Magox

The NAACP is a shadow of what it use to be...

We haven't heard of one left-leaning group that has come out saying that they were targeted. You have tea party groups, people who advocated for lower taxes, who "educated" people on the constitution, NOM, and even hawkish Jewish groups that were all targeted. In other words, all right-leaning groups. If there was a arguably disproportionate number of conservative groups relative to liberal groups, MAYBE I could possibly see that as the case, however, considering that the disproportionality is100% to 0%. Not to mention that now we have heard that it not only came from the divisions hub in Ohio, but now from California and DC as well. I simply don't buy it.

This is above and beyond anything that the Bush administration ever did, in respect to this topic. I believe just about any journalist would agree with this.

Steven Miller, head of the IRA wrote an OP-ED today: Raise your hand if you believe him Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-steven-miller-op-ed-91326.html#ixzz2THh815v5

Make no mistake, this was all about the DOJ/W.H intimidating investigative reporters and whistleblowers.

Usually laying down with my eyes closed.

Ya, on the Republicans.

From the National Journal: Obama's Outrage Focused on Republicans More Than IRS

Great to see that Rogers had an exceptional day.

Monsanto Wins! Convincingly

David Plouffe, One of Obama's main henchmen; justified IRS targeting of Conservatives?

There were a few entertaining tweets in response to the WH press briefing. "All right, who let all these rich, middle-aged Chick-fil-a lovers into the press briefing room?"

I don't believe they are buying his "stylistic changes" statement he previously made.

They never do.

Yes. But what does that have to do with the rest of the media?

More like that they are passing out their talking points so that they can regurgitate their preferred narrative.

So the W.H held an "off-the-record" press briefing today. Whatever could they be telling them?

Really? http://www.nbcnews.com/ not even in their "political" page http://www.nbcnews.c...s/#.UY0YHkqMBpk

No where to be found on the front pages of the NY Times, WAPO, and CNN http://www.cnn.com/ http://www.cbsnews.com/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/ Let me know if you guys see it on their front pages. However, what you will find are editorials and several opinion pieces attacking conservatives on Benghazi.

If you don't mind I'm going to quote some of what is in that ABC news report:

If the W.H and State Department would have been forthcoming to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue any longer, however now that we do know that they did indeed purposely mislead the public for political reasons fearing backlash and incompetence, and that new information continues to keep dripping out, then to answer your question, no, no they haven't. Let's just remember that just yesterday Jay Carney said: Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/white-house-denies-changing-benghazi-intelligence-reports/#ixzz2StsArxC1

No, not just because he was black... They wouldn't of come out if Herman Cain was on the GOP ticket. But let's be real here, the fact that there was a legitimate black candidate running for office (unlike Jesse Jackson), they came out in record numbers,and when they saw him under withering attack over the past few years primarily from white GOP voters, they stuck together and made damn sure that their voices were going to be heard through their votes, and you and I both know that by and large, if there is a "legitimate" black candidate that believes in policies that they believe in, it is a largely monolithic voting block.... If Hillary runs I assure you that they won't come out nearly in the numbers that they did for Obama.

It really isn't that surprising, Romney won the district by 18 in a heavy black Democratic Turnout year.

B-Man This is what we've seen today http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/ And here is the amendment from Grassley that was approved. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Grassley/Grassley1-%28HEY13237%29.pdf