Well, I'll say one thing for The Barack, he sure knows how to work the news cycle to keep people's attention diverted from things with the potential to embarrass him. Of course he also has the willing cooperation of the press, which makes it a lot easier. For those of you who don't think the media is on his side, think back to one of the debates with Mitt Romney when Candy Crow-lick (possibly I've misspelled her last name, but in her case, I think it's just karma if I neglect to double check something I'm commenting on), the supposed "neutral" moderator started arguing (and it was proven later that she was incorrect and Mitt Romney was right) with Mr. Romney while taking The Barack's side. Since I didn't notice her bosses at CNN doing anything to punish or censor her for joining the debate, I have to assume her actions met with their approval.
So let's see, recently there have been at least three things that are pretty embarrassing for Barack Obama, or at least for the federal government and thus by extension, The Barack. The first two things are the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Congress holding Lois Lerner in contempt. As a side note, I have to mention that I also hold Lois Lerner in contempt, but I think the "contempt" that congress has noted may have a few more potential legal consequences for her than my personal opinion. I would note that I specified "may have" because Congress also held Eric Holder in contempt sometime back and he's still running around loose. Isn't that a pity, maybe we can have a little better luck with Lois Lerner.
Personally, I'm curious why Kathleen Sebelius is leaving. If the administration had really wanted to blame her for the disastrous rollout of the "Obamacare" website, it seems as if they would have canned her a little closer to the time of the failed launch. With the odd timing of her "resignation", I'm wondering if her being thrown under the Obamacare bus might have more to do with something we are about to find out than an event that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away (or three months past in Washington D.C. which is approximately the same thing for the main stream media). What I'm really wondering is if we are going to find out that the sudden surge in enrollments that put Obamacare past some theoretical level of signups that supposedly means that it's a now success was due to some "creative accounting". Actually, I'm not really wondering about that at all, I think a lot of people are about to find out that they were "volunteered" for Obamacare simply because the government had their information and decided they should be in the program. My thinking is that there's a good chance this creative recruiting may be blamed on Kathleen Sebelius, who it will be noted "paid the price" for it. Of course, any people who are already "enrolled", voluntarily or not, will not be given a chance to opt out of the program.
Another thing that I wonder about Kathleen Sebelius's leaving is where is she going? Many of the people who leave the upper levels of government become upper tier officials at large companies, teachers, presidents of universities, or high level consultants. With Mrs. (Ms.?) Sebelius being such a hard core supporter of abortions, I'm wondering if she won't end up running planned parenthood as her post-government career. For her that would be a labor of love; love of aborting unborn children that is. Her staunch support of abortions is another thing that makes me wonder about her leaving the position of Health and Human Services Secretary. As The Barack is on record of being so pro-abortion that he is even okay with aborting children that are already alive, Kathleen Sebelius was, for him, just the perfect Secretary of Health and Human Services. In that position, she could do more to advance the "abortion agenda" than any other person in the federal government. And since she and the Barack are both so pro-abortion that I'm not sure a pregnant woman would be safe left alone in the same room with one of them (I have to wonder what their kids ever did to those two to make them so eager to abort unborn children), I'm curious why Obama is jettisoning his strongest, best placed, abortion ally. All I can say is that if she is being sacrificed, or aborted might be the better term here, for something that is about to happen, it must be a doozy.
By the way, I see that at least as it stands now, Sebelius is supposed to be replaced by Obama's current budget director. I have some suggestions about that. Since looking at any part of the federal budget shows me that whoever may be "directing" it isn't doing any good, I would suggest that when the budget director leaves her position that her office just be closed and the position left vacant. Just kidding, not about the ineffectiveness of the person or office, but rather knowing how our federal government works, what's far more likely is that she will be replaced by two people, who together will do less (if that's possible) while each having twice the number of "staff" as the current "director".
While Lois Lerner being held in contempt, and the Kathleen Sebelius "resignation" came at roughly the same time, both of those have been pretty much knocked out of the news cycle, or at least the part of the news that isn't devoted to Kim Kardashian, by a little peccadillo in Nevada. Apparently the federal government's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was involved in a dispute with a Nevada Rancher and decided that this dispute was worth settling by violence. Or at least they thought that until armed citizens started showing up and offering to stand their ground.
For now, the reports coming out of the situation in Nevada are very muddled. In some reports, the rancher is a non-grazing fee paying dead-beat who should have been booted off the land years ago. In others, the BLM has been working to wrest possession of land that actually belongs to Nevada but is claimed by the federal government without actual proof that they (the feds) own it. I know I read one very detailed report where the writer pointed out that while many people think the rancher should have cooperated with the feds and worked within the system, the fifty or so other ranchers around him who did try to cooperate were all booted off the land, despite their working "within the system". Oh, by the way, the claims of protecting the desert tortoise are bogus. Since the feds are running a desert tortoise sanctuary in another location, where they are about to "euthanize" (meaning murder) all the tortoises under their care, I can't take any supposed concern by the feds for the fate of desert tortoises too seriously.
What I find the most interesting about the events in Nevada are that, at least for the present, it seems that Harry Reid himself may be at least partially behind it. I have no idea whether the initial reports about his involvement are correct or not, but I find it interesting that our political system has devolved to such a low point that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate can be accused of trying to use armed government forces to evict people from land of dubious title, and it's perfectly believable.
I have no idea what the left and the media are going to have to come up with to drive public accusations of cattle rustling and land grabbing against one of the highest officials in the land off the front page, but if I were Kim Kardashian, I would keep a low profile for awhile. Then again, for the Kardashians, unlike for our present politicians, there probably is no such thing as bad publicity.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.