- Politics and Social Issues»
- United States Politics
The "ITK" Principle In Action
Questions? Unanswered Questions?
There is a new acronym swirling around Barack H. Obama and his campaign that requires examination - the "ITK" principle is what I call it. It's "impossible to know (ITK)" and has to do with accusations being made primarily against Mitt Romney. My understanding is that Obama's campaign team was advised to let the Bain Capital issue go but instead Obama is doubling down, as he has a tendency to do, on a losing pony. It's impossible to know why that is other than speculation that if you have a failed administration what else are you going to try to blow smoke up the public's behinds about?
As reported elsewhere, there is another slanderous accusation about Romney and his supposed tax havens where the author, Grant Fuller, used the now discredited Vanity Fair article concerning Romney's use of foreign bank accounts. Political hacks, being who they are, make such accusations and the soon to be familiar ITK tag will follow. Lets just disregard the presumption of innocence and get down and dirty with baseless accusations. That is exactly what we see the Obama administration involved in at this point in the campaign.
Here's how you finesse a lie. You use the ITK principle. Grant asked "is it illegal?" Then he followed that by:
"It appears not, but it’s impossible to know for sure because Romney refuses to release enough information to let people make their own judgments."
The fishing expedition here is about Romney releasing more tax returns. It's a known fact that Romney is wealthy. Who really cares? It would also seem to me that if there the least bit of concern about an individual's tax returns that the IRS would have already been all over it like stink is on doo-doo not the left wing press speculating and smearing a person with baseless innuendo.
From Principle To Standard...
Let me move now to using "ITK" to being the standard to question another by. It seems to now be the standard of the Obama administration so I will now attempt to shed some light in how it works regarding Obama himself. I believe the Romney campaign is hesitant to do so but I'm not as nice a guy as Romney is. I have a better time replying to the innuendo and baseless accusations than his handlers would ever imagine. But one thing we all know at this point in the Obama presidential cycle is that we still know very little about Barack H. Obama. That is by design I suppose but seems a bit strange considering the very office that he inhabits. And yes, it is "ITK" most things about an individual if they won't release answers and take the opposite tactic of sealing everything important to know about them that forms who they are and what they might be about.
ITK many times centers around rumors, whether founded or unfounded is not the discussion. What I see swirling around Romney are quickly shown to be unfounded but Obama wants to double down and keep using lies as truth. That's pathological so I understand Obama regarding that trait.
Another Case Of 'ITK"
So lets stir the pot a bit for the birthers. It's impossible to know (ITK) if what Obama released as his long form birth certificate is a forgery or not. That's because the actual birth certificate, if it exists, is still hidden from public view by the state of Hawaii. Forgery experts contend that what Obama finally released, after first releasing a Photoshopped copy of a "certificate of live birth," is a forgery. It's impossible to know when things remain top secret about the President of the United States himself. And here I was thinking that when you ran for the highest office in this land that your life became an open book.
But the questions are still there surrounding the "ITK." Why did he wait so long to release a long form? Why was a photoshopped copy of a certificate of live birth originally released if Obama had the long form in his possession all along? So is he a felon, a liar or both? . Forgery is a felony so take it away from there.
See How This Obama Tactic Works?
I can't prove this yet but "it's impossible to know" if Obama committed a felony by accepting federal student aid as a "foreign student" while receiving his higher education. I suspect that is exactly how he financed his education but "ITK" because all of his academic records are sealed tighter than a drum containing a caustic acid. Using the Obama standard something smells fishy about not releasing such information. What is he hiding there that he doesn't want anyone to see? Did he commit a felony by committing fraud against the federal government?
Then we have the bundlers question. The campaign is crying foul because the Romney camp won't release the names of campaign contributors and bundlers. Oh my! And here Obama is receiving big bucks from foreign sources including money laundered through various sources for the Saudi royals. It could be possible and is probably feasible but it's impossible to know since the Obama camp isn't releasing that information. If that is occurring it is a crime. Is Obama engaging in felonious campaign financing? ITK.
And what about Uncle George Obama supporters? You know, as in Uncle George Soros? He's a billionaire many times over and known to have close ties to Obama. So lets apply ITK and guilt by association. He has been a currency manipulator, commodity market manipulator and has been known to crash at least one country's economy and has publicly stated thatv he wants to bring the United States of America down a notch. He collaborated with the Nazi in WWII and is unrepentant about that role. So what about that?
Delve further into his financial dealings with Media Matters and MoveOn,org. Then connect the dots between all of them and Barack Obama's White House and all the sudden it's ITK time concerning the question of whether Obama is in cahoots with Uncle George to crash the US economy. Obama's reckless treatment of the nation's economy can give rise to such questions being asked. It's just impossible to know for sure...
I could go on and on citing instances where the ITK principle can be applied to Obama but maybe you can cite a few examples yourself. It's just "impossible to know" unless you give it a whirl. That's what the Obama campaign is doing. It's called changing the subject.
In yesterday's article I mentioned people in glass houses who start to throw stones. It's always best to be careful about doing that, especially early on an any political campaign. What I am observing is the Romney campaign attacking Obama's policies and failure to lead and Team Obama conducting personal attacks against Mitt Romney. That is "possible to know" just by observation. Why?
NOTABLE QUOTE: "Apparently I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine."
The Frog Prince