Our thoughts and prayers go out to the tornado victims in Oklahoma. Click here for some ways we can all help them.
Turning to Obama scandal news, there is lots of it:
- Claims that new, damaging revelations on Benghazi will be coming. Also, one of Clinton’s scapegoats is starting to balk at being scapegoated for Benghazi.
- Even the liberal-ish Washington Post begins to agree that the ‘Benghazi emails were doctored!’ canard has been debunked.
- Lois Lerner, who “apologized” for the IRS/Tea Party harassment (as if that covers it) and who some insist is “apolitical”, has a history of targeting conservatives from her 14 years at the Federal Election Commission. There she showed a remarkable curiosity about the content of conservatives’ prayers, just as the IRS later did. Coincidence?
- Americans are becoming aware of these scandals, with 55-56% believing that the administration has engaged in a Benghazi cover-up and in deliberate IRS targeting of conservatives. The scandals haven’t yet hit Obama’s approval ratings; then again, they haven’t been clearly tied to his inner circle yet. 59% approve of *the GOP’s* handling of Benghazi.
- Adding to the Department of Justice’s spy-on-AP scandal, as of yesterday we have the spy-on-Fox scandal, in which the DOJ basically makes investigative journalism a crime.
- For background, let’s not forget that AG Holder “has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” So much for openness and transparency.
- But Obama’s DOJ seems to be in the habit of smearing critics, as well as prosecuting and/or spying on them.
In the comments, please remember: If another’s argument is ludicrous, there is no need to engage in personal attacks; just tear it apart point by point.
UPDATE: Via HotAir, here is 2008 video of candidate Obama saying, in essence, that a sitting administration must not prosecute or spy on reporters and critics:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsTEL4NaZU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
That it’s ironic, is clear. Obama was, after all, speaking to the AP and (among his other lies) painted the Bush administration as intolerant of dissenters.
But what I really love about the clip is how Obama looks down his nose, as he speaks. It’s that note of contempt which his white liberal admirers fell for, going “Ooh, he’s so smaaarrt! He has deep integrity and wisdom!” I saw through Obama’s act from the beginning.
Since our “hearts and prayers” go out to the victims of the tornados in Oklahoma, could someone please delineate the politically correct wording for our prayers?
I don’t need the IRS on my a$$ for getting the words wrong. OK?
Fascinating. Progressives have attacked Ronald Reagan for decades claiming he was out of touch and didn’t know what was going on.
Now. Progressives defend Barack Mugabe by claiming he was out of touch and didn’t know what was going on.
You missed a couple of scandals. The Sebelius who oversees the implementation of Obamacare is asking private health insurance companies to give her funds. Can we say conflict of interest?
Also the EPA (besides the old scandal of hiding government work behind aliases) charges fees to conservatives but not to liberals. Can we say equal protection?
#3 – Can we say impeachment?
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter Hughes, #4–
While impeachment may be justified, I can’t see that there would be enough democrat senators who would vote to convict. (viz., The Clinton impeachment–impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate)