Obama Scandals Update: Circling The Wagons

Just a quick recap on the corrupt Obama administration: by my reckoning, there are four utterly independent scandals that threaten to cause some serious problems. Three of them I summed up recently; the fourth, the illegal UnWar in Libya, kind of escaped my attention at the time.

 

Anyway, in the National Labor Relations Board mess with Boeing, Congressman Darrell Issa has issued subpoenas to the NLRB asking, in essence, WTF were they thinking when they said that Boeing couldn’t use the brand-new $2 billion plant they built in South Carolina because that would be somehow punitive to the union workers back in Washington — none of which were going to lose their jobs anyway. But since Boeing could have chosen to expand in Washington but instead chose union-free South Carolina, that counted as “punishing” the unions.

Well, the Obama administration has hit back. First, they chose to ignore the subpoenas, running the risk of being cited for Contempt of Congress. Next, they had their thugs for hire at ThinkProgress and the New York Times run a smear article on Issa — that got so many details wrong, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

 

White House Spokesman Robert Briggs was unavailable for comment; according to ThinkProgress “journalist” Lee Fang, Briggs was busy sodomizing Obama’s dog and snorting crystals of marine antifreeze. At least, that’s what I think Fang would probably say, considering his record of utter incompetence. His “exposes” of the Koch Brothers and the Chamber of Commerce were so filled with falsehoods that it strains the notion that he’s just that incompetent.

 

Next up, the investigation into Operation Fast And Furious just got more interesting. If you recall, that is the scheme the ATF cooked up to allow “straw buyers” buy guns from dealers so they could track the guns back to the Mexican drug cartels, and then bring down the leadership. This brilliant idea fell apart when the ATF chose to not actually trace the guns — at least one of which was involved in a shooting that left a US border patrol agent shot dead. So far, there are indicators that this wasn’t just a rogue operation, but involved the FBI and the State Department.

 

Well, the officials at the ATF who have been directly tied to the mess have drawn the attention of their superiors. And instead of being suspended (with or without pay) while the investigation goes on, or ordering them to cooperate fully, they’ve been promoted or transferred into positions and locations where they can be closely monitored by those said superiors — who just might be implicated should those agents choose to come clean.

 

My own suspicion — utterly unsupported by any facts at this moment — is that this all came down something like this: President Obama announced that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel guns came from the US. Bloggers and others looked at that claim and discovered that — as is so often the case — Obama was talking out of his ass. But they couldn’t have that, so Eric Holder told his people to “do something” to support what Obama said, because he was using it as his latest rationalization for gun control. They figured that if they got a bunch of US-origin guns confiscated from the Mexican drug cartels, they’d look good for the bosses. But the operation they threw together quickly was so sloppy, all they ended up doing was pushing a bunch of otherwise law-abiding gun dealers to knowingly sell guns to straw buyers, who then helped smuggle them across the border (with the ATF running interference at the border). And no one once thought to notify the Mexican government about how we were arming their enemies.

 

No real malice, just political opportunism and gross incompetence. Still, enough laws were broken and a lot of people died (mostly Mexicans, but one American border patrol officer), so some people need to spend some serious time in prison.

 

Anyway, that’s the

stobluaP noR: A Short Course
A peaceful and non-violent day of rage?
  • jim_m

    No real malice

    No. Not unless you think that opposition to the American way of life for the last 235 years counts as malice.  The NLRB is a direct attempt to destroy American enterprise and business by making the operation of every business dependent upon the approval of unelected bureaucrats.  The Gunwalker scandal is merely a government subterfuge designed to create a pretense for infringing upon Second Amendment rights and demonstrates the willingness of this administration to murder Americans for their political agenda.

    No.  No malice at all.

    • Mr Kimber

      Amen, Doc

  • Anonymous

    Only the malice of forethought..

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    Obama should be impeachedt. There is more than ample evidence that he committed major felonies in the last 2 3/4 years that he has been in the White House. Hell some of these crimes could be considered treason. Been a Republican president or member of the cabinet, the howls for impeachment would be deafening. As it is, only Fox News, some talk radio, and the conservative blogs are doing the pushing. The state controlled media has been on big collective sigh or have ignored it entirely.

  • davidt

    The Democrat Lapdog Media aren’t barking.

  • Anonymous

    Lee Fang is furious.  Seems the sterling “reporter” from the NYT’s, Eric Lichtblau used an accusation that Fang somehow created…..and poor Lee wasn’t given the proper attribution for it.

    The accusations are so blatantly false and filled with innuendo, I’ll be surprised that Issa doesn’t sue if a retraction is printed.

    I did get a laugh from one statement by Eric – that Issa’s office in Vista, Ca, “overlooks a golf course”.  I live nearby.  Maybe I should ask Eric what his definition of “overlooks” is.  If and when I advertise my home for sale, I can say “it overlooks the ocean”.  Never mind it’s 3 miles away.  And I live in a valley.  And I can’t SEE the ocean.

    In other news, HHS has approved another 106 waivers for 3 years.  And those previously granted waivers can also ask for a 2 year extension.  The most honest, most open, most transparent administration ever still refuses to tell Congress just what their criteria is for granting waivers.  They also won’t say who was denied and why.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Armstrong/100002793292779 Bob Armstrong

    Pretty amazing display of aluminum foil hats today.

    “My own suspicion — utterly unsupported by any facts at this moment — is
    that this all came down something like this: President Obama announced
    that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel guns came from the US.
    Bloggers and others looked at that claim and discovered that — as is so
    often the case — Obama was talking out of his ass. But they couldn’t have that, so Eric Holder told his people to “do
    something” to support what Obama said, because he was using it as his
    latest rationalization for gun control. They figured that if they got a
    bunch of US-origin guns confiscated from the Mexican drug cartels,
    they’d look good for the bosses. But the operation they threw together
    quickly was so sloppy, all they ended up doing was pushing a bunch of
    otherwise law-abiding gun dealers to knowingly sell guns to straw
    buyers, who then helped smuggle them across the border (with the ATF
    running interference at the border). And no one once thought to notify
    the Mexican government about how we were arming their enemies.”

    Occam’s Razors need restocking on the Wizbang aisle. Here, I’ll loan you mine.

    “President Obama announced
    that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel guns came from the US.”

    Where? When” Where’s the link to Obama announcing this?  I know you said this is is unsupported by facts. Is this particular part fact or not?

    And doesn’t your entire thesis hinge on Obama’s make-believe statement? This is the motive for what follows, right? Is your motive factual or fantasy?

    “Bloggers and others looked at that claim and discovered that — as is so
    often the case — Obama was talking out of his ass.”

    I didn’t find where you gave us a single link to a blogger “looking at this”  and criticizing it – but I suppose you wont’ find that if your first statement about Obama’s ‘announcement” is just fantasy – if that was fantasy so are your claims about bloggers criticizing Obama and providing motive for Holder to proceed as a “protection to Obama”

    “Eric Holder told his people to “do
    something” to support what Obama said, because he was using it as his
    latest rationalization for gun control.”

    That’s more fantasy, right, motivated by the previous two fantasies? Is this just a strong of fantasies with each fantasy’s validity predicated on the fantasy preceding?

    “They figured that if they got a
    bunch of US-origin guns confiscated from the Mexican drug cartels,
    they’d look good for the bosses. But the operation they threw together
    quickly was so sloppy, all they ended up doing was pushing a bunch of
    otherwise law-abiding gun dealers to knowingly sell guns to straw
    buyers, who then helped smuggle them across the border (with the ATF
    running interference at the border). And no one once thought to notify
    the Mexican government about how we were arming their enemies.”

    Many kernels of truth there, with more facts coming out as time unfolds, but it should be pretty simple for you to support your theory as to the Obama’s involvement and Holder’s motives by simply linking back ot evidence supporting Fantasy 1 and Fantasy 2.

    So let’s start with fantasy number 1. “President Obama announced
    that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel guns came from the US.” I can’t find that statement anywhere. Is it fact or fantasy?

    And then fantasy number 2. “”Bloggers and others looked at that claim and discovered that — as is so
    often the case — Obama was talking out of his ass.” Show us the bloggers who said that and we should be able to trace back to Fantasy number 1. The bloggers would have linked back to Obama’s original statement, right?

    Also, and this may have been my mistake, but I don’t see where you’ve presented any evidence of “cicling of wagons.”It would lend strength to your claims about the administration’s wrong-doing if there were signs of a cover-up or or a “circling of wagons” – if we can see evidence of the administration hiding something it lends strength to the claims there’s something to hide.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of that in my reading and you haven’t presented any. You’ve just presented a theory that you readily admit is unsupported by facts. My question is.. how much of this is fantasy and how much is fact – and if you want us to believe it’s a valid theory where’s the evidence to back it up?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Get a haircut, you lying hippy!

    • Anonymous

       Have some more grape you kook !

    • Anonymous

       Have some more grape you kook !

    • retired.military

      Bob Dumbass

      Obama gave a speech in 2009 in Mexico (of course since he was bashing the US).

      http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

      Here let me quote the whole thing so you dont have to click to find that Factcheck believes that   obama is pulling it out of his ass.  They only place the number at about 35%

      Counting Mexico’s Guns
      April 17, 2009
      Updated: April 22, 2009
      President Obama says 90 percent of Mexico’s recovered crime guns come from the U.S. That’s not what the statistics show.
      Summary
      There’s no dispute that thousands of handguns, military-style rifles and other firearms are purchased in the U.S. and end up in the hands of Mexican criminals each year. It’s relatively easy to buy such guns legally in Texas and other border states and to smuggle them across.But is it true, as President Obama said, that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States?” Government statistics don’t actually support that claim.The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually “recovered in Mexico,” but U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing. Therefore, the percentage of guns “recovered” that are traced to U.S. sources necessarily is less than 90 percent. Where do the others come from? U.S. officials can’t say. Fox News has put the percentage of guns that have been traced to U.S. sources at only 17 percent, but we find that to be based on a mistaken assumption that throws its figure way off. We can’t offer a precise calculation because we know of no hard information on the total number of guns Mexican officials have recovered. But if a rough figure given by Mexico’s attorney general is accurate, then the actual percentage of all Mexican crime guns that have been traced to U.S. sources is more than double what Fox News has reported.Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama’s 90 percent figure was “not true” and based on a “badly biased” sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this.Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don’t know if that’s the case.
      Analysis
      In recent weeks, efforts by the United States and Mexico to stop the illegal transfer of guns and drugs along their shared border have been on the front burner. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Mexico earlier this month to meet with their Mexican counterparts to discuss what can be done. And this week President Barack Obama traveled down south to continue talks between the two nations.

      During a joint press conference with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, Obama said of the raging violence by Mexican drug gangs:
      Obama, April 16: A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.
      Obama would have been correct to say that 90 percent of the guns submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities were then traced to the U.S. The percentage of all recovered guns that came from the U.S. is unknown.

      The 90% Claim

      The president isn’t the first to make this mistaken claim; far from it. During an interview on CBS’ “Early Show” on March 26, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America.”

      The 90 percent figure was similarly cited by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) during a March 17 congressional hearing on the subject. Durbin said: “According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America.” Feinstein added: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that.”

      And it’s been reported by a phalanx of news organizations, including the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, NBC and the Chicago Tribune, that 90 percent of Mexico’s recovered guns come from the U.S.
      Mexican authorities have made the same error: On CBS’ “Face the Nation” on April 12, Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said: “Ninety percent of all weapons we are seizing in Mexico, Bob, are coming from across the United States.”

      Most who have used the statistic attribute it to ATF. Others attribute the figure to officials within the Mexican government. But that’s not correct.

      Without A “Trace”
      In a joint statement presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crimes and Drugs, ATF Assistant Director for Field Operations William Hoover and Anthony Placido, assistant administrator of intelligence with the Drug Enforcement Administration, clarified that the 90 percent figure is true of guns that were submitted and could be traced:
      Hoover and Placido, March 17, 2009: Firearms are routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, according to ATF’s National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.
      And Mexico recovers a lot more guns than it submits to the U.S. In December 2008, Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora put the number of recovered crime weapons in the country over the past two years at nearly 29,000, according to USA Today. And figures given by ATF make clear that the agency doesn’t trace nearly all of those.
      According to ATF, Mexico submitted 7,743 firearms for tracing in fiscal year 2008 (which ended Oct. 1) and 3,312 guns in fiscal 2007. That adds up to a fraction of the two-year total given by Mexico’s attorney general. He may be referring to a slightly different 24-month period, but that can’t account for more than a part of the discrepancy. The number is growing, and already this year, Mexico has submitted more than 7,500 guns for tracing, according to ATF. But even if all those guns are added in, the total submitted for tracing since the start of fiscal 2007 doesn’t come close to the 29,000 figure that Mexico says it has recovered.
      The Myth of 17 Percent
      According to a Fox News report, titled “The Myth of 90 Percent,” only “17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.” But the 17 percent figure is a myth, too. The reporters made some mistaken assumptions about how many guns had actually been traced to U.S. sources.Fox News reporters William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott note, quite correctly, that Mexico doesn’t submit all the guns it recovers to the U.S. for tracing. Furthermore, Fox News reported, this is “because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” And it quoted a law enforcement official as to why:
      Fox News, April 2: “Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
      If that’s true, then the guns given to ATF for tracing constitute a badly biased sample of all crime guns seized in Mexico. But the ATF officials we contacted don’t confirm that. What an ATF spokesperson would say is that the agency could trace more than 90 percent of all the guns submitted by Mexico to the U.S. – they either originated in this country or were imported here before heading south.

      However that may be, the Fox figure of 17 percent is based on a misreading of some confusing House subcommittee testimony by ATF official William Newell. The Fox reporters come up with a figure of 5,114 guns traced to U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 2008. That figures to 17.6 percent of the 29,000 figure for guns seized in Mexico, as given by the country’s attorney general.The 5,114 figure is simply wrong. What Newell said quite clearly is that the number of guns submitted to ATF in those two years was 11,055: “3,312 in FY 2007 [and] 7,743 in FY 2008.” Newell also testified, as other ATF officials have done, that 90 percent of the guns traced were determined to have come from the U.S. So based on Newell’s testimony, the Fox reporters should have used a figure of 9,950 guns from U.S. sources. That figures out to just over 34 percent of guns recovered, assuming that the 29,000 figure supplied by Mexico’s attorney general is correct.

      Even that number is too low. At our request, an ATF spokesman gave us more detailed figures for how many guns had been submitted and traced during those two years. Of the guns seized in Mexico and given to ATF for tracing, the agency actually found 95 percent came from U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 93 percent in fiscal 2008. That comes to a total of 10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years, or 36 percent of what Mexican authorities say they recovered.
      The mistake the Fox News reporters made was to focus on some numbers given by Newell and Hoover in separate testimony, regarding numbers of guns traced to specific states. But not all guns traced to the U.S. can be traced to specific states. The Fox numbers are “a subset” of the actual total traced to U.S. sources, one official said.
      An Elusive Number

      Given the lack of hard data from Mexico, we can’t calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the 90 percent claim made by the president and others in his administration lacks a basis in solid fact. But we also conclude that the number is at least double what Fox News has reported, based on its reporters’ mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.
      Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.
      — by D’Angelo Gore
      Sources
      Statement of William Newell before the U.S. House of Representatives
      Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, March 24, 2009.

      Transcript: “Joint press conference with President Barack Obamaand President Felipe Calderón of Mexico” The White House 16 Apr 2009.

      Statement of William Hoover and Anthony Placido before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crimes and Drugs concerning Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels, 17 March 2009.

      Statement of William Hoover before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 7 Feb. 2008.

      Leinwand, Donna. “Authorities try to keep guns from drug cartels.” USA Today, 11 Dec. 2008.Transcript. “CBS ‘Early Show’ Interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Federal News Service, 26 March 2009.

      Transcript. “NBC ‘Today’ Interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Federal News Service, 26 March 2009.Panel I of a Joint Hearing of the Crimes and Drugs Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Commitee and the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on the subject of Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels, 17 March 2009.”U.S., Mexican Officials Meet On Border Security.” National Public Radio, 3 April 2009.

      Editorial. “Obama’s bogus gun statistics.” Washington Times, 14 April 2009.Question and Answer Session with George Grayson. “Mexico: Dealing With Drug Violence,” washingtonpost.com, 16 April 2009LaJeunesse, William and Lott, Maxim. “The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.” FOXNews.com, 2 April 2009.

    • retired.military

      Also jerkwad

      Why not follow some of the 5.8 million hits on this google search

      http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=obama+mexico+guns+90+percent&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fc95ae85a5210bee&biw=1366&bih=622

      You will find that more than a few folks are throwing the BULLSHIT flag and are quoting Obama.

      I see you havent replied since Jim_M posted just 2 links yesterday.

      Not suprising considering the amount of bullshit you have to clean out of your ears and off of your face and out of your mouth to be able to make it to a keyboard.

    • retired.military

      One last slap to Dumbass Bob

      Please note the link Bob.  WHITEHOUSE.GOV.  For dumbasses who dont know it that is the WHITE HOUSE official site.  You know where Obama lives.  read the last sentence of the paragraph I quoted.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-conference-with-president-barack-obama-and-president-felipe-calderon-me

      I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet, his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

  • Anonymous

    Oh look, the shithead just showed up.

    • jim_m

      Don’t know what you mean.  I see nothing that is worth responding to.  Sure, there was something that totally ignored the last two years of history and ignored the findings of Issa’s House Committee investigation and the sworn testimony of ATF agents. But without any links to support the statements made it isn’t worth responding to.

  • Anonymous

    Hey shithead!  I suppose Barry didn’t say “We’re working on gun control UNDER THE RADAR.”

    Right?

    “Under the radar” as in “invisible”, “non-detectable”.  Right?

    About par for “the most honest, most open, most transparent administration, evah!”

    Go ahead shithead.  Throw down the RACE CARD.

  • Anonymous

    For those with a short memory, Eric Lichtblau was the “sterling reporter” who blew the whistle on US intelligence monitoring a banking transfer internet protocol to track the movement of terrorists funds.  The NYT’s published because it was ‘their duty’.  Later they buried a retraction inside the paper, having a Rosana Rosana Dana “never mind” moment saying the scrutiny was “legal”.  They forgot to say “Hey!  Sorry we screwed up an intelligence source the enemy now knows not to use!”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html

  • https://plus.google.com/114041580398058374552/posts McGehee

    I didn’t see any tinfoil hats until the Talking Points Echo showed up.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  • TexBob

    No real malice, just political opportunism and gross incompetence.

    Just illegal activities with the purpose of undermining and subverting the constitution of the USA.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE