Scandals Galore

A Perfect Storm & Flawed Administration

It’s hard to know where to begin, with the rash of Obama administration scandals:  the IRS targeting conservative groups & leaking tax returns, Benghazi ineptness & cover-up, AP & Fox reporter phone intercepts, etc.  On top of Fast & Furious, etc.

ABC News (Stephanopolous) is calling the IRS & Benghazi a “controversy,” not a scandal.  But the press continues to awaken from its slumber, and pressed Carney on Holder’s denial that he had anything to do with legal proceedings against the press – despite his having signed the court order. 

There seems to be a general pattern of arrogance, denial, diminishment, obfuscation & ignorance.  From Clinton’s aggressive “what difference does it make?” to Obama’s denial of knowledge of the IRS investigations (not only the Inspector General – he heard about that thru the press, but also the internal IRS investigation & targeting?), Shulman’s artful dodging, the IRS tax exempt division chief’s taking the 5^th, etc.  They seem to artfully dodge direct questions and answer another of their own making.  Only later after careful parsing can their subterfuge be recognized.  The press corps, not being legally trained in semantic nuance, nor inclined to scrutinize those with whom they tend to agree politically, are not generally fast enough on their feet to catch the artful dodger during a press conference.  Jay Leno joked that the reason for Obama’s many press conferences is not to give them information, but for Obama to get information from them (e.g., the IG’s IRS investigation).

None of the administration seems inclined to accept or take responsibility – possibly a liberal trait.  Or to be aware.  Obama’s aloofness may almost be believable (he rivals Schulz’s “I know nothing” on Hogan’s Heroes), with his admitted laziness, and his daily schedule typically remarkably light, especially compared with other presidents.  He seems to enjoy the trappings of power, but is very little interested in the executive work – and why should he be expected to?  He had no executive experience or proclivities (unlike Romney).  The people got what they wanted and deserve. 

And this aloofness may be interpreted by those more removed (e.g., IRS) as license to run amuk.  This, together with Obama’s clear campaign attacks against the Tea Party, Fox News, etc., may have been all the implicit license the liberal-minded among them needed.  Even if not directed explicitly by Obama – how convenient, plausible deniability.  But he created the climate and opportunity, at least by omission if not commission.  But there are bureaucratic bosses, underlings and others who knew or ought to know better, and need to do prison time to send the unmistakable message that our democracy will not be subverted. 

But for conservative awareness and pressing the issues (despite accusations of politicization & exaggeration), these serious excesses and failings of government would no doubt continue to become more deeply institutionalized.  In fact, institutionalization seems to be the intent, from growing government’s intrusion into the health care sector (and associated growth of IRS regulations & staff), to the growth of other entitlement programs like food stamps, low-interest home loan programs, the Dream Act, etc.  The strategy seems to be to divide & conquer – divide us by a multitude of special interest groups with grievances that only government, and specifically Democrat-controlled government, can supposedly rectify.  And they also institutionalize the growth of their perpetuating constituencies, such as the government worker unions, and Hispanic immigration (legal via family preferences, and illegal by intransigence on border control & offering benefits & preferred path to citizenship), and dependence on entitlements.  

Further, Obama seems to work around the Constitution and Congress when they don’t do what he wants, by an unprecedented and abusive number of executive orders, and expansion of regulatory powers of agencies.  He rivals FDR in his grabbing of executive power, and rightly has been called imperial.  If we are to maintain the constitutionally-intended checks and balances between branches of government, and not lose the freedoms (speech, press, etc.) so hard fought for, we must stand up and demand them.  And be assertive with congressional and special investigations, lawsuits, investigative journalism, and personal and organized activism, legislation, campaigning, etc.  There is more need now than ever for a vigorous Republican (& Libertarian) opposition.

Much of the abuse of power and unaccountability can also be ascribed to the growth of government.  And so we must fight relentlessly to reduce the size of government, and demand and institutionalize greater accountability.  That goes hand-in-hand with shrinking the budget of government (and parallel indebtedness), and the associated means of buying votes and influence. 

The IRS (Intimidation & Revenue Service)

For 27 months (the 2 years leading up to the 2012 election) not one Tea Party organization got tax exempt status.  Romney’s staff during the election was harassed w. 3 or 4 federal audits at once.  These things, along w. the Benghazi & Fast & Furious obfuscations (along with vicious personal attacks), no doubt had an effect on the election, as they were apparently intended to.  And they talk about our political motivations?

The IRS is getting a bit intrusive when it was asking some of these groups what they were praying about.  And for lists of their associations, members and addresses.  Interesting that it’s important for them, but Democrats claimed Obama’s associations (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.) were unimportant. The National Organization for Marriage president, John Eastman, is suing the IRS because part of their tax return listing donors and addresses was demonstrably leaked by the IRS to an enemy organization and then published.  That is a felony carrying a 5 yr prison sentence.  The IRS head over that organization then became an Obama campaign manager. 

Julian Bond (NAACP president) feels the IRS targeting is justified because the Tea Party is “admittedly racist.”  Oh, yeah?  Who “admitted” it?  And what evidence is there that it is?  Certainly much less than Louis Farrakan’s organization.  And even if it were racist, what legal right has the IRS to target it?  And now the state of California is getting on the bandwagon, passing a bill denying BSA tax-exempt status because of its membership policy towards homosexuals (though they lifted the ban on youth, not on adults).  Just an example of the consequences of a Democrat supermajority in the state legislature.  Even the L.A. Times editorialized that that bill is wrong (e.g., the Supreme Court upheld BSA’s rights), and that taxing could then be used as a weapon against any belief – politically incorrect or not. 

Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation uncovered the IRS targeting & initiated legal proceedings over a year ago.  A clear solution is a simple flat tax, which would also shrink the IRS bureaucracy & costs, reversing the growth due to Obamacare. 

It’s clearly in the IRS’s self-interest (job security) to attack groups calling for lower & flat taxes & less government (fewer IRS agents).  The IRS (and the former head of its tax exempt division) will administer & enforce Obamacare.

Interesting that the IRS chief, Shulman, visited the Obama White House 157 times, whereas the IRS chief under Bush only once.  Then when asked the purpose of his visits, he only mentioned the White House easter egg hunt.  Is there arrogance and something to hide there?  And he denied a year ago that there was any targeting, despite demonstrably being aware of it a year ago.  The current head of the IRS tax exempt division, when called to testify before Congress, strongly asserted she had done nothing wrong, illegal or broken any IRS rules, then invoked her 5^th amendment rights to remain silent and not answer any questions.  Again, nothing to hide there?  Some have noted that perhaps we ought to give the IRS the same treatment when we're audited.  The most they seem willing to admit to is “poor service!”  Quite an understatement.  As Krauthammer points out, poor service is when one person gets a fly in their soup, not when every member of a group gets a fly.  And the only excuse so far seems to be that the IRS is overworked – why, then, did they find more organizations to target, and pepper them with more questions and requests for documentation to review than ever?

Now we also learn that HHS head Sibelius is illegally raising funds to save Obamacare. 

The AP (Associated Press) Scandal

The liberal media has long shown solidarity in support for Obama.  Donald Rumsfeld:  “Unanimity is usually either the result of cowardice or the lack of rigorous thinking.”  This may also explain much about the solidarity of the progressive coalition.

There have been other systematic intimidations of the press – rewarding of the liberal networks with preferred access, and punishment of the conservative (Fox) with denied access and verbal attacks by Obama himself as well as his lackeys.  But the AP & Fox reporters phone tapping & records investigations (& Holder’s denial) appears to have gone too far, even for the liberal press to stomach.  And therein may lie Obama’s ultimate undoing, after having so long enjoyed the favor and unquestioning adulation of the liberal lapdog press.  Just another abuse of power, and evidence of arrogance.

Benghazi & the War on Terror

Despite spokesman Carney’s statement that only stylistic changes were made to the CIA assessments before public release by Rice et al, we now know that a dozen significantly different drafts made significant, substantive changes, including omitting references to terrorism and Al Qaida.

Shortly after the Benghazi attack, during the public statement formulation phase, Victoria Nuland sent an internal State Dept. memo that reference to such things as Al Qaida & terrorism would only feed  investigations by Congress as to why more was not done...”why would we want to do that?”  Why, indeed – especially close to a close election.  They were obviously very aware of what they were doing, and it was quite intentional.

The ranking (surviving) embassy official in Libya testified he was stunned when he heard the administration’s statement, especially when he had been called by the leader of Libya and informed on the night of the attack of the death of the ambassador, apparently by organized terrorists – not an unruly video protest.  The local security team in Tripoli was also embarrassed after being directed to “stand down,” that this was the first time in their military career that the diplomats apparently had more guts than the military.

Many questions:  why were the security arrangements there so poor, especially so soon after other attacks in the area, including a breach of the embassy compound wall that was then exploited in this attack?  Why were the limited forces in the area told to stand down?  Why were there no rapid reaction forces available – other than the removal of the Mediterranean carrier group by Obama?  Why the stonewalling on documents & witness names/permissions requested by Congress?  Why did Secy. Clinton not respond to the ambassador’s or survivors’ urgent cables?  Why did Obama not deem the incident important enough to use the situation room, or disturb his sleep?  Why was Obama 2 weeks later at the UN mentioning several times the video in conjunction w. the Benghazi attack, when he knew better?  Or Secy. Clinton the same to family of the victims?  And how can Obama have it both ways, having claimed in the presidential debate to have mentioned “terrorism” (not linked to Benghazi) the morning after the attack?

I'm sure we're all relieved that the global war on terror is ending, by shear will and declaration of our great and wise president.

We will see where all of these scandals lead, but even the Democrat operatives are complaining that Obama has lost the upper hand.  Polls show he’s now in negative approval territory.  And many believe it’s only a matter of time before Holder goes.