As more facts emerge about the NSA’s program of collecting all the info it can in an effort to stop terrorism, I remain firmly where I was when this revelation occurred: it is important to have access to records that might thwart terrorist activity, yet caution must prevail with regard to how wide the net is cast. Searches must be limited to individuals who have had contact with terrorists or organizations known to have terrorist connections. The Fourth Amendment still exists.

While I’m disturbed by the possibilities of abuse, especially under an administration like the current one, I nevertheless agree that finding out who is wanting to attack you, and being able to stop it, is a legitimate government action. I am not in agreement with the perspective that says we inherently have more to fear from our own government than from those who seek to destroy us through terrorism. That doesn’t mean, though, that the threat from our own government is to be ignored; I write often enough about the threat to religious liberty via Obamacare and other pernicious acts. Yet we’re not Communist China or North Korea. Not yet. Edward Snowden doesn’t seem to understand that distinction. Fleeing to a Chinese-ruled city betrays a certain foolishness and/or lack of understanding on his part:

To me, the scandal that is the most dangerous to American liberty is the IRS’s attempt to stifle conservative groups’ political speech. I don’t watch a lot of news from the usual suspects—CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC—but I’ve followed the analysis of their coverage of this scandal. The bottom line seems to be “what coverage?” After an initial burst of interest, they have gone on to other, more important, things. You know, like the baby born to Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. Now there’s real news of the highest significance for every American.

In my opinion, the mainstream media doesn’t want to dig deeper; they’re afraid they may find that this scandal goes to the very top:

In fact, I think they’re concerned that if they do their job well, they may topple an entire regime, one to which they are committed ideologically:

Perhaps they fear the picture will become increasingly clear:

If that were to happen, they would be forced to admit they’ve been wrong all along:

The truth can be hard to face, particularly when you place all your hopes on a false political messiah.

We’re in danger of having our senses overwhelmed by the sheer number of scandals emanating from the current administration. One might think this would do severe damage, yet, as during the Clinton years, it’s possible the public may become desensitized with the constant flow of information. We may hit the “overload” point. That would be devastating for the future health of the nation. We must stay focused and get to the whole truth.

Another concern is that the newest scandal, that of the NSA data-mining, will dwarf the others for media attention. As troubling as the NSA situation may be, even with some of the complexities that might not make it as bad as it seems, we shouldn’t allow it to shove the other problems to one side.

We’ve heard little about Benghazi lately. Yet four people died as a result of bad decisions, and it was followed by a major misdirection, blaming it all on a YouTube video. That has proven to be a lie. I’m hoping the congressional committees responsible for following up on this won’t let it languish and disappear from the public view. Justice has not been served.

The DOJ interference with the free press, and in particular the attempt to make James Rosen of Fox into a co-conspirator in a crime, deserves our continued attention also. This is a direct threat to freedom of the press.

Even the IRS attack on conservative groups is losing coverage. The only discipline for the government employees involved thus far is the false firing of Steven Miller and the administrative leave for Lois Lerner. I say false firing because Miller was scheduled to step down anyway. As for that administrative leave, well, I suspect a lot of workers wouldn’t mind that:

When representatives of conservative groups showed up for a congressional hearing last week to detail the abuses they have suffered under IRS scrutiny, neither ABC nor CNN had even one minute of coverage of that testimony. CBS and NBC weren’t much better—they came in at three minutes each. When you consider that CNN is a twenty-four-hour news channel, that’s particularly appalling. They apparently don’t care when conservatives receive such treatment:

If there’s any way to shift blame from the IRS to conservatives, the mainstream media will concoct it:

Meanwhile, more video has surfaced of IRS employees enjoying themselves by virtue of the taxpayers. This time they put on a Star Trek skit. We’re paying for this?

We’re being so inundated with scandals, the federal government might have to change its phone messages:

While I’m hopeful some measure of justice will come out of all this, there’s one result that can’t be changed at this point:

If only we had a media that would do its job.

The pressure is mounting on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign. His transgressions predate the current scandals, but these recent revelations certainly highlight the basic character of the man. This is a character that was evident to many from the start, but only now has the knowledge spread to the more general population. The chief law enforcer for the country should be above reproach. That doesn’t describe Holder.

In the bizzaro world of Democrat politics, President Obama doesn’t seem to find anything wrong with having Holder conduct the investigation into himself:

Without going into all the details of Holder’s inconsistencies—otherwise known as lies—one thing has become painfully obvious:

Yet, with all the attention on Holder, the man who is ultimately responsible is not receiving the focus he deserves for his part in all the scandals. Of course, his defense is that either he is totally ignorant or completely incompetent. That’s supposed to inspire confidence?

The one talent he has honed during his tenure is the ability to blame others for whatever goes wrong. For a while, it was all George Bush’s fault. Now he’s having to look for other scapegoats:

If you’re looking for someone to model how to throw others under the bus, you’ve found him.

It’s always difficult getting the mainstream media’s attention on a real life and death issue like abortion. As I’ve noted numerous times, they aren’t interested because the majority are in favor of abortion on demand. Even the horrific practices of Kermit Gosnell were ignored until the roar of the alternative media finally was heeded. The remnant who still believe in the sanctity of innocent human life made their voice heard. Gosnell was justly declared guilty, but a plea deal allowed him to avoid the death penalty he so lavishly carried out on his many victims. Ironically, he seems to have had a certain change of heart after the guilty verdict:

Without the constant pressure from those who are highlighting the abortion problem, the media would choose to take a back seat again now that the Gosnell business is over. Fortunately, there are principled individuals and organizations that are doing their best not to allow that. Stay tuned for more exposure as other abortionists who are just as bad as Gosnell will be exposed. Most of the nation still has to wake up to a salient fact:

There’s another fact of which most are unaware:

The tone is being set at the top. That needs to be exposed also.

My goal today is to attempt a summary of the three controversies swirling around the presidency right now. I can’t promise to include everything that ought to be included, but I do hope to make sense of it all. If you’ve been too busy to follow all the details, perhaps this can help pull it together. In the spirit of Watergate, I’ve decided to put a “gate” on each one. As far as I’m concerned, they more than deserve that “honor”; each one is far worse than the original.

Benghazigate

• The killing of four Americans, including our ambassador, on 9/11/12 is the only one of these controversies that cost lives. That, in itself, makes it the worst of the three. There are three stages of this controversy:
• Prior to the attack: Security measures were far below standards in a country on the verge of chaos and infiltrated with radical Muslim groups. Repeated requests for added security were either ignored or rejected by the State Dept. Some reports also indicate that we may have been using Libya as a center for a gun-running operation to Syrian rebels, many of whom are also radical Islamists.
• During the attack: On-the-ground communications gave us a blow-by-blow description of what was happening in real time. Those whose lives were in danger asked for help. Two former Navy Seals rushed to the scene and again sought help from the military. There was help available, and as a team was assembled and ready to go their aid, they got a “stand down” order that, according to Gregory Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya still alive, greatly angered the colonel in charge of the troops. Due to that order, no aid came and the Seals were killed after a stalwart defense. Who gave the “stand down” order? No one is claiming responsibility.
• After the attack: Now we know that the decisionmakers, from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, had information right from the start that implicated radical Islamists. They chose to edit all mention of terrorism out of the infamous talking points that UN ambassador Susan Rice used to go on Sunday news programs. They uniformly blamed some obscure anti-Islam video on the Internet for causing this attack. None of the documentation that has been revealed thus far provides any rationale for blaming that video, yet even President Obama, two weeks later, was using it as the cause in a speech to the UN. Despite assurances that those responsible would be dealt with, no one in Libya has ever been charged; yet the man who produced the video was rounded up and jailed, and he remains there to this day.
• It’s hard not to believe the accusations that this has been a coverup from day one. Added to the despicable nature of this coverup is that it occurred during the campaign as a way of ensuring another Obama term.
• More whistleblowers may be forthcoming. Not one person who was in Benghazi who survived this attack has ever said a word about what occurred. Are they under a gag order from this administration? Are they being intimidated in some way?

IRS-Gate

• Last Friday, in anticipation of the release of an inspector general’s report, the IRS official in charge of the Exempt Organization Division, Lois Lerner, issued an apology for how the agency had targeted conservative groups for at least two years, holding them to near-impossible standards before allowing them to be considered tax exempt.

• Ever since that admission, there have been daily reports of how these organizations were subjected to harassment. Any group seeking tax exemption that included “Tea Party,” “patriot,” limited government,” or any similar wording in their names became a target. This was a scorched-earth attempt to defund these organizations and to limit their effectiveness as the 2012 presidential election neared.
• It also has come to light that donors to Republicans, particularly donors to Mitt Romney, were singled out for audits. This went beyond donors to other tax-exempt organizations that exhibited support for Romney. The most egregious example was the auditing of the Billy Graham Association after Rev. Graham vocally supported a defense-of-marriage law in North Carolina and then had favorable things to say about candidate Romney.

• President Obama claims he knew nothing about this until he read the news accounts. Right. As if the president of the United States relies on the media for his information. Then he asked for the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, who, it turns out, was planning on retiring in a couple of months anyway. He further says the IRS is an independent agency over which he has no direct control. Really? It is under the Treasury Department, which is run by Obama’s secretary of the treasury. He has direct oversight. Any claim to the contrary is invalid.
• In a particularly strange and tone-deaf move, Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as commissioner of the office overseeing tax-exempt organizations, has now been tabbed to lead the IRS enforcement of Obamacare. What could possibly go wrong?
• Then, yesterday, Obama announced his appointment of Daniel Werfel to take over the IRS. Who is Werfel? A current White House budget official. In other words, let’s hire the fox to guard the hen house.

AP-Gate

• The Justice Department secretly got access to two months’ worth of telephone conversations between reporters for the AP and whomever they might have contacted for their stories. Ostensibly, this was done for national security reasons—that the AP endangered national security by releasing a story about a successful effort to thwart a terrorist attack in Yemen.

• Now we know that there was no longer a threat by the time the AP released its story. It had worked with the administration to sit on it for five days prior to release. Reports now indicate that the offense, if that be the right word, was in releasing it before the administration had the opportunity to boast about its successful operation. There was no national security threat at all at the time AP made the decision.
• This is a clear First Amendment issue (as is the IRS controversy), and the media, which has always sided with Obama, is showing signs of alienation from him for the first time in five years.
• Both Obama and Attorney General Holder say they have no knowledge of what occurred. Obama says, rather implausibly, that the White House doesn’t know what its own Justice Department is doing; Holder says he earlier recused himself from the operation, although he doesn’t recall just when he did so and has nothing in writing to prove it.

In every case, Obama has tried to have it both ways: he knew nothing, yet don’t worry, he’s fully in charge and everything’s going to be fine.

Let’s just say I’m not all that assured. When George Bush was president, you may have disagreed with some of his decisions, but at least you knew what he had decided and that he took responsibility for his actions. The Obama presidency has been a study in opposites:

These controversies have only begun. They have not played out, and won’t very soon in spite of the administration’s desire to put them to rest. Don’t be surprised, either, if a few more get added on to these three. The arrogance of this president and his minions practically guarantees it.

It wasn’t all that long ago—like last week—that President Obama made a rather bold statement about people who warned against big government becoming a tyranny. He said they were off-base and we should avoid listening to them. Remember?

Well, it didn’t take long to peer around that corner and spy the tyranny. This has been a very bad week for Obama:

How bad is it? Even the lapdog media has been rudely awakened:

The funniest/saddest spectacle has been the lame attempt by White House press secretary Jay Carney to handle these controversies. His statements have been so far from objective truth that even the president’s most ardent supporters have to be embarrassed by the performance. In a city—Washington, DC—where politicians and reporters are hesitant to use the “l” word, some have been heard to utter it:

Some cartoonists have been slightly more subtle in making the same point:

Yet, despite it all, there is the president adamantly declaring “there’s no there there.” Kind of reminiscent of someone else who continually assured us there was “no smoking gun”:

Nixonian comparisons are beginning to surface with increasing frequency.

Ever since Watergate, titles for scandals have added the suffix “gate,” to indicate the high level of the scandal. The Benghazi event of 9/11/12 deserves that suffix more than most. After the extraordinary hearing last week with the initial whistleblowers—indications are that more such witnesses are in the wings—the mainstream media finally seems to have awakened from its Obamalove stupor to start asking serious questions. Perhaps they’re startled at the extent to which they’ve been played as fools.

Jonathan Karl of ABC began the questioning with a report on Friday that the so-called talking points used by Susan Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday after Benghazi were substantively edited twelve times, and that every indication is that the truth was stripped out of them and fantasies inserted. Statements from the CIA as to the planned nature of the attack and the attackers’ connections to radical Islamist groups were excised; in their place was the fiction of the anti-Muhammed video on the Internet sparking a spontaneous protest. This was the fiction foisted upon the American people not only by Rice, but specifically by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. They even stood beside the caskets of the dead Americans and told their families face-to-face that the video was the cause and they would make sure to prosecute those responsible.

All of that was untrue, and it began to dawn on every reporter that they had been misled. Into the fray came Jay Carney, press secretary for the administration, to somehow explain how what is evident to everyone is just a mist without substance. In the process, Carney came across as the unsubstantive one. His performance—an appropriate word in this case—was one of the most reprehensible ever carried out by an administration’s press secretary in recent memory. No, make that “in memory” period. Never was a man so unbelievable in attempting to defend that which has no defense. If you cannot convince a roomful of liberal supporters of the president—i.e., White House reporters—that this is all smoke without a smoking gun, you have failed miserably. Carney was misery personified as he weaved and dodged and blamed others. How many times did the names Bush and Romney crop up as part of the blame game? Even liberals thought that was a disconnect from reality.

Keep in mind, though, that Carney is merely the front man for the president. Everything he said was approved ahead of time. He wasn’t writing his own responses; he’s only the mouthpiece. While I can accuse him of spinelessness and/or willingness to deceive on behalf of his boss, the greater sin resides at the highest level.

Have you noticed the silence emanating from the Oval Office itself as this controversy swirls? A president who has never worried about inserting himself into events where he doesn’t belong—remember Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin?—suddenly has nothing to say.

Neither have we heard publicly from Hillary Clinton. If she ever is cornered on this, what might be her response?

We await further developments.