The first people to go, in the historical context of non democratic regimes
worldwide, were the intellectuals, the religious leaders and representatives of
the free press. Amazing how the national liberal media continue to dig at their
own graves by protecting the very administration that would bury them. Perhaps
this matter will be an eye opener. The responsibility of the liberal press to
report to the American public such acts has been missing. We all need to have
confidence that they will fulfill their responsibility. Perhaps, now, that they
have now been victimized by the Obama administration, an awakening will occur.
@ BoredIf you read over the last few years the posters who
don't like Obama, you'd realize that many of them are hardly
cheerleaders for Bush either. Many of us seem to be more skeptical of
administrations than a lot of journalists in D.C. are. And that's not
good. The fourth estate is supposed to be the watchdog for everyone, not just
one political POV.
Re: EsquireThanks for re-affirming that anytime anyone disagrees
with President Obama, it is only because of hate and bigotry. I guess I forgot
that for a while. Thanks for keeping my mind right. I should remember that I
am a bad person because I don't agree with Obama.
@Bored - I think those who were happy when Bush surveilled suspected terrorists
have no problem with Obama surveilling suspected terrorists. I think it's
highly entertaining that you think the standards for surveilling journalists
should be the same as those for suspected terrorists. Not all are
fools, but some are exposed by the ridiculous comparisons they make.
I have figured out why. The presidents intel did not provided him the info
about Benghazi until the news the next day, he didn't know about the IRS
until he learned about it in the news with the public, he has told us many times
about issues he learns about from the news the same time as the public. The
wiretap of the Associated Press, was just his attempt to find out anything
before the public does.
I love reading these comments because there's the usual participants
(myself included). We are all fools!I laugh because of
how political most of 'us' are. I love it when 'you people'
cry foul when an event is focused on the opposite party. Some of you (blasting
Obama) were all for this when we were doing it to 'suspected
terrorists' under Bush (following 911). Pure entertainment!
Obama is upset because he doesn't know what he's doing:*
didn't know what the IRS was doing* although the British took steps
to save their people, Obama wasn't aware of any dangers in Benghazi.*
doesn't know how American guns slipped to Mexican cartels.*
didn't know the economy was this bad.* didn't know our country
has fifty states.* thought a video caused the massacre at Benghazi.Donald Trump offered fifty million dollars for Obama's college
transcripts. As the presidents employer, we should be able to see it.
Lost-That's because anything that happened under GWB was directly
GWB's fault. Unlike now, where Obama can just say he didn't know about
it and he is magically off the hook. Double standards are fine if you lean to
the left.I'm also curious about Esquire's "hate"
allegations, and would appreciate it if he/she would quote exactly what was
hateful. Some sarcasm perhaps, but not hateful or even mean-spirited.
Lots of dubious claims and no facts to support them JSF.
Esquire,something I forgot to mention earlier - when the PATRIOT ACT first
passed, the majority of DEMS in the house and senate voted FOR it, as well as
the repubs.Your first comment blames everything on the repubs, then
your 11:05 comment says all the conservative comments are "hate". I
guess you refuse seeing your comments blaming the repubs as "hate". I
sure am glad you talked about someone being hypocritical. Hope you have a good
No atl134 it is not legal, under the Patriot Act or any other Act. It is
criminal actions. The question about Benghazi, gun running to drug cartels,
targeting using the IRS, and the AP issue, all tie up to powers in the
Administration. Deeper is the gun running to Syrian rebels in violation of
international law. And if Bush is going to be the scapegoat then prosecute him
also. Obama jokingly(?) threatened to use the IRS to go after his opponents
early in his first term. With the likes of Nixon and the problems of this
administration and the rest between, liberals tell us we are paranoid to
distrust our government. Obama said he wished he didn't have the
constraints of the constitution to keep him from getting what he wants to do.
He threatened to go around congress to get the gun control he wanted.If you listen to a man long enough he will tell you who he is.
Esquire~Could you please direct me specifically where this is
defended as being conducted under the Patriot Act? The article said, "The
government would not say why it sought the records" so I don't really
see how it is related. You'll find plenty of
conservatives/Republicans who did not like or approve of the Patriot Act.
Republicans have troubles getting elected and re-elected because of stuff like
This is sadly probably totally legal. After all the Patriot Act and other
similar bills allowed vast expanses of power in this area.
Obama, probably like many other presidents, should have been given an alternate
oath of office for his second term, particularly considering the pattern of his
first term. After the phrase "...will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," should be added
"unless it violates my personal ideology."And thank you
again, Esquire, for your contribution to the consistency of the comments.
Wow, no consistency in the comments except hate.
Re: " I don't want to hear one word of complaint from the
right."Well, you'll just have to continue plugging your
ears and shouting, "la, la, la," then.Otherwise, you'll
hear lots of complaints, from both right and left, about this long and growing
list of Obama regime outrages against its Nixonian enemies list.
I understand the need to investigate disclosures of top secret information that
could potentially place people in harm’s way but on the surface this seems
very troubling. I would like to know how they justify and why they have cast
what seems to be such a wide net.
I still believe that this President studied Constitutional law for one purpose
and that was to get around what the majority of people for 200 years believed
the Constitution of the United States of America is and what it means.First amendment and second amendment. Sort of important? There won't be
a deep throat in this process as he/she will be uncovered.The Press
and Media have been very protective of this President for 5 years. Their area
has now been violated and the government is becoming like the PRAVDA. The CIA
and FBI will become the KGB or Secret Police and not the protectors for
freedoms.What is inviolate? The ATF even suffered with the Fast and
Furious. The IRS just used their process in 2011 to violate people's
rights and maybe influence elections?Safety and health standards
were to help employees and protect owners, also, by increasing productivity.
Now, employers can hide behind the safety and health standards by self-reporting
themselves.We have lowered our standards everyday by becoming
complacent and let the government do everything for us. That even breeds people
inside of political parties to do their own purification processes for people
Esquire:The true hypocrisy lies in the fact that every time Bush did
anything at all you didn't agree with, you and others on the left felt
totally free to criticize on these very pages. And now that Obama has got caught
with his hand in the cookie jar, you want people on the right to give him a free
pass and just forget about it. It's truly one of those "do as I say,
not as I do" kind of things. You should be the last to now be preaching
Of course, Esquire, all mistakes made by the GOP are the GOP's fault, and
according to the repeated propaganda from the left, all mistakes by the Dems are
the GOP's fault as well. The Dems appreciate your loyal support.
"lost", it still originated with your guys and your guys nearly
unanimously reauthorized it. You seem to have missed the point that the GOP
loves it, so no complaining about it necessary. That's where the hypocrisy
is. You surely can figure this one out.
Esquire,it was the DEM controlled house and senate during the first half
BO's (D) first term that the Act you decry was set to expire. But the DEM
controlled government extended it. Who is the hypocrit now?I think
this is all getting blown out of proportion - I'm sure Holder was just
making sure the AP was getting all the DNC talking points.
Just a week or two ago, Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Obama-hating
columnist, wrote that one of the crowning achievements of the Bush
Administration was the anti-terrorism system now in place. It is the result of
the GOP's Patriot Act and related legislation. The fact that these laws
led to this court approved action should be something that every conservative
should welcome. I don't want to hear one word of complaint from the right.
After all, they hate the main stream media anyway. So I guess we will see how
deep runs the hypocrisy.
Some of us could see this coming 5 years ago. Don't blame me, I voted for
Romney BECAUSE of these kinds of government power abuses! But never fear
liberals, we still have Obama and Holder for nearly 4 more years. Imagine that!
Maybe this story should begin "First, the came for the Second Amendment, but
I was a Journalist...."Nobody needs more than one telephone.
There should be waiting periods before crazy journalists get access to
phones.They didn't have telephones when the Constitution was
adopted, so only quill pens and moveable type and hand presses are protected.Only a conspiracy nut would think that the Obama administration would
take away any of your rights.The bottom line is that the Obama
administration and Eric Holder's Justice Department can NOT be trusted, and
will not obey the limits on their power clearly delineated in our Constitution.
And, that does not even begin to consider the huge scandal over the political
thuggery of the IRS!Journalists, welcome to the ranks of the
Wow, really? Who is the judge who approved this? Wouldn't it be interesting
to see a few calls from the West Wing?
Years ago when the media forefronted the attack on the second Ammendment, I
postulated that it was only a matter of time before the first Ammendment would
come under attack. Let us now see if our Chavez-type media will continue under
Obama's thumb.or if they will champion their own cause, And, if their
defense will include religion as part of the First!