And these aren’t even the children of a politician. Nope, these children are targets because their father had the AUDACITY to support Mitt Romney. Yep, that is their crime, having a father exercising his right to support the candidate of his choice. How dare he!
At least, that is what the Obama campaign seems to think. By now, surely you have heard the story of Obama’s “Enemies List,” private citizens who are supporting his opponent are being investigated, and even mentioned by the president himself. Wow. Seems Obama is channeling Tricky Dick Nixon, as WSJ writer, Kimberly Strassel, highlighted recently:
[...]Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats (emphasis mine). This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.[...] (Click here to read the rest.)
No kidding. But to take it a step further makes this even more despicable. Here is the story of Melaleuca CEO Frank VanderSloot:
[...]“There’s been a ton of electronic media… that have lodged all kind of innuendo in my direction, accused me of all kinds of bad things. People have called my children. They’ve been surfing their LinkedIn sites. They’ve been asking interviews of my kids,“ he said.
VanderSloot, one of the eight Romney donors targeted by Obama’s re-election campaign on a website in late April, made the allegation in a phone interview from Idaho Falls, ID. The reason for the scrutiny: VanderSloot contributed $1 million to Romney’s Super PAC.[...] (Click here to read the rest.)
I don’t care what one’s personal political persuasion, this is just flat out wrong on both counts: going after a private citizen for his political choice, and going after his children, too.
Greta Van Susteran had an interview with Mr. Vandersloot Friday night:
Wow, that is just scary. I knew Obama was vindictive, but holy cow, this is some dirty pool, isn’t it? This is majorly crossing the boundary, that’s for sure.
And where is the MSM on this? Are they not making these connections between a president and an enemies’ list like Ms. Strassel is? If not, why not? Have they really so abdicated any semblance of journalistic integrity that they think it is okay for a US President to intimidate a private citizen? Really?
I find this to be disturbing on so many levels. How about you?
This is bottom-feeding behavior. That One wants his children to be unmolested by the Press. Why can’t this same sentiment be applied to actual private citizens, as well? This is only another example of the blatant hypocrisy that the extreme leftist engages in on a
dailycontinuing basis. Either children are off limits or they aren’t. Which part of that is so difficult to understand? Children are children, for God’s sake.So true, Ferd. Helenk shared a story with me (and perhaps she will here, too), abt one of Obama’s supporters going after Bristol Palin. Typical.
And the Kool-Aid chugging obamabots seem to think this is OK unless it happens to them. I can only hope the road to perdition is a long one so we can get this handcart turned around in time.
Right Amy this O bunch gets more despicable by the day.
Let me just say what a pleasure Greta is – a reporter who actually stays on topic and asks relevant questions. Politely.
I do business in DC and I have all sorts of typical DC clients. If they found out I was not a fan of The Won or that I was a conservative libertarian I would receive tons of static. So I just do not mention it – really politics should stay out of the workplace entirely I think, and we provide the same level of service to all clients without reference to that sort of thing.
Although we do have one guy who happens to be both black and a Ron Paulista. This apparently enrages most other black people he knows personally (such as his mother) and he has lots of interesting stories about it.
Its amazing to me how many of our clients just assume we want to hear their BS praise of Der Leader and his great fixing of the economy. Clients constantly go out of their way to “engage” us with the latest talking points, the latest magic math statistics, and all the rest of it.
I cannot say that the president has a list, but I can say that progressives are completely intolerant in my experience. They are beady eyed zealots with a scary agenda they intend force on the rest of us.
If Obama needs a list to win, he will probably make one. And unlike with Nixon this will be just fine and dandy with his average supporter.
Great comment, hc. I agree abt Greta – she is, IMHO, one of the best journalists on. And speaking of how she handles herself, she had this piece recently abt heat Robin Roberts is taking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greta-van-susteren/robin-roberts-interview-_b_1510480.html
Ohmygosh – your poor Paulista client! I bet he does get an earful. Because you know that blacks have to be Democrats. Apparently, that is the rule. Anything else makes them oreos and traitors, apparently.
Btw, along those lines, I was out of town this weekend with my cousin, and Ed. prof. She told me abt a prof she had in grad school who was black. The prof told the students that if they did not expect their black students to be able to speak Business English, they were not helping them, but hurting them from being able to progress in business. (And of course, the whole racism that implies, not expecting certain groups to be able to speak a certain way.)
Anyway – yes, people seem to have forgotten that people do not discuss politics in polite company. Just like religion. Unless it is in a forum where such discussion is the focus, or one knows for sure where someone stands and they have made it clear they are willing to engage, it just shouldn’t be done.
“I thought viewers actually wanted information from an interview and that the viewers were not looking for a gladiator contest where a journalist tries to show off and draw blood? You can get lots of information — and ask very tough and pointed questions — without being a boor.”
I am so sick of the Gladiator Show “interview”! I am so glad Greta said it out loud! Enough already!
Thanks for the link, great article here and Greta’s is great too. Very classy.
My pleasure! And yes, I am, too. That is one of the things I very much appreciate abt Greta, is that she asks good questions, and allows the person to ANSWER her. She is the reason I switched to Fox, the way she interviewed Hillary Clinton. It was the best, most respectful one I had seen…
I’m a fan of Greta too, always have been even when she was on the “other” station! She was respectful both of Hillary and Srah and i admire her genuine interest in bringing the news and holding guests feet to the fire without appearing an inquisitor, she is a newswoman, or I should say THE newsswoman to watch. Thanks for this story amy, it is disguting and expected to become more disgusting. I didn’t know Obama was part of the Nixon, McCarthy clan, my,my, my. I thought we had seen dirty, but I forget he likes to repeat history; repulsive people every damned one of them. i think they will find the public is not enamored with this behavior, or at least real adults who understand their time in the administrative hot seat is just as easy to come as him wearing golf shorts any given day of the week.
Yeah, I think Obama and his crew bring a whole new meaning to “dirty.” They have been playing dirty pool since the beginning, so this is merely a continuation of their MO.
I agree, Kat – Greta is THE newswoman to watch!
There is Greta and then there are the harpies and kool-aid drinkers from the view….
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-jpmorgan-one-best-managed-banks-214359921–abc-news-politics.html
obama is a complete and utter fool…I have no doubt we are the laughingstock of the entire world!!
“Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”
http://www.saywhatyouwill.proboards.com
This is very odd. The home page for FusionGPS is only a contact page…no ‘about us’… board or staff etc.
Shell company, perhaps?
obama’s house negro continues the pandering….I see it in print, but it is hard to comprehend…any chance this racist loser Clyburn will be ousted?
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/14/11699232-clyburn-seeks-national-policy-legalizing-same-sex-marriages?lite
“Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”
Doubtful. Clyburn’s district is gerryrigged, so the chances of him no getting re-elected are slim…
We have this ability as a people already! FFS! Amend the constitution to define marriage or domestic partnership or whatever at the federal level and stop pandering around about it and grandstanding to get on tee vee.
I would prefer that the state have nothing to do with “marriage” personally but really, enough already with the continuous display of idiocy from our elected officials. Its like amateur hour.
If you are actually IN congress go read the constitution, and do what it says in there, and abide by its rules and limits. Thats it. Its a “living and breathing” document because there is a framework to amend it. Not because we have hack judges and congresspeople who ignore it.
Arg
Also WTF with the polling on this gay marriage thing. I always, daily, read that everyone loves the idea. Yet it goes down in flames over and over when sent to state referendum. Not just in scary Tea Party territory either – but in places like California.
Stop faking the math people, we all notice.
Arg again
ROTFLMAO – once again, hc – you nail it on the head, and are funny as hell while doing it. I think YOU should run for president. I know, I know, that pesky Constitution might have forbidden it once, but since Obama, all things are possible! Ahahahaha…Ahem.
YES – read the damn Constitution and do what it says. Easy peasy. It isn’t even that long, for cryin’ out loud!
Good point abt the polls. We can do the math.
Great comment!!
I understand your frustration. That said, I (personally) don’t believe this is a federal issue but one best left to the states (I know, State’s Rights is another divisive issue). Historically, though, marriage, in a House of Worship or in a courthouse, has been the bailiwick of the states. I don’t know that anyone should even want the federal government involved in this as it sets yet another precedent that will only serve to further cement the intrusion of Washington DC into our lives. I worry about the consequences of a one-size-fits-all policy and further worry about where dictates from on high stop, if ever. The original genius of this country and its founders was in the framework of checks and balances–a decentralization of power, distributed among the three branches of federal government and the several states. We lose those checks and decentralization at our peril. I know I don’t like the current proscription on same-sex unions in the country but worry about a rush to correct the problem. We all know how well the government performs when in a hurry, e.g., passing the Patriot Act and Obummercare.
Your lovely wife and I have been having a great discussion on this very issue. As I said to her, it seems to me that since we do NOT Have a state religion, like, say, England does, where when people get married in the church it is automatically legal, it shouldn’t be here. With the stroke of a pen, I make a marriage legal in whichever state I am performing it, subject to that state’s laws (ministers often have to do some paperwork before performing a wedding elsewhere). BUT – in whichever state I perform it, I make it legal simply by signing my name.
My point is that we should have civil ceremonies that convey the legal benefits of marriage. And if people want a RELIGIOUS ceremony, they should have one. You know, that whole separation of church/state thing.
And the reason it cannot just be state are all of the numerous benefits conveyed on the federal level. As tax paying citizens, we don’t just pay to the state, but into the gov’t coffers, too, including Soc. Sec., etc. To be constrained by geography for work or where to live just because someone is gay and in a monogamous relationship seems burdensome to me. Not to mention the states in which we could currently live are all cold states – brrrr!
Back in the day, it may have made more sense for a clergyperson to convey legal status by signing the marriage license, but people have more access these days to civil options, I think.
I agree in principle, Amy. I just don’t want the government falling all over itself to create an amendment or law that isn’t well thought out, succinct, written in standard English, and thoroughly debated on its merits. Our elected representatives can barely write understandable laws as it is, which requires the courts to step in and attempt to translate the rubbish into understandable English and enforceable law. Further compounding this is the attachment of riders and other junk that have nothing to do with the topic of the act. Moreover, the tendency to wordiness and detail down to the weed level only serves to employ an increasing number of lawyers to wade through the dreck.
A very simply written amendment or act which limits the power of the federal government to intrude beyond a single negative declarative statement (…right of a person shall not be abridged.) would suffice. Can DC do that? I’m not certain.
I think thats why amending the constitution requires so many states. Because its not meant to be done willy nilly, but rather in a deliberate, thoughtful way. If an amendment defining “marriage” were to be passed it would be in accordance with the law, and I would prefer it to judicial fiat. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of states agreeing is a high enough benchmark for me, and again, its much much much better than judicial shenanigans.
That said I am 100% on board with the distributed and dispersed power designed into the system. The power should reside with the people, and the decisions should be made close to the populace. Not by kings and tyrants in DC. The amendment process fits with this dispersed power model in my book.
The real problem with marriage in america is the tax code and the creeping nanny welfare state. 99% of the objections about marriage being a “right” are related to the government being insane. Straight married people get X, I want X! X is my right! We need to step back and think about X and why and if it is a “right”.
Things like speech does not place a cost on others – speech is a “right” that does not steal a “right” from someone else.
Something like “healthcare” is a “privilege”, that does place a cost on others (and by others I mean the provider, not the nanny state). If healthcare becomes a right, you have stolen the labor of doctors.
Anyway, I digress. If the government would get back to its proper scope most of these wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion) would disappear. But then how would all these idiots get elected?! Nothing drives morons to the polls like a good wedge issue.
Nothing drives morons to the polls like a good wedge issue.
======================
And that’s a fact!
So, true.
Totally O/T, but Ferd, did you see this piece abt how much money Obama’s buddy, the one who bribed Wright, got in a grant from the Feds/us? Here is the link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/project-run-by-obama-family-friends-receives-5-9m-hhs-grant/
Oh, yeah, I read that. The U of C Medical Center is a criminal enterprise that needs a thorough investigation under RICO. They’re thick as thieves over there.
I figured you had, but I wanted to make sure.
Gosh, if only we had a department in this country whose job it was to make sure laws were not broken…
Digress away, any time, hc!
Yes, I concur – it is a GOOD THING that it takes so much to amend the Constitution. That is as it should be. It needs to be a long, deliberative process.
I hear you abt right v. privilege. When things are built into the system like a spouse being able to get a deceased spouse’s benefits, and where issues are inheritance are decided, it does become an issue. Are those things the gov’t should not be doing? Are those “privileges” or “rights”? There are a number of things that are in there that affect one group, and not another. When we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and some of us are less equal than others, it is an issue. And it is an issue that should be rectified, however that happens.
But I hear you that this is a bigger issue, and I appreciate that distinction. I’m just saying, until (if) that day comes, some people are prohibited from having the same rights/privileges as others.
Here’s a question I’d love to have y’all weigh in on – do you think straight people who choose not to get married but to live together get the same benefits of marriage as those who are married?
In Lebanon marriage, death and inheritance are a matter of your religion. There is no civil law. And its a total mess. Here is an example: A catholic man cannot divorce. But he can convert to Islam, not tell his Catholic wife and kids, Islamic marry up to three other women and upon his death it is just carnage, especially for the very suprised first wife. So I see the value of one and only one court and one law – not Sunni and Shiite and Druze and Orthodox and Catholic.
I would prefer for contractual law to be binding to the parties that signed it. So if you want to buy a house with your partner or partners, great, buy it and sign the paperwork. Ditto for your will. Your stuff is owned by you, or by you and someone with whom you have signed a contract. Dispose of your assets as you wish upon your departure from life.
As for “getting someones benefits” – like a government pension or social security? These things should be accounts owned by a person, like any other asset. Therfore a person should be able to dispose of them as that person wants. Everyone should just buy car, health, dental, etc insurance for him or herself. If I know you and like you, I will pay for yours if that is our arrangement. I am a libertarian, I really am, and I really believe that people are individuals and have the right to dispose of their assets as they see fit.
All that said I understand this will never, ever happen. No laws are ever repealed. No government systems ever become smaller. So I would support domestic partnership for everyone. If you also want to run down to the church and “marry” – great! Invite me to the party! But this word, marriage, has thousands of years of historic (and sometimes conflicting) meanings. The government should not touch it.
I would support this domestic partnership amendment being 2 people over 18, and I would vote YES for a constitutional amendment saying this in my state or municipality. If 3/4 of the rest of states said yes, great, problem solved. I would NOT support this domestic partnership being more than 2 people, or being people under 18. Call me an anti polygamy age biased bigot. I am. I know it.
a A very good post with lots of valid points. thanks.hc123.
I swear, hc – I just love how you think! Brilliant, brilliant comment. Someone should turn that into a post!
Well said!
Thank you so much for your response. And for the insight into how things are in Lebanon. Holy moley…
Thanks!
For some reason every single one of my thoughts ENRAGES my mother in law, who is visiting yet again and is on a “why did my boy marry that pesky hc123″ tirade. Apparently the allure of our mixed jewish-arab alliance has worn off on her – I am not the palestinian she was looking for and I am a bad influence on her boy. Whatever.
Here in America a Palestinian who tells a self described and keeping semi kosher Jewish woman that Israel is a nice place is bad. And Hamas and Fatah and the Muslim Brotherhood and the (moderate) Taliban are good. It has to be absolutely exhausting to tow the party line. Maybe thats why shes so grouchy.
Hence my trip to the Wye Oak over the weekend – just had to get out of the house
Its always great to come here and talk to people who can think, are willing to examine their own ideas, and have common sense!
Holy SMOKES, hc! Um, uh, yeah – it must be hard to be Jewish, semi-Kosher, and claim all things Obama supports (MB, et. al.) are GOOD and Israel BAD. That kind of schizophrenia has GOT to make one just nuts…And cranky. That kind of cognitive dissonance is gonna leave a mark.
I don’t blame you for getting the hell out of dodge, either!
I concur with your assessment – I love this group for the same reasons. And your comments are always provocative – in a good way! The different viewpoints here do help to expand the mind, and y’all regularly help me to broaden my horizons.
Your mother in law just doesn’t appreciate how awesome you are – but WE do!!
We’re all rabble rousers here.
LOL – true that, Ferd!
Here’s a question I’d love to have y’all weigh in on – do you think straight people who choose not to get married but to live together get the same benefits of marriage as those who are married?
======================
As I understand it, that becomes a common-law issue (at least here in TN), which is fraught with all sorts of legal pitfalls. I would think that a legal agreement of some sort would be smart if not required, be it a contract, a civil union, or a marriage. Leaving one open to the jurisdiction of the court is not wise and often expensive.
That’s what I would have thought, too, Ferd – that after so many years, it would be common-law marriage. Thanks for weighing in. Great comment!