To the shock of almost no one, it has been revealed that the IRS deliberately targeted non-profit conservative groups in the run-up to Barack Hussein Obama's election with the seeming goal of keeping these groups from exercising their first amendment rights.
The IRS claims no political motivation, but says that "low level employees" decided it would be a good idea to make life miserable for groups whose names included "tea party" or "patriot." Hilariously, when senior IRS officials found out about this, they said they were shocked, shocked!, at this abuse of power, and told their underlings to immediately change their review standards to something more fair: namely, targeting "political action type organizations involved in limiting Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or social/economic reform." Oh yeah, that's much better.
But the good news doesn't stop there! Thanks to Obamacare, the same IRS that is discriminating against people with dissenting political beliefs will also be in charge of enforcing your healthcare, including introducing a new form this January which will tie all of your health records to your IRS account - with all of its records of your political affiliations and donations.
But don't worry, you won't be denied healthcare by "low level employees" just because you happen to belong to the Tea Party or proclaim yourself to be a patriot.
On the other hand, if you're vocal about believing in limited government, economic reform, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights...consider yourself "shovel-ready."
Bonus: AV Club
When you think of it, the cartoon above makes just as much sense (and is just as offensive) as the Obama administration's attempt to tell the American people that the deaths in Benghazi weren't the result of a terror attack, but simply an outpouring of emotion by passionate Libyan film critics.
That story is unraveling fast, and even the mainstream media are now trying to maneuver their way out from under the potential crapstorm by suggesting - albeit timidly - that lying about terror and sacrificing American lives just to win an election is a bad thing.
Watergate was nothing compared to Benghazi, and all of those responsible need to be driven from office as soon as possible.
May God bless those who have kept these stories alive. Here's to the hope that Jay Carney has unpleasant presser after unpleasant presser for the foreseeable future. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He needs a name paralleling "Baghdad Bob". Jerkoff Jay? I'm fumbling here...
ReplyDeleteIn a rational world this administration would be packing it's bags. Lock, stock and barrel. Using the IRS, which has the power to ruin any citizen's life, to intimidate opponents and influence an election is so anti-democratic and reeks to high heaven of Chavez, Evo Morales, the Castro brothers. How far we have fallen. The so-called media should be hanging their heads in shame, if not jumping out of 40th floor windows.
ReplyDeleteJihad Jay? Commie Carney? Yeah... I'm fumbling too...
ReplyDeleteThe Benghazi and IRS fiascos are both gaining traction, but it worries me. So many times, I have thought, "Finally, crap weasel is going to get exposed!" ...only to see some convenient crisis come along to draw the public's attention away. It will have to be something BIG this time, so batten down the hatches, my friends! Not one for conspiricy theories, but this administration has friends in low places, and I wouldn't be surprised if those low places include maybe Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Russia....
Why do I feel that I'm in a "Twilight Zone" episode, and Rob Sterling is in the same room?
ReplyDelete@TrickyRicky: Should I point out that the concept of an entity such as the IRS itself is pretty anti-democracy in and of itself? Institutionalized armed robbery always is.
ReplyDelete@Stilton: your combination of subjects between the two cartoons is most apt as I firmly believe the revelation which is the subject of the first was allowed out in the hopes that it diverts attention from revelations which are evolving from the second...
It's all Bush's fault.
ReplyDelete"White House spokesman Jay Carney said, in response to a question about the I.R.S. targeting conservative groups, that the I.R.S. is run by a George W. Bush political appointee."
@Stilton, it's wise to connect the issues of the IRS selectively targeting citizens and the perils of government-run health care on our freedom. If politicians and agents of the most honest and transparent government ever cannot resist using the tax code to monitor, coerce, and ultimately punish honest citizens, why should any sentient being expect that they will not use the health care system to do the same?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'd call you insane if you didn't expect them to do just that.
Can you imagine the @#%!storm that would be taking had it been revealed that the Bush Administration deployed the IRS against Progressive organizations? The impeachment hearings would already be scheduled.
George Will made some great observations the other day (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/12/george-will-if-bush-had-irs-going-after-progressives-we-would-have-al) and pulled out this interesting historical tidbit:
"This is the 40th anniversary of the Watergate summer here in Washington. "He has through his subordinates and agents endeavored to cause in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner." Section 1, Article 2, the Impeachment Articles of Richard Nixon."
Nixon's head is shaking in his grave in total disbelief. And yet, we all know that at least outside of Fox News, this issue will be gone and forgotten before the end of the month
Meanwhile, if I were a criminal today, I'd be starting my own 501(c)(4) organization and call it something like "Progressive Planned Community Organizing for Green Socialist Betterment". It would be a great cover for gun running, back-alley late-term abortions, child trafficking and prostitution. If the IRS paid any attention at all to the name, it would only be so that they'd know to throw in the paperwork for a subsidies and loan guarantees as a convenience.
(The only problem with my plan is that it would be in direct competition with some other existing favorite Progressive organizations that already enjoy government protection and support)
But as I said last week, I don't think the Benghazi and IRS oppression scandals won't have any long-term traction, simply because they either don't resonate or personally affect the vast majority of "low information" Progressives. It was just a bunch of no-name bureaucrats that died in the far-away land of Benghazi, and they really don't care about those loony Tea Party folk, with their bibles, guns and pining over the Constitution. What will personally affect them is ObamaCare, and the bad news keeps coming:
Huge drug cost disparities seen in health overhaul: (http://news.yahoo.com/huge-drug-cost-disparities-seen-health-overhaul-071138917.html) "Cancer patients could face high costs for medications under President Barack Obama's health care law, industry analysts and advocates warn.
To try to keep premiums low, some states are allowing insurers to charge patients a hefty share of the cost for expensive medications used to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other life-altering chronic diseases.
Critics fear most states will follow California's lead, and that could defeat the purpose of Obama's overhaul, because some of the sickest patients may be unable to afford their prescriptions.
"It's important that the benefit design not discriminate against people with chronic illness, and high copays do that,"...
You'd think that consumer advocate groups, especially for the elderly would be up-and-arms over this. Hello AARP? Hello? Your membership is about to get totally screwed. Your silence is deafening.
continued...
...continued:
ReplyDelete"Insurers are forecasting double-digit premium increases for individual policies, as people with health problems flock to buy coverage previously denied them. The Obama administration says the industry warnings are overblown, and that for many consumers, premium increases will be offset by tax credits to help buy insurance."
Tax credits? Oh yeah. In 2008, Barack Obama promised I'd be paying $2,500/yr less by the end of his first term. Instead, my family's health care costs (insurance and regular care itself) has gone up over 40% since Obama took office in 2009. (And we're all healthy too; I can't imagine how much it would be if we were not) Today I am paying over $4,000/yr more than I did when Obama was inaugurated.
The AP story continues: "Still, a full picture of costs and benefits isn't likely to come into focus until the fall." Yup folks, it's going to get worse. Much worse.
Most "low information" folk aren't going to get too excited about this stuff until the letters start showing up in the mail. Then, they're going to be confused. (It's amazing how many people still think that ObamaCare is going to be "free") In reality, it's going to be a lot of paperwork, and it's going to be expensive, either because the cost of your insurance and care is going way up, or because you're going to have to pay the "tax" if you just throw all that confusing mail in the trash, as many will do.
At some point between now and fall, I'm expecting the letter from my insurance company stating that my premiums will go up another 14% to 24% to pay for all this. So where on my tax return do I get to file to get my $6,500/year back? I can't find it.
And finally, also consider this: "Insurers are allowed to charge tobacco users buying an individual policy up to 50 percent higher premiums. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year, on top of the standard premium."
So, how long will it be before being sympathetic to the Tea Party will be a basis for higher rates? A paranoid stretch of the imagination, probably. So how about this one: How long before being a gun owner will be a basis for higher rates or a reason not to treat you at all?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/own-a-gun-the-doctor-cant-refuse-to-treat-you/
Anyone who believes that government health care will not be used to control you is an idiot.
I may be paranoid but if the IRS intentionally targeting certain American citizens then was bad just wait until the DHS starts targeting patriotic American citizens who promote the United States Constitution as the law of the land, self-responsibility, and a can do spirit of independence and hard work with drone mounted weaponry.
ReplyDeleteBypass that BS, 'subjective' Impeachment process and goes right to charges of Treason.
ReplyDeleteCharge & Try Obozo & PIAPS, find them GUILTY (easy since they have ALREADY been caught in lies, cover-ups, and obstruction of justice), and then, summarily, hang the bastids.
That's what America USED to do to Treasonous asshats.
Is anyone else wondering what is going to happen when a person is denied health care by the government and said person's cheese slides off the cracker? If you were already dead due to cancer, organ transplant denial, etc. what would you have to lose?
ReplyDeleteFor Carney's nickname... how 'bout something simple that reminds us where his nose is buried? Like "Crap-weasel Carney?"
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding the 'mainstream' enemedia beginning to question the official line on Benghazi... expect a course-correction from them soon.
However, there is good news... Lots of 'guilty' verdicts being handed down today for Kermit Gosnell. The man who is both one of the most prolific serial-killers in history, and who has single-handedly almost ruined a certain green Muppet for me.
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping that at least one of the three guilty verdicts he has received will provide the same outcome for him as was given to so many of his victims.
@Grafton Cheddar- How about "Jay Carnage?"
ReplyDelete@TrickyRicky- The whole IRS thing stinks to high heaven, and we haven't even heard the overall investigation results yet. Citizens on the Right have been screaming about this for a year now and were ignored by the MSM. So personally, I like that "40th floor window" suggestion...
@Colby- I agree. This administration will do whatever it takes to stay in power - including starting a war, releasing a plague, or faking a terror attack. I don't think Obama would ever be willing to leave office peacefully.
@John Greco- I feel the same way.
@Emmentaler- I think it's entirely possible that the IRS issue has been released to distract from Benghazi, and to give Barry a chance to feign outrage on behalf of the same Tea Party Patriots that others in his administration routinely refer to as terrorists.
@CenTexTim- I swear that when Jay Carney gets a physical and the doctor taps his knee with the rubber mallet, Carney squeaks "Bush did it!"
@John the Econ- Some days I feel like I'm making "stone soup" here; I supply the stone and some boiling water, and then you start throwing in meat and veggies. Great comments, and I really DO believe that all of us who are vocal about our freedoms and conservatism will pay a price - possibly including the ultimate price - when our healthcare is determined by political functionaries.
@American Cowboy- Somewhere on the Internet, I recently saw a story that Homeland Security is creating counter-terror training videos in which the terrorists are (ready for this?) home-schoolers. Trust me, you ain't paranoid.
@The Doktor- I agree with your dispassionate assessment of the problem and the solution (assuming, of course, that the law has been followed to the letter).
@Anonymous- That will probably happen, and maybe even is intended to happen so that the government can point to another reason to disarm Americans.
@txGreg- How I'd love to hear a roomful of waving reporters trying to get Carney's attention by shouting "Crapweasel! Crapweasel!"
ReplyDeleteRegarding Gosnell, I'm delighted by the verdict...and hope that the media may finally start talking about Barack Obama's vote in Illinois to allow "abortions" to take place after a live birth. Gosnell was doing what Barry was preaching.
I really enjoy this blog. I learn so much. Especially John the econ. I'm not diminishing anybody else's contribution,
ReplyDeleteAnd Anonymous, exactly right. I've thought the same thing.
As for Carney, he can't possibly enjoy that job. It's got to be hell. His job is to fabricate, lie, spin and keep a straight face?
It makes you wonder what kind of mental deficiencies a person has got to have to do that job? Clearly you have to check your soul at the door. As I type that I realize everyone participating in this regime have done just that.
I need an adult beverage.
Guys, this one's easy...
ReplyDeleteCarnEVIL Jay
And the wailings and gnashing of teeth will be NOTHING compared to when the dollar totally collapses from debt loading, the freebies all come to a screeching halt, and the 1/3 people on food stamps start to get HUNGRY. And have NO skills, and NO work ethic. It will be far too late then to prepare for the 'Zombie Apocalypse'...
Are there any more "New Worlds" left to discover? 'Cuz I'm thinking about renting a ship...
ReplyDelete@WMD- I, too, wonder about how Carney justifies to himself the lies he tells, knowing the size of the consequences. Perhaps he believes that he's doing a little evil in the service of a greater good. Either way, he's comfortable with doing evil.
ReplyDelete@Pete(Detroit)- Well, no sooner do I pronounce Carney evil than you make it his official name!
And yeah, I keep waiting for the dollar to combust. It can't possibly be long now...
@Suzy- I'm not sure if a ship will do it. I think it may be time for another Ark.
Bubba, If your not an approved race or in a protected class such as Blacks, New American (Illegal immigrant) Gay or a Saudi national you can expect your medical help to dry right up.
ReplyDeleteIf you vote Conservative your going to do without medical care.
Gotta disagree w/ you there, Zebra - The Gays are gonna be PISSED when they find that AIDS meds and research are totally de-funded...
ReplyDeleteStilt, always glad to be of service - I would have loved to incorporate CrapWeasle into it, but the other was just SO, well, *right*
I fully agree w/ WMD, it takes a special kind of idiot to blatantly lie to the world like that. I *do* like the feel and bounce of 'Jay Carnage' but it's not like he actually LEAVES a body count, more like 'what, nothing to see here, these are not the bodies you're looking for'...
Then again, there *is* the president, in a class of his own, blaming Mexican Cartel violence on 'guns coming in from the US' -
Uh, those would be the guns YOU GAVE THEM as part of Fast & Furious? Holy WOW what an Asshat THAT one is!
I've heard that they have a new guy in the wings waiting to take Carney's job: Stephen King. Shoot! The fiction will be no different, but the tone will be a hell of a lot closer to the reality of everything this administration does. King's a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal, to boot! A perfect fit.
ReplyDelete@Zebra Dun- Well, conservatives won't be entirely excluded from Obamacare. We'll still be used as organ donors (probably on very short notice).
ReplyDelete@Pete(Detroit)- See, "asshat" works well too. Though frankly, rather than thinking up insulting nicknames for the whole administration, we should just give them prison numbers.
@Emmentaler- I could believe Stephen King in that position. Or maybe Stephen Hawkings - that way his computer voice could be programmed by the spin team in real time while Hawkings just sits there.
Or maybe we can draft Bill Maher for the job...?
I watched Obama's press conference with David Cameron today. I kept expecting him to wave his hand and say in his best Sith voice, "These aren't the answers you're looking for, move along."
ReplyDeleteThe MSM slept their way through Fast & Furious and Benghazi. Maybe now that the IRS has been implicated in illegal partisan chicanery and the AP has discovered the DOJ has been tracking their phone calls, the MSM will get off their keisters and do their jobs.
@graylady- I think Barry's statement "There's no there there" comes pretty close to an attempted Jedi mind trick (although you're right - he's definitely more Sith material).
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that out of all the stories/scandals currently breaking, the media will be most annoyed by the AP phonecall tracking. Because it's finally their ox getting gored.
"There's no there there"
ReplyDeleteThat reminded me of some other lying asshat of a President. Something about arguing over the meaning of the word "is," right?
Is it just me, or do you think that the IRS story was floated as a diversion from the Benghazi story?
ReplyDelete@Karl Uppiano,
ReplyDeleteI think you have hit on something there, but I think the DOJ spying on the AP might be the scandal that was purposely leaked. Holder has wiggled out of bigger messes than that, and they are hoping it will be the "shiny object" to distract us serfs. If so, this could have been a huge miscalculation on the part of the crap weasel administration. BO might be the puppeteer, but the AP controls the strings. Every "news" outlet in the country prints whatever BS the AP sends them, and usually without question. If the AP gets a hard on for revenge, BO can start packing his bags.
That being said, it is entirely possible both events were floated. If so, then BO must be pretty dang worried about Benghazi to start taking risks like this.
Is BO suddenly interested in closing Gitmo again because he fears being a resident one day?
Interesting article from Blackfive: I Want Answers
ReplyDelete@txGreg- When I heard Barry use that phrase, I immediately thought of "that depends on what is is." By the way, Barry didn't even come up with that phrase by himself - he stole it from Gertrude Stein.
ReplyDelete@Colby- Then again, maybe Barry isn't floating any distracting stories, but just happens to have three or more pieces of fecal material hitting the fan at the same time. Wouldn't it be nice if the AP suddenly got interested in "Fast & Furious," too?
@SeaDog52- I want those same answers.
A Democrat's kidney?
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe;
but a Democrat's liver?
Nope.
Probably the biggest single advantage that conservatives have over liberals (although it certainly doesn't seem like it) is that by default, the media already hates us. They can't possibly turn on us. If we do something that really pisses the left off, the media really can't produce much more negative press than it already does. The delta of 100% negative to 100% negative is zero.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, whether he realizes it or not, Obama is completely at the mercy of a pliant press corps. They can hurt him, very easily. And it's clear that he's pissed off the AP.
Just looking over my AP feed recently, I don't think I've ever seen more stories hostile to the Obama administration at a single time:
Benghazi: People died, Obama lied. And then took another dump on the Constitution.
Gosnell: Just why did he get away with what he was doing for over 20 years???
The IRS: It wasn't just the Tea Party that was targeted. Jewish groups were too. And others. And it wasn't just a few rouge agents in Cincinnati. In fact, it not appears that Democrats were privy to confidential IRS information on conservative opponents. This kind of corruption is what took out Nixon.
Wind Farms: Seems that the Obama Administration is deliberately not prosecuting wind farm operators for the killing of wildlife as they vigorously do for oil producers or electric utilities.
ObamaCare: More stories about professionals and consumers beginning to comprehend how ObamaCare is really going to hit them. Costs going up. Doctors quitting. Consumers taking it in the end.
And finally, the data-dump of the AP's phone records: Could you imagine the furor if this had happened under Bush???
Again, when was the last time you saw this many stories hostile to a Democratic administration floating out at once? I certainly can't remember.
I think the MSM is sending a very clear message: They'll tolerate the corruption, hypocrisy and complete BS sprewed by this administration. But you start taking shots at them, look out. I wonder what other dirt they've got stored up after 5 years?
If the AP probe disappears quickly and quietly, we'll have our confirmation. Benghazi will then fade as expected, Gosnell will be sent to somewhere like Guantanamo never to be heard from again, only Fox News will stick with the IRS story, windmills will again be our savior, birds be damned, and all stories on ObamaCare will be about how wonderful it is going to be, someday when it gets a chance.
Until then, enjoy watching them squirm. It doesn't happen very often like this.
Stilt: Do ya suppose Crapweasel came across the Gertrude Stein line while researching her partner's (Alice B. Toklas) recipe for brownies aka "electric brownies". Good way to indulge in a little "choom" without smokin' up the "residence".
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be honest, I am not celebrating the IRS story only because the little grumbly cynic in me says this was done to deflect from Benghazi as it started to gain traction.
ReplyDeleteIt might be that, in throwing the Intelligence Community under the bus, Obama has come under fire from the CIA, who is leaking like an incontinent dog, but I am not sure.
The IRS story might well be spun as a case of overzealous underlings (who else is to blame in the Obama Administration, certainly none of the department heads) in a "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" moment. Especially since the Jewish organizations ALSO being targetted isn't garnering as much press -- and it really should.
Don't misunderstand, if the the dam is breaking, if the MSM's love affair with Zero Dark Squirty is over, that's a wonderful thing. It just doesn't excuse the Press's turning a blind eye and outright dragging Obama into office in 2008 and especially 2012.
I'll still sit back and watch the show. I just want there to be real consequences and repercussions for the Most Corrupt Administration in history. I want Obama's overreach to cost the Democrats a generation of elections.
I want justice (and a cookie).
Thanks for posting!
Damn, no gouda, your comment about "electric brownies" brought on a full blown chocoholic fit, a pound bag of M&M's gone. (I don't drink alcohol and prefer my emotion-sustaining imbibing to be of the chocolate type. Buy stock in Hershey's, boys, it can only go up!)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the IRS story is supposed to be a distraction as is the AP revelation. Perhaps the Zero Dark Squirty (I LOVED that, Earl) administration thinks they can numb us to the violation of our rights by ramping up the number of sustained of hits. After a while they think we'll be so numb we just won't notice any more hits.
I don't know @Earl Allison and skeptical others; The idea that Obama would intentionally set the IRS thing lose as a distraction from Benghazi makes about as much sense as chopping off your nose to spite your face.
ReplyDeleteSay what you will about the scandal that is Benghazi, but at the end of the day, there really isn't any crime (legally, anyway) about it. It's now blatantly obvious that consulate security was a compete joke, and that the Obama Administration was incompetent and their reaction to the whole mess was to propagate a lie about it. But politicians and administrations lie every day. The Clinton Administration did it daily. ("Yesterday's story is now inoperative) By itself, it's an embarrassment, but hardly an impeachable offense.
On the other hand, revelations that the Obama Administration was actively using the IRS as a method to attack, punish, and/or intimidate political rivals clearly is an impeachable offense, with precedent.
Also consider, as I've mentioned here numerous times before, that relatively few Americans can relate at all to the tragedy and scandal that is Benghazi. On the other hand, nearly all Americans, regardless of their political stripe, can relate to being intimidated by the IRS; a government agency with immense powers, its own court system that works in reverse of the normal system, (guilty until proven innocent) and the ability to seize all your property, throw you in jail, and attach the fruits of your labor literally forever.
If I was the Obama Administration, I'd be using Benghazi as a distraction from the IRS scandal, and not the other way around.
@John The Econ: Reference from the articles of Impeachment -
ReplyDeleteArticle 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
I think the spin mongers in the Zero Dark Squirty's administration are in full panic mode and are throwing out whatever to try and distract, not realizing that all they are doing is adding on. Now let's also add the DoE and their green energy grants to the investigations.
Agreed, John, the IRS scandal is the biggie. I've always said I'd rather have the FBI, CIA & KGB after me than the IRS. The first 3 can kill you but the IRS can REALLY ruin your life.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the IRS thing could be huge, IF it can be tracked back to El Casa Blanca. And we all know BO is really good at covering his little weasel tracks. Still, the impeachment hearings were not directly successful in removing Richard Nixon, but the fallout became unbearable enough to bring a resignation.
ReplyDeleteI still think the AP thing has huge potential. If the media turns on HRH Barry, he's toast. Already, even uber-liberal Carl Bernstein has blasted BO, so there is a slight glimmer of hope here.
No need to fear, Eric Holder is on the case!:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/justice-investigate-irs-targeting-tea-party-191244797.html
"Those (actions) were, I think, as everyone can agree, if not criminal, they were certainly outrageous and unacceptable," Holder said. "But we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations..."
Holder said he wasn't sure which laws may have been broken."
Sounds to me like a job for a "special prosecutor", one of those things invented in the wake of Nixon, that the left has been regretting ever since Clinton.
I wonder how the Obambam voters are feeling about their "Holy One", POTUS now. This is the most disgraceful and corrupt administration in my lifetime.
ReplyDelete@Readers- I don't have much of anything to add to the lively dialogue above, but I'm sure enjoying it!
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly, these topics will all still be on the table for Wednesday's Hope n' Change!
"I wonder how the Obambam voters are feeling about their "Holy One", POTUS now. This is the most disgraceful and corrupt administration in my lifetime."
ReplyDeleteYou are, of course, talking about the Bush administration that appointed this guy, right? As in the only President who had any form of influence over this set of affairs, and the only President who could be linked to this in any way? You are of course only referring to Bush, because otherwise you are indeed going completely against the blatant and public facts of this affair?
Just because you regressives finally got one thing to legitimately complain about, does not mean you can just blame whoever you want. If you want to be treated like adults, then you have to leave the blame where it actually is, not drag this out forever while trying to find some tenuous link to Obama.
@Ted Brist- First, I think we all need to give Ted a group hug. He, and everyone else on the Left, is having a tough week. And trying to pin things on Bush isn't going to really help much.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because NO ONE has accused the Bush appointee as being the guy who originated or implemented the IRS fiasco. Did he help try to cover it up? Quite possibly, but so far there are no "blatant and public facts" making him the fall guy here.
But apart from that, what in God's name makes you think that a Bush appointee couldn't be (ahem) "influenced" by a sitting president? The IRS position is specifically supposed to be apolitical, so assigning imagined loyalties to the guy based on who appointed him is wishful thinking on your part, which is still slightly better than no thinking at all on your part.
And Ted, let me thank you for the laugh o' the day in calling this "one thing to legitimately complain about." I guess you don't give a rat's ass that a sitting American president lied about Benghazi to give cover to Al-Qaeda in order to protect his campaign phrase that Barry had 'em on the run.
There are dozens of other "legitimate" complaints about this administration which are raised right here on a regular basis, and none of the links to Obama are tenuous.
You can hang around and learn something, but you'll actually enjoy it more if you expose yourself to some actual news (might I suggest you start with the Wall Street Journal?) so you can keep up with the class.
@Stilton Jarlsberg
ReplyDelete"Why? Because NO ONE has accused the Bush appointee as being the guy who originated or implemented the IRS fiasco."
STEE-RIKE ONE! Marco Rubio, the last hispanic man in the GOP, has said the scandal originated with the head of the IRS at the time - the Bush appointee.
" The IRS position is specifically supposed to be apolitical, so assigning imagined loyalties to the guy based on who appointed him is wishful thinking on your part"
And yet you manage to say the current president is influencing him despite being even less connected to the matter than Bush?
"And Ted, let me thank you for the laugh o' the day in calling this "one thing to legitimately complain about." I guess you don't give a rat's ass that a sitting American president lied about Benghazi to give cover to Al-Qaeda in order to protect his campaign phrase that Barry had 'em on the run."
STEE-RIKE TWO! Obama called that an act of terror the very next dday. Unless you are the sort of tight ass grammar nazi that thinks semantics is a good strategy, that is clearly saying that Benghazi was terrorists.
"There are dozens of other "legitimate" complaints about this administration which are raised right here on a regular basis, and none of the links to Obama are tenuous."
STEE-RIKE THREE! YOU'RE OUT! None of the complaints raised by you are the legitamite ones. THe word legitmatie means having a legal basis, while not a single goddamn thing you have brought up has any for of legal or factual basis. And the actual Obama scandals that have a factual base are glossed over by you, because the major scandals with Obama are him acting like a Republican.
@Ted Brist- You can be the pitcher or the catcher (not that your private life is any of my business), but you can't also be the umpire here on my playing field.
ReplyDeleteNOT Strike One- Rubio did NOT say the scandal originated with the IRS Commissioner, he said the IRS Commissioner should be fired for having presided over an out of control and poorly managed organization (this per the actual investigation results released today).
On your next point, Presidents can be highly influential, especially when they hold your career in their sweaty, corrupt, power-crazed little hands. So it's entirely possible that Barry exerted pressure, but we won't know that until there's a large investigation with subpoenas. Similarly, your assertion that Obama has "less connection" to this scandal than Bush has no weight behind it before such an investigation. Although it does seem like an odd COINCIDENCE that the IRS went wild and started attacking Barry's political enemies if no one in his camp had anything to do with it.
NOT Strike Two- Barry did NOT call it terrorism the next day (he did use the word "terror" in a generic sense), and specifically said on 60 Minutes that he was not calling it terrorism. He then continued to blame a preposterous video, including on the floor of the United Nations. The first "official" declaration by the Whitehouse that this was an act of terrorism came over two weeks after the massacre. When Obama says otherwise, he is flat out lying.
NOT Strike Three- Well, I'm just going to have to call "bullshit" on this one, because all you're doing is giving your opinion that no complaints against your little Socialist tin god are valid.
So considering you're bringing nothing to the party other than anger, lack of information, and intellectual dishonesty, I bid adieu to you and the horse you rode in on.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Ted Brist- In the past, I've been criticized for trying too hard to find common ground with trolls, but I'm not in the mood to play that game just now.
ReplyDeleteYour (hopefully final)post was deleted because it was factually wrong in every regard, filled with your own fantasies and delusions, and preposterous talking points from MSNBC (yes, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Brist STILL insists that the Benghazi massacre was caused by the Youtube video).
Say goodnight, Gracie.
For the better part of a month, the Obama Administration propagated "the video" narrative. They even spent money to produce and run a commercial about the video in the middle east:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNu6E7c4vA
Meanwhile, the news on IRS links just keeps getting better (or worse). So now it seems that employees within the IRS were channeling confidential information on conservative groups to leftist groups and political operatives.
@Ted Brist, defend Obama as you clearly will. But try to honestly answer this: Do not all these government out of control stories vindicate the agenda of the Tea Party? Or is political corruption at all levels just the price we must pay to live in a Progressive paradise?
@Ted Brist,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations - you managed to find a remaining sliver of generosity... at first. I read your initial comment and laughed out loud. I was ready to tell you that you should include a [sarcasm] tag or somesuch so that everyone could laugh with you rather than at you.
Then, I read further and realized that you weren't being sarcastic... you really were that dumb and (apparently deliberately) uninformed.
Now, you just make me sad. Another sliver of my attempt to hope for the best in humanity, gone for good...
Still - my best wishes to you... maybe a bit more propaganda efforts like this from you and you'll get your free Øbamaphone in the mail!
@John the Econ- It seems that Lefties continually excuse even blatant corruption and misuse of power by claiming "Bush did it too." Claiming that "everyone is guilty" isn't quite the same as proclaiming innocence.
ReplyDelete@txGreg- Brist's comments only went downhill, and the last was so spectacularly ignorant that I chose to spare all of you from it. It's not a sin to be stupid, but to choose to be a fool is unforgiveable.
@Stilton Jarlsberg: Good to see you went the route of a coward and covered up what I said, that contained absolutely no obscenities, and was therefore only offensive to you in that it (rightfully) threatened your malformed views.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ: While Conservatives continue to demonize the fact that Obama said Act of terror, which is clearly not the same as a terrorist act for REASONS, the actual root cause of the deaths of four Americans (including my friend, Sean Smith) is the Republicans cutting the embassy security staff budget.
The IRS needing to create a way to flag groups in the first place is due to understaffing meaning only a tiny percentage of forms can be viewed in detail.
Which of these is indicative of a government thats too big, again?
@Ted Brist, again, the Obama Administration, at all levels propagated "the video" narrative long after there was no doubt that the attack was a coordinated assault, and not a wholly organic response to an obscure YouTube video.
ReplyDeleteThe armed response sent to incarcerate the video's creator, soon to be beamed all over the planet, was far better prepared than the consulate security staff.
So tell me this: If from day one, the Obama Administration acknowledged this this was, in fact, a "terror" attack, then why the phony pretense over the video?
This silly spin effort might float well at the Daily Kos. But here, it's just pathetic.
@John THe Econ: I notice you didn't actually respond to how the Republicans cutting the Embassy Security Staff budget led to those four Americans being killed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know that you're such a simple creature that you think all things in life only happen because of one thing, but a more reasonable person would know that saying the video may have been a factor doesn't rule out Al Qaeda also being a factor.
@Ted, did Susan Rice go on all those Sunday morning news shows and say the video "may have been a factor"? Or did she say it WAS the cause of the attack? And didn't Barack Hussein go to the UN and say the video WAS the cause of the attack?
ReplyDeleteIf you're privy to the details of the Embassy Security Staff budget cuts, please let us have those details. But even those details won't explain away the inaction of the administration during the actual attack. You know, the attack the administration was watching in real time from the drone flying overhead....
@JustAJeepGuy: You mean the drones Alex Jones told you were there, right after he told you the lizard people were coming for your teeth?
ReplyDeleteNext you're gonna tell me that the Libyan civilians who were trying to get a man to the hospital were raping him, right? (Cause Gay Sex=EVIL, so therefore all evil people are gay).
The closest actual military intervention was realistically 4 hours away. Notice I said realistically - if you bring up there being fighter jets ready and waiting on the runway in Sicily, you're confusing life with a Micheal Bay movie again.
And lest you think I'm ducking the issue, here's the Republican, Jason Chaffetz, saying that he absolutely cut the funding.
ReplyDeleteO’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?
CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.
Is this the republicans fault? "Absolutley".
@Ted Brist- Actually, I nuked your previous post not out of cowardice, but to spare the readers here your ignorance and vehemence. However, I haven't checked the blog until now and see that you've engaged in some conversations (hint: you're losing badly) so I'll say a couple of things before going about the business of nuking anything else you write.
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't whether or not Republicans made budget cuts to State Department security, but whether any such cuts had an effect on what happened in Benghazi. And the answer, clearly and repeatedly stated, is "no."
Here's a quote from National Review: "Democrats have claimed that budget cuts resulted in the lack of security in Benghazi, but Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, testified in October that budget cuts did not affect resources for security in Benghazi. On Face the Nation that same month, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa said the State Department was sitting on more than $2.2 billion in unused funds designated for embassy security. Nothing that Chaffetz said changes this by the State Department's own admission.
The lack of requested security in Benghazi comes down to purely political decisions by the State Department and Obama Administration not to provide such security no matter how much Chris Stevens begged for it.
Presumably this was because Barry didn't want to offend the Libyans by showing a "lack of trust" (ie, adequate security). But we shouldn't have to presume anything: we should investigate and get answers. But then again, you seem awfully eager to avoid such an investigation, perhaps because you already know that the truth won't be to your liking.
Your argument that we couldn't get anyone to Libya to help is (what's the word I'm looking for?) stupid. I think the Americans who died in the seventh hour of fighting might have been pretty happy to see those fighter jets show up three hours earlier. But how did anyone know that the firefight would only last 7 hours instead of a full day? Two days? No, the decision not to send help was because it was deemed preferable to let the Americans die than draw attention to the situation or create an international "incident" 60 days before the election.
If indeed Sean Smith was any friend of yours, I'd think you'd be pretty interested in really finding out whose hands his blood is on - though at this point, it's been spread pretty thin between administration liars (who, incidentally, impeded the FBI investigation into the deaths with their lies, which is a criminal offense).
In short, Ted, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Goodbye.
@Readers- Commenting on this page is now closed.
ReplyDelete