Posts Tagged ‘stonewalling’

Malaysian Government On Flight 370 And Obama On ANY Of His MANY Scandals: The EXACT Same Treatment

April 1, 2014

Chinese families are PISSED over the Malaysian government’s constant stonewalling.

Every decent American knows pretty much EXACTLY how those Chinese victims’ families feel.

What the Chinese keep hearing from Malaysian authorities is the same thing that we keep hearing from Obama on a host of different scandals: from Obama putting thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to murder an American Border Patrol officer to the scandal in Benghazi to the scandal at the IRS, it’s no different WHATSOEVER from what the Chinese families are hearing regarding whatever the hell happened to Flight 370.

I heard a Chinese victim’s family member talking about the Malaysian governments’ stonewalling.  What is the Malaysian government saying to these families?

“We can’t talk about that because it’s under investigation.”

“I’m not responsible for that.”

Basically, “Go away.  We aint saying squat and you can’t do a damn thing about it.”

One of the amazing things about the mainstream American media is how willing they have been to act the part of Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and simply report whatever their Führer says as true while mocking whatever the opponents of the Führer says as false.  If you want to know what it’s like to watch television in North Korea as to how they treat their “Dear Leader,” just watch MSNBC for an hour or so.

No American president will ever be accountable to Congress or to any American system ever again after Obama.  It’s kind of like the public matching funds system that every presidential candidate since Nixon has used until Obama – who raised and spent more money on his campaign than any leader in the history of planet earth bar none: Obama obliterated accountability.

Does Barack Obama Accept That Ultimately, He Is Responsible For This Gun Walking Fiasco? Should He Resign?

July 20, 2011

The media coverage of Rupert Murdoch (whose media corporation owns Fox News among many other assets) reminds me of the days when George Bush was president and the media had someone to attack.

I have seen non-stop coverage of this “hacking scanda” (which has exactly WHAT to do with the USA?) since the developments first broke out.  And there is a savage happy glee to the media “outrage” over the scandal.  The media’s on the side of “journalistic outrage” and Rupert Murdoch is routinely depcited as unwilling to acknowledge any personal responsibility.

The media is on top of every new development.  Every day marks a new front page story.  Outrage abounds.

I haven’t seen coverage like this since the Bush days.  Because that was the last time the media really went after somebody to try to take him down.

There was TWICE as much coverage of the Murdoch/”hacking scandal” as there was of the debt ceiling crisis in the New York Times, for example.  At last this biased propaganda rag has a target they can really attack.

The aspect of the coverage that is now getting the most media flurry and fury is the question that Rupert Murdoch was asked:

“Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?”

And Murdoch’s flat “No” was followed by a renewed gasp of sheer outrage from the mainstream media machine.

If the mainstream media had any honesty or integrity whatsoever, they would be treating Rupert Murdoch exactly like they’re treating Barack Obama, or they would treat Barack Obama exactly like they’re treating Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s my question: has ANYONE in the mainstream media EVER ONCE asked President Obama the question, “Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?” related to the various “gunwalking” scandals in which government agents under Obama administration control allowed thousands of deadly firearms to get into the hands of criminal drug cartels in at least two foreign countries resulting in the murder of scores of citizens including American agents???

See my article on that here.  This scandal is HUGE.  There is NO WAY Obama couldn’t have had any input whatsoever into a massive federal program involving several federal agencies at multiple locations that put thousands of guns into the hands of criminals in at least two foreign countries.

And now see here:

WASHINGTON — The head of the Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has admitted that his agency,  in at least one instance, allowed sales of high-powered weapons without  intercepting them — and he accuses his superiors at the Justice  Department of stonewalling Congress to protect political appointees in the  scandal over those decisions.

How would Obama answer that question if some mainstream media propagandist actually asked him?

Should he not say that, as president of the United States and the commander in chief, he is clearly “ultimately responsible?”  And should he not therefore resign from office to accept that responsibility?

This scandal hardly makes Rupert Murdoch look good (although his company News Corp. had a huge day on the stock market as investors clearly liked what they heard):

STAYING PUT: Rupert Murdoch said he was the best person to clean up News Corp. Investors agreed.

BIG DAY: News Corp.’s stock had its best day since the phone-hacking scandal broke, rising more than 5 percent Tuesday while Murdoch and his son and deputy, James, testified before a committee of the British Parliament in London

But you know who looks far, far worse in this?  The mainstream media, which once again proves they are hatchet men for anyone smacking of conservatism while mindlessly protecting their own leftwingers from the same sort of criticism they continually heap on their opponents all while claiming they are “objective.”

Just to provide a recent example of this profound liberal bias (is “today” recent enough?), here’s one dated 7/20/2011:

A Politico reporter who often penned stories about Sarah Palin and other  Republicans has quit journalism to work with the Democratic Party in Arizona,  sources tell The Daily Caller.

That reporter, Andy Barr, has covered national politics for the publication  since 2008. Barr leaving to help elect Democrats will likely fan the flames of  critics who say Politico has a liberal bias.

Politico – which sent a literal act to pretend he was a “reporter” to cover Republicans for three years – has a liberal bias?  Say it aint so!!!

White House Whitewash Sestak Cover-Story Falling Apart

June 1, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:

“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”

So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months.  That much is correct.

What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.”  It isn’t reasonable at all.

First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.

The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.”  As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.”  And these discussions took place between June and July.  Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.

So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton.  Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff.  The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak.  Which member of the White House staff?  When?  And regarding what?

And the memo also says:

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”

Wow.  They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.

But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.

Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board.  Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?

May 29, 2010
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky

Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton.  And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]


The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.

An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.

How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell?  And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???

It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer.  It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer.  And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.

You want to know what makes a lot more sense?  The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.

For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.”  A federal job is the kind of thing that pays.  2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.”  3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.

The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points.  And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion.  And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak.  And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.

And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.

This is clearly a cover story.

Something really stinky is going on.

This is clearly a serious violation of the law.

And this is also part of a clear PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Sestak-gate: White House Offered Romanoff Job, Too
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:18 PM
By Jim Meyers

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And do I need to invoke the name of “Blagojevich” and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate Seat?

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.