Yes, and the irony is that the more the Democrats try to shield Obama from responsibility, the more they cast blame on Democrats in general.

To those who objected to my 9:13 post I would point out that even those dishonorable illegal immigrants living here because of the availability of welfare consider that to be a better opportunity than what is available in their native country's. That is not to excuse them. It is to place the root cause where it belongs and where it is seldom if ever acknowledged. We even allowed the past president of Mexico to scold us for not allowing as many of those who consider America to be a better place for them to live than what he offers to come into our country as fast as he would have us do.

I believe she does have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment selectively but because of that I also believe she should be required to actually do so. If the contention is that she can give her side of the story, answer questions she chooses to answer and refuse to answer questions she does not choose to answer then those questions should be asked of her so we know which is which. If she refuses to answer any questions she should at least be required to endure the process of repeatedly doing so. She should not be allowed to refuse to cooperate and do so in an easy way which does not inconvenience her

The irony is that it is Mexico that is responsible for our illegal immigration problem by not providing its citizens with an opportunity as good as the poorest available here.

This and things like 'we have to pass it tio find out what is in it' are the type of drivel you get from those who, through experience, are confident that whatever they say will be accepted and repeated without question throughout the MSM whose freedom is intended to prevent that very thing. But it is no worse than the official Democrat disingenuous dissemination coming from those who committed these outrages. Think about it. Those who have the temerity to wonder if an harassing IRS policy conducted against only Republicans while the Executive branch to which it reports was under the control of Democrats might have been politically motivated are the ones accused of politicizing the issue. I fear we are discovering that a a government of the people, by the people and for the people cannot long endure.

We voted to become Mexico in 2008 and again in 2012.

I agree. Everyone should read his book 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice' in which he reveals the fundamental core of what Liberalism believes itself to be capable of doing.

Unlike when the shoe is on the other foot, the point of these scandals is not that Democrats are bad and Republicans are good. The point is that Conservatives are right. Government is to be feared and should be constrained in size, scope and power least its inherent corruptibility inevitably lead to unacceptable excesses. Even our elected officials admit in the so called 'campaign finance reform' that they are so irretrievably corruptible that the only way we can protect ourselves from their corruptibility is for us to allow them to take away our freedom of political speech during election campaigns. It is not just that some big contributors might expect favors in return. It is that politicians are all too willing to grant them.

I agree with Gowdy. She should have been made to sit through the hearing and endure the embarrassing implication that a crime was committed and for her to answer any question would provide evidence that she was involved in committing it.

Take a look at that photo of Hillary. Ever notice how some people come to look like their dogma?

Of course there is a deep divide! One side wants to stop illegal immigration and the other side wants to reward it. Hard to conceive of any policies that would do both.