Big government is the mother’s milk of corruption, so it would be foolish to expect any administration to have a perfectly clean record. So what we’re looking for is some indication as to whether President Obama is better or worse than average.Posted on 08/09/2013 1:40:33 PM PDT by Kaslin
Two days ago, I shared an insightful article from Kevin Williamson as we contemplated the President’s ideology.
Yesterday, we reviewed an article by Richard Epstein in hopes of deciphering Obama’s approach to economic policy.
Let’s conclude our series by looking at whether there’s something special about the scandals swirling around the White House.
Big government is the mother’s milk of corruption, so it would be foolish to expect any administration to have a perfectly clean record. So what we’re looking for is some indication as to whether President Obama is better or worse than average.
There’s definitely a lot of smoke. Here’s some of what Victor Davis Hanson wrote for National Review on “Obama’s Watergates.”
The truth about Benghazi, the Associated Press/James Rosen monitoring, the IRS corruption, the NSA octopus, and Fast and Furious is still not exactly known. Almost a year after the attacks on our Benghazi facilities, we are only now learning details ofCIA gun-running, military stand-down orders, aliases of those involved who are still hard to locate, massaged talking points, and the weird jailing of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. We still do not quite know why Eric Holder’s Justice Department went after the Associated Press or Fox News’s James Rosen — given that members of the administration were themselves illegally leaking classified information about the Stuxnet virus, the Yemeni double agent, the drone program, and the bin Laden document trove.
But is there fire underneath all the smoke? Hanson obviously is rather suspicious.
Almost everything the administration has assured us about the IRS scandal has proven false: It was not confined to rogue Cincinnati agents; liberal and conservative groups were not equally targeted; and there were political appointees who were involved in or knew of the misdeeds. The NSA debacle can so far best be summed up by citing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has now confessed that he lied under oath (“clearly erroneous”) to the U.S. Congress. Even his earlier mea culpa of providing the “least untruthful” statement was an untruth.
Indeed, he suggest that the current administration is eerily reminiscent of the Nixon White House.
There is also nothing new in administration denials. Both President Obama and his press secretary, Jay Carney, characterized the Benghazi, IRS, AP, and NSA allegations as “phony.” So too Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Ziegler, characterized the Watergate break-in as “a third-rate burglary attempt” and insisted that “Certain elements may try to stretch the Watergate burglary beyond what it is.” In August 1972, when news of the break-in first got out, Nixon himself assured the nation, “I can say categorically that . . . no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.” The Obama administration’s variation on outright denial is “What difference, at this point, does it make?” And when Jay Carney declares, “I accept that ‘stylistic’ might not precisely describe a change of one word to another,” I am reminded of Ron Ziegler’s quip, “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”
In some ways, Hanson argues, the current Administration is worse than Nixon.
Nixon tried to use the IRS to punish his enemies, although Lois Lerner and William Wilkins appear to have had far less integrity than did Nixon’s IRS chief, Johnnie Walters, who resisted rather than abetted Nixon’s illegal efforts. As in the case of doctoring CIA talking points and pressuring CIA operatives, so too Nixon tried to cloak misdeeds as “national security” operations. Nixon went after members of the press; Obama had the communications of James Rosen of Fox News — and even those of Rosen’s parents — monitored. Mr. Nakoula was the poor soul the authorities almost immediately jailed for his supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic film. He proved a sort of updated version of the caricatured crazy Cuban burglars and the unhinged Gordon Liddy, whose freelancing zeal allegedly caused the Watergate problem in the first place. The only difference is that the latter really did commit relevant illegal acts, while Nakoula’s videomaking was uncouth, not criminal — and irrelevant to the Benghazi deaths.
So where’s it all going to lead? Hanson thinks it will get worse.
I expect more participants in the Obama-administration misdeeds will invoke the Fifth, and the dodges will ultimately have little effect, other than to remind us that many in the administration have lots to hide. …Nixon left office with historic low poll numbers and the economy a wreck. …So too already with the unraveling of Obama. …Because something terribly wrong occurred in Benghazi, with the IRS, with the treatment of the Associated Press and James Rosen, and perhaps with Edward Snowden and the NSA, and those involved are seeking to mask their culpability, the scandals grind on. They will not end until the truth sets us all free. So expect a long-drawn-out and sordid saga.
I agree that there will be more scandals, as well as more news from existing scandals, but I’m not sure any of this suggests Obama is any worse than other Presidents. Or that his appointees are any worse than the appointees of previous Presidents.
I’m not trying to defend the White House. Obamacare is an example of a law that was only made possible because of bribery, and now the Administration is in the process of arbitrarily and illegally rewriting its own signature legislation!
And let’s not forget boondoggles such as Solyndra, where lots of money conveniently wound up in the pockets of Obama donors.
But is there any reason to think that these examples of corruption are worse than TARP? Or some of the other ways that Republicans get in bed with big government and special interests?
In other words, I think the problem is Washington, not any particular politician or political party.
That being said, I reserve the right to change my mind if evidence comes to light that the White House was directing/ordering/approving the illegal partisan activities of officials at the IRS, FEC, and elsewhere.
P.S. If you enjoy the writing of Victor Davis Hanson and you’re not suffering from high blood pressure, read what he wrote about the squalid waste at the Department of Agriculture.
ping
Big difference is that the media despised Nixon and relished the investigation of his misdeeds.
Quite the opposite on all accounts w Obama.
Not boondoggle - payola.
He rules by blackmail and payola. The country doesn’t exist to him but to milk for all it’s got.
How do you DEconsruct someone who began as a construction and is REconstructed every day and sometimes more often depending on where he is and who he is talking to? His color doesn’t even stay the same from day to day.
Simple! Its CLOWARD-PIVEN!!!
After a brilliant Part One of this analysis of Barack Obama, I found Part Two to be all the more disappointing because it falls short of the promise created in Part One. I think the author misses entirely the essence of the character of Barack Obama.
He misses the essence of Barack Obama because he does not apply his penetrating analysis to explain it. Instead he is content merely to expose it. Author Daniel J Mitchell declines to wrestle with an understanding of Obama's essential nature and dismisses the question:
I suspect Obama doesn’t understand anything about economics, but it’s possible that he does understand, but simply doesn’t care.
It is inconceivable to me the man who has access to daily briefings by the finest left-wing economists available to the nation cannot be made to understand the elements of law of supply and demand. Of course Obama understands it and other basics of economics but he dismisses them. The question is why?
Because he disdains them. He has no regard for them. It is not a question for Barack Obama whether the law of supply and demand is real or not is a question whether it is evil or not. Obama sees the whole infrastructure of the free market to be evil.
There is no other explanation one can formulate which explains Obama's policies, which have been so devastatingly described by Mitchell in Part One of his analysis of Obama, that is also consistent with his biography, his associations, his education, his autobiographies, and his public statements. Obama believes the Constitution is unworthy of respect because it underpins a capitalist system. He believes the basic economic laws cannot be accepted as constraints upon the power to do good. He believes the entire governmental and economic structure of the United States is illegitimate.
That is why he can ignore the Constitution and his obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed and instead act tyrannically to decline to enforce the laws he despises and to create laws he desires. He is acting in accordance with a different standard, a wholly different framework upon which to judge what is moral or immoral, good or evil, lawful or unlawful.
Obama is a radical, he is a Marxist, he wants to utterly transform America and that certainly includes the redistribution of wealth, and a redefinition of rights, especially including rights to property. He wants to substitute identity politics for those laws of economics which he regards as evil.
The whole predicate of Marxism is that the Established Order is illegitimate and must be swept away to be substituted by a system of distribution of goods and services based not on value determined in a free-market but by class identity. Mix in race identity, gender identity etc. and you have the Weltanschauung of the current President of United States of American.
Barak Obama clearly understands what he is doing and cares very deeply about what he's doing. That is what makes him so dangerous and it is therefore beyond naïve for us to continue to excuse Obama's tyranny as so many journalists and academics on the right have habitually done.
Has anyone else noticed that Jay Carney has now adopted all of Obama's speech mannerisms? The frequent "uhs", the long pauses with a catch in the glottis, the gravelly drone, the implied sneer, the inability to complete a sentence without breaks, the shifty eyes... it's disgusting. Even the puppet in the WH has a puppet.
BOOKMARKING BUMP!
Another big difference is that no one died in Watergate
Hillary's boo boo on her head was a stunt to delay testifying to the point where John Kerry would replace her, and she'd be cast into the shadows, immune from answering further questions.
What repercussions are there for Holder LYING to Congress about not being engaged in spying on or criminally prosecuting the media, specifically James Rosen? Why does Holder HARASS States for their Voter ID laws EVEN THOUGH THE SCOTUS HAS RULED VOTER ID LAWS 'CONSTITUTIONAL' IN APRIL 2008?
Lois Lerner broke her silence during testimony and proclaimed her innocence, THEN invoked the 5th? What? What's happening with that? The IRS is STILL targeting conservative groups!!! How can this be? Why hasn't the House DEFUNDED the IRS until they STOP their criminal behavior!! Obamacare STILL to be policed by this Agency? What? How can THAT be, in light of their TARGETING habit?
Benghazi survivors.. Will we hear from them? Will the insurgent government give us ACTORS who'll pretend they were there that night and LIE about what REALLY happened? Is that why there's been nearly a year long delay in coughing up fake survivors? Why the name changes and relocation of survivors? Why are they in fear of their lives if they speak? Why the intimidation by our gov't?
What about Susan Rice? Congress knows SHE knew the truth when she went on national television and LIED for 0bama in exchange for a promotion which she DID finally get. Subpoena her to testify! How does she escape being accountable for lying to the American people on national television solely to protect 0bama's re-election bid? Remember, the "Anti-Islam video protest" claim is not mentioned in ANY of the 100 Emails released by 0bama!
Who ordered the SEALs not to go to the compound and WHY? What was 0bama afraid they would find out? Why no rescue attempt during the 7 hour long firefight that Doherty endured before he was killed? Why is Ubber silent? Why was he not recovered until 20 HOURS after the attack ended?
What about the attackers? Why did the FBI take 3 WEEKS before going to Benghazi? It was CNN who found Stevens' diary at the site, while the FBI was told to stand down going to Benghazi in an attempt to 'run out the clock' before election day 2012!
Why haven't the attackers been apprehended or killed? Is 0bama afraid they'll talk? Do they know something about what happened at Benghazi that 0bama doesn't want us to know? What DO they know and why haven't they been caught? Why the inexcusable delay in their apprehension? The FBI released the photos of the alleged attackers ONE DAY before the Benghazi hearing.. What timing! Giving the appearance that they're trying, yeah right. "What difference does it make"?
Why are there gag orders on the families on the victims of Hasan? Why is the Ft. Hood shooting still classified as 'workplace violence' even though Hasan himself has clearly stated his attack was motivated by Islam, making it a 'terrorist attack'. Why won't 0bama EVER say 'terrorist attack'??? He ALWAYS says attack or 'act of terror' but NEVER 'terrorist attack'!! Why is he understating the threat by Islam upon America?
These are just questions off the top of my head.. For starters.
Your take is very good.. simple concise and cogent..
He knows exactly what he is doing.. and Cloward-Piven explains it..
What is not explainable is WHY? conservatives have NOT studied Cloward-Piven to formulate tactics to combat it..
And more.... organized to fight it..
This portends conservatives generally dont even know what they are Up Against.. and may not even care..
Saul Alinsky was a genius.. he said they{conservatives} would be too apathetic to care..
So far; he is correct.. They just whine..
Any Talk of revolt scares the bejesus out of them..
Bingo! Not rocket brain surgery. I wish folks would wake up.
The truth about Obumster is so explosive, so close to the most outrageous paranoid theory, that the establishment, the media, the politicians, don’t want to face it. It’s an old story. There is a fear of a “constitutional crisis”, and what has the Obama presidency been but one Constitutional crisis after another! But a thing only exists if the crowd admits that it exists, you know the boy who shouted that the king is wearing his birthday suit. I remember William F. Buckley himself, responding on TV to something his guests said, and more than one did, I recall, would puff up his cheeks, lean back in that chair of his that you thought he would fall backward, and pronounce “Well, that would a Constitutional crisis!” thus summarizing and ending that particular thread. No, we don’t want it, we fear it, we’ll deny that it’s happening. And they have been denying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
