

  19. Dennis Miller
    about an hour ago
    IRS chief Miller steps down…replaces Holder at DOJ…Holder…steps in for Hillary at State…Hillary now…Press Secretary. Carney TBD.

  20. Skynet on the Potomac

    By: John Hayward | May 15th, 2013 at 03:33 PM | 6

    Obama’s favorite henchman, David Axelrod, deployed the famed Incompetence Defense on behalf of the embattled President during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday. That’s the hot new line from Obama apologists: he’s so incredibly inept that he can’t be held responsible for anything his Administration does. He golfs, he raises money, he takes a lot of vacations… there’s not much time left over for management. He learns about the crazy misadventures of his subordinates by watching TV news, like the rest of us.

    What an amazing transformation! Once upon a time, Barack Obama was the Czar of Czars, the genius super-president better qualified to run any industry than all of its CEOs put together. The diverse wisdom of 300 million Americans was nothing compared to his central planning genius. He knew what kind of energy we really needed, no matter how loudly we clamored for the fuels that work. He knew more about medicine than any doctor. He couldn’t discuss any subject without referring to himself several times per minute. He would transform us into an entirely different nation through his force of will. He didn’t always choose to drink beer, but when he did, he preferred Dos Equis.

    And now, in the space of a week, Obama has been transformed into a clueless turnip who only knows what CNN decides to tell him. He lives in a perpetual state of surprise, able to do nothing but shake his head sadly as each new scandal rips across Washington. He views his own Administration the way Winston Churchill described the Soviet Union: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Within five days of the IRS scandal breaking, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had dubbed him “President Passerby.”

    So along came faithful Axelrod to peddle this new line, on a network noted for routinely hailing Obama as a demigod. He therefore decided to present the Incompetence Defense as inevitable – no one could do Obama’s job well, because it’s just too big. ”When you’re POTUS,” Axelrod argued, “there is so much you don’t know, because the government is so vast.”

    Careful, Dave! That kind of Tea Party talk gets you audited by the IRS.

    Of course, the concept of managerial responsibility rarely assumes the personal involvement of managers in every aspect of the operation. The chief executive of a company doesn’t personally visit every office, or monitor the daily output of every employee. Authority is delegated, while responsibility flows to the top.

    Has the federal government really grown so large as to be unmanageable? Consider the current narrative of rogue IRS agents in several regional offices conspiring to persecute conservative groups due to their own political preferences. Is there anything IRS employees in the tax-exempt organizations unit should be trained more quickly and firmly to avoid doing? The idea that several people could “spontaneously” betray the integrity of the agency’s core mission at the same time is as risible as the idea that they could get away with it for years, right under the noses of their supervisors… who, we have now learned, were cheerfully signing off on a torrent of quickly approved applications for liberal groups. You would think even the most witless of them might have noticed that nothing from a conservative group ever seemed to reach their desks.

    Let’s indulge the “low-level rogue agents” narrative for a moment. It would not be evidence of an agency that grew until it was unmanageable. Any reasonably competent supervisor should have been able to swiftly detect and halt the abuses. Instead, this would be evidence of an agency that had grown into a living organism, gaining the will and capacity to protect its own interests. If they weren’t Obama campaign operatives, why were these “low-level agents” – in several different offices – spontaneously deciding to target Tea Party groups? It would be because they saw those groups as a threat to the Leviathan State that nourishes the Internal Revenue Service. ObamaCare made the IRS larger and more powerful than ever, but these Tea Party types wanted to repeal it. That made them enemies of the State.

    One of the oldest themes in science fiction is the computer system that grows until it becomes self-aware, and turns against its human masters. We’ve got Skynet on the Potomac now: a central government that has become the most powerful special interest in the world, lobbying itself through various appendages to make itself larger. It uses its power to manipulate voters, spending our money to organize political coalitions to protect itself from reform or restraint. It does not respect dissent – it destroys enemies. The media that should be monitoring its excesses has become its voice.

    It’s so huge that it knows individuals, corporations, and even smaller government entities will surrender to it without a fight. It gets something whenever it makes demands – bipartisan “compromise” always ends with Leviathan gaining some weight – so it makes a lot of demands. It grows automatically, year after year. If its growth is slowed, it howls in rage and pain, as though it had been “cut.” If it actually is cut, it bleeds firemen, police officers, and teachers… then grins and dares you to cut it again.

    There’s no way for individuals to influence a huge, remote government in any meaningful way. They must subordinate themselves to disciplined political collectives to get Leviathan’s attention at all. There is no way to escape from it, no behavior it does not regulate or tax. It makes “offers” that cannot be refused. It cannot be held to account for its broken promises. None of its efforts can fail badly enough to be repealed in full.

    The problem is not that the federal government is too big to manage. The problem is that it’s too big to restrain. It has its own interests, and they are so clear that bureaucrats don’t have to be ordered to pursue them. The fantasy of clean, accountable, transparent Big Government was always silly. Obama’s defenders are in the course of dealing it a fatal blow, by arguing that he really is the best man for a job that nobody can possibly do.

  21. OK I know some won’t think it was funny, (Dennis), but it is the fraud shuffle…nothing here, move on…

  22. What do you make of this?

    Holder’s testimony before the committee won’t be limited, however, to talk of the Obama administration’s apparent disregard for niceties like the first amendment. Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, has made it clear that he wants Holder to answer for a menu of other alleged sins. These include the alleged failure of the FBI to share information with Boston police that might have prevented the Boston Marathon bombings;


    Has anyone heard this before, that that the FBI had info on the Boston Bombings?

  23. I wondered why the tea party got so quiet.
    looks like this really impacted the election.
    the fraud needs to be impeached. there is no way he would have won if he had the opposition that was intimidated by the IRS.

  24. The circle of corruption widens. Evidently, it was a bit more than what the administration told us initially, i.e. just low level employees. Not only did the IRS delay applications by conservative groups, but they went much further. They surveilled them AND they gave confidential information which they obtained from such groups to liberal activist groups at or near the time of the election.

    Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups’ Confidential Docs

    by Wynton Hall 14 May 2013 1983

    The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.

    The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

    ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”:

    The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year… In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

    The group says that “no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”

    According to Media Research Center Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor, ProPublica’s financial backers include top progressive donors:

    ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”–“progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

    On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.


  25. VotingHillary
    May 15, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    Thank you for posting this video.

    When you have the full record before you, three things become obvious:

    1. first, Issa owned Holder. Not the reverse.

    2. second, left wing media engaged in selective editing. Their goal was fraudulent, i.e. to make it appear that Holder was the victor.

    3. third, Issa led the committee that placed Holder in contempt of Congress–which is why he was so angry and disruptive.

    It was never believable to me that Holder could own Issa. Issa is much smarter than Holder and smoother.

  26. Brilliant analysis by a brilliant man. He says forget about Hillary and focus on Obama. Prior indications were that the CIA was the target of the new release of emails, whereas it now looks like this was a further attempt to deflect the crisis to Hillary. I hope Hillaryland has a trump card to play here.

    Obamagate: The Focus Is Barack Obama

    by Patrick Caddell 15 May 2013, 9:56 AM PDT 162 post a comment

    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?

    Holder squelched the suggestion of Charles G. LaBella, the leader of the Justice Department anti-corruption task force, to establish an independent counsel to further pursue those cases. LaBella resigned soon thereafter. And for the last four years, Holder has been a similar kind of praetorian guard for this President.

    Yet once again, those who seek to know the full truth about what has happened to America during the Obama years need to keep their eye on the key figure. And that key figure is not Eric Holder, any more than it is Hillary Clinton. Instead, the key figure is Barack Obama.

    As I put it in the sub-headline of Part One, “The Focus Must Be Obama, Not Clinton.” And so now, in Part Two, I will similarly declare, “The Focus Must Be Barack Obama, Not Eric Holder.” Holder may indeed be another John Mitchell; both Holder and Mitchell were older than the presidents they served–and indeed, Holder and Mitchell had been mentors, respectively, to Obama and Nixon in earlier days. By all accounts, Holder has a close relationship with the President; along with Valerie Jarrett he is in the first circle. And so Obama will miss Holder when he is gone. Of course, in his day, Nixon missed Mitchell, too, but that didn’t stop them from parting, as Mitchell went off to jail.

    Yet even if Holder leaves, the problem will stay–because the problem is Obama. As I wrote in Part One, “the ultimate question” is “what did the President know?” And, we might add, when did he know it, and what did he do?

    Those were the key questions of Watergate, and they are now the key question in the many facets of what must be called “Obamagate.”

    So who is Obama? My answer is that his presence in the White House represents the triumph of Chicago politics. The real Obama found his true calling on the streets of Chicago; he might have said the politically correct words from time to time, but for the most part, his career has been characterized by one thing–ambition. And ambition of a hard-edged and ruthless kind; everyone but himself is expendable.

    So the real Obama, is, indeed, a lot like Nixon, hiding his scandals behind the facade of his underlings. Each underling, of course, is a chess piece to be sacrificed as the game might require. Obama, like Nixon before him, has a lot of underlings. Others are starting to see the Nixon-Obama parallelism, too: Yesterday, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith, a journalist who leans left, published a GIF–a tiny animation–showing Obama morphing into Nixon.

    So what is Obamagate? What are its facets? Let’s look at the three main areas in turn:

    First, the Associated Press story. Yes, the AP has been identified as the first victim of the Mitchell-ized Holder Justice Department, but it’s a safe bet that more journalistic victims will be identified. As The New York Times makes clear in its report, the fact that the Justice Department won’t answer queries as to whether or not other media outlets were tapped as well speaks volumes. After all, the Times was digging on the very same story, concerning the identification of a Yemeni plot in Spring 2012, aimed at blowing up US passenger jets.

    Obviously it’s vital that the US Government maintain its counter-terror effectiveness, but it’s equally obvious that the executive branch must work closely with the coequal legislative branch. And that doesn’t seem to have happened at all; that’s why even Sen. Harry Reid, Obama’s leader in the Senate, would not defend the DOJ actions.

    Even more important than Congress, of course, is the law itself. It’s devastatingly obvious that the administration has followed the law… only when it suits them.

    Last spring, myriad leaks sprang from the administration; reporters in several publications were suddenly privileged to learn of the marvelous things the Obama administration had been doing to combat terror through drone strikes, to kill Bin Laden, and to stop Iran’s nuclear program. I believe, and have publicly asserted, that Tom Donilon, the national security adviser at the White House, was responsible for these leaks–the leak campaign totally fits his political modus operandi. And I was not alone in that belief.

    Still, the leak-campaign seemed to going well for the Obama’s re-election campaign–every day the voters were being reminded that we had strong, effective, and resolute commander-in-chief. But then Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and others pointed out that all these leaks of classified information were endangering American lives and, in fact, undermining the effectiveness of the programs being trumpeted.

    Confronted with a backlash against the leak-campaign, Obama called upon–you guessed it–Eric Holder to lead an “investigation” of the leaks. Predictably, nothing much happened with that investigation–at least not before the election.

    Now we are learning, of course, that the Justice Department was investigating. But Justice wasn’t investigating, say, Donilon; it was instead investigating the AP. How ‘bout that? Don’t investigate the people dispensing the classified information; instead, investigate those who were receiving it. And the focus of the investigation, it appears, is not Stuxnet or the drones, but rather, the attempted plane-bombing from Yemen.

    Indeed, as Fox News pointed out on Tuesday night, John Brennan–then the White House homeland security adviser, now Director of the CIA–was busily briefing reporters on the Yemen success.

    In other words, the Obama administration was investigating reporters for digging on the Yemen matter, even as the Obama administration was busy taking credit for the Yemen matter. And they said Nixon was tricky.

    Now that’s Nixonian.

    Second, the IRS story. The revelation that the IRS has been malevolently targeting conservative groups violates the basic social contract of the country–that we are all treated equally, before the law, and before the tax collectors. Meanwhile The Washington Post reports that the investigation of conservative groups was spread across the agency. It wasn’t just a few bad apples in Cincinnati; Cincinnati is the hub of all these tax-status adjudications, and the work was shared with other offices in two locations in California and the headquarters in D.C. That’s, at least, what we know so far. (Even Jon Stewart can’t defend the Obama administration on this one.)

    No doubt more is coming; on Tuesday, the left-leaning investigative group Pro Publica reported that it had been offered confidential tax documents for 31 different conservative groups.

    Its seems likely that the IRS knew exactly what it was doing in aiming at the right; it was carrying out the clear wishes from the top of the executive branch. And the proof is in the disparate impact of the IRS investigations. It was groups with “Tea Party” and “Constitution” that were being investigated, not groups with “Green” or “Progressive.”

    And while some might stubbornly insist that somehow this disparate impact was just a coincidence, the Obama administration itself argues that disparate impact, which is a legal term of art, is proof of discrimination. According to Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, the numbers themselves prove the case; that is, if the numbers on, say, jobs or contracts show that one group or another is getting less, well, then, case closed.

    Yes, Holder & Co. have been pursuing a radical doctrine of numerically presumed guilt on discrimination cases, but who has time to worry about that now, amidst all these other scandals. We can simply say that the disparate impact of the IRS actions clearly shows a discriminatory effect on right-of-center groups.

    Yet even as the Obamans pursue their doctrinaire numbers game, we can still think back to instances where they seem to have gone out of their way to hurt enemies and favor friends. For example, remember Frank VanderSloot? He’s the big Romney donor who was audited three times, and he says that he is not the only one.

    By contrast, we can compare the VanderSloot case to that of Malik Obama, the President’s half brother. His application for a tax-exemption was approved–by the same Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the Cincinnati office in charge of tax-exempt groups–within a month; one observer called it “an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations who have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.”

    Now that, too, is Nixonian.

    To be sure, not everyone sees the IRS story as a big deal. Carl Bernstein was once the lesser half of the Woodward-Bernstein reporting team during Watergate, although he long ago sank into mere hackery. That hackery was on full display Monday, when he told–who else?–MSNBC that he “can’t imagine” that anyone in the White House was involved in the IRS scandal . That’s not exactly the reportorial instinct at work, is it? The old joke for reporters is, “If your mother tells you she’s your mother, double-check her.” Fortunately, Bernstein had the courage to hold the Nixon administration accountable; unfortunately, that courage has now been replaced by sloven sycophancy of Obama.

    Third, the Benghazi story. On Monday, Obama declared the Benghazi investigation to be “a political circus” and, indeed, “a sideshow.” Piling on the derisive dismissiveness, he then added, “There’s no there, there.” Listening to Obama, and also to Jay Carney, I am reminded of Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler’s dismissal of Watergate as a “third-rate burglary.”

    Benghazi is still the heart of Obamagate, because it reveals so much about the real Barack Obama. So let’s stop looking around at molehills and start staring straight ahead, to the mountains in front of us.

    First mountain: Where did the idea that the Mohammed video on YouTube was the cause of Benghazi come from? Whose idea was that? The video is not mentioned in those dozen-times-rewritten talking points–so who put that idea into the mix? We know it didn’t fall from the sky–so who did it?

    Second mountain: What was the president doing the night that Americans were dying? As I mentioned in Part One, the absence of any sort of documentation of the President’s whereabouts that night is truly chilling.

    In the case of both mountains, we can see that the administration’s true goal seems to be political preservation–make things up if need be and drop them into the narrative; meanwhile, keep the President out of the narrative.

    The President and his team clearly believe that they can defend themselves by simply recalling that they did, in fact, mention the “T” word, “terror,” here and there in the wake of Benghazi. But that’s like saying that if a defendant in a case said one true thing, then everything he said was true. A single grain of truth in a vast field of mistruths does not make the field honest.

    Everyone knows that the message of Susan Rice, et al. was that Benghazi was the unfortunate consequence of something bad, most likely the Mohammed video. As Hillary Clinton said on January 23 in her famous rant, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

    What difference does it make? Why does it matter? Why it matters is simple: The truth makes a difference. The truth matters.

    So for Carney to keep harping on uses of the word “terror,” is, well, as we Irish say, blarney.

    Yet also because I am Irish, I am haunted by tragedy and injustice. A few months ago, I sat in the green room at Fox with Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the four slain Americans at Benghazi. The elder Mr. Woods recounted for me how at the September 14 service for the four dead at Dover Air Force Base, the President, the Vice President, and Secretary Clinton had all told him, “It’s terrible what happened, and how that terrible video caused it, and we’re gong to get that person who did it!” And now we know it was all invented. A fabricated cover story to get the President over his re-election hump.

    Yet the President, Carney, and all their stooges continue to call the Benghazi investigation a “sideshow.”

    Okay, so that’s the Obama story, and they’re sticking to it.

    Yet others, normally supportive, begged to differ. On Tuesday, The Washington Post awarded the President the high dishonor of “Four Pinocchios” for his Benghazi statements on Monday.

    And again, that is Nixonian.

    Moreover, the cover-up of Benghazi–and that’s the right word for it–began on September 11, 2012. It was not until September 19, eight long days after Benghazi, that Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center testified that Benghazi had, in fact, been a terrorist attack.

    In the meantime, in those days after the 11th, the administration was feverishly writing and rewriting those talking points and doing everything else it could to cover up the truth about the death of Ambassador Stevens and his three heroic defenders.

    Clearly, the Obamans were hoping that the furor over Benghazi would cool down. And that was their miscalculation. Even Tom Brokaw, no friend to conservatives, has been moved to observe:

    You cannot explain away Susan Rice’s performance on those five Sunday talk shows on September 16, in which she said it was not a terrorist attack and grew out of a domestic demonstration of some kind. She completely underplayed it and rewrote the script.

    And that, of course, was the administration line: Benghazi was a murky incident, quite possibly caused by that evil Mohammed video on YouTube.

    Indeed, everywhere the President went, even after Olsen’s September 19 admission, the President was still pushing the Mohammed video line. Before the whole wide world on September 25, 2012, the President spoke to the United Nations General Assembly and declared, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” In effect, the President was saying that whatever happened at Benghazi was not his fault, or the fault of his administration, but rather the fault of some guy with a camera in California.

    Thus we come to a sordid sub-chapter of Benghazi, which is the most dishonorable and most dishonest in which we see that the Obamans were opportunistically eager to scapegoat the maker of that stupid video, one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-American Coptic Christian. The Copts, of course, having been oppressed by Islam for more than a thousand years, have plenty of reason to loathe Islam. And whether or not we agree with Nakoula’s views, he has a right to hold them. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in 1929, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

    Yet of course, to those of a Nixonian cast of mind, First Amendment protections can easily be steamrollered. So the investigative furies descended on Nakoula; he was arrested on September 27, supposedly for violating the terms of his probation (the violation, we might note, was being on the Internet), although it’s fair to say that nobody worried about Nakoula’s digital violations before the video. Nakoula was ultimately sentenced to a year in jail; to this day, he sits in a federal correctional facility in Texas.

    Indeed, Nakoula has been the only one punished for what happened in Benghazi that night. More than eight months later, none of the killers have been “brought to justice,” as the President promised.

    At the time, many people thought that the Obama administration was simply trying to do everything it could to tamp down anti-American fervor in the Muslim world. Some might have shrugged and thought to themselves, “Well, something had to be done to keep more Americans from being killed. And if this fellow Nakoula is the sacrificial lamb for reasons of national security, so be it.”

    Yet of course, no American should be treated that way, for any reason. And so it’s just one more obscene hypocrisy for Carney to prattle on about how the President loves the First Amendment and values an “unfettered media” when, in fact, Nakoula is in fetters for exercising his First Amendment rights.

    National Review’s Rich Lowry recently summed up part of the situation in a piece entitled, “The Benghazi Patsy”: “Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.”

    So yes, Nakoula was railroaded into jail for making a video. Yet now we can see that the “blasphemy” charge was a false flag. The assertion that Nakoula needed to be jailed to mollify Muslims was a ruthless diversion from the real mission; the false narrative had to be protected.

    The real objective had nothing to do with the safety of Americans or the national security needs of the US, but, rather with the re-election needs of Barack Obama. It wasn’t the Mohammed video had led to the deaths of any Americans in Libya. Now we know that the attack was plotted by Al Qaeda, pure and simple, which had aimed all along to hit the US on the anniversary of 9-11.

    As the pollster and strategist for George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign which challenged Nixon, I suppose I have a special bias against morally corrupt incumbents who use their power to manipulate and bamboozle the voters. It was during this time last fall that it became clear that I was seeing a replay of the Nixon administration and what I lived through in 1972. Indeed, my own past brushes with the Nixon henchmen were more personal than just the McGovern campaign: It is with pride I can claim to be the youngest person to be named on Nixon’s fabled “enemies list.” That experience taught me to react strongly against anything like that, regardless of party or president.

    Back on September 28, for example, I argued:

    The administration is hoping that if it can put enough time between the actual events of 9/11/12 and the ultimate public understanding of those events, the impact of the realization–that the US was unprepared for terrorism on an obvious terrorism anniversary–will be thereby softened.

    And writing about Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, I continued:

    Romney could turn this election around if he could go on the offensive on multiple fronts, against Obama supporters in the media, and–even more crucially–against Barack Obama on the Middle East.

    I further wrote on October 15:

    We now know that within minutes of the Benghazi attacks, the Obama administration knew that the attacks were, in fact, acts of terrorism, and not at all mere mob violence. And that’s when the cover-up began; the goal was to kick the can of culpability past Election Day. Unfortunately for the Obamans, they needed a two-month cover-up to get them past November 6, and they got only a one-month cover-up.

    Despite a steady string of scoops, many of them from Fox News, in October, Romney pulled back in the third debate, letting Obama skate away from his culpability. Romney’s staffers had told him that he was going to win anyway, so why risk looking mean? And with Romney’s dismissal of the Benghazi issue, the mainstream media felt further justified to dismiss Benghazi, too.

    Yes, Romney was regrettably craven, and for that, he not only lost an election he could have won, but earned himself permanent ignominy as someone who put political calculation–incorrect political calculation, at that–ahead of his patriotic duty to raise important concerns.

    So yes, Obama won his re-election bid. Indeed, he won by a comfortable margin, as the myriad weaknesses of the Republican consultant class–which I detailed at CPAC in March–became glaringly evident. Yet as we can now see, it wasn’t just the incompetence of the Romneyites that was on display; it was also the malevolence of the Obamans–although that was mostly hidden. The administration had managed to keep a lid on three big scandals–wiretapping, IRS, and Benghazi–through Election Day. And so he won re-election, just as Nixon had won, four decades earlier.

    Yet as Richard Nixon learned in the wake of his triumphant 1972 re-election–he carried 49 of 50 states that year–victory does not immunize an incumbent from ultimate accountability. Indeed, victory can addle the minds of the victors with hubris and arrogance, making them less able to defend themselves.

    We are now seeing an encouraging reality about American politics: No matter how hard you try, no matter how ruthless you might be, you can’t keep a secret. The cover-up might work in the short term, but not for the long term. And that means, as Nixon learned, that even the greatest political victory can turn into ashes–and it can also prove lethal.


    Next: Watergate and Obamagate.

  27. The fate of Obama:

    Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe.
    The enemy increaseth every day.
    We, at the height, are ready to decline.

  28. Leanora

    Dem Congressman holds crying baby while questioning Eric Holder. Have all Libs in congress lost their minds?

    Seriously, the way you put it, that is darn funny. 😉

    That was the only part of the presser I had time to check in on at work, watched it for about 45 seconds, the crying baby, the black guy holding the child, Holder somewhere…and I thought, what the heck is going on? How did this baby get into this, and I went back to work because I visually couldn’t take it seriously.

  29. Lu

    Has anyone heard this before, that that the FBI had info on the Boston Bombings?

    I heard that the FBI actually interviewed one of the brothers at some point, (I think it was the older brother) and felt he wasn’t a threat.

  30. The 100 Bengazhi emails that were dumped today, were only a drop in the bucket.

    One of Gowdie’s buddies on the committee, was on with Greta tonight and said there is over 2000 emails, and these 100 emails were selected by the RatPack administration. Greta said, well these 100 emails are damaging and that probably means the other 2000+ must be worse for the Barry whores.

  31. sirmrks May 15, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    I wondered why the tea party got so quiet.
    Do you recall Reid and others saying TP was dead? I do.
    And I always look for an excuse to post this link about now US House Rep. Matt Cartwright during his campaign. Matt is well-known in the area – long time prominent legal firm, then free legal advice on nightly news, so I don’t know what prompted him to think he needed anything else in his platform in order to win. Nonetheless, local paper published this:
    Cartwright rips tea party for damaging nation Published approx 13 April 2012.

    which prompted me to tweet: @timestribune Matt’s joining Obama’s #WarOnTeaParty. No wonder he calls himself a true democrat!

    That particular hash tag was probably something I was trying to get going. Doubt it ever “trended”.

  32. They are out of control. Imagine how much dirt they picked up in these private conversations. This has to be an impeachable offense. And I hope Drudge picks this one up quickly. This story should be worthy of his flashing red light!

    Oh My… Breaking: Holder Justice Department Also Tapped House of Representatives Cloak Room

    Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) went on the Hugh Hewitt Show tonight and dropped this bombshell. The Holder-Obama Justice Department tapped the House of Representatives Cloak Room.


  33. Karl Rove under-cover assassin of conservatism
    The Rogue Helping Obama Steal America
    10 May 2013
    The deadly, almost under-cover assassin of conservatism in America is not the Fundamental Transformation of America-pushing Barack Obama and the Democrats but Karl Rove and his big-money financiers… But the May 1 revelation by the Republican National Committee that it had awarded a multimillion-dollar contract for data management and collection services to Liberty Works, a firm run by Richard Boyce, an associate of Rove, could inadvertently lead to the way out of the labyrinth that is steadily undermining the Republican Party faithful, and therefore some day stop disenfranchising millions of conservative voters. …Among the slings and arrows coming the Tea Party’s way, it is sometimes easy to miss that Rove and his cohorts are as effective in ‘Red-Necking’ Tea Party candidates up for election as “bible thumpers”, “racists” and “wannabe terrorists” as is the always-in-overdrive Obama…. regime… http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55115

  34. Leanora – yes, out of control; guess they have nothing & everything to lose now:
    Here is an example of Senator Bob Casey mocking his primary opponent. #WarOnTeaParty Published 12 September 2012
    The Bob Casey campaign has issued another new ad, again hitting opponent Tom Smith’s participation in the Tea Party movement http://earlyreturns.post-gazette.com/home/early-returns-posts/4795-casey-ad-hits-smith-tea-party-ties

    The video included with this article is now private lol.

  35. Wouldn’t impeachment be bad for a Hillary run for POTUS? Biden would become president and generally woould become the party’s ccandidate.

    Admin and others here criticised my dislike of Rubio for VP a Romney VP choice. I wasn’t happy with Romney’s choice but Rubio is just what I expected him to be.

  36. Well, Senator Casey still has up his website especially constructed to demean rival Tom Smith last November, out him for being a Tea Partier. I’ve twittered from it and shared its link with my facebook page. Also have taken lots of screen captures. Wonder how much more time teapartytomsmith.com has!

  37. wbboei
    May 15, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    “What the IRS did is an outrage! Show outrage. Oh, wait a second, I’m not supposed to read that.”

    – Barack Obama


    😆 😆

  38. current speaker says first I’d like to thank the press for being here. its a first.

  39. OT. It has just 685 views. Hope you can watch. Promises Broken The Attack On Fort Hood Pub 15 April 2013
    Updated. Victims still needing care speak of where they’ve been and where they still need to get. There is some footage of the massacre. It is frank but in good taste. Also includes what their CIC has promised publicly. 6.11 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUw9TcFRte8&feature=youtu.be

  40. Obama can’t be trusted:


    “The practical impact of Obama’s scandal-laden spring is not only in the drumbeat of camera-ready hearings that could ensnare some of his top advisers. Now, some House Republicans — never particularly eager to compromise with the Democratic president — are beginning to write his legislative obituary.

    “How do I negotiate with you? How do I believe you are here in good faith on very difficult policy issues when you’ve violated my trust?” asked Rep. Rob Woodall, a Georgia Republican who was a longtime congressional aide. “Whether it be through the Justice Department, the IRS or [Health and Human Services] or on and on and on. We can’t have a negotiation with someone we don’t trust. There is no more valuable commodity on Capitol Hill than that.” [snip]

    Even as immigration moves ahead, the spate of scandals has given Republicans an opening to argue for stripping power from the administration.

    For example, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says Congress should be given the bulk of responsibility for securing the border. Congress should design the border security plan to “ensure that it’s exactly what we want to see done” — not the Department of Homeland Security.

    “One of the fundamental impediments we have to immigration reform is a lack of trust in government’s ability to enforce the law and government’s willingness to enforce the immigration laws,” Rubio told POLITICO. “I don’t think that anything that’s happened over the last four days is strengthening anybody’s confidence in the government; quite frankly, I think there’s increasing concern that this government and many of its agencies have become heavily politicized.”

    Obama’s agenda was already in tatters in the conservative House. The House bipartisan group seeking to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws was already falling apart this week before the scandals gained steam.

    There are a mix of reasons for Republicans’ overtly poisonous attitude toward the president, and they range from the political to the practical. For the past few years, Washington hasn’t exactly been the incubator for compromise. But at this point, some Republican lawmakers are even more hesitant to give their political adversary a win when he’s pinned down on the mat.

    “How many people care about doing something for Obama? Twenty?” one senior GOP lawmaker said.

    But there are also purely mechanical problems. It will not be easy for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to again enter into tense negotiations with the president when he’s simultaneously hammering him on Benghazi and insisting that someone in the IRS needs to go to prison for its targeting of conservative political groups.

    And these scandals have only served to deepen the House Republican Conference’s suspicion and skepticism of Obama.

    Suddenly, the calculations on a number of important policy issues has changed.

    If Republicans’ dislike of Obamacare wasn’t already painfully obvious — they’ll again vote to repeal it on Thursday — the IRS’s recent scandal doesn’t help.

    “Because the IRS’s deep involvement in the administration’s health care law, and the Supreme Court saying it was a tax, that is where the damage really is done,” said Rep. Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican deeply involved with his party’s health care policy.

    And tax reform — one of the last remaining hopes for cooperation between Obama and Congress — has also gotten more complicated.

    “One of the biggest things we have to deal with is tax reform,” said Rep. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican in GOP leadership. “And now we have the IRS being used as a vehicle for political gain. What does that mean on tax reform? That’s a really important piece to a lot of people. Do you reform how the IRS functions in addition to how they’re taxed?”

    Simply put, Republicans aren’t going to be willing to stick out their necks even a centimeter for a president ensnared in scandal.

    “Politically, it makes things harder,” Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) said. “You’re less likely to do it because it’s going to get people upset no matter when you do it — now these constant drumbeats of scandals has people at home rightly outraged. It probably makes people here less likely to go out on a limb and take a chance. It might not last forever, but that’s where we are now.”

  41. Here is clear cogent and convincing evidence that NBC rots from the head down. Comcast and Obama are involved in what can only be described as an incestuous relationship, which precludes the possibility of fair and honest journalism. This point was drawn into high relief at a recent Comcast shareholders meeting as reported by Associated Press, whom, by the way, now has an incentive to no longer cover up these perverse practices.
    Comcast’s Agenda
    Conservative group confronts MSNBC’s owner Comcast about liberal bias at shareholder meeting

    BY: Andrew Evans, AP
    May 16, 2013 10:30 am

    A Washington-based think tank pressed Comcast’s corporate leadership Wednesday morning on its refusal to air advertisements for gun manufacturers and refusal to answer inquiries into how it protects itself against charges of libel.

    The National Center for Public Policy Research sent two representatives to Comcast’s shareholder meeting in Philadelphia on Wednesday morning. David Ridenour, president of the National Center, and Justin Danhof, general counsel, both posed questions to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts related to the media giant’s liberal bias.

    Comcast is the majority owner of NBC Universal, which owns NBC and MSNBC.

    Ridenour pressed Roberts on why Comcast refused to tell its shareholders how it protects itself against charges of libel. Ridenour’s inquiry came after one of MSNBC’s hosts, Rachel Maddow, accused Ridenour’s wife, Amy, and the National Center of committing a federal crime—an accusation the Ridenours say is libelous.

    Maddow alleged last year that the National Center bribed politicians by giving them gifts. Specifically, she said former lobbyist Jack Abramoff funneled money from his corporate clients to members of Congress through the National Center. Amy Ridenour is chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

    “It’s not correct. That would be a felony,” Amy Ridenour said.

    She submitted a shareholder resolution that would have required Comcast to issue a report revealing its media outlets’ fact-checking procedures. Fact-checking is the primary way Comcast would avoid libel lawsuits that could cost Comcast and its shareholders millions of dollars, Ridenour said.

    “Rather than doing the report, which would have been easy, they hired a law firm to fight it,” Amy said.

    David Ridenour asked Roberts directly about Comcast’s fact-checking procedures at the shareholder meeting.

    “Mr. Roberts, shareholders have a right to know that your management team has good systems in place to minimize the risk of expensive libel suits, so I am asking you here now to publicly answer this question: What exactly are the systems in place to prevent libel exposure?” Ridenour asked.

    The exchange between him and Roberts was “heated and terse,” Ridenour said.

    Roberts first said Comcast is legally obligated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to interfere with its media outlets’ standards, a statement Ridenour questioned.

    Comcast voluntarily agreed not to interfere with its affiliates’ reporting on Comcast itself, but there is no rule preventing Comcast from requiring stronger fact-checking standards, Ridenour said after the meeting.

    Any agreement the CEO makes that cedes so much authority over his own company would be “absolutely insane,” Ridenour said.

    After further questioning, Roberts then asserted that his news outlets have very good editorial standards.

    “If you have the procedures, why aren’t shareholders allowed to see them?” Ridenour asked.

    Comcast then turned his microphone off. Roberts did not answer the question, Ridenour said.

    Ridenour and Danhof met with David Cohen, executive vice president of Comcast, after the meeting. Cohen said he would look into the case.

    Ridenour expressed concern over the ethical standards of Comcast’s media outlets.

    “They don’t seem to be concerned at all about whether they are behaving ethically,” he said. He noted that MSNBC did not bother to call the National Center for Public Policy Research before accusing them of breaking the law. Calling for fair comment is part of good journalistic ethics, Ridenour said.

    Comcast, NBC News, and Rachel Maddow’s publicist did not return a request for comment on this story.

    Amy Ridenour said she has not ruled out a lawsuit against Comcast, MSNBC, and Maddow, although she said that she thought asking about the issue at the shareholder meeting would be more effective.

    Danhof also asked about Comcast’s decision not to allow any advertisements for guns or ammunition on any of their networks while simultaneously allowing violent programming to continue to air.

    “Why does Comcast’s management believe it is appropriate for Comcast to profit from the excessive glorification of gun violence but not appropriate for gun shops to advertise legal firearms and ammunition to people who overwhelmingly use firearms in a lawful and safe manner, including in self-defense?” Danhof asked.

    Roberts laughed dismissively as Danhof was asking the question, according to the National Center’s summary of the meeting and then asserted that Comcast will not change its position.

    “Well, Justin, that’s just your opinion,” Roberts said, according to Danhof.

    Gun crime has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, Danhof said, pointing to a Los Angeles Times article. Nevertheless, people think that gun crime has risen, in large part to the media’s excessive and biased coverage of it, Danhof contended.

    “When conservatives talk about media bias, they have to talk about what it really does,” Danhof said. “They are changing the perceptions of reality.”

    Many hosts from Comcast’s liberal news outlet MSNBC have met with President Barack Obama in the past about the policy issues facing the country.

    Comcast as a whole has strongly supported Obama, and its leadership has strong ties to the administration.

    Comcast employees gave much more strongly to Barack Obama than Mitt Romney in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. They also donated significantly more to Democrats than Republicans over the past three election cycles.

    Cohen, who promised Ridenour he would look into National Center’s accusations against MSNBC, has also been a major supporter of Barack Obama’s campaigns.

    He pledged to bundle over $500,000—the highest recorded category—in the 2012 campaign, and he donated to both Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns and subsequent inaugural funds, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Cohen also hosted a fundraiser for President Obama in 2011 at his home in Philadelphia. Attendees pledged to give at least $10,000 to the president’s reelection campaign. The Washington Post called Cohen “a longtime Democratic operative” when reporting on the fundraiser.

    Cohen is not the only big-money supporter of President Obama at Comcast. Jeff Shell, chairman of NBC Universal International, pledged to bundle between $200,000 and $500,000 for the president’s reelection campaign.

    Comcast’s support for Obama has won NBC Universal’s shows coveted appearances from the first family.

    Obama introduced the movie To Kill a Mockingbird on USA Network, part of NBC’s family of networks. First Lady Michelle Obama has made several cameo appearances on NBC shows, including The Biggest Loser.

    Comcast is not the first company the National Center has questioned at shareholder meetings. The National Center plans to attend 30 shareholder meetings this year. It has been involved in shareholder activism since 2009.
    This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Politics, Progressive Movement and tagged Comcast, David Cohen, National Center for Public Policy Research. Bookmar

  42. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/john-carter-immigration-91422.html?hp=f2

    Republicans in the House bipartisan immigration group are threatening to leave negotiations if they don’t come to an agreement Thursday.

    Reps. John Carter of Texas and Raul Labrador of Idaho both separately said the time for negotiations is over.

    “Tomorrow night, as far as I’m concerned, is the last night I’m gonna meet,” Carter said.

    Labrador, a key conservative in the group, agreed.

    “I think it’s time for us to move ahead with a Republican plan if nothing happens tomorrow,” Labrador said. He characterized such a plan as “conservative immigration reform.”

    That the House’s eight-person bipartisan group appears to be breaking down is a major development in the immigration debate. If the House does not come out with its own plan, it will make immigration reform a lot more difficult. The theory from Republican leadership was that the bipartisan group’s product would give the House GOP buy-in.

    If the Republicans release a conservative immigration plan, it will likely not include a lot of the concessions the group made to Democrats, sources said.

  43. foxyladi14
    May 16, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Senator Paul is right.

    What we get from Obama, in spades, is two (2) things:

    1.) Left wing tyranny and-

    2.) Left wing intolerance.

    The game that ruins nations.

  44. admin
    May 16, 2013 at 11:23 am
    That is good news, as far as I am concerned.

    And it is bad new as far as Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushies are concerned.

    One question I have not managed to figure out yet.

    If they impose a RINO candidate as they have in the past several elections . . .

    How will they get the base to turn out?

    And how can they expect to hold the party together.

    The lure of money has lured them far away from the conservative principles embodied in the Constitution and service to the American People.

    And, as long as RINOS rule the roost, they can kiss off the prospects of ever again winning a national election.

    For as bad as the opposition candidate may seem to their eyes, the bigger problem will be the enemy within.

    I do think the Republicans will be very successful in statewide elections, but to me at least their prospects for winning the White House are bleak.

  45. Admin. the series of stories you have posted from Politico suggests, at least by degree, that there is a growing wariness in Washington of all things Obama, and a concomitant attempt to understand, rather than simply mischaracterize, what is motivating Republicans. Previously, this internet bastard child of WashPo was itself a left wing tower of Babel, whereas now they seem to be slightly more . . . how shall I put it . . . journalistic. This assumes, of course, that this brief flurry into the realm of things that are, was not simply a gas pain, which dissipates over the next few months. But being the eternal optimist that I am, it is remotely possible that with the disclosures of past week, big media has began to turn a corner. Not in the abrupt sense we would like to see, more in the sense of how Churchill described an early victory in World War II: not the end, not the beginning of the end, merely the end of the beginning. I got a bit of a lecture on this from a friend of mine last week who has been predicting that Benghazi would be a game changer, but she went on to caution me that it will take time–meaning months. I know a crackpot who has a vision that the third year of his second term will be Obama’s Ides of March. All I can say is the sooner the better.

  46. The Rubio Bill will be a magnet for illegal immigration. The following poem by Rudyard Kipling explains why:

    IT is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:–
    “We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
    It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:–
    “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.
    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say:–
    “We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    Nor matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Comments are closed.