5/19/2013
As bad as it is, it is probably worse.
Most people on the right side of the political spectrum view the recent revelations of the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative organizations for "special" treatment as proof that Barack Obama is everything that we have been saying about him for the past six years. The truth is probably far worse.
Oh it is more than probable that the Obama Administration knew of the shenanigans going on at the IRS for some time, perhaps even from the beginning, but the real problem, the reality that should send shivers up every American's spine is that probably nobody in the Obama Administration directed the IRS to do it.
If someone in the Administration and it would have to be a powerful member to do so, did pull the strings to get the IRS to harass conservative groups, well then we just have corrupt politician doing what corrupt politicians do. But the far more likely scenario is that the IRS took the opportunity of a sympathetic administration being in power to go after its, the IRS's, enemies. In other words the IRS, as an institution, sees the Tea Party and other like minded conservative organizations as a threat to their power
Since its formation the Tea Party has been portrayed as a bunch of greedy white people hell bent on protecting themselves from higher taxes. But the Tea Party movement has always made it clear that taxes are just a symptom of a far deeper threat. The primary motivation of the Tea party movement is the belief that the federal government is far too big and is trampling on American's individual and constitutional protected freedoms.
The Tea Party has always understood one important historical truth, government = control.
This is why the Tea Party so identifies with our Founders, they too understood this simple truth and devised a system of government that, if maintained, would limit the power of government thus insuring a greater degree of individual freedom than had ever existed before the founding of our nation, Of course that system of government has not been maintained and thus we have deteriorated to the point where the IRS is harassing citizens whose only crime is that they want to become more involved in the political process of their nation.
Nothing has validated the Tea Party's concerns of an out of control federal government as has the IRS targeting of those who most openly challenge big government. The IRS, like a cornered animal lashed out at its protagonist because its very existence, its institutional survival were threatened. The institutional instincts of one of the United States most powerful and feared agencies in order to protect itself has shown it not only can but will destroy American's constitutional liberties in order to maintain its power, the power which legally belongs to the very citizens it attacks. .
It is one thing for a partisan politician and his administration to use the power of governing to punish their political enemies, happens all the time. It is quite another thing for the Leviathan of a massive Federal bureaucracy to target ordinary citizens. We know this to be true regardless of the circumstances of who specifically directed these actions. With such widespread abuse of power, nobody stepped forward to blow the whistle. No IRS employee less alone manager stepped forward and declared "this is wrong". Neither publicly or with the protection of whistle blower status, did any bureaucrat think it important to protect fellow citizens from the abuse of power by a tyrannical government agency. The IRS as an agency was more important to these people than the constitutional protections of average Americans.
I sincerely wish that Obama and his petty tyrants had forced the IRS to "punish" his enemies, the solution to that is relatively simple. But the IRS and other such federal agencies are not on the ballot every four years and you do not impeach the Federal bureaucracy.
Our federal government is a amalgamation self sustaining and self defending organisms not really subject to political control, by either party. Constitutional restraints even in their current state of political demise are absolutely meaningless to soulless institutions whose only purpose are its own perpetuation. The federal government is now so big that all of its institutions are entities unto themselves divorced from and little concerned with the citizens of the rest of the nation they ostensibly exist to serve.. They exist in order to exist, there truly is no higher goal.
If Obama ordered the IRS to attack the Tea Party that would, in one sense, be good news. It would show that the IRS was subject to "civilian" control, even if misguided, corrupt and un-American control. But I fear it is far worse than that, I fear the IRS just does what it wants in order to maintain control, its control of us, to protect itself.
5/18/2013
A Liberal/Progressive Epiphany
Via-American Thinker
By Jeffrey T. Brown
Now that the low-information/low-knowledge segment of the country is waking up to what conservatives have been pointing out since Barack Obama was first sanctified by the left, we are being treated to the spectacle of a liberal epiphany. How, they ask themselves, could this have happened? How could they have been suckered so completely? After all, liberals/progressives tell us all the time, they are a superior manifestation of the species. They are always right, and their political opponents are always bad people, motivated by ignorance and stupidity at best, and impure designs at least.
Our progressive masters proclaim that they are not nearly so ignorant, and that those to whom the liberal legions pledge their fealty have "evolved" into more modern, nobler beings. That they have done so in direct proportion to the demands of political correctness presents a hitherto unknown form of evolution, but science somehow always favors liberals, doesn't it? And if it is necessary to ignore truth now and then to enhance the evolution, or cook the science, so be it. Progress demands blindness to all prior lessons, especially those involving human nature and human failings. Progressives evolve in the opposite direction of history, experience, and evidence.
And yet, at least some of these self-appointed wizards are finally asking themselves how it's possible that those troglodytes, those conservatives, might have been right all along about the pathological dishonesty of the lords of progressivism while they, the ever-evolving, were duped.
Perhaps the answer lies in the modern practice of progressivism. Progressivism as played out in the last fifty years in America is the belief system of deeply unserious people. It exists to indulge a complete and utter lack of maturity and responsibility in large enough numbers that it is assured of getting its way. It celebrates vices. It must be imposed coercively. Overt fraud and deceit are admired skills. Its practitioners wallow in behaviors and beliefs that prior generations recognized as embarrassing character flaws. It is the belief system of spoiled, antisocial children and misguided enablers, rather than responsible grownups.
Mature adults disapprove of outright deception. It is a violation of the social code. Progressives, however, need it like air.
Indeed, no vice is quite so highly prized and honored in progressivism as lying. Every achievement attributed to progressivism is a product of pure dishonesty. Welfare, illegal immigration, gun control, socialized medicine, energy policy, our present concepts of diplomacy and foreign policy -- all are based on lies, as to both the original object and the ultimate progressive claims of success. They spring from modern liberal concepts of charity, fairness, safety, respect, and cooperation, but those concepts have themselves been redefined to conceal the progressive's immoral interpretation of them from the casual observer.
Progressives have thus brought us Socialism, economic paralysis, rampant unemployment, social division, officially endorsed discrimination, rejection of God and traditional morality, the hyper-sexualization of children, devaluation of all human life, and absolutely no hope of improvement. Despite their successes in this effort, and do not doubt that they consider these outcomes successes, they lie to Herculean heights to conceal them. They lie even about their victories lest we see them clearly in time to reverse them.
When one sets about to fundamentally transform a moral country -- that is, one which has adopted a legal code and social structure founded upon traditional morality -- one simply cannot do so transparently. We have seen that when liars profess their transparency, they are lying. When liars blame their enemies for events that either did not happen or which the liars themselves brought about, they are lying. When liars tout their own actions or intentions, they are lying. One does not create an unjust social structure and replace justice with injustice by telling the truth about what is afoot.
We have never had a more dishonest president than we do at this time in our history. He is the embodiment of progressivism. He lies effortlessly. It is not merely second nature to such a man. It is his essence. Every public statement he makes is the perfect opposite of truth.
Thus, however implausibly, we are assured he knows nothing of his own actions. He has never done anything, approved anything, or been informed of anything that can be held against him. He is not merely Teflon -- he is invisible. Those working for the most powerful man in the world also know nothing. Those in his Cabinet know nothing. They do nothing. They see nothing. They sign nothing. They produce nothing. They are responsible for nothing. And yet, somehow, enormous things keep happening that required someone to do something, and know something, and produce something.
Everything is the fault of someone else. When the progressive errs, others are to blame. Those bad straw people made the progressive do what he did. It's not his fault. It is never his fault. Thus, the unserious child, the one who is never to blame and who is always a victim, emerges to offer his excuses. His enablers do the same, possessed of the same lack of seriousness and integrity, at least for as long as they can do so without worrying that they are becoming obviously foolish. That some of them seem to know where that line is speaks volumes about the lies they tell before seeing that it is in their best interests to stop.
One of the problems with this system, however, is that to eventually overwhelm its precursor, the deceptions must be carried out constantly and on a very grand scale, and some of us who have read books know that while there are still serious people contributing to the country, something will eventually give. It appears that we may finally have reached such a tipping point.
Those who have shielded and coddled the liars from scrutiny and criticism have themselves been bitten by the spoiled brats. They have seen briefly what it is to be the target, both of lies and of bad behavior, and they don't like it. In brief moments of lucidity, despite having such clarity forced upon them, even the enablers begin to grasp that everyone is expendable for the cause. The question is, are there enough serious people left in this country to see progressivism clearly, as it is being laid bare before them, and punish the liars who have already done so much damage?
By Jeffrey T. Brown
Now that the low-information/low-knowledge segment of the country is waking up to what conservatives have been pointing out since Barack Obama was first sanctified by the left, we are being treated to the spectacle of a liberal epiphany. How, they ask themselves, could this have happened? How could they have been suckered so completely? After all, liberals/progressives tell us all the time, they are a superior manifestation of the species. They are always right, and their political opponents are always bad people, motivated by ignorance and stupidity at best, and impure designs at least.
Our progressive masters proclaim that they are not nearly so ignorant, and that those to whom the liberal legions pledge their fealty have "evolved" into more modern, nobler beings. That they have done so in direct proportion to the demands of political correctness presents a hitherto unknown form of evolution, but science somehow always favors liberals, doesn't it? And if it is necessary to ignore truth now and then to enhance the evolution, or cook the science, so be it. Progress demands blindness to all prior lessons, especially those involving human nature and human failings. Progressives evolve in the opposite direction of history, experience, and evidence.
And yet, at least some of these self-appointed wizards are finally asking themselves how it's possible that those troglodytes, those conservatives, might have been right all along about the pathological dishonesty of the lords of progressivism while they, the ever-evolving, were duped.
Perhaps the answer lies in the modern practice of progressivism. Progressivism as played out in the last fifty years in America is the belief system of deeply unserious people. It exists to indulge a complete and utter lack of maturity and responsibility in large enough numbers that it is assured of getting its way. It celebrates vices. It must be imposed coercively. Overt fraud and deceit are admired skills. Its practitioners wallow in behaviors and beliefs that prior generations recognized as embarrassing character flaws. It is the belief system of spoiled, antisocial children and misguided enablers, rather than responsible grownups.
Mature adults disapprove of outright deception. It is a violation of the social code. Progressives, however, need it like air.
Indeed, no vice is quite so highly prized and honored in progressivism as lying. Every achievement attributed to progressivism is a product of pure dishonesty. Welfare, illegal immigration, gun control, socialized medicine, energy policy, our present concepts of diplomacy and foreign policy -- all are based on lies, as to both the original object and the ultimate progressive claims of success. They spring from modern liberal concepts of charity, fairness, safety, respect, and cooperation, but those concepts have themselves been redefined to conceal the progressive's immoral interpretation of them from the casual observer.
Progressives have thus brought us Socialism, economic paralysis, rampant unemployment, social division, officially endorsed discrimination, rejection of God and traditional morality, the hyper-sexualization of children, devaluation of all human life, and absolutely no hope of improvement. Despite their successes in this effort, and do not doubt that they consider these outcomes successes, they lie to Herculean heights to conceal them. They lie even about their victories lest we see them clearly in time to reverse them.
When one sets about to fundamentally transform a moral country -- that is, one which has adopted a legal code and social structure founded upon traditional morality -- one simply cannot do so transparently. We have seen that when liars profess their transparency, they are lying. When liars blame their enemies for events that either did not happen or which the liars themselves brought about, they are lying. When liars tout their own actions or intentions, they are lying. One does not create an unjust social structure and replace justice with injustice by telling the truth about what is afoot.
We have never had a more dishonest president than we do at this time in our history. He is the embodiment of progressivism. He lies effortlessly. It is not merely second nature to such a man. It is his essence. Every public statement he makes is the perfect opposite of truth.
Thus, however implausibly, we are assured he knows nothing of his own actions. He has never done anything, approved anything, or been informed of anything that can be held against him. He is not merely Teflon -- he is invisible. Those working for the most powerful man in the world also know nothing. Those in his Cabinet know nothing. They do nothing. They see nothing. They sign nothing. They produce nothing. They are responsible for nothing. And yet, somehow, enormous things keep happening that required someone to do something, and know something, and produce something.
Everything is the fault of someone else. When the progressive errs, others are to blame. Those bad straw people made the progressive do what he did. It's not his fault. It is never his fault. Thus, the unserious child, the one who is never to blame and who is always a victim, emerges to offer his excuses. His enablers do the same, possessed of the same lack of seriousness and integrity, at least for as long as they can do so without worrying that they are becoming obviously foolish. That some of them seem to know where that line is speaks volumes about the lies they tell before seeing that it is in their best interests to stop.
One of the problems with this system, however, is that to eventually overwhelm its precursor, the deceptions must be carried out constantly and on a very grand scale, and some of us who have read books know that while there are still serious people contributing to the country, something will eventually give. It appears that we may finally have reached such a tipping point.
Those who have shielded and coddled the liars from scrutiny and criticism have themselves been bitten by the spoiled brats. They have seen briefly what it is to be the target, both of lies and of bad behavior, and they don't like it. In brief moments of lucidity, despite having such clarity forced upon them, even the enablers begin to grasp that everyone is expendable for the cause. The question is, are there enough serious people left in this country to see progressivism clearly, as it is being laid bare before them, and punish the liars who have already done so much damage?
5/17/2013
What the Obama Scandals Reveal About Progressive Ideology
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Bruce Thornton
The three scandals dominating the news this week all reveal the moral and intellectual corruption at the heart of progressive ideology. Whether are not these revelations gain enough traction to halt the country’s downward spiral is the more important question.
Benghazi
The moment it came into office the Obama administration bought into the delusional narrative that Islamic jihadist terror is a response to Western historical crimes against Muslims, rather than an expression of Islamic theology. The Israeli “occupation” of Palestine, the depredations of colonialism and imperialism, the resulting dysfunctional economies and oppressive governments in Muslim countries, the arrogant xenophobia and intolerance of American culture, the invasions of Muslim countries after 9/11––all were identified as the “root causes” of terrorism.
Obama’s foreign policy, based on the assumptions of American guilt and the malign consequences of George Bush’s arrogant, unilateralist foreign policy, thus was an attempt to correct the bad policies and behaviors that instigated terror. Thus Obama apologized in his Cairo speech, eagerly extended a diplomatic “hand” to the genocidal mullahs in Iraq, rushed for the exits in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the dubious “Arab Spring” uprisings and their Islamist prime movers like the Muslim Brothers, and distanced America from Israel.
The intervention in Libya seemed to be an easy way to validate these beliefs, at the same time avoiding the charge of retreat and withdrawal from America’s global responsibilities to advance human rights and protect the victims of tyranny. The overthrow of Gaddafi was sanctioned by the U.N. and engineered by NATO, thus confirming the progressive belief that unilaterally pursuing national interests was, like nationalism itself, immoral, and that only transnational collective action sanctioned by international institutions was legitimate.
For a while the optics were good. A creepy psychopath was eliminated, no casualties were suffered, and a seemingly secular democracy was aborning. The idealism of democracy promotion, one bungled by the unilateral, trigger-happy George Bush, was indulged at little political cost, while the “legitimate” war, against al Qaeda, was being pursued just as cheaply with out-of-sight, out-of-mind drone killings, proving that Obama was no crypto-pacifist squish. Hence the foreign policy narrative peddled during the presidential campaign that al Qaeda was on the ropes and democracy was on the march.
The attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, eight weeks before the election, exploded that narrative. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were not on the ropes, but were growing and expanding, and could swiftly organize the sack of an embassy office and the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, humiliating the infidel superpower. Libya was not a democracy-in-the-making, but a Darwinian tribal and sectarian jungle dominated by jihadists armed with the weapons we put in their hands when we destroyed the Gaddafi regime. The refusal to beef up security in Benghazi, which would have been an admission that things weren’t so rosy in the fledgling democracy, now looked like a political calculation that cost American lives. Worse yet, once more the idea that terrorism is a response to our bad behavior was exploded, as many of those Libyans we had liberated turned against us, just as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have.
So of course the attack had to be spun into something closer to Obama’s foreign policy narrative: the attack was caused by a “spontaneous” protest against an Internet video insulting Mohammed. The administration knew this was a lie the day of the attack, but could not admit this repudiation of Obama’s foreign policy claims so close to the election, and so kept repeating the lie for two weeks, trusting the media spaniels to spin the attack and collude in the still on-going cover-up.
IRS Political Harassment
By Bruce Thornton
The three scandals dominating the news this week all reveal the moral and intellectual corruption at the heart of progressive ideology. Whether are not these revelations gain enough traction to halt the country’s downward spiral is the more important question.
Benghazi
The moment it came into office the Obama administration bought into the delusional narrative that Islamic jihadist terror is a response to Western historical crimes against Muslims, rather than an expression of Islamic theology. The Israeli “occupation” of Palestine, the depredations of colonialism and imperialism, the resulting dysfunctional economies and oppressive governments in Muslim countries, the arrogant xenophobia and intolerance of American culture, the invasions of Muslim countries after 9/11––all were identified as the “root causes” of terrorism.
Obama’s foreign policy, based on the assumptions of American guilt and the malign consequences of George Bush’s arrogant, unilateralist foreign policy, thus was an attempt to correct the bad policies and behaviors that instigated terror. Thus Obama apologized in his Cairo speech, eagerly extended a diplomatic “hand” to the genocidal mullahs in Iraq, rushed for the exits in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the dubious “Arab Spring” uprisings and their Islamist prime movers like the Muslim Brothers, and distanced America from Israel.
The intervention in Libya seemed to be an easy way to validate these beliefs, at the same time avoiding the charge of retreat and withdrawal from America’s global responsibilities to advance human rights and protect the victims of tyranny. The overthrow of Gaddafi was sanctioned by the U.N. and engineered by NATO, thus confirming the progressive belief that unilaterally pursuing national interests was, like nationalism itself, immoral, and that only transnational collective action sanctioned by international institutions was legitimate.
For a while the optics were good. A creepy psychopath was eliminated, no casualties were suffered, and a seemingly secular democracy was aborning. The idealism of democracy promotion, one bungled by the unilateral, trigger-happy George Bush, was indulged at little political cost, while the “legitimate” war, against al Qaeda, was being pursued just as cheaply with out-of-sight, out-of-mind drone killings, proving that Obama was no crypto-pacifist squish. Hence the foreign policy narrative peddled during the presidential campaign that al Qaeda was on the ropes and democracy was on the march.
The attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, eight weeks before the election, exploded that narrative. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were not on the ropes, but were growing and expanding, and could swiftly organize the sack of an embassy office and the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, humiliating the infidel superpower. Libya was not a democracy-in-the-making, but a Darwinian tribal and sectarian jungle dominated by jihadists armed with the weapons we put in their hands when we destroyed the Gaddafi regime. The refusal to beef up security in Benghazi, which would have been an admission that things weren’t so rosy in the fledgling democracy, now looked like a political calculation that cost American lives. Worse yet, once more the idea that terrorism is a response to our bad behavior was exploded, as many of those Libyans we had liberated turned against us, just as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have.
So of course the attack had to be spun into something closer to Obama’s foreign policy narrative: the attack was caused by a “spontaneous” protest against an Internet video insulting Mohammed. The administration knew this was a lie the day of the attack, but could not admit this repudiation of Obama’s foreign policy claims so close to the election, and so kept repeating the lie for two weeks, trusting the media spaniels to spin the attack and collude in the still on-going cover-up.
IRS Political Harassment
5/15/2013
Notable Quotes
If oppressing your enemies and silencing your critics doesn’t constitute tyranny, I don’t know what does.
Matt K Lewis
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama
Via-Chicago Tribune
President is Chicago politician, not Narnia faun
John Kass
Dogged by scandal, and with his press secretary presumably now curled up in the fetal position and breathing into a brown paper bag, it's obvious President Barack Obama is in need.
Our president must find his happy place again, away from irritating controversies.
Like Benghazi, where four Americans died and he stood before the United Nations and made a phony reference to a ridiculous video in order to save his politics at the expense of the truth.
And now it's known that his Internal Revenue Service was used to threaten conservative and tea party groups and quash political dissent. The IRS also leaked damaging information from secret files against his political enemies to the media, prompting some to call him President Barack Milhous Obama.
Another scandal, involving the Justice Department seizing reporters' phone records hoping to find administration leaks, is a chilling assault on the First Amendment that would have made Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover smile.
What Obama requires is another relaxing vacation. This time, the man needs a visit to Happy Land.
So please take my hand, Mr. President, and we'll fly there, over those political storm clouds in Washington, to where things were just about perfect:
Back home to Chicago. Grant Park. November 2008.
Can you remember the looks of genuine adoration in their eyes?
Some were so overcome they couldn't help but weep for joy. Others barely stopped their lips from twitching. Still others were wiggly with excitement, like puppies unable to keep still, and we know what puppies do when they're excited.
Many hugged and offered high-fives, or loudly clapped, or clinked glasses and gave each other profound smiles of satisfaction and joy.
And that was just the journalists.
The rest of Obama's voters were ecstatic too. But as historians will no doubt tell us, American journalists were especially thrilled.
Not all. A few grumpy types complained that messianic politics is never healthy for the Republic. But who could listen with all that joy in their ears?
The Republican establishment — the War Party — had been vanquished, and deservedly so, for talking out of both sides of its mouth about the need for a smaller government while feeding from that monstrous defense industry trough. They're in the wilderness still, and should remain there for a while.
And Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton had already had her wings clipped. Remember? She and Bill had dared suggest that Obama had played the old Chicago race card on her in the Democratic presidential primary — that primary of the 3 a.m. phone call. The media response was to crush her.
There was no memo, but the messengers gathered with common purpose, as if compelled by journalistic pheromones to do what must be done. And it was done. To Hillary. For her apostasy, she was almost cast out.
Because Obama wasn't just another politician. Reporters flocked to him as if he was the gentle forest faun, Mr. Tumnus straight out of the Narnia tales.
And American journalism was like that little girl in the C.S. Lewis stories, Lucy Pevensie, graciously accepting his tea and cakes, nodding off to the music of his woodland pipes, sleeping on his couch, smiling.
It was odd and somewhat frightening to watch so-called journalistic iconoclasts cleaving desperately to the myth of Obama as savior. His mouthpieces came up with excellent lines that were repeated endlessly, my favorite being that the guy from Chicago would transcend "the broken politics of the past."
Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach.
Benghazi is trouble enough for Obama, so troubling that a liberal soccer friend (yes, I do appreciate diversity of opinion) greeted me by sarcastically chanting, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" as if that dusty, bloody town in Libya doesn't mean a thing.
But it means something to Obama's credibility, which is now in tatters. And it means something to the four dead Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. It means something to the whistle-blowers who say they were pressured not to talk.
And Benghazi means something to the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state's snarky comment "What difference, at this point, does it make?" will hang from her neck like the dead albatross in the poem. By 2016 it should be exceedingly ripe.
These days, Benghazi is no longer being viewed as some isolated artifact in a glass jar. The other scandals have joined it, and combine in organic fashion to produce a president on the defensive. The Obama administration insists its fingerprints aren't on this IRS business, and the president himself condemns it as an outrage.
But it is worse than an outrage. And the president was the beneficiary. If he were truly angry, he'd have fired people immediately. The push by the White House for an "independent" investigation is also an outrage.
It is the Congress' job to investigate. Let them ask the IRS why it provided information damaging to tea party members and conservatives to investigative reporters at ProPublica.
Using the IRS to smother dissent and grabbing the phone records of The Associated Press isn't something a gentle Mr. Tumnus would do.
But it is something done by politicians from Chicago, where government is the muscle that shuts the mouth.
President is Chicago politician, not Narnia faun
John Kass
Dogged by scandal, and with his press secretary presumably now curled up in the fetal position and breathing into a brown paper bag, it's obvious President Barack Obama is in need.
Our president must find his happy place again, away from irritating controversies.
Like Benghazi, where four Americans died and he stood before the United Nations and made a phony reference to a ridiculous video in order to save his politics at the expense of the truth.
And now it's known that his Internal Revenue Service was used to threaten conservative and tea party groups and quash political dissent. The IRS also leaked damaging information from secret files against his political enemies to the media, prompting some to call him President Barack Milhous Obama.
Another scandal, involving the Justice Department seizing reporters' phone records hoping to find administration leaks, is a chilling assault on the First Amendment that would have made Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover smile.
What Obama requires is another relaxing vacation. This time, the man needs a visit to Happy Land.
So please take my hand, Mr. President, and we'll fly there, over those political storm clouds in Washington, to where things were just about perfect:
Back home to Chicago. Grant Park. November 2008.
Can you remember the looks of genuine adoration in their eyes?
Some were so overcome they couldn't help but weep for joy. Others barely stopped their lips from twitching. Still others were wiggly with excitement, like puppies unable to keep still, and we know what puppies do when they're excited.
Many hugged and offered high-fives, or loudly clapped, or clinked glasses and gave each other profound smiles of satisfaction and joy.
And that was just the journalists.
The rest of Obama's voters were ecstatic too. But as historians will no doubt tell us, American journalists were especially thrilled.
Not all. A few grumpy types complained that messianic politics is never healthy for the Republic. But who could listen with all that joy in their ears?
The Republican establishment — the War Party — had been vanquished, and deservedly so, for talking out of both sides of its mouth about the need for a smaller government while feeding from that monstrous defense industry trough. They're in the wilderness still, and should remain there for a while.
And Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton had already had her wings clipped. Remember? She and Bill had dared suggest that Obama had played the old Chicago race card on her in the Democratic presidential primary — that primary of the 3 a.m. phone call. The media response was to crush her.
There was no memo, but the messengers gathered with common purpose, as if compelled by journalistic pheromones to do what must be done. And it was done. To Hillary. For her apostasy, she was almost cast out.
Because Obama wasn't just another politician. Reporters flocked to him as if he was the gentle forest faun, Mr. Tumnus straight out of the Narnia tales.
And American journalism was like that little girl in the C.S. Lewis stories, Lucy Pevensie, graciously accepting his tea and cakes, nodding off to the music of his woodland pipes, sleeping on his couch, smiling.
It was odd and somewhat frightening to watch so-called journalistic iconoclasts cleaving desperately to the myth of Obama as savior. His mouthpieces came up with excellent lines that were repeated endlessly, my favorite being that the guy from Chicago would transcend "the broken politics of the past."
Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach.
Benghazi is trouble enough for Obama, so troubling that a liberal soccer friend (yes, I do appreciate diversity of opinion) greeted me by sarcastically chanting, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" as if that dusty, bloody town in Libya doesn't mean a thing.
But it means something to Obama's credibility, which is now in tatters. And it means something to the four dead Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. It means something to the whistle-blowers who say they were pressured not to talk.
And Benghazi means something to the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state's snarky comment "What difference, at this point, does it make?" will hang from her neck like the dead albatross in the poem. By 2016 it should be exceedingly ripe.
These days, Benghazi is no longer being viewed as some isolated artifact in a glass jar. The other scandals have joined it, and combine in organic fashion to produce a president on the defensive. The Obama administration insists its fingerprints aren't on this IRS business, and the president himself condemns it as an outrage.
But it is worse than an outrage. And the president was the beneficiary. If he were truly angry, he'd have fired people immediately. The push by the White House for an "independent" investigation is also an outrage.
It is the Congress' job to investigate. Let them ask the IRS why it provided information damaging to tea party members and conservatives to investigative reporters at ProPublica.
Using the IRS to smother dissent and grabbing the phone records of The Associated Press isn't something a gentle Mr. Tumnus would do.
But it is something done by politicians from Chicago, where government is the muscle that shuts the mouth.
5/14/2013
Lies About Libya
Via-The American Spectator
by Thomas Sowell
There can be honest differences of opinion on many subjects. But there can also be dishonest differences. Last week’s testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth.
What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control.
This “spontaneous protest” story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither the Americans on duty in Libya during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration.
The highest American diplomat on the scene in Libya spoke directly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by phone, and told her that it was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya announced that it was a terrorist attack. The C.I.A. told the Obama administration that it was a terrorist attack.
With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the “spontaneous protest” story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information available at the time from intelligence sources.
But that claim cannot survive scrutiny, now that the 12 drafts of the Obama administration’s talking points about Benghazi have belatedly come to light. As draft after draft of the talking points were made, e-mails from the State Department pressured the intelligence services to omit from these drafts their clear and unequivocal statement from the outset that this was a terrorist attack.
Attempts to make it seem that Ambassador Susan Rice’s false story about a “spontaneous protest” was the result of her not having accurate information from the intelligence services have now been exposed as a second lie to excuse the first lie.
Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s loudly proclaimed question “What difference, at this point, does it make?” the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.
Barack Obama’s election campaign oratory had proclaimed the death of Osama bin Laden as an accomplishment of his administration, as part of a general defeat of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. To admit that these terrorists were still in action, and strong enough to kill an American ambassador and three other Americans in a well-coordinated military style attack, would be a politically devastating admission during the election campaign.
Far better, politically, to come up with a story about a protest demonstration that just got out of hand. This could be presented as an isolated, one-time event, rather than part of a continuing pattern of terrorism by groups that were still active, despite President Obama’s spin suggesting that they were not.
The problem with telling a lie, or even a succession of lies, is that a very small dose of the truth can sometimes make the whole thing collapse like a house of cards. The State Department’s own foreign service officer Gregory Hicks was in Libya during the attack, so he knew the truth. When threats were not enough to silence him, it was then necessary to try to discredit him.
After years of getting glowing job evaluations, and awards of honors from the State Department for his work in various parts of the world, Mr. Hicks suddenly began to get bad job evaluations and was demoted to a desk job in Washington after he spoke with a Congressman about what he knew. The truth is dangerous to liars.
The Obama administration’s excuse for not trying to get help to the Americans in Benghazi while they were under attack — namely, that it would take too long — is as shaky as its other statements. A small fighting unit in Tripoli was ready to get on a plane to Benghazi when they were ordered to “stand down.” Other fighting units located outside of Libya are designed precisely for fast deployment — and nobody knew how many hours the attack would last.
But it will take more investigations to determine who gave the order to “stand down,” and why. How many new lies that will generate is another question.
by Thomas Sowell
There can be honest differences of opinion on many subjects. But there can also be dishonest differences. Last week’s testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth.
What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control.
This “spontaneous protest” story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither the Americans on duty in Libya during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration.
The highest American diplomat on the scene in Libya spoke directly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by phone, and told her that it was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya announced that it was a terrorist attack. The C.I.A. told the Obama administration that it was a terrorist attack.
With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the “spontaneous protest” story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information available at the time from intelligence sources.
But that claim cannot survive scrutiny, now that the 12 drafts of the Obama administration’s talking points about Benghazi have belatedly come to light. As draft after draft of the talking points were made, e-mails from the State Department pressured the intelligence services to omit from these drafts their clear and unequivocal statement from the outset that this was a terrorist attack.
Attempts to make it seem that Ambassador Susan Rice’s false story about a “spontaneous protest” was the result of her not having accurate information from the intelligence services have now been exposed as a second lie to excuse the first lie.
Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s loudly proclaimed question “What difference, at this point, does it make?” the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.
Barack Obama’s election campaign oratory had proclaimed the death of Osama bin Laden as an accomplishment of his administration, as part of a general defeat of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. To admit that these terrorists were still in action, and strong enough to kill an American ambassador and three other Americans in a well-coordinated military style attack, would be a politically devastating admission during the election campaign.
Far better, politically, to come up with a story about a protest demonstration that just got out of hand. This could be presented as an isolated, one-time event, rather than part of a continuing pattern of terrorism by groups that were still active, despite President Obama’s spin suggesting that they were not.
The problem with telling a lie, or even a succession of lies, is that a very small dose of the truth can sometimes make the whole thing collapse like a house of cards. The State Department’s own foreign service officer Gregory Hicks was in Libya during the attack, so he knew the truth. When threats were not enough to silence him, it was then necessary to try to discredit him.
After years of getting glowing job evaluations, and awards of honors from the State Department for his work in various parts of the world, Mr. Hicks suddenly began to get bad job evaluations and was demoted to a desk job in Washington after he spoke with a Congressman about what he knew. The truth is dangerous to liars.
The Obama administration’s excuse for not trying to get help to the Americans in Benghazi while they were under attack — namely, that it would take too long — is as shaky as its other statements. A small fighting unit in Tripoli was ready to get on a plane to Benghazi when they were ordered to “stand down.” Other fighting units located outside of Libya are designed precisely for fast deployment — and nobody knew how many hours the attack would last.
But it will take more investigations to determine who gave the order to “stand down,” and why. How many new lies that will generate is another question.
Notable Quotes
"It is precisely because police powers are essential to the public good that abusing them is so offensive."
Michael Gerson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)