Phony Scandals?

[Foxfyre]

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).

The D's are worse because liberal policies tend to have many more negative consequences than do conservative policies and the GOP, in their self-serving agenda, do utilize more conservative concepts. But I have no illusions that their ultimate motives are any more noble.

We cannot look to the President and his people, Congress, or the bureaucrats in the federal government to self correct themselves. It is obvious to me that it just isn't going to happen that way. If any of this is properly addressed or gets fixed, it is because we the people rose up an demanded that they fix it.

But unfortunately too many of 'we the people' are too brain washed or set in their ways or wrongly educated or fanatically partisan to even acknowledge the deficiencies in their elected leaders, much less demand that they straighten up and be honorable, trustworthy, and competent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The D's are worse because liberal policies tend to have many more negative consequences than do conservative policies and the GOP, in their self-serving agenda, do utilize more conservative concepts. But I have no illusions that their ultimate motives are any more noble.

We cannot look to the President and his people, Congress, or the bureaucrats in the federal government to self correct themselves. It is obvious to me that it just isn't going to happen that way. If any of this is properly addressed or gets fixed, it is because we the people rose up an demanded that they fix it.

But unfortunately too many of 'we the people' are too brain washed or set in their ways or wrongly educated or fanatically partisan to even acknowledge the deficiencies in their elected leaders, much less demand that they straighten up and be honorable, trustworthy, and competent.

I have long said that the Republicans are about as beneficial to the nation as a bad case of genital herpes.

The democrats of course, are a full blown case of AIDS.

 

[Foxfyre]

American_Jihad's Post #559 is worth a read folks. I didn't quote it in its entirety, but the discussion brought in most of the other scandals we have been discussing--you know, those Obama and his worshipping throng discount as 'phony scandals'--and it also pointed the spotlight at what should be a HUGE scandal in voter fraud here:

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.

And yet there will be many, probably on this thread, who will just shrug and say it either isn't true or, even if it is, it is no big deal.

And the beat goes on. . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

It may or may not develop legs, but Jonathan Turley, law professor and blogger, recently said on CNN that Obama's arbitrary rewriting of the ACA to circumvent what the law actually says is the very thing the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The Constitution was intended to prevent a monarchy or dictatorship or government by monarchal fiat or papal bull. So the Congress was given power to write and pass laws, with consent of the President, but only Congress can rescind or change those laws, again with consent of the President. The courts are not given power to make any law but are purely charged with interpeting existing law when somebody challenges the interpretation or application of a law.

A recent entry from his blog:

From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications. What is most striking about these areas is that they are precisely the type of controversial questions designed for the open and deliberative legislative process. The unilateral imposition of new rules robs the system of its stabilizing characteristics in dealing with factional divisions.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/11/1...a-waiver-to-millions-of-disgruntled-citizens/

What do you think? Scandal? Or phony scandal? Should be a scandal? Or do our Obama apologists condone this?

 

[gipper]

It may or may not develop legs, but Jonathan Turley, law professor and blogger, recently said on CNN that Obama's arbitrary rewriting of the ACA to circumvent what the law actually says is the very thing the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The Constitution was intended to prevent a monarchy or dictatorship or government by monarchal fiat or papal bull. So the Congress was given power to write and pass laws, with consent of the President, but only Congress can rescind or change those laws, again with consent of the President. The courts are not given power to make any law but are purely charged with interpeting existing law when somebody challenges the interpretation or application of a law.

A recent entry from his blog:

From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications. What is most striking about these areas is that they are precisely the type of controversial questions designed for the open and deliberative legislative process. The unilateral imposition of new rules robs the system of its stabilizing characteristics in dealing with factional divisions.
The Fix Is In: Can President Obama Grant An Effective ACA Waiver To Millions Of Disgruntled Citizens? | JONATHAN TURLEY

What do you think? Scandal? Or phony scandal? Should be a scandal? Or do our Obama apologists condone this?

It is a scandal that should cause EVERY American to demand change, but it will not. Too many Americans are weak minded feeble dependents of the State. It is sickening and disheartening.

History SCREAMS that unlimited government ALWAYS leads to suffering. But, since history is unknown to many Americans or revised for State's benefit, we are destined to make the same mistakes made by humans throughout recorded history.

 

[Foxfyre]

Time for an update.

Christie is caught up in the 'bridgegate' scandal. Within 12 hours he has fired the people responsible and apologized to the people for his failure to know about it and prevent it. Nevertheless within one day, the Obama Administration orders a federal criminal probe.

On Benghazi, one year and four months later, the Administration has finally appointed a top conributor to the Obama campaign to do a formal investigation. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the IRS scandal, the Obama Administration has finally appointed somebody to do a formal investigation--surprise!! It is another top contributor to the Obama campaign. Has Obama taken any responsibility for that scandal? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the phone and spying overreach scandals, still no formal investigation has been ordered. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the Healthcare.Gov horrendous rollout, the misrepresentations, the lie of the year, etc. etc., now approaching a billion in mismanaged government funds, has there been any formal investigation ordered? Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled though they did this last week replace the Canadian company that was the lead contractor on the project.

But by golly they're going to investigate Chris Cristie and 'bridgegate'. They got right on that.

Judge Jeannine Pirro provides a pretty good rundown in her commentary this past week:

 

[Jarhead]

Time for an update.

Christie is caught up in the 'bridgegate' scandal. Within 12 hours he has fired the people responsible and apologized to the people for his failure to know about it and prevent it. Nevertheless within one day, the Obama Administration orders a federal criminal proble.

On Benghazi, well over one year the Administration has finally appointed a top conributor to the Obama campaign to do a formal investigation. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the IRS scandal, the Obama Administration has finally appointed somebody to do a formal investigation--surprise!! It is another top contributor to the Obama campaign. Has Obama taken any responsibility for that scandal? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the phone and spying overreach scandals, still no formal investigation has been ordered. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the Healthcare.Gov horrendous rollout, the misrepresentations, the lie of the year, etc. etc., now approaching a billion in mismanaged government funds, has there been any formal investigation ordered? Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled though they did this last week replace the Canadian company that was the lead contractor on the project.

But by golly they're going to investigate Chris Cristie and 'bridgegate'. They got right on that.

Judge Jeannine Pirro provides a pretty good rundown in her commentary this past week:

And no heads have rolled though they did this last week replace the Canadian company that was the lead contractor on the project

you left out fast and furious.

To this day, someone authorized the sale of guns to the enemy of an ally without the knowledge of the Mexican Government, the President of the United States or the attorney General....

Yet that person has not been named or reprimanded.

 

[Foxfyre]

Time for an update.

Christie is caught up in the 'bridgegate' scandal. Within 12 hours he has fired the people responsible and apologized to the people for his failure to know about it and prevent it. Nevertheless within one day, the Obama Administration orders a federal criminal proble.

On Benghazi, well over one year the Administration has finally appointed a top conributor to the Obama campaign to do a formal investigation. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the IRS scandal, the Obama Administration has finally appointed somebody to do a formal investigation--surprise!! It is another top contributor to the Obama campaign. Has Obama taken any responsibility for that scandal? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the phone and spying overreach scandals, still no formal investigation has been ordered. Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled.

On the Healthcare.Gov horrendous rollout, the misrepresentations, the lie of the year, etc. etc., now approaching a billion in mismanaged government funds, has there been any formal investigation ordered? Has Obama taken any responsibility? Nope. And no heads have rolled though they did this last week replace the Canadian company that was the lead contractor on the project.

But by golly they're going to investigate Chris Cristie and 'bridgegate'. They got right on that.

Judge Jeannine Pirro provides a pretty good rundown in her commentary this past week:

And no heads have rolled though they did this last week replace the Canadian company that was the lead contractor on the project

you left out fast and furious.

To this day, someone authorized the sale of guns to the enemy of an ally without the knowledge of the Mexican Government, the President of the United States or the attorney General....

Yet that person has not been named or reprimanded.

Yes. Actually I left out a LOT of stuff that if Obama was Republican, there would have been screams demanding a full investigation, for heads to roll, most likely calls for impeachment. There has already been a HUGE amount of media coverage on Christie compared to what any of those other scandals received--Obama's surrogate media continues to dutifully protect him as much as they can and still call themselves 'the press'.

But perhaps the worst scandal of all is that the Administration would call for a formal federal investigation of Christie when none was called in any of the other scandals over the last six years. But I predicted a 'wag the dog' event to get the heat off of Obama's bad acts and incompetence, and apparently this is serving the purpose for now. That is disgraceful to the point of being criminal in itself. But oh well. It's just politics yes?

 

[Clementine]

Phony scandals?

By one pundit's account, since his first inauguration, President Obama is on his 17th speech making tour focusing on job creation. This time the catch phrase he uses again and again, and is being picked up by surrogate talking heads, is that the Republicans try to block efforts to create jobs with distractions such as, among other things, 'phony scandals.'

Really?

- The fact that the families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi still can't get straight answers from the administration, and witnesses are ordered into silence is a 'phony scandal'?

- GSA employees spending millions of tax payer dollars having a high old time and making videos of themselves is not a scandal? Ditto federal employees in other agencies?

- IRS blocking hundreds of applications of conservative groups and almost no applications of liberal groups in the years prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections is not a scandal?

- Labeling a news reporters as a possible felon to justify a personal investigation of him, for no reason other than he was investigating some of these things, is not a scandal?

- Collecting e-mails and other personal information from all AP reporters is not a scandal?

- Collecting phone et al information from millions of Americans is not a scandal?

- Federal investigation/continued persecution of one citizen declared not guilty by a jury of his peers when hundreds/thousands of racially motivated henious crimes go unmentioned at the federal level is not a scandal?

- The fact that every single time the President has declared he knew nothing of federal misconduct and found out about it the same way we did--in the media--is not a scandal?

What do you think? Billions of the people's money, our privacy, our civil liberties are at stake in all of these things. Are these phony scandals? Are they worthy of media and citizen attention? How out of the loops should a President be allowed to be before that in itself becomes a scandal?

The funny part is the excuse that "phony scandals" block job creation efforts. Not only does the government not create jobs, but even if they did, the scandals wouldn't stop it. Obama hasn't taken any time at all to help with investigations or offer any explanation regarding the scandals, so it's not like it took up any of his time that would be spent helping the economy. Maybe the liberal media should cover some things, like the suffering from Obamacare and the non-recovery. I guess that is the only way Obama will find out about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Phony scandals?

By one pundit's account, since his first inauguration, President Obama is on his 17th speech making tour focusing on job creation. This time the catch phrase he uses again and again, and is being picked up by surrogate talking heads, is that the Republicans try to block efforts to create jobs with distractions such as, among other things, 'phony scandals.'

Really?

- The fact that the families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi still can't get straight answers from the administration, and witnesses are ordered into silence is a 'phony scandal'?

- GSA employees spending millions of tax payer dollars having a high old time and making videos of themselves is not a scandal? Ditto federal employees in other agencies?

- IRS blocking hundreds of applications of conservative groups and almost no applications of liberal groups in the years prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections is not a scandal?

- Labeling a news reporters as a possible felon to justify a personal investigation of him, for no reason other than he was investigating some of these things, is not a scandal?

- Collecting e-mails and other personal information from all AP reporters is not a scandal?

- Collecting phone et al information from millions of Americans is not a scandal?

- Federal investigation/continued persecution of one citizen declared not guilty by a jury of his peers when hundreds/thousands of racially motivated henious crimes go unmentioned at the federal level is not a scandal?

- The fact that every single time the President has declared he knew nothing of federal misconduct and found out about it the same way we did--in the media--is not a scandal?

What do you think? Billions of the people's money, our privacy, our civil liberties are at stake in all of these things. Are these phony scandals? Are they worthy of media and citizen attention? How out of the loops should a President be allowed to be before that in itself becomes a scandal?

The funny part is the excuse that "phony scandals" block job creation efforts. Not only does the government not create jobs, but even if they did, the scandals wouldn't stop it. Obama hasn't taken any time at all to help with investigations or offer any explanation regarding the scandals, so it's not like it took up any of his time that would be spent helping the economy. Maybe the liberal media should cover some things, like the suffering from Obamacare and the non-recovery. I guess that is the only way Obama will find out about it.

Oh he found out about it and shrugged it off as 'phony scandals'. He first described reaction to Benghazi as a 'political sideshow'--can you imagine how George W. Bush would have been crucified if he had said something like that re a similar event?--he then describes it all as 'phony scandals':

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQir7uvHSok]Obama Says Scandals Happening Under his Watch Are 'Phony Scandals' - YouTube[/ame]