IRS Smoking Gun?

Posted on by
Reply

The American Spectator is posting what could be the smoking gun connecting the White House to the IRS scandal

the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

So, it seems that the head of the IRS employees union met with the President the day before the IRS started targeting Tea Party groups.

Hmmm…

The IRS scandal with some Nixonian perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Scott Johnson over at Power Line has a great write up relative to the IRS scandal.  Nixon’s IRS is a must read.  It puts some historical perspective on the current scandal with the IRS.

At this point, we don’t know who exactly was involved with the current scandal.  But it is appearing that not only was there harassment and intimidation, there also seems to be an attempt to gain specific information on who these groups’ donors were.  Was that an attempt to build an enemies list?  Possibly for retaliation or even intimidation in order to influence an election?

We don’t know yet where this goes, but if it goes as high as anyone in the White House (and it is starting to appear possible), then this truly a scandal of Watergate proportions.

Scandalpalooza bonus – What if the Obama Scandals Had Surfaced Last Fall? John Hinderaker writes a compelling argument that due to Obama’s ability to turn out low-information voters, one scandal breaking might not have made a difference; but three at once?  Who knows?  But the result of what did happen gives us an analogy to 1972.

Media Matters running interference on Benghazi

Posted on by
Reply

Media Matters had this on their blog today: CNN: Media Outlets Misrepresented White House Benghazi Email

So here’s a question.  Why on earth would anyone trust the opinion of Media Matters when it comes to the ongoing investigation of what transpired in Benghazi?

Are you with me?

At minimum, Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters as a consultant in its founding:

Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002.  Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.

-Wikipedia

At worst, it’s a front group for Progressives, specifically Hillary Clinton, to take down critics in the media:

Sounds like the junior senator confirmed my contention from Sunday: “Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.
-Newsbusters

Even though the truth could be somewhere in the middle, neither of those make Media Matters an unbiased opinion on Benghazi, especially if Clinton still has eyes on the White House in 2016 (which I have no doubt she does).

Evil Exposed

Posted on by
Reply

This has been a rough few days for the Progressive movement, and it has exposed the sinister side of what they have in-store for America and the World.

Bengahzi, IRS, and the AP scandals all point to an administration that doesn’t care about the Constitution – they only care about power and controlling their message to keep that power.  The AP scandal in particular indicates that the administration is happy when the media is enamored with them, but push too hard on certain issues and we’ll come looking for you.

It’s Chicago-style politics at its finest – basic thuggery, with the Unions as the jack-booted stormtroopers.

People wanted to believe that their liberal hero was squeaky-clean, but if they are listening and paying attention, they are learning that he is anything but.  He’s a smooth talker, but he’s still a scorpion.  And a scorpion will sting you at some point.

And then there’s Kermit Gosnell.  The guilty verdict in this case exposes the pure evil of the abortion industry that the liberals are so bent on protecting.

If the baby (and these were babies) is born alive and killed on the table, what is the difference between that and pulling out all but its head and then crushing its head in utero? While I’m happy with the guilty verdict, I’m not sure that society at large (and certainly not Progressives, Feminists, and other Pols) are willing to allow their sacred cow to be taken down.

This case shines light on the fact that you are being lied to.  Ethically, there is no difference between the two procedures described above.  But the dividing line is currently 21 weeks of pregnancy.  If the difference between legal late term abortion and murder is less than 12 inches, what is the difference between 11:59 and midnight from 20 weeks to 21?  And it unravels from there.

The truth is out there.  And we are getting to see it, if only for a short while.  If the Progressives win this argument in the media and get back on message, you can rest assured that we will see a future of population control (legalized euthanasia/murder), government spying, and totalitarian tactics when they don’t get their way.

In other words, evil has been exposed.

Walker “survives” recall

Posted on by
Reply

I’m reading a lot of headlines that say Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “survived” the recall election.  As a headline, that doesn’t tell the story.

Not only did he survive, if late reporting precincts are even remotely similar to those already reported, it was a mandate.  In 2010, Walker won by less than 7%.  In the recall, it appears that he will be in the neighborhood of +10%.  In my book, that’s a blow-out.