The Hewitt Times

Since President Obama was inaugurated this January, most would say the first four months of his second term were going well, until now. The Obama administration has been experiencing a large breakdown of what was their seemingly invincible political machine with the outbreak of three major scandals almost simultaneously, involving the attacks on Benghazi, questionable I.R.S. criteria, and decisions made by the Associated Press.

Last September on the anniversary of 9/11, a terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya caused the deaths of four people, including that of U.S. Ambassador J.Christopher Stevens. Following the attack, US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice was called upon to explain why the embassy wasn’t adequately protected, especially on a momentous day like 9/11.  Rice initially attributed the attack to an anti-Islamist YouTube video that sparked a demonstration led by the citizens of Libya rather than an assault from fundamental Islamic extremists. Recently, the Obama administration has been trying to find a way to present new and correct information on the Benghazi attack in the form of “Benghazi Talking Points,” including the identity of the attackers and the reason for the

attack. After 12 revisions of these talking points, the general idea remains that the demonstrations were inspired by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo which led to the Benghazi attack. Now, there are signs that the extremists were in fact part of thedemonstration. Republicans, particularly Darrell Issa, representative of California’s 49^th congressional district, have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead Americans about an act of terrorism, especially since the incident occurred in the heat of the presidential campaign. The State Department has released thousands of pages of documents detailing the government’s understanding of the situation thus far, but Issa claims that the department is still withholding documents, which led him to issue a subpoena on Tuesday May 28^th on emails and other communications on the Benghazi terror attack.

While the IRS is not being subpoenaed, it certainly has a lot of questions to answer. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing US tax laws has admitted to using unfair criteria in determining which organizations will be exempt from paying federal income tax. The Internal Revenue Code section 501 (c ) (4) “provides for the exemption of… social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and local association of employees: the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” In close scrutiny of organizations applying for this tax-exempt status, the IRS discriminated against groups with certain words in their names such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots”, or “9/12 Project. ”  For this reason, Tea Party activists have engaged in various nationwide demonstrations outside the IRS offices angrily waving their Gadsden flags, a symbol of the American Tea Party Movement.

In addition, the IRS targeted groups that criticize how the country is being run or focus on challenging Obamacare. However, liberal organizations with the world like “progress” or “progressive”in their names have generally received approval. When Lois Lerner, Head of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division,  learned of this unjust practice, she ordered it to stop but wasn’t taken heed to. In an apology to the “Tea Party” and other conservative groups, Lerner clarified that the reason behind these unfair decisions was poor judgment and was not rooted in politics.

The Justice Department is being accused of an even worse transgression: violation of the constitution. The seizure of private information from the journalists of the Associated Press is perhaps one of the most unconstitutional acts that has occurred under

the Obama administration.  The Justice Department secretly obtained telephone records directly from phone companies with information from 20 A.P. phone lines, including office phones, home, and cell phones of the journalists. The A.P. still hasn’t been given a reason for this invasion of their privacy, but many suspect it was a part of an ongoing government investigation of the A.P.’s coverage a year ago of the C.I.A’s intervention of a terrorist plot based in Yemen. Even so, Gary Pruitt, head of the Associated Press, believes that the A.P. should’ve had an opportunity to fight the seizure especially since it violates freedom of press, clearly outlined in the First Amendment. Disregarding the First Amendment threatens the ability of journalists to inform the public or do their job properly, as journalism relies heavily on freedom of the press. By taking such drastic measures, the government is showing that the “people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know,” says Pruitt.

Many Americans wondered how Obama would straighten out this mess. He began on Monday 13th by holding a press conference where he said that he has no patience or tolerance for the poor decisions made by the IRS. Obama did not want to feed into the claims made by the media, so he made sure to state that the IRS personnel who were involved in this act would be held accountable when he finds out exactly what happened. In the case of the seizing of the AP phone records, Obama is fighting for Congress to debate and pass a media-shield law, which gives journalists the right to refuse to reveal information on their news sources. As for the Benghazi attacks, Obama holds himself responsible for the lives of diplomats and intelligence officers he sends to dangerous places, but will not stomach more of the debate on the “Benghazi Talking Points.” For his response to these scandals, Obama is seen by some as a passive president, but he prefers to know all of the relevant facts before firing anyone or acting in an irrational manner.