Phony Scandals?

[Foxfyre]

Something the American press reported briefly and then quickly moved on, was the embarrassment of our monitoring of Angela Merkel's cell phone. And of course, Obama assured her knew nothing about that untiil after the scandal broke. The foreign media covered it more extensively. So a low level NSA official ordered the German Chancellor's phone to be monitored? Really? And the President of the United States didn't know. Really? I've scoured the media looking for an account that President Obama was outraged at this information and heads were rolling. But no. Crickets.

Accounts like this in foreign sources are pretty easy to find though:
Obama ?Knew and Approved? NSA Spying on Merkel

And then the wonderful news that President Obama had no clue that the ACA website was not ready to go when he ordered it opened October 1. This was his signature legislation for Pete's sake. Nobody told him, Mr. President, we should hold off a bit until the bugs were worked out? The U.S. government, the most powerful in the world, the government that put a man on the moon, was incapable of knowing that a website was so bug ridden or flawed that it was doomed to crash? Didn't know that it wasn't even finished? How much confidence does it inspire to know that Obama was clueless about all that????? That nobody in all the humongous White House staff and/or nobody in Health and Human Services would so inform him?

If you believe that, I'm gonna get a very good price for all those lovely bridges I have to sell.
?I know nothing?: More evidence that Team Obama, Burton and Soptic are lying - National Elections | Examiner.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

So pick one, please, to use as an example of something "filled with allegations and interpretations." I thought I and others did a pretty good job of supporting our accusations of these things as being scandalous. And so far nobody has rebutted any of that documentation. But if you can, I am open to be educated.

Let me put the ball back in your court. You pick what you consider a "scandal" and provide the evidence using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", something we afford to criminals, why not to the duly elected President of the United States?

Then, when you have completed your case for the prosecution, I will provide a defense. Fair enough?

Well, use Obama's stock defense.......we cannot comment on that because of ongoing investigations.

Unlike your "irony" comment, Obama's correct in not commenting on an on going investigation. I was trained and told by a respected TV news reporter that we (LE) had no duty to comment on anything nor to tell the truth to the media. If was their job to verify with more than one credible resource what they learned.

Your "irony" comment has become a cliché used by your side of the aisle - the Echo Chamber - as an ad hominem attack on the person and not on their argument.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Something the American press reported briefly and then quickly moved on, was the embarrassment of our monitoring of Angela Merkel's cell phone. And of course, Obama assured her knew nothing about that untiil after the scandal broke. The foreign media covered it more extensively. So a low level NSA official ordered the German Chancellor's phone to be monitored? Really? And the President of the United States didn't know. Really? I've scoured the media looking for an account that President Obama was outraged at this information and heads were rolling. But no. Crickets.

Accounts like this in foreign sources are pretty easy to find though:
Obama ?Knew and Approved? NSA Spying on Merkel

And then the wonderful news that President Obama had no clue that the ACA website was not ready to go when he ordered it opened October 1. This was his signature legislation for Pete's sake. Nobody told him, Mr. President, we should hold off a bit until the bugs were worked out? The U.S. government, the most powerful in the world, the government that put a man on the moon, was incapable of knowing that a website was so bug ridden or flawed that it was doomed to crash? Didn't know that it wasn't even finished? How much confidence does it inspire to know that Obama was clueless about all that????? That nobody in all the humongous White House staff and/or nobody in Health and Human Services would so inform him?

If you believe that, I'm gonna get a very good price for all those lovely bridges I have to sell.
?I know nothing?: More evidence that Team Obama, Burton and Soptic are lying - National Elections | Examiner.com

Once again allegations of "he knew" without evidence he knew. You can't believe the POTUS doesn't have a handle on everything? Or, that subalterns are always up front with bad news to The Boss? As one who was The Boss, I know I was in the dark many times as were my peers in other agencies.

I'm not about to cull through pages of posts making the same allegations of scandals, all by persons with the same agenda. And, don't claim I'm an Obama apologist, I simply follow my training and make sure the 'facts' are really evidence and the evidence is probative before I make an allegation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Something the American press reported briefly and then quickly moved on, was the embarrassment of our monitoring of Angela Merkel's cell phone. And of course, Obama assured her knew nothing about that untiil after the scandal broke. The foreign media covered it more extensively. So a low level NSA official ordered the German Chancellor's phone to be monitored? Really? And the President of the United States didn't know. Really? I've scoured the media looking for an account that President Obama was outraged at this information and heads were rolling. But no. Crickets.

Accounts like this in foreign sources are pretty easy to find though:
Obama ?Knew and Approved? NSA Spying on Merkel

And then the wonderful news that President Obama had no clue that the ACA website was not ready to go when he ordered it opened October 1. This was his signature legislation for Pete's sake. Nobody told him, Mr. President, we should hold off a bit until the bugs were worked out? The U.S. government, the most powerful in the world, the government that put a man on the moon, was incapable of knowing that a website was so bug ridden or flawed that it was doomed to crash? Didn't know that it wasn't even finished? How much confidence does it inspire to know that Obama was clueless about all that????? That nobody in all the humongous White House staff and/or nobody in Health and Human Services would so inform him?

If you believe that, I'm gonna get a very good price for all those lovely bridges I have to sell.
?I know nothing?: More evidence that Team Obama, Burton and Soptic are lying - National Elections | Examiner.com

Once again allegations of "he knew" without evidence he knew. You can't believe the POTUS doesn't have a handle on everything? Or, that subalterns are always up front with bad news to The Boss? As one who was The Boss, I know I was in the dark many times as were my peers in other agencies.

I'm not about to cull through pages of posts making the same allegations of scandals, all by persons with the same agenda. And, don't claim I'm an Obama apologist, I simply follow my training and make sure the 'facts' are really evidence and the evidence is probative before I make an allegation.

One or two things falling between the cracks is believable and plausible. But the President not being advised of--not knowing anything about ALL those items on that list? Not plausible. I have been "CEO" of a fairly large organization with management of ALL departments delegated to senior staff members. But woe to the staff member who knew of a serious problem and did not inform me. I did NOT want to go to my board of directors and tell them 'nobody told me' and I didn't know. That is not acceptable management.

And I offered you Post #6 as a starting argument subject to rebuttal. So you didn't have to 'cull through pages' to find something.

You suggest that those making allegations of scandals are all operating with the same agenda. Well yes, I suppose we are as we ALL believe the American people deserve better than to be considered so stupid that we won't think these things are important, or so gullible that we will believe any lie we are told about them.

Do YOU accept that all these things are okay? And that it is okay for the government to lie to you about them? Or are they just not important enough to merit your time?

 

[Impenitent]

You don't get it do you Mamooth. It hasn't been our side pushing impeachment. It has been YOUR side desperate to get legs onto that rumor and off the real scandals out there. Like Obamacare.

Searching for your user name and impeachment get 60 hits.

Next you will tell us how brer rabbit really didn't want to be thrown in the briar patch!

That's racist......

Over 500 hits on "racist" for you! I think I see a correlation!

 

[gipper]

Liberal think:

1. Bush/Cheney Admin: Scandals here, there and everywhere....IMPEACH!!!

2. Obama Admin: I see no scandals...all made up right wing shit!


HYPOCRISY? sure....

IGNORANCE? maybe...

 

[Wildman]

i fail to understand the concept that liberals defend a big spending president who knows nothing.

can one of you far left wingnuts explain ? ................, PLEASE,

i like being on top of all the latest news of a nations leader who knows NOTHING !!!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

You have eight different scandals here. I have never, EVER been able to convince even one conspiracy nut that they were wrong - about ANYTHING. No matter what "evidence" I discredit or offer up on my own.

You want me to do it 8 times?

Pass.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let me put the ball back in your court. You pick what you consider a "scandal" and provide the evidence using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", something we afford to criminals, why not to the duly elected President of the United States?

Then, when you have completed your case for the prosecution, I will provide a defense. Fair enough?

Well, use Obama's stock defense.......we cannot comment on that because of ongoing investigations.

Unlike your "irony" comment, Obama's correct in not commenting on an on going investigation. I was trained and told by a respected TV news reporter that we (LE) had no duty to comment on anything nor to tell the truth to the media. If was their job to verify with more than one credible resource what they learned.

Your "irony" comment has become a cliché used by your side of the aisle - the Echo Chamber - as an ad hominem attack on the person and not on their argument.

My comment was a comment about a stock comment used by the administration in the echo chamber we call the mainstream news. In effect, it simply means "no comment".

 

[Foxfyre]

You have eight different scandals here. I have never, EVER been able to convince even one conspiracy nut that they were wrong - about ANYTHING. No matter what "evidence" I discredit or offer up on my own.

You want me to do it 8 times?

Pass.

Well here's a new argument for sure. There are so many - too many - scandals so it is impossible to deal with them. So we can just shrug them off. And anyway, it's okay, because all the folks who object to them and/or are angry about them are conspiracy nuts anyway???

Is that what you are saying?

I have repeatedly requested the Obama apologists to pick ANY ONE of the scandals listed in the OP, or any ONE of the subsequent ones mentioned in the thread, and make your best case for why it doesn't qualify as a scandal. So far, not a single Obama apologist/leftist has accepted that challenge. I haven't requested anybody deal with ALL of them, though the ones who are saying none are true should probably be able to do that in order to have any credibility at all.

Instead, in addition to those who keep parroting that there is 'no proof' of ANY of the issues on the list and/or the 'it isn't true because I say so' crowd, those of us who do see the scandals are accused of being haters, being racist, being partisan, being conspiracy theorists, being extremists, yadda yadda.

I am left with the only conclusion I can draw at this point:

1. The people defending the Administration APPROVE of all of those incidents and/or don't think there is anything wrong with them - or -

2. They have their heads so deeply buried in the sand they can pretend that Obama is still the wonderful, magnificent, glorious leader, blameless in all things, and above all the fray that they so desperately want him to be.

Either way, it is really REALLY sad. And scary.

 

[Foxfyre]

Addendum to previous post:

What does it matter whether any of the "conspiracy nuts" can be convinced they are wrong? I would settle for a single coherant argument for why the Obama apologists believe they are right. I honestly don't think any are capable of offering one though.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Citing mediamatters to a con is like showing a cross to a vampire.

More like citing the KKK to black people - except MediaMatters is less credible....

 

[Impenitent]

The IRS issue has been settled for months. Except the CEC bubble doesn't know it.


"WASHINGTON — The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday."


"Mr. Werfel on Monday also created an expedited process for groups to attain the tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). To qualify, groups must agree that no more than 40 percent of their expenditures and time can be spent on campaigns for candidates seeking public office. At least 60 percent of the groups’ time and expenses must be dedicated to social welfare activities."

"House Democrats seized on the documents to question why the Treasury inspector general, in the audit that began the scandal, omitted any mention of scrutiny that did not focus on conservatives. Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee demanded a second hearing with the inspector general, J. Russell George, to allow him to “explain the glaring omission in his audit report.”

“The audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations, and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way,” said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the committee’s ranking Democrat."

Quite a bit more debunking at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/politics/documents-show-liberals-in-irs-dragnet.html

 

[mamooth]

I would settle for a single coherant argument for why the Obama apologists believe they are right.

Because it's obvious that you're a brainwashed political cultist with a penchant for parroting nonsense. There's no doubt we're right about that.

We're aware you think you're truthful. That's how deep your cult brainwashing goes. You'll never be free of your programming. Your cult is incapable of error, anyone outside the cult is evil, all sources of information that come from outside the cult are tainted and untrustworthy. All standard cultist behavior.

 

[Foxfyre]

The IRS issue has been settled for months. Except the CEC bubble doesn't know it.


"WASHINGTON — The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday."


"Mr. Werfel on Monday also created an expedited process for groups to attain the tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). To qualify, groups must agree that no more than 40 percent of their expenditures and time can be spent on campaigns for candidates seeking public office. At least 60 percent of the groups’ time and expenses must be dedicated to social welfare activities."

"House Democrats seized on the documents to question why the Treasury inspector general, in the audit that began the scandal, omitted any mention of scrutiny that did not focus on conservatives. Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee demanded a second hearing with the inspector general, J. Russell George, to allow him to “explain the glaring omission in his audit report.”

“The audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations, and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way,” said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the committee’s ranking Democrat."

Quite a bit more debunking at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/politics/documents-show-liberals-in-irs-dragnet.html

The scandal was never about the official guidelines, though targeting ANYBODY, left or right, that way doesn't sit well with me. EVERYBODY should be scrutinized equally and judged on identical criteria and afforded the same treatment regardless of what they call themselves.

The scandal however was not that everbody wasn't supposed to be subjected to the same scrutiny. The scandal was in the implementation--that Tea Party and similar groups were required to submit 10 times the paperwork, were rejected on ridiculous technicalities when other groups received passes, and that the intent was to keep these groups from being approved before the 2010 and 2012 elections so they could do no fund raising. Virtually all the progressive groups were processed and expedited. The Tea Party groups were not.

And THAT was the scandal quite clearly documented in the House and Senate hearings and via e-mails that were subpoenaed. And THAT was why Lois Lerner took the Fifth, was placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits for months on end, and was finally allowed to take early retirement with full generous benefits. A head had to roll, yes? So she was it.

And since when is a 501c3 organization allowed to work on ANY campaign? When I have headed or worked in such organizations, we were allowed to take no position whatsoever in favor or opposed to any political party or candidate. We were allowed to provide voter information or education on various issues as a public service. So either the NY Times got it wrong, or Fearless Leader has been issuing more executive orders overturning existing law.

The rule at the government website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

 

[gipper]

You have eight different scandals here. I have never, EVER been able to convince even one conspiracy nut that they were wrong - about ANYTHING. No matter what "evidence" I discredit or offer up on my own.

You want me to do it 8 times?

Pass.

Well here's a new argument for sure. There are so many - too many - scandals so it is impossible to deal with them. So we can just shrug them off. And anyway, it's okay, because all the folks who object to them and/or are angry about them are conspiracy nuts anyway???

Is that what you are saying?

I have repeatedly requested the Obama apologists to pick ANY ONE of the scandals listed in the OP, or any ONE of the subsequent ones mentioned in the thread, and make your best case for why it doesn't qualify as a scandal. So far, not a single Obama apologist/leftist has accepted that challenge. I haven't requested anybody deal with ALL of them, though the ones who are saying none are true should probably be able to do that in order to have any credibility at all.

Instead, in addition to those who keep parroting that there is 'no proof' of ANY of the issues on the list and/or the 'it isn't true because I say so' crowd, those of us who do see the scandals are accused of being haters, being racist, being partisan, being conspiracy theorists, being extremists, yadda yadda.

I am left with the only conclusion I can draw at this point:

1. The people defending the Administration APPROVE of all of those incidents and/or don't think there is anything wrong with them - or -

2. They have their heads so deeply buried in the sand they can pretend that Obama is still the wonderful, magnificent, glorious leader, blameless in all things, and above all the fray that they so desperately want him to be.

Either way, it is really REALLY sad. And scary.

Lets see now...the economy has sucked for 5 years straight, unemployment is high, more Americans are not working, on disability, using food stamps, etc...., the national debt has exploded, the Fed is trying it's best to destroy the currency, cronyism and corruption are running rampant....and Obama is still the man...ugh...Bush sucked, but BO is 10 times worse...how is it that Americans fail to comprehend this?

My guess is your #2 point more accurately describes some those on the Left. The government schools have drilled into their heads Ds good....Rs bad.....duh!

 

[Impenitent]

The IRS issue has been settled for months. Except the CEC bubble doesn't know it.


"WASHINGTON — The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday."


"Mr. Werfel on Monday also created an expedited process for groups to attain the tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). To qualify, groups must agree that no more than 40 percent of their expenditures and time can be spent on campaigns for candidates seeking public office. At least 60 percent of the groups’ time and expenses must be dedicated to social welfare activities."

"House Democrats seized on the documents to question why the Treasury inspector general, in the audit that began the scandal, omitted any mention of scrutiny that did not focus on conservatives. Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee demanded a second hearing with the inspector general, J. Russell George, to allow him to “explain the glaring omission in his audit report.”

“The audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations, and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way,” said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the committee’s ranking Democrat."

Quite a bit more debunking at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/politics/documents-show-liberals-in-irs-dragnet.html

The scandal was never about the official guidelines, though targeting ANYBODY, left or right, that way doesn't sit well with me. EVERYBODY should be scrutinized equally and judged on identical criteria and afforded the same treatment regardless of what they call themselves.

The scandal however was not that everbody wasn't supposed to be subjected to the same scrutiny. The scandal was in the implementation--that Tea Party and similar groups were required to submit 10 times the paperwork, were rejected on ridiculous technicalities when other groups received passes, and that the intent was to keep these groups from being approved before the 2010 and 2012 elections so they could do no fund raising. Virtually all the progressive groups were processed and expedited. The Tea Party groups were not.

And THAT was the scandal quite clearly documented in the House and Senate hearings and via e-mails that were subpoenaed. And THAT was why Lois Lerner took the Fifth, was placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits for months on end, and was finally allowed to take early retirement with full generous benefits. A head had to roll, yes? So she was it.

And since when is a 501c3 organization allowed to work on ANY campaign? When I have headed or worked in such organizations, we were allowed to take no position whatsoever in favor or opposed to any political party or candidate. We were allowed to provide voter information or education on various issues as a public service. So either the NY Times got it wrong, or Fearless Leader has been issuing more executive orders overturning existing law.

The rule at the government website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Now you are conflating 501(c)3 's with 501(c)4's!

Bring back those goalposts! Stick to the issue!

 

[Foxfyre]

You have eight different scandals here. I have never, EVER been able to convince even one conspiracy nut that they were wrong - about ANYTHING. No matter what "evidence" I discredit or offer up on my own.

You want me to do it 8 times?

Pass.

Well here's a new argument for sure. There are so many - too many - scandals so it is impossible to deal with them. So we can just shrug them off. And anyway, it's okay, because all the folks who object to them and/or are angry about them are conspiracy nuts anyway???

Is that what you are saying?

I have repeatedly requested the Obama apologists to pick ANY ONE of the scandals listed in the OP, or any ONE of the subsequent ones mentioned in the thread, and make your best case for why it doesn't qualify as a scandal. So far, not a single Obama apologist/leftist has accepted that challenge. I haven't requested anybody deal with ALL of them, though the ones who are saying none are true should probably be able to do that in order to have any credibility at all.

Instead, in addition to those who keep parroting that there is 'no proof' of ANY of the issues on the list and/or the 'it isn't true because I say so' crowd, those of us who do see the scandals are accused of being haters, being racist, being partisan, being conspiracy theorists, being extremists, yadda yadda.

I am left with the only conclusion I can draw at this point:

1. The people defending the Administration APPROVE of all of those incidents and/or don't think there is anything wrong with them - or -

2. They have their heads so deeply buried in the sand they can pretend that Obama is still the wonderful, magnificent, glorious leader, blameless in all things, and above all the fray that they so desperately want him to be.

Either way, it is really REALLY sad. And scary.

Lets see now...the economy has sucked for 5 years straight, unemployment is high, more Americans are not working, on disability, using food stamps, etc...., the national debt has exploded, the Fed is trying it's best to destroy the currency, cronyism and corruption are running rampant....and Obama is still the man...ugh...Bush sucked, but BO is 10 times worse...how is it that Americans fail to comprehend this?

My guess is your #2 point more accurately describes some those on the Left. The government schools have drilled into their heads Ds good....Rs bad.....duh!

It is a cultural shift isn't it? The Republicans wanted Nixon to be innocent as much as the Democrats wanted him to be guilty back in 1974. And Nixon's supporters desperately wanted the investigation and accusations to exonerate him.

But in the end, when it was obvious he was guilty--guilty of illegal activities that don't even make people blink now but we would not shrug off back then--the GOP didn't try to defend or excuse him or sweep it under the rug. They went to him and urged him to resign. And he did.

Those of us watching this on TV or reading about in the newspapers were saddened or gleeful, depending on whether we liked Nixon or not, but nobody was suggesting he was railroaded or there were conspiracy theories or that they went after him because he was hated. We had watched the congressional hearings. We had read the accounts in the newspapers that were still fairly reliable to print news instead of propaganda. And we accepted that he needed to go. And we were highly resentful when Ford pardoned him. In retrospect I think Ford really did do that to put it all behind us and provide a fresh start, but it wasn't received that way by the people.

So we voted Ford out in 1976 giving him the dubious distinction of being a President who was never elected as Vice President or President. The vote was very very close, because the Democrats ran Jimmy Carter against him, but Carter won by an extremely narrow margin.

Now 37 years later, it seems the Democrats are far more comfortable accepting wrong doing and malfesance in their elected leaders and see no reason to replace them. Maybe it is because we have lost all sense of indignation or moral imperative re graft, corruption, deception, and other dishonesty? We don't care what poliicians say or do if they have the right letter following their names?

I dunno. But I would like to go back to 1976 morals when it comes to government.

 

[American_Jihad]

ObamaGate: Obama’s Scandals & The Totalitarian Future​

December 4, 2013 by Frontpagemag.com

Editor’s note: Below is the video and transcript of the panel discussion “ObamaGate: Obama’s Scandals & the Totalitarian Future,” which took place at the Freedom Center’s 2013 Restoration Weekend. The event was held November 14th-17th at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

...

Let me go through some particulars. When I worked at the Justice Department voting section during the Bush Administration, I saw how the law was sort of like a fence. Whatever we did had to be within those four corners of what the law said. But after the inauguration, the law became a mere suggestion on the way to a progressive destination. It completely changed the paradigm of how the administration functions.

Now, you saw this manifest first, perhaps, in the New Black Panther dismissal that I was a part of. And at the time, it seemed like an anomaly — why on earth would you dismiss a case against these radical, racist, anti-Semitic Black Panthers with billy clubs in front of a polling place? But once again, it’s a feature; it was not a glitch. It was representative of a worldview that people like that can’t be voter intimidators.

And you saw Holder in front of the House Judiciary Committee being grilled — I’m sorry, the House Oversight Committee — being grilled. And when he said — you need to understand the history of my people, that was a quote in relation to the Black Panther dismissal. These are features; they’re not glitches.

Now, what were scandals in any other era in American history would be completely overwhelmed by press coverage. Let’s look at some of them.

Fast and Furious — Fast and Furious was at its core an antigun program set up to create a media narrative that guns are bad; we need to crack down on gun shops along the border. It’s a feature, not a glitch, that that program went awry. Because it was ultimately an anti-Second Amendment crusade.

The IRS scandal, which you’ll hear more about — that again — it’s not a glitch; it’s a feature. It’s a fundamental opposition to Citizens United, a fundamental opposition that permeates this administration to free speech. And so, the IRS scandal was merely a manifestation of this view. It wasn’t some sort of quirky occurrence. It’s how people in these worldviews exercise power.

Benghazi — once again, feature, not a glitch. It was an effort to keep a small footprint in Libya, because they didn’t want to offend certain Muslim and Islamic interests around the world.

The tax on voter ID — people think this is nuts. You’re going after Texas, North Carolina voter ID, South Carolina. Once again, it’s a feature. These cases are coming out of the hostility toward any election integrity measure. Anything that increases the integrity of our elections is ideologically opposed in the most vehement terms inside the Justice Department, where I used to work.

The catch-and-release program for illegals crossing the border. It’s not some quirky new thing that everybody is caught and set free. It’s a feature. It’s an ideological feature, not a glitch.

Now, why does it matter whether something’s a feature or a glitch? It matters because your response is different to each one. When you have a software program with a glitch, you call tech support. When you have a software program with a bad feature, you don’t buy it in the first place. Okay? And so, the Republicans have got to stop treating these things like glitches, where the chief weapon is the strongly worded letter; and start treating them like features.

Now, I will give a tremendous amount of applause to Louie Gohmert. I saw Representative Trent Franks here last night. These are two guys who get it. Louie Gohmert and Trent Franks understand that these are features, not glitches, and they’re acting accordingly.

But they won’t enforce federal law as it relates to voter integrity issues. We had an election, folks, this last election, where there were four million ineligible voters on the voter rolls. Four million. And this is according to Pew, which is hardly a rightwing conspiracy outfit. And the Justice Department won’t do anything to clean up this, even though they have the power to do it.

We had one out of every eight voter records in the last election, according to Pew, had errors in it. But once again, it’s not a glitch the Justice Department won’t enforce the law to clean up the voter rolls; it’s a feature.

Now, let me close on two very important things you folks need to understand that’s happening — process matters to the Left. When it comes to elections, they know the ground rules of elections alter outcomes. Take a look at Texas. They know that if they stop Texas voter ID that an effort called Battleground Texas will be more successful in its effort to transform Texas to be a blue state. And they’re focusing on the Rio Grande Valley to do this. And once they get Texas as a blue state, it’s game over. There won’t be another electoral victory.

But look at Colorado. Colorado is perhaps the most glaring example of this, and it’s gotten very little attention. Colorado, of course, went all blue in the last election. And they decided to pass a radical new election process law. Now, most of you go vote either absentee, or you go to a precinct. In Colorado, from now on, they’re going to mail every single person on the voter rolls — whether they ask for it or not — a regular ballot. A regular ballot automatically. On top of that, they’re converting inactive voters to active status by statute. So these are people who have moved away, who are dead, who don’t live there anymore. Colorado has eight counties with more registered voters than people alive.

(Laughter)

Okay? Now, match that with the all-mail auto-ballot, and you can see what’s going to happen. These, folks, are features; they’re not glitches. It’s part of an effort to fundamentally transform the country using process rules. Because they know if they pump 100,000, 200,000 bogus ballots into the system, into apartment complexes, they’re going to get a different election outcome.

So let me close with that. And thank you all very much for having me. And so good to meet so many of you here, as it always is. Thank you.

(Applause)

...

ObamaGate: Obama?s Scandals & The Totalitarian Future | FrontPage Magazine

 

[gipper]

Well here's a new argument for sure. There are so many - too many - scandals so it is impossible to deal with them. So we can just shrug them off. And anyway, it's okay, because all the folks who object to them and/or are angry about them are conspiracy nuts anyway???

Is that what you are saying?

I have repeatedly requested the Obama apologists to pick ANY ONE of the scandals listed in the OP, or any ONE of the subsequent ones mentioned in the thread, and make your best case for why it doesn't qualify as a scandal. So far, not a single Obama apologist/leftist has accepted that challenge. I haven't requested anybody deal with ALL of them, though the ones who are saying none are true should probably be able to do that in order to have any credibility at all.

Instead, in addition to those who keep parroting that there is 'no proof' of ANY of the issues on the list and/or the 'it isn't true because I say so' crowd, those of us who do see the scandals are accused of being haters, being racist, being partisan, being conspiracy theorists, being extremists, yadda yadda.

I am left with the only conclusion I can draw at this point:

1. The people defending the Administration APPROVE of all of those incidents and/or don't think there is anything wrong with them - or -

2. They have their heads so deeply buried in the sand they can pretend that Obama is still the wonderful, magnificent, glorious leader, blameless in all things, and above all the fray that they so desperately want him to be.

Either way, it is really REALLY sad. And scary.

Lets see now...the economy has sucked for 5 years straight, unemployment is high, more Americans are not working, on disability, using food stamps, etc...., the national debt has exploded, the Fed is trying it's best to destroy the currency, cronyism and corruption are running rampant....and Obama is still the man...ugh...Bush sucked, but BO is 10 times worse...how is it that Americans fail to comprehend this?

My guess is your #2 point more accurately describes some those on the Left. The government schools have drilled into their heads Ds good....Rs bad.....duh!

It is a cultural shift isn't it? The Republicans wanted Nixon to be innocent as much as the Democrats wanted him to be guilty back in 1974. And Nixon's supporters desperately wanted the investigation and accusations to exonerate him.

But in the end, when it was obvious he was guilty--guilty of illegal activities that don't even make people blink now but we would not shrug off back then--the GOP didn't try to defend or excuse him or sweep it under the rug. They went to him and urged him to resign. And he did.

Those of us watching this on TV or reading about in the newspapers were saddened or gleeful, depending on whether we liked Nixon or not, but nobody was suggesting he was railroaded or there were conspiracy theories or that they went after him because he was hated. We had watched the congressional hearings. We had read the accounts in the newspapers that were still fairly reliable to print news instead of propaganda. And we accepted that he needed to go. And we were highly resentful when Ford pardoned him. In retrospect I think Ford really did do that to put it all behind us and provide a fresh start, but it wasn't received that way by the people.

So we voted Ford out in 1976 giving him the dubious distinction of being a President who was never elected as Vice President or President. The vote was very very close, because the Democrats ran Jimmy Carter against him, but Carter won by an extremely narrow margin.

Now 37 years later, it seems the Democrats are far more comfortable accepting wrong doing and malfesance in their elected leaders and see no reason to replace them. Maybe it is because we have lost all sense of indignation or moral imperative re graft, corruption, deception, and other dishonesty? We don't care what poliicians say or do if they have the right letter following their names?

I dunno. But I would like to go back to 1976 morals when it comes to government.

The two political parties' primary concern is the welfare of the party. The welfare of the nation is secondary. Unfortunately, most of the Rs have been co-opted by the left and fall in line with the Ds, whenever things get dicey. So this so called partisanship in DC is all a smoke screen, but it does dupe millions of Americans.

Yes the Ds are worse, but I suspect this is because they have friends in all the right places (media, Hollywood, education, unions, etc), which allows them considerable leeway in matters. For example, does anyone think if BJ Bubba Clinton were a R, he would have not been removed from office? Of course he would have, just as Nixon was.

A D POTUS has enormous power because the establishment is completely behind him and will not constrain him. BO has unlimited power and that is scary, but most Americans do not see it or don't care. W was a progressive fool, but because he was an R, he was constrained by a vigilant and angry press. Most of the press are lapdogs for BO and those who aren't, are regularly denigrated and marginalized (see Fox News).