Barack “Milhous” Obama
Judging from this morning’s events, I can only assume that there is a Romney campaign mole high up in the councils of the Obama administration. Absent this, it is hard to understand why the Obama administration, less than five months from election day, thinks it is a brilliant idea to invoke Executive Privilege in order to block the turnover of documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal to the House:
President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to forge ahead Wednesday morning with its meeting on the contempt resolution anyway.
If the vote proceeds, Republicans have more than enough votes on committee to pass the resolution. However, Holder would not be considered held in contempt of Congress unless and until the full House approves the measure.
The move by Holder and Obama to lock down some requested documents only complicates the fight over the botched anti-gunrunning operation between the legislative and executive branches.
Go here to read the rest. I do thank whoever made this decision. Not thinking that a lousy economy was enough of an advantage for the GOP, they have handed the Republicans a scandal issue. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
20 Responses to Barack “Milhous” Obama
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- T. Shaw commented on Choose Your Pope!
(1 hours ago) - T. Shaw commented on February 25, 1863: National Bank Act
(2 hours ago) - JL commented on So Who Exactly Is Pushing A Social Agenda?
(4 hours ago) - John Nolan commented on Justice Hathorne
(5 hours ago) - Michael Paterson-Seymour commented on Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps
(6 hours ago) - Min commented on Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps
(8 hours ago) - JDP commented on So Who Exactly Is Pushing A Social Agenda?
(1 days ago) - Greg Mockeridge commented on Armchair Pontiffs Come Out of the Woodwork
(1 days ago) - Clinton commented on Armchair Pontiffs Come Out of the Woodwork
(1 days ago) - JL commented on So Who Exactly Is Pushing A Social Agenda?
(1 days ago) - JL commented on So Who Exactly Is Pushing A Social Agenda?
(1 days ago)
Pingback: Two Quick Links « Truth Before Dishonor
*looks at the pot of decaf* It’s too freaking early to deal with this kind of BS without serious caffeine, or much stronger stimulants.
I am not surprised.
Yesterday’s Investors Business Daily published the following: “The chief executive who swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws picks those he’ll ignore and makes up others through regulation and executive order. He sees no need for a Congress or Constitution.”
His teleprompter is either too arrogant or to deserate to stop digging that hole.
The Teleprompter-in-Cheif has misspent 40 months figuratively strangling America’s engines of prosperity. The TOTUS and its administration are America’s
“Black Swans.”
Little wonder, then, that three days after his immigration demagoguery, polls show Obama (Romney 46 – Obama 43) got zilch for his extra-constitutional arrogance.
Oh don’t worry Foxfier, with a little luck we’ll be watching the fallout between now and election day. Get your popcorn ready.
I think it’s an insult to Nixon to lump him in with King Kardashian. No one died during Watergate, a third-rate burglary that led to a coup d’etat launched by The Washington Post.
“I think it’s an insult to Nixon to lump him in with King Kardashian.”
Ha! I support what Joe Green wrote!
Not thinking that a lousy economy was enough of an advantage for the GOP, they have handed the Republicans a scandal issue.
You have two choices. Either what’s in the documents is worse than the aroma which arises from refusing to disclose them, or Obama is refusing to disclose them because it is his default to attempt to control the narrative at all times (that last being one suggestion as to why his long-form birth certificate remained under lock-and-key for so long).
In the 70s it seemed that all the sanctimony in the world could not wash away the sins of Pres Nixon. A trivial incident that JFK would have told his brother to fix with a visit by some union goons to the NYT, or FDR dismiss airily with some remarks about moneychangers became a full-blown constitutional crisis for the hapless Nixon. It would be interesting to see if the press exerts even a fraction of the effort they made during Watergate to get to the bottom of FF. Then the pundits endlessly intoned about Nixon’s contempt for the spirit of the Constitution, while here we have what appears to be no less than an attempt to subvert the Constitution itself and the MSM cannot bestir itself since it may go right up to its man in the WH.
Perhaps the most amusing aspect of all this is the spin that this started under Bush.
Not exactly.
What you talking ’bout Ivan?
FF would be a trivial incident in JFK administration?
FF could be airily dismissed if FDR had done it? I don’t think so. There are still lots of guns out there, maybe more American to be killed or have been killed by them, perhaps all only for the effect of changing the Constitutional right to bear arms.
You might not like the aforementioned Democrats, but I think Nixon, Kennedy and FDR were all true patriots.
Analyze,
To be clear I was talking about the Watergate incident.
Makes one wonder how much of this is true:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_falling_apart.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This is Obama’s first. George W perpetrated about a dozen, all rather questionable.
Six times actually, none of which were overturned by a court. We will see how Obama fares.
Did any of Dubya’s six, court-sustained EP claims involve illegal activities as in providing the murder weapon to the killer of a federal employee or perpetrating violent schemes aimed at taking away the American people’s Second Amendment rights?
“This is Obama’s first.”
Of course the first time could be an abuse of the privilege. In which case it doesn’t matter how often others have done it.
First of all I was not around during the 70′s or 80′s so can someone explain watergate to me? It’s mentioned in a few songs and Lynerd Skynerd says that watergate doesn’t bother him.
Paul Dwhich state will you take over? I call Delaware and Maryland which may not seem significant but that includes D.C.
I’m part way through Michelle Malkim’s book, “Culture of Corruption”, and am simply staggered that all the shenanigans by Obama and his cronies was kept under the radar for so long prior to the 2008 presidential elections
Its pleasing to see that she, Sean Hannity et al. are working hard to expose all this – there appears to be so much, that there is probably not enough time to get through it all before the elections.
Politics, Chicago style – nothing seems to change, does it.
Alas, no Don. If only there were lawmen with this type of attitude to clean up politics the Chicago Way:
First of all I was not around during the 70?s or 80?s so can someone explain watergate to me? It’s mentioned in a few songs and Lynerd Skynerd says that watergate doesn’t bother him.
Mr. Nixon inherited a most wretched military quagmire from the previous administration and embarked on a policy of ‘withdrawal as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of defeat’ in the words of Dr. Kissinger (his principal counselor on foreign affairs, later the foreign minister). The precedent they had in mind was Gen. deGaulle’s liquidation of the French commitment in Algeria (1958-62). With a variety of purposes in mind, the political opposition undermined government policy (commonly in the service of promoting a rout of American forces in Indochina). One element of this was misappropriation of state secrets by government employees working both sides of the street, Morton Halperin and Daniel Ellsberg among them. They were in cahoots with our perpetually unscrupulous press corps. Mr. Nixon and his confederates thought they were justified in using every means at their disposal to attack and disable these characters. Mr. Nixon also had…issues, and had a neuralgic response to his opponents that some more internally tranquil man (e.g. his successor) might not have.
The FBI was not the most conscientious of organizations and had been engaged in seedy extra-legal domestic surveillance for some time. They elected to not be helpful, so Mr. Nixon’s subordinates put together a pick-up team of composed of members of the White House staff, people on the staff of the President’s election campaign committee, and assorted subcontractors to do these bag jobs. One odd target of theirs was Lawrence O’Brien, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. They burgled his offices and tapped his phone. They needed to repair the malfunctioning tap so they burgled his offices a second time on 17 June 1972. They were collared by a security guard at the building and placed under arrest. There then followed a 10 month long campaign to conceal the filaments that connected the five men arrested to the President and a number of crimes were committed in that interval (such as bribing them). It all began to unravel in April of 1973 and a series of inquiries were undertaken by federal prosecutors and committees of Congress which had fairly demonstrated by August of 1974 that Richard Nixon was in the know about the obstruction of justice and had a general knowledge of what his subordinates were up to in 1971 and 1972. A committee of the House of Representatives had approved three resolutions of impeachment and his impeachment was imminent. A resolution of impeachment requires a trial in the U.S. Senate and he was counseled that only 12 Senators would likely vote for acquittal, so he resigned.