Obama Pulling a Clinton?

I’d like to offer a short follow-up to yesterday’s post, in which I commented on Bill O’Reilly’s interview with President Obama. The president denied there was any malfeasance or scandal that should cost anyone his/her job, whether in the Benghazi tragedy, the comedy of Obamacare, or the drama surrounding the IRS targeting of conservative groups. In the case of the IRS, he even went so far as to say there’s wasn’t even a “smidgen” of corruption involved.

Let’s focus on the IRS for a moment. It’s important to keep abreast of what’s happening with that investigation. First, whenever Congress holds a hearing about it, all the committee gets is stonewalling or someone taking the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination. Second, the person charged with spearheading the investigation (as far as anyone can figure out, since no list of investigators has been provided) is a woman who gave thousands to the Obama reelection campaign and who owes her job to her loyalty to the administration. Finally, leaks from the investigation are hinting there will be no criminal prosecutions for this IRS action. Perhaps that’s why Obama can confidently—shall we say “smugly”—assert there is no evidence of corruption.

All of this stalling and assigning of cronies to conduct investigations is a hallmark of Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, and is one very real reason why he has never been put out to pasture; he’s just too irreplaceable for an administration that desires a major coverup job:

No Evidence

Meanwhile, the general public, which has a hard enough time paying attention even when there is no stonewall to drag out the story, continues in willful ignorance, hoping everything is as rosy as they want it to be:

IRS Musical

I think Obama is trying to pull a Bill Clinton here. That president was so beset by scandals that the public became overwhelmed with them, leading to a numbing effect and simply wanting it all to be over. They got tired of the constant drumbeat of scandal and sought peace and quiet. Leave the president alone, they said, in effect. Obama may be seeking to exploit public weariness in the same way. His tactic is to act as if all the accusations are hot air generated by political foes and a news network that is unfair to him personally. He even told O’Reilly to his face that he was unfair.

Perhaps the takeaway from the interview—at least the one Obama wants—is this:

Never Say

If he is outraged enough and condescending enough, maybe all the questions will go away. Let’s hope not. Too much remains to be answered, and too many people need to pay the consequences for what they have done.

A Sober Analysis

I try very hard not to be a conspiracy theorist. I make every attempt not to be shrill in my commentaries. I seek to bring faith and reason together and deliver a sober analysis of events. The cartoons I use so often are the comic relief to illustrate my main points. It’s my genuine hope that fair-minded individuals will read these daily ponderings and acknowledge their honesty, at least.

So I want to make sure I’m not simply partisan when it comes to dissecting the latest news. If people on my side of the political divide—and let’s be clear, it is a huge divide at the moment—do anything wrong, I will be just as critical of them as I am of those with whom I disagree. Why am I saying this now?

Chris Christie 2In the past week, three individuals who are either conservative or Republican, or both, have been in the news for charges of wrongdoing. First, we had New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is being blamed for lane closures on a bridge causing a massive traffic jam; he supposedly did this for political payback to those who didn’t support him. He claims lack of knowledge of that action and has fired some of his personnel over it.

Bob McDonnellClose on the heels of that controversy, the just-retired Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, now faces charges, along with his wife, that they committed fraud and gave out political favors to a man who lavished gifts and money on the McDonnell family.

Dinesh D'SouzaThen, just yesterday, came the alert that Dinesh D’Souza, the man who made the documentary 2016: Obama’s America, is being indicted for breaking the law with respect to campaign donations, that he orchestrated a behind-the-scenes scheme that allowed him to give over and above what he was allowed to contribute to someone’s campaign.

Let me be clear—a phrase used often by Richard Nixon and resurrected by Barack Obama—that if they are guilty, they need to face the consequences of their actions. At the very least, Christie should have known what his minions were doing. The McDonnells, if the charges are true, have exhibited a rather tawdry desire for material gain. In their case, however, tawdriness may not equate with breaking any laws. We’ll see. As for D’Souza, one might wonder about his ability to recognize right from wrong in light of his dismissal from the presidency of King’s College for being engaged to a woman while not yet divorced from his wife.

So, let the chips fall as they should.

Yet . . . yet . . . please excuse me if I have some nagging doubts. A traffic tie-up does not rise to the level of directing IRS agents to target conservative organizations. Taking advantage of political office to get loans and golf club outings is not as egregious as passing firearms to Mexican drug cartels. And seeking to give more to a campaign—this should be a free country with the liberty to support one’s political aims, right?—is hardly a Benghazi.

Why do I make those comparisons? In all three of these cases—Christie, McDonnell, and D’Souza—these are federal charges being brought. They don’t emanate from the three states where the offenses were committed, but directly out of the Obama Department of Justice, headed by one Eric Holder. This is the same man who refuses to indict anyone in the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups and who claims ignorance of Fast and Furious. This is the same administration, with Obama and Hillary Clinton at the helm of foreign policy, that stonewalls any investigation into the misdeeds and incompetence of Benghazi, and that spread a false story about an anti-Islam video being the cause of the September 11, 2012, attack.

Why the eagerness to prosecute those who may have committed lesser offenses and the complete unwillingness to take responsibility for the actions of those who work for them? This is evenhanded justice?

One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there is something devious going on here. Christie was considered by many to be the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. That’s probably not the case now. McDonnell was a rising star in the Republican party; his political career is now over. D’Souza’s film devastated the veneer of moderation Obama tried to cultivate and revealed him as an anti-Western guy with radical plans for America.

So forgive me if I might view these investigations and indictments as somewhat less than honest law enforcement. Forgive me if I harbor thoughts of political payback and the destruction of those whom the administration considers to be its enemies.

This is my best and most sober analysis for today.

A Tale of Competing Scandals

So now we have “Bridgegate.” Here are the facts—well, some of them, anyway. The George Washington Bridge, a key connector between Manhattan and New Jersey, and one of the busiest bridges in the country, had a number of its lanes closed a while back, thereby creating a massive traffic jam. The lane closures apparently were politically inspired, payback from some people who work for New Jersey governor Chris Christie for a Democrat mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s reelection bid.

When e-mails came to light showing that the “traffic study” that closed the lanes was a sham, and that staffers for Christie joked about the closures and the delays, righteous indignation arose. Was Christie behind this? Did he direct this action? Has he abused power? What did he know and when did he know it?

Chris ChristieLet me be very clear about this: all political shenanigans like this deserve whatever punishment is merited. Let me also state, for the record, that Christie, who is seen by some prognosticators as the leader of the pack seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2016, is not my first choice . . . or second . . . or third . . . well, I really don’t want him to be the nominee. I’m disturbed by his lack of solid principles, by his sellout of Mitt Romney just before election day when he became practically the best buddy of President Obama as he sought federal aid in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, and by his signing into law a bill that prohibits counseling to lead people out of homosexuality. I am no fan. Therefore, nothing I may say in his defense is due to any desire on my part that he will be our next president.

There are two ways politicians deal with scandals or rumors of scandals. One way is to evade and avoid responsibility and say one’s administration had nothing to do with it; the other way is to investigate thoroughly and let the chips fall as they may. Christie, once the accusation became public,  held a press conference and answered all questions from reporters. He stayed at the podium for quite a long time. He fired his chief of staff for involvement in the action, as well as one of his key political advisers. Others also have stepped down from their posts. In other words, he took responsibility for those under him.

In the past few years, we’ve seen a different stance from the White House as scandals have swirled. Some of the cartoonists couldn’t help but notice the contrast:

Full Responsibility

Bush's Fault

One can imagine what a conversation between Christie and Obama might include right now:

Amateur

Perhaps if Christie had Obama’s advisers, he would have tried a different tack:

Anti-Islam Video

Within 24 hours of the Christie press conference, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice began a full investigation. We’re still waiting for a full investigation of all the Obama scandals. Gee, I wonder if there’s some political payback here? Maybe a wonderful opportunity to take down a potential Hillary opponent?

Oh, by the way, the DOJ did just choose an investigator into the IRS scandal—you know, the one where the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status? It turns out they chose Barbara Bosserman to head the investigation. Who is she? A Democrat activist who gave nearly $7000 to Obama’s presidential campaigns. Out of all the career lawyers in the DOJ, she is chosen? Is anyone going to investigate this? Does anyone think the mainstream media cares?

Investigation

Yes, business as usual, both in government and in the media.

Our One-Sided Racial Conversation

Two men were killed last week in what have been described as senseless murders. First point to be made: all murders are committed without sense, in that they are violations of the moral code God has inscribed on our hearts. We call some of them senseless because we can’t connect the act to some rationale, however invalid. In both of these cases, the victims were unknown to their assailants and had done nothing to warrant any type of reprisal.

Christopher LaneChristopher Lane was a college student in Oklahoma, a native Australian who was in the United States on a baseball scholarship. He was jogging, bothering no one, when a car pulled up behind him and shots were fired. He died almost immediately, according to those who arrived on the scene to try to minister aid to him.

The three youths arrested for the act were all black—perhaps one was mixed-race—and reports are that they did this a) because they were bored; b) for the fun of it; or c) as part of a wannabe-gang ritual. According to the authorities, one of the youths, after being arrested, danced around and laughed about it, apparently enjoying his notoriety. This same young man, aged 15, had commented on Twitter that he hated whites.

Delbert BeltonThe other victim was 88-year-old Delbert Belton, of Washington state, who was simply sitting in his car when two youths came up to him and beat him to death with flashlights. Belton was a WWII veteran who had been injured in the Battle of Okinawa. Again, the culprits, as caught on surveillance cameras, were black.

Now, in neither of these murders did anyone say they were doing this as payback for Trayvon Martin. No, there’s probably no such connection. And when you compare the three separate incidents, you see a clear distinction. In the Martin-Zimmerman case, there were mitigating circumstances that had to be sorted out. In the latter two, there are none. Neither Lane nor Belton had done anything at all to warrant an attack.

So are these racial incidents? Are they fueled by racism? Well, at least one of the youths who killed Lane, as I’ve already noted, is on the public record as being racially motivated, even though the prosecutors in the case seem reluctant to press that issue. Is that where we’ve come to as a nation? Are we not allowed to apply racism equally across the board, wherever it may appear? And when is President Obama going to insert himself into this? He certainly wasn’t reluctant when Trayvon Martin was the one who died.

If I Had a Son

And of course there are his willing accomplices in the media who are prone to look the other way:

 Martin-Lane

Is this the new, improved version of separate-but-equal?

Both Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have boldly declared that the nation needs to have a conversation on race. We’ve heard that repeatedly throughout this administration. It’s getting rather old by now:

National Conversation

I’m not opposed to that conversation. I believe all races stand equally before God, since He is the One who created this diversity in the first place. It’s just that a conversation has to go two ways, or it won’t be a conversation at all. I don’t think the president wants to invest himself in the current conversation because it’s not going the way he intended. The conversation he seeks is one-sided, whereas we need to cover all topics: racism no matter what the source; broken families; slanted and deficient education; a welfare state that creates a sense of entitlement. We need to talk about the American character and what has happened to it. We need to discuss the loss of Biblical absolutes in our society and the consequences.

Would he be open to that conversation?

A Post-Martin/Zimmerman World

We’re a few weeks away from the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman trial now. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s big day of protest didn’t go as well they’d hoped. Media attention has turned elsewhere, seeking out the next manufactured outrage, all the while missing the real stories:

See It Again

There are those, though, who are trying to keep things stoked. A group demanding the repeal of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law is occupying the state capitol in Tallahassee. For some reason, they are being allowed to do so. The governor, Rick Scott, has even met personally with them to talk and explain why he disagrees with them. He’s actually being very courteous to those who aren’t intent on reciprocating courtesy. One of their number even showed up with a painting the other day:

Mural

Anyone notice the rather slanted message? Zimmerman is portrayed as a cold-blooded killer; it hardly even looks like him. It’s more like artistic license to transform him into pure evil. And notice the incorporation of Martin Luther King. Civil rights is the supposed victim. The whole thing is pretty ludicrous, particularly when all those most involved—Trayvon’s defense team and his family—acknowledge that race was not an issue in the incident. For some, it has to be race; in their minds, there’s no other rationale.

Unfortunately, one of those with that mindset is still, for some reason, the head of the Department of Justice. I think Eric Holder has had to face reality and let the matter drop simply because there’s no evidence he can use to bring a federal indictment against Zimmerman. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried:

Get Even

 Sneaky

I guess it’s “If at first, you don’t succeed . . . “

Put this fiasco to rest. Let Zimmerman lead his life; he was acquitted. Gently, but firmly, remove the occupiers in Florida. Not so gently and very firmly, remove Eric Holder from the DOJ. Accomplish all three, and law and order may be restored. It’s time to live in a post-Martin/Zimmerman world.

Real Scandals, Legitimate Investigations

Economic SpeechThe Obama administration has found its latest theme. We’re hearing it from spokesperson Jay Carney and the president himself. Carney dismisses all questions about the plethora of scandals plaguing the administration, saying they are “fake” and “phony” scandals generated by the Republicans. President Obama yesterday, in what he billed as a major economic speech, but which most viewed as his typical campaign speech, belittled Republicans for standing in the way of economic progress and wasting the country’s time with all the attention on make-believe scandals. His exact words were “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball.”

Well, first of all, Mr. President, you are Washington. You have been the chief executive for nearly five years; for the first two years of your presidency, you had control of both houses of Congress. What did you do with that advantage? Obamacare, which is a wholesale disaster, and a massive stimulus bill that only stimulated government spending. The American workforce, during your tenure, has lost 7.8 million people (those are the ones who couldn’t find jobs and gave up); new workforce dropouts have outnumbered new employees by 237 to 1. Most of the new jobs added have been part-time, not full-time.

And you blame the Republicans?

About those “phony” scandals: let’s look at the facts.

Benghazi

It’s been nearly a year since that horrible event. Testimony has shown massive incompetence and an equally massive coverup connected with that incident. We now also know that survivors of the attack have been coerced into signing nondisclosure agreements and bullied into not testifying before Congress. What is the administration trying to hide? Calls for a special committee to deal with it exclusively are rising, and justly so.

IRS

Evidence is now overwhelming that the intensive investigation of conservative groups and stalling on their tax-exempt statuses was politically motivated. No longer is there any credibility that this was the work of a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. Testimony has established that it was directed from the top of the IRS in Washington, and that a political appointee, William Wilkins, who is chief counsel for the agency, was intimately involved. This same man met with the president on April 23, 2012; his boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, met with administration officials on April 24. The next day, April 25, Wilkins sent out more guidelines for how to handle tax-exempt applications from conservative groups. While this is still not absolute proof of collusion with the Oval Office, it comes awfully close. It’s hardly a “phony” investigation, particularly since it affected the operation of these groups in the 2012 campaign and provided a boost to Obama’s reelection bid.

There’s also the absurd waste of money on parties, etc. It’s a culture of corruption.

This Just In

DOJ

Where to start? Fast and Furious? Failure to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a polling place? Confiscation of reporters’ phone records? Accusing James Rosen of Fox of being a criminal co-conspirator for asking questions? Funding protests against George Zimmerman? Overall racial bias in its operations? Eric Holder should be terminated as attorney general.

NSA

This one’s a little more nuanced. We do need, in my opinion, a capability to track terrorists that includes spying on their phone calls. However, what we don’t need is a blanket coverage of all American citizens, even if it’s only storage of records and nobody sees them right now. The potential for tyranny is blatant. This can become a mechanism for unprincipled politicians to get back at those who disagree with them. The NSA’s program must be limited to finding genuine threats against the nation. The House yesterday considered a bill that would have guaranteed those limits; it just barely failed to pass, and may be revisited in the near future. Above all, we must be sure our rights, as enunciated in the Bill of Rights, are not abridged.

Patriotism

So, in summary, these are not “fake” or “phony” scandals pursued for purely partisan purposes. The investigations are legitimate. The administration knows they are legitimate; they are the ones creating the distractions they so piously bemoan. They know where these investigations will lead, and they fear the backlash. As they should.

The Zimmerman Verdict

Zimmerman TrialI deliberately held off saying anything more about the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin media event until after the verdict had been reached. Now that Zimmerman has been declared not guilty by the jury—that includes both the second-degree murder and manslaughter charges—here is what I take from the drama that has mesmerized a large number of our citizens for weeks.

First, it appears the jury did its duty. This was no snap decision; the six women that comprised the jury took plenty of time to go over the evidence and be sure of the facts. They didn’t allow the emotionally charged atmosphere to influence their decision. They are to be commended.

Second, this never should have been a national media event. If the media is really concerned about violence toward minorities, it should begin to investigate Chicago, which is on pace to set a record for murders. Ah, but that is a city with a mayor who used to work in the Obama White House, so that’s off limits, I guess.

Third, George Zimmerman was a registered Democrat, who presumably voted for Barack Obama. He has a multiracial extended family, which includes blacks. He also had been serving as a mentor for a young black man, taking him out to play basketball and help raise money for his church.

Sharpton-JacksonFourth, considering Zimmerman’s background and actions on behalf of blacks, there should have been no racial component to this story. This was turned into a racial incident by at least three culprits: the Florida prosecutors; the media; and the habitually outraged crowd led by such worthies as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Fifth, President Obama never should have interjected himself into this story. He blatantly played the race card by saying that if he had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.

Sixth, America in 2013 is not Selma, Alabama, in 1963. It’s time to get out of the time warp. Things have changed. There are other reasons than racism for the problems in the black communities. I would start with the destruction of marriage, whereby 70% of black children are born out of wedlock and have no father in the home. This is the root of the problems, aided and abetted by a federal government that promotes the obliteration of the family by its policies.

In summary, George Zimmerman was made to look like a monster; Trayvon Martin was continually portrayed as an innocent teen set upon by the monster. Neither image held up under scrutiny. Now it’s time to move on.

But will that happen? Many news outlets are now reporting that the Obama DOJ is preparing to bring Zimmerman up on federal charges. As I’ve noted previously, Eric Holder’s DOJ is operating as anything but a department that seeks justice. Rather, it seeks revenge, and refuses to grow past the 1960s mentality of pervasive racism as the cause of all evil.

But if Obama, Holder, and their ilk are making their decisions based on race, who are the real racists?

George Zimmerman is going to have a hard enough time as it is—if he’s not assassinated first. The threats of violence toward him are real. He will have to live his life always wondering if he and his family are safe. I’m not saying he didn’t make mistakes in his encounter with Trayvon Martin. Yet a jury of his peers reviewed all the evidence and judged that he acted in self-defense. That verdict should stand.

Will our federal government, with its race-based politics, allow it to stand? President Obama’s reaction to the verdict didn’t offer an apology to Zimmerman for pre-judging him. In fact, his statement didn’t even mention Zimmerman’s name. It instead exalted the memory of Martin, and coupled that with a comment about curbing gun violence, which, in Obamaspeak, means greater gun control measures.

For the Obamaites, playing politics is a never-ending game.