The national dialogue and media coverage of the Obama Administration has markedly changed toward the negative over the last two weeks. Revelations from unimpeachable witnesses about the lies and political cover-up of the Benghazi terrorist attack have led the headlines. Now, just this week, a second scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service illegally and unconstitutionally targeting conservative and Jewish groups has broken open. This scandal is pure state sponsored intimidation of political enemies and must be dealt with by the courts. Simply firing or admonishing IRS employees will not suffice a scandal that appears likely to go right to the top. These scandals are serious and could lead to impeachment of President Obama. However, scandals involving the Administration are not new. For example, the public is still awaiting answers to the “Fast and Furious” scandal. What is different this time is that the media is not giving President Obama a free pass. Instead, the media appears to be asking the hard questions for the first time and President Obama is running for cover.
To understand the mechanics of what is at work, one must understand the media. Generally speaking, in today’s media world, reporters simply get the sound bites producers and senior editorial staff direct. Reporters simply don’t run with their own stories and leads anymore. The headlines are all generated behind the scenes by management. Further, it is fair to say that President Obama still enjoys an almost cult like following and support from within the media, which tends to be very liberal and progressive. This liberal media pool has not changed their overtly biased allegiance to President Obama. Instead, senior management in the Soros-Murdoch media monopoly has made a decision to put very real pressure on the Obama Administration. Thus, the question is why have Soros and Murdoch decided to give orders to reign in President Obama. Clearly, the Obama Administration has acted or failed to act in a way that pleases its financiers.
This pattern of sabotaging presidents during their second term of office is pronounced. Recent presidents Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have all suffered during their second term. Debate continues on why administration destroying scandals seem to surface during second terms, but it is arguable that the presidents became a bit too independent in their actions and establishment elites brought them down. Further, President Obama, like all politicians, likely made many promises in the run up to a close election to ensure his re-election win and now has not made good on them. In short, wealthy financiers of the politicians expected certain returns and when they did not get them, they pulled the plug on their support.
In the case of President Obama, it appears that his inaction respective of Iran has enraged special interests that have long sought a war with Iran. Specifically, it is likely President Obama made a secret agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off attacking Iran so as not to jeopardize his re-election. Now Israel wants action and President Obama has not lived up to his promises. As such, Israel, its powerful lobby, and its expatriates in control of media empires (Soros and Murdoch) have decided to put some real hit on the Obama Administration to remind it who is calling the shots. The increasing pressure mounting on President Obama creates an extremely dangerous situation. Most likely, this will end with either President Obama creating a diversionary situation much like President Clinton’s infamous launching of missiles during the height of the Lewinsky Scandal or acquiescing to Israeli demands. The latter is far more dangerous for U.S. interests and security. Only time will tell how this will play out, but for certain, something treacherous is amiss behind the scenes causing the sudden turn of events for the White House.
To better understand why the media has now turned on President Obama it is important to pay attention to how key events have unfolded since just before the election.
- August 21, 2012: President Obama gives a speech and announces that use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Assad would be a “red line” and change his calculus. President Obama signaled to Israel that it would attack Syria and Iran if Israel was threatened. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/meast/syria-unrest
- September 27, 2012: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu draws his famous “red line” on a bomb during his U.N. address giving Iran “nine months” to halt its enrichment activity or Israel would strike if the U.S. did not. Nine months places Israel’s time period for an attack squarely in the May-June 2013 timeframe. This was understood as Israel announcing it would NOT attack Iran before the November presidential election in the U.S. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/netanyahu-raises-with-red-line-obama-still-keeping-cards-close.html
- March 21, 2013: President Obama visited Israel for the first time as President. The understood reason for this visit was to reinforce US support for Israel against threats from Iran and Syria. Information on how the state visit went was limited, but many analysts believe Washington did not agree to the level of support and involvement Israel had hoped for.
- April 23, 2013: Israel accuses Syrian President Assad of using chemical weapons; specifically, sarin nerve gas, on the rebels. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/israel-accuses-syria-of-using-chemical-weapons-probably-sarin/
- U.S. does not act and White House mute on military action.
- May 4, 2013: Darrell Issa announces whistleblowers will testify on Benghazi, which reignites a scandal the Obama Administration had desperately tried to squash. The scandal had gone cold since its height at the end of 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/darrell-issa-benghazi_n_3215231.html
- May 5,, 2013: President Obama shifts the “red line” after “Israeli” reports of Syrian use of chemical weapons and Israel conducts airstrikes in Syria. This came after repeated attempts to indirectly and directly involve the U.S. “overtly” in the Syrian Civil War appeared to have failed. Instead of acting and involving the U.S. in Syria militarily, President Obama “softened” his redline and did not act. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/51780717#51780717
- May 5, 2013: The United Nations contradicts Israel and provides strong evidence that it was the rebels and not the Syrian government forces that used chemical weapons. The impact of this report was that a decision to arm Syrian rebels was delayed. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
- May 10, 2013: News begins to break of an Internal Revenue Service scandal that illegally targeted conservative and Jewish groups. Ironically, the issue was first brought up in March 2012 by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La, but no media attention was given to the issue until now. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/; http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/10/nation/la-na-irs-conservative-20130511
- May 13, 2013: The news continues to worsen as the scope of both the Benghazi and IRS scandals broadens and begins to directly implicate the White House. Congressmen and the media now begin to quietly talk of impeachment.
As the timeline demonstrates, promises were made with Israel that have not been met by President Obama. These failures to act on behalf of Israel correspond nicely with the increasing pressure on the White House and the total shift in even liberal media coverage. Although correlation does not equal causation, anyone that studies politics and understands the significance of dates and timing will quickly realize that war has quietly been declared on the White House. Why this war has been declared is up for debate.
By Guiles Hendrik