Posts Tagged ‘Desiree Rogers’

Since 1976, Democrat Presidents Have A 2-1 ‘Lead’ Invoking Executive Privilege

June 21, 2012

How many times have presidents asserted executive privilege?

Here’s your list:

Jimmy Carter: 4 times
Ronald Reagan: 3 times
George H.W. Bush: 1 time
Bill Clinton: 14 times
George W. Bush 2: 6 times
Barack Obama: 2 times

For the record, Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent Desiree Rogers from testifying.  So this is at least the second time.  It’s hard to find out if he did it more; the mainstream media suffers from collectivist (which is very much like “collective,” only for Marxist propagandists) amnesia whenever it comes to Obama.

So I – being a mathematician with skills that dwarf any liberal who clearly can’t count or they’d know how wrong they are about Obama’s job numbers and his debt numbers and his deficit numbers and ObamaCare numbers and his budget numbers – took the complicated step of doing the math.

Democrats easily win the cover-up game, 20 to 10.  In sports parlance, that’s a blowout.  When it comes to lying and cover-ups, Democrats are the Harlem Globetrotters to the Republican Party’s Washington Generals.  Only in this game, the Harlem Globetrotters cheat like absolute fiends while angrily and self-righteously denouncing the Washington Generals for cheating.

So it again proves my constant statement of fact that to be a Democrat is to be a massive abject hypocrite.  Here’s Harry Reid saying that when Bush used executive privilege it was like saying, “I’m KING”:

And then there’s “King” Obama – who was mysteriously once a “harsh critic” of executive privilege:

This was back when Democrats ran Congress and therefore, in Obama’s words, it was “very appropriate” to investigate the president. Back then, in the soon-to-be “King” Obama’s demagoguery, if Bush cited privilege he was “trying to hide behind executive privilege every time something shaky is taking place.”

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Hypocrite-in-Chief is revealed for what he truly is (hint: four letter words work best).

And, for the record, you aint seen nothin’ yet on “King Obama” and executive privilege.  Obama will be using that sucker many more times, I assure you.  Because coming up is the fact that the Obama White House repeatedly leaked incredibly damaging secrets to favorable press such as the New York Times in order to bolster his image as a “strong leader” no matter how much it damaged American national security.  He’ll have to protect his lies on that one in order to avoid impeachment, too.

The only possible way to keep Obama from breaking Bill Clinton’s previously believed un-breakable record of fourteen will be if “King Obama” is a one-term president.  Because it’s usually in that second term that – in Obama’s “reverend’s” and “spiritual mentor’s” words – “the chickens come home to roost.”

Just imagine “King” Obama actually demonizing George Bush for something that Bill Clinton had just done more than twice as many times (that’s 133.33% more often for you sports fans who appreciate your statistics) as Bush did.  When I say “Democrats are cockroaches,” I know it’s wrong, and I sincerely apologize to all members belonging to the class periplaneta americana for such a harsh comparison.

Think of that: Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times.  That’s like Wilt Chamberlain’s rebounding record, only for cheating lying dirtbag slimeball weasel presidents.  But while Chamberlain’s records will likely never be broken, simply because nobody will ever physically dominate the way Wilt did, Barry Hussein is up to the challenge when it comes to pathological dishonesty.  “Hope and change” means believing Obama can dive deeper into that giant manure pile than Bill Clinton believed was even humanly possible.  I never dreamed that anyone could lie like Bill Clinton … until this turd squirted out onto the national scene.

Update, 6/24/12: Obama just “unofficially” invoked executive privilege for the third time.  After using it to keep Congress from seeing documents exposing his crimes, he just invoked it again to keep Congress from listening to the testimony of an ex-staff member.

Barack Obama Oh-So Close To Being Jimmy Carter, Jr.

March 1, 2010

This article from a mainstream liberal does so many things.  1) It tells us the only thing that keeps Obama from already being the complete loser and failure Jimmy Carter was is Rahm Emanuel; 2) It tells us that Barack Obama has repeatedly ignored wise advice and paid attention to far-left liberal lunacy; and 3) It points out that the failure of health care isn’t Republican obstructionism, but Barry Hussein stupidity and his refusal to try to pass bills that Republicans could have supported.

I’m glad that even liberals are starting to recognize that this health care mess we’re in wasn’t the Republicans’ fault; it was Obama’s incompetence and hard-core liberal ideology.

Why Obama needs Rahm at the top

By Dana Milbank
Sunday, February 21, 2010; A13

Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel.

No, seriously.

It is the current fashion to blame President Obama’s disappointing first year on his chief of staff. “First, remove Rahm Emanuel,” writes Leslie Gelb in the Daily Beast, because he lacks “the management skills and discipline to run the White House.”

The Financial Times’s Ed Luce reports that the “famously irascible” Emanuel has “alienated many of Mr. Obama’s closest outside supporters,” while the New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons lumps Emanuel in with the “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency.”

They join liberal interests who despised Emanuel long before he branded them “retarded.” Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com, together with conservative activist Grover Norquist, demanded a Justice Department investigation into Emanuel, who is “far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the president.”

As Emanuel would say: What the [expletive deleted]?

Clearly, “Rahmbo” has no shortage of enemies in this town, and with Obama’s approval rating dipping below 50 percent, they have ammunition. But sacking Emanuel is the last thing the president should do.

Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.

Obama chose the profane former Clinton adviser for a reason. Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic Caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes.

Obama’s problem is that his other confidants — particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod — are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics.

The president would have been better off heeding Emanuel’s counsel. For example, Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn’t politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn’t met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco.

Obama’s greatest mistake was failing to listen to Emanuel on health care. Early on, Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults, that could win some Republican support. He opposed the public option as a needless distraction.

The president disregarded that strategy and sided with Capitol Hill liberals who hoped to ram a larger, less popular bill through Congress with Democratic votes only. The result was, as the world now knows, disastrous.

Had it gone Emanuel’s way, a politically popular health-care bill would have passed long ago, leaving plenty of time for other attractive priorities, such as efforts to make college more affordable. We would have seen a continuation of the momentum of the first half of 2009, when Obama followed Emanuel’s strategy and got 11 substantive bills on his desk before the August recess.

Instead, Congress has ground to a halt, on climate legislation, Wall Street reforms and virtually everything else. Emanuel, schooled by Bill Clinton, knew what the true believers didn’t: that bite-sized proposals add up to big things.

Contrast Emanuel’s wisdom with that of Jarrett, in charge of “intergovernmental affairs and public engagement” — two areas of conspicuous failure. Jarrett also brought in Desiree Rogers as White House social secretary; the Salahi embarrassment ensued. Then there’s Gibbs. It’s hard to make the case that you’re a post-partisan president when your on-camera spokesman is a hyper-partisan former campaign flack.

No wonder Emanuel has set up his own small press operation and outreach function to circumvent the dysfunctional ones that Jarrett and Gibbs run. Obama needs an old Washington hand to replace Jarrett and somebody with gravitas on the podium to step in for Gibbs.

The failure of the president’s message also reflects on his message maven, Axelrod, who is an adept strategist but blinded by Obama love. A good example was Obama’s unproductive China trip in November. Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod went along as courtiers; Emanuel remained at his desk in Washington, struggling to keep alive the big health-care bill that he didn’t want in the first place.

In hiring Emanuel, Obama avoided the mistakes of his Democratic predecessors, who first gave the chief of staff job to besotted loyalists. Now in trouble, Obama needs fewer acolytes and more action. Rahm should stay.

If Rahm Emanuel doesn’t have a giant man-crush on Barack Obama, maybe he should stay.  Certainly, if the Milbrank article has any truth to it, Rahm Emanuel would be the only one at the White House who has either common sense or a freaking clue.

It’s actually quite funny.  Democrats are increasingly at each others’ throats while all the while telling everyone (and I’m sure trying to reassure themselves) that everything is right as rain.

Whether Rahm Emanuel stays, or whether someone else goes, Barry Hussein is an utter failure, and a future utter disgrace.  You can change the whole rest of the team and it won’t matter, because their franchise player is an incompetent loser.

Let’s Keep The White House Nativity Scene And Dump The President

December 9, 2009

It’s another day in Barack Obama’s “God damn America.”

[A] New York Times profile of Desirée Rogers, the currently embattled White House social secretary, suggests there was at least some discussion about backing away from Christmas tradition this year — not as it involved the tree, but a Nativity scene.

When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a “non-religious Christmas” — hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)

Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the crèche is in its usual East Room spot.

According to surveys, 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.  But the most unChristian president we’ve ever had occupy the White House thinks that that overwhelming majority should have their religious symbols and holy days purged to make room for anybody who doesn’t like it.

How about asking people who DON’T like Christmas to practice a little damned tolerance?

Or maybe they can create their own holiday, and get the overwhelming majority of the planet to celebrate it.

No, that’s not the way these secular humanists work.  They say it has to be THEIR way and ONLY their way, or else it’s “intolerant” – because they are the most militantly intolerant people on the planet, with the probable exception of al-Qaeda (i.e., al-Qaeda wouldn’t have backed down just because they found out public opinion was against them imposing their agenda).

Which is to say that this story isn’t about tolerance; it is about Barry Hussein’s blatant INTOLERANCE of Christians and of Christianity.  The day that Obama asks the Islamic world not to celebrate their holiest day; the day he asks every other country representing every other faith not to celebrate their holiest day, it won’t be about a fundamental intolerance of Christianity any more.

The reasons these secular humanist cowards attack Christians is because we’re not like Muslims, who would kill them just for publishing a cartoon.  They attack us because of our tolerance, not because of our lack of it.

Maybe Obama hates Christmas because he fears that Christmas wishes come true – and most Americans now want him living anywhere but the White House.

TSA Manual: Obama ‘Transparency’ Only For Terrorists, Not Americans

December 9, 2009

Obama promised the most transparent and open administration ever.  For Americans, he has utterly failed to deliver anything remotely close:

From Newsweek back in July of this year:

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a “new era” of openness, “nothing has changed,” says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. “For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.”

What we’ll find is that Obama is FAR worse than Bush ever was.  Obama took Bush secrecy as his launching platform and then flew off to Mars with pathological and paranoid secrecy of his own.

How about this one?

From the Associated Press, just three days ago:

WASHINGTON — It’s hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.

The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama’s uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama’s first year in office ends, the government’s actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president’s words.

That’s right: Obama had a workshop on openness that was closed to the public.  He doesn’t actually want an open administration; he merely wants to have the appearance of one.  So we had a workshop on gimmickry on how to spin the truth and conceal reality.

And Obama’s paranoid secrecy gets even more pathetic and absurd from there.  He just got through invoking executive privilege for his freaking SOCIAL SECRETARY! Do you know how ridiculous that is?

Michael Scherer of Time points out how utterly a insane this paranoid invocation of executive privilege is in his article:

But Gibbs’ justification for Rogers’ absence — invoking the separation of powers — nonetheless raised some eyebrows among legal scholars. “I’d completely fall out of my chair if they invoked executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party,” said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason, who recently wrote a book on executive privilege.

The writer at American Power notes:

I mean, c’mon, does the Social Secretary sit in on White House domestic and foreign policy briefings? It would sound simply absurd, but given the unprecedented corruption of this regime, nothing can be taken for granted.

Invoking executive privilege for a social secretary is beyond ridiculous.  Unless you think that the number of White House plate settings in the color “mauve” is highly sensitive confidential information that needs to be protected.

So let’s just let it be known: the Obama administration clearly has no intention of applying Obama’s promises of transparency and openness to the American people.

So who IS Obama going to apply his promises of transparency and openness to?

I’m glad you asked:

In a massive security breach, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inadvertently posted online its airport screening procedures manual, including some of the most closely guarded secrets regarding special rules for diplomats and CIA and law enforcement officers.

The most sensitive parts of the 93-page Standard Operating Procedures manual were apparently redacted in a way that computer savvy individuals easily overcame.

The document shows sample CIA, Congressional and law enforcement credentials which experts say would make it easy for terrorists to duplicate.

The improperly redacted areas indicate that only 20 percent of checked bags are to be hand searched for explosives and reveal in detail the limitations of x-ray screening machines.

The most terrorist-friendly administration in American history just got even friendlier.

On the bright side, at least conservative can’t say Obama isn’t being “transparent” and “open” anymore.  Terrorists are being allowed to learn everything they want as the veils are lifted.