Another government agency caught abusing their power against helpless citizens. Â These scandals just keep piling up, and ALL involve innocent, average Americans being deliberately targeted and victimized by their own government. Still think this is the land of the free?
The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Tuesday that it released personal information on potentially thousands of farmers and ranchers to environmental groups, following concerns from congressional Republicans and agriculture groups that the release could endanger their safety.
[…] Â The information on livestock and produce farmers was sought through a Freedom of Information Act request by the groups Earth Justice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust. They were given information on roughly 80,000 farmers and ranchers.
Pew returned the original information, per the agency’s request Thursday, according to documents obtained by Fox.
The agency acknowledged the information included individual names, email addresses, phone numbers and personal addresses.
Earth Justiceâ€™s basic reason for existence is to try to sue into oblivion any industrial development that they donâ€™t like; and a large part of their strategy is to find someone to target, then find something that they can target them with (like, for example, the Clean Water Act). But youâ€™re sayingÂ Moe, the family farmers arenâ€™t subject to the CWA!Â â€¦And perhaps that is true. But thereâ€™s a whole bunch of regulations that those farmers are subject to â€“ and their personal information has just been given to a bunch of hardcore progressive lawyers who capitalize the word â€˜people.â€™ In other words; if you donâ€™t think that the EPA has put small farmers and ranchers at increased risk of punitive lawfare by partisan activists, well. I would almost envy you that private world of yours, except that I suspect that there isnâ€™t quite enough oxygen in it.
The dam has broken, the curtain has been lifted, and the flood of scandals coming to light this week is finally beginning to open people’s eyes.
1. Benghazi.Â Four Americans were abandoned to die in the middle of a terrorist attack. Â In the aftermath the administration changed the talking points, lied about a stupid video being to blame, and spent months trying to hide the truth as they intimidated and blocked access to witnesses.
2. Â The IRS admits to targeting Tea Party groups. Â It turns out they were also targeting pro-life groups, pro-Israel groups, religious groups, and pretty much anybody who dared to criticize Obama’s policies. Â They were also leaking confidential information about the opposition to their political friends.
So how is Obama trying to squirm his way out of trouble?
One unique excuse being offered by David Axelrod is that the government is simply too big for Obama to know what’s going on. Â Yes, Â you heard that right…the liberals’ favorite argument that more government is the solution to every problem has suddenly turned into an excuse for ruling class ignorance andÂ incompetence.
The IRS may not be the only federal agency singling out conservative groups. Records suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency has made it easier for environmental groups to file Freedom of Information Act requests than conservative organizations.
According to EPA records obtained by the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, since January 2012 the agency has granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 Freedom of Information Act Requests sent by major environmental groups, denying only seven of them â€” meaning green groups saw their fees waived 92 percent of the time.
At the same time, the EPA frequently denied fee waivers to conservative groups. EPA records show that the agency rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from such conservative groups as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, and Judicial Watch â€” an 81 percent rejection rate.
[…] Â â€œThis is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,â€ said CEI senior fellow Chris Horner,Â authorÂ of â€œThe Liberal War on Transparency.â€
Horner described the EPAâ€™s actions as â€œa clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and â€œa concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly.â€
This kind of favoritism springs from a worldview. The EPA that authored this bias was the same EPA led by Lisa Jackson. She left office last year amid her own scandal involving the use of personal, secret email accounts to conduct agency business â€”Â the â€œRichard Windsorâ€ scandal.
Itâ€™s time to ask a serious question. In light of the IRS targeting conservatives and the EPA denying conservatives at the same time, do liberals even believe that conservatives are due fair treatment under the law?
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on aÂ 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,â€ Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. ButÂ troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on â€œunreasonable searches and seizures,â€ and no right to a jury trial.
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
The Republicans had the power to stop this, but they once again cowered and caved, allowing Obama to appoint the most radical, left-wing, anti-Israel Secretary of Defense in American history. Â This is what “bipartisanship” and “moderation” look like in reality: compromising with evil.
Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Defense, ending a Â long seesaw battle over his nomination. The Senate moments ago voted 58 to 41 in favor of confirming Hagel. Hagel nowÂ replaces Leon Panetta at Americaâ€™s top defense spot. (A full roll call of the Senate vote is at the end of this article.)
[…] Â Despite this opposition, the SenateÂ earlier today easily voted to end its filibusterÂ on Hagel, with a 71 to 27 cloture vote in which 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats to bring Hagelâ€™s bid to a vote.Â Although the Democrats have 53 seats in the Senate and caucus with two Independents, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) and Mark Udall (Colorado) missed the cloture vote.
If preventing the nomination from getting to the floor for a vote was the only way to stop it, that’s what the Republicans should have done. Â There is NO REASON why the Republicans should not use every strategy available to prevent radicals from gaining power. Â The GOP is continually cooperating the the cutting of their own throats, and the destruction of the nation they claim to love. Â The minority is under no obligation to compromise with the majority in an area that they know to be wrong and destructive.
Their willingness to allow Hagel to be confirmed has set the stage for a massive war in the Middle East, if not world-wide. Â The blood of the innocent will be on their hands.
Hagel’s qualifications and ideological views were the source of controversy. Though he had voted for the Iraq War in 2002, Hagel had spent much of the subsequent decade criticizing the war and the foreign policy doctrines he believes to be responsible for it. Along the way, Hagel adopted or reinforced views that came back to haunt him: his opposition to sanctions against Iran; his support for aggressive nuclear disarmament; and his belief in negotiating with anti-Israel terror groups such as Hamas.
[…] Â Aside from its effects on policy at the Pentagon, where Hagel will start his job with a diminished stature, the enduring legacy of the Hagel confirmation fight will likely be increased division between the two parties on Israel policy. Many of Hagel’sÂ professed views about IsraelÂ would, until very recently, have been unacceptable to Democrats as well as Republicans. Yet during the Obama era, and under the influence of left-wing groups within the party, Democrats have shifted significantly on the issue.
Sentimentally, both parties are pro-Israel, but Democrats’ policy views place them sharply in opposition to the policies of most Israeli governments, and somewhat at odds withÂ the strong pro-Israel policy preferences of the majority of Americans, as well asÂ the preferences of the peace-seeking yet security-conscious Israeli public.
Last year, Obama appointed three radical union hacks to the National Labor Relations Board to push a pro-union (and pro-Democrat) agenda. Â Knowing that they would never pass muster with the Senate, Obama declared that the Senate was in “recess” – when it clearly was not – and appointed them anyway, bypassing the constitutionally required vetting process.
Four days after President Obama pledged to “protect and defend the Constitution,” the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that he violated that oath in making several appointments last year.
The court said Obama’s three “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board weren’t recess appointments at all, since the Senate was still in session when he made them.
Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the panel’s ruling, all the decisions the board made over the past year will be nullified, since without those three there weren’t enough members on the board to make any rulings at all.
[…] Â Thankfully, there are still some judges around who see the virtue of protecting and defending our “messy” system, even if Obama and his sycophants don’t.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the presidentâ€™s recess appointment powers donâ€™t apply to â€œintra-sessionâ€ appointments â€” those made whenÂ CongressÂ has left town for a few days or weeks. They saidÂ Mr. ObamaÂ erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
â€œAllowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitutionâ€™s separation of powers,â€ the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidentsâ€™ recess powers only apply afterÂ CongressÂ has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstandsÂ Supreme CourtÂ scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And theÂ courtÂ ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when theÂ SenateÂ is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Mark Gaston Pearce, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board…indicated that the NLRB will attempt to continue on regardless:
The Board respectfully disagrees with todayâ€™s decision and believes that the Presidentâ€™s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.
In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.
Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRBâ€™s strategy is to act as if the courtâ€™s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.
The NLRB does not get to disagree with a Federal Appeals Court. It has already overstepped its jurisdiction infinite number of times. Its opinion of an Appeal Court ruling is completely irrelevant. It does not get to narrowly define the meaning of that ruling. It does not get to stay in business and declare that it will go on doing exactly what it was doing before because it is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.
But in ObamaTime that is exactly how it works. Powers are seized and the propaganda press starts screaming that this is the way it should be. Obama unilaterally declares the Senate in recess and appoints union lawyers to the NLRB. The NLRB ignores an Appeals Court ruling and declares it will go on functioning.
The rule of Obama is in direct conflict with the rule of law.
In the addressÂ itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.
â€œThereâ€™s a moment of opportunity now thatâ€™s important,â€ Pfeiffer said. â€œWhatâ€™s frustrating is that we donâ€™t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.â€
Note the contempt in Pfeiffer’s words–not just for the political opposition, but for the political system itself–a system designed by the Framers to include checks and balances to hold government power firmly in check.
[…] Â A year ago, President ObamaÂ observed: “[I]t turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Back then, facing re-election, he promised to be patient. Today, he is impatient–with the opposition, and the system itself. He will destroy both, if necessary, to achieve his vision of America–one where “government alone” does not do everything, but rather dictates to individuals what they should do, and choose, and want, to serve its sweeping designs.
Throughout most of human history, transfers of power involved the coronation of a king or emperor, who’s only claim to power was either his birth or the conquest of his rival, whose reign was for life, and whose subjects were at his complete mercy.
Two centuries ago, our founders gave us a radically different system, where leaders were chosen from among the people to be public servants who wereÂ held accountable by the people, where no man (regardless of position) was above the law, where power was limited to prevent its abuse, where God alone was our King, and where government was prevented from taking that dictatorial role in people’s lives.
It is an awesome privilege to be the beneficiary of such a gift, and yet it carries a heavy responsibility of civic duty to hold our government and public servants accountable when they overstep their legitimate, constitutional authority.
Today was a day of inauguration, not coronation. We respect the results of the election, but we also remember that the constitutional limits of government power and the rule of law that protects our liberties are NEVER up for a vote.
Today, it was not just a president who is being inaugurated, but also We The People, who must shoulder our responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. May we take that solemn charge faithfully and honorably, as our founders did.
Sounding the same themes of class warfare that propelled his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama devoted hisÂ second inaugural addressÂ to laying out his second term agenda: a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.
In the process, President Obama attempted nothing less than an assault on the timeless notion of liberty itself:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.
ButÂ we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
After praising the “collective” and mocking the notion that America is a “nation of takers,” President Obama targeted the political opposition. He targeted those who “deny” climate change, attacked those who allegedly refused to reward the elderly for their contributions, and defied critics whom he said wanted “perpetual war.” He attacked the rich–as he has done so often over the past four years–and painted a caricature of an unjust nation: “…our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”
[…] Â Throughout his address, the President maintained his voice in a near-shout. This was not an historic address, a reflection on a moment in history; it was an exhortation to political action, in contrast to the political reality of a divided Washington, in defiance of the profound economic challenges still facing the American people.
It was a declaration of political war on individual liberty. It was a wasted opportunity–and a warning.
Obama spelled out his true agenda: destroying founding principles about limited government to meet changing times. While paying lip service to â€œour skepticism of central authority,â€ Obama said that times have changed, and â€œso must weâ€: â€œfidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges â€¦ preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.â€ This was the sheerest form of rhetoric sophistry; equating freedom with government control is an perverse reversal of language. Of course, the Constitution was written based on the notion that human natureÂ does not changeÂ â€“ people are not angels, nor devils, but self-interested creatures capable of greatness or evil, who must be checked against each other. But Obama doesnâ€™t believe that. He believes that man can be made anew.
But only by government. And so Obama demonized limited government as anarchism, suggesting that meeting â€œthe demands of todayâ€™s world by acting aloneâ€ is like forcing American soldiers to meet â€œthe forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militiasâ€ â€“ a straw man argument so blatant it appeared Obama would wheel out Ray Bolger to present it. In pursuing his agenda, Obama made clear that he will ignore basic realities â€“ â€œwe reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.â€ He made clear that he will create false histories â€“ â€œwe remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.â€ He made clear that he will redefine taking and giving â€“ those who wish to save their money for their families and children are â€œtakers,â€ and those who wish to confiscate the wealth of others â€œstrengthen us.â€
In the end, Obamaâ€™s argument was a collectivist one. And it was an argument designed to irreparably tear this nation apart. Obama himself said it: â€œBeing true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way â€¦â€
But this renders the Declaration of Independence Obama cited completely meaningless. The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obamaâ€™s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organizationâ€™s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administrationâ€™s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of â€œpolitical, economic and social forces,â€ said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced â€œAl-Qudsâ€ instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as â€œnot that badâ€ when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up â€œmoderate elementsâ€ of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as â€œa holy struggleâ€ and â€œa legitimate tenet of Islam.â€
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennanâ€™s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
It is official: President Barack Obama will announce the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense on Monday afternoon. In making his choice, the president has fulfilled the worst expectations of his foreign policy critics, while delighting anti-war activists and the anti-Israel left.
The Hagel nomination represents the return of the radical Barack Obama, hitherto hidden under an opportunistic anti-terror persona.
There is, as Bill KristolÂ observed last week, â€œno case for Hagel.â€ His supporters cannot cite any substantive reason he should be Secretary of Defense; instead, they argue that â€œHagel must be appointed in order to spite many of his critics.â€ Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast confirms that assessment with hisÂ weak defenseÂ of Hagel this morning: he must be appointed, Beinart argues, to destroy â€œthe Republican foreign policy establishment.â€
Not to defend the country, not to strengthen our military, but to win a political argument.
Amnon Lord, a leading political commentatorÂ atÂ Makor RishonÂ andMaarivÂ newspapers, opined Sunday that if President Barack Obama succeeds in appointing Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense, Israel will have to face Iran on its own.
And yet, said Lord, “if AIPAC goes intoturboÂ front wheel drive in order to prevent the appointment, this would be a mistake. Hagel is bad news, not because of his attitude toward Israel but mostly because of his strong isolationist tendency and his being a defeatist dove on the matter of Iran.”
The will to appoint Hagel exposes Obama’s true world view, Lord explained. “The problem is, first and foremost, theÂ United States’, not Israel’s.” In 45 or 50 years, he added, theÂ United StatesÂ has gone from believing the entire free world needs to be protected in order for the U.S.Â to be safe, to a point in which theÂ United StatesÂ seems to think there is nothing that requires its interventionÂ beyond, perhaps, Venezuela andNicaragua.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced he will begin the new Congress today by violating Senate rules and forcing through a set of procedural changes that will undermine Senate conservatives’ ability to influence legislation. But the “Reid Plan” will have its most dramatic impact on presidential nominations, especially for the Supreme Court.
The Senate is a unique legislative body that protects the rights of individual senators both to debate and to amend. These rights are valued so highly that it takes a supermajority — today, 60 votes — to deny fellow senators those rights. This higher vote threshold and the prospect of extended debate encourage deliberation, compromise and moderation.
Many Senate liberals want to gut this long-standing protection for minorities. Buried in the Reid Plan is a new rule, the “standing filibuster requirement,” that will allow a partisan majority to shut off deliberation and pass legislation by a bare majority. Disguised as a debate-promoting measure, this new plan is actually just a mechanism to eliminate the higher vote threshold that has long been required to proceed to final passage of bills and nominations.
This spells the effective end to minority rights in the Senate. Today’s 60-vote bar to end debate will be gone, and the Senate will be transformed into President Obama’s rubber stamp.
When it comes to the Supreme Court â€“ Valerie Jarrett intends to go gay to get her way…
Now hereâ€™s theÂ dealÂ with the possible gay appointment.Â The administration, Democrats, they donâ€™t really care about the gay issue.Â Â They donâ€™t care about protecting them. Â The gay issue is just like the minority issue, itâ€™s simply a way to cower Republicans so Democrats get their way onÂ using government to control people.Â Thatâ€™s it.Â And the thing is, these last four years, they haveÂ become very good at it.Â Â WhatÂ the White HouseÂ wants is the most radical SC appointment in the history of the court.Â That appointment will then be insulated fromÂ attackÂ because of the gay issue.Â Republicans donâ€™t want to appear â€œinsensitiveâ€ and know the media will be ready for an all out offensive against them.Â This in turn could roll into the 2014 elections veryÂ similar toÂ the trumped up rape comments by Mourdock and AkinÂ ended up damaging the entire party in 2012.Â (I donâ€™t know Akin, but Richard Mourdock is a good man and the media unfairly tore him apart.Â What else is new though, right?) Â
Now manyÂ inside the party fear the sameÂ treatmentÂ if they word something less than perfect and having to review an openly gay Supreme Court appointment duringÂ televisedÂ hearings in this current political climateÂ would place Republicans in a very dangerous position public relations wise if they wereÂ to aggressively challenge that appointment just a year out from the Midterm Elections.Â Â The White HouseÂ and Democrats would use the hearing to again paint Republicans as anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-gay, basically anti-everything and everyone, and the mediaÂ will do double duty toÂ push thatÂ portrayal 24/7 for them.Â The whole â€œgayâ€ issue of the nomineeÂ will be the Trojan Horse to get this radical appointment approved during confirmation.Â The Democrats get the most radical justice ever on the court, and set up momentum for the 2014 election.Â I know WHI has said often that Barack Obama is stupid.Â That may be true, but the people running him are incredibly smart, and very devious and dangerous.
I could care less if a Justice is gay or not and most of us in the party feel the same way.Â Â Even the more social conservatives among us donâ€™t place that issue near the top ofÂ the list.Â I do care a greatdealÂ if a potential justice is the most radical leftwing socialistÂ to ever beÂ consideredÂ for the SC.Â When I received the information, I was instantly reminded of the remarks Jarrett made before the election where she indicated they had â€œtwo judges ready to goâ€.Â It seems pretty clear that the first of those two is being positioned right now.Â If the word given to Judiciary is correct, and one of the conservative leaning judges steps down, I have no doubtÂ the White HouseÂ will move ahead with what Jarrett said earlier, and the socialists will have control ofÂ the White House, the Senate, near control of the Supreme Court, and will then use the momentum to take control of the House in 2014.Â They will have the country locked up tight.Â People who think things canâ€™t get worse for America need to stop and think a bit more on that.Â They could get a whole lot worse.
A key agency in the â€œmost transparent administration in historyâ€ is being investigated for dodging potential public scrutiny and possibly congressional oversight by using bogus electronic mail accounts to conduct official business.
It involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its administrator, Lisa Jackson, the Obama appointee who has dedicated tens of millions of dollars to anÂ â€œenvironmental justiceâ€Â movement that helps minority communities get green. Each year the agency doles out cash to leftwing community groups that help poor, minority and indigenous people increase recycling, reduce carbon emissions through â€œweatherization,â€ participate in â€œgreen jobsâ€ training and avoid heat stroke.
The thought of this major government agency conducting secret operations is downright scary not to mention illegal. But that could be exactly whatâ€™s going on at the EPA and now the agencyâ€™s watchdog is investigating at the request of Congress. In amemoÂ addressed to Jackson and other high-ranking EPA mucky mucks, the agencyâ€™s inspector general announces its plans to begin an audit of â€œelectronic records management practices.â€
â€œOur objective is to determine whether EPA follows applicable laws and regulations when using private and alias email accounts to conduct official business,â€ the EPA Inspector General writes.
Obama could not have made a WORSE pick for Secretary of State, and he knows it. Â John Kerry is always first in line to cuddle up to our enemies and slander America’s men and women in uniform.
He considers America to be theÂ villainÂ in the world, and will continue to show the same groveling, America-hating, apologetic posture to our enemies as Obama himself, inviting more disdain, hostility and violence.
President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Sen. John Kerry as his next secretary of state, elevating the longtime lawmaker and foreign policy expert to the top diplomatic job he had coveted.
“He is not going not need a lot of on-the-job training,” Obama said, standing alongside Kerry at the White House. “Few individuals know as many presidents and prime ministers or grasp our policies as firmly as John Kerry.”
If confirmed by the Senate, Kerry would replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who plans to leave Obama’s second-term Cabinet early next year. Clinton, who is recovering from a concussion sustained in a fall, did not attend the Roosevelt Room announcement.
The 69-year-old Democrat is expected to be easily confirmed by his Senate colleagues. He would be the first of what are expected to be several new faces on Obama’s national security team, including a new defense secretary and director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
An attorney who won an award for representing Terri Schiavoâ€™s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife is now an advisor to the transition team of incoming president Barack Obama.
Thomas Perrelli, who raised over $500,000 for the pro-abortion presidential candidate and is the managing partner of a Washington law firm, Jenner & Block LLP, is helping advise Obama on putting together a Justice Department team.
However, Perrelli provided Michael Schiavo with legal advice during his response to the Congressional bill that President Bush signed allowing the Schindler family to take their lawsuit seeking to prevent Terriâ€™s euthanasia death from state to federal courts.
Perrelli led the Jenner & Block team that developed the legal briefs opposing appeals for Michael and he ultimately received the Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Pro Bono Award in October 2006 for representing Terriâ€™s former husband at no cost.
On Michaelâ€™s legal team, Perrelli worked with infamous pro-euthanasia attorney George Felos as well as lawyers from the Florida chapter of the ACLU.
Obamaâ€™s selection of Perrelli to participate on his Justice Department transition team is no surprise given his comments on Terriâ€™s painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death during the presidential campaign.
During his debate with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, ObamaÂ said his biggest mistakeÂ was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri.