jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (107 posts)

Obama's Scandalous Trifecta

  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    The 3 scandals now pushing Obama's presidency into the edge of an abyss may yet un-mollify and therefore nullify the result of the 2013 presidential election." May yet"  is   the operative words in this case, in as much as the liberal leaning mainstream media continues to be  in bed and embedded with Obama, and the general population at large continues to focus on concerns  that are closer to home, the goings-on in Washington being so far,  and detached from their daily routines.

    The question of whether the president was intimately and directly involved in these 3 scandals (5 Americans dead in Benghazi; multiple Americans targeted by the IRS; and news reporters skewered by the DOJ) still needs to be established, but the mere fact that these 3 scandals have for their common thread, Obama's lackluster desire to present to the American people, the whole  TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH , is stupendously obvious.

    We will soon find out how much the TRUTH will hurt this president.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I do hope it's soon, yes.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good luck with that.

      You'll find most people simply don't care except the people who wanted him out of office anyway.

      No big swell of public disapproval... just the same old people with something new to carp about.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Melissa:
        Your second paragraph is an unbelievably  inchoate statement. .Even  if you are an Obama fan, you should care a lot that the IRS was used to target American citizens because of their contrary political views. That my friend is governmental abuse of power...something that Richard Nixon would have been impeached for, if he did not resign.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not an Obama fan. I don't care who was targeted for what... The IRS screws everybody, if it screws a few political groups in there as well... don't care.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Gotta go with Mellisa on this one, albeit possibly for different reasons.

          Because I'm tired....so tired of seeing rants without a shred of reason or truth in them. 

          You've shouted out "TRUTH" not once but three times in the OP, but what truth are you offering?  That you hate Obama? 

          Because you have surely failed to offer any truth of any wrongdoing by the man.  Just a lot of highly connotative words, a lot of hate and a lot of insinuation.  Nothing I'm interested in hearing, thus the apathy to such rants.  Just more of the same 'ol, same 'ol with nothing new anywhere.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's partially that Wilderness...

            In addition, if you are going to play the victim card, then your victim should at least be likable.  I am completely against ANY political organization getting tax-exempt status.  So the whole situation really isn't breaking my heart.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The rhetoric on this has completely glossed over that fact.
              It's not like the IRS went after political groups -- as they did he NAACP under Bush.
              They scrutinized the applications of CLEARLY political (e.g. with words Tea Party in their titles) to determine if they should receive tax-exempt status.
              Anyone is entitled to spread their POLITICAL message.
              But not under the guise of a SOCIAL WELFARE organization that doesn't have to
              pay taxes.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know, right?

                Like I'm supposed to be upset that a political organization was cheated of the opportunity to steal my tax dollars to pay for their propaganda.

                Poor them.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Gotta love -- once again -- the hypocrisy.
                  The Tea Party wants to dismantle government. Wants to cut spending to zero
                  and balance the federal budget (because I balance my household budgets, dontcha know). Transfer power to the states.
                  So here are these vociferously anti-government groups applying for a bigtime
                  federal GOVERNMENT benefit.
                  Then screaming "foul" when their obvious agenda is called into question...
                  lol

                  1. profile image60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The only "obvious agenda" is the administrations attempt at silencing these groups, yes Obama knew, it was his idea.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True. The IRS didn't interfere with the Tea Party groups spreading their ignorant propaganda. It merely dragged its feet on providing a taxpayer subsidy for them. Of course it was wrong for IRS to single the Tea Party out, if that's what happened. Anyway, Obama had nothing to do with it.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image78
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @Melissa: Tell that to the NAACP and Move On.org, and  Barrack Obama Foundation.... liberal action groups that have been given post-haste, tax exempt status by the IRS

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tell them that I think that no political organizations should get tax-exempt status?

                OK.

                Not sure what your point is though.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  Except for apolitical flat out charities.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We covered the Barack Obama Foundation already in another thread. You may not
                recall.
                Let me refresh your memory
                It is a 501(c)3 -- not 501(c)4 CHARITABLE foundation.

                Here is their mission:
                The common denominator in all that the Foundation undertakes is the inherent belief that no man can truly enjoy the riches he has reaped if his neighbor suffers. The Foundation will seek to help those – worldwide – who still do not have the basic necessities of life such as food, water and shelter. In short, we seek to elevate the human condition so that everyone can live in dignity and truly enjoy having one another as neighbors. The foundation is entirely the idea of Abon'go Malik Obama, in memory of their father, and is not dependent on the endorsement of his brother, President Barack Obama

                1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @MM: The Barack Obama Foundation is not a charitable foundation as you clearly stated, and yet it acts as one.... I mean helping those who do not yet enjoy the basis necessities of life is clear definition of a charitable work.
                  Now the idea for the foundation may have been entirely the idea of the president's brother, in memory of their father, but I'm sure any organization named Barack Obama will get preferential treatment from the government absent the president totally disowning it  or disavowing knowledge of it , or  rejecting it off hand. Why  else do you  think did Lois Lerner personally approved the foundation's application for tax exempt status, were it not for the fact that the foundations bears a name identical to that of the president?
                  Sycophancy as you know is the greatest  virtue one could have in Washington DC.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Wilderness:
            Again you misunderstood  and therefore conflated the purpose of the OP. Nothing to do with hating Obama...because as you may  already know  hate does not lead you anywhere.
            Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about Benghazi from all the obfuscation and hiding  behind an irrelevant U-tube video. Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about "Fast and Furious" from all that hiding behind "executive privilege". Truth is, we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS from all that hiding behind "I didn't know that the IRS was targeting these folks until I heard it on the news". Truth is, we still don't know the truth about the DOJ actions against the AP and James Rosen, from all that hiding behind "national security".

            If  Obama and you,  know the truths about these, then I'd be more than happy to listen.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I do not know the truths.  Which is exactly I don't make posts insinuating that the truth is known, that people will abandon Obama when they learn the truth, or that the truth will hurt him enormously.

              That was kind of the point...

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                One truth that is undeniable. Despite Obamas oft repeated  mantra:" My administration will be the most transparent"... it is NOT.
                Which reminds me, there are now  news reports filtering out of Washington DC, of top administration i.e. .White House officials conducting governmental business/affairs/functions via secret  E-mail accounts. ......which if proven factual, will certainly put a dent if not wreck the above mentioned mantra.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is not "the most transparent" because you demand details of every conversation that ever takes place. 

                  Obama's administration is no more, nor less, secretive than any other has been.  There is no difference, for example, between an email not made public and a post-it-note carried by trusted courier between offices.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Wilderness:

                    I thought you were not into ranting...but your statement..."because you demand details of every conversation that ever takes place." sure sounds to me like a rant, overstatement and all.

                    When congressional  investigative committees ask you  for copies of those e-mails( or post-it-note, in your world)  aren't you supposed to provide it to them,  absent  severe national security  considerations or implications?

      2. profile image82
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        57,000,000 million people voted for Mitt Romney.  I'd say that's quite a few people who wanted Obama out of office.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But not quite enough though... was it? Obviously not MOST... or Mitt Romney would be president... yes?

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          …and 65.8 million people voted for Barrack Obama. {1} I’d say that’s quite a few people more who wanted to see President Obama remain in the Oval Office.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … truesize=m

          1. profile image82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We already know that.  Being contrary doesn't mean you have to state the obvious.

            By the way, it's quite likely that many of those people who voted for the POTUS voted against Romney and not really because they support Obama.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Romney was the best out of the worst crop of GOP candidates in recent memory, with the exception of Jon Huntsman who didn't pander to the Tea Party and, as a result, didn't get much traction.

              1. profile image82
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I disagree.  He was too liberal.  Of course, that's why you thought he was the best.  Still, I would have far rather had Romney than Obama.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's patently clear.

                2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Jon Huntsman was the only decent Republican presidential nominee this past election, and possibly the only one in decades. He actually believes in what he says (like McCain used to), he doesn't pander to the Tea Party scum, he didn't sell out to Fox News, and he came across as an intelligent and reasonable man.

                  And that, of course, is why the GOP despised him.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    +10000

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hi  EA. Did I do something wrong? If so, I apologize.

              When you “state the obvious” in the form of an irrelevant statistic, it is okay according to your way of thinking. However, when someone else “states the obvious” pointing out just how meaningless your statistic is, then you label it being “contrary.”

              The claim that “many of those people who voted for the POTUS voted against Romney and not really because they support Obama” is pure rubbish spread by the ill informed. It is a desperate post election ploy that tries to portray Mr. Romney as the greater of two evils. In the real world, EA, if I may be allowed to “state the obvious,” every vote cast for Barack Obama was without exception a vote in support of the president as being the better choice.

              Everyone who favors making excuses for Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012 should research the election exit polls and learn the real facts. For example, the CBS News exit poll revealed…
              - “Sixty percent of voters who cast ballots on Election Day or earlier said the economy was the most important issue in their vote.” {1}
              - Eighty-eight percent of Obama voters saw the economy was getting better.
              - 27% of all voters said their family finances were better on Election Day than four years earlier.
              - 42% of voters said Mr. Obama's response to Superstorm Sandy was a factor in their vote.
              - 74% of Obama voters said the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy.
              - 44% of all voters wanted to expand the Affordable Care Act or keep it as is.
              - 52% of all voters said Romney's policies favor the rich while 9% said Obama favors the rich.

              The Pew Research Center adds even more knowledge…
              - Since 1980, more than 56% of the Hispanic vote had been cast for the Democratic candidate. In  2012, the advantage was 71%, four points higher than in 2008, and almost matching President Clinton’s 72% in 1996.
              - Among all voters, 65-percent said illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.
              - About 60-percent of all young voters supported President Obama. {2}

              There is a wealth of information available to those who want a clear picture of why voters elected President Obama. 

              A new Census Bureau report shows African-Americans turned out at a greater rate than whites for the first time since 1968. More than 66-percent of eligible blacks voted in the presidential contest compared to only 64.1-percent of eligible whites. {3}

              In the final analysis, EA, claiming many voted for President Obama because Mitt Romney was a greater evil may make Obama bashers feel better but it turns out your view is not supported by any data I could find. 
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 … top-issue/
              {2} http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/l … -election/
              {3} http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … =allsearch

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, and big majorities of women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans and young voters supported Obama. The GOP has become a party of old white guys, and Evangelicals.

    3. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thusfar the American public as a whole is not hyperventilating. Only those who
      hated Obama before and will hate him regardless of what he does or does not do.
      Some possible explanations:

      ...public generally doesn’t factor scandals in when evaluating presidential performance. What they do care about are the same things they care about during elections: peace, prosperity, and moderation.
      ... It may well be that the public is looking at the scandals and judging them to be not that bad for Obama. It’s really hard to figure out what nefarious thing he allegedly did with regards to Benghazi, and it’s easy to dismiss that “scandal” as the product of conflict-hungry media and the same sort of overzealous Republican leaders who think having a Marine hold an umbrella is an impeachable act.
      The IRS scandal, which may well be more serious, also apparently occurred far from the White House, and Obama’s reaction to it so far appears entirely appropriate.
      And the AP scandal basically pits reporters against national security interests, and the public (following leaders of both parties in recent years) have been inclined to lean toward the latter.

      ...People are evaluating Obama’s performance on the peace, prosperity, and moderation dimensions and finding him to be doing reasonably well. Recent economic indicators have been pretty solid, he’s been resisting urgings to commit armed forces to Syria, and he’s been pretty moderate in his public pronouncements of late.
      Now, this isn’t to say that scandals can’t hurt a presidency. Iran-Contra was very damaging to Reagan despite solid economic growth, and Watergate really did unravel Nixon’s presidency and cost Republicans dearly for several election cycles. But at least so far, despite pretty negative media coverage, we just haven’t seen scandals take much of a toll on the public’s support for Obama.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @MM:
        You might want to re-visit those polls measuring Obama's so called popularity in a few more months. As we speak, it's starting to erode. Even some members of the so-called mainstream media have started to ask hard hitting questions, that Jay Carney, Obama's press Secretary doesn't have any inkling on how to truthfully answer.

    4. profile image60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You may be surprised to learn that there wasn't a 2013 presidential election in the U.S..

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Lie Detector:
        My mistake... I meant to write 2012.

    5. profile image60
      bjsinnardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      President Obama has little to do with the IRS debacle in Cleveland, the DOJ using the law to protect national secrets in the hands of the Associated Press, and the GOP's witch hunt over the Benghazi tragedy.
      The election was over in November 2012. These master politicians will manage the nation's business as well as they can under the bright lights of Republican scrutiny and partisanship, who loudly insist, though "Old Joe" has been dead for several decades, the Red Scare still exists.

    6. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Obama allegedly gave an order to secure our personnel. That is, a retroactive order after the bogus video excuse/lies played out. Panetta said that we do not send people in harms way, and he chided monday morning armchair QB's. With those indisputable facts alone we can conclude:

      Obama is a "pretend president" which works well for fantasy world liberals.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        He's a politician (and a good one) - what else did you expect?

    7. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      G’day Villarasa. How have you been lately?

      The term “trifecta” is perfect: A longshot wager in which the bettor faces great odds and only a slight chance of winning! 

      If you want the truth, here it is. The older Obama “scandals” have become so frail that they can no longer stand on their own individual merits. Each has lost so much impact that the president’s opponents have had to bundle them together as a “trifecta” to disguise them as a serious threat to his administration.

      Villarasa wrote:
      “Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about Benghazi.”

      It should be obvious by now that we probably already know the whole truth about Benghazi! After eight months of GOP driven investigations, nothing was learned to suggest criminality on the part of anyone involved in this unfortunate affair. Rep. Issa lied to the public when he promised his Benghazi "whistleblowers" would produce revelations that would be "damaging" to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Following the lengthy testimony, he admitted that the only new revelation was “this was a terrorist attack”, something the public already knew.

      The events in Benghazi on 9/11/12 are a mute political issue and cracks in the GOP resolve are already spreading. On May 13, 2013, the House Republican Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, sounded the first discordant note when he told reporters, “The time for wasting day after day investigating Benghazi is over.” {1}

      It is MHO that Chairman Issa and his committee are performing an extremely important role albeit unfruitful these days. This is the ideal time for this committee to fulfill its responsibility. The constitutional system of checks and balances works best when the president’s is a member of the House’s minority party. I fully support the job he is doing.

      Villarasa wrote:
      “Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about ‘Fast and Furious’”

      Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported to congress that neither the president nor Attorney General Eric Holder was involved with the highly flawed Fast and Furious operation. The IG placed responsibility squarely on the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. {2}

      The IG was praised by the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee for his report and his contributions to the investigation. It is repugnant to me to think anyone would suggest that the Inspector General of the DOJ failed in the performance of his sworn duty without offering a single fact to support such a slanderous notion. {3}

      There have been four years of investigation and a mountain of evidence screened by the IG and others. I can see where some have pre-defined “the whole truth” as proof of Eric Holder’s complicity and, as a result, they will never accept any evidence as “the whole truth” unless it meets that singular criterion.

      Villarasa wrote:
      “Truth is, we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS.”

      Here are some known truths. The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Not one fact has yet surfaced to suggest, let alone prove, that anyone outside of the IRS was responsible. Even without evidence, people are saying with absolute certainty that “we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS.” As of now, the “whole truth” can be found in the report issued by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. {4} It is recommended reading for anyone who is truly interested in learning about this issue.

      Finally, as the pack enters the home stretch, two of the trifecta picks are fading in the backfield and the third is just barely leaving the gate. It is unbelievable that this thread, offering neither facts nor reasoning, hopes to convince a thinking audience that these three nags “have for their common thread, Obama's lackluster desire to present to the American people, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH.” In the final analysis, it is the absence of meaningful facts that is “stupendously obvious.”
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b … acare.html
      {2} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html
      {3} http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ig-r … d-furious/
      {4} http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/ … index.html

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Quil:

        Truth is,  only Obama and his close advisers know the whole truth about these affairs, and they are not at all willing to share those truths with the American people.....which If i recall some of the trajectories of Obama's  artful dodging, would ultimately lead to him saying:..."The American people could not handle the truth." As we speak, one precinct of the American people, that is incapable of handling the truth is the mainstream media, and the folks that are so enamored of Obama's  artful dodging.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Seems Quil hit the nail on the head: the truth has been shared, but as you define truth to include admitting wrongdoing or duplicity what has been shared must not be the whole truth.  You have defined a lie to be truth, and won't accept truth until it agrees with the lie.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Wilderness:
            Good try... but  close and neutral  observers clearly believes that the whole truth have not been told. If Obama has nothing to hide, then why does he not go directly to the American people laying out everything that needs to be bared (sort of his soul) in one clean swoop of a confessional speech, without parsing words , dodging relevant questions, throwing people under the bus,  and blaming Fox News, the Republicans, and the warm sunny weather of Hawaii to explain for his troubles.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All evidence (except the unsupported claims from "neutral" observers, apparently) is that he did just that.  He gave all the information to the public.  That certain "neutral" observers have claimed otherwise, without providing proof. doesn't change that.  The whole truth is out - either accept it or prove otherwise.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:
                "He gave all the information to the public." Really?
                Unless I was vacationing in Mars for the past year, I could not see any reason why I missed that.

                As I said, he should give a wholehearted speech (as  good as he is at speechifying) laying out everything that needs to be laid out... so he and us could  finally move forward. This drip...drip...drip...drip is just not good for America's psyche.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What do you want laid out?  The things he hasn't said because they aren't true - specifically that he is guilty of a vile but unnamened and unproven crime?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Wilderness:
                    Who said anything about criminality. I didn't
                    Again in your attempts to defend Obama, you tend to over-state your case... to the point of incongruity.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Quill:
        The major reason why these "scandals" continue to gnaw and snap  at the president's heels is the issue  of lingering  questions that remain to be factually answered by those who should be able to answer them...truthfully.

        Questions such as: ( A). About Bhengazi  1.  Why was the  consulate devoid of appropriate security precautions and apparatus, before and during  Ambassador  Stevens'  visited it on that fateful night? 2. Why and who ordered the special forces (who were ready and willing to go and rescue the consulate personnel) to stand down. (3) Why and Who edited that infamous talking points memo, (4) Why and what was Pres. Obama doing (in real time) during and after the terrorist attack. (5) What was so important about that trip to Las Vegas, that he could not stay in the White House a minute... an hour or a day longer. (6) Why was Pres. Obama still talking about that irrelevant You-tube video during his speech to the United Nations, when it was so crystal clear, even to his Press Secretary. that it was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous demonstration.

        (B) About the IRS: It has become clear the those IRS agents (from Ohio to California and in between)  who targeted various conservative  groups and entities did not do so on their own volition and initiative, i.e. "we are not "rogue" agents" as one of them would say to the media. So Why and Who ordered them to act as they did, in complete violation of these groups First Amendment rights? 2. Why did Mr. Shulman visit the White House 157 times during his tenure as head of the IRS, 3. Why did Lois Lerner take the 5th, (but I think we could deduce the answer to that question).

        About the DOJ: 1. Did Eric Holder commit perjury when he testified to congress that he had nothing to do with the actions taken by the DOJ against the AP and the Fox reporter James Rosen, when his signature was on the order to do so.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My friend, those who make the accusations and float the claims of criminal activity have the responsibility to provide their own answers. If you have unanswered questions then do some research. Search for answers until you are convinced that satisfactory answers do not exist. If you choose to believe there is a criminal conspiracy concealed behind every unanswered questions then so be it. Bring us facts, Villarasa, that will convince critical thinking, intellegent adults. In other words, answer your many questions and then bring us the proof. It should be obvious to you that you will not find the missing answers here in this forum.

          Sleep peacefully, my friend. You deserve as much.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Quill:
            Who said anything about criminal activity? I sure didn't. What I was intending with the OP was to start a conversation on how and why  governmental functionaries, from the president on down, when they commit  errors of judgement are won't to take responsibility for those errors and mis-steps...thus the cover-up.

            If anything that needed to be learned from Nixon's Watergate ( and apparently Obama's administration has not learned from it)  was that  covering up errors in judgement (not necessarily criminality) is worse than the actual error itself.

            As they say, the arrogance of power could be toxic even to those who, when presented with plausible and possible errors in judgement, would deny it to the extent as to say... "these errors were stupid, and we are not that stupid" ....this an exactt quote from one Obama crony, supporter, and defender.

            Obama's rhetorical flair during that second inaugural address, detailing his agenda for the next 4 years,  is being wasted , now that Congress is in full investigating mode, and the White House in full hunkering mode. The Supremes, must be watching all these proceedings with utter disdain, now that it has been proven that they are the only adults in this unholy trinity of a government..

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Seems that your first paragraph is illustrative of the problem both Quil and I have with the OP and later posts.

              No, you didn't mention criminal activity (although it sure is implied) but you are insistent that the president had a lapse in judgement AND that he is covering it up.  All available evidence points to the contrary - that he wasn't in the decision loop on these items and that he isn't covering his actions up - but you continue to insist that he was and is.

              But you won't produce any evidence of either, just more insinuations that he must be covering up, now because he's part of government.  You ask questions, just as Quil said, but don't provide answers as if those questions ARE answers or evidence that your claims are true.  You continue to use extremely loaded descriptive terms ("only adults" and "unholy trinity" for instance) that provide nothing except an awareness in the reader that you HAVE no real information - just suspicion that you want to be taken as factual.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:

                The point is he SHOULD have been  more engaged in  the governance of the country.. the fact that he seemed to have been AWOL in the decision making process of some of these issues that are now becoming such a source of irritation to his presidential mien... is something that sould be a concern to all Americans.

                1. profile image82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, either he's inept as a leader, or he is a liar who is covering up his mistakes.  As for the possible ineptitude, it may be that he truly is unaware of what his administration is doing, or it could be that he has chosen many, many poor candidates to fill vacancies.  Either way, he's either inept or lying.  We don't have proof he is covering things up, so I believe he must be the worst, least aware president since Jimmy Carter.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Involved in governance of the country - absolutely.  Intimately involved in every detail - not possible.  Not, mind you, difficult; impossible.

                  Now you can sit back and declare that Obama should have made the decision to send in troops in Benghazi, that he should have kept himself informed of minute to minute activities there, but will you also make the same declaration about every embassy on the planet?  Or just the one that hind sight shows to have been a very bad mistake?

                  Again, not defending Obama, just pointing out that decisions are necessarily delegated to someone else.  That the "someone else" goofed, and goofed badly to the point people died, does not mean that Obama is personally at fault or that he should be hung out to dry.  We can and should make an issue that such a poor call was made, we should change our procedures, etc., but we have no reason to lay the blame for decades of similar decisions (when and how to protect an embassy) on the shoulders of the latest man to delegate the authority to make those calls.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well stated, W.
                    All the after-the-fact armchair quarterbacking will never change the score.
                    The important point is to change policies and procedures going forward.

                    In the IRS scandal, that should mean a return to the letter of the law on 501(c)4
                    nonprofit status. The law reads the organization must be EXCLUSIVELY engaged
                    in social welfare work. (e.g., 0% political). Somewhere along the line the IRS
                    policy changed exclusively to PRIMARILY (e.g., up to 49% political/51% social welfare).
                    Now, if the IRS had stuck to the actual law, we would never have had tea party
                    groups applying for 501(c)4 nonprofit status in the first place.
                    We can only hope the IRS immediately rescinds its policy and goes back to EXCLUSIVELY.
                    We, as taxapers, can also hope they end up revoking a bunch of political organizations' 501(c)4 status that they never should have been granted.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness:
                    Whatever happened to: "The buck stops here"
                    You are of course correct in saying that Obama could not possibly know every little "happening"  that  occurs  during his watch. But to not be informed by his legal counsel and chief-of-staff about the IRS malfeasance (which they knew about.,  months before Obama claimed to have known about them) is inexplicable. That is what I would call derilection of duty by his legal counsel and chief-of-staff, so  how come Obama have not fired them..... if he is serious enough about accountability.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Quill:

            I don't think the questions I posted, are unreasonable. In fact the  truthful answers to those questions could and would clarify, a lot more than what we are getting now from Obama, what with his constant attendance in 'fund raising" events. Another reasonable question to ask: Why is he doing a lot of those 'fund raising" events when his presidency would end in another 3 1/2 years. He surely would not need the money to fund another  presidential campaign.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey there, Villarasa.

          My question is this. It has become clear to whom?

          Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland called for an end to the IRS probe after learning that “a self-described conservative Republican manager at the Internal Revenue Service in Cincinnati — where the targeting occurred — told committee investigators that he played a key role in the decision to give conservative groups greater scrutiny. The manager also said he was unaware of and rather doubted any direction came from the White House.
          “The Cincinnati manager's information would appear to put a serious dent in GOP allegations that the targeting was an attempt by White House and other administration officials to hurt President Obama's political enemies.” {1}

          Alas, we have finally learned the “whole truth” so many in this forum have been asking for. However, I seriously doubt that this portion of "the whole truth" will be confirmed in public by Rep. Issa's committee.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics … estigation

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The real problem is the IRS's incorrect interpretation of the law which provides for tax exemption status for organizations devoted "exclusively" to social welfare causes, not "primarily" to such causes. Many of these organizations subsidized by taxpayers are devoted primarily to political causes, conservative or liberal.

  2. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Make that four...you left out "Fast and Furious"

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Another non-issue which Obama had nothing to do with. (There are several other legitimate issues for which he and Holder should be held accountable, such as interfering with freedom of the press to do its job, but "fast and furious is not one of them, nor is Benghazi.)

      Here's one that is truly worrisome:  NSA collecting call logs of millions of Verizon customers

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Top news: The National Security Agency is collecting business call logs involving millions of Americans under a secret warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Guardian reported Wednesday. The court order, which falls under a section of the Patriot Act, requires Verizon Business Network Services, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, to turn over all call records -- both foreign and domestic -- on a daily basis. The content of the calls is not covered under the warrant.

      The revelation raises questions about the scope of the U.S. domestic surveillance program and would seem to confirm the cryptic warnings of Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), both members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, about the use of "secret legal interpretations" to justify sweeping surveillance powers. In a letter to the attorney general last year, the senators wrote, "We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of .?.?these secret court opinions. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows."

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        George Orwell's 1984 has finally arrived... and with a vengeance.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This will be an interesting  one to watch being spun.

        Given that this practice is sanctioned not just by Obama and the executive
        branch; not just Obama and the judicial branch; but Obama and the judicial
        branch and the legislative branch.
        Meaning, Congress itself voted on this, too.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    You are also mistaken on MoveOn.org.

    MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues.
    MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
    MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations.

    For someone so doggedly obsessed with the "truth," you show little regard for it
    in your own posts. These are easily checked facts.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    As to the NAACP, the group is 100 years old (good hint: the term "colored people"
    is no longer used). So you cannot seriously accuse the Obama administration of rushing through tax-exempt status for NAACP.

    But here again, we are comparing apples (501(c)4s) and oranges (501(c)3s).
    The NAACP is the latter. From the "Donate" section of their website.
    "The NAACP is a charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any gift you make is tax-deductible to the maximum extent allowed by law."

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @MM: I may not have mentioned  the appropriate liberal leaning politically motivated entities that have applied for tax exemption... the fact remains that these liberal leaning groups were  never  placed  under the same officious scrutiny and targeting that these conservative groups  were placed under by the IRS.... on Obama's watch.

      1. profile image60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You mean on his directions!

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So basically it boils down to "They got away with it but we didn't.  It's not fair. The teacher hates us"

        My heart still isn't breaking.

        Although-once again-I would prefer it if no one did. But some not getting it is a step in the right direction I guess.

  5. Debra K Scearce profile image60
    Debra K Scearceposted 3 years ago

    IS THIS TRUE??? "Ever wonder why these scandals go nowhere? Maybe this helps explain it: CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama Special Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And on and on, we haven't seen this much incestuous activity since the age of kings."

  6. Debra K Scearce profile image60
    Debra K Scearceposted 3 years ago

    IS THIS TRUE??? "Ever wonder why these scandals go nowhere? Maybe this helps explain it: CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama Special Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And on and on, we haven't seen this much incestuous activity since the age of kings."

  7. jdw7979 profile image78
    jdw7979posted 3 years ago

    For our nation to endure and remain free, liberty must be at the forefront. All of these politicians from both political spectrums have only one issue at hand when making decisions, usually their own selfish agenda.. or one tied to said party! If they would stand by our Constitution backed by the Bill Of Rights, along with acknowledging they first do the people's work, we might be alright as a nation.

    The federal government has grown to big and gotten far to out of hand. Our forefathers envisioned such, and put into place checks and balances to offset this. We the people must push through, before tyranny is commonplace.

    They work for us, not against us. Though, they in Washington may see things differently. Time to get loud citizens.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @JDW:

      Citizens are not gonna get loud for as long as  a majority of them   have become co-dependents with these politicians in achieving and or advancing their ideologicxal agenda.

  8. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Don't blame the IRS for doing its job

    Lawrence O'Donnell joined former IRS official Marcus Owens and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein for some straight talk on IRS activity with regard to their examination of applications for tax-exempt status and whether what they did was improper. Here are some facts to go with the discussion:

        Over 80 percent of applications submitted for tax-exempt status were from conservative organizations.
        The only organization to have its tax-exempt status revoked was one run by Democratic women to try and encourage more women to run for office.
        There is no requirement that any 501(c)(4) organization apply for approval of their tax-exempt status. If they do not apply, there is a risk of audit and disqualification down the road, but they are not required to apply to be a 501(c)(4) entity.
        Despite Rush Limbaugh's exaggerated claims, there was no limitation imposed by the IRS on these groups' ability to influence the 2012 election.
        Many of the IRS requests for information came about because of activities observed by agents in real time.

    I keep pounding away at these points because it's clear that conservatives are working overtime to gin up constituent anger over them in the hopes they can push a wave effect into 2014. Marco Rubio, for example, put up a video saying that the only solution to the IRS "scandal" is to repeal Obamacare, which is a reach back to the thoroughly debunked lie that 60,000 new IRS agents would be hired to audit your health care. That's an Alex Jones/Michele Bachmann classic, revived now to strike fear in the hearts of teabaggers everywhere. They've staged one "day of protest" already. Here's what it looked like in my home town: (Click below for video)

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dont-b … -their-job

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Ralph deeds:

      The fact is the IRS have been empowered via Obamacare to collect  the "penalties" incurred by individuals who decide  not  to have any health insurance coverage and business entities who decide not to have their workers covered by a health insurance policy. To that  end, the IRS have to hire thousand more agents to collect these penalties i.e. tax as per the Supreme Court.

      Now that we know the previous IRS commisioner (Shulman) visited the White House 157x during his short tenure, Obama apologists now link those visits mostly  because of the fact that the IRS has to be on the loop via Obamacare, not because of the IRS coordinating with the White House on how to  target various  groups applying for tax exempt status, just because their political ideology and agenda runs counter to that of the president.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    There is a very good reason why applicants with the word "Tea Party" in their
    organization's title would be given extra scrutiny.
    IRS 501(c)4 nonprofit status is for organizations that are not not primarily*
    engaged in political activity. When you have the name of a POLITICAL party in
    your title, how can you back away from the obviously fact that your organization is a POLITICAL party-based organization?
    And then get your panties in a bunch because you are questioned about the fact
    that you really are a POLITICAL organization?

    *The problem-cum-opportunity here is that that is NOT what the 501(c)4 statute reads.
    It reads "EXSLUSIVELY" not "PRIMARILY." Somewhere along the line the IRS diluted
    the interpretation to "PRIMARILY" which opens up problems of interpretation and judgment calls on what percent of social welfare vs. politics is allowable.

    The IRS shoud be granting NO organizations engaging in ANY political activity anonprofit status under 501(c)4.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @MM:
      It does not bother you that the IRS would target individuals/entities/organization based  on their conservative  beliefs, and not those with liberal-left leaning ideologies?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you must be reminded of...the first amendment applies to all Americans.... not just those whose political persuasion jibes with Pres. Obama.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is not a First Amendment issue.
          No one is being stopped from speaking or spreading whatever information they
          want to.
          But nowhere does it guarantee in the First Amendment that the taxpayers
          have to pick up the tab for your views.
          There is a grand irony here: the group that wantso to  dismantle the federal government
          is appealing the same federal government for special tax treatment.
          roll

          Maybe you will do better than I was able to do in finding an actual list of organizations
          that sought 501(c)4 status and received it vs. did not receive it.
          Can you prove that comparable politically motiviated groups on the other side of the
          spectrum were given preferential treatment???
          How many? What the names and mission statements of their organizations were???

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @MM: I didn't hear or see   anywhere any reports of liberal leaning organizations complaining about maltreatment by the IRS. Have you?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image78
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Otherwise MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS.NBC would be reporting all about them in their respective venue.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The real thing the IRS scandal was not to deny fraudulent Tea Bagger 501 C 4 Applications

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roy68ZNM_bg

  11. jdw7979 profile image78
    jdw7979posted 3 years ago

    If a system such as the one run by the IRS, a government entity used to tax Americans and use such funds for what they in Washington deem necessary- if this system cannot function honestly and smoothly, it should be disbanded.

    Our money and lives are at stake here. This is not a partisan political issue. The scandals facing Washington currently, and specifically the IRS debacle shows us citizens a tyrannical hand of government poking its ugly head out.

    It is a simple case of right and wrong people, not Left or Right. Respect the Constitution and for gosh sakes you crooked politicos- quit the illegal acts while stepping on our rights!

    We need a liberty driven overhaul in American politics, and fast..

 
working