Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Obama Scandals Part IV-1 - OMG, Not Another One
While I promised to move on from my list of Obama Scandals, I could not let this one pass. As Daniel Halper notes on today's Weekly Standard Blog, the Obama-Clinton State Department "deep-sixed" an investigation of a big Obama donor ($500,000 plus) who was appointed Ambassador to Belgium (how do you say quid pro quo?) and then apparently regularly ditched his security detail to hook up with prostitutes, some of whom were underage. The guy is still in place. The scandal is actually much broader according to CBS News and infects much of the Diplomatic Security Service which is tasked with protecting our diplomats overseas. Benghazi anyone? These scandals are starting to come back on themselves.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
The Obama Scandals Part IV - The Others
This will be the last installment listing the current Obama scandals. Partly it is because there are so many that the list might never end. And more importantly, it is time to get on with an analysis of why the most transparent administration in history is so mired. So we continue:
18. HHS Secretary Sebelius is soliciting money from companies she regulates, and others, to provide funds for the implementation of ObamaCare which Congress has refused to appropriate. This is not very different from Iran-Contra for which people went to jail. True, in Iran-Contra Congress explicitly prohibited the expenditures while in HHS Congress simply refused the appropriation request. But the Constitution already prohibits expenditure of funds not appropriated by Congress. On the other hand, unlike in Iran-Contra, the person doing the solicitation of funds directly regulates some of the persons from whom she is soliciting funds. There is clearly the implied threat, even if not explicit, that if you want discretionary administrative decisions to go your way, do what we ask.
19. ObamaCare itself is a scandal. All of the promises made to secure passage, that you could keep your coverage, that premiums would not go up, that you could keep your doctor, that it would bend the cost curve down, etc. turned out to be false. True, Republicans warned people that these were misrepresentations, and to anyone actually thinking about things it was obvious that these promises were false. But many Americans did believe these promises because they came from the President and because the media did not question them.
20. Even after all of disclosures, conservative groups are still not getting their tax exemptions while similar liberal groups have experienced no problems. And it now appears clear that the Administration was lying when it said this was a group of local rogue agents in Cincinnati. There were problems from other offices, and testimony from Cincinnati people that they were taking orders from Washington.
21. The disparate impact settlement scandal in which Thomas Perez from the Obama-Holder Justice Department effectively bribed Minneapolis to drop its appeal of a housing discrimination case in which the only evidence of prejudice or discrimination was the fact that the actions attacked - enforcing its race neutral housing regulations - affected minorities more often or to a greater extent. Perez was concerned that if the case were decided by the Supreme Court, the Court would rule against that dubious theory. As a result, Justice's ability to threaten local housing authorities with lawsuits would be substantially reduced. The bride was a result of the offer by Perez to not join in two False Claim Act cases against Minneapolis, at least one of which was thought to have a great deal of merit and was about to be joined by the government. By not joining, Minneapolis saved money, perhaps a lot of it, and the taxpayers of the rest of the country lost the chance to recover a bunch of money. Perhaps worse, the persons who brought the False Claims Act cases in the first place themselves lost out on very large sums they would have received from settlement. So this was not a victimless event. Frederick Newell and Andrew and Harriet Ellis, who brought the FCA cases, lost sums perhaps amounting to millions of dollars in order for Perez to pursue his ideological agenda. After all this, the President nominated him for a promotion to Labor Secretary where he could do even more damage with his ideological agenda which matches that of the President.
22. The Obama NLRB, despite the absence of a quorum, plows ahead in the face of rulings by two Circuit Courts of Appeal that it has no jurisdiction. And remember this all started with the NLRB filing a case against Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina even though no current Union employees were affected.
23. The EPA discriminates against conservative groups, and in favor of liberal groups, in responding the FOIA requests including imposing substantially higher fees on conservative groups.
24. It now appears, in a little noticed scandal, that Google and its founder are in bed with the Democratic Party and the Administration. Google's founder started another company to do meta-data analysis similar to what was done by the Obama campaign in the last election, but only for Democrats - seems like a very large in-kind contribution to the Democrats which beats anything the Kochs or any other conservative donor has done. And how are we to know that Google is not also supplying the data (of which Google has by far the most) to Democrats only, and not to Republicans? Worse still, do we trust this Administration to keep all the information being collected by the IRS confidential and not "leak" it to this new outfit to benefit themselves politically. In a way this is the most dangerous scandal of them all because this could give Democrats a lock on elections for the foreseeable future.
25. The Gibson Guitar scandal where the Feds went after Gibson for importing illegal wood under circumstances where (1) Gibson had every reason to believe the wood was legal, and (2) other less conservative guitar makers doing the same thing were given a pass.
If I continued to think about this I am sure that I would continue to come up with additional scandals. Some of these scandals might be illegal, particularly the IRS disclosure of information, but illegal or not they are certainly corrupt. But this is really quite enough to get the idea, and find the commonalities. That will be the subject of the next blog in this series.
18. HHS Secretary Sebelius is soliciting money from companies she regulates, and others, to provide funds for the implementation of ObamaCare which Congress has refused to appropriate. This is not very different from Iran-Contra for which people went to jail. True, in Iran-Contra Congress explicitly prohibited the expenditures while in HHS Congress simply refused the appropriation request. But the Constitution already prohibits expenditure of funds not appropriated by Congress. On the other hand, unlike in Iran-Contra, the person doing the solicitation of funds directly regulates some of the persons from whom she is soliciting funds. There is clearly the implied threat, even if not explicit, that if you want discretionary administrative decisions to go your way, do what we ask.
19. ObamaCare itself is a scandal. All of the promises made to secure passage, that you could keep your coverage, that premiums would not go up, that you could keep your doctor, that it would bend the cost curve down, etc. turned out to be false. True, Republicans warned people that these were misrepresentations, and to anyone actually thinking about things it was obvious that these promises were false. But many Americans did believe these promises because they came from the President and because the media did not question them.
20. Even after all of disclosures, conservative groups are still not getting their tax exemptions while similar liberal groups have experienced no problems. And it now appears clear that the Administration was lying when it said this was a group of local rogue agents in Cincinnati. There were problems from other offices, and testimony from Cincinnati people that they were taking orders from Washington.
21. The disparate impact settlement scandal in which Thomas Perez from the Obama-Holder Justice Department effectively bribed Minneapolis to drop its appeal of a housing discrimination case in which the only evidence of prejudice or discrimination was the fact that the actions attacked - enforcing its race neutral housing regulations - affected minorities more often or to a greater extent. Perez was concerned that if the case were decided by the Supreme Court, the Court would rule against that dubious theory. As a result, Justice's ability to threaten local housing authorities with lawsuits would be substantially reduced. The bride was a result of the offer by Perez to not join in two False Claim Act cases against Minneapolis, at least one of which was thought to have a great deal of merit and was about to be joined by the government. By not joining, Minneapolis saved money, perhaps a lot of it, and the taxpayers of the rest of the country lost the chance to recover a bunch of money. Perhaps worse, the persons who brought the False Claims Act cases in the first place themselves lost out on very large sums they would have received from settlement. So this was not a victimless event. Frederick Newell and Andrew and Harriet Ellis, who brought the FCA cases, lost sums perhaps amounting to millions of dollars in order for Perez to pursue his ideological agenda. After all this, the President nominated him for a promotion to Labor Secretary where he could do even more damage with his ideological agenda which matches that of the President.
22. The Obama NLRB, despite the absence of a quorum, plows ahead in the face of rulings by two Circuit Courts of Appeal that it has no jurisdiction. And remember this all started with the NLRB filing a case against Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina even though no current Union employees were affected.
23. The EPA discriminates against conservative groups, and in favor of liberal groups, in responding the FOIA requests including imposing substantially higher fees on conservative groups.
24. It now appears, in a little noticed scandal, that Google and its founder are in bed with the Democratic Party and the Administration. Google's founder started another company to do meta-data analysis similar to what was done by the Obama campaign in the last election, but only for Democrats - seems like a very large in-kind contribution to the Democrats which beats anything the Kochs or any other conservative donor has done. And how are we to know that Google is not also supplying the data (of which Google has by far the most) to Democrats only, and not to Republicans? Worse still, do we trust this Administration to keep all the information being collected by the IRS confidential and not "leak" it to this new outfit to benefit themselves politically. In a way this is the most dangerous scandal of them all because this could give Democrats a lock on elections for the foreseeable future.
25. The Gibson Guitar scandal where the Feds went after Gibson for importing illegal wood under circumstances where (1) Gibson had every reason to believe the wood was legal, and (2) other less conservative guitar makers doing the same thing were given a pass.
If I continued to think about this I am sure that I would continue to come up with additional scandals. Some of these scandals might be illegal, particularly the IRS disclosure of information, but illegal or not they are certainly corrupt. But this is really quite enough to get the idea, and find the commonalities. That will be the subject of the next blog in this series.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Obama Scandals Part III - Attacks on the Free Press
The Scandals continue:
12. First there is the culture, almost from the beginning of the Administration, of demonizing any news organization or commentator who criticized the President, starting with calling FOX News "not a legitimate news organization." This was, of course, another Alinskyite move (Rule 5 "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."; Rule 12 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."). While the Administration has backed off somewhat from its direct attack on FOX, it continues to treat legitimate, but difficult, questions as merely political attacks, or irrelevant, or old news, or the like.
13. Second, there is the persistent insistence of this Administration, the "most transparent in history," of refusing to go "on the record" for much at all. Everything is on deep background so there is no accountability if it turns out to be false or misleading.
14. Third, is the overbroad and unnecessarily secret AP subpoena. Yes, the government has an interest in preventing disclosure of secrets which harm national security. And yes, sometimes that interest trumps the interests of the free press in gathering information. And yes, there was, in this case, a legitimate interest in protecting our sources and methods in this case because the leak endangered our agent within the enemy ranks. But our pursuit of such leaks from press sources should be carefully narrowed to the minimum necessary.
15. Fourth, and perhaps most dangerous of these abuses, was the subpoena naming FOX reporter James Rosen an unindicted co-conspirator and/or an aider and abettor of another leak. In the first place, the leak was of an opinion that the North Koreans would react to UN sanctions by detonating another nuclear device which was embarrassing to the Administration's position. But it hardly endangered national security in the same way as the leak involved in the AP matter. More importantly, the affidavit supporting the subpoena, signed off on by the Attorney-General himself, implied that news gathering under these circumstances is a criminal offense! The AP subpoena endangers the confidentiality of news sources, and is chilling to those sources. The Rosen matter is a direct threat to reporters themselves implying that they break the law when they seek information which might be classified. Thus it chills even attempts at news-gathering. And it exposes an administration that will just about anything to punish those who oppose it.
16. And the reaction of the Administration to exposure of these abuses is not to admit that it acted unlawfully and improperly, and vow not to do it again. No, the Attorney-General asserts that he was merely "wrong" to go as far as he did and promises to change his "guidelines." But guideline can always be changed or waived in "exceptional" cases. And if it is the Attorney General who determines whether a case is exceptional, the press will forever remain under the threat of prosecution if they displease the Administration. We don't need a shield law. What we need is a simple statement from the Attorney General and the President that what James Rosen did was not, and could not be, a crime under the First Amendment.
17. And finally, there is the hypocrisy of an Administration justifying these intrusions into press freedom by "national security" while not investigating far worse "leaks" from a national security point of view such as leaks surrounding the bin Laden raid which put the Pakistani doctor who helped us in prison for years, or the leak that confirmed we, along with Israel, had developed and deployed the Stuxnet computer virus against Iran which not only exposed our, and Israel's, covert operation but also effectively made it far more difficult for us to complain about other countries directing similar attacks against US interests. The differences between these "leaks" and the leak involved in the Rosen investigation are that these leaks were not only more serious, but they made the Administration look better and appear to have been sanctioned by the Administration - and, of course, there was no leak investigation.
One more installment in the list of scandals to come.
12. First there is the culture, almost from the beginning of the Administration, of demonizing any news organization or commentator who criticized the President, starting with calling FOX News "not a legitimate news organization." This was, of course, another Alinskyite move (Rule 5 "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."; Rule 12 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."). While the Administration has backed off somewhat from its direct attack on FOX, it continues to treat legitimate, but difficult, questions as merely political attacks, or irrelevant, or old news, or the like.
13. Second, there is the persistent insistence of this Administration, the "most transparent in history," of refusing to go "on the record" for much at all. Everything is on deep background so there is no accountability if it turns out to be false or misleading.
14. Third, is the overbroad and unnecessarily secret AP subpoena. Yes, the government has an interest in preventing disclosure of secrets which harm national security. And yes, sometimes that interest trumps the interests of the free press in gathering information. And yes, there was, in this case, a legitimate interest in protecting our sources and methods in this case because the leak endangered our agent within the enemy ranks. But our pursuit of such leaks from press sources should be carefully narrowed to the minimum necessary.
15. Fourth, and perhaps most dangerous of these abuses, was the subpoena naming FOX reporter James Rosen an unindicted co-conspirator and/or an aider and abettor of another leak. In the first place, the leak was of an opinion that the North Koreans would react to UN sanctions by detonating another nuclear device which was embarrassing to the Administration's position. But it hardly endangered national security in the same way as the leak involved in the AP matter. More importantly, the affidavit supporting the subpoena, signed off on by the Attorney-General himself, implied that news gathering under these circumstances is a criminal offense! The AP subpoena endangers the confidentiality of news sources, and is chilling to those sources. The Rosen matter is a direct threat to reporters themselves implying that they break the law when they seek information which might be classified. Thus it chills even attempts at news-gathering. And it exposes an administration that will just about anything to punish those who oppose it.
16. And the reaction of the Administration to exposure of these abuses is not to admit that it acted unlawfully and improperly, and vow not to do it again. No, the Attorney-General asserts that he was merely "wrong" to go as far as he did and promises to change his "guidelines." But guideline can always be changed or waived in "exceptional" cases. And if it is the Attorney General who determines whether a case is exceptional, the press will forever remain under the threat of prosecution if they displease the Administration. We don't need a shield law. What we need is a simple statement from the Attorney General and the President that what James Rosen did was not, and could not be, a crime under the First Amendment.
17. And finally, there is the hypocrisy of an Administration justifying these intrusions into press freedom by "national security" while not investigating far worse "leaks" from a national security point of view such as leaks surrounding the bin Laden raid which put the Pakistani doctor who helped us in prison for years, or the leak that confirmed we, along with Israel, had developed and deployed the Stuxnet computer virus against Iran which not only exposed our, and Israel's, covert operation but also effectively made it far more difficult for us to complain about other countries directing similar attacks against US interests. The differences between these "leaks" and the leak involved in the Rosen investigation are that these leaks were not only more serious, but they made the Administration look better and appear to have been sanctioned by the Administration - and, of course, there was no leak investigation.
One more installment in the list of scandals to come.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Obama Scandals Part II - The IRS
Here is the next group of Obama Scandals:
8. What gave IRS agents the idea that they should slow-walk the applications of conservative and libertarian groups for tax exempt status (until after the 2012 election) while waiving progressive groups through? How would they get the idea they should ask those conservative and libertarian groups highly invasive, and irrelevant, questions (including what prayers the organizers prayed and what books they read!) progressive and other groups were not asked? Why would IRS agents single out prominent conservative and libertarian political donors and spokesmen for multiple audits (joined in some cases by other federal agencies such as the Department of Labor) in the run-up to the 2012 election? Why was confidential IRS information about Republicans, including Mitt Romney, and other opponents of the Administration leaked to progressive groups, and the Obama campaign, where it was used to hammer Republicans in the last election. And why, when the top bosses in the IRS were admittedly aware of these abuses in the spring of 2012 was this not brought to the attention of the White House and not disclosed to the American people (indeed the abuses were denied by the IRS Commissioner to Congress) when it might have a made a difference in the election? Was it not the responsibility of the IRS when it knew the abuses were happening, to order it stopped, bring it to the attention of the President, and disclose it to the American people?
9. How is it that even now no individuals at IRS have been identified for having participated in the abuses noted above, no one has been disciplined (except the acting commissioner who just left a few weeks early but suffered no financial penalty) and no one has taken responsibility? How does Lois Lerner keep her job having claimed 5th Amendment protection against questioning regarding her public trust? Even an ordinary police officer must waive his right not to testify or lose his job! And how did she get her job at the IRS at all given that in her previous job at the FEC she was known for discriminatory enforcement actions against Christian organizations?
10. Did the President's campaign diatribes against conservative and Republican "enemies", and Democratic Senators' calls for the IRS to investigate "Tea Party" groups have no effect whatsoever on the decisions of IRS officials to target those enemies? Did the President really have to explicitly order IRS people to act against people and groups that favored lower taxes, a simpler tax code and, in some cases, the abolition of the IRS? Was it not enough for them to hear the President's permanent campaign? Wasn't it enough for the President's campaign to identify eight large Republican donors on its web site and imply that they were less than honest and ethical in their business dealings? At least one of those eight was targeted by both the IRS and the Department of Labor who found nothing amiss. Is this not the Alinsky tactic of personalizing an issue run amok? Just what one would expect from a former community organizer.
11. Is this culture of politically biased enforcement infect federal agencies in addition to the IRS? We already know that the Department of Labor also appears to have singled out Republican donors for audits. Why would the Justice Department give a pass to the New Black Panthers standing outside polling stations in Philadelphia with clubs intimidating white voters? Was former Democratic Senator and Governor Jon Corzine given a pass in the collapse of MF Global, Inc?
More in the next post.
8. What gave IRS agents the idea that they should slow-walk the applications of conservative and libertarian groups for tax exempt status (until after the 2012 election) while waiving progressive groups through? How would they get the idea they should ask those conservative and libertarian groups highly invasive, and irrelevant, questions (including what prayers the organizers prayed and what books they read!) progressive and other groups were not asked? Why would IRS agents single out prominent conservative and libertarian political donors and spokesmen for multiple audits (joined in some cases by other federal agencies such as the Department of Labor) in the run-up to the 2012 election? Why was confidential IRS information about Republicans, including Mitt Romney, and other opponents of the Administration leaked to progressive groups, and the Obama campaign, where it was used to hammer Republicans in the last election. And why, when the top bosses in the IRS were admittedly aware of these abuses in the spring of 2012 was this not brought to the attention of the White House and not disclosed to the American people (indeed the abuses were denied by the IRS Commissioner to Congress) when it might have a made a difference in the election? Was it not the responsibility of the IRS when it knew the abuses were happening, to order it stopped, bring it to the attention of the President, and disclose it to the American people?
9. How is it that even now no individuals at IRS have been identified for having participated in the abuses noted above, no one has been disciplined (except the acting commissioner who just left a few weeks early but suffered no financial penalty) and no one has taken responsibility? How does Lois Lerner keep her job having claimed 5th Amendment protection against questioning regarding her public trust? Even an ordinary police officer must waive his right not to testify or lose his job! And how did she get her job at the IRS at all given that in her previous job at the FEC she was known for discriminatory enforcement actions against Christian organizations?
10. Did the President's campaign diatribes against conservative and Republican "enemies", and Democratic Senators' calls for the IRS to investigate "Tea Party" groups have no effect whatsoever on the decisions of IRS officials to target those enemies? Did the President really have to explicitly order IRS people to act against people and groups that favored lower taxes, a simpler tax code and, in some cases, the abolition of the IRS? Was it not enough for them to hear the President's permanent campaign? Wasn't it enough for the President's campaign to identify eight large Republican donors on its web site and imply that they were less than honest and ethical in their business dealings? At least one of those eight was targeted by both the IRS and the Department of Labor who found nothing amiss. Is this not the Alinsky tactic of personalizing an issue run amok? Just what one would expect from a former community organizer.
11. Is this culture of politically biased enforcement infect federal agencies in addition to the IRS? We already know that the Department of Labor also appears to have singled out Republican donors for audits. Why would the Justice Department give a pass to the New Black Panthers standing outside polling stations in Philadelphia with clubs intimidating white voters? Was former Democratic Senator and Governor Jon Corzine given a pass in the collapse of MF Global, Inc?
More in the next post.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Obama Scandals and Corruption Part I - Benghazi
What exactly are the Obama scandals that I referred to in my last post? Here is a partial listing:
1. Why was security not increased in Benghazi, and why were military and security assets not closer to Benghazi, on September 11, 2012, despite all the warnings we had in advance? The Administration has said it was not the money. Perhaps there is a good explanation, but they have not even ventured one. And if there is no good explanation, who made the decisions and what discipline has resulted?
2. Why was help not sent on September 11, 2012 after the attack started. Those on the ground told Washington immediately that the attack was not a reaction to the video but a planned attack. In retrospect it may be, though that is not yet clear, that help would not have arrived on time. But those in charge that night could not have known that when the decision to "stand down" was made. Do we excuse the 911 operator for not sending help just because, in retrospect, help would not have arrived on time? Again, the Administration offers no explanation. Nor has any disciplinary action been taken for the failure to send help.
3. Where was the President, and what was he doing, during the Benghazi fiasco? For that matter, where was Secretary Clinton? What decisions did they make, and if none, why not? This was their 2:00 a.m. phone call and there is no evidence that they acquitted themselves well. Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
4. The President, the Secretary of State and many other top officials knew in real time, and directly from the people on the ground, that Benghazi was not a reaction to the video, but a planned attack by Islamists. Where did that story of the video come from? How could the Secretary of State give this version to the families of those killed, and the President repeat the story in the United Nations, knowing that it was completely false? And why would they put the story out at all given it, at least in part, shifts the blame for the incident from, or partially excuses, its Islamist perpetrators. Rather than being the fault of Islamist ideology and Islamist violence, the incident becomes, at least in part, the fault of American freedom of expression and a "shadowy character" who would be arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for making a video. This lie was not a victimless crime. An innocent person, at least innocent of this, went to jail for expressing his opinion.
5. There was enough information in the news reports in the days following the September 11 attack to at least alert Ambassador Rice that the video story was dubious. It was not in even the final scrubbed talking points. Where did it come from? Why did she not raise some questions about this story before going on the Sunday shows? And if she did raise questions, how was it that the story was perpetuated?
6. Why have we done nothing in response to the Benghazi attack? Granted that it is probably difficult to identify specific individuals, or apprehend them - probably more difficult after the Libyan leader, who said from the beginning, and correctly, that this was a terrorist attack, was publicly contradicted and humiliated by Ambassador Rice and the President. But we knew, and know, what group was at fault, and we know where they have their camp. Why did we at least not blow something up? This attack called out for a decisive response, but there was no response at all. A great power cannot let this kind of thing go unavenged and remain a great power for long.
7. How is it that only low-level people who were probably not the ones ultimately responsible the only ones who have been punished? And why is it that the survivors are being kept from testifying (or even identified to Congress), and potential whistle-blowers being intimidated?
More in the next post.
1. Why was security not increased in Benghazi, and why were military and security assets not closer to Benghazi, on September 11, 2012, despite all the warnings we had in advance? The Administration has said it was not the money. Perhaps there is a good explanation, but they have not even ventured one. And if there is no good explanation, who made the decisions and what discipline has resulted?
2. Why was help not sent on September 11, 2012 after the attack started. Those on the ground told Washington immediately that the attack was not a reaction to the video but a planned attack. In retrospect it may be, though that is not yet clear, that help would not have arrived on time. But those in charge that night could not have known that when the decision to "stand down" was made. Do we excuse the 911 operator for not sending help just because, in retrospect, help would not have arrived on time? Again, the Administration offers no explanation. Nor has any disciplinary action been taken for the failure to send help.
3. Where was the President, and what was he doing, during the Benghazi fiasco? For that matter, where was Secretary Clinton? What decisions did they make, and if none, why not? This was their 2:00 a.m. phone call and there is no evidence that they acquitted themselves well. Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
4. The President, the Secretary of State and many other top officials knew in real time, and directly from the people on the ground, that Benghazi was not a reaction to the video, but a planned attack by Islamists. Where did that story of the video come from? How could the Secretary of State give this version to the families of those killed, and the President repeat the story in the United Nations, knowing that it was completely false? And why would they put the story out at all given it, at least in part, shifts the blame for the incident from, or partially excuses, its Islamist perpetrators. Rather than being the fault of Islamist ideology and Islamist violence, the incident becomes, at least in part, the fault of American freedom of expression and a "shadowy character" who would be arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for making a video. This lie was not a victimless crime. An innocent person, at least innocent of this, went to jail for expressing his opinion.
5. There was enough information in the news reports in the days following the September 11 attack to at least alert Ambassador Rice that the video story was dubious. It was not in even the final scrubbed talking points. Where did it come from? Why did she not raise some questions about this story before going on the Sunday shows? And if she did raise questions, how was it that the story was perpetuated?
6. Why have we done nothing in response to the Benghazi attack? Granted that it is probably difficult to identify specific individuals, or apprehend them - probably more difficult after the Libyan leader, who said from the beginning, and correctly, that this was a terrorist attack, was publicly contradicted and humiliated by Ambassador Rice and the President. But we knew, and know, what group was at fault, and we know where they have their camp. Why did we at least not blow something up? This attack called out for a decisive response, but there was no response at all. A great power cannot let this kind of thing go unavenged and remain a great power for long.
7. How is it that only low-level people who were probably not the ones ultimately responsible the only ones who have been punished? And why is it that the survivors are being kept from testifying (or even identified to Congress), and potential whistle-blowers being intimidated?
More in the next post.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Progressives are NOT More Corrupt than Conservatives and Libertarians
Romans 3:10-11: ". . . None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
Augsburg Confession Article II: "Our churches teach that since the fall of Adam, all who are naturally born are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with the inclination to sin . . . "
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI: " . . . [Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all the actual transgressions."
James Madison, Federalist 51: ". . . But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. . . . "
We conservatives and libertarians should not congratulate ourselves in these days of the Obama scandals that politicians we support are bound somehow to be better, less corrupt, human beings. They are not. And we are not. We all suffer under our sinful nature and, given the opportunity, and strong enough motivation, will sin. Nor should we take joy in the scandals as simply an opportunity to regain power.
But it is an opportunity to instruct the American people that the larger and more secretive the government, the further that government is away from the people, the more discretion and power is given to unelected officials, and the more those in power believe they are morally superior to the other guy, the more likely is abuse and corruption. This, and not any special moral disability of progressives, is the ultimate genesis of the Obama scandals.
Augsburg Confession Article II: "Our churches teach that since the fall of Adam, all who are naturally born are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with the inclination to sin . . . "
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI: " . . . [Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all the actual transgressions."
James Madison, Federalist 51: ". . . But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. . . . "
We conservatives and libertarians should not congratulate ourselves in these days of the Obama scandals that politicians we support are bound somehow to be better, less corrupt, human beings. They are not. And we are not. We all suffer under our sinful nature and, given the opportunity, and strong enough motivation, will sin. Nor should we take joy in the scandals as simply an opportunity to regain power.
But it is an opportunity to instruct the American people that the larger and more secretive the government, the further that government is away from the people, the more discretion and power is given to unelected officials, and the more those in power believe they are morally superior to the other guy, the more likely is abuse and corruption. This, and not any special moral disability of progressives, is the ultimate genesis of the Obama scandals.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
The Real Message of Gosnell
Most of the commentary about the Gosnell trial relates to the failure of the liberal media to cover the trial at all. Whenever the substance itself is discussed, the left-right debate is about who is to blame for the Gosnells of this world - abortionists who botch the abortion and then kill the baby who is born alive. Is it too little regulation as some contend? Or is it too much regulation that drives the competent doctors out of the business?
But I think that misses the significance of Gosnell. In the partial-birth abortion case Justice Scalia asked what the moral and legal distinction should be between (1) killing a baby in the birth canal and then delivering the "products of conception" (a partial birth abortion), and (2) delivering that baby alive and then killing it. But this was only a hypothetical question by the Justice. Gosnell confronts Americans with its reality. Here is a real abortionist who is unable to make the moral distinction between an unborn baby, and one born alive. NARAL's initial comments, that a mother's "choice" should extend beyond the moment of birth, only compounded the problem. If NARAL and Gosnell cannot or will not make the moral distinction between an unborn baby and a live birth, then why should the rest of America? And if there is no moral distinction, how is an elective abortion not murder?
But I think that misses the significance of Gosnell. In the partial-birth abortion case Justice Scalia asked what the moral and legal distinction should be between (1) killing a baby in the birth canal and then delivering the "products of conception" (a partial birth abortion), and (2) delivering that baby alive and then killing it. But this was only a hypothetical question by the Justice. Gosnell confronts Americans with its reality. Here is a real abortionist who is unable to make the moral distinction between an unborn baby, and one born alive. NARAL's initial comments, that a mother's "choice" should extend beyond the moment of birth, only compounded the problem. If NARAL and Gosnell cannot or will not make the moral distinction between an unborn baby and a live birth, then why should the rest of America? And if there is no moral distinction, how is an elective abortion not murder?
Time for Some Common Sense Pressure Cooker Controls
In light of the recent events in Boston it seems to me that President Obama should immediately propose some common sense pressure cooker controls. We should not be afraid of the NPCA, the heavily funded, right-wing, evil, pressure cooker lobby which is only out to preserve profits for the pressure cooker companies. No right thinking person could oppose such common sense measures unless they prefer, for their own reasons, to see carnage at urban sports events and do not care about the children. I am sure some moderate, non-ideological Republicans will join the President in this.
And come to think of it, we need common sense controls for nails, ball bearings, back packs, baseball caps, cell phones, etc.
And come to think of it, we need common sense controls for nails, ball bearings, back packs, baseball caps, cell phones, etc.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Octave of Christian Unity
I found two articles by Fr. Victor E. Novak (1/18 & 1/25) referencing the "Octave of Christian Unity" and concerning the current state, and way forward, for the Anglican Communion, helpful and thought-provoking. My perspective is one of an active lay person who has, at one time or another, been part of the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed (Presbyterian) communities.
When I taught the new members class at my former Presbyterian church, I would tell them that Luther sought to “reform” the Church by discarding everything that was contrary to Scripture, but that Calvin sought to “re-form” the Church in the image of the early church by throwing out everything that was not specifically mandated by Scripture. It seems to me that the Anglican reformers, such as Thomas Cranmer, were seeking something similar. What each tradition sought to do was to cleanse the Church of what Scripture did not sanction and restore (re-form) the Church in its ancient purity based upon the authority of Scripture. Throughout the 16th and 17th Centuries there were attempts to bring greater unity to the three traditions in the face of Roman attempts to subject them to Rome. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they were unable to find that unity. That failure reverberates today in the fragmentation of the Church around the world and the confusion of its messages.
All three of these Reformation traditions (or at least parts of them) have retained the ecumenical creeds of the united Church and are, in that sense, orthodox. And while Reformed Christians are perhaps more attached to the Westminster Confession, and Lutheran Christians more attached to the Book of Concord, than Anglicans are attached to the 39 Articles, the purposes and practice of the three doctrinal statements are essentially the same. For the most part, only ordained persons are required to subscribe to these statements. None was intended to state anything other than what each tradition believed was mandated by Scripture. And none was intended as a complete statement. They are best seen as attempts to distinguish each tradition from the others and from Roman Christianity - as is obvious in the numerous statements from each saying not only what was correct doctrine, but also naming and criticizing incorrect doctrines of the other traditions. All were viewed as ultimately subject to Scripture. They also serve the purpose of slowing down doctrinal change over time. They were never intended to create doctrine apart from Scripture. In legal terms, they were not legislative but merely declarative of Scripture.
All three of these traditions, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, believed they were restoring (re-forming) the ancient catholic Church. None of them believed it was creating something new. Indeed, the explicit purpose was “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda!”, an inherently conservative doctrine seeking to restore the New Testament Church and to prevent non-Scriptural future innovations from contaminating the Church. The authority of Scripture was raised above any authority of Tradition, or of bishops or councils, in order to preserve the reformed church from corruption. And let me suggest that this aspect of the Reformation is an important aspect of orthodox ancient Christianity which has been lost, certainly by Rome, and I think by Constantinople and Moscow as well. That is, the orthodoxy of the united ancient Church is more than just the absence of innovations by the Bishops of Rome. These three traditions preserve something, the authority of Scripture, that would be lost if the orthodox in the West simply united with the Eastern Orthodox and adopted their doctrine in its entirety. I think there are other aspects of Reformation theology and practice which are part of the ancient Church but have been lost by both Rome and Constantinople. But space limitations limit me to this, most important, one.
I must also point out that Fr. Novak’s reference to the ancient patriarchal sees does not really reflect reality. Canterbury was never one of them, yet he implies that the Anglican Communion would still be solid if the Church of England and Canterbury remained orthodox. Neither was Moscow one of the ancient Patriarchates. The Turks may essentially eliminate Constantinople by preventing the election of a successor to the current Patriarch. There are at least six current Patriarchs of Antioch from different ecclesiastical traditions. Each national Eastern Orthodox church is independent owing only nominal fealty to Constantinople. Some of these Patriarchal sees, both past and present, do not accept the Nicene Creed and are thus not orthodox in the ordinary sense. And so on. While I think that more institutional connectedness is generally better than less, it is not the essential element of being “catholic” or orthodox, which depend on belief and practice, not membership in some human organization. And if the Anglican Communion needs a Patriarch, may I suggest the election (by the orthodox provinces) of an orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury as an alternative - around whom the orthodox in the UK might rally in a new, orthodox but disestablished Church of England.
Having been a part of, and admiring in some respects, all three of the great Reformation traditions, I believe that, regarding almost every disagreement over faith and morals, the differences are not insurmountable. Almost all of the differences are 1) matters primarily of semantics and not substance; 2) matters upon which Scripture is ambiguous; 3) matters which are secondary and not essential to salvation; and/or 4) matters which are of importance only for students of the history of the 16th and 17th Centuries and which are either considered insignificant, or are no longer held, by most orthodox Christians within the three traditions. There remain significant differences in matters of governance, “catholic orders” and the Eucharist. Within each tradition, there are unresolved differences over, inter alia, the ordination of women. And finally there are variations in worship practice, giving rise to the so-called worship wars.
Does Fr. Novak believe that these differences among the three traditions, or within the orthodox Anglicans themselves, are really more than the differences between orthodox Anglicans generally and the Eastern Orthodox? Perhaps he himself, and the congregation he leads, would be easily assimilated into Eastern Orthodoxy. But I do not think that is true of Anglicans generally. I think a better direction for the future would be for the orthodox among Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed to seek greater unity among themselves. The place to start is probably not with institutional or confessional unity, or even inter-communion. Rather there should perhaps be a very general statement of the places of theological agreement, starting with the authority of Scripture and the most important places of difference with the “progressive” denominations, and an agreement of co-operation. These traditions could co-operate by, for example, opening up our places of worship to fledgling congregations from the other traditions. Anglican and Reformed church plants could especially benefit because TEC and the PCUSA have property clauses so that many orthodox congregations departing those denominations will have to give up their buildings. A congregation opening up its building to a church plant would also benefit because the church plant would be expected to contribute, according to its means, to the upkeep of the building. Other ways in which the traditions could co-operate in doing mission would also benefit all three traditions. Over time, the disagreements over faith and practice which are still significant might be resolved enabling inter-communion and even institutional integration. And these Reformation traditions should right now cease to think of themselves as “Protestant” by defining themselves by their opposition to the Roman church. Instead they should define themselves, and ultimately name themselves, as Evangelical, Apostolic and Catholic.
In my opinion there are three issues among the Reformation traditions that would ultimately have to be resolved, and one issue within each of the traditions. The former include the Eucharist, the Apostolic Episcopacy, and the ordination of lay elders, deacons and deaconesses. The latter is the ordination of women. Even with these difficult issues remaining, I believe there is hope.
As to the Eucharist, the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) simply says, “Our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper.” The 39 Articles (Anglican) state, in part, “The supper of the Lord is not only a sign . . . [T]he Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” The Westminster Confession (Reformed) says, in part, “Our Lord Jesus, in the night that He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church unto the end of the world . . .” While I have quoted somewhat selectively to emphasize the commonalities, all three of the traditions explicitly reject “transubstantiation” and all three accept the “real presence” of the Messiah within the elements - though that real presence is expressed differently. My own preference is the simplicity, and Scriptural reference, of the Lutheran view, but surely there is a way to express these views in a way acceptable to all three groups.
Reformed Christians do not have bishops. Some Lutherans have bishops while others do not, primarily for historical, not theological reasons. Luther, I think, hoped that the western catholic church could be reformed and that “Our Churches” would return to a new, reformed, catholic hierarchy. Anglicans have retained an apostolic episcopacy. I don’t think this matters from a salvation perspective. But from an institutional perspective, my preference would be the Anglican view here. It is a tradition among not only the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, but also among the Oriental Orthodox churches and other traditions. Lutherans, while they may not be attached to the view would not find an apostolic episcopacy difficult to accept in a broader context. Even Presbyterians now have individuals holding the office of “Executive Presbyter” which functions much like a bishop in many ways. Having an apostolic episcopacy helps bring us closer to the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches and may lead to eventual reunification or at least inter-communion. It also links us with the past, including the church through the ages. And it would be an additional check against doctrinal drift along with theological statements such as the Anglican 39 Articles and the Lutheran and Reformed “Confessions”.
Unlike Lutherans and Anglicans (and Roman and Orthodox Christians), but, with all due respect, like the early churches described in the New Testament, Reformed denominations ordain their lay leaders as elders (presbyters), deacons and deaconesses. I believe this tends to encourage the lay leadership of a congregation, give lay-people a greater voice in the larger Church polity and help lay leaders to take their role more seriously. In Reformed polity, elders (or “ruling elders” along with ministers, called “teaching elders”) serve in the governance of the Church. Lay deacons and deaconesses help in the ministries of the church to those in the community in need of help. While, again, I do not believe this is a salvation issue, I believe the Reformed, in this case, have the better view. The more people are brought into leadership, the more seriously they take their leadership role, and the more lay people take ownership of the Church, the better off the Church will be.
Finally, with respect to the role of women, I think the Anglican Church of North America chose correctly by deciding that, for now, each diocese would decide, for itself, whether to accept women as priests but limited the episcopacy to men. I believe that, according to the cannons, this compromise cannot change unless pretty much everyone agrees on the change. Paul’s letters sometimes describe elders and deacons in purely masculine terms. And there is a paucity of female leadership in the New Testament church. But it is not clear that it was absent. Some women are referred to as deaconesses - simply the female form of the word deacon and implying no difference in function. And Prisca, with her husband Aquilla, seem to have been leaders of the Church in Rome. There was also, at the time, a paucity of female leadership in the society at large. So church practice may have simply followed then contemporary societal practice and not represented a theological imperative. It is also undisputed, however, that within a couple of centuries, formal ordained office was limited to men, and remains so in the vast majority of Christian churches around the world. And I take seriously the admonition that once women are ordained to the ministry other, more clearly un-Scriptural, departures from traditional orthodoxy follow - though it is not clear what is cause and what is effect. Christian theologians and leaders, for many of whom I have the greatest respect, have written, stridently, on one side or the other of the issue.
The role of women is disputed as much within each tradition as among the traditions. Without finding a way to compromise, or at least finesse, this issue unity among the orthodox will never be achieved either within our among our traditions. Feelings run high. Each side is confident of its correctness. The ACNA position, which is impossible in the absence of bishops, preserves (even if strained) the possibility of some sort of inter-communion with Rome, Constantinople and Moscow and allows the respective hierarchies to recognize each other as legitimate. It allows women to participate in leadership - and women who wish to do so to find a home within the Church. Yet no one is required to act against his or her own conscience. For those favoring women’s ordination, the door is open. Yet there will be places, and offices, in the Church in which women will not be able to serve. For those opposed to the ordination of women, they must reconcile themselves to the fact that women will be ordained in some parts of the Church, to some offices. Yet the episcopacy of the Church will be preserved in the traditional form. For now, and until He comes again or His Spirit provides a clear answer, this seems like the best that we can do. Nobody wins everything. Nobody loses everything. And hope remains for relationships with other orthodox church bodies.
I have suggested that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not represent, in themselves, the entire faith and practice of the undivided ancient church, just as the Roman church does not. I have further suggested that the Reformation traditions, Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican, were all an attempt to re-form the Western church in its Scriptural, orthodox form, and that they have more in common with each other than these traditions separately have with the Eastern Orthodox churches. And I have suggested that the Reformation churches, though certainly imperfect, carry within themselves aspects of the New Testament church not fully present in either Rome or the East, particularly the ultimate authority of Scripture, and which should be preserved. I therefore concluded that seeking unity with the Eastern churches before seeking unity among the Reformation churches was the wrong way forward. I concluded by proposing ways in which the orthodox Reformation churches might draw closer together. They might also remember the, very Scriptural, charismatic gifts which have been largely lost in main-line churches, and look for ways to learn from other Christian traditions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)