And Obama again proves that only gullible, stupid people vote for him.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/youtube]
Posted on the pomposity that is the site of the “Office of the President Elect” it says this:
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
That, as is just about everything else about Barack Obama, is chock full of manure. It is as phony as he is.
Baack Obama promised to protect whistleblowers and instead has done absolutely the opposite. This must have come as quite a shock to the liberal media. Tears likely washed on the fingers of Jane Mayer as she wrote:
When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.
Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”
“More than Nixon”
In the Atlantic Wire John Hudson writes:
The Justice Department’s subpoena of New York Times reporter James Risen Monday was the latest sign of how aggressive the Obama administration is being in its campaign against government whistle-blowers. The purpose of Risen’s subpoena is to force him to testify that Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent, gave him confidential information about the CIA’s efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. The extent to which the administration is prosecuting leakers has troubled those who see leakers as speakers of truth to power. “In President Obama’s 26 months in office, civilian and military prosecutors have charged five people in cases involving leaking information, more than all previous presidents combined,” reports the Times. Here’s a list of prominent leakers with various agendas currently under pressure from the government.
Obama’s war on whistleblowers also includes those who would tell us the truth about Fast and Furious:
Senator Grassley pointed out that the documents DOJ released to smear Dodson were actually supposed to be so sensitive that the DOJ wouldn’t provide them to congressional investigators. But then, to harm a whistleblower, someone from the DOJ provided these specifically selected documents to the press. In fact, the name of the criminal suspect in the documents was redacted, but Agent Dodson’s name was left for all to see. “This looks like a clear and intentional violation of the Privacy Act as well as an attempt at whistleblower retaliation,” said Grassley.
Now Obama trains his sights on those who would uncover the biggest fraud of our times- climate change. Obama is joining the British government in trying to identify the leaker of the climtategate emails. Christopher Horner in the Washington Examiner:
I have seen apparent proof that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.
I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.
The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws.
They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).
The hunt involving U.S. and UK law enforcement agencies is now escalating. On Wednesday night UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011.”
……..
To review: The UK police and the US DOJ, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one or more FOIA, records that were unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissal of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.
And they are pursuing the leaker.
This is the President who promised to protect whistleblowers but now pursues them with a vengeance. This is the President who refuses to prosecute those who break the laws and promises to prosecute those who enforce the laws. This is the Preisdent who demanded all Americans be subject to indefinite detention without trial.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo[/youtube]
Obama has proven that not only is he was awful as many of us thought him to be, not only has he brought the slime of Chicago to Washington, not only has he stripped all the dignity from the office of the Presidency, he has become a monster. If he is re-elected, he will likely remain in office for the rest of his life.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Hard Right: HR, it was Rand Paul making the argument, not Ron Paul.
@ drjohn:
Shelia Jackson Lee is a straight-up communist. I’m sure she is trying to get Obama to throw the constitution into the circular file and go full Chavez. I don’t think Obama is a total idiot, close by not total. If he were to scrap the constitution, the States would simply start dropping from the union. It would be the start of another civil war. There is no way he could do it gracefully and he does not have the support of the US military.
@Aqua: I agree that she is a total idiot. But let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Obama is CIC for the military. They are supposed to obey his orders.
Who is to stop him if half the Congress chooses not to do so and his AG is another idiot who refuses to act?
What then?
Dr John That incessant Whirring overhead.
The people who placed Obama in office would see no benefit to keeping him there indefinitely – it would serve no purpose for them, and would actually create a great deal of trouble by being much too obvious. Much preferable from their point of view to keep up appearances and have the usual succession continue. They will continue to benefit from the current arrangement as long as one of their people is in the White House and remains reliable — it does not matter exactly who it is, as long as they do what they are supposed to do.
@ drjohn:
Not if he goes against the constitution. That’s why they call it a constitutional crisis. The oath of enlistment is below.
The very first thing is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…
He would immediately lose the support of the military Dr. J. And the military only obeys lawful orders. The US military does not teach indoctrination in the sense of loyalty to one person.
Wow… the “Obama wants to be eternal king” battle still raging? LOL Personally, I don’t think the man likes the job. Just the perks. I think he’ll be quite happy to move on to richer and less demanding pastures.
But as far as “ignoring” the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps everyone is forgetting that elections for Presidents are state elections, and first the states would have to agree to put a candidate on the ballot who is clearly (not to be confused with the mud of “birthers”) not meeting Constitutional qualifications.
If they refused to put an overtly unqualified candidate on the ballot – as most probably would (not to mention all the lawsuits that would hit the courts…) – it would then require the willing write in of a majority of voters who also wanted to ignore the 22nd Amendment.
Then it would require the Electoral College to do the same, followed last by certification from a Congress, also willing to ignore the 22nd Amendment.
Following that, a legal challenge would arise and courts… prior to hearing it… would have to rule to stay the coronation. In the end, it would take a heckuva oral argument to ignore the 22nd Amendment in even a liberal stacked SCOTUS. The SCOTUS would, in essence, have to find reason to strike down the 22nd Amendment as unconstitutional.
Ya know, some may think Obama is popular, but for the vast amount of people at all levels in the nation needed to surmount all these obstacles to a permanent Obama rule, I think it’s safe to say he ain’t that popular….
His only other option would be an attempt at a military coup… and, as Aqua rightly points out above, I highly doubt the CiC would find the military willing to go that direction.
So this likelihood lies somewhere been impossible and “ain’t gonna happen”.
As far as the military appropriations bill that some believe is so heinous, I’ve already pointed out the realities in both the House and Senate bills here, and here, … and links provided to the final bills, as passed, thru both chambers.
Obama as eternal president doesn’t bother me; as Mata illustrated above, it won’t happen.
What I AM worried about is Joe Biden permanently ensconcing himself as VEEP for life.
Yikes!