JFK, Hitler, and Obama

Here it is, fifty-plus years after John F. Kennedy was elected president and the revelations are still dribbling out. Even though the writers of the history books and the readers of the news, the protectors of Kennedy’s fatuous fictions, did their jobs exceedingly well, the truth is a hard thing to wholly suppress. Here are some examples of things we now know about JFK that we didn’t once know: Kennedy was a meth head. Kennedy was a major league perv. Finally, a favorite fallback, that Kennedy prevented World War II and ushered in Civil Rights, has been shown to be a mega myth.

And now, a new revelation: pre-World War II, Kennedy was into Hitler. From the Daily Mail:

‘Fascism?’ wrote the youthful president-to-be in one [letter]. ‘The right thing for Germany.’

In another; ‘What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?’

And on August 21, 1937 – two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out – he wrote: ‘The Germans really are too good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’

And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: ‘The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.’

Finally,

[Anyone] ‘Who has visited these two places [the German autobahns and Hitler’s holiday home in Berchtesgaden] can easily imagine how Hitler will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that ever lived.’

So per Bill Clinton, as is depends on how you define it, so is the definition of Kennedy’s description of Hitler as an important personality.

And what will the story be on Barack Obama in fifty years, that is, besides his already-failed imperial presidency (for example, his completely dysfunctional big government agenda, his war on the First Amendment, the selective use of the IRS to persecute conservatives, his gun grab desires, the Benghazi debacle, his legislation via regulation, etc.)?

Beyond Obama’s failed record on governance, consider the impact of what might be be revealed in the President’s currently sealed records which include: college admissions forms, SAT/ACT/LSAT results, college transcripts, student writings, selective service forms, medical records, Illinois state senate records, and law client list.

Incredibly, as it regards Barack Obama, we still don’t know all that we don’t know.

It’s entirely possible that in 50 years, Obama will be the guy who makes the Kennedy presidency—despite the drugs, the sex revelations, the Hitler fondness, and the competence problems—look like Camelot by comparison.

Since Spamalot has already been taken, how about calling the era of Obama Scamalot?

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

It goes without saying that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It also seems that 911 dispatchers—well, at least one 911 dispatcher in Oregon—are cleared to make what could be easily construed as paid political pro-government/anti-“austerity” commentary:

An Oregon woman was told by a 911 dispatcher that authorities wouldn’t be able be able to help her as her ex-boyfriend broke into her place because of budget cuts.

Shocking. And soon, people will also find out the government is incapable of providing for their retirement, assuming their bad debt, providing for their health care, giving a “free” education, and beyond. No matter the size of the welfare state, there’s always more that can be done than there is money to spend it on, even with Obamanomic levels of debt and deficits.

More:

“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.

The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes before the sexual assault took place.

Once again? How many times did the dispatcher made this speech?

And Is it possible that if the victim had a gun, things might have turned out better?

The perp was arrested after the crimes and pleaded guilty to kidnapping, sex abuse, and assault.

It would be interesting to note how big a SWAT capability the police have out there in the land of after-the-fact law enforcement (as opposed to crime prevention). Maybe small or even none, but maybe not.

Leadership is about establishing priorities (SWAT capabilities versus cops on patrol, for example) and everyone is a leader. At minimum, you lead yourself and one of your prime directives should be to keep yourself safe.

Obama going Nixon? No. Obama going Stalin? Maybe.

While the narrative of Obama going all Nixon on America is making it’s way around, a better comparison would be with the USSR. That is, Obama’s gone Stalin:

• Letting his citizens get killed? Check.
• Killing his own citizens? Check.
• Using the power of the state to suppress the people? Check and check.
• Controlling the media? Check.
• Show trials? Well… he tried.
• A history of substance abuse? Check.
• Taking state control of major parts of the economy with disastrous results? Check.
• Purging religion from the public square? Check.

Meanwhile, in Britain, a soldier has apparently been brutally murdered by men chanting “Allahu Akbar.” Eric Holder would likely describe the event as workplace violence.

Most transparent Administration ever

Lois Lerner has set the standard for this, America’s most transparent Administration ever, by pleading the fifth on the ongoing IRS scandal, as opposed to providing testimony on the topic to the Congress.

Lerner did this after making a statement—or was it testimony?—saying she had done nothing wrong, told no lies, violated no rules or guidelines, nor committed any crimes.

The disconnect between Lerner’s statement and her actions don’t really make any sense. Cue the foreboding music.

The IRS is just the tip of the Leviathan’s iceberg

The IRS scandal has shown that regulations—and the selective implementation of these regulations—is just as big a threat to freedom, and perhaps more, than mere idiotic legislation.

Proof comes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ten Thousand Commandments which is subtitled An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State:

Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars annually over and above the official federal outlays that dominate policy debate.

… The Anti-Democracy Index, the ratio of regulations issued by agencies relative to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, stood at 29 for 2012. Specifically, 127 laws were passed in calendar year 2012, whereas 3,708 rules were issued. This disparity highlights a substantial delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

There’s far more. While It’s enlightening to read the whole thing; it’s essential to read the Executive Summary.

Why Hillary Clinton wanted a permanent post in Benghazi

If you’re wondering why then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would want a permanent State Department post in Benghazi (and just before the November 2012 elections), here’s one reason: optics.

The optics in question involve the State Department (and the Obama Administration) being able to claim victory in the so-called Arab Spring and validate the Administration’s lead from behind philosophy in Libya. In other words, it was about posturing, regardless of whether any real victory (i.e., advancement of U.S. foreign policy goals) had been achieved.

But why bother to posture? It’s simple enough for Mrs. Clinton: while she possesses political recognition as a result of her husband, her being a U.S. Senator, and finally, being the then-Secretary of State, she’s still short on the bona fides of actual accomplishment. That is, she’s done very well at filling the squares of political advancement but she still lacks a legacy of actually making things better.

A second reason might be preemptive scandal suppression. That is, if a permanent post in Benghazi was needed as a front for an arms buy-back program for the weapons provided to anti-Gaddafi “freedom fighters” who inconveniently turned out to be anti-American terrorists. If it was shown the aforementioned Libyans used U.S government provided arms to kill Americans, the reveal would be most unpleasing to Mrs. Clinton regardless of whether or not she decides to mount another presidential run.

Legacy-wise, claiming one and avoiding the other would be better than merely being remembered as “hysterical” by a Russian Foreign Minister. Especially following her Russian Reset.

One major item of interest will be to find out why the Accountability Review Board “authors” didn’t bother to interview Mrs. Clinton. (If you think Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former CJCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen actually wrote the ARB, you don’t understand the process. Rather, they put their names on the report to provide an air of credibility. They’re signatories and not authors.)

The likely answer is something like this: 1) the ARB couldn’t ask Mrs. Clinton any questions because they knew they lacked the freedom of action and authority to do so, and/or 2) Mrs. Clinton conveniently wasn’t available to the ARB (by plan) to provide a statement or testimony, and/or 3) Both the ARB and Mrs. Clinton had an interest in protecting Mrs. Clinton.

Why the IRS has gone silent

The IRS has gone silent. Surprised?

Isn’t it interesting the “don’t talk to the press” rules are invoked (and followed) when it’s convenient to the IRS while other rules and even laws (regarding discrimination and/or special treatment) are ignored when no one’s thought to be watching.

They’re no doubt trying to get their story straight, all the way, it seems, to the White House.

So far, the President has gone Sergeant Schultz. While that may carry the day for the all-in Obamaphiles, it may not have the desired effect on the rest of the traditional media. After all, this thing’s too big—and too serious—to ignore.

Unless you’re the IRS. Then you try and ignore it: don’t answer the mail, don’t pick up the phone, don’t open the door.

Even then, people will figure things out. And they are.

The Obama experiment rots from the head

China and Russia don’t care what America thinks because they believe President Obama is weak, malleable, and/or inept. Many American’s don’t care what President Obama thinks because his record is one of negative accomplishment. (Many Americans do, however—and in the absence of any evidence—hold out hope that the President is a nice guy.)

In fact, President Obama continues to do not-nice things to the United States that most people thought impossible: he’s managing to make the presidency of George Bush (either one) look like that of George Washington.

Consider a partial list of the Obama foreign policy fails:

• The much-ballyhooed Russian Reset didn’t work.
• China is once again hacking into U.S. government and commercial enterprises making off with and/or planting things that will cause who knows what who knows when.
• America’s stature in the Arab world since Bush left the White House has diminished; the Arab Spring has sprung; leading from behind is the de facto Obama Doctrine.
• Terrorism is out of its box.
• Iran and North Korea have both made significant strides in their nuclear weapons programs.

Consider a partial list of the domestic policy fails:

• Many more Americans are unemployed and underemployed than when Obama took office; the Bush recession was less damaging to America than the Obama recovery.
• Obamacare, which will control a sixth of the economy, is now described by a primary author as a train wreck waiting to happen.
• Crony capitalism has grown and flourished.
• Fundamental liberties and due process are being systematically dismantled.
• The federal debt has grown to unpayable levels even as taxes are up (regardless of the President’s promises).
• Gasoline prices are at their highest levels ever in several locales.
• The Obama Administration is mired in myriad scandals.

On the other hand, the stock market is up.

Actually, on further review, President Obama is doing the uber impossible. He’s making Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

Depending on how the scandals play out, he could even make Richard Nixon look like Jimmy Carter.

Will the media be able to cover the myriad Obama scandals?

Expect most of the traditional media, whether by inclination or inability (or both), to show itself to be incapable of adequately covering the myriad Obama Administration scandals.

Why? As a group, they’ve shown themselves to prefer to bow down to the President rather than to challenge him.

Additionally, one of media’s fundamental advantages, people willing to tell the truth, has been placed at risk by… the Obama Administration. This will be seen in the dwindling number of government whistleblower-type sources available to writers as a result of (for example) the campaign against Fox News correspondent James Rosen and the massive AP wiretaps. (Or restated, we’re in an era of the selective criminalization of almost everything, that is, if those things don’t support the President’s agenda.)

Is Mr. Obama the most paranoid-delusional President since Richard Nixon? No, that’s an insult to Nixon. Instead, Obama’s the most paranoid-delusional President ever. If Mr. Obama had a parenthetical “R” besides his name, the media would be coming after him with pitchforks and blowtorches.

And in related news, George Orwell was a prophet.

More evidence of Obama’s detachment

Politico, in a puff piece on the hapless Eric Holder, offers more evidence of President Obama’s detachment (which has been noted by the traditionally less-than-astute). From Politico:

“I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as Attorney General. He’s an outstanding Attorney General and does his job with integrity, and I expect he will continue to do so,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question Thursday.

Why would Obama stand up for Holder? Holder’s loyalty and an ability to (eventually) follow fundamental instructions, it would appear.

At the beginning of the administration, Holder was muzzled by the White House after he caused political distractions for a public comment about America being “a nation of cowards on race” and for endorsing an assault-weapons ban in an interview when that was not an administration priority. He was also ordered by the White House to keep a low profile on issues like Guantanamo and his plan to try the 9/11 suspects in a federal court in New York.

Today the Administration welcomes any distraction from their political woes, even if Holder’s department is the root cause of many of them (at minimum, Fast and Furious, the Administration’s death by drone policy, and the AP wiretaps). And of course, Holder was a known quantity to Obama as the man who “brokered one of the most unjustifiable pardons that an American president [Bill Clinton] has ever granted.”

Or maybe Holder’s modest abilities, pliability, and character faults were what Obama was after all along.

Wouldn’t the IRS, if innocent, be begging for an investigation?

It seems the IRS, if they were truly innocent in their current targeting scandal, would be begging the Congress or even a special investigator to check things out: after, all, if innocent, such endeavors would provide the path for exoneration and closure.

It’s more realistic to expect the IRS will resist such efforts and as it regards a special investigator, with the President’s blessing.

‘Confusion at the IRS’ as scandal mitigation?

The New York Times appears to be offering its media mitigation services to the Administration in an attempt to try and lessen the impact of the IRS scandal.

Why? Probably so as to allow the country to move on to more important Times’ topics like gun control, homosexual marriage, increased deficit spending, manmade global warming, and amnesty for illegals.

So here are the basic elements of the Times story: A solitary IRS “manager” provided ambiguous direction. (IRS workers don’t normally talk politics one “supervisor” said, implying apolitical thinking.) “Low-level” workers processed other 501(c)4 applications but the desk of a “lone specialist” piled up with Tea Party cases. Meanwhile, “midlevel” IRS managers had communications problems with their higher-ups. Even though 400 Tea Party/conservative group records were flagged, two-dozen “liberal-leaning” and perhaps “apolitical” organizations were also marked for this special treatment, so bias is clearly not evident. The IRS “struggled” with its growing caseload (even though the caseload surge didn’t happen until well after the targeting began). The Cincinnati office is a bit of a “backwater” and the work there is undesirable. Eventually, progress on the whole topic was made and by the way, the IRS Commissioner in place for much of this debacle was a George W. Bush appointee.

So there we have it… things are complicated, honest mistakes were made by a mere few who probably meant well, the IRS needs more workers, and a Bush appointee is complicit. Case closed, game over. With all that established, shouldn’t America just press on with the really important issues of the day?

The implied question is answered with a resounding Times, “Yes!”

Why? Because according to a former IRS lawyer, a “politically charged investigation might descend into a witch hunt that leaves low-level I.R.S. employees too intimidated to enforce the tax code.”

(Hmm. It looks more like the problem was that some IRS employees were not sufficiently intimidated by the law to enforce the tax code to begin with… )

And apparently, to the Times, unearthing the truth of the issue pales to the possibility of a “politically charged investigation,” even though the IRS scandal is clearly a bipartisan issue with numerous Democrats, including the President, offering their public outrage.

Meanwhile, the “politically charged” behavior of the IRS (did they display their own initiative on this or were they were merely doing the bidding of their superiors going as high up as… who knows?) is something, like Benghazi, we should move on from.

Or as Hillary might say, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!”

‘Closer to being idiots’

The Administration is trying with all its might to put Benghazi to bed and is now offering anonymous interviews to the media. The intent is to defuse the lie, deceive, and distort story angle and instead, to portray those in the Administration as truthful, yet obviously befuddled, idiots. Really.

The befuddled idiot angle seems self-evident:

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

Ah, but consider the context of Benghazi cover-up. It was less than 60 days out from the presidential election and Benghazi was wholly contrary to the President’s desired narrative.

Some may rightly wonder why this is supposed to be an either-or deal: after all, it’s possible to be both a liar and an idiot.

With the lights on, the cockroaches scurry for cover

The New York Times tells us the Obama Administration knew, pre-2012 elections, the IRS had been targeting conservative groups for “special treatment.”

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating allegations that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative groups, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

Want more? The acting IRS Commissioner lied to Congress.

According to the inspector general’s report, [acting IRS Commissioner] Mr. [Steven T.] Miller was aware of the political targeting in March 2012, sending a team from I.R.S. headquarters in Washington to discuss it with the program’s leaders in Cincinnati. Yet a month later, Mr. Miller, then the deputy I.R.S. commissioner for enforcement, wrote a letter to Republican senators saying there was no targeting of conservative groups.

What, me lie?

Besides this steaming hot mess, there’s still more: the apparent criminal leaks of taxpayer records to the media in an attempt to benefit the President’s political purpose.

So to what strategy did Democrat’s turn to at this hearing, attempting to mitigate the damage? Old reliable.

… Democrats tried to keep the focus narrow and under the purview of an I.R.S. chief appointed by President George W. Bush.

Expect the Administration and other Democrats to try and use the same “narrow focus” (i.e., blame Bush/blame others) strategy with the media. And why not? We sure wouldn’t want bigger steaming hot messes—the truth—to emerge, would we? (Or in other words, for Democrats, It’s worked so far but we’re not out yet…)

Still, what about the scurrying of the cockroaches?

[Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T.] Miller [who has resigned]… was likely to step down in June anyway, unless nominated for the permanent position.

Joseph Grant, commissioner of the I.R.S.’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, announced Thursday that he, too, would be leaving in the next month.

More:

When Republicans asked Mr. Miller whether the targeting of conservative groups was divulged to Obama administration officials outside the I.R.S., Mr. Miller said “that would be a violation of law.”

“I would be shocked” if that occurred, he said.

Indeed.

Shocking.

The d-baggers awaken

Desperate acts for desperate men; desperate lines from desperate Dems.

What’s causing the desperation? The desperados, of course: why don’t they come to their senses?

This desperation is seen in the response to the depth and breadth of the emerging Obama Administration scandals, which are merely the natural consequence of the President’s ideology and political methods. Like Col. Kurtz, some in the traditional media are starting to wonder if the President’s methods are… unsound.

Based on past practice, it seems unlikely the President’s sycophants and courtiers—that is, his closest advisors—will let him harbor any self-deprecating thoughts, let alone ponder the truth that he, like all of us, to include the rest of the political class, are highly flawed and far-fallen creatures. But just what sort of pap are the President’s more casual scribes, Pharisees, and fanboys pushing?

Emanuel “Leave it to” Cleaver (D-MO) offers the proposal that (contrary to all evidence) the President is doing God’s work and that anyone interested in the truth behind the Administration’s myriad scandals is into… wait for it… racism.

Robert Shrum says, “The animating principle of today’s GOP is relentless animus toward the president.” Crimes and misdemeanors? Scandals? Look, squirrel!

Alec MacGillis thinks none of this can be blamed on big government or bad government, only on… bad laws. (And laws, bad laws included—think Obamacare—come from where, Alec?) Also, as it regards Benghazi, MacGillis feels the government fail was because its power was insufficient (emphasis in original) when it mattered. Such thinking begs the question: just how much should we give to make the Leviathan bigger? They only answer: more.

The normal solution to government fails are calls for more government. In this case, the solution is more basic; an attempt to blame others. No matter how furiously the left may spin the Obama scandals, even America’s most highly (and willfully) ignorant citizens need to deal with the truth, including—especially—those in the White House.

Eric Holder is to ignorance as Jay Carney is to truth

Eric Holder may well be the most ignorant man in America.

And Ezra Klein is to insightful analysis as Eric Holder is to ignorance.

Not.

Scandal is not an agenda

National Review Online says Scandal is not an agenda. The editors go on to explain why the scandals engulfing the Obama Administration, by themselves, are likely to be insufficient in massively swaying the next two national elections.

Basically, the editors call on conservatives to do something they should be doing all the time: to present compelling and attractive alternatives to failed existent policies and to plans for continued Democrat intrusion in the future. (On the other hand, the President, to his benefit, avoided articulating any sort of agenda in the run-up to the 2012 election.) Implicitly, the NRO call means conservatives must engage the low information/low commitment voter. After all, a powerful agenda goes beyond merely rallying the base.

Naturally, attractive conservative candidates are also useful. Then you’ve got something.

But as the Scandal is not an agenda headline was read, the first thought was about the Obama Administration itself. That is, the thought the headline inspired was that these scandals were in no way a part of the agenda of the Administration.

Of course not. Everyone knows that. Instead, they are a natural consequence of the Obama agenda.

One media-fail warning light is illuminated steadily

From The New Yorker:

Washington’s scandal machinery, rusty from recent disuse, is cranking back up to speed due to the alleged targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service.

First, the IRS has already fessed up to the alleged targeting. (Unless a public mea culpa no longer counts for anything. Miranda rights or the likes?)

Next, why is the Washington scandal machinery rusty from disuse? It’s because the traditional media has managed to make the myriad scandals of the Obama Administration into non-events. But at the point when a scandal can no longer be ignored, root causes, analysis, and fault-finding are turned on their heads and are instead assigned to the character flaws projected by the media into the conservative mind.

What profound media-fail is next?

In light of this, it might be useful to ask: Did the I.R.S. actually do anything wrong?

No, it’s indeed common knowledge and self-evident that the IRS confessed it’s inappropriate behaviors and released its IG report because no sins were committed and all involved have been absolved. This is not the IRS scandal you’re looking for…

If we have no IRS scandal, why should everyone be so up in arms? Because of the real scandal!

So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way.

Great catch. Criminal acts? Meh. Instead, people should be barred from having free association via 501(c)(4) groups and additionally, surrender their right to freedom of speech. And yet, others might ask, “Why do we even have these arbitrary and restrictive 501(c)(4) rules to begin with?”

We have these rules because government especially likes rules. They can punish their adversaries via rules and reward their followers by ignoring the same.

Finally, even though the Obama Administration is now starting to reap the whirlwind of their actions, none of this can be blamed on the President: after all, the government’s simply too large and far-flung for him to manage such an enterprise.

Given this Administration wants to ever-expand government’s power, the too big to manage thought puts a colorful bow on the left’s Costco-sized package of cognitive dissonance.

In Obamaland, the fish rots from the tail

“The buck stops there,” is the underlying message President Obama’s myriad mouthpieces are pushing. Or translated into Biden-speak, “Yes, he don’t.”

The HHS fundraising scandal? An underling who didn’t first seek permission to shakedown industry.

Benghazi? Well, maybe mistakes were made… but not at the White House.

Tapping the AP’s phone lines? You’ll have to talk to Justice about that.

The IRS targeting conservative groups? An isolated event involving only a few people.

In Obamaland, with the President’s policy goal of all government all the time, the fish rots from the tail and not the head.

Why did the Administration say a protest preceded the Benghazi attack?

Nancy A. Youssef from McClatchy asks ‘Why did the CIA (that is, the Administration) say a protest preceded the Benghazi attack?’

… interviews with U.S. officials and others indicate that they knew nearly immediately that there had been no protest outside the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi before attackers stormed it…

She’s right and goes on to provide multiple examples of the absence of any evidence of protests at Benghazi. So why would all 12 versions of the talking points say the protests were ‘spontaneously inspired’ by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo?

Although Youssef fails to answer her own question, there are some reasonable hypotheses, several of which overlap:

• The traditional media had already blamed the Cairo protest on the Mohammad YouTube video, ergo, the Benghazi attacks could also attributed to the same cause.
• The talking point drafters felt Americans have already been desensitized to “demonstrations” and “protests” in the Arab world, so its inclusion was necessary. You know: Arabs demonstrate all the time. Sometimes things get out of hand.
• The ‘protests” line was overlooked due to more substantive disagreement on purging the references to al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, jihad, terrorism, earlier attacks, and the CIA warnings.
• The ‘protests’ line was included as boilerplate; an attempt to address human curiosity and to vaguely assign causation.
• The talking point drafters couldn’t bring themselves to suggest the Benghazi attack was a naked and preplanned assault undertaken to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.
• The talking point drafters didn’t want to suggest in any way the Arab Spring had been a foreign policy failure which weakened American national security interests.

Linking the Benghazi tragedy to the YouTube video most neatly fit into the left’s existing narrative. Small wonder it was glommed onto by the Obama Administration as an excuse for what happened.