What to look for in the New Hampshire primary results tomorrow.
The New Hampshire primaries are going to tell us quite a bit about our core assumptions. It’s very neat.Read More »
Back in 2007 when a somewhat obscure Senator from Illinois was making noise about running for President, this writer decided to look into this guy. Most of the good information I found was from a website I’ll be damned if I can locate again- WTF Obama.com or something like that. Regardless, a few things emerged from this research. The first was that the birther “controversy” was clearly a conservative overreach. Consdering that his mother was a student in Hawaii at the time of his birth and Hawaii was a state at that time, unless she held the Guiness record for longest umbilical cord, Barack Obama was an American citizen. I also learned that he was certainly somewhat influenced by Marshall Davis, a known card-carrying Communist, but I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and discarded the Communist moniker in favor of the socialist one since there were links to the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) while at Columbia and Harvard. Then, watching his campaign unfold through the primary and general election, Mussolini’s rise to power came to mind and my first thought was “liberal fascist.”
I also became increasingly aware that Obama was the product of a cabal of Chicago North Shore liberals ridden with white guilt- people like Penny Pritzker. In a way, through ther connections with the liberal/socialist intelligentsia in Chicago (a/k/a Bill Ayers), they created the myth that Obama was the black political messiah who would lead the American collective atonement for the sin of slavery and its aftermath- racial prejudice and discrimination- that, despite whatever gains were made by blacks up to and including being president, would never be enough. Obama, without saying such since that would hurt his political aspirations, nevertheless tacitly agreed through his associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Derrick Bell. To illustrate how race pervades his thoughts to this day, one need only look at the 2008 primary campaign where simple words and observations by the Clinton machine were twisted into veiled racial animus. Obama himself left it to his proxies to make the claims while he himself stayed above that fray high on his pedestal. Yet, as the beneficiary of the vitriol hurled by his underlings against anything anti-Obama, he was nevertheless playing the race card. It is called plausible deniability.
The third observation of the research was that despite his self-characterization as a new kind of politician- a “Washington outsider,” “bipartisan legislator,” post-racial president” (whatever that means)- Obama was, at his core, a ruthless Chicago politician. By the time the general election rolled around, the Obama machine was a well-oiled, race-baiting steamroller led by his chief proxy, David Axelrod. If they could dispatch a political force like the equally brutal Clinton machine so easily, what chance did a “maverick” like John McCain have? Again, all the while this machine wreaked their havoc, Obama stayed above the fray.
Additionally, he was insulated by a fawning press that fed into the liberal white-guilt garbage. If someone did not believe that $800 billion in stimulus spending was prudent, then it was because the president was black. If they disagreed with cap and trade or the auto bailout, then that opposition was racially motivated. And on it goes through health care, budget battles, etc. Naturally, when a group emerges that appears somewhat united in their opposition to Obama’s policies, then that group must also be racist. Thus, the liberal disdain and demonization of the Tea Party.
It should, therefore, not come as a major surprise that when the Tea Party flexed its political muscle in the 2010 midterm elections that Obama’s new cabal of supporters, enablers and insulators- his administration- would view them as a threat. I doubt very much that Obama directly gave an order to anyone to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny with the IRS when it came to tax-exempt status. But, he certainly is responsible for the administrative culture that set the process into motion. The mainstream press, for its part, continued to support Obama and be his cheerleader by initially pooh-poohing the reports from Tea Party groups that they were being singled out by the IRS as early as 2010. This phenomena is not new as a recently surfaced letter from Max Baucus, a Democrat, points out when he directly questioned the IRS whether they were singling out certain groups based on their political ideology.
Now, with each passing day and new revelation, the Obama administration is increasingly besieged and they dig themselves deeper with each explanation. Originally, this was supposed to be a local affair out of the Cincinnati office. If true, then southwestern Ohio must be one hell of a hotbed of Tea Party activism. But we now know it was not limited to Cincinnati and that some IRS officials in Washington were aware of the practice and either condoned it or illustrated ignorance towards it. Did this reach the level of the Oval Office? It is doubtful that the president receives a briefing on the criteria used to determine IRS tax-exempt status, but he certainly benefitted from it. One of the most interesting liberal takes on this scandal comes from the “New Republic” which asserts that the Tea Party groups targeted brought the additional scrutiny upon themselves because they felt persecuted at the time. Actually, they weren’t yet persecuted; they were being vilified daily by the liberal media and Obama administration officials. That vilification laid the groundwork for the later actual persecution by the IRS. Simply look at the knee-jerk reaction after the Giffords shooting which some, like that moron Paul Krugman, to this day still insist is somehow tangentially Tea Party instigated despite the fact the shooter was a mental case with no political ideology. Today, Obama feigns outrage…well not exactly “outrage.” That he reserves for his detractors over Benghazi.
With that developing scandal, there is the issue of the talking points which the administration apparently changed 12 times before Susan Rice made the rounds of talk shows. Personally, I view Rice as the sacrificial lamb relying on what amounts to a politically motivated explanation of the events. It is obvious that the facts of what happened in Benghazi and who was responsible were glossed over for political purposes since a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including an ambassador, would not exactly fit the Obama story line of being tough on terrorists and a safer America now that bin Laden was dead, especially two months before an election. What is more disturbing, but more in keeping with the whole Obama dynamic of plausible deniability is why no help was sent to Benghazi when the attack occurred. Pelosi and Reid can blame Republican budget cuts to the State Department all they want, but we know that there were at least five specific requests for increased security in Libya before the attack. Are Reid and Pelosi suggesting that these budget cuts prevented the State Department from moving security from the “rough-and-tumble” embassy in Amsterdam or Rome to Libya? Instead of owning up to the fact that they (1) screwed up prior to the attack, (2) during the attack and (3) after the attack, they now circle the wagons and accuse Republicans of a witchhunt. Unfortunately, there are four dead Americans which means there are four American families who deserve the truth and answers.
Yet, when they- the media- become the targets of Obama’s apparent lack of transparency and paranoia, the tune changes. In reality, the growing AP phone record scandal is likely the least interesting of the three. All the facts are not out, but it is hard to believe that a FISA warrant was not first obtained. Secondly, this search of phone records was in response to an AP story about a secret CIA operation which thwarted a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner. Personally, given the fact that the war on terror is first and foremost an intelligence operation, publication of our methods and means places every American at risk and the Obama administration would be derelict in their duties if they had not investigated these leaks to the press. Like most Americans, I am all for a free press, but when they run details of secretive and sensitive operations against terrorists, then they relinquish some of that freedom to preserve the protection of all.
However, some of this can be laid at the feet of the Obama administration itself with their self-congratulatory press releases and leaks over thwarted terrorist attacks. Never one to waste a crisis, they are also never ones to waste a public relations opportunity. Most interestingly, though, is this silly notion they put forward in 2008 and beyond that their administration would be open and transparent. This is strange coming from a Justice Department that has more leak prosecution cases than all previous presidents combined. In fact, the Obama administration is at least as secretive as any prior administration if not more secretive.
Combine that secrecy and lack of transparency with their penchant for Orwellian stretching of the truth and bending of words (which is probably why that talking points memo is so troublesome today) and that general belief that they are a White House under siege with the Tea Party/right wing activist barbarians at the gates and it is no wonder at least one scandal would evolve. To put it in Chicago terms- or at least terms Obama should well understand considering his background and mentoring- “the chickens are coming home to roost.” And best part of it all is watching that smarmy Jay Carney squirm. It also proves that Obama may good with the teleprompter speeches and cutesy catch phrases that hypnotized the press and voters, but when it comes to damage control, he has a lot to learn. He can start with the truth.