The IRS Has Targeted People Obama Fears

Americans by the millions are outraged by the abuses of the IRS. Using the machinery of the government to suppress political opposition is the definition of tyranny. Because conservatives have been the ones targeted, they are the ones most outraged, but many liberals share their misgivings, knowing they don’t want similar treatment the next time a conservative is in the White House.

As I’ve thought about exactly what has happened, some additional thoughts have come to mind. The three groups most frequently targeted were these:

• Tea Party and patriotic activists,
• Biblically-based Christian groups, and
• Groups committed to Israel’s survival.

Not having thought through this thoroughly, most assume this is all there is to it, but that’s a mistake. Think about it. There has been no politically motivated targeting toward mainline Republicans or the right-of-center establishment—none whatsoever. Yet, those are the groups that have the most power to oppose President Obama. So, if that is true, why have they been spared in favor of  persecuting much less powerful groups?

I think I know the answer. It isn’t financial power that Obama fears, far from it. What he does fear is the power of people whose goals are not political. He fears those who desire righteousness. It’s as simple as that. The Children of Darkness always fear the Children of Light.

The Republican establishment, which embraces compromise above all else, is not a threat to the Obama agenda. Establishment Republicans are more conservative than establishment Democrats, but they are not more principled. They are two peas in the same pod.

However, that’s not true about the targeted groups. Tea Party activists, committed Christians, and friends of Israel are all deeply principled people—men and women who would rather die than abandon their faith and convictions. They are committed to the principles of our Founding fathers, which are viewed as non-negotiable. Regardless of how isolated these people become, they will stand, never bowing their collective knees to the Progressive agenda.

This should tell you something. Obama and his cronies have targeted groups that have the potential to derail their collectivist agenda.

So, instead of listening to the whining of the Republican establishment that says you need to move to the left to win elections, remain true to your principles instead. Doing the right thing for the right reason will prevail in time. Be strong and do not lose heart. If we weren’t a real and legitimate threat, we would have been left alone. That we have been attacked shows just how strong we really are.

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

Nixon and Obama: Portraits in Narcissism

I voted for Richard M. Nixon. There, I’ve admitted it. Other than Aaron Burr, Nixon has been the worst criminal in American politics, until now.

In 1972, most people voted for Nixon. He won in a landslide, a genuine one. Nixon seemed like a much better candidate than George McGovern, who even lost his home state of Minnesota. Massachusetts was the only state McGovern carried. As I saw things, as a very young man, things were looking up. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the nation appeared to be getting back on track.

There was that pesky Watergate distraction, disrupting my tranquility, but that was nothing more than a trivial story. I was certain of it. Then, it began to gain traction, increased momentum, and finally a life of its own.

In its beginning stages, I tried not to pay much attention. The story was so negative, and I wanted to dwell on the positive—Nixon’s overwhelming mandate from the people. Because he won so handily, it seemed far-fetched for him—or for any of his surrogates—to engage in something as ridiculous as a bungled burglary at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate. Everybody knew Nixon was going to win, which made it seem preposterous for his people to do something that foolish or risky. Besides, it was illegal, and the President would never be involved in anything that was criminal. What President would?

That was exactly the way I thought—just like millions of others. When the cover-up was exposed and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, I had to face reality, which was very difficult. I realized I had been on the wrong side. I had been for Executive Privilege and not for full disclosure. I had been for keeping things quiet, covering them up, and moving forward. Others called for the light to shine in the darkness, but not me. I was wrong—dead wrong.

It was a difficult time for me, requiring extensive, gut-wrenching introspection. From that experience, however, I became a different person. I promised myself to never champion the darkness again, regardless of what it might cost.

I also concluded several things about Nixon. I realized his narcissism wouldn’t allow him to just win. He needed to do more than that. He needed to subjugate and destroy his political opposition; just beating them wasn’t enough. Knowing what his opponents were doing became an obsession with Nixon—just like it has with our current President.

Now, forty years later, we have the same situation with President Barack Hussein Obama—the exact same situation. Like Nixon, Obama has a “we-they” mentality. Those who are not with him are his enemies, and destroying one’s enemies is what narcissists like Nixon and Obama do.

The concept of “loyal opposition” doesn’t exist for a narcissist. Opposition, by nature, means disloyalty. Because their way is the right way, lying to achieve victory is normal and praiseworthy. Neither would consider there was anything wrong with such an outlook. It’s why both of them seem so believable, even though Nixon wasn’t at the time and Obama isn’t now.

Being mistrustful, both were afraid power would be taken from them. In Obama’s case, he feared that if the truth came out about the Benghazi attack, he would lose the election. That’s why he engaged in a massive cover-up that has been ongoing. Just as Nixon did in Watergate, Obama has consistently stonewalled, refusing to disclose anything voluntarily. He never will. It’s not in his nature to do so.

Being somewhat paranoid, narcissists never reveal who they really are. To them, being candid and forthright would put them at a disadvantage to their opponents, and that’s something no narcissist would ever do voluntarily.

When you think of events from the perspective of a narcissist, their behavior makes sense. For Nixon, the Watergate break-in and cover-up was necessary. In the same way, for Obama, the bugging of the Associated Press’s lines, the complicity of the IRS to destroy his Tea Party opposition, and the Benghazi cover-up to ensure his reelection were all reasonable things to do. All of it makes sense from a narcissistic worldview. If you are not one, however, as most people aren’t, it doesn’t seem logical. Finally, because maintaining power is a consuming passion, Obama will hold on to power until the bitter end, just like Nixon did.

As Obama’s house of cards continues to collapse, millions of his followers will become disillusioned—just as I was when Nixon resigned in disgrace. Helping these unfortunates through the process of disenchantment to emotional health is something good men and women need to do. Ridiculing them for having been fooled is something that will not be helpful. They will just become embittered like I was forty years ago.

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »