Twenty of Obama’s “Phony” Scandals

About those Phony Scandals

Top Twenty List of Obama administration scandals both past and present!

Scandal-wise the Obama administration has been a group of very busy beavers!
People watching and listening to the news for the first time today might be inclined to think that IRSgate, the Benghazi murders and the apparent violation of the First Amendment rights at AP and Fox are the only taints on the Obama administration’s record.

That of course would be untrue as scandal has been rife throughout these five years that Barack Obama has been in office (and during his campaign leading into his 1st-term as well).

The difference now is that the mainstream media is finally beginning to do its job and report it!

Compiled by White House Dossier, these are the first ten of his Top Twenty Obama administration scandals list with a link to read the second ten.

1. IRS targets Obama’s enemies: The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.

2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one:
The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission.
The changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video
The refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack

3. Watching the AP: The Justice Department performed a massive cull of Associated Press reporters’ phone records as part of a leak investigation.

4. Rosengate: The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.

5. Potential Holder perjury I: Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been associated with “potential prosecution” of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.

6. The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme: Allowed weapons from the U.S. to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

7. Potential Holder Perjury II: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.

8. Sebelius demands payment: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for ObamaCare.

9. The Pigford scandal: An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn’t face discrimination.

10. GSA gone wild: The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.

11 to 20 here: http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/31/obamas-top-twenty-scandals/?awt_l=GBoeV&awt_m=3g_JRjKRE7TM1Od

Read full story here: http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/06/top-twenty-list-of-obama-administration-scandals-both-past-and-present-2523226.html

28 Comments

  1. The Obama Administration’s ongoing attempts to subvert justice, smear George Zimmerman as a racist murderer, manufacture evidence against him, and then use the courts to railroad an innocent man into prison for decades surely qualifies as a scandal deserving of consideration for inclusion on the list somewhere near the middle.

  2. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/07/30/206654000/montanas-state-run-free-clinic-sees-early-success

    Montana’s State-Run Free Clinic Sees Early Success

    A year ago, Montana opened the nation’s first clinic for free primary healthcare services to its state government employees. The Helena, Mont., clinic was pitched as a way to improve overall employee health, but the idea has faced its fair share of political opposition.

    A year later, the state says the clinic is already saving money.

    [...]

    The state contracts with a private company to run the facility and pays for everything — wages of the staff, total costs of all the visits. Those are all new expenses, and they all come from the budget for state employee healthcare.

    Even so, division manager Russ Hill says it’s actually costing the state $1,500,000 less for healthcare than before the clinic opened.

    “Because there’s no markup, our cost per visit is lower than in a private fee-for-service environment,” Hill says.

    Physicians are paid by the hour, not by the number of procedures they prescribe like many in the private sector. The state is able to buy supplies at lower prices.

    Bottom line: a patient’s visit to the employee health clinic costs the state about half what it would cost if that patient went to a private doctor. And because it’s free to patients, hundreds of people have come in who had not seen a doctor for at least two years.

    Hill says the facility is catching a lot, including 600 people who have diabetes, 1,300 people with high cholesterol, 1,600 people with high blood pressure and 2,600 patients diagnosed as obese. Treating these conditions early could avoid heart attacks, amputations, or other expensive hospital visits down the line, saving the state more money.
    —–

  3. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 18:42

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:
    http://www.npr.org/2013/07/30/206654000/montanas-state-run-free-clinic-sees-early-success

    Montana’s State-Run Free Clinic Sees Early Success

    I will take your info at face value and not challenge what NPR said. But what happens in Montana is not typical of what happens in the rest of the country. The population of MT is about 1/7th of New York City alone. MT has less than One Million people and the dynamics of that state are different than that of at least 35 states with multi-million populations and can not compare to what happens say in California at over 35 times the population.

    A year or so ago this comparison was made on four Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. Each of these countries have a population around 5 to 6 million with a very homogeneous society. So, the people of the country have concern for their fellow citizens. Therefore, socialized medicine works. Where it doesn’t work is very near-by in Great Britian. GB does not function in the mentality of the Scandinavians.

    And if Obamacare is a one size fits all deal, it will fail due to the disparity of the 50 states which in some ways a 50 mini-cultures in a culture that is disintigrating.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/population-of-montana/

  4. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    Is that what you always say before posting something that has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the topic under discussion?

    I mean, sh!t, why don’t you post about your butt wiping technique next time? It would be about as relevant.

  5. Yesterday, WH spokesbuffoon Jay Carney included the multifaceted Benghazi scandal and associated talking points, along with the IRS scandal, in Obama’s recently revealed and highly publicized list of Phony Scandals. (For clarity I’ll focus on Benghazi here and address the IRS scandals later.) Carney didn’t deny the actual attack of 9/11/12, that would be going too far even for the Obama Administration.

    The initial response from both the WH and the State Department was to circulate a hastily concocted account of a purely bogus event, an imaginary spontaneous demonstration, sparked by an obscure video, that somehow turned violent and resulted in an unplanned attack (coincidentally on the anniversary of al Qaeda’s attack on the Twin Towers in NY city on 9/11) on the US mission in Benghazi where the US Ambassador just happened to be without benefit of appropriate security forces, and which resulted in his death plus the deaths of 3 more Americans and a still unknown number of wounded.

    The Administration’s account of the attack, the talking points memo was a complete fabrication from stem to stern, it was one dirty lie after another, and each and every one of them designed to shift the blame away from the two officials most responsible: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They’re certainly not the only ones with blood on their hands, but they’re the ones the lies were manufactured to protect.

    Unwilling to face questions themselves, Obama and Clinton sent US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, out to sell the Administration’s Big Lie on 5 Sunday TV political talk shows. Few rational observers bought the fabrication, but the Administration’s lapdogs in the print and broadcast media pretended to accept it, until the facts began to emerge and the Big Lie started to fall apart bit by bit. After months of attempting to push their false narrative, the Administration has been stonewalling Congressional investigations, and they continued to stonewall and to deceive, now they’re cynically mocking attempts to uncover the truth by denying the scandal’s validity.

    Their latest tactic is to label it a Phony Scandal, but the only thing phony about the Benghazi scandal is the Administration’s response to it. They’re the ones who pushed a phony account of the deadly event, they’re the ones who gave the parents of the dead Americans a phony promise to bring the murdering terrorists to justice, they’re the ones who invented this phony label to minimize their responsibility, and they’re the ones with blood on their hands and lies on their lips.

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the deaths and for the lies, Jay Carney is responsible for the lies, and the only thing phony about Benghazi is the Obama Administration’s unbroken string of lies, damn lies, and belly crawlin’ lies designed to provide cover for the cowards at the top, Obama and Clinton, who have proved themselves unworthy of the public’s trust and unfit for high office.

  6. The Administration’s account of the attack, the talking points memo was a complete fabrication from stem to stern, it was one dirty lie after another, and each and every one of them designed to shift the blame away from the two officials most responsible: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    You have no evidence other than the biased right wing propaganda machine, and that doesn’t count.

    After months of attempting to push their false narrative, the Administration has been stonewalling Congressional investigations, and they continued to stonewall and to deceive, now they’re cynically mocking attempts to uncover the truth by denying the scandal’s validity.

    Citation please!

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the deaths and for the lies, Jay Carney is responsible for the lies, and the only thing phony about Benghazi is the Obama Administration’s unbroken string of lies, damn lies, and belly crawlin’ lies designed to provide cover for the cowards at the top, Obama and Clinton, who have proved themselves unworthy of the public’s trust and unfit for high office.

    More outright lies here from an unpatriotic American traitor who delights in promoting propaganda and who has proven himself unworthy of abiding by the results of elections, therefore in favor of a coup d’etat against our President by his opposition party in order to retake power, and congressional dysfunction.

    A congressional approval rating which is well south of 20% is proof enough that the majority of American people are fed up with the ropelights in our midst.

  7. Eric addressing Phoenician in a time of Romans

    “I mean, sh!t, why don’t you post about your butt wiping technique next time? It would be about as relevant.”

    Eric, please. Last time someone gave him an opening like that he went on about his fungus feet and suppurating backside, or whatever other disgusting chronic physical problems it was he had.

    Opening a conversation with the New Zealand librarian is like pulling the cover off a cesspit.

  8. There’s nothing phony about the IRS scandal either. The Obama Administration’s attempt to stifle political opposition reached overt public expression in the 2010 State of the Union (SOTU) speech when President Obama, addressing a joint session of Congress with many of his cabinet secretaries and several Supreme Court justices in attendance, and in front of a national TV audience, rudely hectored the SC justices for their recent decision in the Citizens United case. And, the coward did it in a forum where decorum prevented the justices from responding to his reprehensible conduct.

    In Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the SC held the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

    According to Wikipedia:

    The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA) In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

    The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July ’08 decision by the DC District Court. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or from paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.

    In their Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures in support of political positions and from engaging in “electioneering communications”.

    President Obama and the Kool-Aid left was outraged and used the opportunity of his SOTU to express his anger and frustration, but that rude public venting wasn’t the end of Obama’s vengence, not by a long shot. Scarcely a month later the IRS began targeting organizations with TEA Party, patriot, or 9/11 in their names. Next, IRS managers issued a BOLO (be on the look out) for applications for non-profit status from TEA Party affiliated groups. They were singled-out for special scrutiny, delayed, subjected to intrusive questioning, and essentially prevented from exercising their Constitutional right to organize and to participate in the political processes of representative democracy.

    In a September 2010 address, Obama warned against conservative groups posing as non-profit organizations. In October the drumbeat continued, Obama called conservative political groups a problem for democracy. And, the IRS, under Director Shulman and manager Lois Lerner complied with Obama’s instructions, they conspired to obstruct, delay and effectively prevent TEA Party patriots from achieving non-profit status leading all the way up the presidential elections of 2012.

    Obama’s blatant and ongoing criminal misuse of the official institutions of the federal government to suppress political opposition helped to secure his illegitimate reelection to a second term. 5 days after the polls closed IRS Director Shulman stepped down and ran for cover as storm clouds gathered and heavy winds threatened to blow the lid off one of the worst scandals in recent memory, and there isn’t a damn thing that’s phony about a crooked president using the IRS to subvert an election.

  9. More outright lies here from an unpatriotic American traitor who delights in promoting propaganda and who has proven himself unworthy of abiding by the results of elections, therefore in favor of a coup d’etat against our President by his opposition party in order to retake power, and congressional dysfunction.

    With toadying bootlicking such as this, it’s easy to see how guys like Adolf Hitler came to power. Like Hitler, you want to destroy all political opposition to his dictatorship as “Unpatriotic” and “Traitors”.

    Seriously, Perry Hood, you belong in North Korea, where they put in place your type of political system. You don’t belong in a country of free citizens like this one.

  10. Eric, please. Last time someone gave him an opening like that he went on about his fungus feet and suppurating backside, or whatever other disgusting chronic physical problems it was he had.

    Opening a conversation with the New Zealand librarian is like pulling the cover off a cesspit.

    On Miss Amanda Marcotte’s new website, Pho claimed to have a “Fiance”. If this mythical creature really exists, then I would suggest to him that he keep her out of the ocean during whaling season.

  11. Jake Tapper at CNN has an Exclusive Report on the pressure being brought to bear on Benghazi CIA operatives to keep quiet. (excerpt follows, emphasis added)


    Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

    CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

    Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

    Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

    CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

    Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.

    The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

    It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

    In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”

    Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

  12. 5th Amendment Queen, Lois Lerner is the link between the IRS and the Federal Elections Commission where she worked for nearly a decade, from the mid-80s to the mid-90s before moving to the IRS in 1995. Apparently, in both positions, she was fully engaged in obstructing opposition to leftist political ambitions. The RightWingPatriot posted the following article dated 8/1/13.

    IRS Scandal Widens to FEC

    The old adage says that where there’s smoke, there’s fire is getting truer with every new revelation in the ongoing IRS scandal. Since the onset of the scandal, America has been told a pack of lies from the Obama administration and various federal agencies. First they claimed that it was just a couple of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office, which has been refuted in that orders came down from Washington to interfere with conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Then we found out that other federal agencies got involved with harassing and intimidating tea party conservative groups. Next came the news that the IRS gave documents of said groups (which was illegal) to at least one liberal group, possibly more.

    The lies kept piling on as time went by and Congress probed deeper. We were told that there was no conservative bias as liberal groups were targeted as well, but this was just a smokescreen. No liberal groups were denied tax-exempt status, unlike conservative groups and tea party groups who had previously gotten such status found themselves being audited. Finally, IRS official Lois Lerner pleaded the Fifth Amendment at her Congressional hearing as she is obviously up to her eyeballs in lawbreaking.

    Now another shoe has dropped in the IRS harassment of conservative groups. Emails have surfaced that shows Lois Lerner colluding with an attorney in the Federal Election Commission to influence the FEC’s votes on cases involving a conservative non-profit organization. As reported by National Review Online, the emails show that an FEC attorney received tax information on the American Future Fund, a conservative group, before recommending that the FEC prosecute the group for violating campaign financing laws. The IRS divulging such information is highly illegal, but it appears that Lois Lerner supplied such information.

    Lois Lerner has ties with the FEC, where she worked from 1986 to 1995. At the FEC, Lerner showed the same draconian progressive zeal that she showed at the IRS later on by specifically targeting conservative groups. While she and her cohorts claim that her interest lied in diminishing the influence of money in politics, but statistics show that she was unconcerned with Democratic monetary influence and focused on Republican monetary influence.

    This situation just continues to illustrate the workings of progressive liberals and their mindset. They ignore the law when it would harm their side and they use the full weight of government to grind down and destroy those they disagree with. That’s why they continually work to expand the size, scope, and power of the government and why so many government workers are progressive liberals. Like a cancer, once they’re entrenched, they only seek to spread by hiring others of their ilk and forcing out the unbelievers.

    Sadly, the IRS scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. How many government agencies are pushing the progressive agenda through rules and regulations that Congress isn’t even aware of? These scandals are not the result of a rogue worker or two, but a coordinated campaign across multiple federal agencies. We need to dramatically cut back the size and scope of government, but to do that, we’ll need to elect politicians who actually believe in the Constitution and have a spine. Easier said than done.

  13. Sadly, the IRS scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. How many government agencies are pushing the progressive agenda through rules and regulations that Congress isn’t even aware of?

    The only part I disagree with is we should NEVER refer to them as “Progressives” or to their ideology as “Progressive”. They should be referred to as left wingers, Marxists, or collectivists. They call themselves “Progressive” because it hides the true nature of their objectives, and because other labels, such as “Liberal” and “Socialist” have become discredited in the public imagination. “Progressive” makes it sound like they want profess, but if progress means more freedom, then their goals are the exact opposite.

  14. Eric, as you’re likely aware, everything old is new again: Leftists called themselves Progressives from the 1890s to the late 1920s when their failures accumulated to the point they had to change names to remain viable. Woodrow Wilson’s inability to force the US into the League of Nations at the end of WW-1 pretty much signaled the beginning of the end of the Progressive Era, so presto-changeo Liberals emerged from the ashes to push the same failed programs while pretending to distance themselves from the stigma of Progressivism.

    But, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. As Liberals embraced the same policies that doomed Progressives, liberal too, in its turn, also became an increasingly dirty word. By the end of Jimmy Carter’s single term in office ambitious Democrat politicians found the public increasingly unlikely to vote for candidates associated with liberal policies, so leftists began to call themselves New Democrats instead. And pretended to favor limitations on the size and scope of government. Which served them well enough till Bill (the era of big government is over) Clinton’s gross sexual misbehavior in the Oval Office and his duplicitous lies while testifying under oath sickened the nation and left Democrats scrambling for another new alias to hide their shame.

    If Democrats were to win elections it was going to be essential for them to dodge the accumulated negative connotations because both Liberal and New Democrat became evermore closely associated with higher taxes, bigger and less efficient bureaucracies, increasing regulation, massive government corruption, kowtowing to union thugs, racist social policies, massive spending programs, weakness abroad, municipal bankruptcy, and runaway cradle to the grave welfare.

    Once again, cynical leftists decided that rather than change their collectivist approach to governance they’d use the old switcheroo again, they’d successfully pulled the wool over the voter’s eyes before with clever name changes. So, they quit calling themselves Liberals and went back to calling themselves Progressives for the reasons Eric cites above. Which of course were largely the very same reasons leftists had to abandon Progressive 80 years before.

    Since most Americans who lived through the Progressive Era were dead, and since progressive public education policies had dumbed-down several generations of students, and since the Establishment media could be counted on to stomp on anyone trying to wise-up the suckers, there wasn’t much chance today’s voters would snap to the tricky con job, certainly not enough of them to make a difference.

    So, there you have it, Progressives became Liberals who morphed into New Democrats who reverted back to being Progressives. And, all the while pushing the same policies that brought us the Federal Income Tax, Prohibition, the Federal Reserve System, the Direct Election of Senators, Social Welfare, Big Labor, Entitlements, Economic Stimulus, Green Energy, ObamaCare, etc. ect. etc.

    (In fairness I should point out that not all Progressive policies were complete failures, some have proved their value, like Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation but are characteristically burdened with excessive bureaucracies and massive corruption, others have resulted in improved conditions for women and minorities, women’s suffrage for example. There is much more to the story of the Progressive Era and it’s ongoing contributions and burdens on American politics. Anyone interested can find plenty of information on the Internet.)

  15. (In fairness I should point out that not all Progressive policies were complete failures, some have proved their value, like Social Security, Medicare

    Actually, I would disagree even on these. My disagreement is on two levels; practical and on principle.

    1. Practical. When these two programs started out, they were a relatively small portion of the total federal budget, but now they are both so immense they together make up more than half of all government spending. And politicians (especially left wing politicians) use this to pit two groups of citizens against each other. The old people are greedy for more and more benefits while the people paying for those benefits, today’s taxpayers, are being screwed because there are fewer and fewer of them, percentage wise, to pay into the system. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme that is bound to collapse eventually, but there will probably be a political bloodbath between the generations before this happens.

    2. Principle. Social Security was the proverbial camel’s nose inside the tent of collectivism. The point was to establish the principle that people could, indeed, should, be dependent on government. Once that principle was established, there were now no limits to what the government could do. Indeed, if one accepts Social Security, then one really has no valid right, on principle, to object to ObamaCare. It’s all part of the same toxic collectivist stew – the notion that the government had a RIGHT to take away part of your freedom in return for it giving you “Benefits”

  16. Eric wrote: Indeed, if one accepts Social Security, then one really has no valid right, on principle, to object to ObamaCare. (emphasis added)

    Nonsense, absolute nonsense, the two are drastically dissimilar, and neither one is a right. Our rights are specified in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, and the concept shouldn’t be so casually abused by conflating it with legislation. Our Founders acknowledged that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights which were no more subject to the proclamations of British potentates then, than they are now to the changing whims of Congressmen temporarily holding elected office.

    Social Security payouts are returns on individual contributions made over a working lifetime. Recipients aren’t accepting charity, they’re getting back a small portion of the money they’ve paid into the system. And, ObamaCare is an attempt to forcibly shortchange Medicare recipients and healthy young people in order to compel business owners to provide government mandated medical insurance to employees and others who’ll vote to keep Democrats in office.

    Social Security was designed to provide financial support for retired elderly by returning their accumulated contributions to them in monthly increments. It’s a recipient-funded government-run retirement system, where most retirees won’t live long enough to get their money back. Some do, but most don’t. And, like all government-run enterprises, it’s been abused, corrupted, and pillaged to the point it’s current bastard configuration is almost unrecognizable from the original.

    ObamaCare is the strong-arm of of government coercion into the private medical affairs of citizens, it’s effects will disrupt long-term personal relationships with trusted doctors, and it will subject the most in need of specialized treatment to the cold blooded calculations of cost-benefit analysis for evermore limited access to rationed procedures. Make no mistake, for senior citizens, ObamaCare is the new Auschwitz, Sarah Palin called it, dead on. ObamaCare took $700 billion out of Medicare, that’s $700 billion that won’t be spent on doctor’s visits and on medical treatment for America’s senior citizens.

    Retired Americans who’ve paid into Social Security have every right to the payouts they receive, and the federal government has no right to impose ObamaCare on citizens who overwhelmingly reject it.

    Now, Eric, I understand your general point, and by and large I agree with it, however conflating Social Security with ObamaCare to illustrate a principled objection to intrusive government overreach ensures your point will vanish into the background as excited debate focuses on the examples rather than on the underlying concept.

  17. Nonsense, absolute nonsense, the two are drastically dissimilar

    You’re right that the two are different in terms of specifics. But the underlying principle for both is identical. And that principle is the government has the RIGHT to FORCE you to participate in a scheme whether you want to or not. What if you don’t WANT to participate in Social Security? The government’s response? “F*ck you! WE tell YOU what to do, and if you resist, we will throw you in prison.” Or, what if you just turned 64, you been paying into SS your whole life, and your doctor says you have year to live, and you ask SS to get back all the money you paid in in one lump sum. The government will say “F*ck you! That’s against the rules, you get NOTHING!”

    Social Security is, in essence, where Americans started surrendering their freedom to the government in return for a “Promise” of benefits, benefits which are controlled by the government, not the citizen. Indeed, Social Security began the point where the American citizen started turning a subject, and where the government started going from being a servant to being a master.

  18. Sorry ropelight, I’m all in with Eric on this one. There is a distinction without a difference between the two plans as far as I’m concerned. Both FORCE the citizen, a free man mind you, to do something “for his own good” that he may or may not have chosen on his own. And what is really insidious about SS is you could pay in all your life and die the day you retire and you’d find out real quick who’s money it really is. If it were yours, your children would receive a check. SS is a TAX not a retirement program. An IRA is a retirement program, you own it and you may do whatever you like with it and leave the balance after your death to whomever you choose.

  19. Both Eric and Hoagie cite the government’s use of FORCE as the common element in both SS and ObamaCare.

    But the underlying principle for both is identical. And that principle is the government has the RIGHT to FORCE you to participate…

    Both FORCE the citizen, a free man mind you, to do something “for his own good” that he may or may not have chosen on his own.

    Eric, first, again, American citizens are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, our government has no rights, it has only the limited authority, duties, and responsibilities specified in the Constitution, and it is charged with enforcing laws, rules, and regulations approved by Congress.

    That it has overstepped it’s legitimate authority in no way permits you or anyone else to bestow rights, imaginary or otherwise, on an institution our Founders instructed us to alter or abolish should it became destructive of our rights. Unfortunately, under the current criminal enterprise masquerading as the Obama Administration we may well be approaching the time for good men, such as yourselves, to stand up and be counted.

    Now, to the use of force, the legitimate application of force is reserved for government authorities acting within the scope of their proper duties. That is normal and usual. But, when the force of government institutions is abused to suppress political opposition, such as Obama’s using the IRS to obstruct and harass TEA Party organizations during the run-up to an election, that is an illegal and criminal act and should result in charges of impeachment and possible removal from office.

    The fact that governments use force, legitimately as well an illegitimately, does not make the principles underlying both SS and ObamaCare even remotely the same. No more so than the same principle of aerodynamics explains how birds and B-52s remain aloft.

  20. Eric, first, again, American citizens are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, our government has no rights

    Unfortunately, you’re talking about the American government as it existed in the distant past, back when it conformed to the Founders’ vision of the government being the servant of the people. Now, government is more like the master, and, contrary to your statement above, it now has TONS of rights. To give just one example, thanks to John Roberts (a supposed conservative, mind you!) the government now has the right to ORDER you to buy health insurance.

    But I’m talking about a larger principle here. The Republican Party is supposed to be the Party of small government. That has been the official position going back to Barry Goldwater. But has government gotten smaller? NO! every year and every decade it gets bigger and bigger, with no end in sight.

    So, the question becomes – are the Republicans prepared to cut anything from government? And, if not, why have a Republican Party at all? We might as well have one Party rule, the Big Government Party. Because that’s effectively what we have right now.

  21. Eric, you’re twisting yourself into knots. Our Founders fought a war to deny King George’s right to rule his North American colonies. You persist in claiming our government has rights, when you know better. Granted, it acts as if it has rights, but it doesn’t.

    The difference is an important one, one that’s well worth preserving. What remains of our freedom and independence depends on maintaining a sharp distinction between servant and master. A government that has the right to order us around is a government that has reduced us to servitude and serfdom.

    When Ben Franklin was asked what form the new American government was to take, he responded that it would be a republic, but he added, if we can keep it. The key feature of republics is that the people are the ones who have rights and in order to protect and preserve those rights the people establish governments. Not the other way around.

    It’s collectivist governments that insist they have rights, that the duty of citizens to serve the state is paramount. Some of them even go so far as to declare that citizens exist only to serve the state. That’s the end result of agreeing that governments and not the citizens are the possessors of rights. It’s tantamount to consigning yourself and your children to a lifetime of slavery, your life is only worth the value of your service to the state, and not a dime more.

    Eric, you complain our government is overreaching, and it is, there’s no question about it. But yielding on the most fundamental of the principles our Declaration of Independence relies on isn’t the way to go about restraining further abuses or returning to Constitutional limitations. It’s selling your birthright short.

    Once endow government with rights and you can watch as that government unchecked, grows rapaciously. Central governments which possess the right not only to tax but also to compel compliance are incapable of resisting the lust of bureaucracies to expand, and to tax, and to regulate, and to demand compliance, and to punish dissent. Clearly, we’re currently suffering the advanced stages of that malignant disease, and President Barack Obama is the modern Typhoid Mary. FDR warned this rendezvous with destiny would come knocking on our door, well, it’s here. The question is what are going to do about it. We can stand up and fight for what’s ours, or we can roll over and agree the government has the right to make our decisions for us. Words have meaning and rights is a word that carries special meaning for a people who’s independence is based almost exclusively on that one word.

    Now, Eric, if you’re too stubborn to stop misusing the term, and all the evidence indicates that you are, it really isn’t a big deal here on this relatively obscure blog, unthinking people do it everyday, some don’t even begin to grasp the distinctions involved. But you’re not one of them. You know better and yet you do it anyway, you make an issue of it, and you even claim you’re talking about a larger principle. Well, Permit me to doubt.

  22. I’m gettin’ kinda confused here guys. I understand the government does not have rights but if it has the power to take your property, income, wealth, liberty and even life does it really matter if we call it a right?

    If the leftists have the power to take my income and give it to some half-assed green company because Rebus thinks it’s a good idea, I obviously have no right to my money. Rebus and his green company do and I can’t do a damn thing about it but move.

  23. Hoagie, you’re not alone, John Gault was faced with a similar situation. The distinction you seek is one of legitimacy. A government that fails to respect your rights, arbitrarily takes your money and restricts your fundamental liberties, is acting illegitimately, overstepping it’s proper functions. It may posses the power to mistreat you, but in doing so it reveals itself as unworthy to remain in place.

    Our Constitution stipulates that should such abuses accumulate to the point citizens are no longer willing to endure them, they have the right and the duty to abolish such governments and establish new ones which will respect the rights of the people. It’s one of the things that sets us apart for nearly all other people, we have rights, the government has responsibilities.

  24. It’s quite frustrating ropelight. I realize we have the rights but all the rights in the universe don’t mean shit if the Rebus’ of the world can use government force to quell our voice and steal our property. And once they can steal our property they are stealing the results of our labor. That means we’re slaves. We’re “allowed” to keep what the Master deems appropriate.

  25. Eric, you’re twisting yourself into knots. Our Founders fought a war to deny King George’s right to rule his North American colonies. You persist in claiming our government has rights, when you know better. Granted, it acts as if it has rights, but it doesn’t.

    I think you are confusing what I (Eric) think about the government versus what the law says. And the law says the government DOES have rights, and your opinion and my opinion on the subject doesn’t matter. As mentioned, the government now has the right to force us to buy health insurance, and since the Supreme Court has affirmed that right, the notion that the government has rights is now backed by the force of law.

  26. The difference is an important one, one that’s well worth preserving. What remains of our freedom and independence depends on maintaining a sharp distinction between servant and master. A government that has the right to order us around is a government that has reduced us to servitude and serfdom.

    And that’s basically the government we have right now.

Comments are closed.