(Source: joecatholic)
Tracks
NEW SCANDAL : EPA Approved liberal applications 92% of the time, denied conserative companies 93% of the time
The EPA is possibly one of the most corrupt organizations there is.
VIA Washington Examiner : For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for…
READ THE FULL STORY HERE : http://www.jookos.com/2013/05/16/scandal-epa-approved-liberal-applications-92-time-denied/
(Source: obamadawn)
And the IRS scandal was a subversion of democracy on a massive scale. The most fearsome and coercive arm of the administrative state embarked on a systematic effort to suppress citizen dissent against the party in power. Thomas Friedman is famous for musing that he wishes America could be China for a day. It turns out we’ve been China for a while.
Inspector General says Justice Department leaked documents to smear Fast and Furious whistleblower
This will be a scandal like Watergate if it turns out that the IRS was acting under orders from Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett. If the White House’s conduct turns out to be unimpeachable, then it is something far worse: a sign that the government itself has become a threat to the Constitution.
More Benghazi whistle-blowers set to come forward
According to new reports, more whistle-blowers are prepared to testify as to the details surrounding Benghazi. And if what they have said off the record is true, it’s not good news for Obama or Clinton.
From PJ Media:
More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.
These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.
According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA.
…He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.
Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”
Let’s sum this up. Whistle-blowers are about to testify the following:
- We were in Benghazi in order to purchase weapons from al-Qaeda; Weapons that had been given to al-Qaeda by the State Department (I can’t wait to hear the explanation for that one).
- The administration purposely leaked the details of the affair of General David Petraeus so that he would remain silent
- We could have had help arrive at the compound almost immediately
- We knew it was the work of al-Qaeda immediately
If this is true, it’s going to be just plain awful for the administration. I mean, really awful.
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all Power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
(1743-1826)
Source: (1821) in a letter to Gideon Granger. (via timlebsack)
EPA Sued Over Heinous Experiments on Humans | National Legal and Policy Center
(Source: newworldorphan)
I give you the #Obubble.
“I’m offended by a government who convenes a hearing to bully an American success story.” - Sen. Rand Paul defends Apple during Senate hearing
Well said! SHARE if you agree!
Ummm…no.
n a scientific survey of 1,168 adults conducted during September and October of last year, respondents were asked not only multiple-choice questions, but also queries using maps, photographs and symbols. Among other subjects, participants identified international leaders, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, nations on a world map, the current unemployment and poverty rates and war casualty totals.
In a 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and Democrats outperforming Republicans on just 1 of the 12. In the latest survey, however, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions.
Amusingly, the Pew report attempted to soften the stark partisan knowledge disparity:
“Republicans generally outperformed Democrats on the current quiz. On 13 of the 19 questions, Republicans score significantly higher than Democrats and there are no questions on which Democrats did better than Republicans. In past knowledge quizzes, partisan differences have been more muted, though Republicans often have scored somewhat higher than Democrats.”
“Generally outperformed?” “Somewhat higher?” That’s a curiously charitable way to describe the surveys, which went from previous blowouts to a complete shutout in the latest edition.
Those Pew results are confirmed by some surprising other sources. According to a New York Timesheadline dated April 14, 2010, “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.” Shattering widespread myths, that survey revealed that Tea Party supporters were more likely to possess a college degree than their counterparts (23% to 15%), and also more likely to have completed post-graduate studies (14% to 10%). Tea Partiers were also more likely to have completed “some college” by a 33% to 28% margin, and substantially less likely to have not completed high school than non-supporters (3% versus 12%), or to possess only a high school degree (26% versus 35%)…
Maybe Republicans oppose federal spending on education because the federal government role is not to oversee education.
Case in point: Prior to 1979, America was one of the, if not the, leading countries in education. American children were known for leading the world in quality public education. American teachers were looked at as the best in the world. Since 1979, each year our educational system has degraded, our students dumber and our teachers worse.
Why? What happened in 1979?
Why, the federal government got their grubby hands on the US public education system and created the Department of Education.
Where, before, teachers could write their own lesson plans, teach each student in the most effective ways, teachers are now being given instructions on how to teach and what to teach. Students aren’t learning what they need to learn..they’re just taught to regurgitate what is on ‘the test’…and on the test preparing them for the test.
Like everything that Big Government touches, ingenuity and creativity is pushed aside for regulation and conformity. Schools, once the gardens for nurturing thinking and expression are little more than mills turning out the next generation of slow thinking meat-puppets who are unable to question anything because they have been bred and trained that the government, those holy guardians of the school purse strings, are all-knowing and ‘intellectually elite’.
You want to improve the US education system? Get the government out of it.
(Source: staygoldbritt)
Strange Goings-On at the White House..or Valerie Jarrett: The Real Power Behind The Child
The recent spate of Washington scandals has some liberals finally confessing in public what many of them have said privately for a long time. The Obama administration is arrogant, insular, prone to intimidation of adversaries, and slovenly when it comes to seeing that rules are followed. Indeed, the Obama White House is a strange place, and it’s good that its operational model is now likely to be finally dissected by the media.
Joe Klein of Time magazine laments Obama’s “unwillingness to concentrate.”
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post tars him as a President Passerby who “seems to want no control over the actions of his administration.” Milbank warns that “he’s creating a power vacuum in which lower officials behave as though anything goes.” Comedian Jon Stewart says Obama’s government lacks real “managerial competence” and that the president is either Nixonian if he knew about the scandals in advance or a Mr. Magoo–style incompetent if he didn’t.
But it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC who cut even deeper in his Hardball show on Wednesday. A former speechwriter for President Carter, he wondered if Obama “really doesn’t want to be responsible day-to-day for running” the government. He savaged the White House for using “weird, spooky language” about “the building leadership” that must approve the Benghazi talking points. “I don’t understand the model of this administration: weak chiefs of staff afraid of other people in the White House. Some undisclosed role for Valerie Jarrett. Unclear, a lot of floating power in the White House, but no clear line of authority. I’ve talked to people who’ve been chief of staff. They were never allowed to fire anybody, so they weren’t really chief of staff.” He concluded that President Obama “obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch.”
So if Obama is not fully engaged, who does wield influence in the White House? A lot of Democrats know firsthand that Jarrett, a Chicago mentor to both Barack and Michelle Obama and now officially a senior White House adviser, has enormous influence. She is the only White House staffer in anyone’s memory, other than the chief of staff or national security adviser, to have an around-the-clock Secret Service detail of up to six agents. According to terrorism expert Richard Miniter’s recent book, Leading from Behind: “At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving” the mission for May 2, 2011. She was instrumental in overriding then–chief of staff Rahm Emanuel when he opposed the Obamacare push, and she was key in steamrolling the bill to passage in 2010. Obama may rue the day, as its chaotic implementation could become the biggest political liability Democrats will face in next year’s midterm elections.
A senior Republican congressional leader tells me that he had come to trust that he could detect the real lines of authority in any White House, since he’s worked for five presidents. “But this one baffles me,” he says. “I do know that when I ask Obama for something, there is often no answer. But when I ask Valerie Jarrett, there’s always an answer or something happens.”
It’s been obvious, for years, that our President is actually Valerie Jarrett. Obama is just her slow-thinking puppet.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone considering Obama was more than happy to announce, during a New York Times interview, that he ran every major decision past Jarrett.
In fact, al-Qaeda should be writing thank you letters to Jarrett, since it was because of her instructions that little Barry called off three missions to take out bin Laden prior to SEAL Team Six finally waxing him.
Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.
(Source: conservatronic)
