Scandalous Times

The term "scandalous" has lost much of its panache; in a time when big-name politicians can, without a blush, blatantly lie about matters related to their office, does the word have any meaning for the public?

Apparently so.  At least, when the scandals pile up upon each other, and the president is so gauche as to threaten one of the Holy Media.

The interesting thing about looking at the record is that it's hard to cage the examination.  Once started, the press has begun to fall over themselves to be the first to point out THE SAME OUTRAGES THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT FOR OVER 4 YEARS!

Sorry for the caps; I just lose it, sometimes.

In no specific order:

• The AP government snooping scandal.


• The drone war - when Rand Paul (that's the son, who appears both rational and electable) filibustered, asking for answers about apparently unconstitutional killing of American citizens without due process, for the media, it was all a big yawn.  He's still asking questions, and people are starting to listen.  On ABC with Martha Raddatz, Paul says that there is:

...still a question in my mind of what he (Obama) thinks due process is. Due process to most of us is a court of law, it is a trial by jury. And, right now, their process is him looking at some flash cards and a PowerPoint on ‘Terror Tuesdays’ at the White House.

•  In all fairness, some in Congress (Rep. Peter King is a prime example) don't want the drone program eliminated. There is some discussion about whether killing of American citizens as a by-product of targeting terrorists is regrettable, but not illegal, or is totally wrong.


•  BTW, I'm one who believes that the "protest" of the Code Pink activist was a put-up job.  Obama could have kept her out, or chosen to let security do its thing.  He didn't; he wanted her to speak her piece, so he could have an opportunity to address a topic that is of interest to many in his camp.


• The IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative activist groups, which included - slowing down to a crawl approval of 501(c) status.  (See rules below)  Interestingly, Code Pink - the very essence of a completely political organization - DOES have that 501(c)(3) status.  If the rule was applied the same for both conservative and liberal organizations, I'd have no problem with it.  However, fair means FAIR - no giving advantage to groups you like, while denying that status to those you don't.

[A 501(c)(3) qualified nonprofit organization is not allowed to be involved in politics, so steer clear. Political nonprofit groups operate separately from this classification. Organizations that either support or oppose political candidates may face an excise tax or may even risk losing their tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service offers guidelines at www.irs.gov/charities.]

• BTW, some clarification for those who don't understand why this is so important.  501(c)(4) organizations are very similar in their tax status.  Conservative organizations don't want that status, because their membership and donor lists would become public, giving Leftists a chance to harass them, threaten members/donors employment/education/life. (That link - a GREAT source of balanced news - has ALL ends of the political spectrum.  I like it because I get to read a range of news/opinion - something that is lacking from most newspapers/news shows)

Amazingly, Newt Gingrich is a voice of reason.  He points out that "getting even" or even impeachment is NOT the goal. On CNN, Newt said:

I think this is a really important moment for Republicans in particular to make a decision: Is this a gotcha moment or is this a major educational opportunity?