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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)