Richard Nixon made a major mistake in the commission of his crimes against the people, he left a trail of incrimination.
Some of us have doubts concerning the intellect of Obama, but it can’t be denied, he has the cunning of a street wise criminal. At least he knows how to cover his ass, even if it implies poor leadership and management skills, and that is the major difference between America’s most infamous and ignoble, narcissistic, presidential failures.
Obama unleashed his political whores by letting it be known, that the most flagrant and egregious political crimes would not be prosecuted by allowing Attorney General Holder to drop the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers in a case that was already won.
This was the signal to all bureaucrats and Progressive political miscreants: excesses and illegal political activities will not only be tolerated, they will be encouraged, if they are designed to promote the Progressive cause and the Myth of Obama.
The tyranny game was on, media indulged itself as well, but they are private entities who rely on the First Amendment for protection. If they want to write propaganda and pass it off as news, it is their prerogative and it is definitely legal. Unfortunately, for many government employees, who once had the public trust, such poetic license is not legal.
Many of these people may be facing lengthy prison terms for their zeal in the promotion of the Progressive cause, and rightly so, for using the public trust to commit crimes against the people of America is not only a crime, but a betrayal as well.
From the IRS Internal Revenue Manual:
22.214.171.124.1 (03-07-2008) Criminal Penalties Under IRC § 7213
IRC § 7213 makes the willful unauthorized disclosure of a return or return information a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Upon conviction, officers or employees of the United States will also be dismissed from office or discharged from employment.
Note: IRC § 7213 also covers willful disclosures of software source code data protected by IRC § 7612.
Nixon was actually small potatoes, for his impeachable crimes were almost insignificant compared to the sheer magnitude and scope of the Obama felonies and tyranny. However, if Obama has been careless enough to leave one paper trail in the commission of his particular felonies, he will probably have had the biscuit (Think Last Supper).
However, if Nixon would have pleaded poor leadership, incompetence, and ignorance, with the proficiency of the Obama Administration, he might have finished his term.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Whatever you want to apply to the fable you can. But, you are totally missing it here.
For Benghazi or Birthers, or any other event to match the fable…it has to start with the premise that certain people are claiming something is NOT TRUE. Then…later..it has to be proven TRUE…and the people don’t respond to warnings about it.
Were birther claims proven true?? No. So, are you now suggesting birthers claims “were” proven true later but nobody paid attention because of the people falsely claiming it prior?? That’s what the fable is. No, you are using birthers for the “first” half…as what the boy lied about. And using a different event for the 2nd half that was true. That’s not the fable (as I’ve tried to point out).
The conservatives have cried wolf on the IRS for years. Is what they said true? Yes. That doesn’t fit the fable either…because it’s premised on the fact that what the boy first claimed was not true.
People calling for impeachment doesn’t define anything. Over what? And did that happen or not? (the press calls that getting ahead of the story).
Benghazi…people cried out that the story the WH was telling about movie protest wasn’t true. Was that true? Or not? In order for it to fit the fable…it would have had to have happened just as the admin said it did…..ie., a protest over a movie, not involving AQ or terrorists…that got out of hand. So, that doesn’t fit either.
As far as picking multiple events with different people, at different times…for different reasons that may have been true or false..and mixing and matching them to try and suggest that the false part of the fable up front (birthers) was the boy lieing about a wolf, and the true part later when the wolf showed up was some other event (IRS abuses)…..that just boggles my mind as to the kind of perverted liberal logic that you must put yourself through to get there.
Tom..the very reason we are seeing some of these abuses and Fups at the lower levels is “Because” the upper levels here are not actively engaged in managing things. That’s by their “own” admission.
Think about it. Holder says the worst leak in history..that put American lives in danger…is the reason the AP got data humped. And yet…the president didn’t know about it, and Holder recused himself and sent in the 2nd string! The president didn’t know about what was happening at the IRS even though reports of abuses dated back to 2010. He didn’t know about security issues at Benghazi. Or who made what decisions there.
Or lets just take your point….he doens’t know shit. And he depends on everybody else to do everything for him and “THEY” F’d up. Even the JCPenney CEO would (and did) get fired for something like that. You think the President should maybe be held to a slightly higher standard Yes/no? There is no CEO in this world…large or small company that could survive having their depts in these kind of screw ups over and over.
IF things are so important that they involve life or death of americans…..why are none of the heads of anything involved or active/proactive in the decisions made? These are not good signs. And frankly ….It’s not just republicans noticing these things. As I posted before…CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, have had reporters on every day…not to mention the print media…that have been discussing this as a failure of leadership and disturbing abuses of gov.
you think OBAMA lost his dog,
maybe he ate it
Unfortunately, the decisions to set up the weapons-running operation in Benghazi, to withhold the requested and customary security measures, to stand down during the attacks, and to lie about the reason for the attacks (a video, they said) all came from the highest levels of the Administration.
The White House involvement in the IRS harassment issue is apparent in the rewards that the manager in charge (Sarah Hall Ingram) has received. At least one Democratic Senator who pushed for the selective IRS treatment of conservatives has announced he won’t run again. This was policy that was set at a high level, Tom.
You’re losing it, bud. Your messiah is floundering and so are you.
Behold the god who bleeds!
As well the captain should get blamed for such things, Tom. In the case of the IRS scandal, however, there is much more circumstantial evidence available showing that those “rogue agents”, as described by some on the left, were doing exactly as their ultimate boss instructed and exampled.
And one really needs to look no further than Obama’s most recent address to the graduating students at Ohio State University to see my point. “Reject those voices”, Obama said, speaking of those talking about the government. And what did those IRS agents do? Why, they engaged in “rejecting” those voices on the right.
Let me put it another way. Take an NFL team. Granted, it’s not as large and vast as the federal government, but they are rather large organizations. And granted, the Head Coach isn’t the actual leader of the organization, as a whole. But the Head Coach is the face of that organization in public, just as Obama is the face of the federal government in the public.
That team takes on the personality of the Head Coach. The players and other team personnel take cues from that Head Coach, from what he says in public interviews, from what is overheard on the sidelines, from his comments and actions following games, etc. With that, you can get class organizations like that of the Colts during Dungy’s time there, to the actions of the Saints’ players and assistant coaches after Payton got hired, to the machine-like, win at all costs attitude of Belichik’s Patriots.
And who is responsible for the attitudes of the players on that team, particularly on game days when the world is watching them? The Head Coach.
Obama is responsible, and to blame, for the IRS targetings. He is also culpable for instigating the actions the IRS prosecuted against those conservative groups, for his comments in the media, for his campaign’s words and tenor during the 2012 campaign, for his public admonitions against the TEA party, etc.
Obama was elected the President of the United States. He wasn’t elected President of the liberal/progressives in the United States. His job is to execute the laws of the land fairly, equitably, and even across the board. He has not done that, either by suggestion, or by action. The rest of the Federal government’s executive branch agencies and departments are merely taking their cues from him.
@Wm T Sherman:
And your proof for these statements is… where? The complete emails have been released, yet all I hear are crickets in those corners of the Right who go hot and heavy on Impeachment. Read what I wrote above, again. I don’t deny Obama is ultimately responsible for what happens on his watch. (Incidentally, another flat out lie pushed by the Right is that Obama himself denies responsibility). No, responsibility for doing a poor job in a specific area is a world away from an impeachable offense, but the this distinction seems to escape a large portion of our population. Of course, the same people think Michelle Bachmann is an intellectual, so go figure.
Again, because you’re a zealot who thinks in absolute terms, you assume everyone else does. Obama is not my “messiah”. If I agree with him 60% of the time, that would be a stretch. I am more than happy to apportion responsibility to him for his failings when all the information actually comes out and a reasonable judgment can be made. Please, don’t confuse me with people who can’t think outside of cartoonish archetypes: Dick Cheney, a red blooded American hero! Obama, a Muslim villain! I’m not going to be like the people on the Right who ten years later are still bragging about how the Iraq war went off without a hitch. That’s your M.O., my friend.
You’re really going to quote Woodward on Obama? And here I was thinking Conservatives have no sense of humor.
Wm T Sherman
yes, of course it was set up by OBAMA for his book of enemies, or his approval which is the same,
otherwise, why would they go that far on QUESTIONS which where out of bound
their jobs where full time enough to deal with those extra demand from the TEAPARTY AND CONSERVATIVES AND OTHER who did not come out publicly but where tormented and denied
their rightfully exemption.
This is a false statement. The first 67 hours of e-mails after the attack are redacted. You are a hack, Tom.
As far as the now public record of false public statements post-attack, talking points editing, security withheld, stand-down order — you apparently have your head buried in the sand.
yes I was thinking the same , the peoof is , we see in a big COMPANY with many EMPLOYEES,
on many levels of the ladder,
if a crisis like that happen from any employees on any steps of the ladder,
the one replace is the head on top.
and that is important because the credibility is gone,
never to come back if it’s not done immediately.
If you mean he’s responsible in sense that the IRS is part of the Federal Government and he’s the President, agreed. If you mean he’s directly responsible, or had anything influence or knowledge of the targeting, I say (again) where’s the proof? Because there’s been exactly one independent in-depth investigation performed and it directly addressed that very question:
The report also has some interesting insights into the allegations of targeting and the groups targeted.
@Wm T Sherman:
Anytime you want to provide that proof to back up your statements, please do. I have to assume – you of course not being a hack – that you wouldn’t form such a concrete judgment and then run around the internet preaching your version of the truth, without it: “it” being “proof”. “Proof” being that thing you apparently like to hold back for what I can only imagine is the sake of suspense.
Of course. You want the “smoking gun”. The signed confession. The undeniable video evidence. You want something that specifically points to Obama telling those people to target certain groups for extra scrutiny.
And unless you get it, you aren’t ever going to agree that they were acting on Obama’s orders.
I don’t necessarily believe they were acting on his direct orders either. What I do believe is that the example was set by Obama, and the people at the IRS were merely following Obama’s lead. Obama owns his own significant amount of negative commenting about the TEA party. He owns his own significant amount of negative commenting about those kinds of people that believe in smaller, less intrusive government. The media records show that. The campaigns during 2010, 2012, and for Obamacare show that.
Did he specifically tell those people to do as they did? Not likely.
What he did do, however, was to influence the behaviour of people working throughout the various agencies and departments of the federal government, one that reflected negatively on conservative groups, particularly within the IRS. His own words from his recent speech at Ohio State University can be seen as evidence that Obama believes certain voices should not be heard.
Obama is culpable precisely because of his own attitude in how he has governed. That is, not for ALL of the people, but only those approved by the progressive movement.
Incidentally, this same kind of behaviour is/was prevalent in the Chicago political machine that birthed Obama. It’s no surprise, really, and especially to those of us who have experience with Chicago politics, that Obama would bring that kind of political atmosphere to the national stage.
If we’re talking about impeachment, then, yes, I do want evidence of an impeachable offense. I think that’s more than reasonable.
Otherwise, I don’t really take issue with your comments. I think your perspective is reasonable coming from a conservative who doesn’t trust Obama. I’m not here telling anyone that they should trust him. I’m stating that impeachment is wildly overblown given the dearth of evidence. And I’m here stating the habitual suggestion that impeachment is the answer to a wide array of issues in evolving the President only serves to water down the credibility of those issuing these pronouncements.
I’m not going to put words in your mouth, but I get the sense that you see the Obama Administrrration as especially politically motivated against their enemies, or particularly corrupt and scandal-prone. That’s a viewpoint that’s absolutely not supported by history or evidence. All Administrations have scandals of varying degrees, and all Administrations have and acknowledge political enemies. Take the Plame affair. One can very easily assume a member of the Bush administration revealed Plame’s identity as political retribution against her husband. Is Bush to blame for setting a bad example? And in terms of scandals, let’s be frank, this is nothing compared to Iran-Contra. So if we’re using the same measuring stick, what conclusions do we draw about President Reagan?
In addition, Tom, you must realize that we are not just talking about a handful of instances where the scrutiny towards conservative groups went a little deeper than it did for others.
-We are also talking about targeting influential donors on the right for increased scrutiny in the way of tax audits, all of which was during the lead up to the 2012 Presidential election. One person identified had as many as THREE separate audits of his taxes, and all after the Obama campaign identified him with negative terminology and accusations of law-breaking behaviour, and all because he donated money to a political group that supported Mitt Romney.
-We are also talking about the overboard and extremely invasive questions those conservative groups received, and were required to answer, as part of their applications for tax-exempt status. Everything from “what are you thinking”, to handing over all copies of political speeches (video and written) the person(s)/group(s) had made during a specified time, to “are you thinking about running for political office”, to having to hand over all donor rolls and membership lists, to minutes of the groups meetings, and even copies of all posts on Facebook.
-We are also talking about the concerted effort at intimidation of pro-life groups to not protest on penalty of tax audits and/or application denials.
-We are also talking about the EPA and evidence that conservative owned businesses and interests were unfairly targeted for compliance audits, permit denials, and fines.
Does this sound like what you want your government doing?
Before you answer that, think about if the roles were reversed, which could conceivably happen at the next presidential election. What would you think about an agency of the government, or many agencies, acting in a pseudo-combined effort at persecuting or harassing or intimidating liberal or progressive causes?
What if Obamacare was repealed as a law in 2017 and much of the citizenry was angry enough to form new politically oriented groups aimed at electing and instituting Obamacare(or a form of it) again at the next election, and those groups and individuals were targeted by the President with negative comments, and then later threatened, scrutinized heavily, and otherwise had their Constitutional right to free expression and freedom of assembly infringed upon?
We’ve talked about this before, Tom, and I believe that you agreed that at the time, the current occupants of the WH, or government, never think beyond their own time in power, and what effect their actions will have regarding, and stemming from, future occupants.
In the end, it very much looks like a systemic disease permeating throughout the federal governments executive agencies of political persecution. Whether there is a “smoking gun” pointing at Obama is quite beside the point, really. His words and actions have spoken as loudly as any admittance of guilt ever could have.
I’m still shock by the ones who vote for him, after seeing all those failures, after being bullyed and laughed at,
they are as UN AMERICANs as the hate speeches they listen to.
constantly by OBAMA,
there are no words other than that to label the IRS also targeting
yes targeting the good PEOPLE of the USA,
the people being said: don’t listen to other, just me,
it should be: DON”T LISTEN TO ME OBAMA EVER,
That is perfectly reasonable. Have I been calling for his impeachment, though? No, I have not.
I am merely pointing out that regardless of the leftists apologetic denials of improprieties, or the media’s sighing and then only passing on these stories when it can no longer be silent on it, and Obama’s own stammering of denial of knowledge, Obama is not only responsible and to blame, but he is culpable in creating the divisive political persecution of the political opposition.
And his culpability stems from his actions and words, on the campaign trail, on his campaign website, in his various speeches and addresses since his election, in nearly everything he has said as President.
Again, those people in the IRS were only following Obama’s lead in this. As are the people working at the EPA. As are the people working at the DOJ.
The question you need to reflect upon is, “Which agency or department of the federal government will be outed next as having targeted specific individuals or groups having only certain political bents?”
And if you think there won’t be any more, you might want to keep that thought to yourself. Remember, I lived near Chicago for nearly a decade. I know how this Chicago machine politics works. And while Obama didn’t create it, he was politically baptized in it, learning from people whose corruption is legend in Chicago. Political persecution is how “things get done” in Chicago, and Obama has brought that to the national stage.
One more point to ponder, Tom, and then I’ll leave off of this for the night.
In 2009 Obama signed EO 13522. EO 13522 allows for informal discussion forums between various federal governmental agency and department management and the union bosses managing the unionized employees of those various federal agencies and departments. In short, it allows the union bosses and the workers’ government management to collaborate in “pre-decision” meetings on exactly how the unionized workers will go about tending to their jobs and duties.
EO 13522 specifically points out that these forum discussions be kept in confidential manner, essentially free from FOIA requests.
EO 13522 covers, amongst others, the IRS and it’s workers’ union, the NTEU.
So basically, what we have is an order by Obama to allow for more collaboration between the unions and the various agencies and departments of the federal government. Granted, I’m assuming that the idea was to allow these discussions in order to make the workplace for these federal unionized employees a better place to work.
However, when the IRS employees who are on record as having spoken to the IG say that their “bosses made them do it”, it’s gotta make one wonder just exactly which bosses they are referring to, if not both, and what exactly other than workplace issues were discussed in those meetings.
Now, any one item that I’ve mentioned probably shouldn’t be enough to cause anyone’s hackles to rise. The EO itself, for instance, seems pretty straightforward and innocuous at first glance. However, when you combine all of the little tidbits I’ve mentioned, from the various engagements of the IRS against certain groups, to the words of Obama on those groups, along with this innocuous EO which seemingly could lead to extra-curricular discussions amongst the union bosses and the management in the IRS, the picture really starts changing as to what the ultimate possibilities could end up as.
And just so you understand me, I am not saying that the EO was specifically written to allow for collusion between the union bosses and worker management on nefarious deeds.
THEY have a PYRAMID, and OBAMA IS ON TOP,
the UNIONS follow and apply the RULES OR ELSE
the rest must do and produce,
the top is crumbling because of to much dirt and crap on,
OBAMA didn’t think that would become too heavy so to destroy it,
and now it’s loosing some stones
destabilizing the whole STRUCTURE
now you have to demolish the whole PYRAMID
by IMPLODING IT
Tom, Nixon did not participate in the breakin at the Watergate hotel. If you are the boss and your employees break the law, you are held responsible if they are breaking the law while working for you. You display your ignorance rather blatantly here.
That is interesting, for sure. Here’s the thing though. I would not be shocked if the individuals involved in this are ‘liberals’. I mean, a person working at the the IRS is not a blank slate without a viewpoint, just awaiting the arrival of Obama to fill his head with anti-conservative thoughts. Certain jobs probably tend to skew toward certain ideologies. That doesn’t let people off the hook for doing something wrong, but realistically it’s entirely reasonable to assume this was an isolated incident, and that it didn’t require any particular Obama imprimatur to happen (certainly I admit it’s more likely with a Democratic President in power for those involved to have felt themselves empowered). The Inspector General’s report, to date by far the most in-depth investigation into this incident, shows absolutely zero evidence that this was anything but a localized incident.
But let me ask you this – while we’re dealing with the scandal that’s on everyone’s radar, why are we ignoring the other scandal, namely, the IRS was right? They were right. They may have gone about things in the wrong way, but the report itself backs their suspicions regarding these groups (per the Inspector General’s report):In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Imagine you’re the boss at that office, and your subordinate comes to you with information that tea party applications are testing off the charts political. Is it in the American tax payers interests, and are you performing your fiduciary duty as a government employee, to ignore this information? What if this imaginary supervisor had said: I don’t want to hear about “conservative” or “tea party”. I want every application that is vaguely political in nature to be pulled and set aside for a higher sample rate. This is eminently defensible, due to our current laws regarding campaign finance, this is a potential loop hole for funneling money anonymously to illegally influence American elections. But we won’t make it political – we’ll look at everyone.
Poof – there goes your scandal. And you know what? It wouldn’t have made a difference as to what was found. It would have still skewed 90% tea party and conservative. Either way, the problem exists, and is currently being ignored, swept under the table. All I can tell you is ignore this at your own peril. Today, it’s conservatives trying to illegally influence elections; who knows tomorrow.
Ok, Tom, I’ll bite on your question.
The reason it is being ignored isn’t because the IG report essentially agreed that the scrutiny was justified in the end, but rather, because it is clear as day that liberal and progressive groups were getting passes, whether or not they were actually doing the same things. And if you think, or believe, that the liberal and progressive groups are any more innocent than the groups targeted, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong.
No, the scandal is still there. Certain groups were specifically targeted while other groups more in line with liberal and progressive politics were given passes. Does that sound like a fair and equitable application of the law to you?
That is the mission statement of the IRS, Tom. What happened is not even close to meeting the IRS mission statement.
Wouldn’t it have, though? Unless you are completely naive, which you aren’t, or completely biased towards the left, which you don’t seem to be, it most certainly would have made a difference. Consider, if the law was applied fairly and equitably, how many of those liberal and progressive organizations would have had their tax-exempt status denied, or pulled? And how much of the money they would have had to pay in taxes wouldn’t have seen the political action that did? In my view, the money shuffled around during the campaigns in question would have come a little closer to being equal, and yes, money spent can and does equal votes. Not saying that it would have made a big difference, but it would have made some kind of difference.
And I agree that there certainly is a problem that is being swept under the rug regarding these tax-exempt organizations. Per some information out there, the bigger organizations, regardless of party affiliation or identification, also got passes. Big money buys the influence. It also buys the necessary greasing of palms so that the big money is there to influence. And that isn’t a phenomena associated with just one of the major political powers in our country, it applies to both.
Call it fair both ways. Otherwise the game is rigged, which is exactly what was happening at the IRS.
that woman at HUCKABEE have a business of teaching how to be A VOTE ACCOUNTANT,
she was harass and even the FBI came to her with all kind of QUESTIONS,
by the way THE FBI HAVE A NEW CHIEF, A WOMAN CHOSEN by OBAMA,
is she in the plot too? why would they harass that woman sent by the IRS?
that woman went through hell, she said 32 STATES where found guilty of rigging the ELECTION,
and she wanted to teach how to check the fraud in election by an officer who count the votes,
before the election, she trained the people to be better than just a pawn allowing the many frauds to happen.
she said ,it was worth it because now it’s in the public face to judge,
it cost her around A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS all those years to stand her ground,
she is now suing the IRS,
she is pregnant with other children and she want her children to be spare from that corruption,
And now, as predicted by those who called for patience until more facts emerged, the narrative that Obama orchestrated IRS audits for political purposes – a fake scandal invented and fueled by those who thrive and profit on Obama outrage – is starting to unravel.
Documents show IRS also screened liberal groups