Answered prayers

The New Neo Posted on by

On the thread about the video where the woman found her dog after the tornado, commenter “Randy” wrote:

there is a lot of religious blindness on this thread. we celebrate God for answering this woman’s prayer about her dog, but ignore the fact that he did not answer the prayers of the parents of the 6 elementary school children who suffocated to death. I could care less about this woman’s dog.

I was waiting for someone to write something like that. It’s a very common reaction; I’ve seen a number of similar comments on other discussions about the dog video.

The person voicing such a sentiment seems to think that prayer is a zero-sum game—that if a person believes that this woman’s prayers were answered (or, more importantly, if she believes it, and if the person respects that belief), it has to be at the expense of the children who died. An either/or proposition, where we either care about people or care about little fluffy dogs.

It does seem that some people do have a sort of Santa Claus concept of the deity; they ask for stuff or for favors. It is pretty much a part of human nature to do this—especially about one’s very survival (or the survival of loved ones). This is the source of the expression “there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

But a deeper understanding of religion is that although most people, in a terrible crisis, will naturally and understandably pray for God’s help through it, and pray to God to sustain them and their loved ones, and thank God for helping them and their loved ones (yes, including dogs) when they do survive, most people also have some sort of understanding that it’s hardly that simple, and that God, providence, Fate, work in mysterious ways.

It is a conundrum that has never been solved, although it’s been wrestled with since the dawn of religion, and probably the dawn of mankind. The Bible’s Book of Job deals with questioning the “why” of the misfortune that sometimes befalls people who have led upright lives. So do books such as Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People, a popular religious, philosophical, and psychological treatment of the same conundrum.

In the video in question, the woman is above all thankful. That is one of the major functions of prayer; to express thanks. Her prayers were answered, as far as she’s concerned. I am virtually certain that she fervently wishes the children had lived, as well. But one thing is unrelated to the other, and she has every right to thank God for her own survival and that of her beloved dog.

Truth and consequences

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t read Obama’s mind (more’s the pity; what a scoop I’d get if I did!). But it strikes me that this just may be the first time in his life he’s ever been in such difficulty, the first time his glib obfuscations aren’t working all that well for him. And he may be shocked, although as a narcissist he may continue to think he’ll skate by.

And if so, perhaps he’s right. We need to remember that.

However, there’s been a slow acceleration of events and disclosures that look very bad for him, and some of his most stalwart supporters are starting to turn. It must be disconcerting. Maybe it’s even frightening. He’s a very very proud man.

And how ironic that it comes just a few months after what might have been his greatest triumph, winning a second term despite an abysmal record of accomplishment and predictions that he would lose. He probably thought that now he was home free to enact whatever agenda he wanted to—although one pesky little problem remained: the House was still in Republican hands, although less strongly than before.

But that would be remedied in 2014, perhaps, when the goal was to win back the House for the Democrats. To that end, the ever-political, ever-campaigning Obama was already directing energy.

Now this.

Lerner takes the Fifth

The New Neo Posted on by

In a move that was absolutely no surprise at all, the IRS’s Lois Lerner took the Fifth today.

What does it mean?:

It’s doubtful that any prosecution of Lerner could be based on her disgraceful conduct in allowing the targeting to occur. Indeed, it is hard to see how Lerner could be prosecuted criminally for her actions as head of the EO, although the IRS could itself be sued by eligible 501(c)(3) organizations for its failure to timely process their applications.Rather, if she is truly trying to avoid prosecution herself (as opposed to simply shielding higher-ups from some other kind of disclosure), it is probably connected to her repeated untruths before Congress.

Note that Lerner can only take the Fifth in response to questions where the answer might possibly incriminate her. That means she is obligated to answer questions that do not put her in legal jeopardy.

And here’s an article on why none of the IRS workers involved have been fired: it’s really really hard to do so. But in addition, I would guess that making them the fall guys could motivate them to spill the beans on who actually did order them to do this, because it’s highly doubtful (actually, pretty much unbelievable) that they were acting on their own. So perhaps the administration’s motivation is to contain the problem by letting them stay as long as possible.

As for Lerner, the administration has not yet asked her to resign. Is it for the same reason? Or is it because they don’t want anyone to admit wrongdoing of any sort, and wish to continue the fiction that it was just a few workers going rogue? Or, is it that it suits them to give out the message that higher-ups are ignorant and not responsible, because that’s their message about Obama himself?

Or, as Ace argues here, are Obama’s press handmaidens Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall hinting that the Obama administration (which had a private little téªte-é -téªte with them yesterday) has already decided to ask Lerner to resign, hoping that will be the end of it? Time will tell.

[ADDENDUM: Oh, and there’s also this:

Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee’s chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.

But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.

It’s just another example of why big government agencies that can pry into people’s lives are inherently dangerous.]

Et tu, NY Times?

The New Neo Posted on by

The NY Times has turned on the Obama administration—at least somewhat, at least for the moment.

It may not be the most hard-hitting editorial on earth, but considering the source it’s almost shocking. Something about the DOJ’s treatment of James Rosen has finally gotten the Times’ goat, and it’s no mystery what it is. Perhaps Obama and Holder thought that the fact that it was Rosen (a Fox News guy) they were after would protect them from the rest of the MSM closing ranks behind him to protect themselves from such intrusions. Or perhaps they thought this would never come out (and by they way, why has it come out, and why now?).

At any rate, they seem to have miscalculated on that. For now.

Here’s the lede to the Times editorial:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.

The wagons are slowly being circled. The press is getting angry, and it has some weapons of defense in its own arsenal. Is Obama being warned?

I don’t want to make too much of this. The left is not changing its tune on Benghazi or on the IRS investigation. Nor do I think it will. So whether this ultimately ends up being significant is anyone’s guess. But at least it’s something, a small breach in the heretofore impregnable wall of MSM defense of Obama.

[UPDATE: Special prosecutor coming up?

And here’s an especially interesting piece by the Times’ Bill Keller, who is one of the staunchist Obamaphiles of the liberal/left. In it, he calls on Obama to appoint a special prosecutor in the IRS scandal (which he believes to be the one with the most legs) to “call their [the Republicans’] bluff.” He goes on to say it should be someone widely regarded as objective, such as Clinton’s old nemesis Ken Starr.

Fascinating, no? Does it occur to Keller that, by asking this, it might just be Obama’s bluff that he’s calling?]

Pigs fly: Eugene Robinson is angry at the Obama administration

The New Neo Posted on by

This is encouraging.

Not because Eugene Robinson is so important, but because he has been one of the most consistent and stalwart of the president’s defenders. I cannot recall a single instance in which he has done anything but carry Obama’s water, with the energy and deep commitment of a true zealot.

So I would have thought Robinson would be the very last person to become alarmed by the AP and Rosen investigations, and the very first to leap to the administration’s defense. But no; he’s actually written a quite hard-hitting condemnation of what the administration has done.

Nor does he specifically exonerate Obama, although he doesn’t specifically incriminate him, either. But I read the entire article looking for an “of course, this was done by Holder or even some Holder underling, and Obama isn’t responsible at all,” and I didn’t find it. He speaks of “the Obama administration” as being the culprit.

Now, Robinson may have second thoughts later and decide to backtrack. Or someone in the administration may call him and cause him to rethink his position in the light of his own job and welfare, if you know what I mean. But for now, his article is one of the most encouraging signs I’ve seen in quite a while.

Obama and the Fourth Estate

The New Neo Posted on by

Kirsten Powers has my admiration. She’s a brave, brave woman, and a good writer, too. She’s published a clear and concise review of Obama’s war on Fox and his manipulation of the press, as well as their craven and willing cooperation.

The DOJ investigation into the AP reporters and James Rosen are not isolated incidents, they are part and parcel of a long-standing and still-evolving policy. And make no mistake about it; if this adminstration gets away with it (which they indeed may), it portends even worse to come.

And except for a few brave people like Powers, the press doesn’t seem to know or care. Oh, they’re making a few bleating noises here and there, but my hunch is it will all blow over. I hope I’m wrong about that, but I fear I’m right.