It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is not just politicized and biased – it’s a hit squad for Obama’s enemies. Remember when President Obama’s Department of Justice shut down investigation of the New Black Panther Party in the aftermath of their taped voter intimidation in 2008? J. Christian Adams, author of the book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and former DOJ attorney, exposed the DOJ’s corruption in dropping the case altogether. Or how about when the DOJ stonewalled investigations into Fast and Furious, the gunwalking operation that ended with weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels – weapons used to kill American citizens? Well, the DOJ is on the warpath again. Not against the New Black Panthers or the Mexican drug cartels – against Rupert Murdoch. According to Reuters , “U.S. authorities are stepping up investigations, including an FBI criminal inquiry, into possible violations by employees of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire of a U.S. law banning corrupt payments to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement and corporate sources said.” What’s the evidence on which they’re basing the investigation? Says Reuters, “U.S. investigators have found little to substantiate allegations of phone hacking inside the United States by Murdoch journalists, the sources added.” So why, then, is the DOJ so intent on finding wrongdoing about Murdoch? It couldn’t have something to do with Murdoch’s ownership of Fox News – the same network the Obama White House tried to exclude from inside administration interviews, according to papers uncovered by Judicial Watch – could it? It’s nothing new for presidents to use the DOJ as their personal vendetta squad. President Clinton did it on a regular basis. But President Obama was supposed to be better than this. The Obama Administration should release any and all evidence that they have against Murdoch that would justify this investigation. If that evidence isn’t stronger than the evidence they had against the New Black Panthers or the evidence they’re covering up about Fast and Furious, Eric Holder should be forced to resign immediately. Enough is enough. Evidence must justify prosecutions, not political expedience.
Continued here:
Obama Weaponizes DOJ Against Murdoch
Go ahead — make his game. Did Chrysler buy two minutes of the most expensive television time possible to air a stealth promotion for Barack Obama? Clint Eastwood narrates and appears in Chrysler’s spot, in which he declares that we have reached “halftime in America,” which seems to hint at a two-term Presidency for Obama: Politico covers the controversy: “It’s halftime. View the video
Two visions. Americans for Prosperity has a new one-minute advertisement reminding us that today is the 101st birthday of Ronald Reagan — and that we face a crucial question of vision in this nation. One vision sees America as a place of dependence, of static class divisions, where economic mobility is a thing of the past. The View the video
Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect … not that it will do you much good. Michael Ramirez’ work at Investors Business Daily is always brilliant, but yesterday’s editorial cartoon may be one of his best ever. The two-time Pulitzer Prize winner takes on the Church of Government, as my friend John Hinderaker calls it at Power Line, and skewers Barack Obama’s pretensions of being a faith leader while shredding the Read this post
Whoa. Some have suggested that Republicans could nominate a syphilitic camel in 2012 and still beat Barack Obama. (Hey, I’m willing to hear the camel out; what’s his position on taxes?) That sounded like hyperbole until Scott Rasmussen released this video today, discussing the internals of his head-to-head matchups in weekly tracking polls. Mitt Romney now Read this post
Wait — what? When the administration announced earlier this month that it would stick to its decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception, the national Catholic reaction was, to put it mildly, less than supportive. All across the country, Catholic bishops wrote and read letters to their flocks that read, “We Read this post
Trends. Today’s unemployment news gave the Obama administration a bit of good news for the upcoming election — and really just a bit — but Gallup had already provided a big dash of cold water yesterday. In their look at partisan trends on a state-by-state basis, there has been a dramatic shift in favor of the Read this post
How does Obama make important decisions as President of the United States? With checkbox memos , that’s how. (Via IHateTheMedia )
Read the original post:
Decision Making In The Obama White House
But don’t take our word for it … Three years ago today, while Barack Obama demanded almost $800 billion in stimulus funds, he told NBC that the money would generate millions of net new jobs and a new period of growth in short order. “If I don’t have this done in three years,” Obama told NBC, “then there’s going to be a one-term View the video
Two weeks ago Big Government reported that Facebook and Politico created a new partnership to reveal users’ public private messages–if and when they relate to their feelings about a political candidate–will be fed through a ‘sentiment analysis tool’ and potentially reported on Politico. Conservatives should understandably have concerns about Politico’s upcoming reporting since most Facebook users are young and supportive of Barack Obama–in fact Facebook’s own CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been rumored to be an Obama fan, too . But now there’s new criticism coming from the left: Christopher Calabrese of the The American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Legislative Office posted a blog on January 13th stressing their concerns: Most troubling is Facebook’s willingness to search and collect users’ private political preferences and thoughts, preferences they may have shared only with their closest friend in a private email. This raises at least three concerns. The first is that many users may not want to be part of any “sentiment analysis” or poll. For example, they may be a firm supporter of Mitt Romney but find Ron Paul’s ideas interesting. Are they now going to feel hesitant to talk about Paul’s ideas out of awareness that it might be registered as support or boost a candidate they don’t like? Second, we don’t see any mention of user consent anywhere in Facebook’s announcement. How has Facebook decided that users agreed that their personal communications can and should be used in this way? Finally, what other uses might this information be put to in the future? Will it be used to serve users ads from politicians or manipulate voting preferences in some way? We can see the marketing materials from Facebook now: “Candidates, serve ads to secret supporters! No one knows about their preferences except their closest friends and us.” The real question here is what are Facebook’s motives? In the wake of its first public offering of an IPO at $5 billion, analysts are saying that the social utility is worth a total of $85 to $100 billion–the biggest Silicon Valley IPO ever. Last year Facebook earned a revenue of $3.71 billion up 88 percent from 2010. With such stunning financial success, why is such an invasive measure necessary? As mentioned earlier, Zuckerberg is rumored to be an Obama fan and it’s no secret Facebook data may misrepresent overwhelming support for the 44th president. When that information gets reported to the public via Politico there’s no telling what the impact will be. After all, everyone likes to feel like they’re on the winning side and voting for the candidate with the best chances of winning. Just how close is Zuckerberg to Obama? Zuckerberg has met the president on several occasions. Here he is featured having dinner with Obama last February along with several other technology leaders, but it’s Zuckerberg who is sitting right beside the president: Last April Zuckerberg also led a townhall discussion with the president , and most interesting: Just after filing with U.S. regulators to take the company public that could make Facebook $28 billion, Zuckerberg participated in an online town hall this morning with none other than the president himself . According UPI.com, Facebook awarded the IPO responsibilities to the Morgan Stanley financial services firm (the president’s number one campaign contributor is JP Morgan). Are Zuckerberg’s motives in this instance really financial–or are they political–and do they misrepresent nationwide support for President Obama?
Excerpt from:
ACLU: Facebook-Politico Relationship Presents a Privacy Concern