Press praises Hillary's facile deceit

       That the press is in the tank for Democrats is undeniable.  A case in point is Saturday’s Associated Press summation of the Benghazi hearings (Yuma Sun, October 23, 2015).  Hillary Clinton “closed the book on the worst episode of her tenure.”  She “firmly defended” her actions…The probe cost the American Taxpayer 4.6 million.” The hearing was “political theater…   It gave her a high profile platform to show her self-control and command of foreign policy.  Clinton made no gaffs and the hearing “revealed little new about the attack.”

      I learned a lot from the hearings and learned there’s a lot more to learn.   I learned there were 600 separate and unanswered requests for increased security at the compound.  I did not learn why they went unanswered.  Did they want the ambassador dead?  Just saying.

I learned that Hillary didn’t see any of those emails, but she did see and respond to hundreds of emails from Sidney Blumenthal that dealt with the Libyan situation, although Blumenthal had never been to Libya and was not a member of her staff.

I saw a stack more than a foot-tall of emails that Hillary received with regard to a disturbance at the embassy in the previous year, but no emails regarding the disturbances that led up to the fatal attack.  Can’t figure that one out.

               I learned that, although Ambassador Stevens was a “close personal friend,” he had no way to contact her personally, did not have her email address or her phone number.  Hillary had no communications with Ambassador Stevens and had little knowledge of the situation in Libya.

I learned that she lied when she blamed the attack on the video.  I learned that she had sent cables out that night and the following morning asserting that it was a terrorist attack, not related to the video.  But they lied to the American People and they repeated that lie over and over again.  We always knew that, but now we know it’s undeniable.

She says she takes full responsibility and then she says tending and responding to pleas for extra security was “Not my job.”

 I learned that her lack of funding excuse did not hold water.  Congress had significantly increased her funding in 2009.

Commentators of the leftist ilk say that the committee’s revelations were “old news.”  I suppose Hillary’s credibility problem is indeed old news. 

What we didn’t learn was why Stevens was in Benghazi.  We know that a lot of military assistance was within easy striking distance, but no help was sent.  Why not?  Hillary gave a masterful performance, but it was the empty filibustering performance of “not my department" excuses we've come to expect from Her. 

The Unsinkable Hillary

       That the press is in the tank for Democrats is undeniable.  A case in point is Saturday’s Associated Press summation of the Benghazi hearings (Yuma Sun, October 23, 2015).  Hillary Clinton “closed the book on the worst episode of her tenure.”  She “firmly defended” her actions…The probe cost the American Taxpayer 4.6 million.” The hearing was “political theater…   It gave her a high profile platform to show her self-control and command of foreign policy.  Clinton made no gaffs and the hearing “revealed little new about the attack.”

      I learned a lot from the hearings and learned there’s a lot more to learn.   I learned there were 600 separate and unanswered requests for increased security at the compound.  I did not learn why they went unanswered.  Did they want the ambassador dead?  Just saying.

I learned that Hillary didn’t see any of those emails, but she did see and respond to hundreds of emails from Sidney Blumenthal that dealt with the Libyan situation, although Blumenthal had never been to Libya and was not a member of her staff.

I saw a stack more than a foot-tall of emails that Hillary received with regard to a disturbance at the embassy in the previous year, but no emails regarding the disturbances that led up to the fatal attack.  Can’t figure that one out.

               I learned that, although Ambassador Stevens was a “close personal friend,” he had no way to contact her personally, did not have her email address or her phone number.  Hillary had no communications with Ambassador Stevens and had little knowledge of the situation in Libya.

I learned that she lied when she blamed the attack on the video.  I learned that she had sent cables out that night and the following morning asserting that it was a terrorist attack, not related to the video.  But they lied to the American People and they repeated that lie over and over again.  We always knew that, but now we know it’s undeniable.

She says she takes full responsibility and then she says tending and responding to pleas for extra security was “Not my job.”

 I learned that her lack of funding excuse did not hold water.  Congress had significantly increased her funding in 2009.

Commentators of the leftist ilk say that the committee’s revelations were “old news.”  I suppose Hillary’s credibility problem is indeed old news. 

What we didn’t learn was why Stevens was in Benghazi.  We know that a lot of military assistance was within easy striking distance, but no help was sent.  Why not?  Hillary gave a masterful performance, but it was the empty filibustering performance of  "not my department" excuses we've come to expect from Her. 

Trump the Tea Party Favorite? Say it isn't so!

       Glenn Beck expressed disappointment in the Tea Party because of their support of Donald Trump.  Say it isn’t so!  He cannot be a Tea Party favorite.  I have never heard him speak about the constitution.  I have never heard him speak about limiting the power of the central government in the way the founders envisioned. 

       He is an advocate of the government’s using eminent domain to seize private property.  He has supported late term abortions and single payer health care.  He says the Democrats do a much better job with economic issues. Apparently he, like all Democrats, credits Clinton with the budget surpluses.  The rest of us remember the Gingrich/Kasich dynamo.

          We believe the government is the problem.  He believes the government is the answer if it is properly run.  That’s a totally progressive idea.  He is a progressive.  He expresses admiration for Democratic politicians and disdain for conservatives.  Have you ever heard him disavow any of these former progressive stances?

       The Donald plays on our emotions, stokes the xenophobic impulses, feeds off our frustrations, but he lays out no solutions.  He says he’ll make America great again, but he provides no rational blueprint on any issue. He rails against imports.  Does he remember that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff drove the country into the great depression?  He supports a flat tax, a fair tax and he supports maintaining the current progressive tax system. 

His name calling illustrates that he plays by the playbook written for the left, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Those who disagree with him are dogs or losers or stupid. morons, lightweights, or zeroes. 

      Donald Trump is not a man of principles.  He is a megalomaniac, an arrogant blowhard.  He brags about how he screwed over other businessmen. President Obama abused executive privilege.  Trump would ride rough shod over everyone.

     Liberals are having a heyday because Trump is helping them discredit conservative principles.

            Will I vote for Trump if he becomes the nominee?  Of course.  Democrats drive us over the debt cliff full speed ahead.  Even the Donald is less of a death threat. 

President Obama is Disturbed

     At an Easter prayer breakfast our president said, “And I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” He is bothered by less than kind comments by Christians, bothered when Christians are less than loving.
      Did he express concern that members of Islam were less than loving when members of ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in February? Did he express concern about Islam when al-Shabaab terrorists slaughtered nearly 150 students at a Kenyan university on Holy Thursday? Does it bother him the al-Qaeda-affiliated group warned that they were not through, that cities in Kenya will “run red with blood?”

     On March 15, Fulani terrorists massacred nearly 100 Christian villagers in Egba, Nigeria, mostly women and children. On that same day Jamaat-ul-Ahrar suicide bombers attached two churches leaving 15 worshipers dead. Did you hear our president express disappointment in Muslims who were less than kind?

     By my count, in 2015 alone, there have been 30 acts of terrorism on innocent Christians targeted solely because of their faith by Muslim groups who cite their own religion as motive. But President Obama is bothered by less than loving comments by Christians?

Rubio’s response gains respect

     Marco Rubio has gained my undying respect by his gutsy handling of Mike Wallace’s grilling on Fox News Sunday, May 17. Wallace insisted that Rubio “admit” that “based on what we know now” it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Rubio refused to play the game. Presidents have to make decisions based on what they know at the time, and based on what he knew then, Rubio insisted, Bush made the right decision.

       What people seem to forget is that Resolution that Congress made regarding the invasion of Iraq cited many factors that justified the use of military force. The issue of Weapons of Mass destruction was only one. (If memory serves me, there were 23.) First off, Saddam refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441, the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire, and for 12 years refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors access to crucial armament facilities.
     Other reasons listed were the attempted assassination of President George H. W. Bush, the firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone following the Gulf War, Saddam’s paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers, his using the proceeds from the “oil for food” program to purchase long range missiles.
      Many people will say now that they disagreed from the get-go with Bush’s decision, but that is simply not true. His approval rating hit almost 90 per during and shortly after the invasion. Bush’s success was a political disaster for Democrats in this country.
     The real disaster for world peace was President Obama’s refusal to negotiate a post-war alliance. His political base was intent on one thing: destroying George Bush’s legacy, so they intentionally abandoned Iraq and the Middle East to chaos.

The 16th Amendment Poisons the Broth

       When Benjamin Franklin left Constitution Hall the day the work on the Constitution was completed, a woman asked him what kind of government he had given them. “A Republic,” he said, “if you can keep it.” The framers knew well the dangers of liberty. They understood the fragile character of the American experiment. Democracies of old inevitably fell into tyranny and anarchy. Thomas Hobbs had warned that human beings are not capable of self-government, that despotism was a necessary evil. However, the framers put their faith in Montesquieu and established a federation of small republics bonded together for the purpose of national defense. They established a national government wherein the departments of the federal government itself as well as the governments of the individual republics were all pitted against the others to prevent any government entity from satisfying its natural lust for power
      It might have worked if we had worked to keep it. But we have allowed the federal government to morph into a gigantic leviathan that deems itself lord and master, not just of the United States, but of the entire world. The root of the evil is complex, but most of the damage can be traced to the passage of the 16th Amendment.
       Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes” to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the United States.” Promoting the “common welfare” to the founders meant to provide stuff from which everyone benefits, that improves the welfare of everyone.

       The progressives of the early 20th century managed to convince the public that that clause allowed them to plunder the property of some to provide for the welfare for others. They, of course, knew better. The founders feared nothing more than a powerful, intrusive national government.

Refueling the Fires of the Founding

       Early American settlers had a unique opportunity to create a different form of government. The kings of Europe were busy fighting one another, so the settlers were pretty much left to govern themselves for the first 200 years. They developed an appreciation for living independently, which led them to devise a government that protected those rights. They recognized that the most dangerous force in the world was government. They compared it to fire, necessary but a treacherous hazard. They had no confidence in man’s ability to resist the lure of power, so they designed a constitution that would, as Thomas Jefferson said, “bind him down from mischief.”
       Each branch of government was designed to check the power of the other, and the theory was that the sovereign states would jealously guard their powers as expressed in the 10th Amendment. Integral to the design were the differences in the houses of Congress. The House of Representatives was to reflect the passions of the people, members being elected by popular vote. The Senate was to be the more deliberative body, cooling the passions and providing stability. Members were appointed by legislative bodies of the various states and were to represent the interests of the state, keeping the power of the federal government in check.

       Electing senators by popular vote as a result of the 17th Amendment created two problems. First, the Senate loses its deliberative quality, the members now having to spend their energies responding to the passions of the masses, buying votes with our tax dollars. It also changed the allegiance of senators. They are no longer the voice of the state. They are the voice of the federal government. The power and significance of the Sovereign States is lost.

       We didn’t notice the danger at first. Montesquieu was right: “A nation may lose its liberties in a day and not miss them in a century.” It’s been a century. It’s time for us all to join the bucket brigade. Or better yet, fight fire with fire. Lovers of freedom must be vigilant, read, study, research, and debate analyzing history and current events according to the principles of liberty. We need to rekindle the fires that fueled the founding.