Friday, May 17, 2013

DOJ-AP, IRS, Benghazi: Who wins?

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.

From Glenn Greenwald (h/t FFF):

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.

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?

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.


  1. I think your logic is outstanding, b-m-. I think it is perfectly plausible that your three themes have been put in place by the Evil Cabal.

    But, my read is that there are forces more powerful than even the long-ruling Evil Cabal who are getting involved and undercutting support for The Establishment. These forces are trying to wake up us sheeple to the fleecing, and worse, that we have been undergoing for the longest time.

    So, I differ on theme two, that the IRS imbroglio results in sympathy for the Tea Party. I think it just results in antipathy, or worse, for the IRS.

    Me, I look to the premier of the movie, 'Sirius' three weeks ago, the holding of the Citizens Hearings on Disclosure two weeks ago, and the release of the book, 'Proof of Heaven,' last fall as significant events.

    I think that people are awakening to the fact that all is not what it seems, and that we are not alone.

    I think that forces for good from other places are helping the earthbound vanguard -- e.g., you, The Daily Bell, David Wilcock, Veterans Today, et al. -- to awaken the sheeple to alternate explanations of what is going on here and who we really are.

    I read elsewhere, and concur, that a coup by forces for good is just around the corner.

    It should be a most interesting spring and summer!

    1. "These forces are trying to wake up us sheeple to the fleecing, and worse, that we have been undergoing for the longest time."

      I am ultimately optimistic, for a few reasons: 1) God's judgment will prevail, 2) liberty is the most conducive environment for man's survival on earth; the current path most certainly threatens man's survival, and for this reason will be fought and defeated.

      I also can accept that the elite are not monolithic, and that there are powerful, earthly forces that push on the side of more liberty.

      So I do not dismiss your general view, while having no opinion on your suggested timing.

  2. Followed you here from EPJ. Love your comments at ZHedge too.

    Rand may be compromised, and he's ambitious, but he's still WAY too sympathetic to the liberty movement to effectively push the CFR/TriComm/Bilder agenda. Unless they murder his dad (who would never shut up, even if Rand was Prez) then it wouldn't work.

  3. BM-

    PLEASE, for the love of GOD, get rid of the CRAPTCHA. Ask Bob or Chris at EPJ how to do it. You can stop Anon comments if trolls show up.

  4. Great post. Some months ago, I asked you who these masterminds who work across generations are [see the comment by Anonymous (me) at 2:28 and your thoughtful reply:].

    In this post you give us more intriguing information and persuasive speculation about these "players larger than presidents, larger than governments." I am curious about why they would work so hard to impose totalitarian governance by such means as the Cloward-Piven method, cultural Marxism, etc., and come so close to achieving their goal -- but now, as you speculate, shift their effort to discrediting their former chosen one in favor of the libertarian Rand Paul. Could it be that their wrecking efforts have brought the world to the brink of a disaster far more ruinous than they expected? A ruin that wouldn't be nearly as much fun or as profitable to exploit as they thought? Disaster for we unimportant peasants wouldn't matter to them, but perhaps Europe is showing them that they could end up being hurt as well. Thus the possible effort to turn the ship in a bit different direction -- just enough for the Titanic to miss scraping the fatal iceberg, but not enough to change the ultimate destination.

    A hundred years ago, bloody revolution in Russia quickly culminated in totalitarian rule and, not too many decades and WWII later, the subjugation of a large continent and satellite states all over Eastern Europe. Ditto China, the birthplace of totalitarian government, whose people accepted Communist rule with little resistance after WWII.

    I wonder if the Mastermind Elite realize that revolutionary upheaval (Russian style) or fatalistic submission (Chinese style) would not yield the same satisfactory (or "satisfactory") result here in the good old USA. Since we're speculating, I suggest that the reason is that the Russian and the Chinese people were already used to being ruled by the iron hand of the Tsars and the Emperors and had no significant history of individual liberty, self-government, the free market, abundant living, etc. We in America have a quite different history and will not give up our country as easily as others living in generally subservient cultures have. Perhaps the Elite Masterminds have decided they can tighten the leash more easily later on by giving us a bit of a breather, to let us feel that we have fought back against the totalitarians and will eventually prevail (and thus turn our attention away from that fight to other things), only to be back in greater force against us in years to come. I think they recognize that capitalism and American ideals actually provide the foundation that allows all the horrible places to continue to function to any degree. The Elite wouldn't prosper if all they had to rule over amounted to a world-wide tin-pot African country. They need money, innovation, modern transportation and communications, the whole ball of free-enterprise wax, to fund their rule. They don't want to kill the golden goose, just mollify it a bit and make it feel like it has options, before they put us back in the cage. A big enough cage to let us produce the golden eggs they need, but a cage nonetheless.

    So if the tide turns against Obama and toward a more liberty-minded leader (Rand Paul or some other dude), we should be grateful for the break but also remain on high alert for the rug-snatching-out-from-under-us that will surely follow in years to come.

    1. “I am curious about why they would work so hard to impose totalitarian governance… and come so close to achieving their goal -- but now, as you speculate, shift their effort to discrediting their former chosen one in favor of the libertarian Rand Paul.”

      I am concluding (and always evolving) that saving regulatory democracy is paramount. The objective is control, and regulatory democracy offers the most effective means of control, because the victims don’t believe they are victims. Better than any totalitarian / dictatorial scheme, where the victims are not fooled about their lot in life.

      As to a “chosen one,” these vassals are chosen for as long as they are useful. As to Rand being libertarian, I believe him to be a safe (to the establishment) libertarian – talks reasonably well on some issues, good on rhetoric, willing to compromise.

      “Disaster for we unimportant peasants wouldn't matter to them…”

      I think it does matter to them – not in a caring-loving way. If the system fails the masses, the masses will turn on the system. I believe protecting the system is of paramount value to these elite. This is why I am concluding that even sovereign default, or a break-up of some portions of the European experiment will be acceptable – in fact, these actions will reinforce to the masses that the system is working for them.

      I think it also matters because, if control is your objective, controlling more is better than controlling less. I don’t buy the idea of a desire to shrink the population to 500 million. If you control 7 billion, do you want to be known by your descendants as the one who left a legacy less than 10% of its previous peak?

      “So if the tide turns against Obama and toward a more liberty-minded leader (Rand Paul or some other dude), we should be grateful for the break but also remain on high alert for the rug-snatching-out-from-under-us that will surely follow in years to come.”

      Please don’t misunderstand my point – I think Rand is acceptable to the elite because Rand is not principled regarding liberty and non-aggression. He will talk a good game (like Reagan), on some fronts he will win a victory or two for so-called conservatives (like Reagan), but the entire objective is to keep a firm grasp on the rudder that steers the ship of regulatory democracy. Rand is viewed as the one that can pacify a large portion of the disgruntled “tea-party” voice, at least for a time, and keep the ship from striking rock.

      In the end, unless true reductions in the state are enacted, the system will cave-in on itself. This is the path I see, but it will not be a sudden death – instead a prolonged, slow decay. Arguably history will mark the beginning of this decay at 1971, 1945, 1913, or some earlier time.

      The decay will be replaced by more decentralized systems of governance. At least this is my hope.

    2. Who would be better than Ron Paul's son to take the (unearned) blame for the inevitable economic collapse?

  5. I generally agree, but I don't think Hilary is toast yet. The libs really, really want a woman president, and the PTB preferred her in '08. Unless "they" can't keep the Bengazhi affair tamped down (and I do believe the other issues are designed to divert attention from it), I think she still has a very good shot. I can't think of anyone, man or woman, ahead of her.
    The Rappoport piece was quite convincing to me, but I am big zero hedge fan and kind of susceptible to just about any foil-wrapped truffle. I don't see you in that crowd, BTW, you seem very sober and serious in comparison.

    1. As I said in the piece, it was tin-foil-hat type thinking.

      There is no doubt that this isn't coincidence....but the purpose? Who knows? Someday we might understand.

  6. There's a growing awareness that The American Republic is broken. My conjecture is it's time to prepare a demonstration that the system is in fact fine. Cherished American traditions needing reaffirmation include: the 4th estate (an independent press), governing with consent of the governed (evil-doers can be thrown out by we the people), un-elected bureaucrats can be made to serve the people.

    In this model, some oh-so-revelatory stories in the press, an impeached president and high profile floggings of life-long bureaucrats and confidence in the edifice will be restored enough to postpone popular revolt for the next 10 - 15 years; or long enough for the last of the Greatest Generation to pass into history.

    I believe the calculation is that with my parents and their peers gone, resistance to global governance will be greatly reduced.

    1. Your conjecture is reasonable, and not inconsistent with my view about why Rand Paul is being supported by the right mainstream outlets.

      However, I will disagree with your conclusion - I think we see signs of resistance in many places - both inside and outside of the US.