If You Missed It … Washington Post Calls for the IRS to be Investigated Over Targeting Conservative Tea Party & Patriot Groups

In case you missed it on Friday and over the weekend, one of the most incredible things occurred … The liberal leaning Washington Post called for the investigation of the IRS and their current scandal of purposely and willfully targeting Conservative Tea Party organizations. In a scathing editorial, The Washington Post blasted the IRS – Playing politics with tax records. Make no mistake about it, the WAPO is calling for an investigation and our government is probably no longer worth any of our trust. It appears that the WAPO thinks that what the IRS did was a tad-bit “Nixonian”.

To “We the People” … This used to be America? It Ain’t no more …

Officer Does Not Like anti-Obama Poster: “It ain’t [America] no more, OK?”

A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.

So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.

“Mistakes were made,” the agency said in a statement. IRS official Lois Lerner explained that staffers used a “shortcut” to sort through a large number of applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status, highlighting organizations with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. The IRS insisted emphatically that partisanship had nothing to do with it. However, it seems that groups with “progressive” in their titles did not receive the same scrutiny.

If it was not partisanship, was it incompetence? Stupidity, on a breathtaking scale? At this point, the IRS has lost any standing to determine and report on what exactly happened. Certainly Congress will investigate, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised. Mr. Obama also should guarantee an unimpeachably independent inquiry.

UPDATE I: Now we learn that it is even worse than first thought … Non-Profit Groups that Criticized the Obama Government and Sought to Educate Americans.

Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”

BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …

Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”?  Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”

Video Hat Tip: The Gateway Pundit

Partial transcript from FOX News Sunday:

WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that information “could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.

FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.

WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?

KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.

WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.

CNN’s Gloria Borger Acknowldges Benghazi Talking Points “Were Edited to the Point of Inaccuracy” … Chris Cuomo: “Safe to Say this Goes Beyond Partisan Picking”

Add another Left-leaning main stream media outlet to those that are questioning the Barack Obama administration and the edited Benghazi terror attack talking points.

First MSNBC and now CNN is coming out against the Obama administration for editing the Benghazi talking points, in the aftermath of the terror attack that left four Americans dead, to the point where the events that took place were untrue. In a CNN interview between Chris Cuomo and  Chief political analyst Gloria Borger, neither had anything good to say about the 12 edited versions of the Benghazi talking points using such words as “cover-up” and “whitewash”. Gloria Borger said, the Obama Administration’s Benghazi talking points were “edited to the point of inaccuracy” and the question is “was it a cover-up or whitewash”. She would later say that the talking points were so edited that by the end, they did not even resemble the truth. The most amazing comment may have come from Chris Cuomo when he stated, “it’s safe  to say that this goes beyond partisan picking.” Did the LEFT just hear that? One of your own is saying that the GOP is not acting in a partisan manner. CNN is basically saying that the Obama administration played partisan politics for his reelection bid when four Americans died. Are you kidding, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed by terrorist and the Obama WH edited what occurred to the point it was a false narrative. We lost lives and needed to know what happened and Team Obama was more interested in talking points that fit his reelection. Cuomo called it unforgivable.

Maybe former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee was correct when he said during his radio show, President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

click on pic to listen to an unbelievable VIDEO from CNN discussing an Obama whitewash and editing the talking points to a point of inaccuracy

CNN Transcript:

GLORIA BORGER: What we see in this process is that these talking points were edited to the point of inaccuracy. The question is, is it a cover-up? Is it a whitewash? We don’t know the answer to that.

CHRIS CUOMO: I know. And you took my question. That’s exactly what I was going to ask you. Right? Because that’s what this gets to, 12. What’s the context? It sounds like a lot, but we have to know the nature and purpose of what those changes were.

GLORIA BORGER: So here’s the context. Over at the CIA they’re looking at some of these points, which include mention of Al Qaeda. And there’s a sense from some at the CIA, you know what, we don’t want to tip anybody that we’re investigating Al Qaeda on this, so let’s take out some of the references to Al Qaeda. What the CIA left in, apparently, was this sort of broader context of Al Qaeda in Benghazi in that part of the world. Those were eventually edited out. And there is an e-mail obtained by ABC news from someone at the State Department which asks, why should we leave that in because “it could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.” So clearly from a State Department official asking the question, why are we going to give members of Congress information, don’t forget in an election year, which they could turn around and beat us up with. And that’s how you see in evolving. Everybody’s got a different reason for editing it. And they edit it down to something that’s totally, turns out to be in fact untrue.

More from MSNBC … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”.

Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited

BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.

Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.”  The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST …  ABC News  has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration.  The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.

So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was  Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?

Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not  mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?

Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report  that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.

During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”

Thomas Hicks, We Knew Benghazi was a Terrorist Attack “from the Get-Go” … Dem Rep. Lynch Admits that Benghazi Talking Points: ‘It Was Scrubbed … It Was False Information.”

BENGHAZI-GATE just got worse for President Barack Obama and future presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

The headline might as well be, CBS News reports … Bombshell tonight, ala Nancy Grace; however, in this case, it truly is a bombshell and the Obama Administration has much explanting to do. Bob Schieffer from CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ started out by saying its the story that just won’t go away. For those Republicans in the House that think they have no political juice, here are words that I never thought I would ever hear from CBS News … “there is new information raising questions about whether there was a cover-up by the State Department to deflect criticism that it had ignored requests for more security for its people in Libya.”

That is much to the displeasure this morning in the Obama White House, with former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and the among the MSM who have tried to bury what really happened at the  Benghzi consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012.  Just how bad is the government cover-up of Benghazi-gate when CBS News is forced to report the new information and use the “cover-up” word? As discussed at the PJ Tatler, Thomas Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya and the number-two diplomat in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission reportedly told a congressional committee that they knew that it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”  This is a far different story that we were told directly after the terror attack that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Also, a much different story than put out by the Obama WH and that individuals have testified to in front of Congress.

“Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.

The House hearings on Benghazi this week with “whistle-blowers” Mark Thompson, Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrum just got a lot more interesting and promises to be must see TV,  http://Oversight.House.Gov at 11:30  here

Also this weekend on ‘FOX News Sunday’ with Chris Wallace, Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said that Susan Rice used “scrubbed” talking points on Benghazi to deliver “false information” to the American people. Lynch went on to say that, “Absolutely, they were false, they were wrong,” after being asked about Steve Hayes’s report on “The Benghazi Talking Points.” Damning.  It is pathetic yet all too common for this Administration that the moment there was a tragedy, as stated at Michelle Malkin.com they looked for the political advantage rather than leadership and dealing with the issue at hand rather than leadership and dealing with four dead Americans. It was all about the “talking points” and how Obama could exploit this, not about the death’s of four brave Americans.

The Weekly Standard has the transcript of the key parts of the discussion:

Lynch: “They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But, absolutely, they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies- this was not that type of case. This was a concerted effort. ”

Wallace “How do you explain the fact that that Sunday, UN Ambassador Rice came on this show and 4 other Sunday shows- never mentioned Al Qaeda extremists which had been scrubbed from the talking points- but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points?”

Lynch: “Well it was scrubbed- it was totally inaccurate. You’re absolutely right. There was no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they tried to was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East. Which was totally wrong.”

Wallace: “And do you think part of that was- do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that didn’t fit into President’s narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run?”

Lynch: “Well I, yeah, I think it was a victory of ‘hope over reality’- to be honest with you. They were hoping this wasn’t the case.”

As they say, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. However, in this case because four Americans died, both are equally as bad. It is obvious this cover up took place to play a four corners offense and delay the truth so that the reelection of Barack Obama could take place first, rather than “The One” having to deal with a “Watergate” prior to the 2012 election. And the MSM was all too willing to oblige.

I would say to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it looks like Benghazi just got a bit more recent.

Daily Commentary – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 – Heads Are Turning Over New Reality Show “Top Hooker”

• The search for the best HOOKER in American turns out to be referring to ANGLERS

Daily Commentary – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Download

Whistle-Blower Comes Forward and Says Obama Administration Lied & US Forces Could Have Intervened in Benghazi

BENGHAZIGATE … THEY LIED!!!

From Fox News “America’s News Room” via the Gateway Pundit comes the following bombshell interview with a “Whistle-Blower” that has come forward and says that the Barack Obama administration lied and that United States military forces could have intervened in Benghazi, Libya. The Obama administration has wanted this story to go away like the plague. It has been a cover-up from day one.  In December 2012 Admiral Mike Mullen held a press briefing stating that there simply was not enough time for US forced to intervene in Benghazi on 9-11. The result was the death of four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who had asked for aid and none arrived. The Whistle-Blower stated that US forces in Croatia or Spain had time to respond and save the Americans pinned down at the Benghazi. Instead, there was no action from this White House.

Now a “whistle blower” has come forward. Who thinks that the Obama administration and the liberal MSM are going to circle the wagons?

Wolf Blitzer the Latest in a case of “SWATing” … Hoax Sends Police to His Bethesda, MD Home (Update: Add Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) to the List)

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer is the latest to be drawn into the hoax, known as “SWATing”. According to the WAPO, Montgomery County police received an urgent message at about 6:25 p.m. Saturday saying someone had been shot at Wolf Blitzer’s home and responded by sending officers to his Bethesda, MD home.  It is unbelievable that individuals would act so irresponsible to make such faux calls that divert resources that might otherwise go elsewhere to respond and resolve an actual emergency.

Montgomery County police received an urgent message at about 6:25 p.m. Saturday saying someone had been shot at Wolf Blitzer’s home in Bethesda. Officers streamed toward the CNN host’s residence near Congressional Country Club. They set up a perimeter.

But a dispatch supervisor was immediately skeptical, and a call to CNN confirmed it: The message was a fraud. Blitzer was fine — was, in fact, out of town. The authorities were dealing with another case of “SWATing,” in which someone jolts police into action with a fake distress call and technological trickery.

Patterico’s Pontifications as a long list of others who have been “SWATTED”:

 roll call of the SWATted: Wolf Blitzer; Ted Lieu; Erik Rush; Ryan Seacrest; Russell Brand; Selena Gomez; Justin Timberlake; Rihanna; Sean Combs; Chris Brown; Tom Cruise; Paris Hilton; Clint Eastwood; Brian Krebs; the Jenners and Kardashians; Justin Bieber; Miley Cyrus; Ashton Kutcher; Simon Cowell; Aaron Walker; Erick Erickson; Mike Stack; and me.

UPDATE I: Add Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) to the “SWATTING” list via Twitchy.

Last night, SWAT-ting came to Congress. Via Wood TV:

The heavy police presence seen outside of Congressman Mike Rogers’ Howell home on Saturday night was called there because of an “unfortunate prank,” the congressman said in a statement.

The Livingston County Sheriff’s Department told Lansing affiliate WILX that it was “a high-priority situation.” Police cleared the scene by 10:45 p.m. Saturday.

Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, describes it as a “prank.”

NBC’s Chelsea Clinton Fantastic Interviewing Skills on Display …The GEICO Gecko?

Just curious, how come the LEFT and Barack Obama do not complain about the following not being fair?

It must be nice to be the daughter of a former president of the United States, otherwise Chelsea Clinton would never have landed this plum position with NBC. Watch the following video and listen to this riveting interview with the GEICO Gecko. Good grief, are you serious? Talk about getting the big gets.  If the material was not bad enough, the interviewing style and her voice are just unreal. Does anyone honestly thing that if Chelsea was not the daughter of Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton she would ever have got this job? Talk about nepotism and the rich getting richer.

From News Busters:

CHELSEA CLINTON: Getting pigeon-holed is a worry even for a gecko. So he was only too happy to answer our questions. Are you concerned about being typecast?

GECKO: Well, I definitely don’t get the hunky leading man roles. Although I could probably get the hunky leading gecko roles.

CLINTON: Have you always had that accent?

GECKO: Sorry, Chelsea, what accent?

CLINTON: After 15 years of selling insurance, this commercial star is looking to branch out.

GECKO: I’m out on the road promoting my new book “You’re Only Human.” Shameless plug there.

CLINTON: Is there a down side to all this fame?

GECKO: Well, it seems the more famous you are the more likely someone is to dig up your old yearbook photos

 If she can’t properly interview a lizard, why does anyone think she is qualified to run for political office? Oh, that’s right, it does not matter, she offspring of the Clintons.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “All We Do Is Kill Arabs On International Television, That Might Have Something To Do With Jihad”

More blaming of America by Leftist MSNBC’s Chris Matthews …

Chris Matthews went on his liberal rant on ‘Hard Ball’, insisting that he opposes intervention into Syria and said that America spends too much of its energy intervening in Arab nations. “It’s all we do is kill Arabs on international television,” he opined. “I think that might have something to do with Jihad.” Huh, so once again we have the LEFT blaming America for radical Islam and their killing of infidels. According to Matthews, we have something to do with “jihad”. It is truly sad that those on the LEFT actually believe this nonsense. So I guess Matthews believes America was responsible for 9-11 as well?

From Mediaite:

Matthews confessed he is, as a “Vietnam guy,” often suspicious of intervention in foreign conflicts. “As horrible as that may be,” he added.

“As long as Syrians are fighting Syrians, that’s better than us fighting Syrians,” Matthews continued. “If we don’t stop killing Arabs on international television one of these days. It’s all we do is kill Arabs on international television.”

“I think that might have something to do with Jihad,” he concluded. “Just guessing.”