Tag: Oval Office

When Scandals Reach Into The Oval Office (John Ellis)

When Scandals Reach Into The Oval Office – John Ellis

There is no evidence whatever that the IRS and other scandals reach into the oval office — or so Jay Carney tells us. But is that really so?


Ben Swann of Fox19 in Cincinnati has a convincing method of figuring out the lowest level at which the IRS scandals must have originated. Starting with the fact that six individual IRS agents sent letters to conservative groups that were essentially similar, Swann suggested a simple way of determining the identity of the senior person who either originated the practice or passed through an order that came from higher up. First, get the names of the people these six were supervised by. If that produces six different names, get the names of the people they were supervised by. Keep doing this until you have a single name — the common supervisor. Swann found that single name: Cindy Thomas.

Swann’s logic is hard to argue with. But let’s see what happens when we apply his method to the case reported by Peggy Noonan in her May 23 column in the Wall Street Journal. Ms. Noonan explained what happened when in 2010 Catherine Engelbrecht sent applications for tax exempt status to the IRS. “The U.S. government came down on her with full force,” said Noonan:

In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who’d attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht’s personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn’t make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.

Let’s give this the Ben Swann treatment. We are looking for the common supervisor. How far up the chain do we have to go to find that person? First came harassment by the FBI, which is a part of the Justice Department. But we also have involvement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, another agency within the Justice Department. To find the common supervisor we have to go higher than the FBI Director and the ATF Director to arrive at the person they both report to: Eric Holder, the Attorney General. So far, Swann’s logic indicates that the order to target and harass conservative groups could not have come from anyone lower than cabinet rank.

If the IRS and OSHA were also agencies within the Justice Department, we could say no more than that Eric Holder originated or transmitted the order. But that is not so: IRS is a part of the Treasury Department, and OSHA is part of the Department of Labor. When all of this was going on Timothy Geithner was Secretary of the Treasury, and Hilda Solis the Secretary of Labor. The order must therefore have gone through all three cabinet members, but could not have originated with any of the three. Who is their common supervisor? There is only one person who fits that description: the President of the United States. If Swann is right that we must look to Cindy Thomas as the conduit for the order to misuse the IRS for political purposes, then it must also be reasonable to infer that the order to use three departments of the federal government to harass, intimidate, and obstruct the administration’s political opponents came from President Obama himself.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Proof comes as evidence accumulates. But the fact that Barack Obama is the only common supervisor of all the corrupt activity in various departments of the federal government is certainly compelling evidence. Carney’s insistence that there is no evidence whatever that this scandal goes as high as the oval office is simply wrong.

This evidence is obviously strong enough to require both Carney and the President himself to answer questions about it. Any questioner should be careful to explain what the stakes are: everyone knows that third world despots typically use all of the resources of the governments they head to weaken and obstruct their political opponents, and to prevent any possibility of a successful electoral challenge. Is that what the President did, and what he thinks is compatible with our system of government?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


How long would it take Obama to find his ass with both hands, and a GPS, in a fully lit room?

Three months apparently!

This email was sent to State Department officials, White House officials, Secret Service officials at 6:07 PM EST on 9-11, from Benghazi officials the night of the terrorist attack.

This was at least the third email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack.

Barack Obama was meeting with his security team in the Oval Office that evening.
The email clearly blamed Al-Qaeda linked group Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the US consulate.
This was before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.

Fast forward three-and-a-half months…
Today Barack Obama told David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the US is has a good idea who carried out the Benghazi 9-11 terror attacks.
Reuters reported:

The United States has some “very good leads” about who carried out the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including the U.S. ambassador in September, President Barack Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

Obama told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the United States would carry out all of the recommendations put forward in an independent review of the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed.

“We’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem. This was a huge problem. And we’re going to implement every single recommendation that’s been put forward,” Obama said in the interview, referring to security issues identified in the review.

“With respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now,” he said.

From George Washington to THIS? WTF America!


Our light bulbs are safe from the Nanny Staters, Chris Wysocki most pleased

Chris is celebrating a blow against the Nanny State

The details are murky, but it appears that our incandescent light bulbs are safe for another year. The House and Senate agreed late last night on a $1 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill to avert a government shutdown. And it includes a House-Republican-backed provision suspending implementation of the incandescent light bulb ban!

The legislation, which would avert a government shutdown, prevents funding from being used for the implementation of certain Energy Department light bulb standards. The standards would begin phasing in next year.

Hopefully, we will soon have some common sense Republicans in the Senate majority, and a real president, who has actually read the Constitution in the Oval Office, so that Americans are safer from the Nanny Staters.

As an aside, let us all applaud Chris Wysocki for smacking down a light-bulb banning hypocrite on Twitter! Well played sir!

An alert Twitter follower pointed me at a recent op-ed by GOP Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan entitled “Obama’s Regulatory Burden.” In it he excoriates the Obama Administration for regulatory over-reach with regard to electricity markets and generation.

And I said to myself, “Self, isn’t this the same Fred Upton who enacted the incandescent light bulb ban?”

Ah, yes, another politician who cannot stay consistent for anything. But Chris reminds Upton that bloggers are smarter than politicians

Your Marxist Moron of the Day

A classic example of someone educated beyond their hat size Cornell West, who believes Obama is not Marxist enough!

It was a cry from the heart. What happened was that greed at the top has squeezed so much of the juices of the body politic. Poor people and working people have not been a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. That for me is not just a disappointment but a kind of betrayal.

NYT: You have 30 seconds of private time with the president — what do you say to him?

Cornel West: I would say: “Look at that bust of Martin Luther King Jr. in the Oval Office and recognize that tears are flowing when you let Geithner and others shape your economic policy, when you refuse to focus on poor and working people or when you drop the drone bombs that kill innocent civilians. Tim Geithner does not represent the legacy of Martin King.”

NYT: How can Obama be the president you want him to be when he’s facing this Republican Congress?

Cornell West: I’ll put it this way, brother: You’ve got to be a thermostat rather than a thermometer. A thermostat shapes the climate of opinion; a thermometer just reflects it. If you’re just going to reflect it and run by the polls, then you’re not going to be a transformative president. Lincoln was a thermostat. Johnson and F.D.R., too.

Note that West wants Obama to be transformative. Like FDR, and LBJ who moved us far down the road towards Socialism by growing government well beyond its Constitutional guidelines the Founders set. And more like Lincoln, who  destroyed another basis for our Founding, small federal government and state sovereignty. I suppose West has missed that Obama is a far Left as those presidents ever were.

This is really too much

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minis...
Image via Wikipedia

Andrea Mitchell, notes that Benjamin Netanyahu took President Bambi to school, and of course, she thinks that means Netanyahu was mean and rude

(Mediaite) — President Obama’s recent speech on the Middle East was highlighted by his call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders before the Six-Day War in which Israel occupied land in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Obama believes that any meaningful negotiation for peace requires an acknowledgment of those old borders, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes those borders are indefensible and many Republicans don’t think Israel should have to give up any more than it already has.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell weighed in on the debate and suggested that of all people it was Netanyahu not showing Obama respect.

Mitchell explain Netanyahu’s reaction to Obama’s policy proposal:

“It was taken as a red flag by Netanyahu and what happened then was that even if this was implicit in things that previous Presidents had said, Netanyahu seized on it even before he got on the plane – he criticized the President. And in such a fashion, he lectured him in the Oval Office. . . . It was a stone-faced Barack Obama and Netanyahu basically treating him like a school-boy.”

Mitchell went on to suggest that even Netanyahu’s associates thought his tone towards Obama was “really rude.”

Just asking, but might it also be “really rude” if a foreign country demanded that we give our land to our sworn enemies so that our new neighbors can then use such land to make their desired goal of our total annihilation possible and much easier?

Simply unbelievable. Our president arrogantly makes demands of another sovereign nation, demands that will endanger that nation and Andrea Mitchell whines when the leader of that country sets Obama straight? How assbackwards can you get Andrea? I have not awarded anyone my Marxist Moron Award lately, but Ms. Mitchell just earned herself one. I wonder how Mitchell would react if I went to her house, and demanded she leave all her doors unlocked, and told her she better make concessions to a crazed stalker that had repeatedly attacked her?

By the way Andrea, THIS is who Obama wants Israel to make major concessions to.

Because when you think of intellectualism, you think of Joe Scarborough!

Newsbusters has the story of a jealous little man, one Joe Scarborough,who is jealous that Sarah Palin is far more successful than he is. Of course, Joe does have a show on MSNBS, which is like having no show at all of course, but seriously Joe, what is you problem with Sarah Plain?

In his newest Politico column, Joe Scarborough rips Sarah Palin whose “anti-intellectualism” threatens the GOP’s success in 2012. With a scathing indictment of Palin’s presidential aspirations, Scarborough asks Republicans secretly critical of Palin to stand up and voice their opposition to her presidential run.

Scarborough questions former Alaska governor’s basic intelligence for even considering running for the presidency, although he admits later in the article that Palin “is not a stupid woman” but “does not know what she does not know.”

“What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a resume as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run?” Scarborough asks, discreetly mocking former Delaware Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell (R) for her belief that American scientists have infused human brain cells into mice.

Palin’s resume and her actions of the past two years “makes the political biography of Barack Obama look more like Winston Churchill’s” although Obama was a “little more than a glorified state senator before he entered the Oval Office,” the MSNBC host insisted.

Nothing here but petty jealousy if you ask me. Scarborough is a has been who never was, and whatever good sense he had he had to abandon upon joining MSNBS!

Palin puts Karl Rove in his place

I really have nothing against Rove, but, his criticisms of Sarah Palin are asinine, and I am happy she fired back! Via Doug Powers!

Karl Rove is on record as saying that Palin doing a reality sort of television show in Alaska “doesn’t help people see her in the Oval Office.”

In other words, “That’s a chick-ish, unserious thing to do for somebody who may run for president.”

Palin lobbed that weak volley back into Rove’s court:

She told People magazine in an interview this week that the show was an opportunity to showcase Alaska and its hard-working people, adding that she hoped it would ‘correct some untruths out there’.

She also shrugged off recent comments by Republican political strategist Karl Rove who said that making a reality TV show diminished her credentials as a serious contender for high political office.

‘I’d like Karl Rove to come up to Alaska and see me being in a man’s world,’ Palin told People magazine.

Very well played Mrs. Palin!