We now have ironclad evidence that the Obama administration mounted at least two distinct and extraordinary efforts to weaponize government against its political opponents.
It used the instrumentalities of government to target members of the opposite party and — worse still — to influence the outcome of a presidential election.
Citizens United and the IRS
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not ban movies and books (the Citizens United case, which protected political free speech). Shortly thereafter, during a State of the Union address, President Barack Obama went so far as to hector Supreme Court justices to their faces regarding that decision.
Not long after, key officials of the Internal Revenue Service began targeting conservative groups based upon their name or mission. The terms they looked for included “Tea Party”, “Patriot” and “9/12”.
Not only did the IRS methodically delay targeted applications for non-profit status but they also interrogated the applicants with lengthy and frivolous questionaires. In one case, the agency asked a pro-life group to list “the content of their prayers“.
In spite of a largely uninterested media, the IRS scandal generated a sufficient uproar that the Obama FBI and the DOJ were both tasked with investigating the agency.
Both probes resulted in no criminal charges, although there was overwhelming evidence that key officials in the IRS had conducted politically motivated targeting of these groups.
But a two-headed scandal of significantly more import was about to be revealed.
The 2016 Election
Over the course of 2015 and 2016, a set of parallel investigations — both politically motivated — were unfolding. Led by the topmost officials in the DOJ and the FBI, the two probes consisted of:
- Ensuring that Hillary Clinton, the putatitve Democrat nominee for President — would be exonerated for mishandling classified information. In March of 2015, The New York Times reported that as Secretary of State, she had operated a private email server for all official business. This led to widespread speculation that she was avoiding both Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as well as the strict requirements for handling classified information. Clinton denied at first that she had possessed any classified documents, which proved false; she then stated that the documents had been retroactively classified (also false); and finally asserted that she was unaware what classification markings meant. The investigation into Hillary’s emails was a whitewash from its onset, with money changing hands (e.g.,
the FBI’s Andrew McCabe), overlooking multiple subjects lying to the FBI, witnesses not being placed under oath nor recorded, etc.
- Trying to fix the 2016 presidential election. Beginning in April of 2016, as the Republican primary process was unfolding, various wings of the Democrat Party — including the DNC, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and Barack Obama’s OFA group — were using a law firm to fund an opposition research group called Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn, hired researchers (including the wife of a senior DOJ official, Bruce Ohr) to create a “dossier” of incriminating information regarding Donald Trump. The dossier consisted of “salacious and unverified” (as described by FBI director James Comey) anecdotes that tied Trump to Russian business interests. Since then, virtually the entire dossier has been debunked, with even mainstream media outlets generally refusing to publish it.
Most troubling, it now seems clear that the origins of the dossier were disguised; it was apparently repackaged by the DOJ and the FBI into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant (a FISA application), which would allow the Obama administration to wiretap the Trump campaign, and later his transition team.
In the days leading up to the general election, the Russian conspiracy theory was relentlessly marketed by the Clinton campaign itself as well as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The lie was to no avail.
After Trump’s victory, the Obama administration then conducted illegal surveillance on his transition team, wiretapping Trump Tower. The Democrats’ intent was clear: to somehow prevent the inauguration of the GOP candidate. These illegal activities occurred until NSA director Mike Rogers became sufficiently concerned of the outgoing administration’s actions that he personally warned Trump of the Obama administration’s machinations.
The very next day, Trump moved his headquarters to a location in Bedminster, New Jersey. For Rogers’ troubles, top Obama intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, recommended the NSA chief be removed from office.
We have briefly summarized two of the most dangerous scandals in American history.
- Using the IRS to suppress political opponents
- Worse yet, trying to fix a presidential election
So, tell me: is there a single Democrat who has decried these tactics?
I do not know of a single one.
President Obama’s use of the Executive Branch to crush the opposition party is without precedent. And yet, the media and prominent Democrats have been either silent on these affairs, or have simply tarred them as standard political antics.
They are not.
They are diabolical and criminal efforts to undermine the American system of government.
And Democrats, until and unless they themselves are targeted, could give a damn.
The danger is obvious. If weaponization of government becomes the norm, this country is doomed.
I ask: Is there a single Democrat left who gives a damn about America? Who among you will speak up?
2 thoughts on “Is there a single Democrat anywhere who gives a damn about America?”
“President Obama’s use of the Executive Branch to crush the opposition party is without precedent.”
Hate to burst your quote here but this action is not without precedent, you might want to check history, namely the rise of the NAZI party in Germany in the 1930’s. Hitler and his thugs were a little more blunt about their methods and the Democrats learned from that and have been trying to be a little more discrete about their intentions but the fact is both groups had/have the same end result in mind.
Best summary of treasnous activities by the Democrat establishment I’ve seen yet.