IRS Bad Customer Service

We have our choice of buzz words here.  If we want to follow the Founders, we can choose "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."  If we want to talk to liberals in their own language we can use Disparate Impact or Voter Suppression.  Liberals want to call it just bad customer service.  If this had been done by Nixon or Bush to liberal groups, liberals would call it fascist, racist, sexist and a threat to our democracy.  It's interesting how fast the Pravda Press (MSM) jumped to the conclusion that Sarah Palin ads caused the Gabby Giffords shooting, but they have no idea why the IRS would target conservative groups.  To me, it brings back English history.  "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"  When King Henry II of England said that in 1170, some of the king's men murdered Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.  This benefited the king, who was in a political struggle for control of England with Becket.   Luckily, Obama's incitement didn't get that violent.  However, "The One" did benefit by causing the Tea Party to be so much less of a factor in 2012 than in 2010 that liberal pundits were celebrating the change.  

Benghazi: People Died, Obama Lied

People died.  Obama lied.  Liberals want to talk about anything but the basic facts.  However, neither George Bush nor global warming was involved.  Anything liberals bring up about Benghazi is a deliberate red herring.  For example, liberals say there is no scandal.  It’s just partisan politics.  This is a classic case of projection, assuming conservative will carry water for their cause no matter what the truth is.  Liberals usually carry water for their cause without regard to the facts, so they assume conservatives are doing the same.  So if questioning Benghazi is partisan hackery, why won't the president reveal that he went to bed while the attack was in progress.  He needed to be well rested for his fundraiser in Las Vegas on September 12.  Panetta testified that the president and Secretary of State not involved in the decisions he made during the attack.  Journalists were like baying hounds when two US Navy aircraft shot down two Libyan aircraft over the Gulf of Sidra in 1981.  They demanded to know why President Reagan was not awakened to be told of the incident.  He famously replied that if the Libyan planes had shot down our aircraft, his staff would have gotten him up.  They didn't need him if our aircraft shot down theirs.  Point is, no Pravda Press MSM journalist has even bothered to ask what Obama was doing during the attack.    There is a similar lack of interest in the activities of president in waiting Hillary Clinton. 

In her congressional testimony, Hillary Clinton said, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."  Even in this testimony, Clinton is trying to maintain the spontaneous protest narrative.  So how can we tell what happened while all of this Obama administration obfuscation is flying around?  Why haven't the survivors who were on the ground in Benghazi testified?  Why hasn't Patrick F. Kennedy, the man responsible for the security cuts in Libya, testified about why he approved the cuts?  The Democrats are trying to blame Republican budget cuts for the security cuts in Libya, which sounds to me a lot like furloughing air traffic controllers due to sequestration.  Why hasn't General Carter Ham, Commander of GOC Africa Command (Africom) on 9/11/12, been allowed to testify?  

A comment on one of the Benghazi articles (link below), speculated that maybe there was some reason the Administration wanted Ambassador Stevens dead.  It wouldn't be the first time someone was put at the front of battle and conveniently killed.  This comment really threw me back to Sunday school and Uriah the Hittite.  King David put him in a position to get killed in a battle, then withdrew support.  The motive was probably different for Obama.  David was sleeping with Uriah's wife.  But this post really started me thinking about why Stevens was hung out to dry.  One other thing I noticed, since I live in Chicago.  Both of Obama's rivals for the Senate in 2004 were forced out of the race or defeated by leaks about their divorces.  General Petraeus got treatment similar to Jack Ryan and Blair Hull, at a time convenient to Obama.  I have always thought that Petraeus’ forced resignation fit the pattern of rivals to Obama being eliminated by a scandal in their marriage.

My father, a lawyer, used to say that if you didn't have the law or the facts on your side, then pound the table. Liberals are pounding the table with talk of “near-pathological" Republicans who are trying to "invalidate the Obama presidency." What do you think this means?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347608/benghazi-do-i-say-or-i-do

Difference Between Reagan Success, Obama Failure

Fact is we were in worse shape in 1981 when Reagan took over than we were in 2009 for Obama.  Reagan lowered tax rates and reduced regulation.  Reagan also encouraged the Federal Reserve to tighten the money supply.  Obama increased spending by 800 billion dollars in "stimulus."  Obama increased tax rates on "the rich."  Obama increased regulation by hundreds of thousands of pages.  The Obama era Federal Reserve has been through God knows how many quantitative easings.  In short Obama did the exact opposite of Reagan in every way possible.  Reagan boosted the economy from disaster and took unemployment from 7.6 percent to 5.5 percent.  Obama kept the economy in the doldrums and took unemployment from 7.8 to 7.5 percent, with a detour in the middle to 10 percent.  As far as the banks "ripping off kids," I thought Obama nationalized the student loan program, and that liberal professors failed to teach anything valuable for graduates in the marketplace.  The housing bubble was caused by government requirements to make loans by race instead of by credit ratings.  So instead of disparate impact due to making solid loans, we had disparate impact in defaults and bankruptcies by loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back.   In general, the liberal solution to any problem is more government, especially if the government caused the problem in the first place.  In effect, more cow bell.

WMDs in Iraq: Liberal Ignorance

Liberals are fond of saying there were no WMDs in Iraq.  They think this is the perfect argument for not doing anything militarily based on intelligence. This premise is ludicrous.  It ignores the basic facts of Iraq’s WMD history.  There WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Saddam used all of his WMDs killing his own people before we got there.  In a way, we just lost count.  Saddam killed 3,200 to 5,000 Kurdish civilians in one poison gas attack alone, on Halabja, Iraq, on March 16, 1988.  He injured 7,000 to 10,000 more.  Intelligence analysts knew this history, even if liberals today forget or ignore it.  Bush knew it too when he made the decision to invade.  Congress did too when both houses voted to authorize the attack.  The One had no congressional vote on his Libyan attacks. Bush had bipartisan authorization for Iraq.  Liberals' ignorance never fails to impress this redneck.