Is Hillary Clinton The Big Winner Of 2014?

Andrew Romano of Yahoo News believes Hillary Clinton was the big winner of last nights election. Liberals are obviously desperate to latch onto something positive from last night, even if they have to make it up. Last night’s Republican wave wasn’t so much about the Republicans making great arguments and winning the country over. It was a repudiation of the Democrats, President Obama in particular. Because we have only two major parties, the Republicans benefited from the repudiation of the Democrats by default. The left is hoping that the repudiation was limited to Obama and not the entire party. If the country simply dislikes Obama, Hillary Clinton will be in prime position to win the White House in 2016.

The problem though is that Hillary had her own string of defeats in 2014. Kentucky Democrat Alison Grimes did everything she could to distance herself from Obama while she embraced Hillary. Grimes lost by 15. She campaigned for Sen. Bruce Braley in Iowa. Braley lost by 8.5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton campaigned for Mark Pryor in their old Arkansas stomping grounds. Pryor lost by 17 points. In other words in these key battleground Senate races Hillary did absolutely nothing to help the Democrat candidate. If one were to believe the polls over the last month, all of them were potentially winnable by the Democrats. Yet despite Hillary’s campaigning, none of the Democrats came close to winning. This includes Arkansas, a state in which the Clinton’s have been almost invincible for four decades.

Hillary is going to have a hard time separating herself from Obama. This is going to be a problem for any Democrat but it’s particularly a problem for Hillary. She served as his Secretary of State for four years, she was part of his perceived inner circle. While Hillary was infinitely better as Secretary of State than John Kerry has been, she’s going to carry Obama’s international baggage with her. Benghazi is the biggest international problem that can be attached to Hillary. All of the international issues that have cropped up over the last two years have ties to Hillary. ISIS didn’t just come about over night, they’ve been around for years. Hillary is going to have a hard time distancing herself from Obama’s foreign policy, especially so if things get progressively worse in the international world.

Even domestically Hillary is going to have a hard time distancing herself from Obama. At the end of the day, it was Hillary who argued for Obamacare in the 2008 Democrat primaries. Obama wanted single payer, Hillary wanted what was to become Obamacare. Her best argument is that she can manage it better than Obama, which is a tough argument to make in a country that opposes Obamacare by a 60% majority. She had her own “you didn’t build that” moment a few weeks ago when she declared that businesses don’t create jobs. In a country that rates the economy and jobs as the most important issues and with Obama’s policies clearly not working and/or not supported by the public, Hillary’s going to have a tough time distancing herself from Obama’s core economic philosophy.

Romano of course assumes that Hillary will not only run for President but become the Democrats nominee. Everyone assumed as such after the 2006 midterms and look how that turned out. The Republicans obviously have their own problems, not the least of which is a battle between the Tea Party and the establishment. However anyone who looks at last nights election and walks away thinking Hillary is the big winner is dreaming. Democrats are in trouble. Their leader is unpopular, they didn’t just lost the Senate last night. They lost 4 Governors races flip, including blue states such as Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois. The Republicans held onto blue or purple state Governor mansions in Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Several state legislatures turned Republican, including the New York Senate. The Democrats were beaten soundly last night across the board. This doesn’t bode well for Hillary or any other Democrat. The 2016 electorate will not be the 2012 or 2008 electorate. It will be a lot more Republican because after eight years of a Democrat in office, the country is ready for a change.

Obama Lacks Introspection, Blames GOP For DC Dysfunction

At a Hollywood fundraiser President Obama declared the country dysfunctional. He complained that Washington isn’t working. This isn’t the first time Obama has made this or similar statements. Each time one has to wonder if he recognizes that he’s part of the problem. His solution is always to get rid of those trouble making Republicans. There’s never an acknowledgement that he or Democrats are part of the problem, if there is one. In reality Obama is a big part of the problem. He entered the White House declaring he won while refusing to work with Republicans. He set the tone during his first week, he should hardly be surprised when the now more powerful GOP doesn’t want to work with him.

There is no acknowledgement from the White House that they did anything wrong in the Benghazi matter. Even if we were to agree that the GOP investigation is politically motivated, that doesn’t absolve Obama from his political motivations in 2012. To this day the White House hasn’t released to Congress all the documents associated with Benghazi going so far as to suggest they would only cooperate with “legitimate” investigations. The death of an ambassador abroad apparently isn’t worthy of an investigation. Obama wonders why there is dysfunction in Washington, perhaps his cynical election manipulation concerning Benghazi aided the dysfunction. Instead it’s all Republicans fault for daring to investigate.

Lois Lerner may very well be headed to Congressional prison for Contempt of Congress. The IRS, under the leadership of the Obama administration, clearly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups. As many as 10% of donors to Tea Party groups were audited. That’s ten times the national average. It looks and smells like the Obama administration targeted conservative groups for harassment in the run up to the 2012 election. Of course, the dysfunction is all Republicans fault for having the audacity to question or challenge the Obama administration. If only conservatives had kept quiet and not created the Tea Party none of this would have happened. See, we really forced Obama’s hand here. He had no choice but to use the IRS as a weapon to silence us.

Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer and Thomas Udall have proposed a Constitutional amendment allowing the Federal government to regulate political speech. The government would ban speech by corporations, except of course the predominately Democrat media corporations. (wouldn’t every corporation or PAC then create a newspaper and claim they’re media outlets?) Trying to silence speech is a left-wing specialty. Universities across the country have banned or harassed conservative speakers. Condi Rice is the latest, having been harassed into not speaking at Rutgers graduation. Give money to opponents of homosexual marriage and you’ll lose your job at Mozilla. Of course all the dysfunction and disunity are the fault of conservatives and Republicans.

Republicans are not innocent when it comes to creating dysfunction in Washington. (less so when all they want to do is donate money to a cause or speak at a graduation) However the galling thing about Obama and the Democrats is that they genuinely believe they have no culpability when it comes to creating dysfunction in Washington. When we have a President who declares he won and then shuts out the other party for two years and then expects that other party to pass his entire agenda no questions asked it’s a recipe for dysfunction. Through the years Obama seems genuinely disappointed that his office isn’t dictatorial in nature. It seems the adjunct professor of Constitutional law didn’t quite realize everything that was in the Constitution prior to running for President. Of course, that’s probably the Republicans fault.

What Is Obama’s Foreign Policy?

Ukraine appears to be on the brink of war. This after Russia more or less took Crimea and is staging anti-Ukrainian demonstrations in the eastern part of the country. Obama’s response to all of this has been economic sanctions on seven Russians and lofty rhetoric about the world’s position or something. In Syria, our President’s red line was ignored. The President’s response was to make threats and back down. Obama supported the Arab Spring in Egypt and cheered when the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew a long time ally. He has since done nothing despite his pals in the Brotherhood being thrown out of power. In Libya, terrorists murdered our ambassador and the President’s response is to lie about why they did it and then do absolutely nothing.

Looking at Obama’s foreign policy it’s easy to wonder what exactly his foreign policy is. The President seems to react to world situations and his reactions usually aren’t very good. Obama portrays a certain weakness unusual for an American President. He retreats to following “world” opinion rather than trying to shape world opinion. He doesn’t have any noteworthy  foreign policy successes. Not even with countries such as Venezuela which boasts the sort of socialism Obama seems to like. Obama hasn’t achieved peace in the middle east or even moved things in that direction. Syria, Ukraine and Egypt have been abject policy failures.

Obama rarely talks about foreign policy unless he’s reacting to an event. He never comes right out and says what is overriding foreign policy objective is. Woodrow Wilson was quite clear what his objective was when he tried to push the League of Nations. FDR was equally clear when he demanded unconditional surrender and a United Nations. Eisenhower and Kennedy were clear when they demanded communist containment. Reagan was clear in his desire to collapse the Soviet Union and eliminate nuclear weapons from the Earth. There isn’t any question as to what Bush 43’s foreign policy was.

So what exactly is Obama’s? He never quite comes out and says what his end game is. Surely the smartest man ever to live in the White House has an overall foreign policy goal that he’s trying to move the nation towards. What it is never seems to be stated. Obama always appears to be reacting, which gives him the aura of foreign policy incompetence. Because he always appears to be reacting to world events, Obama always seems like he doesn’t quite have a point. He comes off like he’s speaking off the cuff. This of course requires us to think the best of President Obama.

There is of course another theory on Obama’s foreign policy that must be discussed. Before becoming President Obama seemed to want American power abroad limited. He wanted our influence curtailed, especially in the middle east. The people he has surrounded himself with throughout his life think America is the problem child in the world. With this theory in mind, his refusal to issue any meaningful economic sanctions against Russia makes sense. His half asked effort to sanction seven Russians was only worth a headline in the papers to appease Americans. His backtracking in Syria demonstrated to the world the sort of weakness Obama wants for America. His decision to follow the French in Libya makes more sense, as does his willingness to throw long time allies under the best. It all demonstrates a weaker America in the world.

Most Americans don’t want to think this way about their President. It’s much preferable to believe Obama is incompetent or a good meaning but naive man. However in looking at Obama’s five plus years in office, it’s hard to believe incompetence and naivety are completely responsible. Especially so when you look at the socialist cast of characters around the President. He keeps company with the likes of Valerie Jarrett who believes America is the problem, to say nothing of others over the years. The problem with Obama isn’t that he holds this position, it’s that he refuses to articulate it so the public can judge it for themselves. Rather than strongly arguing his case, Obama doesn’t trust the public or its response.

Will Hillary Run For President?

Yesterday we discussed how Texas Senator Ted Cruz was suddenly being discussed by the media, all presuming he runs for President. Hillary Clinton has also been the focal point of the media during the last week. Conventional wisdom has Hillary running for the Democrat nomination and winning handily. Of course, entering 2008 the conventional wisdom was the same and obviously things didn’t turn out that way. A lot can happen over the course of the next two years. This includes Hillary deciding not to run. We all know why Hillary wants to be President. But there any number of reasons why she might decide not to run.

Bill Clinton’s scandals are old news for most of us. However there’s a whole new generation that wasn’t privy to Bubba’s bimbo eruptions. As such they also aren’t privy to Hillary’s reaction and involvement in those scandals. Let’s face it, Hillary gave her husband a pass while unleashing the hounds on his whores. Her desire to take down and publicly smear these women is well documented. So is her involvement in other scandals such as Whitewater and cattle futures. For those of us older than 30, much of this will be old news. But for the next generation of young people these scandals are brand new and their reaction to Hillary’s behavior may not be as understanding.

Hillary has a major Benghazi problem. She was in charge of providing security to the Benghazi consulate. When the consulate asked for more security, Hillary failed provide it. She told Congress “what difference does it make now?” Those words will haunt her. She’ll be attacked for them by other Democrats running for the nomination and you can bet the Republicans will play ad after ad with that footage. Her ability to properly respond when the country’s interests are on the line is highly questionable. Benghazi will cause a lot of people to question whether she’s capable.

Taboo to discuss is whether Hillary is too old to run. If elected she’ll be 69 when she takes office. If she stays eight years she’ll be 77 when she finally retires from public life. Ronald Reagan was the same age when he was elected and likely had early onset Alzheimer’s during his last year or two in office. That of course doesn’t preclude Hillary from running of course. However during her last year as Secretary of State she looked and sounded exhausted. Hillary has had some health problems, so has Bill and she needs him if she wants to be a successful President. She may very well decide that at her age she and in her health she doesn’t want to invest the time.

Any of these could be reasons why Hillary doesn’t run for President. It might not be worth it to her anymore, she may be enjoying her retirement. Perhaps she has an eye on the White House for her daughter Chelsea. Odds are Hillary runs for President of course. But at 68 going on 69 would it shock anyone if she decided bimbo eruptions, Benghazi, not having achieved anything significant in her own right and so on wasn’t worth defending and arguing about? Hillary is politically ambitious, there’s no doubt about that. She’s also, like Bill, obsessed with legacy. The Clinton brand would take a hit if she loses again. Their legacy may be in Chelsea. If Hillary recognizes this she isn’t going to run for President.

NY Times Lies For Hillary On Benghazi

The New York Times is running a rehab piece for Hillary Clinton claiming that the administration version of Benghazi was correct. In other words, it wasn’t al Qaeda operatives who stormed our consulate, it was rioters enraged over a You Tube video. Amazingly over nearly a year and a half there hasn’t been any evidence whatsoever supporting the administration’s position. Now all of a sudden the Times is defending the administration, largely in an attempt to rehab Hillary Clinton in preparation for her run for President in 2016. Benghazi is no doubt her biggest problem of her own making. Now when challenged on Benghazi, Hillary can simply say “the New York Times said…” and cut off all criticism.

The Times piece is curious at best. Perhaps the most interesting part is they claim they had a reporter on site during the attack. What a stroke of luck for the Times to have a reporter hanging around our Libyan ambassador. Except of course there’s no evidence a reporter was with Ambassador Christopher Stevens or anyone else at the consulate. In which case, what a stroke of luck that the New York Times just happened to have a reporter embedded with rebels and rioters attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Times claims their unnamed reporter was able to ask the attackers questions about their motives. What a stroke of luck!

Their luck is unbelievable. Literally. It’s been nearly a year and half since the Benghazi attack and just now the New York Times has gotten around to telling us about the reporter they had embedded with the attackers. It simply makes no sense for a newspaper to sit on that sort of a story for 16 months. Especially a liberal newspaper such as the Times. Keep in mind all of this happened in the weeks leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. President Obama was taking heat for the You Tube video claim. If the Times had a reporter on site who could verify that the video was what caused the attack why wouldn’t the paper run that story before the election? It simply makes no sense for them to sit on this story for as long as they did.

The New York Times didn’t sit on the story of course because there wasn’t a story. There isn’t now. The Times is running this piece in an attempt to protect Hillary Clinton from the attacks of Republicans and presumably from primary Democrats. If the attack happened because of the video then her ignoring of security requests and various threats leveled against the Benghazi consulate become irrelevant. After all, the attack would have been spontaneous. The fact is the Times is making up the story about an embedded journalist just like the administration made up the You Tube video story. The far left has already shown us they are willing to lie to further their interests. Hillary Clinton certainly furthers the interests of the leftists at the NY Times. They need to protect her or risk losing the White House to a Republican.

A You Tube video did not cause the Benghazi attack. The New York Times did not have a reporter on site during the attack. They did not withhold their witness for 16 months because there is no witness. Isn’t it curious that we still have no idea who their reporter was? There is no reporter, we aren’t going to get a name. The left is scared to death that Hillary Clinton might lose in 2016 because of Obama. They’re trying to put out the fires around her to better insulate her from Republican attacks. Expect more stories like this. Expect stories about 1993’s Hillarycare that very clearly differentiate it from Obamacare and present her previous plan in a very positive light. Expect the media to pretend like Hillary didn’t run on what we no call Obamacare in 2008 and again expect them to highlight or make up differences between her plan and what ultimately passed a Democrat Congress. The media is all in for Hillary. Putting out the Benghazi fire is just the beginning.

Transparent Obama Refuses Proper Investigations

You will be shocked to discover that Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi investigation failed to blame top State Department officials. Hillary’s investigation blamed four mid-level officials while absolving everyone close to or otherwise associated with her. No doubt you’re wondering why anyone would care why Benghazi went down the way it did, after all four Americans died. Hillary sure is wondering why anyone cares, per her testimony to Congress. Hillary’s Benghazi investigation is another in a long line of Obama administration investigations of itself. No one at the top is ever to blame for anything, it’s always the fault of career bureaucrats no one has ever heard of.

We expected Hillary to point the finger at anyone other than herself. Whether it was the administration’s lie about a You Tube video causing a riot or the failure to do anything in response to pleas for help from our consulate, we all knew Hillary would avoid blame. Surely you didn’t think that the 2016 Presidential candidate would investigate herself and admit to her own failure or the failure of people she directly hired did you? To do that would call into question her qualifications to serve as President. Hillary is after all a Clinton, she’s not politically foolish enough to do anything other than blame faceless State Department bureaucrats.

Eric Holder has done the same thing within the Justice Department. He investigated Fast and Furious even though his name appears on various subpoenas. He was personally involved in various media subpoenas, including Fox News’ James Rosen. Initially Holder suggested he wasn’t involved in the media subpoenas, until his name appeared all over them. Investigating himself, Holder determined the Justice Department didn’t do anything wrong in Fast and Furious or the media subpoenas. Holder has since supported a bill that would define what a journalist is, as though we need such a law to stop the Justice Department from harassing the press. At the end of the day, Holder never took any blame while shifting blame to bureaucrats and Congress.

The IRS spent years harassing conservative, Tea Party groups by refusing to grant them tax exempt status. Lois Lerner and Dan Shulman of the IRS investigated themselves and blamed a bunch of rouge agents in Cincinnati. Obama and company found this an acceptable excuse and tried to move on. Unfortunately emails have made it clear the upper levels of the IRS knew exactly what was going on and either ordered the targeting or created an environment where targeting conservatives was acceptable. To date neither Lerner or Shulman have blamed anyone other than career bureaucrats within the IRS. No one at the top is to blame.

The Obama administration has been anything but transparent over the last five years. They investigate themselves and declare that no political appointees or top officials are ever to blame for anything. If there is blame, it goes on the faceless bureaucracy that apparently cannot be controlled by anyone. This could be true of most administrations, it’s more glaring with Obama. The executive branch cannot investigate itself without bias. Everyone in the executive branch wants to protect themselves, their power and the power of the person who put them in their position. Most of all, they want to protect the President because in protecting him they protect themselves. There are half a dozen issues that should be in the hands of a special prosecutor, including Benghazi, the IRS scandal and a number of Justice Department scandals. We’ll never know what really happened because the Obama administration won’t allow for a proper investigation.

Something Isn’t Right About Obama’s Middle East Policy

On Sunday the US shut 19 embassies across the Muslim world. They remain shut until at least Saturday. Something doesn’t feel right about all of this. While the Feds claim that there’s significant “chatter” amongst al Qaeda operatives, it doesn’t make sense why we would tell them when we’re shutting our embassy doors and for how long. If these guys really are planning an attack don’t you think they’ll wait until we announce our embassy is open again? Maybe the Feds are setting up al Qaeda, hoping they’ll increase chatter in order to move their attack date or otherwise discuss US actions. Nevertheless, something doesn’t seem right in closing embassies or in what’s going on generally in the middle east today.

Last year Obama told us al Qaeda was on the run. He bragged about killing bin Laden, he bragged about destroying al Qaeda’s network. Even before last years election al Qaeda operatives attacked our consulate in Benghazi killing four Americans including our Ambassador. As more information comes out about that attack it’s becoming more clear we were working with al Qaeda. In fact, we’re working with people affiliated with al Qaeda in Syria. It’s clear al Qaeda was never on the run, the Obama administration was working with them on issues of mutual interest. It begs the question why.

Al Qaeda isn’t going to defeat Assad in Syria. It’s becoming quite clear that the rebels aren’t going to win that civil war. This despite US support, though we should note that despite announcing action in Syria with great fanfare Obama has offered tepid support for Syrian rebels. Funny how we never hear about how our troops are doing in Syria or how our strategy is working. So with Syria a bust, is it suddenly acceptable for Obama and company to turn on al Qaeda? Do we not have mutual enemies anymore that require us to work with the Devil? Benghazi wasn’t enough to step away from al Qaeda, will defeat in Syria be the end of the relationship?

What threat is so great that we have to look weak on the entire world stage? After declaring al Qaeda on the run, now we’re on the run just a year later. If this is some sort of set up or some sort of show for American voter consumption we look awfully weak on the world stage. Let’s face it though, Obama and the United States have looked weak on the world stage for awhile. Obama’s 2009 Muslim apology tour aside, he supported the radical Muslim Brotherhood over a long time American ally in Egypt. Then when things got tough he ditched the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama removed troops from Iraq with great political fanfare but he left Iraq to Iran in the process. Iraq is a mess, just like Afghanistan which is now largely under Taliban control. Meanwhile in Russia Putin is just toying with Obama.

In short Obama’s foreign policy has been a complete disaster. He slowly shifted from Bush’s problematic foreign policy but in practice his shift isn’t any better than what Bush gave us. Bush at least projected American strength around the world, Obama is projecting weakness. Bush was clear who the enemy was. Obama works with radical groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood only to turn on them when things don’t go as planned. Bush never turned on our allies, Obama cuts and runs on the regular. Something greater is going on in the middle east, what it is really isn’t clear at this point. Whether Obama knows it exists or whether he’s trying to orchestrate something remains to be seen.

Benghazi Was Full Of CIA Spooks

Benghazi has been a mess for the Obama administration from the moment our Ambassador was under siege. During the campaign more was made of Mitt Romney’s response than the President’s. A failing of the press no doubt but since then the facts have come out slowly but surely. The attack on the consulate wasn’t due to a bogus You Tube video, it was an attack by al Qaeda. The President went to bed rather than coordinate a response. His failure to lead and the failure of his underlings to know what to do if he wasn’t around resulted in a stand down order to any military that could have aided our Ambassador.

Now we discover that there were dozens of CIA operatives in Benghazi. The CIA has been desperate to hide this fact, subjecting survivors to monthly polygraph tests to see if they’re talking. The President is hiding the names of these CIA agents, all survivors of the attack. In some cases, their names have been changed. It begs the question why the CIA is going to such lengths to protect itself. For the President he has less to lose at this point. He already won re-election, his strategy of focusing on Romney’s response while blaming a bogus video diverted attention long enough for Benghazi to be irrelevant in the election. He was of course aided by the media, including debate moderator Candy Crowley who openly sided with Obama during the second debate.

Or does the President have less to lose? Perhaps what’s really going on here could take down the CIA and the President all at once. Why were there so many CIA agents in Benghazi? The one question that hasn’t been asked by anyone in Congress is why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11-12 in the first place. What’s he doing in a place that’s known as dangerous and what is he doing there with dozens of CIA spooks?

Jake Tapper (who seems to be the only journalist doing real reporting on this matter) suggested in May that Benghazi was the site of a major CIA covert action. Odds are the CIA action had to do with gun running, likely to Syria. Just a few months ago Obama made a half hearted attempt to support the rebels in Syria. Those rebels just happen to be affiliated with al Qaeda, the same people who attacked the consulate in Benghazi and killed Ambassador Stevens. We’ve hardly heard anything from the President about our actions in Syria since he first announced that Assad had crossed the “red line” forcing the US to take action. Why do you suppose that is?

Here’s what’s likely going on. The CIA was involved in a gun running (or other weapons) program based in Benghazi. The consulate was likely a cover, ambassador Stevens was almost certainly involved. The guns were being sent to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, though in the hands of al Qaeda who knows where they were actually going. Ambassador Stevens is killed creating a mess for the President and the CIA. At some point it was decided to openly support the rebels, likely as a cover for what happened in Benghazi. With Congress and some journalists snooping around, it became important for the administration to create a narrative. With Obama openly supporting Syrian rebels, no matter how half hearted, now if comes out that Benghazi was all about gun running the negatives will be reduced because after all the guns were to be used against our “enemy” in Syria. That we weren’t enemies with Syria at the time won’t matter, at least not as much.

If this is so it begs the question why Obama was arming al Qaeda or people associated with al Qaeda. We already have to wonder why Obama so openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Why does this President support Muslim terrorists so often?  Especially the sort of people in al Qaeda who have attacked out country before. The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t much better. Even if you don’t believe Benghazi was about the CIA and gun running to al Qaeda in Syria, there’s no denying Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s all rather curious, why does this President support our long time enemies?

The United States Of Apathy

Darrell Issa is set to open the House investigation into the IRS scandal again. Just this week it has been discovered that former candidate for Senate Christine O’Donnell had her IRS information leaked during the campaign. Presumably the Democrats were afraid she was going to win, surely the Vice President wouldn’t want a Republican like her in his old seat. So her tax information was leaked from the IRS. This to go with the IRS targeting the Tea Party for added scrutiny. What’s amazing about this and all the other scandals though is that the public really doesn’t care very much. If Obama has been successful at anything it’s been in creating a collective apathy toward government scandal and misbehavior.

After the Benghazi incident the Federal government forced survivors to sign a non-disclosure statement. In doing so the Obama administration ensured that immediately before an election the survivors wouldn’t be able to talk and potentially make Obama look bad. The TSA is searching parked cars at random in airports all while collecting information on every single call, email or text you make. The DOJ is using its subpoena power to harass journalists. Obamacare is costing people jobs and moving many from full to part time work. Read the news, look at the polls. The country generally doesn’t care about any of these issues.

This is the progressive goal and dream set forth a century ago when they pushed hard for “free” government education. The progressives at the time understood that in order to change the nation they had to pry kids away from their parents. Progressive educators like Horace Mann and Thomas Dewey were quite up front about separating the next generation from our Christian history. We’re now seeing the end results of a century of increasingly horrible progressive education. We have a legion of adults that think nothing of government corruption and abuse, who know nothing of the Constitution or the history of our nation.

The result of that lack of knowledge is apathy towards government abuse. The outrage lasts five minutes before its forgotten again. Obama and company are watching, they know all to well that the country won’t think anything of executive branch corruption. If the country can’t get worked  up over the IRS being used in a political manner to target opponents of the President, what will the country get worked up over. Back in the 70’s the country was outraged over the Iran hostage situation. Today we don’t even care if our Libyan ambassador is killed by terrorists much less care if the administration covered their tracks to save the President’s re-election.

The message is clear to Obama and to the next President, especially the next Democrat President. The media doesn’t care about scandal, the public doesn’t care about scandal. You may do as you please, abuse power, ignore the constitution and trample rights to your heart’s content. The people no longer care. We’re too busy worrying about Kim Kardashian’s baby name, the birth of a Royal baby in a nation we rebelled against 230+ years ago and other assorted amusements. The nation is lost, only Christ can bring us back now. Obama didn’t begin the fundamental transformation of America, it was begun a century before him. However he may earn credit for completing the fundamental transformation of this country. We’re no longer engaged, we’re apathetic about government abuse and our rights.

Holder Has No Incentive To Appoint Special Prosecutor

In the last two months we’ve discovered that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups in order to delay providing them with tax exempt status. Former IRS chief Douglas Shulman visited the White House 157 times before he resigned. The White House knew about the targeting in 2012 but didn’t do anything about it and certainly didn’t notify the general public. It’s simple to understand why. Tea Party groups were instrumental in the Republicans takeover of the House in 2010 but they disappeared in 2012. Part of it is because of Mitt Romney who hardly endeared himself to conservatives. Make no mistake though, Tea Party groups were forced to halt their efforts when the toyed with their tax exempt status.

The Chicago Tribune wonders why Eric Holder hasn’t yet appointed a special prosecutor to look into this case. The better question is why would he appoint a special prosecutor. He’s been able to avoid being pressured into appointing a special prosecutor for the Fast and Furious scandal, Benghazi, media subpoenas and Kathleen Sebelius’ shakedown of health insurance companies. With Democrats unwilling to call out the Obama administration for any of its actions, why would Eric Holder bother with a special prosecutor?

This is one of the problems with the hyper-partisan environment in Washington these days. It doesn’t matter what Obama does, his own party will always defend him. Darrel Issa’s House Committee could find a smoking gun linking Obama directly to all of these scandals and the Democrats will defend him to no end. Perhaps Republicans would do the same thing had Bush done the same things. The difference is that Republicans tend to cave to media pressure. Since the mainstream press is controlled by Democrats, there are plenty of Republicans who can get spooked into turning on their own party. Obama has no such problem with the Democrats, especially when the media backs him.

All of these scandals are crying out for a special prosecutor. How can Eric Holder properly investigate the IRS scandal when it leads directly to the White House? How can he investigate himself concerning the media subpoena scandal or Fast and Furious? He can’t of course but he has no fear of ever being called to account. Even when House Republicans charge him with contempt, he can ignore the charge because as Attorney General he’s responsible for prosecuting the matter. Holder can hardly be expected to prosecute himself.

Obama has fundamentally transformed this country in just five years. Just a few years ago the nation would have been outraged over every one of these scandals, we would have demanded a full investigation. People don’t even care today. Sure, Tea Party members care. However the public generally doesn’t care about any of this. We as a nation have come to accept corruption from Obama and the Democrats. Whether it’s because we’re afraid of calling out the first black President or if we’ve become so cynical that we expect corruption, we’ve come to accept it and that will have a lasting effect on our republic. Government bureaucrats will no doubt take note, they have free reign now and no one will do anything about it.