Is the Obama Administration Imploding?

The Obama Administration’s incompetence, arrogance, and mistakes are becoming too big to hide. The liberal media’s pretense that all is well is cracking as the public slowly becomes informed rather than misled.

“What difference does it make?” was Hillary’s arrogant attempt to dismiss Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerns on Benghazi and advance an administration cover-up, but her transparent act of being offended has now become offensive to many. Hiding facts surrounding the death of Americans does, indeed, make a difference.

Obama’s re-election was protected by the Benghazi cover-up but Hillary’s presidential bid may now be in jeopardy. Senator Durbin (D-Ill.) can pretend the GOP is conducting a “witch hunt” because of fearing Hillary in 2016, but the real fear is that the entire Democrat Party will face dire consequences – and it should. The rubber-stamping Obama received from Democrats made this all possible.

Revelations of the IRS targeting non-profit groups such as the Tea Party for political purposes are further proof of an administration out of control, but blinders remain. Carl Bernstein declared that he “can’t imagine” President Obama is possibly involved in this IRS infraction, though he had no problem imagining Nixon’s involvement in a minor, bungled break-in, and helping to bring about his resignation because of it.

Much of the public has been kept in the dark and, therefore, also “can’t imagine” the depths of this administration’s errors and political tactics. The facts coming forth now do not rely on one’s imagination and should shock all out of the political stupor that has taken hold, but perhaps that is too optimistic a view.

Hillary for president is being advanced even in the wake of her Benghazi debacle. Joe Klein, on the Chris Matthews show (soon to become the “Hillary-for-President Show”), began the erasure of the 2008 liberal campaign theme that experience doesn’t count by stating that Hillary is “…one of the most experienced candidates we’ve ever had running for president”.

One can hope that Hillary’s “experience” in the Benghazi cover-up will be remembered and will count. Perhaps Obama’s administration will have completely imploded by then – that is, if the media will allow it. There is “Hope” for “Change” in 2016.

David J. Hentosh

PETA Loses Relevance – Again

It is a noble and worthwhile endeavor to fight against abuse of animals, and making people aware of such abuse through media attention makes sense. However, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), made her organization appear foolish once again by picking the wrong battle to fight in the quest for public awareness.

A video of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie smashing a spider on his desk prompted Newkirk to take a stand on behalf of PETA by chastising Christie for such a thoughtless act. Spiders are feared, loathed, and not considered animals by most people. Saving them from abuse, death, or even extinction will never be a priority for many. It is highly doubtful that PETA gained respect, or donations, by championing spiders.

PETA has always taken the approach that any press is good press and has gone over-the-top many times in its thirst for publicity. Appearing foolish not only does not faze PETA, it often seems to be a goal. Nudity, always an attention-getter, has been a staple in PETA’s publicity campaigns, but it hasn’t given PETA the mature image that such an organization needs to be taken seriously.

If it’s just attention PETA wants, why stop at Christie’s killing of a spider or Obama’s swatting (“executing”) a fly? Head lice are being massacred daily; fleas are routinely eradicated; and ticks get no respect whatsoever – and shouldn’t PETA be preparing a massive publicity campaign on behalf of the billion cicadas soon to make an appearance?

David J. Hentosh

Irreversible Damage

After the Boston bombings, a poll revealed that Fox News was the most watched and most trusted network covering the incident. Although the rejection of liberal biased networks is encouraging, damage caused by years of voter ignorance aided by media bias may be irreversible.

A recent poll shows that 42% of Americans don’t know that Obamacare has been passed into law. Unfortunately, many of these people vote. The hastily passed healthcare bill that is proving to be a disaster was sold to the public by a media vested in “making history” and reluctant to report on the bill’s failures. Congress is now trying to exempt itself from Obamacare while some unions, avid Obama backers, are trying to get many of its provisions repealed, but the media continues praising it.

Another poll shows that 55% of Americans don’t know that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, actually performs abortions. It receives taxpayer money based on the perception that its function is only women’s healthcare, a notion reinforced by President Obama stating publicly that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms, which it doesn’t.

The current trial of abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell, accused of killing newborns as part of his abortion practice, went unmentioned by the mainstream media until it was forced to cover it because of the attention from Fox News and other responsible news outlets. The progressive media fully approves of abortion so it is reluctant to report anything negative concerning it.

Due to media-assisted voter ignorance, many abortion practices that most find despicable have taken root in society and flaws in Obamacare adversely affecting everyone have become law. It now seems likely that immigration reform will focus on amnesty and ignore border security, putting us all in danger for years to come.

Permanent damage has been done and more is sure to come if the biased media continues unfettered. A Republican White House would surely compel the liberal media to return to being a “watchdog” critically investigating administration policies. If that doesn’t occur, the damage already done will end up seeming miniscule compared to what is coming.

David J. Hentosh

Spinning the Boston Bombing

The Washington Post wants us to believe that we are incapable of coming to grips with the Boston bombers because they “don’t neatly fit into pre-existing boxes”. Since they are not dark skinned, our limited brains cannot connect any dots. Race being an obsession of the left, it is the yardstick all are expected to use – for everything.

Also, the fact that the bombing brothers had Muslim affiliations is to be overlooked. Had the brothers been Christians, their religion would certainly have been fair game, but we are to make nothing of their association with a “religion of peace”. As an Atlantic headline chastised all: “The Boston Bombers Were Muslims. So?”

Had the brothers been the first or only Muslims to use terror and random murder for their “cause”, one might agree with the Atlantic. However, only blind, foolish adherence to an agenda allows someone to embrace pretense rather than the reality that another terrorist attack has been perpetrated by Muslims; not Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Scientologists.

The far left’s severe disappointment that the bombing brothers are not white, right-wing, anti-Obama fanatics is being compensated with accusations that “we” are the ones somehow in the wrong. Let down again by their failing idealism, they are spinning as fast as they can to validate an agenda dependent upon denial.

Chris Matthews, a hard core liberal, jumped the gun wondering if Tax Day was a motivation while planting the idea (wish?) that domestic terrorists always come from the right. Once it became known the bombers were Muslims, he spun around and wondered why it was necessary to find out the reason they did it. He not only wants to deny the truth, he wants to bury it to keep his dream alive.

The Obama administration has presented a false sense of security for political gain. Obama’s drone war in a far-away land allows him to pretend he has defeated terrorism. Terrorist threats on US soil are a political liability that shatter the illusion and interfere with his “transformation of America”.

The spin starts at the top.

David J. Hentosh

Ignoring the Law

Obama’s directives for the non-enforcement of immigration laws legitimized disrespect for the law. His continuing skirting of rules, laws, and regulations with executive orders and political maneuvering has displayed an arrogant disregard for the rule of law and has been a top-down example many are following.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano emulated Obama and blatantly ignored the law by issuing a memo offering a deferred action and employment authorization to illegal aliens which was part of the Dream Act that Congress refused to pass.

Deportation of non-citizens who commit crimes has been ignored under the current push for amnesty for all. This type of non-legal amnesty is being expanded and enforced more than current immigration laws, putting society at risk. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the dead terrorist who bombed the Boston marathon, is the latest example of someone who should have been deported (having been convicted of domestic violence) but was not.

The Northern District of Illinois has the lowest firearm prosecution rate of all federal court districts while Chicago, residing in that district, has one of the highest rates of gun-related murders. The cry for more gun laws continues, but current gun laws are not being enforced. They are being ignored.

In Denver, a publically announced and planned rally celebrating marijuana, which is still illegal to smoke in public, was held. Allowing (and ignoring) 80,000 people to openly break the law is a slap in the face to the rule of law. What signal does this send to our children? How can respect for the law survive?

Laws are to be followed, enforced, altered, or removed, but they should never be ignored. Judges may have discretionary powers when enforcing the law, but they have no right to ignore laws or make up new ones; nor does the president. Unfortunately, the example has been set and consequences are sure to come. Don’t be surprised when the hit.

David J. Hentosh

Here Comes the Immigration Reform Farce

A bipartisan group of senators is ready to put forth a so-called “broad” immigration bill that is nothing but a farce. In today’s skewed political climate, “bipartisan” is only mentioned when conservatives cave in to the loud, shrill demands of the left. If a liberal moves to the right, he is called a traitor, a racist, or much worse, but never “bipartisan”.

Amnesty, the only goal of progressives’ immigration reform, is on the way. The “bipartisan” demand to secure the borders first, an absolute necessity before real immigration reform can begin, was given lip service and then watered-down to appease the “bipartisan” senators who will now pretend they fought hard for, and won, a working compromise.

The bill allows ten years of planning and/or securing the borders before any real impediment to citizenship can be put into place for failing to comply. Meanwhile, a path to citizenship for illegals will begin immediately with nothing to stop it from morphing into full-blown amnesty. In the span of ten years with little border security, that “path” to citizenship will become a fully paved, toll-free, four-lane, busy highway.

True comprehensive immigration reform is impossible until the borders are secure. Therefore, other immigration reforms will not even become a topic for discussion. One of those other reforms in need of addressing is assimilation.

According to a Hudson Institute’s comparison study of native-born to naturalized American citizens, native-born Americans are: 30% more likely to consider themselves American rather than citizens of the world; 30% more likely to believe the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law; 31% more likely to believe schools should focus on American citizenship rather than ethnic pride; and 23% more likely to believe all citizens understand English.

Assimilation allowed the US to become a successful “melting pot” never before seen in the history of the world. We have become a less cohesive society the more we have ignored the importance of assimilation. We can’t realistically address this or other reforms until the borders are secure. This latest bill is a farce, reforms nothing, and opens the door to chaos.

David J. Hentosh

Putting the Cat Back in the Bag

Once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, it is next to impossible to get it back in. So it has been with laws. Once on the books, it has been very, very hard to get a law repealed unless, that is, repeal dovetails with the progressive agenda.

Colorado is set to erase the crime of adultery from its books in order to “keep the government out of people’s bedrooms” and because the law is “archaic”. It seems we are to ignore that the government has already been in our bedrooms forcing health insurers to pay for abortions and provide free contraception. As long as the government is watering-down morality, bedroom intrusion is acceptable.

The traditional family unit is no longer considered as important as self-gratification. Adultery, divorce, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and open marriage have not only become acceptable, they are often being advocated. An entire generation has been raised with a low regard for the family unit and are left with no cornerstone for building the future.

Obamacare was passed hastily in order to satisfy Obama’s personal desire for universal health care. He did not read or understand the bill beforehand and didn’t care how damaging it could be as long as it was passed. Unfortunately, it will now be very difficult to get any of it changed or repealed. The common good was neglected in order to benefit 10% of the population – and there is no going back.

Gun control and immigration reform are the current cats being let out of the bag. Both require a serious and impartial analysis of consequences, but both will be handled by knee-jerk, emotional legislation instead. Years from now, there will be a lot of consternation as legislators try to repeal thE soon-to-be hastily passed laws. They will chase those cats for a long time but they will never get them back in the bag.

David J. Hentosh

Reagan Was Right – Again

As a result of North Korea rattling its nuclear sword with long range missile tests and development of a mobile launcher, Obama reluctantly reversed his decision to freeze the Alaskan missile defense system and allowed ground-based missile interceptors to be deployed. By doing so, Obama inadvertently pays homage to Ronald Reagan’s SDI initiative.

Thirty years ago, Reagan was demonized and ridiculed for his “evil empire” speech against the Soviet Union and his idea of a missile defense initiative (SDI). It was sneeringly labeled “Star Wars” by Sen. Ted Kennedy who had no such ridicule when President John F. Kennedy pushed the limits of technology by calling for a man on the moon in less than a decade. Technology is only embraced by liberals when it fits their political ideology.

Both George H. and George W. Bush kept SDI alive while in the White House. Bill Clinton, supposedly a far-thinking president, pointedly ignored it as best he could. Obama is only allowing interceptors because North Korean missiles may now have the capability of hitting the west coast of the US. His foreign policy with North Korea and Iran failed to stop or limit their nuclear aggression and threats can no longer be ignored.

Obama’s distaste for SDI was evident when he cancelled the anti-missile system that was scheduled for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic as a defense against potential Iranian missiles. Obama caved to the Russian complaint (fear?) against a system that could neutralize Russian intercontinental missiles, as if defending against them was an act of aggression. Consequently, Iran’s continued development of a nuclear missile poses a threat that could have been, but won’t be, defended against.

Obama cancelled several other missile defense programs, causing us to fall behind in that technology at a time when the threat of a rogue nuclear missile is increasing. Once again, Obama’s “fundamental transformation” is proving to be out of touch with reality and dangerous to the welfare of the country. If he finishes stripping us down to the defense level of other European countries, where will we and the free world turn for protection? Reagan instinctively understood.

David J. Hentosh

Pre-writing History

Repetition, repetition, repetition – It is the method being used by the left to forge public perception and pre-write history. The bombardment of false perceptions has taken root in many, and future historians may not be able to discern the truth. The squeaky wheel of the left may get the historians’ grease.

According to the progressive left (including, of course, the media): Dick Cheney is evil; the GOP is racist; the rich pay no taxes; Bush wrecked the economy; the Catholic Church promotes pedophilia; Obama has superior intelligence; the US is the most terroristic nation in the world; socialism works well; Castro is an humanitarian; there is no deficit problem; taxing the rich for their “fair share” will solve the deficit problem; limiting abortion is a war on women; Obamacare costs less; etc., etc.

The list goes on and on, with reality never making an appearance. Yet, these things are accepted by a lot of people, and they vote, sometimes more than once. Obama was elected, then re-elected, by an overflow of uninformed voters inundated with talking points from the media, celebrities, and progressive politicians. Nothing negative was attributed to Obama and, consequently, may not appear in future history books, either.

Before thinking this is too pessimistic, look at how many in the GOP have panicked and are now abandoning conservative principles in an effort to become “relevant” with what they perceive to be a progressive majority. They see the writing on the wall as: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. For them, abortion is losing its ugliness, immigration reform is beginning to sound like amnesty, same-sex marriage suddenly appeared in the Constitution exactly where the right to bear arms disappeared, social issues are becoming the government’s main responsibility, and Obamacare is beginning to look cheap at twice the original estimate.

If the Republican Party caves, only one, distorted view of history will survive and it is currently being written. Historians will have to drink the Kool-Aid because it may be the only drink available.

David J. Hentosh

Another Feel-good, “Make History” Election?

Former Democrat Party spokeswoman Karen Finney tells us that a 2016 presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama “…would truly be a dream team for America…Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children”.

It seems that making history by electing (then re-electing) totally inexperienced Barack Obama felt so good that doing it again is even more desirable. Breaking the “glass ceiling” with a woman president would again make history, and combining it with a woman vice president would be a great historical twofer to cherish.

Michelle Obama’s absolute lack of professional political experience is irrelevant. After all, she “raised children”, proving she is an “effective leader”. (Sadly enough, that may be more of a real accomplishment than Barack had when he was chosen to make history.) Hillary, of course, proved her qualifications by becoming a Senator with no political experience and then was anointed Secretary of State – perhaps because she also “raised children”.

It has always been a fault of our election process that popularity played such a key role, but it was mostly the popularity of politicians. In today’s politics, popularity is bestowed upon whomever the progressive media decides is worthy, and combining that with a desire to make history is a recipe for disaster.

Should Hillary decide not to run, the media could push Michelle to the forefront and bring in Sandra Fluke as candidate for vice president. She, too, has no political experience but was made a celebrity by the progressive media because…well…one isn’t quite sure – much like one isn’t quite sure why Kim Kardashian was made into a celebrity. It’s a media thing and people follow.

There’s the frightening thing: People buy into it. Voters elected Obama with no experience because of media endorsement, then re-elected him because the media ignored negative results of his inexperience. The media has already decided making up news is part of its job, so making history is a natural progression. Michelle becoming president would not be a fluke, but Fluke could very well be vice president.

We may be doomed.

David J. Hentosh