Probably as close to a smoking gun as you’re going to get



As we have previously noted, there need not be Obama fingerprints on anything- all that was needed was the “unofficial nod.”

Kimberley Strassel of the WSJ put this timeline together and it makes very obvious what happened:

Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: “Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation.”

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about “Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups.”

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them. . . . You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled “Covert Operations,” in which she accuses them of funding “political front groups.” The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created “slippery organizations with generic-sounding names” that have “made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington.”

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does “not pay corporate income tax.” The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have “funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups.”

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a “foreign-controlled entity” might be funding “millions of dollars of attack ads.” Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that “nobody knows” who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article “Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives,” writes that a “senior administration official” had “urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed ‘the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.’ ”

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups “pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups,” even though they are “guided by seasoned Republican political operatives” who might be funded by a “foreign-controlled corporation.”

Sept. 26: On ABC’s “This Week,” Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the “benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund” are “front groups for foreign-controlled companies.”

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations “posing as nonprofit groups.” Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups “a problem for democracy.” On Oct. 22, he slams those who “hide behind these front groups.” On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a “threat to our democracy.” On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in “unsupervised spending.”

These were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were repeated by the White House and echoed by its allies in campaign events, emails, social media and TV ads. The president of the United States spent months warning the country that “shadowy,” conservative “front” groups—”posing” as tax-exempt entities and illegally controlled by “foreign” players—were engaged in “unsupervised” spending that posed a “threat” to democracy. Yet we are to believe that a few rogue IRS employees just happened during that time to begin systematically targeting conservative groups? A mere coincidence that among the things the IRS demanded of these groups were “copies of any contracts with and training materials provided by Americans for Prosperity”?

This newspaper reported Thursday that Cincinnati IRS employees are now telling investigators that they took their orders from Washington. For anyone with a memory of 2010 politics, that was obvious from the start.

It’s not opaque. Barack Obama called conservative organizations a “threat to our democracy.” He made it clear that they are a threat to national security. This is a broad and concerted plot. An American President vilified and trampled the Constitutional rights of a large segment of the American population- those who disagreed with him.

Combine this with Obama’s campaign manager calling Mitt Romney a murderer, felon, liar and tax cheat and a sordid picture comes into focus. It’s the politics of personal destruction on a gigantic scale.

It’s McCarthyism on steroids.

It really doesn’t get any clearer than that. Obama painted the targets on conservatives and the henchmen in his agencies went to work.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Who paid for Obama’s college education?
How did he (a poor student with no job) afford go to Pakistan for weeks during his college years?
Why did no Obama Campaign prevent foreigners from donating?
Why did the Obama campaigns disable their own ability to prevent illegal contributions?

No, there’s no smoking gun.
A complicit media made sure of that.
But there were plenty of Obama-blown dog whistles.
And there were plenty of willing dogs in the IRS who answered his call.

It really doesn’t get any clearer than that. Obama painted the targets on conservatives and the henchmen in his agencies went to work.

It was a standard shell game; don’t look here, look over there. Meanwhile, political operatives, funded by obscene amounts of leftist money, were working to turn red states blue, i.e. Colorado. It started early, when George Soros was going to back Hillary Clinton for 2008 until a young black, first term Illinois senator expressed a desire to run in ’08. Soros then threw his full financial force behind that Senator and Hillary, who everyone said was unbeatable, lost.

Why did Soros change his mind about Hillary? Because Obama’s world view was more akin to his own. Hillary was just too conservative for the desires of George Soros.

@Nan G: And plenty of the other Bolshevik agencies!

@retire05: Goota disagree >>> No way is any shred of the hildabeast conservative — it was simple — the stooped american voter would instantly vote for the smoothie almost black guy in an instant over the baggage encumbered old hag.

In fact I am positive that any talk now of her running in 2016 is just stalking horse smoke screening.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article “Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives,” writes that had “urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed ‘the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.’ ”

Who is the “senior administration official”? Did Stein make this up? Check the White House logs. See if Sam Stein visited the White House between the 14th and 20th of September of that year. See who he was supported to meet. Stephine Cutter? Valerie Jarrett? David Axelrod? Barack Obama?


Read what I wrote; I didn’t say the Hildabeast was too conservative, I said she was too conservative for George Soros. There is a vast difference. Both Hillary and Obama are followers of Saul Alinsky, with Hillary doing her thesis on Alinsky and remaining friends with him until he died and Obama teaching Alinsky in his classes.

Make no mistake; Hillary will run in 2016. Bubba wants back into the White House and most think Obama cut a deal with Bubba to back Hillary in ’16 for Bubba’s support in ’08. Think about it: Hillary took the Texas primary by over 100,000 votes yet at the end of the day, and the end of the caucuses, Obama had the Texas primary in his pocket. The fraud in those Texas Dem caucuses is legendary. Hillary knew this and even filed law suits the day after the primary, but then dropped them. Ask yourself why.

@retire05: #2,

This is absolute PROOF that the voter’s mind can be, and in fact IS, easily manipulated – at least the low information voter is, because the machine effectively implements the strategy of lying confidently, and repeatedly.

Why did Soros change his mind about Hillary? Because Obama’s world view was more akin to his own. Hillary was just too conservative for the desires of George Soros.

It is also very probable that the forces behind and beside the ‘Soros’ meteorite saw the Jarrett/Obama Chicago bunch as more likely to be plied to the extremes of the global government/currency movement which Soros and his ilk evidently embrace.

The trend toward such outcome is clear – just look at the actions of all central banks, including The Fed, and the Bank for International Settlements, over the past 20 years. It isn’t just Americans who are becoming an indentured species – wherever banks have set-up shop around the world, people have been coaxed into unserviceable levels of debt.

Large and broad-reaching corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo, are willing dupes in the game. Google long ago proved it had NO PRINCIPLES when it coughed up the names of its users to the Chinese Communist government a few years ago. It was only a matter of time before the results of that mental disease landed on our shores.

@James Raider:

And these are no coincidence:

Google gives user data to US government

The US government asks Google for user data more than twice as often as any other, says Google, and is more likely to get its own way.

Over the second half of last year, the US made 4,601 requests, followed by Brazil with 1,804 and India with 1,699. The figures releate to all Google services, including YouTube videos, Gmail, Blogger blog posts and search results.

And in its Transparency Report, Google says it complied with US requests in 94 percent of cases, compared with 90 percent for Japan, 88 percent for Singapore and 81 percent for Australia.

Google’s Eric Schmidt Invests in Obama’s Big Data Brains

During the 2012 campaign, Barack Obama’s reelection team had an underappreciated asset: Google’s (GOOG) executive chairman, Eric Schmidt. He helped recruit talent, choose technology, and coach the campaign manager, Jim Messina, on the finer points of leading a large organization. “On election night he was in our boiler room in Chicago,” says David Plouffe, then a senior White House adviser. Schmidt had a particular affinity for a group of engineers and statisticians tucked away beneath a disco ball in a darkened corner of the office known as “the Cave.” The data analytics team, led by 30-year-old Dan Wagner, is credited with producing Obama’s surprising 5 million-vote margin of victory.

Google pays 2.4% taxes

@drjohn: #8,
This is the result of CRONY STATISM.

Guys like Schmidt are spineless worms without principles or morals. I’m sure you heard this genius answer the question on government listening and watching YOUR communication – he believes that this intrusion is fine and why would you be concerned if you are not saying or doing anything you shouldn’t. Schmidt is the embodiment of much of the vacuity which resides comfortably in ‘Silicon Valley’.

“How did he (a poor student with no job) afford go to Pakistan for weeks during his college years?”

On which country’s passport did he travel? At that time, travel to Pakistan on a US passport was forbidden.

@James Raider:

Guys like Schmidt are spineless worms without principles or morals.

Can you name anyone connected to Obama that is not. From Valerie Jarrett to Eric Holder to Van Jones to Rahm Emanuel to David Axelrod (the real father of astroturfing)? Not one of them cares a whit about this nation. They are power brokers who want to instill a form of soft European-type Socialism on this country.

Can you imagine if just ONE of the recent scandals had been attached to George Bush? Now it is the EPA, the IRS, Benghazi, Syria, Libya, Fast and Furious, gun running in the Middle East, and on and on and on. This is not just waiting for the next shoe to drop; this Administration has more shoes than Payless.

Perhaps Mr. Obama can execute a reverse Nelson and spend the END of his political career in prison!

Soon, very soon, there may not be found a “smoking gun”, but there will certainly be found a gun with fingerprints, that’s right fingerprints, all over it from Barack Hussein Obama’s handiwork.

Already the finger is pointing more and more towards the involvement of Obama with the former director of the IRS with more than 150 meetings to the White House for consultations on the coordination of attacks and intimidation (and prevention of the function) of the conservative organizations the IRS inordinately interfered with. Yes sir, this can be readily ascertained from the smug answer that the former IRS director gave when asked why he visited the White House so frequently. Why else?

Besides, some workers at the IRS in Cincinnati refuse to go under the bus and instead are giving testimony about the fact that their orders or “instructions” came from Washington. I ask. Who else stood to gain from all the corruption and tyrannical IRS behavior just prior to and during the 2012 presidential election?

Besides, and I’ve said this before, who else could have benefited from the twist and corruption of the false Benghazi story, the gathering of and unlawful releasing of IRS information, the IRS intimidation and unlawful fraudulent criminal interference with a federal election?

Moving Susan Rice to the wing of the Obama administration was not an academic achievement for her, but rather payoff from Obama for lying about the Islamic video and to keep her away from committee questioning; although my two cents worth says that if she is suspected of committing a previous crime or felony infraction, Susan Rice can still be hauled in to testify regardless.

Separation of the three branches of government does not allow for felony crimes to be committed without punishment … ever. And, in this case, lying, interfering with a federal election and obstruction of justice on both Obama’s and Rice’s part are federal offenses punishable by imprisonment.

No “smoking gun” today, but look for the fallout and immediate implosion of the Obama presidency … soon, very soon.

Our bad luck? Biden.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: “The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”

Obama Derangement Syndrome: “The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements — nay — the very existence of Barack Obama. ”

I suspect after the next election the syndrome may become generalized as Presidential Derangement Syndrome, and become an official condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder.

@Greg: Unfortunately, Bush didn’t run on “Clinton Derangement Syndrome”, but Obama certain capitalized on the fear mongering done by the media on Bush.

Obama’s policies are quite radical, and a furthering of all the things people feared from Bush at the same time–a strange mix.

To suggest there is such thing as “Obama Derangement Syndrome” is using the same kind of fallacious and incriminating smoke and mirrors that many who oppose the actions of the current administration are calling for an end to.

You might as well say “what is ‘truth’ anyway?”, “What are ‘facts?”. You’re trying to pull those critical of the current Administration into the cultural phenomenon that was followed blindly by media-led mob. Historians will get it right and our children will know what happened.

Maybe it’s time to admit Obama and his admin are bad at what they do, and are doing damage to our country and way of life? You’re running out of excuses.

Obama Derangement Syndrome – “The acute sense of guilt followed by the denial that one feels when they realized they were carried away by a hate-induced cultural mass programing that resulted in them voting for the most unqualified, corporately-backed, and foreign investor-backed, demagogue ever to run in the USA. Symptoms include a delusional commitment to emotion, scapegoating, disliking what the media tells them to dislike, fighting racial and gender battles that were won 30 years ago, and pretending the Rep party is comprised of obsolete thinking, white, Christian, sexist, racist, homophobic wack-jobs . . . even though plenty of the GOP’s finest examples are non-white and/or non-male. A tendency to label those who understand that we live in a Republic founded on a single document, the Constitution, as “constitutionalists” has also been observed. In fact, any opposing viewpoint may be denigrated by adding an “ist” or “er”, followed by a meme inducing parody on SNL. Hey, it gets votes.

But there’s hope (real hope, not nazi-style Obama sticker hope). Those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome (and Bush Derangement, since they are often the same thing) can start to be objective and see they are supporting a system that is hurting everyone, and fundamentally changing a USA that wasn’t broken in the first place.

Bush wasn’t fashionable. Obama is. Bush was capable, Obama isn’t. Bush derangement is pettiness. Obama scrutiny is the duty of all citizens. Deal with it.

a LAWYER today came at FOX and he had left a good jobin an administration of GOVERNMENT affairs,
well paid and benefices, he was told not to hired THE WHITE PEOPLE, he was astownded to hear that
HE IS BLACK, he said that was against the CONSTITUTION and I could not stay there
with their mentality,
is in it another discovery of what is going on in the GOVERNMENT,

the BUSH derangement syndrome was created by OBAMA to vilify him,
and add to it, IT”S BUSH FAULT,
the PRESIDENT BUSH had no derangement at all, he is a very intelligent person,and I think OBAMA had an inferior complex with BUSH , so he create another profile of him,completely not true,
but by repeating it he had people hating BUSH,
it was it still is his signature,

Here is a nice travel piece about tourism in Pakistan when it was supposedly FORBIDDEN June 1981
People who hate Obama will be happy to believe anything. Born in Kenya travel to forbidden Pakistan whatever

@john: Ignoring pointless comment to get back on the discussion outlined above . . .

Thanks for using #3, #6 and #14:
“Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.”

“Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.”

“Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.”

@Nan G: #1

Who paid for Obama’s college education?

Who says he has a college education? There is no proof of it. Not one single History prof at Columbia ever saw him on the campus. None.

@Budvarakbar: #4

No way is any shred of the hildabeast conservative

it was a measure of relative conservative. Everyone in the known world is more conservative than Obama. And I don’t think the Hildabeast will be a candidate in 16.