It's one thing knowing the Obama administration is nothing more than a shadow government with all the czars they have but it's getting old no matter who is President of why all investigations come down to the White House lawyers. Doesn't one think that there is a conflict of interest and an easier route to sweep things under the rug? It's one thing to have your own lawyers investigate matters that can impeach a President but to have the media spin it in a way that it makes everything sweet and palatable is beyond belief. For instances like the Sestak ordeal before he campaigned against Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, there should be a totally different group of investigators not affiliated with any of the parties to investigate matters like these but how do we know there isn't a slant on one's belief and an agenda there depending on who they support in their personal life? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?
Joe Sestak has come out and mentioned that the Obama administration on numerous occasions and even before the Primaries was offered a high-ranking job if he was to bow out of the race against Specter. Of course with further investigation by Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod and a couple of White House lawyers, they found "no evidence" that supports Sestak's claim. This was vocally brought to light from Axelrod himself on CNN's "John King USA" as well and even said it "constitute a serious breach of the law". Sestak on the other hand has not said who offered him the job or what the job was either. Robert Gibbs added more confusion to the mix by dodging more than a dozen questions on the matter before hitting Sunday's talk shows and mentioning "nothing inappropriate happened". Axelrod's tone on King's show was almost a blatant regard that Sestak was lying but not just coming out and saying it.
The fire hasn't fizzled on this one yet and if anyone is keeping the heat on it's California's Darrell Issa (R) which is demanding a probe and members of the GOP are hoping for a Congressional investigation into the matter and of course the Democrats have gone mum on the subject. Issa went on to say that the probe would try to discover whether the "most transparent administration in history" tried to illegally manipulate an election. Sestak is standing firm on all of this but really hasn't come out with any real details of the matter.
A letter to Axelrod from the Senate Judiciary Committee was signed by Republicans Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn and Tom Coburn about the allegations and the seriousness of the political process being "taint with bribes and political machine manipulation". The White House all week has pushed any attempt back that Obama or any of his staff are involved or attempted to bribe Sestak from withdrawing from the Democratic Senate primary in PA.
So it all boils down to is Sestak lying, Axelrod lying or is this yet another cover-up swept under the rug by the media and the administration? Seems to me everything that goes wrong and can be finger-pointed at Obama or one of his trolls, it gets buried, dropped, covered or spun....or some big event happens and the media turns it's attention to that story to bury the old one--how quaint.
As Issa's spokesperson, Kurt Bardella puts five good questions together that Issa and many people would like to have actual answers for:
1) Do either Gibbs or Axelrod know who spoke with Sestak and what, if anything was offered?
2) If nothing "inappropriate" or "problematic" happened, then why don't they just answer these questions and move on?
3) Even if nothing technically illegal happened, does the implication in itself that they tried to maneuver Sestak out of the PA Senate primary effectively taint then candidate-Obama to change the business-as-usual attitude of Washington?
4) Since Axelrod said he believees after talking to the White House lawyers that the accusations are founded, is Sestak lying?
5) Is he telling the truth and everyone else is jumping through hoops to avaoid answering questions directly because the person Sestak spoke to was Rahm Emanuel?
With all that said, I think this will be yet another chapter to add to a list of things that we'll never know the truth about. This administration hasn't been transparent since Day 1 and Princess Pelosi is just as guilty for saying that from the get-go and yet we haven't heard a peep out of her polyurethane face with that "deer in the headlights" gleam she sports. I really don't know what to conclude on this one since we have all the makings of a pure slanted and tilted story because every avenue you hit, there's someone linked to the White House that is picking the garbage up off the floor and keeping anything incriminating away from the press, the people and making Obama look like the true Messiah as he was initially painted as. Even this whole BP thing is really turned on to the oil company and not the lack of response by the administration and even 33 days after the fact, Big O has plans for a vacation....swell ain't it? God forbid if this was Bush right now with the BP incident and wanting to go on vacation. The poor guy couldn't visit the porcelain god without some dumbass reporter saying he's dropping the ball on something.
So what's the stakes with you readers? Will Sestak be pointed at as a liar? Will this whole thing just vaporize into nothingness while the crickets chirp in the dark of night or are we going to get some sort of racecard issue if there are true allegations? Or will it be shifted off somewhere other than in Obamaland where he can say he didn't know anything about it? Quite possibly he could spin it enough that Bush can be blamed for it? Ya think?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Powder Kagan
The left turns just keep on coming with the Left-Socialist-Progressive agenda Obama has put forth since day one (with constant denial by him and his cronies) and with this newest and latest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.
Surprisingly, both sides of the aisle are stirring on this decision for the obvious reason Kagan has no experience. She has as much experience as Obama does as a Senator to be quite frank. When you eventually peel away the layers, this pick for Supreme Court is pretty much just a female clone version of Obama and his radical agenda let alone her biased self-views on certain subjects negating calling anything from the Constitution or the bench itself. The liberal and progressive thought-process is pretty much in the same vein.
Kagan is most noted for her famous attachment to the banning of military recruitment officers on the campus of Harvard due to the Pentagon's banning of gays in the miltary and that whole "don't ask don't tell" scenario. I guarantee you she won't be scrutinized half as much as when Bush appointed Harriet Meyers; we all know how that all went down. Just another rhetoric whim of the left and the double-standard they live by. As soon as it was known Kagan was nominated, Patrick Leahy, D-VT wasted no time and made a retort of the Republicans looking for any excuse to oppose an Obama nominee. "The Presdient could of nominated Moses the Lawgiver and critics would have said, "Where's the birth certificate? He then quipped, "She will be confirmed."
Jeff Sessions, R-AL and Mitch McConnell, R-KY both mentioned of Kagan and her background being "thin" for this position. McConnell continued to say "It strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. Ms. Kagan has neither. A lifetime position on the Supreme Court does not lend itself to on-the-job-training."
It's been almost 40 years since an appointee has been nominated and has never served as a lower-court judge. Then again, the Dems are quick to the trigger about Rehnquist despite he had alot of experience as a trial lawyer compared to Kagan.
Even if the GOP tries their hand at a filibuster and needing the magic "41" votes to block Kagan, RINO's Olympia Snowe, R-ME and Orrin Hatch, R-UT are the usual turncoats on any vote of this nature. Rahm Emanuel wasted no time in talking to Snowe on May 10th once Kagan was nominated as reported by USA Today. I'm sure there's a deal or a talk session going on to make sure they have her "yes" vote.
"Elections have consequences." Yes, so true and yet another chapter in the oblivious world of the snub-nosed arrogant left. As long as these prophets of the "regime" have power, they will continue to push bills, hire czars with no experience in that particular field (let alone never voted in...just appointed)and continue with their absurd limitations to people's liberties and freedoms while they criticize everyone else of the same things they are enjoying. This is why your vote is so important if you want to stop this constant chaos. Otherwise, the liberals, democrats, progressives, whatever you want to call them will continue to live under their set of rules and so-called "free speech", which is only free to them because if they disagree with you, they try to silence you or take your speech away. Obama already admitted there's "too much information out there" that we have access to. If they had their way, they would suppress that too and it would be just like Germany and how Hitler forced the news and media propaganda on it's people.
The USA Today section of "Our View" was a joke in itself with their take of "early critiques of Kagan fall short of substance." Excuse me? Are you referring to her being a dean and having all that great schooling under her belt and not looking at the overall picture of experience on this high level? Your the media, of course you're going to side with her and Obama's pick, other wise, boo-hoo, wah-wah, I might be called a racist if I don't agree with her views because she was picked by a Black man. Get off this damn appeasement trip and stop smelling the ink presses already. Kagan doesn't call it from a Constitutional standpoint; the military ordeal with Harvard is proof enough of her views and in her own words, "a moral injustice of the first order."
Conservatives just flat-out are opposed of Kagan's inexperience and have recently requested papers and documents when she served as adviser to Bill Clinton from 1997-1999. The GOP is focused on any discrepancies or anything that can be deemed as controversial in the way she handles things and in what situations she was under that will evidentally pertain to what qualifications she really has. I see this ending up at a brick wall because it seems every time a GOP member wants papers or some sort of facts, they never get them. You know, stuff like Obama's real birth certificate, why his Columbia papers are never to be released and half of his czars don't even have experience in the field they were assigned to let alone they were never voted in just appointed by Obama himself. I know Presidents do that but Obama has like an army of them now...I lost count.
As far as the "critiques" the USA Today failed to spin on a reader such as me, the obvious pundits who they did have reply are the usual "guilt by association" leftist organizations and women's rights groups....that's like having a Jeopardy panel with Alice Cooper, Derek Jeter and Andre Agassi and asking all heavy metal questions. The people of mention are Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center), sounds like another ACLU branch, Debra Ness, President of National Partnership for Women and Families (sounds like Code Pink and NAG meets Family Planning)and one of our favorite chuckleheads, Patrick Leahy, D-VT. They all are behind Kagan, so there's no real need to repeat the soothing remarks they had.
On a bit of a surprise, Carrie Severino's comments were pretty heady against Kagan and USA Today actually printed it...mark that on my calendar! Carrie is the chief counsel and policy director to the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and she pretty much says in a nutshell that Obama is just packing his court with reliable liberal votes to rubber-stamp an agenda that he knows the American people would not accept and what better way than to appoint a loyalist from your own Department of Justice? Severino also mentioned of how Kagan bent over backwards to avoid taking public positions of hot-button topics until something she personally couldn't help, the "don't ask, don't tell" episode.
Once all this smoke clears as far as Kagan being confirmed, the next court term starts in October and Kagan may have to sit out on alot of the cases due to "conflicting interest" due to the nomination. The calendar has been filling up to and a couple notable cases are coming up that people are keeping an eye on like the "Schwarzenegger vs. Video Software Dealers Association" in which there's a law wanted in California to prohibit sales and rentals of violent video games to minors. The other is "Snyder vs. Phelps", one people will watch carefully because this is the radical preacher Fred Phelps from Kansas that has his cronies interfere with military funerals while spewing their anti-gay slurs during a time people are trying to lay someone to rest and grieve in peace (if people would let them). Snyder is the dad of the deceased soldier that won a $5 million verdict due to the stress it caused. Phelps is appealing due to he thinks his freedom of speech was violated.
As you can tell in the last few months and even recently, there's just a ton of stuff on the plate that's going on. Wall Street, the oil spill, another Cap and Trade bill introduced, the problems in Greece and what that bailout will do, Gordon Brown stepping down and in the next few weeks we have a bunch of Primaries to get through (oh yeah, the "anti-incumbent" spin the media is saying is just too good with Utah and West Virginia ousting their incumbents..anything to disregard the Tea Party, right?). I'm just wondering what other garbage this "regime" is going to jam down our throats. We're just sitting ducks right now in a shallow pond and the liberals have the shotguns and several boxes of shells, just adding more insult to injury to the minority in the House and Senate, the Constitution and even worse, the American people. No matter the anger level we have and they know we have, this Administration just keeps showing us they just don't care---they have an agenda, it needs to be put in place; quickly, swiftly and rapidly. Can we stop it before it's too late? Or is this our version of a bomb-filled SUV?
Surprisingly, both sides of the aisle are stirring on this decision for the obvious reason Kagan has no experience. She has as much experience as Obama does as a Senator to be quite frank. When you eventually peel away the layers, this pick for Supreme Court is pretty much just a female clone version of Obama and his radical agenda let alone her biased self-views on certain subjects negating calling anything from the Constitution or the bench itself. The liberal and progressive thought-process is pretty much in the same vein.
Kagan is most noted for her famous attachment to the banning of military recruitment officers on the campus of Harvard due to the Pentagon's banning of gays in the miltary and that whole "don't ask don't tell" scenario. I guarantee you she won't be scrutinized half as much as when Bush appointed Harriet Meyers; we all know how that all went down. Just another rhetoric whim of the left and the double-standard they live by. As soon as it was known Kagan was nominated, Patrick Leahy, D-VT wasted no time and made a retort of the Republicans looking for any excuse to oppose an Obama nominee. "The Presdient could of nominated Moses the Lawgiver and critics would have said, "Where's the birth certificate? He then quipped, "She will be confirmed."
Jeff Sessions, R-AL and Mitch McConnell, R-KY both mentioned of Kagan and her background being "thin" for this position. McConnell continued to say "It strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. Ms. Kagan has neither. A lifetime position on the Supreme Court does not lend itself to on-the-job-training."
It's been almost 40 years since an appointee has been nominated and has never served as a lower-court judge. Then again, the Dems are quick to the trigger about Rehnquist despite he had alot of experience as a trial lawyer compared to Kagan.
Even if the GOP tries their hand at a filibuster and needing the magic "41" votes to block Kagan, RINO's Olympia Snowe, R-ME and Orrin Hatch, R-UT are the usual turncoats on any vote of this nature. Rahm Emanuel wasted no time in talking to Snowe on May 10th once Kagan was nominated as reported by USA Today. I'm sure there's a deal or a talk session going on to make sure they have her "yes" vote.
"Elections have consequences." Yes, so true and yet another chapter in the oblivious world of the snub-nosed arrogant left. As long as these prophets of the "regime" have power, they will continue to push bills, hire czars with no experience in that particular field (let alone never voted in...just appointed)and continue with their absurd limitations to people's liberties and freedoms while they criticize everyone else of the same things they are enjoying. This is why your vote is so important if you want to stop this constant chaos. Otherwise, the liberals, democrats, progressives, whatever you want to call them will continue to live under their set of rules and so-called "free speech", which is only free to them because if they disagree with you, they try to silence you or take your speech away. Obama already admitted there's "too much information out there" that we have access to. If they had their way, they would suppress that too and it would be just like Germany and how Hitler forced the news and media propaganda on it's people.
The USA Today section of "Our View" was a joke in itself with their take of "early critiques of Kagan fall short of substance." Excuse me? Are you referring to her being a dean and having all that great schooling under her belt and not looking at the overall picture of experience on this high level? Your the media, of course you're going to side with her and Obama's pick, other wise, boo-hoo, wah-wah, I might be called a racist if I don't agree with her views because she was picked by a Black man. Get off this damn appeasement trip and stop smelling the ink presses already. Kagan doesn't call it from a Constitutional standpoint; the military ordeal with Harvard is proof enough of her views and in her own words, "a moral injustice of the first order."
Conservatives just flat-out are opposed of Kagan's inexperience and have recently requested papers and documents when she served as adviser to Bill Clinton from 1997-1999. The GOP is focused on any discrepancies or anything that can be deemed as controversial in the way she handles things and in what situations she was under that will evidentally pertain to what qualifications she really has. I see this ending up at a brick wall because it seems every time a GOP member wants papers or some sort of facts, they never get them. You know, stuff like Obama's real birth certificate, why his Columbia papers are never to be released and half of his czars don't even have experience in the field they were assigned to let alone they were never voted in just appointed by Obama himself. I know Presidents do that but Obama has like an army of them now...I lost count.
As far as the "critiques" the USA Today failed to spin on a reader such as me, the obvious pundits who they did have reply are the usual "guilt by association" leftist organizations and women's rights groups....that's like having a Jeopardy panel with Alice Cooper, Derek Jeter and Andre Agassi and asking all heavy metal questions. The people of mention are Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center), sounds like another ACLU branch, Debra Ness, President of National Partnership for Women and Families (sounds like Code Pink and NAG meets Family Planning)and one of our favorite chuckleheads, Patrick Leahy, D-VT. They all are behind Kagan, so there's no real need to repeat the soothing remarks they had.
On a bit of a surprise, Carrie Severino's comments were pretty heady against Kagan and USA Today actually printed it...mark that on my calendar! Carrie is the chief counsel and policy director to the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and she pretty much says in a nutshell that Obama is just packing his court with reliable liberal votes to rubber-stamp an agenda that he knows the American people would not accept and what better way than to appoint a loyalist from your own Department of Justice? Severino also mentioned of how Kagan bent over backwards to avoid taking public positions of hot-button topics until something she personally couldn't help, the "don't ask, don't tell" episode.
Once all this smoke clears as far as Kagan being confirmed, the next court term starts in October and Kagan may have to sit out on alot of the cases due to "conflicting interest" due to the nomination. The calendar has been filling up to and a couple notable cases are coming up that people are keeping an eye on like the "Schwarzenegger vs. Video Software Dealers Association" in which there's a law wanted in California to prohibit sales and rentals of violent video games to minors. The other is "Snyder vs. Phelps", one people will watch carefully because this is the radical preacher Fred Phelps from Kansas that has his cronies interfere with military funerals while spewing their anti-gay slurs during a time people are trying to lay someone to rest and grieve in peace (if people would let them). Snyder is the dad of the deceased soldier that won a $5 million verdict due to the stress it caused. Phelps is appealing due to he thinks his freedom of speech was violated.
As you can tell in the last few months and even recently, there's just a ton of stuff on the plate that's going on. Wall Street, the oil spill, another Cap and Trade bill introduced, the problems in Greece and what that bailout will do, Gordon Brown stepping down and in the next few weeks we have a bunch of Primaries to get through (oh yeah, the "anti-incumbent" spin the media is saying is just too good with Utah and West Virginia ousting their incumbents..anything to disregard the Tea Party, right?). I'm just wondering what other garbage this "regime" is going to jam down our throats. We're just sitting ducks right now in a shallow pond and the liberals have the shotguns and several boxes of shells, just adding more insult to injury to the minority in the House and Senate, the Constitution and even worse, the American people. No matter the anger level we have and they know we have, this Administration just keeps showing us they just don't care---they have an agenda, it needs to be put in place; quickly, swiftly and rapidly. Can we stop it before it's too late? Or is this our version of a bomb-filled SUV?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
