Ken Berwitz

You have to love this...no matter what you think of Barack Obama.

From Maureen Dowd's latest column in today's New York Times, in which she writes about the major scandals hanging over President Obama and his administration:

Democrats are not worried that the rumpuses will hurt Obama's personal appeal or reputation for integrity.

SAY WHAT???????????

Yep, Maureen, Democrats are completely unworried about Benghazi, the LIE-RS scandal and the fact that the Associated Press (among others) is outraged at the bugging of its reporters avenues of communication, both at the office and at home.

You sure can tell by the comments some of them have made.

But that isn't even the main event.  It's that "reputation for integrity" line that jumped out at me.  Because, unlike most of what Ms. Dowd writes about Barack Obama, in this case I completely agree with her.

See, I don't think Barack Obama has any reputation for integrity.  Maybe does to some people, but not me.  And his integrity level certainly is not improved by the rope-a-dope tactics he is using on every scandal:  

-first, denying it exists,

-then, telling us there was less there than we were being told,

-then, telling us he didn't know a thing about it;  he found out the same time we did,

-then, blaming it on everyone but himself and his fellow Democrats, 

-and then, sternly telling us he will do everything necessary to get to the bottom of the thing that didn't exist/was unimportant/he never knew about/was someone else's fault -- without actually doing anything at all.

This is why Ms. Dowd is 100% correct.  These "rumpuses" (is that what they call scandals in Dowdville?) cannot affect Barack Obama's reputation for integrity.  Because when a reputation for integrity is zero, the only thing that can affect it is something that brings it up, not down.

Can anyone tell me what Mr. Obama has said/what actions he has taken on these scandals, which would do that?  Personally, I can't come up with any. 

For this reason, I congratulate Ms. Dowd on her conclusion.  In my mind, four and a half years of Barack Obama's lies and inaction on scandal after scandal, have kept his reputation for integrity perfectly intact.

An insight that accurate has to be in the running for Line Of The Year.

Ken Berwitz

I post this not in anger but in amusement.

Suppose you are a pseudo-leftist hypocrite like bill maher or michael moore - i.e. someone who makes a fortune spouting hard left BS, while living like a 1%-er on the money you make spouting it.

Well, now you are faced with the Obama & Co. - probably the closest you will get to having an administration which buys into your BS - exploding with major scandal after major scandal - Benghazi, and LIE-RS, and bugging the communications of Associated Press reporters, among others.  What do you do now?

Well, you attack people to their right (which is just about everyone) for hating the USA, that's what.  Hey, why not?  The people you appeal to will fall for it hook, line and sinker. 

Can't believe this is their way of getting around the Obama scandals? Well, read these two quotes from maher's latest HBO "Real Time" show and see for yourself:

MAHER:  "What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37^th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don't know, treason, you know? I mean they've also blocked Obama's head of the EPA. There's no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."

MOORE:  "No, they hate America.  That's really what it is. I think these conservatives and right-wingers for as much as they say they love this country, they hate it. They hate the government. They hate the people."

Ken Berwitz

Sarah Hall Ingram headed the tax-exempt division of the IRS during the time when it singled out groups most likely to be critical of President Obama. 

Since then, Ingram has been promoted, and now heads the IRS enforcement division in charge of ObamaCare.

Here is what President Obama had to say about the IRS scandal (or the LIE-RS scandal as I call it) on Thursday (bold print is mine):

Well, with respect to the IRS, I spoke to this yesterday.  My main concern is fixing a problem, and we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the Acting Director there.  We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that -- following up on the IG audit -- that we gather up all the facts, that we hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions.  As I said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to even be a hint of partisanship or ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws...

...So in addition to making sure that we've got a new acting director there, we're also going to make sure that we gather up the facts, and hold accountable and responsible anybody who was involved in this.  We're going to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again.  We're going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the IG has in the report.  

The "fact" is that the same person who was specifically in charge of "these outrageous actions" is currently in a position do do even more damage than she did while heading the tax-exempt division.

At what point, Mr. President, will Sarah Hall Ingram be held accountable?  Or is the only one you will "hold accountable" the acting Director, Steven Miller, whose resignation was absolutely meaningless since he was leaving in less than a month anyway?

Why does Sarah Hall Ingram still have her job?

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from the execrable Sarah Hall Ingram, who, from 2009 into 2012, ran the IRS division responsible for granting or not granting tax-exempt status to the groups which applied for it:  this was the most notorious period in which groups with things like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names were held up, literally for years while left wing groups had no such problems*.

Here is what Ingram had to say at a Georgetown University Law Center event in 2009:

"As a practical matter, we cannot subject every application for tax-exempt status to a painstaking, leave-no-rock-unturned review. Nor can we audit every organization's 990 every year. Nor would you want us to do so, right? To govern is to choose, and we must choose appropriately which applications or 990s to focus most attention on."

As is now crystal-clear, even to a good many Obamanite sycophants who have looked the other way at just about every other mess created by this administration (Chris Matthews and Piers Morgan being two of the most recent, and two of the most surprising) Igram's definition of choosing appropriately was to say no to the groups likely to criticize/work against her boss, while saying "yes" to the ones willing to play ball.

Keeping in mind that Quote Of The Day recipients do not have to say good things, or even honest things, only things that stand out regardless of how they might be thought of, Ingram gets her well-deserved recognition.

Now, why does this person still have a job at the IRS?  Didn't President Obama say he would rid us of the people responsible for this enormous scandal? 

Does his capacity for doing so begin and end at accepting the resignation of acting commissioner, Steven Miller, who was leaving the IRS within the month anyway?

=====================================================

*The far-left web site, dailykos.com, has laughably floated a piece claiming both sides were treated the same.  To make its case dailykos.com dredged up a total of 3 left wing groups.

Assuming the article's information is accurate:

-One of the groups had its tax-exempt request denied, with blogger Joan McCarter noting that none of the "Republican groups" (what basis has she for calling every one of them Republican?  None) got rejections -- which, is true, because none of them got any disposition at all.  For years.  Evidently, Ms. McCarter sees this as preferred treatment.

-One faced "the same lines of questionning" as the rightward groups...with no proof offered, nor any indication that the number of questions over the period of time for this one group was in any way comparable.

-One other "received IRS inquiries", which sounds like nothing with nothing.

This is supposed to cancel out 75 different groups being subjected to a years-long inquisition that would have done Torquemada proud, and a number of large donors to the Mitt Romney campaign whom the IRS suddenly decided to audit that year.

Now you know why I call it laughable.

Ken Berwitz

I have a feeling there will be a lot of posts like this one.

Here is the latest attempt to cover up one of the burgeoning Obama administration scandals - which are so big and so obvious that even his Accomplice Media, at least for the short run - have been forced to report on.

It comes in the form of a back-and-forth between Illinois Representative Aaron Schock, and acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller - the guy President Obama sternly told us he had accepted a resignation from, but who was, in actuality, leaving the IRS in a couple of weeks anyway because his temporary term was up (how does anyone believe a word that comes from Barack Obama's mouth?):

SCHOCK: "Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights.

"A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division - I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division - to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, 'In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?' Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?"

MILLER: "Sir, I'm going to be honest and I'm not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don't know that I can do that under 6103"

SCHOCK:  "Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, 'Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.' Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one"s prayers?" 

MILLER:  "It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either. But that's an..."

SCHOCK:  "You don't know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?"

MILLER:  "Speaking outside of this case, which I don't know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked".

SCHOCK:  "And finally during another applicant's conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, 'Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.' Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?"

MILLER:  "(It did not) sound like the usual question."

There you have it.  The "Gee, I don't know a thing about that" defense.  Learned, no doubt from the ongoing use of that same defense by Barack Obama, who, after over four years in the White House, is still claiming to whichever boobs still believe him that his Presidency is some kind of out-of-body experience.

If you believe this sorry bunch, you have to wonder if they ever showed up at their offices at all (hmmmm, though I meant that as a sarcasm,....in Mr. Obama's case, between the golf games, celebrity events he runs on the taxpayers' money and the fundraisers, it might be an actual issue).

More to come.  Count on it.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a question for you:  remember when President Obama pretended congress was in recess, so that he could make recess appointments?  I'm guessing that some do and some don't.

Here's another question:  Are you aware that two federal courts have nullified those appointments, because President Obama had no constitutional right to make them -- the second ruling issued just this past Thursday?  I'm betting very few know.

Why don't more citizens know about this overt abuse of power, and that it has been shot down, twice, by federal courts?  Because our wonderful "neutral" media have decided the public should not be aware of this...not while their lord and savior, Barack Obama, is busy fending off three other scandals.  Hey, it's not fair!

-In January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals nullified four of President Obama's recess appointments - three of them to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which Mr. Obama is determined to stack with pro-union hacks who are about as impartial as his White House staff.  You can click here to read the court's decision, which is none to diplomatic in its nullification.

-And now, the Third Court of Appeals has made the same ruling (If you're into legalese, click here to read it).

This is huge.  The President has been told, by two separate federal courts, that he has acted outside the constitution.  Is that a news story, or what?

Well, to ABC, CBS and NBC, the answer is..."or what".  Because - as noted by Ken Shepherd in his blog for newsbusters.org - not one of the three reported it on their national news shows Thursday night or on their Friday morning shows.  Not one word. 

In other words, the millions and millions of people who rely on these networks for news, don't even know these rulings exist, let alone what they say about how Barack Obama is running his presidency.

And then they wonder why people call them biased?  Unbelievable.

Ken Berwitz

As most people outside of Hollywood are aware, hugo chavez left Venezuela - an oil rich country which should be swimming in revenues - as a borderline economic basket case.

Bad enough that so many staples are in such short supply.  But toilet paper?  That's enough to wipe out the current government -- which probaby didn't win the post-chavez election anyway, since the margin was paper-thin and they were the ones in charge of the ballot boxes.

According to the Associated Press report (which probably means President Obama was chortling over the problem before we ever read about it), current President Nicholas Maduro is blaming the shortage on "anti-government forces".  Mr. Maduro did not make clear whether he was accusing those forces of hoarding toilet paper, or excessive wiping.

But not to worry.  Mr. Maduro has announced that the government will immediately import 760,000 tons of food, and 50 million rolls of toilet paper.

Great Scott, what a Charmin development this is - Maduro giving his constituents such Angel-Soft treatment.  Why, that man is on a roll.

Let me finish by offering my hope that, for the sake of Venezuelan tushies everywhere, the toilet paper arrives about the same time as the food.  I mean, there is something of a cause and effect issue here.

Ken Berwitz

It is over two and a half months into the sequester.  

Do you feel any different?  Do you think anything has changed?  Do you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket?

No?  Me neither - at least not for anything related to the sequester.

So isn't it heart-warming that, while school children and tourists still cannot get white house tours, President Obama can somehow scrape up the money for yet another celebrity-fest at the White House? 

Excerpted from Caroline May's article at dailycaller.com:

Amid sequester and scandal in Washington, the White House announced Friday that the president and first lady will be hosting another concert as part of their "In Performance at the White House" series later this month.

The event will be held in the East Room of the White House and honor singer and songwriter Carole King, who will be awarded the 2013 Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. King will be the first woman to receive the award, the White House noted in their announcement.

The program - to be streamed on the White House website and broadcast on PBS stations the evening of May 28 - will also feature performances by Gloria Estefan, Billy Joel, Jesse McCartney, Emeli Sande, James Taylor, Trisha Yearwood and King herself.

In 2002, Carole King sang "You've Got a Friend" for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro at a warming-relations dinner in Havana.

Wonderful.  What an excellent use of what we are told, however fraudulently, are our limited resources.

What does this tell you?  It tells you that, despite the doomsday warnings from Obama & Co. about the sequester collapsing our world, money can always be "found" for President Obama's personal amusement, so he can sit in the front row, like an anorexic version of Jabba the Hutt, while entertainment luminaries fawn over him for all those cameras.

And he is still trying to sell you on the premise that the sequester which he - not Republicans, but he - insisted be put in place, has brought our economy to the brink of disaster.

Think of it as a test to see just how dumb, and/or how unconditionally committed to Obama & Co., you are.  

Are you?

Ken Berwitz

Jay Carney is on a streak. 

Carney already is - at least in my mind - the most overtly dishonest press secretary in presidential history.  And it seems like every day he breaks the record he already holds with even more BS than he's already barfed out at the press corps - which, despite their own credibility problems, increasingly seems to be viewing him as a combination of Baghdad Bob and Joe Isuzu....with some vintage W. C. Fields thrown in for good measure.

His latest - and our Quote Of The Day winner?  Speaking of the Benghazi scandal, the Associated Press scandal and the Lie-RS Scandal, Carney says:

"I dismiss the premise, the idea that these are scandals"

Yep, right.  Thanks Jay.  Great credibility booster there. 

But do remember those words:  They very well may wind up as the epitaph for this woefully dishonest, abusive, damaging administration.

At the very least, they cop Quote Of The Day recognition. 

Well done, Mr. Carney.  You truly have learned a lot from your master.

Ken Berwitz

The Lie-RS scandal continues to grow.

Yesterday, writing in a USA Today op-ed page BS-a-thon, Steven Miller (the outgoing head of IRS, whose resignation President Obama made a big deal of accepting - without telling us that his term at IRS was ending anyway) tries to explain away the obvious targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.

Miller claims that it was an inadvertent "mistake". which occurred only because there was a huge increase in the number of applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status.  (Why that "mistake" occurred for only one side of the political aisle, remains unexplained).

This, of course, is a lie. 

Investors Business Daily shows us how completely bogus Miller's BS is in its excellent editorial from yesterday's edition.  Here is a key excerpt (bold print is mine):

A review of application data by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that when the IRS imposed its "tea party" rule in March 2010, tax-exempt applications had been on the decline - going from 1,751 in fiscal year 2009 to 1,735 in fiscal year 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The number did climb over the next two years, but only after the IRS already had put a hold on hundreds of conservative applications.

USA Today reported this week that after February 2010, the IRS didn't approve a single Tea Party tax-exempt application until spring 2012, although it approved dozens of comparable applications from liberal groups.

This shows Steven Miller to be a pathetic liar, desperately trying to cover his own butt, and the Barack Obama Chicago thugocracy's collective butts as well.

Oh, wait.  I'm sorry.  I forgot.  This has nothing to do with Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama - the prime beneficiary of the Lie-RS's hugo-chavezian behavior on his behalf - didn't know a thing about it, did he?  After all, he said so, right?

Besides, didn't President Obama angrily denounce the Lie-RS actions which benefitted him so greatly throughout the 2012 election cycle, and sternly tell us he will act decisively against the people who perpetrated these terrible deeds? 

Just like he told us he would act decisively against the video tape guy, er spontaneous protesters, er, terrorists who perpetrated last year's Benghazi massacre?  And we all know how that has turned out.

How could we have re-elected this man to four more years in the White House?  What have we done to ourselves?