Caution: this post is one of speculation and wonder. There will be elements of tin-foil-hat involved, so prepare accordingly.
I am struggling to make sense of these sudden attacks on Obama. Why now? It is not as if there haven’t been opportunities before to come down on this president if desired.
Due to the controversies over the IRS and (especially) the DOJ's attack on AP's news gathering process, media outlets have suddenly decided that President Obama has a very poor record on civil liberties, transparency, press freedoms, and a whole variety of other issues on which he based his first campaign.
Keep in mind, the phenomenal coincidence that these abuses have become national events immediately after Obama’s “no-tyranny here” speech:
Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.
From Sheldon Richman:
As he said this, three scandals — the Benghazi blunder and obfuscation, IRS political profiling, and secret subpoenas for Associated Press reporters’ phone records — were about to explode in public. As they say in show biz, timing is everything.
This isn’t a coincidence. It is as if Obama was set-up to give this speech just in time to eat his words. But why? And by whom?
From Jon Rappoport:
The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obama’s disastrous presidency, they’ve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and they’re out for blood.
It is understandable that the press gets worked up after the AP story. Prior to this, it was standard operating procedure for the press to ignore the civil liberties violations of this administration until these abusive powers were aimed at the press.
Why the IRS? Since when was the Tea Party a sympathetic entity?
Benghazi: it is easy to see why the right would latch on, but the story seems to have grown far bigger than this. And why not months ago, when the events occurred?
More from Rappoport:
The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.
As long as his liberal allies [keep] pounding on the fact that he’s a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, that’s not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.
The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It certainly doesn’t happen from the bowels of the president’s rabid worshipers. But it is happening.
That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.
I am sympathetic to the view that there are players larger than presidents, larger than governments. These players work through these centralizing institutions to achieve their ends. Therefore, Rappoport’s suggestions find in me a ready audience.
So I ask: who wins in this? I find three themes in these new-found scandals:
1) Civil liberties are under attack by our own government. (AP-DOJ)
2) The Tea Party is to be made a sympathetic entity. (IRS)
3) Hillary is out. (Benghazi)
I find one person that can benefit from all three of these themes. Before I get to this, one more item from Greenwald:
Recall back in 2008 that the CIA prepared a secret report (subsequently leaked to WikiLeaks) that presciently noted that the election of Barack Obama would be the most effective way to stem the tide of antiwar sentiment in western Europe, because it would put a pleasant, happy, progressive face on those wars and thus convert large numbers of Obama supporters from war opponents into war supporters. That, of course, is exactly what happened: not just in the realm of militarism but civil liberties and a whole variety of other issues.
Only Obama could defang the anti-war / civil-liberties movement. Not Hillary. This explains the reason for the sudden shift off of the Hillary bandwagon, onto this previously unknown entity Obama.
TIN FOIL HAT ALERT: as was done with Obama eight years ago, the stage is being set today for the candidate desired by the establishment. There is one candidate that benefits from all three of these themes:
1) Of those candidates acceptable in the mainstream and by the power brokers, which one has spoken most strongly about civil liberties?
2) Of those candidates most acceptable in the mainstream and by the power brokers, which one is most closely identified with the Tea Party?
As to Hillary, her ouster clears the way for many. However, of all of the possible candidates in either party, she arguably is the most formidable – and likely presents the strongest challenge to the Republican nominee.
There is one name that answers these questions; it is the candidate being groomed and presented as the next Ronald Reagan, an objective that struck me almost a year ago.
To be clear, I do not suggest that this groomed candidate is behind any of this; only that he is the beneficiary of the events directed by those in real power.
As a cautionary note, yes – it is possible I am looking for answers that support my previous conclusions…. I am open to other possibilities that tie these strings together. However, I am not very open to the possibility that it is mere coincidence.