Obama, the criminal ‘we-will-look-into-it’ POTUS

‘So Sick of No Answers’: Blaze Readers Respond to Obama’s IRS Dodge


“Yet another ‘we will look into it.’”–Read More »

Jail to the Chief

The question isn’t who knew what regarding the blizzard of scandals swirling around the Obama Regime. The question is how are the incestuous press and more importantly the American people going to respond to this rogue administration. Take it away Joe Dan Gorman: (Moonbattery)

Nothing is ‘relevant’ to these #@%&*:

Top White House official Dan Pfeiffer on Face the Nation this morning said “It’s largely irrelevant” on whoever doctored the Benghazi memo.

“You’re right. It’s an absolute tragedy what happened. The question isn’t ‘Who edited what talking points/’ That’s largely irrelevant.”– Apparently, nothing is relevant to these people.

Obama’s whereabouts during Benghazi “not relevant” either

  “The Law Is Irrelevant”  (GWP)

Bob Woodward: Obama Administration Didn’t Tell Truth on Benghazi (Video)

Woodward was one of the lead investigative journalists during the Watergate scandal.

Jeanine Pirro Lays Utter Waste to Obama

Judge Jeanine Pirro explains to the Stonewaller in Chief how he could get to the bottom of the IRS/Tea Party scandal in the course of ripping the insolent punk a new one with this five-star diatribe:

On a tip from Stormfax.


4 thoughts on “Obama, the criminal ‘we-will-look-into-it’ POTUS”

  1. The judge is great.

    But what can you do when a nation elects a jackass to be the president. Then the jackass appoints his mates, fellow jackasses to be attorney genera and Tsar of this and that.

  2. Naming the criminals is irrelevent when crimes are spun to the enemedia as being really only accidents and tragic forces of nature.

    After all, a common liberal meme these days is one isn’t allowed to defend one’s self so log as the criminal’s attacks have (at least momentarily) abated.

    If a criminal attacks you then runs away, one is supposedly not allowed to pursue them, much less shoot them in the back. In this way, liberals leave the victims’ response to crimes up to only the criminal’s chosen timetables. Only if the criminal stops running, gets his wind, and then decides to sneak around and continue their attacks from a different angle, is the victim “allowed” to resume again defending them self. Repeat this farcial fiasco scenario endlessly, while ignoring that even when the criminal is eventually tried years later, they aren’t committing any crimes AS they are being sentenced, so to liberals, that’s not exactly “fair” then, either! Whee!

    In reality, revenge IS deterrant justice; only attacking first defines one as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they aas one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it! In fact, counter-attacking is an actual requirement of justice, whether by the victim on the scene, or by the courts later.

  3. Cause and effect is something liberals abhor, which is why they always indulge in immoral relativism, and the critical thinking logical fallacy known as the Argumentum Tu Quoque, in order to avoid having to be moral; i.e:


    Idolatrous, immoral relativists try to avoid the specific personal risk of blaming anyone, by instead blaming “everyone:” EVIL ISN’T EVIL, AND CRIME ISN’T CRIME, BECAUSE WE ALL DO IT TOO!”

    In this way, they hope to placate any and all immediate threats by agreeing with the criminals self-proclaimed rights to commit their crimes.

Comments are closed.