Will No One Rid Me of this Troublesome Priest?

The primary question in any scandal are inevitably reminiscent of Watergate:  What did the he or she know, and when did they know it?

No matter who is the target, that is the essential question in any scandal. What did the head of the IRS know, and when did he know it?  What did the Attorney General know, and when did he know it?  And of course the biggest question of all is inevitably: What did the President of the United States know, and when did he know it?

Answers to this last question are always the toughest find.

Sometimes those who have not been indoctrinated in our union-dominated, Democratic Party-affiliated, nearly useless public school system see glimmers of history repeating itself.  These current scandals in Washington are forcing echoes of those history lessons to come bubbling up out of the subconscious and play themselves out against the backdrop of current events.

And before you draw the conclusion that means comparing Benghazi, or the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups or the seizure of telephone records from the Associated Press to Watergate, you’re not going back far enough in history.

Are you now thinking of the Teapot Dome scandal?  Still not far back enough.

The year was 1170.  December 29, 1170 to be exact.  Four men, four knights in fact, Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracey, Hugh de Morville and Richard le Breton, entered Canterbury Cathedral, and killed Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canturbury.

Thomas Becket was a close personal friend of King Henry II, and when his predecessor as Archbishop of Canturbury died, Henry convinced the Pope to appoint Thomas Becket as his successor.  Quite a plum in terms of patronage, not just in that day, but today as well.  Then Henry named Thomas, after his ascension to the bishopric, as Chancellor of England.  That would be similar to Barack Obama appointing Valerie Jarret as a special White House Senior Advisor to the President.  Lots of power.  Power nearly equal to the King himself when the King was out of town campaigning. (Of course back then campaigning had an entirely different meaning.  Back then, the King was going to war.)

Once appointed as Archbishop of Canturbury, the relationship between the two men changed.  Thomas Becket resisted any attempts of the King to dominate the Church, and similar to the President, Henry II didn’t take the word “No” too graciously.

At the height of his frustration with Becket, the King reportedly shouted at a dinner with some of his knights “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest!”

And so four of his knights thought they would just do something that would really, REALLY, make the boss happy.  So they, to use the Chicago phrase, “rubbed him out”.

Now, back to the present.

Is it possible that Barack Obama actually relayed instructions to the IRS to target Tea Party groups, or those groups encouraging the study of the constitution?  Is it possible that Barack Obama told Eric Holder to cast a wide net in his search for a leaker in his administration?  Is it possible that Barack Obama personally told those who were ready to leave to try to help those trapped in the Benghazi nightmare to “stand down”?

Anything is possible, but really, do you think any one of those three is likely?

What is more likely is that Obama’s subordinates just wanted to make the boss really, REALLY, happy and make an irritant just go away.  That way their boss, Barack Obama, could skate on the technicality that he, personally, never actually gave any such order.

What could encourage people to act in such a way?  Could it be the tone set by the President?  Could it be the management tone of “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” that emanates from the West Wing?  Could it be President Obama’s “joke” when he was told that he would not be given an honorary doctorate at a commencement ceremony at Arizona State in 2009 he reportedly said that “President Crow and the Board of Regents will soon learn about being audited by the IRS.”

Or, to follow the pattern of Henry II eight hundred years earlier, could he have shouted in frustration “Isn’t there any way to get these Tea Partiers to shut up!”

Setting the tone of an administration is as important as, or even more important than, the actual directives that are generated by the president.  If the tone is one of compliance with the law and the Constitution, no matter what momentary irritation the President might express (and let’s be fair, it is an all too human reaction sometimes), his subordinates would know that he wants the law followed and the Constitution respected.

Our current President, however, sets a tone with an endless stream of Executive Orders that are the result of believing that the law is supposed to be written by the Congress.  The tone is set when the President announces that he will not enforce certain laws that he, or some powerful (and usually generous) part of his base, disagrees with.  The tone is set when he tries to exclude Fox News from the press pool, and even the main stream media is aghast.

The real problem with this President’s administration is, to be blunt, the President himself.  He sets the tone, he outlines the results he wants, and he communicates through every action he takes that he doesn’t care how those results are achieved.

So the real culprit in each and every one of the scandals is Barack Obama himself.  He was the moving force behind all this criminality, not by explicit directive, but by creating an environment where there is the mentality that anything that is done for him is perfectly alright, regardless of the collateral damage done to a few little things like the ordinary citizen or the nation.

Only one question then remains:  “Will no one rid us of this troublesome President?”


Originally published at Canada Free Press


About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in 2012 election, Barack Obama, Constitution, Elections, Freedom of Speech, IRS, Limited Government, Observing Our Culture, Political Doubletalk, U.S. Government and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Will No One Rid Me of this Troublesome Priest?

  1. Pete Morin says:

    Careful, Jim. That last line will get you special attention from the IRS, or worse. When we have a White House, and by that I mean an administration that will do anything to achieve it’s utopian ideals, that cares nothing about the rule of law, our Republic is finished. Obama’s belief system is steeped in the ideology of collectivism. Put that in conjunction with low information voters fresh from a government dominated educational system and the future for individual freedom is finished. Sorry to be so negative, but there’s nothing salvageable in our current Federal leviathan. Ridding us of Obama would be only a very small step. His replacement should not be considered any better when dealing with the leviathan.

    • Jim Yardley says:

      Pete, you’re not the only person who misinterpreted that last line. The last thing I want (even if we ignore that Joe Biden would become President) is the death of Barack Obama. He would become a “martyr”, and we’d never be rid of his malignant influence. What I want is to see him turned out of office, preferably about six or eight months before the 2016 elections, by impeachment, and have scandal, malfeasance and incompetence become his legacy. We could tolerate Biden for a few months, but not too much longer than that.

      If the left is routed in 2014, his legislative ambitions would be squelched, and he would merely be a whining loser. Now that would be a legacy I could not only vote for but cheer for.


  2. Pete Morin says:

    I agree, Jim. No clear thinking person wants any harm to befall the President. Impeachment, and I certainly believe he has committed impeachable offenses, will never happen. A compliant, lap dog mainstream media will protect him at all costs. As you point out, the best we can hope for is retaking the Senate in 2014 to thwart any remaining part of his socialist agenda. Regardless, the leviathan will live on. There are too many RINO’s enjoying the percs of power to dismantle their favorite beast.

  3. With 51% of the popular vote, Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to twice win the majority of the popular vote .

  4. Perry Shaw says:

    The third week of May essentially was “Come Down Hard on Black Folk Weekend” for the Obama Couple during this commencement season. It was like the First Couple said in unison, “We need an intervention.” On that Sunday, President Obama offered in an unabashed tone: “… Just as Morehouse has taught you to expect more of yourselves, inspire those who look up to you to expect more of themselves. We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices. And I have to say, growing up, I made quite a few myself.

  5. But the president headed into 2010 with several hurdles to implementing his legislative agenda, which included a major financial regulatory reform package and a jobs bill. At the start of that year, he assumed a more populist tone and proposed a spending freeze in his 2011 budget for discretionary spending, along with a tax on big banks to calm public furor over large compensation packages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s