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.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)