As the scandals engulfing the Obama Administration have proliferated and “gotten legs” this week, many of the conservatives I know or whom I hear on the radio have started drawing comparisons with what happened under Nixon, bringing up the word “impeachment,” and hoping that as  it becomes evident that these activities were not accidents but part of a coordinated strategy, Obama will eventually resign, or at least some of those who hold key posts of power in this administration–such as Eric Holder–will resign and that the Administration will be hopelessly tainted as the truth becomes known.

I hear that talk, and I think, it would be nice, but I can’t see it happening.  Maybe Holder will resign.  Maybe.

I can imagine the press starting to subject the Obama Administration to a little more scrutiny in the future, but “a little more” than none is still only a little bit of scrutiny, hardly enough to make a significant difference in public opinion.  While the outrage surrounding all of this may be enough for the Republicans to hold the House and to gain control in the Senate in 2014, there will still be formidable problems, and we’ll still have a very divided country.  The low-information voters in the electorate will still be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because most of them are either unwilling to see him for the cynical, partisan character he is, or they are unable to do so.

It is possible that after a year or two of scandals and after the outrage that is sure to follow the full implementation of Obamacare, Obama will end his second term with even lower approval ratings than George W. Bush ended his, but at this point, I think that’s about the most we can hope for, that, and maybe Holder’s resignation.  I’m not even sure any of this will derail the immigration bill, which is looking more and more like the next legislative disaster coming down the pike.

I’m not trying to be pessimistic, merely practical.  In the lead-up to the election in November, I knew that what happened  with the administration’s lies about Benghazi was an outrage, but after the election, it seemed evident to me that Obama, Hillary, and the entire administration were going to get away without any consequences.  The American voters had failed to demand answers and accountability and had just re-elected Obama.

Now that the scandals are starting to illustrate the kinds of things conservatives have been saying about Obama for years and years now, some liberals are upset with Obama, but others are busy trying to find more ways to blame conservatives for making an issue of the problems.   In one of the most ironic defenses of Obama I have encountered so far, David Axelrod offered the “incompetence” excuse, namely, that the government is just too big for Obama to really know what’s going on, an excuse we are sure to hear echoed in the days ahead.  Forgive me if I can’t forget that in November the American electorate rejected a man who was renowned for his management skills and his ability to lead large organizations successfully, all so they could re-elect the “community organizer.”

So what do our readers think?  Am I just being pessimistic about all this?  Is the investigation of these scandals likely to have real and significant consequences for our government, or are they a lot of talk that will amount to nothing, or at least nothing much?

Back in October 2010, blogger Tigerhawk recalled what one of his Princeton classmates, who was originally from Romania, said about the nature of life under socialism:

One recurring tool of socialist tyranny is the capricious enforcement of unworkable laws.

He quoted the passage in making a point about the “capricious enforcement” which was an inevitable feature of the unworkable mess better known as Obamacare.

But two and a half years later, it’s evident that observation could just as easily have been applied to our byzantine tax code, our environmental regulations, and even laws pertaining to press freedoms under the Obama administration.  As Dan wrote earlier today, the only folks who are surprised by any of these scandals are the ones who haven’t been paying attention to what has been going with our government since January 20, 2009.

In the case of the Obama administration, though, it’s not strictly capricious enforcement, but selective enforcement, always with a partisan goal in mind.  The IRS targeting of the Tea Party and conservative organizations is appalling, but one would have to be naive not to believe, as ABC’s Trey Hardin noted today, that it wasn’t authorized by someone in the West Wing.  Hardin observed (audio at the link):

I will tell you this on the IRS front. I’ve worked in this town for over 20 years in the White House and on Capitol Hill and I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it. It simply just does not happen at an agency level like that without political advisers likely in the West Wing certainly connected to the president’s ongoing campaign organization.

And it’s not just the IRS.  Earlier today it came out that the EPA waived fees for leftist organizations and leftist journalists who requested information, but not for conservative ones:   “Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”  Yes, this would be the same EPA that has classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, making the mere act of exhaling potentially troublesome.

A coincidence?  I think not.  This is the same administration committed to picking winners and losers on most matters.  Hence, it should surprise no one that while oil companies are prosecuted for the deaths of eagles and other protected species, the bird-killing wind farms are naturally given a pass.   Clearly, some energy companies are more equal than others.

It’s the same with journalists.  Just a day after the AP snooping scandal broke, the administration is playing favorites again.  Jake Tapper has gained a reputation as one who can be counted on to ask tough questions of the White House with greater frequency than the reporters at most of the other lamestream news organizations.  Well, today Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is reporting that the White House played Jake Tapper by selectively leaking one e-mail with the apparent aim of creating a diversion in the reporting about the Benghazi cover-up.  Jacobson writes: “Like I said, this entire diversion of leaking a single email out of a chain of emails to Tapper was simply meant to put critics of the administration back on their heels and to provide an excuse for White House defenders to throw around words like ‘doctored.’”

And so what else do we see today?  Well, all of a sudden the administration’s lackeys in the press such as Hilary Rosen are now out expressing their sympathy for poor Jay Carney.  I guess they’re afraid of ending up as the subject of a DOJ snooping scandal or an IRS investigation or a selective leak.

Alright, so it’s well-known (and almost excusable with today’s short-attention-span public) that sex sells. That explains why the at-first reluctant former mainstream media went wall-to-wall with coverage of soon-to-be (but not soon enough) former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s naughtiness. (Of course, their initial reluctance is no question due to the “D” he wears on the right side of his title.) That Weiner was one of the nastiest, most partisan, and rhetorically ugly members of the once-vaunted assembly was of no interest to the press. That his support for policies that have been an albatross around America’s neck also rose no brows. What they wanted were those pics (once Andrew Breitbart forced their hands with undeniable photographic evidence that they were never going to seek out themselves) and a salacious headline (one preferably that included a grade-school-era pun, if possible, please).

The next thing the press darlings love is a human-interest story. Forget the details of a crime. Forget any sort of ongoing work of the authorities to capture a criminal. Certainly forget any sort of racial description of an alleged perpetrator. But if something’s gone down in the big city, you can count on the locals (and if it’s dramatic enough, the Big Three) to cover the angle of the family that’s been affected or the children left orphaned.

So we were introduced over and over to the dutiful wife, Huma Abedin—currently with child. Naturally the angle of her working for the oft-humiliated wife of the former president and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was played, often with a sly wink. Much was made about the likelihood of the two conferring over how to best deal with the situation, both in public and in private. In fact, it wasn’t until Mrs. Weiner returned from her overseas trip with the Secretary (on which she’d been when the whole escapade broke) that the Congressman finally decided to fold up his tent and go home. There was even the irony of Bill Clinton having officiated at their wedding. (Is he a rabbi now? Talk about a comeback!)

In all that, though; in all the delving into this couple’s details and discussing ad nauseam about what’s next for them… no interest from those stalwarts for the Public’s Right To Know about this little tidbit:

It turns out that Huma Abedin may have very close links to a little terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Liwa Al-Arabi (translated here) claims to have leaked an extensive list of members of the Brotherhood’s secret women’s division, which is known alternately as the Muslim Sisterhood or the International Women’s Organization (IWO). This detailed list was partially published by Al Jazeera and several other major Arab newspapers. And it included Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin.

Apparently her brother is also closely tied with the Brotherhood.
(more…)

NewsBusters (a site hosted by the Media Research Center) is always a great source to highlight the blatant leftist leaning of what used to be considered ‘mainstream’ media outlets. One of their most visited nemeses is Chris Matthews of MSNBC.

Their latest link for Matthews highlights his comments last night regarding Rep. Anthony Weiner’s current predicament. It’s titled “Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because His Behavior Offends ‘Culturally Backward’ Christian Conservatives”, and naturally this insinuation by Matthews grabs the viewer for its obvious condescension and elitism. But it seems NewsBusters may have missed an even more curious comment from the huge-headed commentator. As you view the imbedded video, tell me if what Matthews says at 0:10 strikes you as well:

It’s getting very very hard to defend the behavior—politically—of the party. Now you throw on top of that, immoral behavior, indiscreet behavior, embarrassing behavior, gross behavior like this…”

(My emphasis)

Now? “NOW “?!

Where was Matthews when Rep. Massa was playing tickle-fight with his staffers and encountering Rahm Emanuel in the shower? Has he never heard of Barney Frank’s brothel? Elliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, and my God, Bill Clinton?!

“NOW“?!

Should we consider from Matthews that all these (and believe me, we could go on all day listing them, no?) dalliances pale in comparison with Weiner twitting pics of his unit to consenting, presumably adult ladies, and that this most recent embarrassment to the party of Jackson and Jefferson is finally the one that sends him over the edge?

Thank goodness for MRC and NewsBusters for watching his incoherent drivel so we don’t have to and can therefore enjoy the snippets of it for what they’re worth: a theater of the absurd.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE (from Dan):  Nick, seems Matthews believes 91% of Americans are “‘Culturally Backward’ Christian Conservatives” given that that percentage of our fellow citizens believe it is “morally wrong” for a married man (or woman) to have an affair.

I am sick to my stomach and furious that our so-called “post-racial” President uttered these words on national TV today:

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

I initially was going to resist posting on this because I really despise racial politics.  But since we are getting some new readership from the Left (and they have no clue about American history), I thought it was important. 

Does President Obama have any idea what he just put out there on the table?  Perhaps the most incendiary language in American history. 

From the article ‘D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster“‘:  [Reference: Who Is D. W. Griffith?]

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 motion picture The Birth of a Nation — originally titled The Clansman — a film which presented a re-writing of the actual history of post Civil War Reconstruction by the same Confederate traitors aginst whom the war had to be fought. It portrayed African-Americans in the post-Civil War South as depraved, lascivious beasts whose rampant lawlessness and alleged domination of the South — through military force and control of the state legislatures — threatened to destroy “Southern civilization” and “mongrelize the races”. The film asserts that this could only be stopped by the glorified lynchings and reign of terror carried out by the “honorable” new, secret order of the “chivalrous” Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

<…>

In most of the Northern cities where the The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown, political fights exploded, and some small riots did occur in Philadelphia and elsewhere where the film was shown. The NAACP and others attempted to seek either a banning of the film completely, or to force the editing-out of the most egregious racist scenes. For the most part, those attempts were futile. Endless hearings were held before mayors, state legislatures, city councils, and state and city censorship boards across the country. The Illinois legislature voted 111-2 to ban the showing in that state, but eventually lost on judicial appeals filed by the film’s promoters.

Those hearings became platforms for the pro-Griffith lobby to pronounce the alleged virtues of eugenics. In New York City, Griffith’s lawyer Martin W. Littleton told Mayor Mitchell that the film was a “protest against the mongrel mixture of black and white.”

It is disgusting and putrid that a President of the United States bring this kind of filth language into the public discourse when our nation has moved so far past it.  Laura Ingraham is correct, Obama is not “post-racial” — he is the most racial and divisive President we have ever had.  Two top Democrat operatives agreed with that conclusion as well this week.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.

<…>

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Obama’s use of the expression “mongrel people” on The View is further evidence that this President wants to stab America at its heart and divide our people in a way that no other President has.

I have always questioned Obama’s knowledge and comprehension of the American Experience and the American Character.  Now I truly do not believe he has any clue about either.  This is a dangerous man we have elected.

[RELATED: Mongrel. Sexism. Just Another Healing Day for the POTUS - Liberty Pundits]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m just curious what people think….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m glad Dan did a post on “Climategate” earlier this morning.  As usual, he took the words right out of my head.

I wanted to add my thoughts but then got my daily email from the Wall St. Journal Online.  James Taranto sums it up better than I:

What the [Washington] Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result.  This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong.  But it raises a glaring question:  If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It makes me think of the SEIU thugs at the Tea Parties this summer… and the Black Panthers in Philadelphia brandishing weapons and blocking voters in November 2008.

As the Joker might say, “Why the intimidation?”

UPDATE: Rand Simberg says this at PajamasMedia…

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Zomblog presents a very convincing case that Jennings may indeed have known about Hays’ support for NAMBLA when he publically praised the man years ago. Until now I’ve seen most of the criticism directed at Jennings as being sketchy and partisan in nature. While this too may be influenced somewhat by politics, there is persuasive evidence to back up the accusation. I would encourage everyone to read this post for yourselves.

If it is true that Jennings knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA and ignored them when he praised the man, that is indeed a legitimate issue of concern and one which rightly calls his appointment in the Obama Administration into question. Jennings’ refusal to comment on the growing controversy is unwise and will only cause it to fester even more. If there is one thing that the Roman Polanski arrest has shown us it is that outrage and disgust over child molestation/rape transcends political lines which in the case of Polanski caused a very-noticeable rift on this issue between some liberal elites and liberal rank-and-file. Jennings himself isn’t a child molester/rapist and Hays too might not have been. Yet Jennings may have knowingly and publically praised a supporter of child molestation/rape.

This charge to me is the most damaging of all the ones I’ve seen made online about Jennings. I doubt I’m wrong in saying that like most Americans, I cannot and will not support anyone in a position of public trust who is either in favor of groups like NAMBLA or knowingly praises those who are. It doesn’t matter to me what their political affliation is. Partisan wrangling means squat when the lives and welfare of children are involved. Jennings owes the American public an immmediate explanation or he failing this, perhaps even depending upon what he says in his defense, he should definitely lose his job.

– John (Average Gay Joe)