SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (68676)1/13/2014 8:44:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Only a special prosecutor can get truth about IRS abuse
By WASHINGTON EXAMINER
JANUARY 12, 2014 AT 6:44 PM

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa points to tone deafness to explain the choice of an Obama donor to run the Justice Department's “investigation” of IRS targeting of conservative, Tea Party and evangelical political groups during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. But the California Republican is being entirely too diplomatic. Putting a donor in charge is more like flipping the bird to Obama's critics.

When the IRS harassment abuse first became public last year, Obama promised a complete investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder described the IRS harassment as “outrageous and unacceptable” and ordered a joint investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department. But it's been obvious since then that the investigation has been, at best, perfunctory. A more accurate description of the probe may well be “criminal obstruction,” at least according to Issa.

?Print Article... Opinion: Editorials
Examiner Editorial: Only a special prosecutor can get truth about IRS abuse
By WASHINGTON EXAMINER | JANUARY 12, 2014 AT 6:44 PM

Topics: Editorial Barack Obama Tea Party IRS Eric Holder Darrell Issa Justice Department

"By selecting a significant donor to President Obama to lead an investigation into inappropriate... House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa points to tone deafness to explain the choice of an Obama donor to run the Justice Department's “investigation” of IRS targeting of conservative, Tea Party and evangelical political groups during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. But the California Republican is being entirely too diplomatic. Putting a donor in charge is more like flipping the bird to Obama's critics.

When the IRS harassment abuse first became public last year, Obama promised a complete investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder described the IRS harassment as “outrageous and unacceptable” and ordered a joint investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department. But it's been obvious since then that the investigation has been, at best, perfunctory. A more accurate description of the probe may well be “criminal obstruction,” at least according to Issa.


The IRS investigation should be taken from Eric Holder's Justice Department and handled by someone outside the executive branch.


Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Politics Today newsletter.
You must enter a valid email address in the field above!
Thank you for signing up for the Politics Today newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
In a Jan. 8 letter to Holder, Issa noted that, after repeated requests for information from the FBI about the progress of the probe, it “failed to provide the requested information, and, after the [Justice Department] apparently interfered, the [FBI] withdrew” its previous offer to meet with the oversight committee’s staff to discuss the investigation. It was in the same letter that Issa revealed the committee’s discovery that the Justice Department officials overseeing the investigation is trial attorney Barbara Bosserman.

Beginning with a $400 contribution in October 2004, Bosserman made at least 15 donations to Obama and the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Since federal ethics law requires government officials like Bosserman to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, she had no business accepting any assignment related to the IRS probe, much less managing it. It is difficult to conceive of a satisfactory explanation she might offer for why she took the job.

“By selecting a significant donor to President Obama to lead an investigation into inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, the [Justice Department] has created a startling conflict of interest,” Issa said in his letter to Holder. “It is unbelievable the department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government systematic targeting and harassment of organizations opposed to the president's policies. At the very least, Ms. Bosserman's involvement is highly inappropriate and has compromised the administration's investigation of the IRS.”

Bosserman should be removed from the IRS investigation without delay. And it is equally certain the investigation should be taken entirely out of the hands of Holder's Justice Department and placed with somebody from outside the executive branch such as a special prosecutor appointed by Congress. House Republicans should demand such an appointment, then leave it to Obama, Holder and Senate Democrats to explain to the American people why they shouldn't know the full truth about the most serious abuse of the IRS since Richard Nixon was in the Oval Office.

washingtonexaminer.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (68676)1/13/2014 11:32:14 AM
From: LLCF  Respond to of 71588
 
LOL… and Muslim terrorists…. well try NPR then, Gates was on there talking about his book I hear, so I guess he's evil too.

I suggest you actually READ it instead of quipping and chirping about quotes fed to you by the moronic press you rely on. ROFLMAO!!

Then you may want to ponder the inherent "check and balance" between military complexes and the civilian government. If there is NO disagreement and friction… you may just have a military junta!

The one dimensionality of RWingNut thinking like yours is pretty scary if you had any control over things in this world… luckily most can see the insanity.

DAK



To: Carolyn who wrote (68676)2/1/2014 1:19:45 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
State of the Union Moot as Obama Becomes Irrelevant
By Joseph Curl
Wednesday, January 29, 2014

CNN had a countdown clock, like Cape Canaveral launching a rocket to Mars. “2 hours 19 minutes 44 seconds” the clock said, ticking down to The Big Moment.

So many talking heads appeared at once it was like a murmuration of starlings (except they flew in a giant loop because they could only turn left). John King worked “The Magic Wall,” diagramming congressional districts like Jon Gruden dissecting a play. Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room took us LIVE! to THE SITUATION — President Obama leaving the White House on his way to the Capitol (assuming he actually was in the black limo with tinted windows as it pulled away).

It was — The State of the Union, 21st century style.

The fanfare for the president’s annual speech to Congress has gotten absurd, but especially so in 2014, when nothing this president does matters. Not a single thing. He is irrelevant, inconsequential, insignificant. Hollow, empty, useless and worthless. Neither here nor there nor anywhere, fully deprived of practical significance, the lamest of lame ducks.

He is, in the end, just pushing rope, squashing water, pounding sand. Which is why his speech drew the smallest audience since the 2000 address of President Bill Clinton, a man whom few wanted to listen to after he had (falsely) told the public he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Mr. Obama, President of All the People, said “I” 51 times in his 7,000-word, 65-minute speech. He said “we” 100 times, but not “We Americans,” rather “We Democrats,” as in ” we know our opportunity agenda won’t be complete. ” He said “new” 32 times, “help” 30 times, “first” 13 times, “right” 10 times. He loaded up on “America” and “American” and “Americans,” using the words 87 times. Breaks for applause: 96.

But between the lines and the numbers was pure pap, frivolous frippery, lines meant to draw applause in the fake bipartisan charade that the State of the Union has become. “In the coming months, let’s see where else we can make progress together,” he said. “Let’s make this a year of action. That’s what most Americans want — for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations.”

And when the verbose speech was broken down afterward, all that was left was small ball, tiny inconsequential promises of action that affect few Americans. In his “year of action,” the president vowed a dozen executive actions, including the pledge to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers and a promise to speed up “ConnectEd,” whatever that is.

“America does not stand still — and neither will I,” he said to applause, applause, applause.

But the president has stood still since the very first day he took office. “The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift,” he said on a frigid Jan. 20, 2009. “And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.”

Five years later, he said this in his State of the Union: “Average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by — let alone get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.”

Those words were an odd departure from the recitation of promises that filled his speech — a moment of clarity, even an admission that things have not gone according to his dreams of “Hope and Change,” the pledge to push past partisan divisions and deliver salvation to Americans young and old.

History will record that those five years were his five years. The State of the Union, the president was finally admitting, is dismal — wages aren’t increasing, millions are without work, millennials are moving back home with their parents, government spending is crushing economic recovery. To the famous Reagan question: Are you better off? the answer across America is no.

The president has spent five years blaming former President George W. Bush for driving the economy “into a ditch,” and campaigned across the country in 2012 telling voters that the “do-nothing” Congress had thwarted each and every one of his sure-fire solutions to restart the economy.

On Tuesday, The Great Speechifier was left with nothing to say. He knew he could make no grand promises; his enemies in Congress, Democrats among them, can’t be bludgeoned into passing his agenda.

More, the clock — not unlike the CNN countdown clock to his State of the Union speech — is ticking away. Most inside the Beltway know that little will get done this year. In November, Congress will be reshaped, and experts predict a runaway Republican victory, expanding the party’s majority in the House and quite possibly taking back the Senate.

And the day after that election, the 2016 race for the White House begins.

Mr. Obama knows all that, and delivered a downsized speech drafted from the clear realization that he has already lost, that his presidency is, in fact, over. He said recently in an introspective interview that his two terms as president are “at the end of the day part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.”

But he now knows he may rate little more than a sentence.

•Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.

washingtontimes.com