Skip to main content

New information on the IRS ordeal - the White House wasn't involved

I hate to brag about my record on the Obama Administration's "scandals," but unlike most Congressional Republicans, appear to be batting a perfect 1.000 at this point.

With regard to Benghazi, I noted that while there appeared to be a great deal of incompetence shown by the administration in the attacks themselves and the response to the attacks, the charge of a cover-up was unlikely. That appears to have been just the case.

I then stated that the biggest problem dealing with the IRS ordeal wasn't the targeting of certain political groups, which occurred during the Bush Administration as well, but the vague language used to establish 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status to certain groups as well as the Citizen's United ruling. I also confidently noted that the White House likely had nothing to do with the political targeting of groups. New information brought to light by Maryland Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings appears show that, as I contended, the White House was not involved in these cases of political targeting by the IRS.

In an interview with the House Oversight Committee, a man who worked for the IRS (the Cincinnati manager) and described himself as a "conservative Republican," said the following:

"I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development."

and

"I have no reason to believe that." (when asked whether or not the White House was directly involved in the screenings of Tea Party cases)

I now seriously hope that the focus, as it should have been all along, is placed on the Department of Justice - the AP leaks and NSA spying. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the media will be the only ones truly angered about the AP leaks and no matter how many people are uncomfortable with the NSA spying, it's highly unlikely majorities in both chambers of commerce will take action and overturn portions of the Patriot Act.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/09/democrats-say-conservative-irs-employee-refutes-charges-of-white-house-meddling/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/09/2126151/irs-staff-undermine-gop-claims-that-washington-directed-targeting-of-conservative-groups-top-democrat-says/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"