CIA source says Fox News scandal the "4th Shoe"; says it goes much deeper; says WH also sitting on "something" that has top aides terrified.—
joseph curl (@josephcurl) May 20, 2013

Something is obviously going on though it’s hard to believe that there is something so bad that even top White House aides are “terrified.” Yet, it’s difficult at best sometimes to sift through everything that’s going on in Washington. The current corrupting influence is so thick at times, Curl calls it a “fog of a scandal” that has “been deep sixed like Osama bin Laden.”

The Oklahoma tornado situation has brought with it a wind of change, allowing media to focus their attention on that, rather than on scandals allegedly connected to this administration. One article includes the fact that as far as the Obama administration is concerned, their “full focus” is on the Oklahoma situation. Certainly, I can appreciate that, however, it’s not as if Mr. Obama is personally involved in actual recovery efforts. Surely he can multi-task?

My wife and I were talking last night about the way the federal government often appears to be embattled by one scandal after another. In the current case, many believe that other “shoes” will fall, making the existing situation much worse for the Obama administration.

The Bible is filled with examples of what happens when people deliberately set aside the rule of law in an effort to prop themselves up. Eventually, they come to nothing, ultimately brought down by God Himself.

I think this is clearly seen in the book of Daniel. There, we see future history laid out before Daniel, showing how the times of the Gentiles would begin with Nebuchadnezzar, then segue to the Medo-Persian Empire, followed by Grecian rule, then Roman, then a final empire that would be a combination of all of them, but have a great deal more in common with Roman rule. Yet, it would still be different and unique.

I’ve wondered at times if God purposefully designed the beginnings and endings of each of those empires or if He simply knew when they would begin and when they would end. If we take the Bible and God’s sovereignty literally at all, I’d say that God designed the beginnings and endings of each one. He did so as a constant reminder that man – even when ruling the world – is but a player in God’s drama. Does this mean we lack free will (such as it is)? No, we exercise free will, yet God still accomplishes what He chooses in this world without deviating from His plan.

Probably the most obvious example of this is the person of the Antichrist. I realize that not everyone believes the Bible speaks of one individual who will be the final Antichrist, embodying the full evil of Satan as he rules over the last one-world government. Please understand that I do believe the Bible teaches that one day, there will be a final man who steps onto the world’s scene and who will be the embodiment of satanic evil. I believe this person will be part of an evil threesome designed to mirror the Holy Trinity by being the counterfeit trinity: Satan, the unseen malevolent force representing “father,” the Antichrist as the physical impersonation of Jesus the Son, and the False Prophet whose job will be to direct worship to the Antichrist as the Holy Spirit directs worship to God. This tyrannical threesome will work together to create a situation which they hope will overthrow God Himself. Talk about unfettered hubris.

As Satan has always wanted to be like the Most High, this appears to be his plan to get there. Of course, the Bible tells us that he will fail miserably but will cause tremendous mayhem in the process.

So as we watch things unfolding in the current administration, we know that as bad as things get, God will only allow it to succeed to a point. Just as Babylon was ultimately overcome by the Medes-Persians, who were defeated by Alexander the Great, whose kingdom was divided up among his generals and eventually, Rome replaced it, so also will current governments exist only for as long as they play a part in God’s end time calendar. They will exist not one day more than slated to do so.

This does not mean we turn a blind eye to the evil committed by the world. I believe we have an obligation to point out evil wherever it exists and that certainly applies to areas within the church, as well as areas in society. At the end of Titus 2, Paul points everyone’s attention to the eventual return of Jesus – the blessed hope (v. 13). People need to be reminded that their life is going to come to an end one way or another.

The return of Jesus is the ultimate reality that will instantly and forever change the way the people of this earth do business. The world doesn’t think about it, but they need to consider it.

Moreover, Christians need to be contemplating it as well.  Compare your life’s attitude and demeanor to that future event and ask what you can do to impact the lives of people today?

1. all individuals chose to obey God rather than man, and
2. none of them knew whether they would live or die by obeying God

Roughly 600 years before Jesus, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon led his armies into Jerusalem. There he took captives of many Jews, including Daniel and his friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

The wise men of Babylon hated it when Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel ruler over all the wise men and they tried to come up with ways to have Jewish people executed. They pushed Nebuchadnezzar to create a law that required people to bow in worship of the golden image he had made when certain music was played, (cf. Daniel 3). Anyone who refused would be tossed into the fiery furnace.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship and were brought before Nebuchadnezzar. He gave the young men one final opportunity to obey his command. Their response?

“O king, live forever! You, O king, have made a decree that every man who hears the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe and all kinds of music, is to fall down and worship the golden image. But whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the administration of the province of Babylon, namely Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. These men, O king, have disregarded you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.”

How can you not appreciate that? Please notice that though the men obviously tried to be respectful, they were ultimately telling Nebuchadnezzar that he was not nearly as important as the God they worshiped and they would not worship the king. If they died, so be it. They knew they were doing the right thing.

Then we have Esther. In this particular book by the same name in the Hebrew Bible, we learn of a Jewish woman who ultimately becomes queen to King Ahasuerus (also known as Xerxes). In her position, she learned of a plot by Haman to destroy the Jews. Mordecai, who had raised Esther as if his own daughter and after she became queen, was able to talk to her about the importance of gaining the king’s ear in the matter of Haman’s plan to destroy all Jewish people.

We arrive to the part of the story where Esther tells Mordecai that she will go and talk to the king. She did not know if she would live or die by doing so, but she knew what she must do, regardless of the danger to her own life of going to the king without invitation. Anyone who approached him without his consent could die. If he did not invite them into his throne room, that person would be executed, even the queen.

This was the chance that Queen Esther was willing to take if it meant saving her people. She stood outside the king’s throne room and waited for him to notice her. “When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favor in his sight; and the king extended to Esther the golden scepter which was in his hand. So Esther came near and touched the top of the scepter,” (Esther 5:2).

Because she was able to approach the king, she was also able to tell him of Haman’s plot. The king saved the Jews and executed Haman.

The truth is that there are many biblical examples of people obeying God by doing what is right. What is right is God’s definition by the way, not man’s. God’s absolute truths are just that, absolute. They do not change because God does not change.

Earlier I wrote about the DOJ Pride guide for managers in the workplace in order to become more effective and inclusive where gays are concerned. One of the main points was that by not actively approving the gay lifestyle though remaining silent, this is a form of disapproval. Yet, to approve certain actions and lifestyles that God does not is to take sides against Him.

Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, and Esther could have done that, but they refused. They walked away from political correctness regardless of what that could have meant for them. They preferred to obey God even if it meant hatred, rejection, and death from man’s hands.

Folks, the battle lines are being defined. As a Christian, how will you walk?

For Eric Holder’s Department of (so-called) Justice, that’s not good enough and thanks goes out to a friend of mine – Greg – for bringing this to my attention. Apparently, whistle blowers inside the DOJ are fed up enough with this latest controversy to have contacted the Liberty Counsel to “express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.”

A document from within DOJ boasts 7 habits of highly effective managers when dealing with issues that affect LGBT inclusion in the work place. The seventh habit states, “Know How to Respond If an Employee Comes Out to You” and tells people up front “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

The document itself is listed as “A resource from DOJ Pride, the Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and Their Allies.”

What’s the problem? This isn’t really law, is it? No, but could it create situations where people within the gay community come to feel as though they are being disapproved of because people have chosen to not embrace their lifestyle through silence? Could this, in fact, lead to potential lawsuits if the gay person believes that such treatment from a higher up makes their working conditions difficult, if not intolerable? Frankly, I can see hardcore gay activists pushing the issue.

One federal employee is quoted as saying, “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

As a Christian, I cannot condone homosexuality anymore than I can condone two people living together outside of marriage. I don’t condemn people because of it, but I certainly cannot condone it. The left likes to accuse people like me of being a “hater” because of this position. The truth is that simply because I cannot embrace a lifestyle does not mean that I have no embraced the person. Gay friends of mine understand this difference. They do not feel as though I hate them or condemn them. They know I am there for them.

But the subtlety within this document is telling. In effect, our government is starting to say that simply remaining silent – keeping your opinion to yourself – is no longer good enough. There must be an outward expression of acceptance. Failure to do that will now be seen as disapproval. Outward expressions of acceptance are even defined as a willingness to attend LGBT events in a show of support and camaraderie.

Of course, the DOJ booklet also discusses transgender issues like cross-dressing.

In essence then, it would appear that the DOJ wants everyone to accept what has – for time out of mind - been outside the norm. The DOJ wants to reinvent normal and those of us who are not gay, transgender, or something else had better learn to live with it and even accept it. Minding your own business is no longer an option as far as the DOJ is concerned.

Ultimately, this is an attack on conservatism and especially Christianity. I cannot envision Jesus outwardly embracing a lifestyle, when He spent time condemning them in Scripture, while embracing the individual. “This ‘DOJ Pride’ directive is but the latest example of the ‘progressive’ climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.”

It appears as though the gauntlet has been unofficially thrown down. The face of progressivism is growing uglier by the day with its incessant attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment. What can you expect from Marxists, socialists, and communists?

This is the new face of political correctness (cultural Marxism), which continues to change the fabric of society into something the godless have yearned for since the fall of man.

“Given the ubiquity and celebrity of geolocation technologies, an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the prospective of a cellular telephone where that individual has failed to protect his privacy by taking the simple expedient of powering it off…

“As to control by the user, all of the known tracking technologies may be defeated by merely turning off the phone. Indeed – excluding apathy or inattention – the only reason that users leave cell phones turned on is so that the device can be located to receive calls. Conversely, individuals who do not want to be disturbed by unwanted telephone calls at a particular time or place simply turn their phones off, knowing that they cannot be located.”

By virtue of the fact that we have our cell phones on, Brown believes we have effectively canceled our right to privacy and have, by default, given the government permission to track us. According to him, the only way to avoid being tracked is by turning your phone off.

Judge Brown’s ruling is even a problem for some on the left and they are making their concerns known. The ACLU is calling this latest overreach by the government “ridiculous,” elaborating with “There is a big difference between location information you knowingly share with a select group of friends (or, in fact, the world) and information collected about you without your knowledge or consent…” This was in response to Judge Brown stating that cell phone users often download applications that allow them to share their physical location with other people.

But even turning off your cell phone may not stop your phone’s geolocation services. “Cell phones keep sending a signal several times a minute even though they are turned off. The only way to stop the GPS signal from a cell phone is to take out the battery, which is nearly impossible for the 75 million consumers who own an iPhone.”

You could buy a GPS jammer, but they may be illegal to buy and use in the United States, so I would suggest doing some solid research before you spend the money to buy one and yes, they are available. You could also make use of various products that are legal. One such device allows you to place the phone inside a “pouch” or “pocket” that protects the phone using Radio Frequency (RF) shielding. This is the same type of technology that protects the information on your credit card while in your wallet, so that it is not erased. In this type of use, it is exactly like removing the battery from your phone…without removing it.

Moving into the digital age certainly has its benefits. At the same time, one can only wonder how much more government encroachment will be accepted by the populace before society has had enough.

By the way, if you are unaware, you might be interested to know that your cell phone keeps all data you’ve ever downloaded onto it – the websites you’ve visited, the texts you’ve sent or received. It’s all there and computer forensics specialists in the FBI can gain access to that information very easily. The only way to keep that from happening is to destroy the phone…with a large hammer.

One woman – in asking how much further the government will go in stripping us of our rights – says, “…the breach of privacy could get worse soon. Congressional leaders are currently deciding on two laws that would let police freely bug private citizens. During an April hearing in Washington, one detective told Senators that geolocation tracking is needed to obtain information when ‘probable cause has not yet been established’.”

The courts have been dealing with this issue since at least 2010 and this may not be the end of it.

How many times have conservatives been ridiculed for saying “Big Brother is watching”? Turns out, this is seemingly becoming more true with each passing week.

Why is this, since radical Muslims does not care whether their victims are conservative or liberal? You would think that liberals would speak out and you would also think that gays would speak out against the atrocities done to gay people in countries ruled by Sharia law. With the exception here and there, the left essentially turns a blind eye to all of it.

Recently, one such radical Islamist tweeted that Islam would not rest until the Islamic flag flew over the White House. He stated Sharia law is good for the world. This one particular Twitter member has over one thousand followers.

People like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and too many others to list here have spent their lives since the original 9/11 trying to educate people in America about the dangers of radical Islam. For their trouble, they are often maligned by the left who are either agents of Islam, or who truly do not understand the framework in which radical Islamists think.

Obama is soft on Islam, even when the rest of us know a terror event when we see one. Whether it’s Ft. Hood or Benghazi, Obama appears to be either in complete denial or he’s simply tongue-tied when it comes to calling out the extremist groups within Islam. Yet, neither he nor the DHS has difficulty calling Christianity and other “right-wing” extremists a problem here in the United States. When it comes to Islam though, he constantly warns us to not jump to conclusions.

There are many liberals who mirror Obama’s attitude toward Islam. Recently, a Michigan judge ruled that Muslim violence against Christians is acceptable if it offends Muslim beliefs and sensibilities. Essentially, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan dismissed a civil lawsuit brought by Christians against Muslims who had pelted them with rocks and urine. The judge stated, “The Court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.” Can you believe that?

Based on what the Christians did and said, the violent reaction by Muslims was excused by this federal judge. The ramifications of his ruling are scary. First, the judge ruled that the First Amendment should be curtailed in order to please people who might be offended by our freedom of expression. Second, the judge gave on “okay” to the way in which Muslims reacted. Violence was fine.

Does the judge realize then that if his ruling is upheld on appeal, it could lead to attacks on women?  If they are not “covered” while walking in a neighborhood known to be largely Islamic in nature, they could be raped or attacked.  By virtue of the fact that these women are uncovered, the judge then – to be consistent – would have to side with Muslims if the woman was attacked. A woman whose head is uncovered could easily offend radical Muslims.

The judge ruled in favor of Sharia law. Fortunately, the ruling is being appealed and will hopefully, be completely overturned.

Judge Patrick J. Duggan is said to be a conservative Democrat and was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He has an interesting history with race-preference cases. I’ve believed for a long time that it really does not matter who the president is because no one gets to that office without the approval and support of the global elite. In many ways, Reagan was a good president, however, the global elite still managed to get some things put in place for their own benefit.

In the case of Duggan, we are seeing the “benefits” of his appointment now. Obviously, the global elite must see radical Islam beneficial, or it would not be gaining ground. If for no other reason, radical Islam keeps the world on edge and off-balance. Because of the fear that radical Islam generates, governments restrict the way people live. We’re seeing it happen.

One of the things I have never understood is why the left seems to believe the idea that larger government somehow translates to a better society. We already know that there is incredible waste in our government and to increase its size simply means to increase the amount of waste. That apparently doesn’t bother a lot of people on the left though because in general, they all seem to be in favor of larger government.

As far as the left’s continued mockery of the conservative position on the 2nd Amendment, it’s just been one hoot and half for them daily on the airwaves. But apparently things have changed.

Recently, not one, but two individuals have come out to actually admit they have been wrong about the idea that the government might one day come for our guns. What changed their minds? The IRS debacle.

Recently, on the show “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough said, “My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals…People say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’”

What I don’t understand is why Mr. Scarborough was completely unable to see the possibilities before the IRS scandal came to the fore. Did he really believe that our government has our best interests at heart? Frankly, I don’t believe we’ve seen all that’s connected with the IRS scandal. There’s got to be more to come.

Scarborough went onto say, “when it comes to both background checks and immigration reform, the IRS scandal is ‘devastating,’ because both of those pieces of legislation ask us to trust the kind of government that would seize the media’s phone records and use the IRS to target a president’s political foes.” That’s what we conservatives have been saying for some time. Thank you for finally admitting it, Joe. Did you really have such a soft spot for the federal government that you found it that difficult to believe they would overstep their legal boundaries and play partisan politics? By the way Joe, you forgot to mention Obamacare because the same problems apply there as well.

Co-host Mika Brzezinski (daughter of global elite agent Zbigniew Brzezinski, who goes back to before Jimmy Carter, politically) agreed with Scarborough and that agreement was also echoed by Huffington Post’s Sam Stein. I’m amazed, but grateful that eyes are opening    . However, I can’t help wondering if there’s a catch?

Not to be outdone though, Piers Morgan, who has spent a good four to six months bashing gun rights advocates on his show has also been seemingly humbled by the IRS situation. Morgan was heard “conceding he was wrong to ridicule gun-rights activists…for making the argument that a legitimate fear of government tyranny is what makes the Second Amendment so crucial.”

Wow, something has frozen over. I can only wonder if this new understanding will continue or if it will be short-lived. I guess we conservatives should enjoy it while it lasts and hopefully, this is just the tip of the iceberg and we’ll see more on the left questioning our government’s obvious overreach. Hopefully, a light is dawning on people indicating that the more we trust our government, the more the chance we give them to abuse us.

I’ve got an article upcoming on the militarization of law enforcement soon to be published on The Brenner Brief. It also discusses a few facts about the military that became effective this past May 13, 2013 that you may or may not be aware of but certainly should be. That is, if you value your freedom or at least what’s left of it. Are we seeing an overreach in law enforcement and the military? Could be.

What’s it going to take for more eyes to be opened? It is incredible to me that even those on the left can let this continual violation of our rights and the obvious corruption of our government continue. It can’t be solely due to “low-information voters.” There has to be some other reason for it.

Who knows, but maybe the mentality that is too often on display today is like the US Air Force veteran Julie Frein who wanted to give up her grave at Arlington National Cemetery so that Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev could be buried there. She said she felt for his family and just wanted the “hate to stop.” Fortunately, according to the rules, “a veteran cannot transfer their eligibility to another person.”

I guess it didn’t matter to Frein that burying a terrorist in a cemetery dedicated to the men and women who served in the U.S. military was a dishonor to them. I don’t know what Frein’s thoughts are with respect to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, but she seems to have great concern for one of the bombers. Why not want to give her grave to the 8-year-old who died?

Maybe there is hope for America. Maybe all of our prayers, our work, our energy to defend and support the Constitution of the United States against tyranny is paying off. Time will certainly tell, but at least for the moment, things appear to be looking up.

I’m not letting my guard down though.

The second thing he proved is that he has absolutely no clue how to treat the military. In fact, what he asked of the marines is against protocol and the rules, even though he is technically the “commander-in-chief” of the United States. A fellow conservative on Twitter tweeted me a link that shows the rules for Marines.

@FredDeRuvo Obama made Marine break rules with holding umbrella. em3.conservativebyte.com/wf/click?upn=6…—
  (@Writer61) May 18, 2013

For some, that may not appear to be a big deal, so what’s the problem? According to the link provided, and ”according to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can request a serving officer to carry an umbrella without the express permission of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.”

What is probably most ironic about this little incident is that Obama made sure he had Marines protect him and the Prime Minister from the rain, but Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? Not so much.

It seems that every day, Obama’s actions become more contemptible. The way he stutters after that video segment because he’s dealing with no less than three scandals that Jay Carney refuses to accept as scandals is interesting. He can’t spit the words out he’s so tongue-tied. Maybe he’s just waiting for the teleprompter to catch up.

One website notes, “The Marine Corp Manual, which is the bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier’s uniform dress code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and ‘no officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.”

It goes onto add, “male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training. Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.”

I’m sure these Marines went through all of their training so that one day, they could recount to their grandchildren, “Yep, I once held an umbrella for the president! What a proud day that was!”

Somehow, I doubt it…but to see how a real president does it, someone sent me a link to this image and as you can see, Reagan didn’t care that he was getting rained on, though it’s clear that it was fine for First Lady Nancy to have an umbrella to protect her. It’s also interesting that she carried her own umbrella. Plenty of military around, but I don’t see them acting as her personal valet.

Those days appear to be gone for good.

Apparently, according to witnesses, 9 officers began beating Silva, eventually, killing him. Silvia, who was taken across the street to the medical center, was pronounced dead at that time.

The officers then began rounding up the cell phones from people who had recorded the event. There is a grainy, dark video of the incident that can be viewed. Witnesses say that as Silva was being beaten, he was begging for his life. It was impossible for Silva to fight back against 9 officers and one can only wonder what motivated the officers to beat him as they did.

This type of tragedy is becoming far too common. There are any numbers of websites that catalogue this type of (what appears to be) criminal behavior by officers who are sworn to uphold the law, not break it. One of those websites – CopBlock - already has this particular situation listed and even has an update.

Remember those cell phones that were confiscated by police? Interestingly enough (and not surprisingly), some of the video that had been captured on them has simply disappeared. My goodness, how could that have happened?

CopBlock has stated, “The FBI is now investigating the matter. Sheriff Youngblood has not responded to any of Copwatchers Media Company requests. This is no doubt a cover up. I think it’s about time Sheriff Youngblood steps down for incompetence in office and failure to safeguard evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that you run a corrupt department. At this point we can only hope the FBI can retrieve the deleted videos.”

The tragedy is that this is becoming so common anymore that it is no longer an unusual situation. We have seen too many videos about this type of rogue officer who seems to believe that they are not their to enforce the law, but to be the arresting officer, the judge, and the jury. Why are we having so many instances of cops going off on people, most of them defenseless?

I saw one video yesterday of a man who was in handcuffs and leaning against a cop car. He had been placed there by two female officers. At one point, a male officer comes up and starts talking to the suspect and then hauls off and back hands him to the face/head. The video was recorded by someone in a home not far away from the incident. I’m sure the officer likely thought his action was not being recorded.

There are also many times that police officers will attempt to force people to stop recording. The question is why is that? What are they afraid of if they are remaining within the law? Most states allow recording of police officers in public as long as it is not done secretly. A few states, like California, say recording is illegal. You need to know the law if you’re going to record something involving police officers.

A few days ago, police in Cotati, CA literally broke into a person’s home and tazed both husband and wife, in spite of the fact that no one was resisting and the woman had her hands in the air.

Do some research on the ‘Net. Check out the facts about police brutality. Understand what’s going on in America.

What I’m not saying is that every cop is rogue. I have relatives in law enforcement. Not all cops are bad. Most are there to help and to keep the law, not break it. It seems though that until law enforcement officers and departments break their silence and start coming out to roundly condemn instead of defend the actions of their officers, we will continue to see more cops acting like the ones who beat David Silva to death.

The Sheriff of Kern County – Donny Youngblood - overseeing the deputies who killed David Silva said he viewed one of the videos (now gone) and stated, “I cannot speculate whether they acted appropriately or not just by looking at the video.” Really? That’s interesting. I suggest Youngblood needs new glasses.

Why is it when people are trying to cover up something, they’re go-to answer is something like “I don’t know” or “I can’t be sure”? Reminds me of the Obama administration. Dishonesty breeds contempt. The more law enforcement gets away with these type of events, the more they will happen. It is that simple. No one is above the law. Not the police, not Eric Holder, not Obama.

America took a wrong turn a while ago and we are seeing the results of it.

In part, Gov. Deal’s order states the following:

• The federal government has no constitutional right to determine how the children of the State of Georgia will be educated, and
• That no educational standards shall be imposed on Georgia by the federal government

Deal’s executive order goes onto forbid the disclosure of any identifiable data related to any student in Georgia schools.

The problem with Common Core – as we’re discovering – is that though it is clearly illegal for the federal government to dictate to the states (and HOW did Obamacare become law again?), this is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing. Because of this, state governors are now taking a moment to “hit the pause button” as Gov. Pence has done in Indiana, and now Gov. Deal has done by actually hitting the “stop” button.

No matter how good a program Common Core might be (and I’m not saying it is, just saying even if it was), people are leery because it is coming from the Obama administration. This is not to say that the Common Core is bad or that it started off wrong. It is to merely state that even though the Common Core “first emerged at the state level, undertaken by state governors and state superintendents of education nationwide.”

People like to point out that Common Core has its share of bipartisan support. While that is true, it also has its share of bipartisan opposition. Both the Heritage Foundation and the Pioneer Institute of Boston, which are conservative and libertarian respectively, oppose Common Core for a variety of reasons. So too does Glenda Ritz, a Democrat currently serving as Indiana’s State Superintendent of Education.

Obviously, there are issues with the Common Core. Aside from the major loophole dealing with lack of privacy for students, there are issues with Common Core that need to be addressed. Because of these issues, more individuals are deciding to hold off on implementing Common Core, or walking away from it altogether.

We’ll keep this conversation going as we continue to dig into Common Core.

“Congress, Democrats and Republicans, owe it to the American people to treat that authority with the responsibility it deserves and in a way that doesn’t smack of politics or partisan agendas.”

While that is duly noted, the trouble is that what the IRS did appears to have been done solely based on partisan agendas and politics given that the IRS specifically went after conservative groups on the right and not groups on the left.

We know from documentation that the IRS specifically targeted groups that were flagged for having one or more of the following criteria:

• Whether “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” was referenced in the case file.
• Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
• Whether there was advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
• Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
• Whether it advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

All of the above points are clearly emphasizing politics. Think about it. The IRS went after groups if their intention was to educate people about the founding documents of this country. This kind of reactionary invasion of privacy and restriction of people’s rights by the left is unconscionable, yet it happened. In spite of that, Obama has the audacity to suggest that an investigation should proceed without smacking of politics.

Of course, it may have been that Obama was indirectly referencing the Investigator General’s report.

“A 48-page IG report explicitly stated that the IRS behavior was ‘not politically biased,’ that it was due to lower-level staff who did not understand their jobs and sometimes acted insubordinately, and that it was not driven by the White House.”

Unfortunately, that statement appears to stretch credulity. Even if only a few “lower-level staff” members were responsible for the entire thing (which in itself is very difficult to believe), surely it is more than obvious that their intentions were very politically biased. They didn’t understand their jobs? Acted insubordinately? Says a lot for the IRS with employees like that. Why was the acting director fired and there is no word as to whether or not those two “lower-level staff” members are still gainfully employed?

Actually, the four employees have already come out to say they were merely doing what they were ordered to do. Uh oh, now what?

In spite of the statements in the IG report, it appears that harassing letters from the IRS to conservative groups came, not just from Cincinnati, but also from Washington, DC headquarters as well as California offices of the IRS. Lest we also forget, officials from the IRS actually apologized not for the appearance of unfairly targeting conservative groups, but for actually targeting them. How did the IG miss the obvious?

In another turn of events, “The American Center on Law and Justice is threatening to sue the IRS if 27 tea party groups aren’t granted tax-exempt statuses by Friday.” This is serious stuff and when you even have Democrats agreeing that laws were likely broken by the IRS, firing the acting director of the IRS really doesn’t cut it. We are talking about the potential of some people going to jail over this situation. Is the IG saying that a few “lower-level staff” members managed to stall all those conservative groups by themselves and no one else knew about it? Right. Is the IRS going to fire them? Retrain them? Promote them? What? Will they go to jail, but turn state’s evidence against their higher-ups? More whistle blowers? Sheesh, it’s asinine.

I have not read the entirety of the IG report, but it appears that at least some time is spent trying to soft soap the situation and remove any potential blame from the Obama administration. This is in spite of the fact that the IRS is part of the Executive Branch of our government (US Treasury) and is therefore overseen by the White House. Whether or not the White House is involved will hopefully become very clear (as to their innocence or guilt), but the fact that the IG, some Democrats, and talking heads are going to bat for Obama makes it stink. It gives the impression that they are not really interested in truth because they are too busy trying to redirect.

I notice that Obama did not say that he would have an open door, that his administration would cooperate in every way with the investigation. Nothing.

Whether or not the IRS was playing politics remains to be seen. At least one conservative group – after waiting for over a year (from July 2011 to September 2012) – decided to resubmit an application for the same group with a different name, a name that didn’t sound conservative. Once they did this, with the name Greenhouse Solutions, their application was approved within three weeks. That’s the length of time it should take. Even with fewer agents on hand to process the paperwork, maybe six weeks tops. Definitely not a year. That’s absurd.

Something is terribly wrong with our government. Not sure it can be fixed, in spite of what Obama has said that it is fixable, but it needs to be fixed. The problem is that it’s the same people who have been in office with one, then two, then three, or more scandals, one right after the other. Each time, we’ve heard the words “we’re going to do everything in our power to make sure that this does not happen again,” or words to that effect. It’s like a broken record and still the scandals continue to come.

What’s next? I guess we’ll see then if a new scandal has developed overnight. If so, we can expect the same type of responses to the new one that we’ve had to the current ones: “I don’t know anything about that, but I will get to the bottom of it and all responsible parties will be held responsible.”

That works for every scandal so far. I’m sure it’ll continue to work for any others that pop up. Thursday’s another day and as I finish this up, it’s already Thursday morning. You ready? Wonder if this administration is…