Archive | Politics — the Constitution RSS feed for this section

Hillary Explaining Benghazi Again?

31 May

I write this in response to the “leak” of excerpts from a new book by Hillary, in which she once again defends her role in the Benghazi fiasco.

I find it odd that I haven’t noticed any emphasis on a particular aspect of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony before Congress.  We’ve heard it all, of course – the entire testimony – and we’ve heard/read literally a hundred responses to it, mostly criticizing her for insultingly saying “What difference at this point does it make?”

However, to me, the really damning aspect of this testimony has less to do with that question than with the broader statement, which I quote here:

“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans?  What difference at this point does it make?  It is our job . . . .”

My problem is not with the callous-sounding, “What difference . . . .?”

My problem is that, “at this point”, Hillary is STILL trying to deceive the American people by attributing this terrorist action to either “a protest” or “some guys out for a walk”.  This represents a continued and damning cover-up, deceit, and conceit with regard to the exceedingly well-known fact at the time of this testimony that this was, in fact, a terrorist attack.  An unconscionable and insulting “lie”.

In my opinion, this statement alone, this sorry attempted continuation of a gross deceit so long after the event, should have raised an immediate cry for her resignation from both sides of the aisle – and should have destroyed her credibility as a future presidential candidate.

But I don’t hear anyone at all emphasizing this blatant deceit.  What am I missing?  Is this point alone not valuable ammunition for her opponents in the upcoming presidential campaign?

Advertisements

The Answer to Bad Government

30 May

Mona Charen, in a recent column titled “Why VA Service Won’t Improve”, points out the pitfalls of thinking that firing and hiring at the VA will fix the problems there.  Her last sentence is a classic.

The entire column can be found at

http://www.creators.com/opinion/mona-charen/why-va-service-wont-improve.html

 

Excerpts:  [Bolding and caps are added by me]

Here’s a not-so-bold prediction: After the press loses interest in the Veterans Affairs scandal, after the investigations have been completed and one or two officials have resigned, nothing will change.

Is this cynicism? Not really. It comes down to one’s view of how much government can achieve by bureaucratic, top-down management.

The progressive project has limitless faith in the capacity of wise managers to run complex systems for the benefit of all. Untainted by the profit motive, bureaucrats can deliver services equitably and efficiently. Every liberal/progressive program has the effect of taking decision-making away from individuals, communities and local governments, and centralizing it in Washington.

President Barack Obama has doggedly championed this approach.

. . . .

Progressives respond that the IHS is simply underfunded — as they regard every federal program except the military. But even Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana found when he examined problems with the IHS that at least one provider was seeing only one patient per day.

It isn’t management; it’s a matter of incentives. No central authority can make a system like the VA or the IHS or Britain’s National Health Service run efficiently. Competition is the only system that gives the power to consumers to reward good service and punish bad. But progressives cannot shed their faith that MORE government is the answer to BAD government, so this story is sure to be repeated.

[End of excerpts]

I feel that the theory that “MORE government is the answer to BAD government” is responsible for most of the truly serious problems we now face in this country.  Everyone should understand that the government should only provide solutions of last resort.  When faced with a problem, its prime directive should be, “How can this problem be solved in the private sector, with minimal regulation and oversight by the government?”  But I fear that ship has sailed . . . .

The More Things Change, . . . .

28 Mar

“How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.”

— Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1845

If he could only see us now.  Treading on the Constitution is not a new phenomenon, just one that seems to be gaining momentum.

On Evil

19 Mar

“Know what is evil, however much worshipped it may be.  Let the man of intelligence not fail to recognize it, . . . because it cannot . . . hide its core;  slavery does not lose its infamy, however noble the master.”

— Baltasar Graciàn, Spanish Jesuit (1601-1658)

Not a new thought — rather, a timeless one, as demonstrated by this 400-year-old proverb.  Very similar instruction found in the Bible.  Be vigilant in identifying evil for what it is.

On Mixing War and Politics

19 Feb

From the pen of Dr. Thomas Sowell, my favorite writer – an excerpt from a recent column of his titled “Another Galling Betrayal”.  The entire column can be found at

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/another-galling-betrayal.html

Excerpt:

. . . .

If we learn nothing else from the bitter tragedy of the war in Afghanistan, it should be that we should put an end forever to the self-indulgence of thinking that we can engage in “nation-building” and creating “democracy” in countries where nothing resembling democracy has ever existed. . . .

F.A. Hayek said, “We shall not grow wiser until we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.” Nothing is more foolish — and immoral — than sending men into battle to risk their lives winning victories that are later lost by politicians for political reasons.

That started long before the war in Afghanistan. Vietnam was a classic example. Years after that war was over, the Communist victors themselves admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam, as they knew they would. But they won politically in America, with the help of Americans, including the media — as they also knew they would.

The war in Iraq was more of the same. American troops won that war but our politicians lost the peace. Terrorists have now taken over, and raised Al Qaeda flags, in some Iraqi towns that American troops liberated at the cost of many lives.

How did this happen? It happened much the same way it happened in Afghanistan. We insisted on trying to create a “democracy” in the Middle East — a place with a history going back thousands of years, without a single democracy.

[End of excerpt]

What Speech Does the 1st Amendment Protect?

1 Dec

After giving us several good examples exemplifying how ridiculous the “Word Police” have gotten in censoring our speech in order to prevent offending anyone, Two Heads Are Better Than One ends a recent blog with this question and bit of wisdom.

From “thabto.wordpress.com”:

. . . . When did the schoolyard saying about sticks-n-stones cease being operative? In a free society, when did the responsibility for dealing with a perceived “offense” land on the offend-er, rather than where it belongs: the offend-ee?

I’m reminded once again of Kathy Shaidle’s call for us to all undergo ‘Insensitivity’ Training [illero insertion: As opposed to SENsitivity training]:

“…The only sort of free speech that matters is the sort that offends some people somewhere… I think that in any well-functioning democracy it is incumbent on all citizens to grow a thick skin…”

Until we all learn to do just that, the Word Police will continue on their current path, limiting and controlling more and more of what is “acceptable” in polite society to discuss.

[End of excerpt]

What a great statement by Ms. Shaidle!  We need to ALL ponder this practical interpretation of the First Amendment.

Just for Reference — Quote from Mr. Debt Control

29 Oct

I know all of you have read this a dozen times (at least), but I thought I would just post it for my own archives.  This one quote from Obama states what he said he believed about debt, leadership, and responsibility.  Funny that in practice he regularly violates all of these principles.  His practice seems to be playing “duck the buck”, or “dodge the buck”.  These are such odd words, given that by the time Obama leaves office, he will have added more debt to our nation than all of the presidents combined accumulated before him.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising  America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US  Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing  financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless  fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and  internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead,  Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our  children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of  leadership. Americans deserve better.” 

 ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March  2006