First time visitor? Learn more.

Ten key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

by Speranza ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Debt, Economy, Election 2014, Elections 2012, Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Republican Party, unemployment at June 10th, 2013 - 8:05 am

The only thing though we can hope for (since Obama will NEVER be impeached) is to weaken him so much that we can limit the damage he is doing (and also hurt Hillary Clinton if she runs in2016).

by Nile Gardiner

The last few weeks have been among the worst of Barack Obama’s time in office, recalling earlier periods of turmoil for the president in 2010 and 2011, when his ratings also plummeted. In 2013, the situation is significantly worse for the White House, with the Obama administration engulfed in a series of major scandals (IRS persecution of conservative groups, the Benghazi debacle, and the Justice Department seizure of journalists’ phone records) that are not only eroding trust in government but also in the office of the president itself. This is undoubtedly a period of steep decline for the Obama presidency, whose imperial-style big government approach is being increasingly questioned not only by American voters, but also by formerly subservient sections of the liberal-dominated mainstream media. In contrast to his first term, Barack Obama is finding himself less and less shielded by the press, and far more vulnerable to public criticism.

With good reason, Americans don’t feel optimistic about their country’s future with President Obama at the helm. According to the RealClear Politics polling average, less than one in three Americans believe the United States is heading in the right direction. A new Economist/YouGov poll has the president’s job approval rating at just 46 percent, with 49 percent of Americans disapproving. Strikingly, 35 percent of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the president’s job performance, 15 points higher than the number who “strongly approve.” A mere 31 percent of Americans surveyed by YouGov believe the United States is “generally headed in the right direction.”

In addition to damaging scandals, which have raised major questions over the integrity and judgment of the Obama administration, there remain deep-seated concerns over the US economy and the enormous national debt, widespread opposition to the president’s health care reforms, and significant fears over national security. Barack Obama’s second term could not have started more badly for the “hope and change” president, who, with three and a half years in office remaining, looks more and more like a lame duck. Here are ten key reasons why the Obama presidency is in trouble, with the outlook exceedingly grim for the White House.

1. The American public is losing trust in Obama

A recent Quinnipiac survey found that less than half of Americans (49 percent) now view their president as “honest and trustworthy.” According to Quinnipiac, the series of recent scandals have begun to significantly dent the president’s standing with the American people, with his approval rating standing at just 45 percent. The IRS targeting of conservative groups has been particularly damaging, with 76 percent of voters supporting the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal, and a series of Congressional hearings putting the Obama administration on the spot. Another survey, by NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, reveals a great deal of public concern over the “overall honesty and integrity of the Obama administration,” with more than half of Americans agreeing that recent scandals have “raised doubts” about the government’s trustworthiness. 41 percent of Americans believe that President Obama himself is “totally” or “mainly” responsible for the government’s handling of Benghazi – just 19 percent believe he bears no responsibility. On the IRS issue, only 24 percent say the president is not responsible in any way, while a third of Americans think he is largely culpable.

2. The Obama presidency is imperial in style and outlook

Leading conservative talk radio host Mark Levin was absolutely right when he blasted Barack Obama on Fox News back in January as “an imperial president.” It would be hard to find a US president in recent times who has behaved in a more arrogant fashion than President Obama, and that includes Richard Nixon. The Obama White House is routinely disdainful of criticism, sneeringly dismissive of Congressional opposition, nasty and brutish towards dissenting voices in the media, and completely lacking in humility. Even veteran reporters such as Bob Woodward, one of two journalists who broke the Watergate scandal, have found themselves on the sharp end of the White House’s boot after publishing unflattering stories. Woodward was warned earlier this year by a senior White House official that he would “regret” his remarks about the president’s handling of the sequester issue.  [.........]

3. Most Americans are still worried about the economy

Economic concerns are the top priority for Americans according to Gallup. In a recent poll, 86 percent of Americans agreed that “creating more jobs” and “helping the economy grow” are the top two priorities. “Making government work more efficiently” came third, at 81 percent. Despite a slight uptick in economic growth, and improving housing prices in some markets, the United States still has deep-seated economic problems. Most Americans are still nervous about the economy. According to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, just 46 percent of Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy. 64 percent of Americans are “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the state of the US economy today. Only 32 percent believe the economy will get better in the next 12 months. 58 percent of Americans still think the country is in an economic recession.

Strong job creation and robust economic growth are being significantly hampered in the United States by declining economic freedom, including rising tax rates, the growing burden of government regulation, and a rising dependency culture. Unemployment still remains at 7.5 percent, with nearly 12 million Americans out of work. 47 million Americans are living on food stamps (the highest figure in American history), and a staggering 128 million Americans are now dependent upon government programmes. A full economic recovery still remains far away. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans have rebuilt less than half of the wealth lost to the recession. [.........]

4. America’s level of debt is frightening

America’s economic problems are compounded by its huge debt problem. Barack Obama continues to lead the United States down the path of European Union-style decline, with incredible levels of public debt, currently standing at $16.85 trillion, a per person debt of $53,000. President Obama has done nothing to confront the vast entitlement programmes that are a yoke around the necks of future generations of American taxpayers, while taking an axe to defense spending, resulting in politically driven cuts that undermine America’s national security while doing nothing to reduce the country’s debt burden. As he made clear in his Inauguration address in January, President Obama remains committed to a big spending, big government vision, and one that will force the United States down the road to economic ruin unless it is reversed.

5. Obamacare is hugely expensive and increasingly unpopular

A key liability that will further expand America’s debt mountain is Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), the Obama administration’s hugely ambitious and expensive health care reform initiative that threatens to dramatically increase the cost of healthcare for ordinary Americans as well as businesses, when it goes into effect next year. Forbes Magazine reports that in California Obamacare is expected to increase individual health insurance premiums by 64 to 146 percent. The latest Congressional Budget Office estimate puts a $1.85 trillion price tag on Obamacare in its first 10 years. A clear majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. The latest CNN/ORC International poll shows 54 percent opposing the law. A Reason/Rupe poll found that a mere 32 percent support it. An April poll by the Kaiser Foundation, and reported by Politico, revealed that “just 35 percent of Americans view Obamacare ‘very’ or somewhat’ favorably, down 8 points since Election Day.” [.........]

6. Independents are rapidly withdrawing support for Obama

As Gallup polling has consistently shown, America is ideologically a conservative nation, with conservatives outnumbering liberals by a nearly two to one margin. Strikingly, as Gallup has found, more than 50 percent of Americans view Obama as more liberal than themselves, with just 27 percent of voters declaring that they share the same ideology as the president. Despite a clear advantage in terms of ideology, the Republicans have struggled to win over sufficient numbers of “moderates” (roughly a third of US voters) in the last two presidential elections, many of whom identify themselves as “Independents.” There are signs, however, that support for Obama among Independents is dramatically falling.  [.........] By a 45 percent to 35 percent margin, Independents believe that Republicans in Congress are doing a better job than President Obama on handling the economy.

7. The liberal media is less deferential to Obama in his second term

The Washington Post, standard bearer of the liberal establishment in the US capital, has labeled the IRS scandal a “horror story” for the Obama administration. Even The New York Times, the de facto inflight newspaper of Air Force One, recently carried a headline on its front page declaring: “Onset of Woes Casts Pall Over Obama’s Policy Aspirations.” The liberal mainstream media closed ranks behind Barack Obama for most of his first term in office, and relentlessly pummeled his presidential election opponent Mitt Romney ahead of the November 2012 vote, in a shameless display of bias towards their favoured candidate. [...........] Meanwhile, MSNBC, President Obama’s biggest flag-waver on cable news, has seen its ratings plummet in recent months, with Fox News further building its dominance of the ratings.

8. The Benghazi scandal has been extremely damaging

Much as the Obama administration tries to downplay the significance of the Benghazi scandal, it refuses to go away, with 46 percent of Americans believing “the administration deliberately misled the American people about the events surrounding the death of the American Ambassador to Libya” according to Quinnipiac. Like the IRS scandal, the Benghazi debacle has undermined trust and confidence in the Obama presidency. 58 percent of Americans in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey agree that that the State Department’s handling of the Benghazi attack raises doubts “about the overall honesty and integrity of the Obama administration.”

In the aftermath of the barbaric killing of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012 at the hands of al-Qaeda linked Islamist militants, the Obama administration tried to pass off the brutal attack as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that hardly anyone has seen. Undoubtedly worried that the killings would upset the White House’s carefully crafted narrative in the lead up to the 2012 election that al-Qaeda was in retreat, administration officials sought to downplay the broader significance of the attack in the run up to the presidential vote, a strategy that succeeded in the short term, but has since imploded in the face of sustained Congressional scrutiny. Not only has Benghazi damaged the president, it also hurt former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s image too.  [...........]

9. Obama’s national security strategy is weak and confusing

President Obama’s recent address to the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington has to go down as one of the most weak-kneed speeches by a US Commander-in-Chief in modern times. His call for a winding down of the global war against Islamist terror was naïve in the extreme, and sent completely the wrong signal to America’s enemies at a time when al-Qaeda is strengthening its presence in parts of the Middle East as well as North, West and East Africa. [..........] His Guantanamo policy is deeply out of touch as well with American public opinion. US polls have consistently shown strong support for keeping the camp in operation. This is hardly a strategy that will endear President Obama to an American public that feels less safe today than it did in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

10. Obama is “leading from behind” on the world stage

American foreign policy has become even more weak and incoherent in President Obama’s second term. On the world stage the United States has not been this powerless and disengaged since the days of Jimmy Carter. “Leading from behind” is no longer just a mantra for the Obama administration – it has become its philosopher’s stone. Washington’s leadership on the Syria crisis is non-existent, with the White House content to farm out its foreign policy to Moscow and the United Nations. On Afghanistan, Obama’s position is one of retreat and a handover of power back to the Taliban. Iran is barely mentioned by the president, as Tehran’s nuclear ambitions march on. Meanwhile key allies such as Britain are treated with contempt and lectured to on European policy as though it were a schoolboy being reprimanded for speaking out of turn, while the Special Relationship and the transatlantic alliance continue to be eroded. [........]

Read the rest -  The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 2013. Ten key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

128 Responses to “Ten key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | June 10, 2013 8:16 am

    I don’t think the Obama Regime is in meltdown mode. He’s having choppy waters ate best.

    It seems Maxine Waters had snitch about OFA using Gov resources to collect data.


  2. rain of lead
    2 | June 10, 2013 8:34 am

    Rodan, this stuff IS having an impact, it might be slow, it might be small but there seems to be NO sign of these leaks and scandals stopping anytime soon.
    I know he will NEVER be impeached but all of this “stuff” keeps him hamstrung and distracted…. I’m good with that


  3. 3 | June 10, 2013 8:37 am

    @ rain of lead:

    but all of this “stuff” keeps him hamstrung and distracted

    That is the best result you are going to get.


  4. 4 | June 10, 2013 8:38 am

    @ Rodan:

    I have to tell you that I agree with you on this one. While I’m certain that Obama will eventually suffer the very same fate of all cult figures eventually, which is a sudden and violent fall from grace, (violent in the sense of how quickly and how hated he will eventually become, not in actual real world violence,) I am not at all certain that he cares. He is an ideologue, and sees his Administration as accomplishing his ultimate goal, which is transforming America from the free and open society it was prior to his being elected into that brave new world order of that top down worker’s paradise Dystopia that has made the lives of Billions miserable in the past.


  5. 5 | June 10, 2013 8:58 am

    Rodan wrote:

    That is the best result you are going to get.

    It is a hell of a lot better than him running roughshod over the Constitution, Congress, and the Courts. You have to develop some reasonable expectations. You aren’t going to see Obama frog-marched out of the White House and off to prison. It might be nice, but it is not happening. What is improtant is keeping Obama from passing his agenda. He will do damage to the country, even if it is through inaction, but he won’t be able to actively destroy us. Ther won’t be a Son of ObamaCare coming in the next four years. There won’t be new gun control. There may not even be “comprehensive” immigration reform. Personally, I think they should pass a bill and take care of the border first, and then in their liesure address the broader concerns about guest worker visias to legalize the illegals already here.


  6. rain of lead
    6 | June 10, 2013 9:00 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    morning fist


  7. Speranza
    7 | June 10, 2013 9:02 am

    Keep Obama occupied with scandals so he will do less damage to the country.


  8. 8 | June 10, 2013 9:02 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Morning! How’s Momcat?


  9. 9 | June 10, 2013 9:10 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Personally, I think they should pass a bill and take care of the border first, and then in their liesure address the broader concerns about guest worker visias to legalize the illegals already here.

    That’s my stance. Step by step bills. Border Security and Visa enforcement first. Once that is done, then address other issues. One thing I will not budge for, I DO NOT support increased H1-B visas.


  10. 10 | June 10, 2013 9:11 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    That sums it up.


  11. 11 | June 10, 2013 9:21 am

    This is the video game I have been playing.

    Crusader Kings II

    I get to whack some Jihadis!


  12. rain of lead
    12 | June 10, 2013 9:21 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    she’s ok for now
    got see the dr for a test this morning
    mammogram…. or boob smash as she calls it


  13. rain of lead
    13 | June 10, 2013 9:22 am

    @ Rodan:

    hmmm
    looks interesting


  14. 14 | June 10, 2013 9:23 am

    Rodan wrote:

    One thing I will not budge for, I DO NOT support increased H1-B visas.

    Neither do I. Too many unemployed IT workers. They are bringing in cheap labor for Google and Apple and Microsoft at the expense of American workers. That was really unnecessary in the ’90s, when the Tech Bubble was bubbling. A lot of those people went into do-nothing jobs for do-nothing companies. But after the Tech Bubble burst, there was certainly no reason to be bringing in cheap labor from India and China to do jobs Americans would kill for. It is funny to look at the hypocrisy of companies like Google that claim the purest of Progressive Motives, but stab the workers in the back every chance that they get.


  15. 15 | June 10, 2013 9:30 am

    Rodan wrote:

    This is the video game I have been playing.

    Crusader Kings II

    I get to whack some Jihadis!

    With the Sword of Islam expansion. Gee I wonder why!


  16. 16 | June 10, 2013 9:33 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    What MUST be done in order to truly neuter Обама is to win the House and the Senate with 2/3 majorities for both. That way, Congress can override any/all (p)residential vetoes.


  17. rain of lead
    17 | June 10, 2013 9:36 am

    @ Macker:

    true..
    but really…
    what are the chances of that happening

    I’m not sure there are enough Senators up for reelection that we could get 2/3 even if we won them all


  18. 18 | June 10, 2013 9:42 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    true..
    but really…
    what are the chances of that happening

    I’m not sure there are enough Senators up for reelection that we could get 2/3 even if we won them all

    I don’t disagree with you. I suppose the next question would then be: How many SANE Democrats are left?


  19. rain of lead
    19 | June 10, 2013 9:42 am

    hmmm
    this will be a fun race to watch

    Conservative blogger running against liberal firebrand Alan Grayson

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/conservative-blogger-running-against-liberal-firebrand-alan-grayson/#ixzz2VowUPpH2


  20. 20 | June 10, 2013 9:43 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    I’m not sure there are enough Senators up for reelection that we could get 2/3 even if we won them all

    There are technically enough seats up to do that, but it would require winning virtually all of them. As a practical matter, that isn’t going to happen. Your deep blue big cities will run away with the vote in some places. The truth is that most Congressional seats are safe. The incumbent nearly always wins. This is somewhat more true in the House than the Senate. The Senate swings Democrat because it disproportionally represents the big cities which pretty much all swing blue. Because every big city wants to grow up top be Detroit. It is looking like more and more of them will get that oppertunity.


  21. rain of lead
    21 | June 10, 2013 9:43 am

    @ Macker:

    errrp
    null question
    sane and Democrat are mutualy exclusive


  22. rain of lead
    22 | June 10, 2013 9:46 am

    later ya’ll


  23. 23 | June 10, 2013 9:47 am

    @ Rodan:

    It’s been hinted and speculated by those smarter and more attuned that I that they will pass a messy amnesty bill that techinically gets them “out of the [BS] shadows” but doesn’t give them citizenship, etc., as this will be more palatable to the American voting public. Then they will use their surrogate “social justice” groups to rush to the court to get the status and goodies for these people using the judicial to accomplish what they could never get passed by the American people.

    Interesting that Prezdint Putz dropped a solid 5 points at Ras this a.m. to -14.


  24. 24 | June 10, 2013 9:49 am

    @ Macker:

    None. All Democrats are first and last loyal to their Party. They know no other gods before Obama. The truth is, thought, that things should? be worse than they are. Obama came into office with a filibuster-proof Senate and a solid Democrat House. He isn’t much of a leader, though. Even with that massive advantage he was unable to get much of his radical agenda through. At the end of the day, Obama doesn’t want to work. He is an ideologue, yes, but he is used to everything being given to him. Actually working for something, even something you believe in, is hard. At the end of the day, he’d rather be playing golf than governing a country.


  25. RIX
    25 | June 10, 2013 10:01 am

    Good morning. Obama is that radical professor that you
    had in college. You know, the guy who would whip up
    the yoots into righteous outrage against their country.
    Then they would go out & enjoy all of the advnages of
    living here.
    That professor was never actually meant to run anything.


  26. RIX
    26 | June 10, 2013 10:12 am

    Zimmerman jury seection begins today.
    I can imagine some of the posecution questions,
    “Are you now , or have you ever been a Tea Party member?”
    “Do you prefer TEA, or coffe?.’
    “Do watch Fox News?”
    ‘”Have you ever fainted at an Obama Rally?”
    “Are you ashamed of yourself beause of your whiteness?”
    “Do you think that Obama is as fabulous as I do?”


  27. 27 | June 10, 2013 10:16 am

    @ RIX:

    “Do you believe self-defense is a right?”
    “Does the Man keep you down?”

    And on and on. They will want as hostile a jury as they can get, because the facts on the face of them don’t merit prosecution. And it would be embarrqassing as hell if they lost this case just because the facts don’t indicate he is guilty…


  28. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | June 10, 2013 10:16 am

    RIX wrote:

    Zimmerman jury seection begins today.

    To find enough people to fill a jury with alternates who are local and who “haven’t formed an opinion about the case,” they are going to have to actively seek out people with the brainpower of rutabagas.


  29. 29 | June 10, 2013 10:22 am

    @ RIX:

    I was commenting on this over at ZIP. I imagine that there will be veiled hints dropped to the jury, sequestered or not, that if they bring back anything but a guilty verdict, they can expect Rodney King redux. The defense customarily requests a dismissal when the prosecution rests its case -- and if real justice were the issue here, the judge would grant it.

    Of course, if real justice were the issue here, the judge would have dismissed the case in pretrial as being the overreaching of a politically motivated prosecutor pandering to the whims of the media and the mob.


  30. RIX
    30 | June 10, 2013 10:22 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Right , this is a high stakes case & the race industry
    & the political class is invested.
    Trayvon supporters are demonstrating demanding justice.
    The only justice for them is a conviction, no matter where
    the evidence leads.


  31. RIX
    31 | June 10, 2013 10:23 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Zimmerman jury seection begins today.

    To find enough people to fill a jury with alternates who are local and who “haven’t formed an opinion about the case,” they are going to have to actively seek out people with the brainpower of rutabagas.

    That may be the goal.


  32. buzzsawmonkey
    32 | June 10, 2013 10:23 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Of course, if real justice were the issue here, the judge would have dismissed the case in pretrial as being the overreaching of a politically motivated prosecutor pandering to the whims of the media and the mob.

    Absolutely.


  33. buzzsawmonkey
    33 | June 10, 2013 10:24 am

    RIX wrote:

    Trayvon supporters are demonstrating demanding justice.
    The only justice for them is a conviction, no matter where
    the evidence leads.

    They are demanding a lynching under color of law, not “justice.”

    “Justice for Trayvon?” How about some justice for George Zimmerman?


  34. 34 | June 10, 2013 10:26 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    As far as I’m concerned, St. Skittles GOT justice.


  35. RIX
    35 | June 10, 2013 10:26 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    It is interesting that there was not probable cause to
    bring charges, until the race hustle started.
    I don’t believe any new evidence popped up.
    I wonder if the defense will mention that the President of
    the United States prejudiced the case?


  36. 36 | June 10, 2013 10:28 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    We think of self-defense as a right, but the race hustlers thing of assault as a right, as long as the race of the assaulter and assaulted are properly coordinated. I’ve seen many times that they’ve said Zimmerman should have just taken his beating.


  37. RIX
    37 | June 10, 2013 10:28 am

    They are demanding a lynching under color of law, not “justice.”

    “Justice for Trayvon?” How about some justice for George Zimmerman?@ buzzsawmonkey:

    Zimmerman may just be a sacrificial lamb for the “greater good.”


  38. buzzsawmonkey
    38 | June 10, 2013 10:28 am

    RIX wrote:

    It is interesting that there was not probable cause to
    bring charges, until the race hustle started.

    Note the similarity to the Cartoon Riots. The Danish cartoons created barely a stir when they were published; the riots didn’t start until an enterprising imam redistributed them, with some extra-added fakes that he’d concocted himself to ramp up the blasphemy factor.


  39. buzzsawmonkey
    39 | June 10, 2013 10:29 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’ve seen many times that they’ve said Zimmerman should have just taken his beating.

    Reparations!


  40. 40 | June 10, 2013 10:29 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    The punishment for most violent crime should be death at the hands of the victim. If that were more the case, you’d have a lot less violent crime.


  41. 41 | June 10, 2013 10:29 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Absolutely, there is a reason why the investigating police agency failed to charge Zimmerman with anything, and that is because there is no actual evidence of a crime. In order to even get this to court, the federal prosecutor had to pick up a ball that was not dropped, but had been declared out of bounds, and then he had to shop for a federal judge who could be relied upon to ignore the actual law and pretty much rule in a way that would please the sycophantic overlords.


  42. buzzsawmonkey
    42 | June 10, 2013 10:30 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The punishment for most violent crime should be death at the hands of the victim. If that were more the case, you’d have a lot less violent crime.

    You’re suggesting that the ghetto “rice bowl” be broken…


  43. 43 | June 10, 2013 10:39 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I am suggesting that crime be reduced. If a disproportionate number of the perpetrators happen to be aof a certain race, that is their doing. Nobody forced them to be thugs. They have a choice, and they chose poorly.


  44. 45 | June 10, 2013 10:43 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I want to know if the way that they busted Petraeus was through using illegally obtained emails. With the knowledge that the NSA is reading everybody’s email, I think it is a fair question to ask. Not that I’d expect to get an honest answer outof anybody that the Administration would put up to testfy. Of course they are going to say no, but they’ve already been caught lying to Congress. I would like to know the truth of the matter. I think it is likely.


  45. RIX
    46 | June 10, 2013 10:43 am

    Note the similarity to the Cartoon Riots. The Danish cartoons created barely a stir when they were published; the riots didn’t start until an enterprising imam redistributed them, with some extra-added fakes that he’d concocted himself to ramp up the blasphemy factor.

    reply | quote@ buzzsawmonkey:

    Very similar. Sharpton & others are playing a dangerous game.
    They will have people on a hair trigger.
    If they don’t get the desired verdict, all hell might break loose.


  46. 47 | June 10, 2013 10:46 am

    RIX wrote:

    If they don’t get the desired verdict, all hell might break loose.

    If there are riots, shoot the rioters. That’ll quiet them down. Florida isn’t like California. People are allowed to have guns. If they riot, I think they’ll find that most people will violently object to having their car/house/business burned and looted.


  47. buzzsawmonkey
    48 | June 10, 2013 10:46 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I am suggesting that crime be reduced. If a disproportionate number of the perpetrators happen to be aof a certain race, that is their doing. Nobody forced them to be thugs. They have a choice, and they chose poorly.

    Oh, no argument from me. I’m merely pointing out that certain demographics tend to engage in violent crime more than others—and that this is accepted, no less than the suggestion that Zimmerman “should have taken his beating,” as a form of “reparations.” Disarming law-abiding citizens while leaving weaponry in the hands of the thug element aids in these “reparations,” and pushing back against such efforts does, indeed, threaten that demographic’s “rice bowl.”

    It should be noted at this point that, nods and winks (or direct instruction) from above aside, and the personal political biases of individual IRS employees aside, the institutional willingness of the IRS to target Tea Party and other conservative groups also has a “protect the rice bowl” element. Smaller government and tax reduction/simplification would mean need for fewer tax examiners, with less power.


  48. 49 | June 10, 2013 10:48 am

    @ RIX:

    If anything, further EXCULPATORY evidence showed up. I hope there is one, just ONE individual on that jury that says “not guilty” and sticks with it. Which will be hard, because you know the race pimps will try to get that juror’s name for harassment.


  49. RIX
    50 | June 10, 2013 10:50 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    If they don’t get the desired verdict, all hell might break loose.

    If there are riots, shoot the rioters. That’ll quiet them down. Florida isn’t like California. People are allowed to have guns. If they riot, I think they’ll find that most people will violently object to having their car/house/business burned and looted.

    The Feds will be watching. Obama would no doubt think
    that the violence was justified.


  50. buzzsawmonkey
    51 | June 10, 2013 10:52 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    you know the race pimps will try to get that juror’s name for harassment.

    Given the way Obama’s opponents’ sealed records become magically unsealed, I think that acquiring such information in the event of a verdict unfavorable to the memory of “his son” will be easy as pie.


  51. RIX
    52 | June 10, 2013 10:53 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    If anything, further EXCULPATORY evidence showed up. I hope there is one, just ONE individual on that jury that says “not guilty” and sticks with it. Which will be hard, because you know the race pimps will try to get that juror’s name for harassment.

    Jury deliberations will probably be brutal.
    And you know that any preemptory challenge of
    an African American will cause outrage.


  52. buzzsawmonkey
    53 | June 10, 2013 10:57 am

    RIX wrote:

    And you know that any preemptory challenge of
    an African American will cause outrage.

    There was a case quite a while back—I forget its name—where the court ruled that peremptory challenges could not be used to exclude someone merely on the basis of race.

    This of course makes utter nonsense of the very concept of peremptory challenges, which by their nature should be for any reason, or for none at all—merely on the basis of “gut instinct.” But it will aid the prosecution in stacking the jury.


  53. RIX
    54 | June 10, 2013 10:59 am

    Given the way Obama’s opponents’ sealed records become magically unsealed, I think that acquiring such information in the event of a verdict unfavorable to the memory of “his son” will be easy as pie.
    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Jack Ryan was Obamas Republican opponent for the U.S
    Senate.
    He was divorced from the actress Geri Ryan. The Obama
    Campaign & the Chicago Tribune got the divorce records
    unsealed & that sank Ryan.


  54. RIX
    55 | June 10, 2013 11:01 am

    There was a case quite a while back—I forget its name—where the court ruled that peremptory challenges could not be used to exclude someone merely on the basis of race.

    This of course makes utter nonsense of the very concept of peremptory challenges, which by their nature should be for any reason, or for none at all—merely on the basis of “gut instinct.” But it will aid the prosecution in stacking the jury.@ buzzsawmonkey:

    Exactly, a peremptory challenge shouldn’t require explanation
    or justification.


  55. buzzsawmonkey
    56 | June 10, 2013 11:03 am

    RIX wrote:

    The Obama
    Campaign & the Chicago Tribune got the divorce records
    unsealed & that sank Ryan.

    Not a little ironic given the double-extra-super-deep-sixing Obama’s own records have enjoyed.


  56. 57 | June 10, 2013 11:08 am

    @ RIX:

    Technically, you are correct -- peremptory challenges are just that -- and require no explanation. However, each side is only allowed so many -- usually three or four, depending on the number of alternates. Even in civil trials, you excuse possible jurors with care. I was watching jury selection for one of our trials and the slip and fall wizard for the prosecution was excusing jurors left and right. The judge didn’t look pleased with him so he didn’t “warn” him (as is customary) that he only had one challenge left -- he dismissed the juror and then when one came up that you KNEW he wasn’t going to want to keep, he said “we thank and excuse juror no. 3″ the judge said “on what grounds?” He had no “cause” grounds.

    To add insult to injury, they made him foreman. We won the case.


  57. RIX
    58 | June 10, 2013 11:13 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    The Obama
    Campaign & the Chicago Tribune got the divorce records
    unsealed & that sank Ryan.

    Not a little ironic given the double-extra-super-deep-sixing Obama’s own records have enjoyed.

    Deities , I guess can have double standards.


  58. RIX
    59 | June 10, 2013 11:15 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    That is good info.
    I guess that you have to be mindful not to
    alienate the judge.


  59. Speranza
    60 | June 10, 2013 11:23 am

    RIX wrote:

    Jack Ryan was Obamas Republican opponent for the U.S
    Senate.
    He was divorced from the actress Geri Ryan. The Obama
    Campaign & the Chicago Tribune got the divorce records
    unsealed & that sank Ryan.

    Chiccgo style politics at its best (worst).


  60. Speranza
    61 | June 10, 2013 11:24 am

    RIX wrote:

    Zimmerman may just be a sacrificial lamb for the “greater good.”

    That’s what I am afraid of.


  61. 62 | June 10, 2013 11:26 am

    This should come as no surprise:

    Carter C. Hull, the Washington-based Internal Revenue Service lawyer who oversaw improper targeting of tea party groups, is a registered Democrat.

    Hull, a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland, is a registered Democrat, according to the Real Voters Database.

    As The Daily Caller reported, Hull instructed Cincinnati-based IRS employee Elizabeth Hofacre to target tea party groups and provided her a copy of a letter he wrote to a conservative group requesting additional information in an audit. Hull signed a May 12, 2010 letter to the Albuquerque Tea Party grilling the group on the recent content of its newsletters and its website.

    I wonder who gave him his marching orders. Did he perchance visit the White House at any time? I doubt seriously that the buck stops with him, though the Obama White House and the Democrats will probably try to make it stop there.


  62. 63 | June 10, 2013 11:32 am

    @ RIX:

    Even more important -- NEVER alienate the judge’s clerk and courtroom deputy! They’re the ones he’s talking to back in chambers when the robes come off. One thing I always do, especially in District Court, is be on great terms with the judge’s clerks.


  63. RIX
    64 | June 10, 2013 11:41 am

    Chiccgo style politics at its best (worst).
    @ Speranza

    :

    It’s way it is & it produces political thugs.
    The Obama gang is a good example.


  64. RIX
    65 | June 10, 2013 11:41 am

    Speranza wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Zimmerman may just be a sacrificial lamb for the “greater good.”

    That’s what I am afraid of.

    Me too.


  65. Bumr50
    66 | June 10, 2013 11:42 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Hey, quick related question.

    The local LEO’s seem to have taken to wearing MLB baseball jerseys over their duty unis when they appear in court. Mostly not Pittsburgh players either.

    I get disguising their name and locality before hearings (thus avoiding defense attorneys trying to make deals -- I assume), I was just wondering if there was any symbolism.

    Closers?

    Cleanup hitters?


  66. RIX
    67 | June 10, 2013 11:42 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Even more important — NEVER alienate the judge’s clerk and courtroom deputy! They’re the ones he’s talking to back in chambers when the robes come off. One thing I always do, especially in District Court, is be on great terms with the judge’s clerks.

    Sounds like a really good policy.


  67. Bumr50
    68 | June 10, 2013 11:43 am

    @ Bumr50:

    Addendum -- they remove the jerseys once situated in the courtroom.


  68. RIX
    69 | June 10, 2013 12:14 pm

    Will Antonin @Will_Antonin

    If you really want to hide from Obama, you should just hang with Chechen extremists in Boston.
    5:19 PM -- 9 Jun 2013
    HT Twitchy,

    This is a good point.


  69. Speranza
    70 | June 10, 2013 12:18 pm

    RIX wrote:

    It’s way it is & it produces political thugs.
    The Obama gang is a good example.

    Remember “Chicago” is a racial dog whistle according to Chwissy Matthews.


  70. RIX
    71 | June 10, 2013 12:22 pm

    WASHINGTON — President Obama has said the outrage over the federal government’s decision to monitor citizens’ phone activity is all “hype.”

    He might want to share his opinion with the U.S. Air Force, which is ordering members of the service not to look at news stories about it.

    WND has received an unclassified NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) that warns airmen not to look at news stories related to the data-mining scandal.
    Drudge

    Now get out there and fight for the 1st Ammendment!


  71. RIX
    72 | June 10, 2013 12:23 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    It’s way it is & it produces political thugs.
    The Obama gang is a good example.

    Remember “Chicago” is a racial dog whistle according to Chwissy Matthews.

    Matthews is always pimping race.


  72. 73 | June 10, 2013 12:29 pm

    @ RIX:
    That’s because Matthews is a racist. Everything comes back to race for him. He finds it more acceptable to judge people by the color of their skin than the content of their character.


  73. RIX
    74 | June 10, 2013 1:06 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ RIX:
    That’s because Matthews is a racist. Everything comes back to race for him. He finds it more acceptable to judge people by the color of their skin than the content of their character.

    It makes him feel morally superior.


  74. 75 | June 10, 2013 1:19 pm

    Prayers needed for a co-worker, Keith. When he left the other day, he’d had some numbness in his lip. Found out today he’s in the hospital with a blood clot near his brain. They weren’t able to remove it. He was put on life support, but has been taken off. Very poor prognosis.

    Thanks


  75. 76 | June 10, 2013 1:24 pm

    @ mfhorn:

    Prayers.


  76. 77 | June 10, 2013 1:52 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    I am totally unfamiliar with this practice -- I know that undercover police are “disguised” when taking the stand or give testimony in camera (jury only in courtroom), but this is a new one on me.


  77. darkwords
    78 | June 10, 2013 2:11 pm

    Boston bombers avoid military trials and get USA rights in court. To set the proper example of American freedom to the world.
    Gitmo muslims get the Obama nod for USA rights in court to set the proper example of American freedom for the world.

    The commander in chief in his all seeing transparency nods that every American’s phone and computer should be tracked.


  78. 79 | June 10, 2013 2:16 pm

    @ darkwords:

    That’s because in Obama’s mind, Muslims are innocent while Americans are guilty. Especially Americans with the temerity to disagree with him politically. Does anybody believe that the NSA spying was looking for terrorists? If they were looking for terrorists, they’d have found Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The only thing he was lacking was “Terrorist” tattooed on his forehead. The fucking Russians even warned us about him. Nothing to see here. Move along. But now when it comes to the Tea PArty, Obama’s IRS was all over it making sure they didn’t become tax-exempt non-profits. It is a matter of priorities, and who you are going after. In the Obama Administration, Muslim terrorists are not a priority. The President’s personal Enemies List is.


  79. 80 | June 10, 2013 2:18 pm

    VDH:

    “Obama is perturbed that we question any of this malfeasance. I think he is right to be angry. In his case, we made up the Obama rules that symbolism (not performance) and amnesty (not accountability) count. So why break our covenant with him, and now start asking for concrete and honest accomplishment when the teleprompter was always enough?”


  80. 81 | June 10, 2013 2:19 pm

    @ mfhorn:

    I’ve said a prayer for Keith…..


  81. darkwords
    82 | June 10, 2013 2:22 pm

    @ 79 Iron Fist: Yes I would agree. Obama is targeting political enemies under the disguise of homeland security. Not much different from Nazi germany.


  82. darkwords
    83 | June 10, 2013 2:23 pm

    @ MacDuff: Prayers for Keith also.


  83. 84 | June 10, 2013 2:30 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 79 Iron Fist: Yes I would agree. Obama is targeting political enemies under the disguise of homeland security. Not much different from Nazi germany.

    He showed absolutely no compunction toward using the IRS against his political enemies; anyone who thinks he would hesitate using NSA data in the same fashion is a unredeemable fool.


  84. 85 | June 10, 2013 2:31 pm

    @ darkwords:

    What I would like to know is how and when they became aware of Petraeus’ mistress problem. The rumor I’ve heard was that it was through the NSA spying. That is certainly believable. Indeed, it is hard to believe that they didn’t know about Petraeus’ mistress from the get-go. After all, they had to do a background check on him before he took over CIA. They missed something as big as a steady mistress? So if they knew about it, why was he forced out? A lot of weirdness going on there. Of course, you can’t trust the Obama Administration to tell the truth about any of that. The whole Obama Administration is a nest of snakes. No decent person would want to be associated with them.


  85. 87 | June 10, 2013 2:34 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    I’d like to point out that the head of the Checka IRS couldn’t even come up with a believable lie when asked why he visited the White House 157 times. The Easter Egg Roll? Really? I’d say there’s no real question that some of those times he was discussing the ongoing actions against the Tea Party with someone at the White House. Not Obama himself, naturally, but someone responsible to Obama. Valerie Jarrett? Perhaps.


  86. Speranza
    88 | June 10, 2013 2:37 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    I’d like to point out that the head of the Checka IRS couldn’t even come up with a believable lie when asked why he visited the White House 157 times. The Easter Egg Roll? Really? I’d say there’s no real question that some of those times he was discussing the ongoing actions against the Tea Party with someone at the White House. Not Obama himself, naturally, but someone responsible to Obama. Valerie Jarrett? Perhaps.

    He really was a condescending d-bag.


  87. Speranza
    89 | June 10, 2013 2:38 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    Prayers needed for a co-worker, Keith. When he left the other day, he’d had some numbness in his lip. Found out today he’s in the hospital with a blood clot near his brain. They weren’t able to remove it. He was put on life support, but has been taken off. Very poor prognosis.
    Thanks

    Good luck to him!


  88. 90 | June 10, 2013 2:42 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    I’d like to point out that the head of the Checka IRS couldn’t even come up with a believable lie when asked why he visited the White House 157 times. The Easter Egg Roll? Really? I’d say there’s no real question that some of those times he was discussing the ongoing actions against the Tea Party with someone at the White House. Not Obama himself, naturally, but someone responsible to Obama. Valerie Jarrett? Perhaps.

    All too true. It also seems that Obama’s circle of protection from the scandals have proven far more airtight than his national security apparatus which is leakier than Biden’s mouth, but that’s always subject to change.


  89. eaglesoars
    91 | June 10, 2013 2:54 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    So if they knew about it, why was he forced out?

    He was taken out by the CIA because he let them twist in the Benghazi Breeze. He didn’t stand up for them so they knifed him.

    Can’t say I blame them


  90. 92 | June 10, 2013 3:02 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    That makes sense. Petraeus is really not an honorable man. I guess if he were, he’d have never taken the position with the CIA to begin with. It seems like Obama, even more than Clinton, has surrounded himself with a rogues’ gallery of disreputable folks. Of course, Hillary comes in at the top of that list. She is still the darling of the media, though. They eat, sleep, and breathe Hillary! I don’t think she is going to be the Dems’ standard-bearer in 2016, though. She’s got too much baggage, and she is a person of pallor.


  91. RIX
    93 | June 10, 2013 3:06 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Hey Mac. There will never be an attempt to impeach
    Obama. He has abve all racial protection.
    Even if the House impeached , the Senate would never
    remove him.
    So, Barry skates on this, but his reputation is tarnished.


  92. eaglesoars
    94 | June 10, 2013 3:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Petraeus is really not an honorable man. I guess if he were, he’d have never taken the position with the CIA to begin with.

    Exactly.


  93. eaglesoars
    95 | June 10, 2013 3:15 pm

    You know, something about this Snowden guy doesn’t smell right. He says he leaked because he felt it was an existential threat to democracy.

    So he goes to -- China?

    That conducts probably more spying against us than any nation on the planet.

    Really?


  94. 96 | June 10, 2013 3:15 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Even if the House impeached , the Senate would never
    remove him.

    That is exactly it. Worse, Obama would fan the fires of racial tension if he were impeached, claiming that it was the RAAAAACISTS in the GOP going after him because he’s black. That would drum up sympathy among the people. We could be 100% correct in doing it, and still lose out politically because of that. And the Senate would never vote to convict, no matter what the evidence. Even if you found rock-solid evidence that Obama conspired with al Qaeda to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, the Dems in the Senate would refuse to do anything about it. And there’d be enough RINO votes like McRINO and Ms. Lindsey Graham to give it a “bipartisan” shine to it. Obama would come out smelling like a rose. No, it is better to leave Obama where he is an neuter him politically with his scandals, and hang him like an albatross around the Democrat’s necks.


  95. lobo91
    97 | June 10, 2013 3:17 pm

    So much for the idea that the courts are looking out for your privacy:

    FISA Court Approves 99.97% Of Government Requests For Warrants…

    Of the 34,000 requests made since 1979, a grand total of 11 were denied.


  96. 98 | June 10, 2013 3:19 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah, I’m not sure what to make of that. HE went where he knew they wouldn’t extradite him, I guess. If he’d just been going to sell out to the Chinese, there’d have been no need to go public with the spying. He could have tipped them to this massive data warehouse, and the Chinese would have been able to run around in all that data to their hearts’ content. Even if Obama were squeaky clean, that database is a terrible thing to have created.


  97. lobo91
    99 | June 10, 2013 3:19 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    China wouldn’t be my first choice for a hiding place.


  98. 100 | June 10, 2013 3:22 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Rubber stamp court. Not that Obama would pay any attention if they told him “No”, anyway. It isn’t like e’s let the Contempt of Congress charge that Holder has against him change anything. And doesn’t Obama himself have a contempt of court charge for refusing to pay attention to the Courts when they ordered him to resume drilling on Federal Lands? Obama is above the Law, as is his entire Administration. What we are witnessing is the break down of the Rule of Law.


  99. lobo91
    101 | June 10, 2013 3:25 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Another court apparently issued a ruling saying that at least some of these surveillance programs are unconstitutional. They’re not only ignoring the ruling, but went to court to keep it secret.


  100. 102 | June 10, 2013 3:36 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Lovely. I’m no Constitutional Law scholor (neither is Obama, though), but I don’t see how you can possibly get a blanket warrent for every phone call made in America, even if you are just collecting the metadata about the calls. A warrent is supposed to be specific about what is being searched for. “Suspicious activity” isn’t specific enough. The place is supposed to be specific as well, and I don’t think “The United States of America” is specific enough, either. I like Rand Paul’s idea of a class-action lawsuit against this, but I’m not sure what that will actually change. Obama feels entitled to ignore the Courts when they don’t suit him. He is worse than Roosevelt in that. Roosevelt intimidated the Court, but even he didn’t just bluntly ignore it.


  101. eaglesoars
    103 | June 10, 2013 3:42 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    HE went where he knew they wouldn’t extradite him, I guess.

    What the hell’s wrong with Brazil then? They have better parties……


  102. lobo91
    104 | June 10, 2013 3:42 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Obama feels entitled to ignore the Courts when they don’t suit him. He is worse than Roosevelt in that. Roosevelt intimidated the Court, but even he didn’t just bluntly ignore it.

    Obama is the first president to make use of the fact that those checks and balances they taught you about in elementary school don’t really exist in practice. The courts have no actual way to enforce their rulings against the executive branch. Even Congress’ so-called “power of the purse” isn’t all that valid anymore, now that the Fed has begun printing imaginary money.


  103. 105 | June 10, 2013 3:52 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I don’t know why he chose China. It wouldn’t be my first choice, either. But I don’t think he was bringing them a massive treasure trove of data as a present. If he’d been going to do that, he’d have stayed in place, kept his mouth shut to reporters, and fed the Chinese all the information they could digest.


  104. 106 | June 10, 2013 3:55 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Even Congress’ so-called “power of the purse” isn’t all that valid anymore, now that the Fed has begun printing imaginary money.

    Yep, unlimited “Quantative Easing” means that Congress can’t cut the money off. The Fed will just print more, and the glories of baseline budgeting mean that the bureaucracy will be fed regardless. There is no effective check on Obama’s power. Even public opinion doesn’t seem to particularly matter to him. He ignored public opinion to get ObamaCare through, even though it cost him the House. He won’t ever stand for re-election again, so he could really care less what his popularity score is.


  105. eaglesoars
    107 | June 10, 2013 3:56 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    But I don’t think he was bringing them a massive treasure trove of data as a present. If he’d been going to do that, he’d have stayed in place, kept his mouth shut to reporters, and fed the Chinese all the information they could digest.

    There’s always the blackmail scenario. Try to get me and I spill to the Chinese. The other thing -- what if the Chinese decided to not let him leave? Then what?

    For someone supposedly so smart -- either he’s not or I’m missing something.


  106. RIX
    108 | June 10, 2013 3:57 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Exactly, impeaching Obama might feel good, but it would
    be counter productive.
    Instead of the punishing of a corrupt politician it would be
    viewed as lynching a Black man.


  107. 109 | June 10, 2013 4:01 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    For someone supposedly so smart — either he’s not or I’m missing something.

    I don’t know that he’s really *that* smart. He’s go t a GED. He’s not got a master’s in computer engineering. Why was he even being paid so much by the NSA? It seems to me that they were overpaying him by about $180K a year. Maybe he’s somebody’s nephew? That makes as much sense as anything else about this case.


  108. RIX
    110 | June 10, 2013 4:02 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    You know, something about this Snowden guy doesn’t smell right. He says he leaked because he felt it was an existential threat to democracy.

    So he goes to — China?

    That conducts probably more spying against us than any nation on the planet.

    Really?

    Jury is still out , very conflicting.
    As I understand it, he should have gone
    to Congress and got whistler blower status.
    In spite of that, Snowden really put Obama
    in a bind. He’s been outed on this one.


  109. lobo91
    111 | June 10, 2013 4:05 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    He’s a contractor, not a federal employee. He isn’t being paid by the government directly, and they have no control over what he makes.


  110. eaglesoars
    113 | June 10, 2013 4:12 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    IRS Purchasing Surveillance Equipment: Hidden Cameras In Coffee Trays, Plants, Clock Radios…

    covert coffee trays?


  111. eaglesoars
    114 | June 10, 2013 4:14 pm

    RIX wrote:

    In spite of that, Snowden really put Obama
    in a bind. He’s been outed on this one.

    Has Obama done the”First I’ve heard about it till I read it in the papers like the rest of you” jig yet?


  112. 115 | June 10, 2013 4:21 pm

    @ lobo91:

    He still sounds way overpaid. $200K? For what? He doesn’t have the education or experience to command that kind of salary. And tax money ultimately went to pay his salary, even if indircetly. That seems typical of government, though. Look at how much the IRS has spent on conferences over the last couple of years.


  113. RIX
    116 | June 10, 2013 4:22 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    In spite of that, Snowden really put Obama
    in a bind. He’s been outed on this one.

    Has Obama done the”First I’ve heard about it till I read it in the papers like the rest of you” jig yet?

    I don’t know if he used it on this one.
    What he is saying is that “”I’m glad that we
    are having the debate about security vs privacy.”
    I’ll bet he is.


  114. eaglesoars
    117 | June 10, 2013 4:28 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    He still sounds way overpaid. $200K? For what? He doesn’t have the education or experience to command that kind of salary.

    Well, he was living in Hawaii, so his salary is going to be influenced by the cost of living. I didn’t have the education either (altho I did have the experience) but I pulled down 6 figures. However, it appears he was a bit of a whiz, so if he was that talented, yeah, he could quite easily get that kind of money.

    What I want to know is -- what kind of clearance did this guy have?


  115. lobo91
    118 | June 10, 2013 4:35 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    However, it appears he was a bit of a whiz, so if he was that talented, yeah, he could quite easily get that kind of money.

    Which is the difference between contractors and government employees.

    Without a graduate degree, the best he’d get is a GS-5 position paying $32,000. Even with the COLA for Hawaii, he’d only get about $40,000.

    Contractors are able to pay whatever the market rate is for someone, based on their actual ability.


  116. lobo91
    119 | June 10, 2013 4:36 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    If he was working at an NSA facility, he had a Top Secret clearance.


  117. eaglesoars
    120 | June 10, 2013 4:39 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Contractors are able to pay whatever the market rate is for someone, based on their actual ability.

    yep, actual ability is worth paying for


  118. eaglesoars
    121 | June 10, 2013 4:40 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    If he was working at an NSA facility, he had a Top Secret clearance.

    Thank you. I don’t know how you get that -- my ex had it and it precluded us from going to USSR for our honeymoon


  119. 122 | June 10, 2013 4:43 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    What was he Doing that would command that kind of money? Programmers, no matter how talented, don’t pull down that kind of money, not even in Hawaii. Not unless they start their own company and develop something that there is a market for. You saw ridiculous pay-outs in the ’90s tech bubble, but that was all in stock IPOs, and a lot of sweat equity usually went along with the shares. The only thing I can figure is that it was a government contract that came with rivers of money. Being a super-snitch pays the big bucks, apparently. They weren’t paying him that to go after al Qaeda, though. I think they were going after domestic fish.


  120. lobo91
    123 | June 10, 2013 4:44 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    Contractors are able to pay whatever the market rate is for someone, based on their actual ability.
    yep, actual ability is worth paying for

    I remember the trouble we had getting qualified IT people when I worked for the state back in the late ’90s, for just that reason. The people applying typically had no more than an associate’s degree, which meant that they were offered $25,000 or so. In the private sector, they were worth twice that, so the only applicants we got were the dregs.


  121. lobo91
    124 | June 10, 2013 4:46 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    @ eaglesoars:
    If he was working at an NSA facility, he had a Top Secret clearance.
    Thank you. I don’t know how you get that — my ex had it and it precluded us from going to USSR for our honeymoon

    It’s not a matter entirely of clearance level, but what programs a person has access to.

    In the ’80s, I had a TS clearance and worked with nuclear weapons, on the command and control side. Trust me…they weren’t letting me anywhere near eastern Europe. They actually wouldn’t issue me a regular blue passport.


  122. eaglesoars
    125 | June 10, 2013 4:49 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Programmers, no matter how talented, don’t pull down that kind of money,

    If you’re simply coding from spec, then I agree with you. But if you’ve also got analysis/design responsibilities, $200k can be easy peasy


  123. eaglesoars
    126 | June 10, 2013 4:52 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    In the ’80s, I had a TS clearance and worked with nuclear weapons, on the command and control side. Trust me…they weren’t letting me anywhere near eastern Europe. They actually wouldn’t issue me a regular blue passport.

    heh. my ex was working on the shuttle.

    Listen, lobo91, I have to go -- and I don’t want to derail the thread -- but I thought you’d want to know that we had to let Molly go last Friday. She was Little Miss Piss and Vinegar right up until the last 2 days -- then she just crashed. Fortunately, it was very fast, and she didn’t suffer.

    Ok, I have a C-Span Senate assignment. blech.


  124. lobo91
    127 | June 10, 2013 5:08 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I thought that was probably the case, based on what you said the other day.

    I’m really sorry to hear that.


  125. 128 | June 11, 2013 7:58 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ Macker:
    true..
    but really…
    what are the chances of that happening
    I’m not sure there are enough Senators up for reelection that we could get 2/3 even if we won them all

    As I’ve been saying, ALL elections can be rigged at will by our enemies. Their technology gets better every time around and the margin of fraud cannot now be overcome. We have NO means of fighting against vote fraud. The enemy owns the US press and the judiciary.

    In other words, soap, ballot, and jury boxes have been lost for some time now.

    The ammo box had better be well stocked -- though I see no evidence that Americans have the clarity of vision and the resolve to use it to any good effect.

    For the reasons stated above, we already have a totalitarian system. There is no longer any law-abiding and/or non-violent way to “fix the system” so as to restore the rule of law in the US under the Constitution. In my opinion, there is no way to restore it at all (barring a miracle) and it will not be restored in my lifetime. It took 70 years to get rid of Soviet totalitarianism in the USSR and given the fact that the machinery of surveillance is so much more effective now, it may take longer than that here.

    Yes, there will be free countries in the world -- just not on what is now US soil, unless a few states manage to secede.

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    HE went where he knew they wouldn’t extradite him, I guess.
    What the hell’s wrong with Brazil then? They have better parties……

    He needs a nuclear power not allied with the US (and not Islamic) that can defend against US drone strikes. Brazil doesn’t have nukes yet. Pretty soon every country (good, bad, or ugly) that is not a US puppet regime will have nukes for exactly that reason. If anybody doesn’t like my prediction, too bad -- it’s a prediction, not a prescription.

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Petraeus is really not an honorable man. I guess if he were, he’d have never taken the position with the CIA to begin with.
    Exactly.

    He’s just another rat-faced pos.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David