That Lump Under the Rug

Houston. Problem.

The story that refuses to die has gained new legs, and the Obama administration will soon feel the heat as a result of such tenacity. And while the White House apologists scramble to perfect their damage control message, the fact remains that the fabric of the support mechanism in place for the past nineteen months seems to be eroding faster than the shoreline of an Asian country after an earthquake in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Benghazi has recently reared its ugly head once again, and while the White House staff is in full defense mode, there can be no doubt that something is seriously wrong here despite the reticence of the main stream media to cover any of it. It seems that a coordinated effort between this White House and the major news outlets has isolated Fox News as the lone news organization covering Benghazi and therefore easily accused it of conducting a witch hunt.

Herein lies the problem: between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton screaming, "What difference, at this point, does it make?", and Tommy Veitor's recent "Dude, that was like two years ago" comments, the efforts to sweep Benghazi under the proverbial rug has resulted in an undeniable lump that cannot be ignored. And so Congress is revitalized in the investigative process, and seems poised to name Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) as a chairman to a select committee to further probe deeper into this scandal. Much to Hillary Clinton's chagrin, this is not going away.

It is superbly ironic that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently called Benghazi a "political circus" in which Republicans seek to gain ground leading up to the Congressional elections later this year. Poppycock. This whole issue exploded anew after Judicial Watch finally obtained emails in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that show how the White House politicized  the attack -- and subsequent reaction to it -- to protect Obama's re-election.

Defenders of the White House and State Department continually claim that they have provided every bit of information to House investigators, yet why has it taken a lawsuit by Judicial Watch to drag these emails out of them? Why were they withheld to begin with? Someone is trying to hide something and it is incumbent on the House to discover what it is and who is responsible. Sorry Harry, that a circus does not make.

Sphere: Related Content

The Answer Must Be Treason

The Reaper On Vacation

For as tantalizing as the latest Obama-IRS scandal is to your garden variety political junkie -- of which I am one -- one must question why an administration would suddenly release such a damning story. What is it that could compel an administration to invite such a hell-storm upon itself, which might stall any possible political progress for months or more, at this time? Perhaps in the hopes that it will also stall any judicial progress, as well.

Obama's new term is only months old, and yet he is fighting for his political life. Between the AP revelations that the Department of Justice tapped the phone records of 20 lines at the AP building, and the damning news that the IRS was targeting Conservative groups during an election year, it is easy to understand how anyone could quickly forget about...Benghazi!

Oh yeah, remember Benghazi? That messy affair where four Americans died, including a U.S. Ambassador, and on sovereign U.S. territory? The Congressional questioning and the resulting answers were getting quite hot and heavy, nearly sucking the mainstream media into the fray. And then wham! Two less equally damning but no less insignificant stories hit the front pages.

Call me cynical, folks, but this is almost a classic case of feeding the beast in hopes of being eaten last, which begs the question; how close were we getting to the real truth on Benghazi? How close were the members of Congress to discovering justification for heads to roll? The answer is chillingly clear, at least to me.

Ambassador Stevens?

The possibility of being charged with treason might make a President begin releasing anything and everything to throw off the scent, even if the other stories are nearly as damaging to an administration albeit punishable to a much lesser degree. The strategy seems to be working for now, as the coverage on the Benghazi hearings seems all but non-existent. And if political junkies have a hard time finding coverage, the low-information voter will have virtually forgotten about Benghazi already.

The real question remains, however; how long can Obama, et al, escape the consequences of their awful performance -- nay, their negligence and malfeasance -- during the Libyan attacks of September 11, 2012? And will our Congress relent under the absence of interest by the American people and simply abandon the search for truth on this matter?

Most of my friends -- also politically plugged-in types -- will not forget about Benghazi, no matter how the other two current scandals play out. To the apparently uninterested out there, I have this bit of outrage to offer you: remember that the hearings on Benghazi had progressed far enough to discover that the alleged video demonstration-turned-all out assault on our Consulate in Libya was a lie, and that Obama and his cohorts knew this from the start.

Also remember that knowing this, Obama went to sleep while the four Americans were dying in Libya, and left on a campaign trip to Las Vegas the next morning, having to know that Stevens was dead. And that he lied for weeks thereafter about a phantom protest over a video that his own people on the ground in Libya said played no part in the attack.

There were two separate stand down orders given to special ops in Tripoli ready to board a C-130 and fly to Benghazi to help those under attack, and the two dead SEALS who were in a nearby CIA safehouse -- Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were denied permission to join the fight. They defied orders and fought valiantly until dead, all the while hoping that help would arrive. It never did, because no one gave the order to send it.

Obama and his handlers have basically said, "Hey! Look over there, the IRS!" to hopefully delay consequences over the Benghazi tragedy, which they caused. The timing suggests it, and I believe it. Obama sees the handwriting on the wall, and is trying furiously to erase it.

We can only hope that the AP and IRS scandals play a part in bringing justice to members of Obama's administration, but that we also do not lose focus on uncovering the truth of the heinous actions of a Commander in Chief so inept at best, or so sinister at worst. Treason is a serious charge for anyone, but none so much as the President of the United States, but if the cookies crumbs lead us in that direction and to the conclusion that they must, the IRS story will appear meaningless by comparison.

Sphere: Related Content

What a Cushion a Compliant Media Makes

Redundancy: an Unhinged Democrat

What we're seeing play out before us in the Benghazi hearings is a combination of media malfeasance coupled with a Democrat Party -- and administration -- emboldened by the former. But since the former has been an ongoing, decades-old phenomena, the latter is growing into a monster that feels it can literally get away with murder. And it has. The black hats are winning everyday, and the people are paying a heavy price.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's earlier Congressional testimony -- in which she infamously stated, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" -- is evidence of the problems we now face in America. We are being ruled led by a group of emotional misfits who feel they can operate with impunity if they only yell loud enough or cry hard enough. And our alleged watchdogs in the media will either fall for the chicanery or participate in it. Yet none will question either the validity of the statements nor the crassness with which they are made. Imagine for one minute how a parent or spouse or child of one of the dead in the Benghazi affair must have felt with Ms. Clinton's angry question.

"Water under the bridge" according to Madam Secretary. "Old news", according to the president's spokesman, Jay Carney. "Time to move on", say them all, but there is still the matter of the truth to be sought and discovered, and we will not rest until we are satisfied that the truth has at last been unearthed.

As important as the Benghazi hearings are for the immediate veracity of the moment, however, there is also the larger picture I feel is paramount in getting our nation back on track, and that is holding the people we select to represent us -- as well as the people selected to inform us -- to the reality that we are not all the stupid sheep they presume us to be. But it is incumbent upon us to also reverse the damage done to our society by the Department of Education and their stranglehold on our children in order to prevent the continued -- and not entirely unfounded -- perception that the elites have of us.

If we allow ourselves to be lied to, the lies will only become bolder and more frequent. It is a natural tendency of a pusher to provide more of that which keeps a user in line, just as the media will propagate more lies if they feel they placate the masses. We must break that addiction by refusing to sit like sponges in front of the TV and accepting what we're told as truth. This will also discourage our politicians from telling a lie that must be covered up from telling them in the first place.

 The Democrats, and to a lesser degree (in my opinion) even the Republicans are all guilty of enjoying the cushion of media complicity. (I say Republicans to a lesser degree simply because most of the so-called  mainstream media are Liberals, but there are those rare times when even a Republican skates on a charge of corruption).

Regarding the Benghazi hearings, I am heartened that we have finally begun them in earnest, and even more encouraged that a major news network has taken notice and reported somewhat about the proceedings. I suppose that when the truth becomes more evident, it is more difficult to ignore, even for a Liberal news outlet.

If only the Democrats on the committee would demonstrate less partisanship and more of a thirst for the truth, then I would be damn near giddy. Sadly, the game between the Liberal establishment and the Liberal media is one of "if we lie, you swear to it", and the practice tends to pull the media lapdogs back into line when the politicians refuse to admit the slightest possibility of error.

I can remember a time when a politician -- when caught -- would resign in shame with not much of a fight, simply because the truth about him (or her) had been discovered and reported. The modus operandi of such people today is outright denial and outrage over the audacity of someone daring to make the charge in the first place. All this has done is give politicians the idea that anything is possible as long as one's poker face could withstand the slightest scrutiny.

It's all a matter of trust, folks. Trust is a commodity most fragile, and once it is violated, rebuilding it is a most daunting task. It is sad that we must try to rebuild that treasure with our journalistic community, and it must noted that most marriages are not strong enough to weather such a storm. Most betrayed spouses end up with someone new. We have also begun trying new partners, such as talk radio and the myriad websites that feed us the information we crave. Can the old-guard networks win us back?

This week is a great test on that question.

Sphere: Related Content