The new definition of scandal is: you cannot call something a scandal until Democrats say it is. That is the official certification of scandal. They declare non-scandals too.
No, you idiots, Benghazi is not and never was a scandal. It is merely the result of Obama’s overseas contingency operation. But scandal? Hardly. Four Americans including an ambassador are killed and shrouded in false explanations from the administration’s talking points machine. But a scandal? Surely you jest.
IRS, not one itsy-bitsy “smidgeon” of corruption there. Another non-scandal. And we know there are no scandals because Axelrod declared there were none.
Now members of Congress writing a letter to Iran informing them that they have a say in treaties is a seismic scandal. In fact, it qualifies all signers as traitors. Expressing any dissent is treasonous.
But Obama trying to bypass Congress to make a treaty and keep them in the dark, what scandal? That couldn’t possibly be scandalous. Nor is Obama issuing executive edicts on immigration, creating fiat laws, rewriting existing law, and refusal to enforce US law by any stretch a scandal. Even if King O himself said as much years earlier. Well, it isn’t now anyway, which is all that matters. Supporting terrorist organizations, now where is the scandal in that? Obama’s campaign gurus coordinating and working to oust Netanhayu in Israel’s election, while declaring not to be playing politics, is not a problem.
Now Boehner inviting Netanyahu to come and speak his concerns on the security of Israel to Congress? Bingo, that’s scandalous if ever anything was. A scandal of the first order. Obama’s repeated lies about Obamacare were not even an issue compared to that invitation. Obama refuses to engage in diplomacy with Congress but will with dictators like Castro, or concessions to Iran under the guise of a deal. But make a deal with Congress, are you crazy? Dealing with Congress would be scandalous.
Just because he has no respect for the other branches of government doesn’t a scandal make. Usurping congressional or state’s authority could not be scandalous. Playing political roulette with our military and national security is not scandalous. Telegraphing our plans to the enemy is no way a scandal. Declaring all options are on the table while seeking to restrict any of Congress’s options could not be a scandal.
Glad we solved the definition problem. He should have been around to help for the Clinton years. They should have had Obama’s definition of “is”. Besides, Obama could never have a scandal because he could just abolish it by Executive Order.
Notice that while nothing is a scandal to Democrats, they come up with the most creative names to call Republicans for daring to talk about Obama’s non-scandals. So investigating, hearings or even talking about Obama’s many non-scandals is really scandalous — even an abuse of power. That’s the way it works. Congress cites Holder with contempt. Dems and the Black Caucus call that abuse and racism, then stage a protest. So Democrats accuse Republicans of abusing their power. The problem was the administration’s abuses, so Dems defiantly walk out. You just have to know the rules.
RightRing | Bullright