Playing Politics With Benghazi

Pretend, for a minute, that your spouse, son, daughter, or friend was
killed or injured at Benghazi...or maybe your loved one is stationed
at some other dangerous outpost for the State Department or for
the Armed Forces.

Now, you find out that...

Benghazi had been attacked at least twice in recent months, once
even blowing a hole in the wall of the compound...and Washington
knew that.

And, the British Ambassador had been attacked, and the British
had closed down for security reasons...and Washington knew
that.

And, the Libyan compounds were far below the standards for
safety set by the Accountability Review Board (ARB), convened
after the Nairobi bombing in 1998...and, Washington knew that.

And,  embassy officials had been asking for additional security...and,
Washington knew that, yet they CUT security, not increased it.

Further, on such an obviously dangerous date as 9/11, there was no
emergency backup security plan that could offer assistance for hours
and hours.

And THAT is the time you choose to send your Ambassador to a
sorely under-defended outpost to prepare for Secretary Clinton's
upcoming visit?

OK, to this point, the situation is that really bad decisions were
being made, and some really good people lost their lives, or had
their lives changed forever, because of those bad decisions.

But those bad decisions don't detract from the heroism of those
who fought for their lives in the heat of Benghazi.  In fact, those
bad decisions ACCENTUATED  how brave the ones who chose
to accept such conditions were.

Even in the midst of an obvious SNAFU, they chose to stand in,
face the danger of the situation, and do the jobs they were sent to
do. 

What does detract from their heroism is that when the situation
in Benghazi went bad, Department of State and Administration
officials doctored all of the above information so that it did not
come out, and instead blamed the attack on a reaction to a
video.

It was as if, suddenly, miraculously, no one could be blamed for
failing to anticipate a spontaneous demonstration by those peace
loving (if a little overly sensitive) Libyans.  It wasn't a terrorist
attack at all.  It was an over-reaction to an insensitive video made
in America.  What a gift from Allah!

Then they fought and fought again to keep the truth from coming out.

 In effect, they were deciding that their political ambitions and egos
were more important than revealing the truth about the causes of
Benghazi, the true danger our people were in, and the clueless
decisions that left those people unprotected.

To them, Benghazi was nothing more than a case of "bad things
happening to good people"...so sad that people were killed or injured,
but don't look too closely at how and why it happened...because the
facts make Washington look bad.

Eureka, ladies and gentlemen, we've arrived at THE classic textbook
example of playing politics and "politicizing" an issue!  We've reached
the mother lode of political obfuscation.

When Secretary Clinton asks "what difference does it make?", she
is in effect saying "They did their job, they fought and died, and it
really doesn't make any difference WHY they died".

We don't owe them the truth behind the sacrifices they made, if
the truth makes us look bad.  In effect, they are our expendable pawns.

And when President Obama calls the controversy a "sideshow"
and accuses those who are searching for the truth as merely
"politicizing the issue" (and some of them are playing politics),
he is ignoring the issue of who STARTED playing politics with
this issue.

More importantly, he is placing a dagger in the hearts of
the loved ones of those who died or were injured in Benghazi,
by refusing to acknowledge the true extent of how much their
loved ones willingly gave for the country.

As the head of an administration that happily took responsibility
for, and basked in the success of, the Bin Ladin operation,
President Obama should not appear to be hiding the administration's
failures in Benghazi.

One does not honor the sacrifice of warriors by hiding from the
consequences of the truth.

One does not console the bereaved, or honor a hero, if one does
not acknowledge the true extent of the danger they faced.

If you don't agree with me, ask yourself if you would feel
the same if we were talking about President Bush and Secretary
Powell, instead of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

I would.  Would you?       

Hawaiian Sky

On a recent trip to Kauai, I spent some time staring up at the
nighttime sky...peaceful, beautiful, vast, humbling.

Can anyone have the arrogance to "know!", "for sure!" there is
a God (or not)?  Can anyone presume to "know!", "for sure!" the
answers to eternal and unknowable questions?

And, if a person is not free to answer, for themselves, basic
questions regarding God, the purpose of life, the nature of
morality, etc., is there, truly, any freedom for individuals?

Isn't the current world conflict a titanic clash over the
perception of this basic human freedom of choice, values, and
rights?  A conflict between Theocracy and individual freedom?

I am neither Mormon nor Muslim, and I am certainly not an
expert on either religion, but it seems to me that their different
approaches to proselytizing are striking.



Mormons ask young believers to travel the world attempting to
persuade others to become believers.  They do not attempt to
gain political power to force their beliefs on others.  They
attempt to convert by demonstrating their personal commitment
and character.

Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I believe that most Muslims could
co-exist with, and have no problem with, the way that Mormons
attempt to recruit new members.

But within the Muslim faith, a significant number of militant
Islamists go much, much, further in recruitment.

They rightly criticize the sins of the Christian Crusaders of the
past, but the militant's goals and tactics mirror those of the
Crusaders they say they hate.

If your goal is to create a government Theocracy, or a
Caliphate, and your tactics are to kill or intimidate any and all
opposition, then you are not religious, you are dangerous...at
least to anyone who believes in human freedom.

You are using religion as a cover to attain political power and
crush all opposition, just like all other tyrants of the past.

A charismatic speaker can be very spellbinding, but if you are
a young person in Saudi Arabia, America, Yemen, or anywhere
else, think hard before you buy into such a program.


You are turning your life, your dreams, and your future over to
hateful people who will manipulate and sacrifice you to their
own political goals.

Religion can give purpose and meaning to your life, if you choose
to believe...and you are willing to allow others that same freedom
to choose.  It can destroy your life, if you are forced to believe,
or try to force others to believe.

Funny where the mind wanders when you're looking at peaceful,
beautiful, star-filled Hawaiian skies.


 

Another Lesson From the 2012 Election

OK.  So the first lesson was for working people to learn to limit the
access the Federal Government has to the cash in your pocketbook.

The second lesson would be to limit (or eliminate) the money the
Federal Government can collect and/or spend on programs that
are constitutionally the responsibilities of the state or local
governments.

Politicians love to piggy-back on spur-of-the-moment, hot button,
emotional issues they can use to gain votes, face-time on
television, and attention on the Internet.

The first question working Americans ask should be "Whose
responsibility should it be to fix the problem?".  Then, "Does the
Federal Government really need to collect taxes from everyone to
give back to the states to give to the local governments to solve
this problem?".

Why couldn't local governments raise the funds to fix this problem
if it were important to their constituents?  Collecting Federal taxes
to give to local governments seems to be designed only to make
the local governments financially dependent on the Feds and the
strings that come attached to the funds.

Take the Department of Education as an example.  I can see
using this department to do things that the states can't do for 
themselves.  National tests to measure achievement in basic
educational skills (reading, writing, math, science, and logic) seem
to be an impartial, proper way to compare state and local results
against others, so that parents and educators could measure their
results against others, and decide if improvements need to be made.

But I can't see using this department to set standards on everything
from school nutrition, to the curriculum, to anti-bullying policies, to
political correctness, to union issues, to anti-violence policies, etc.,
etc., etc.

I'm not trying to say that these aren't important issues.  I'm saying
that it is the local school districts who should be funding and deciding
these issues, not the Federal Government.

I feel the local citizens can decide these issues for themselves just as
well, or better, than the Republican Senior Senator from California can,
or the Democratic Representative from the State of Alabama can, or the
President of the United States can.

Lesson Number Two for the working person...stop giving money from
your pocket to the Feds to decide things that you can be, and
constitutionally should be, spending and deciding on your own.

I know.  I know.  You're busy, you've got a life to live, kids to take care
of, you don't have the technical training, yada, yada, yada.  They must
know better than you do what's the right thing to do.





True, some of them do know better than you.  But to the vast majority,
the right thing to do is for them to get re-elected.  They will say what
they have to say, they'll cave to the special interest groups, they will play
on your emotions, and they'll stick it to you if you let them.

Do not let national politicians game the system to take your money and use it
to gain power in areas where they don't belong.  Vote for those who are willing
to limit the ever-increasing takeover of local decisions by the Federal
Government.     
     

          

             

Some lessons from the 2012 Election

Almost everyone realizes that big money influences politics today.

Politicians need votes to get elected, and they need money to reach
out to the voters.

Special interest groups need access to politicians in order to push 
their private agendas onto the general public...and are more than
willing to offer money or bloc votes to gain that special access.

It can be a marriage made in Heaven, as it was when it helped
correct the days of child labor, unfettered pollution, and other
human, ethical, and environmental problems. 

It can be a marriage made in Hell, when it is used to prevent the 
correction of injustices, or when it continues to push further and
further beyond a solution of fairness and common sense on problems
that have already been solved.

The problem today is that most Federal politicians are so wedded
to the special interest money that they spend scant, if any, time
worrying about Constitutional limitations, State's rights, or individual
rights and liberties, or the fiscal impact of their promises.

Republicans and Democrats alike spend the majority of their time
raising campaign money by promising tax or regulatory breaks for
their favorite constituencies, while playing lip service to the
"middle-class American", who continues to get shafted.

The career Republicans and Democrats both know that their key to
remaining in power is to use the tax system as a tool to fund the
promises they make to their supporters, or as a method to threaten
their detractors.  They are virtuosos at playing the existing system to
their benefit.

But now, this system of tax increases and increasing exemptions
has expanded and expanded so much over so many years, it has
become bloated and unmanageable.  It is close to burying the nation
in debt.

Who pays for all this?  You do, if you work for a living.  The 
Federal  Government alone withholds income taxes, social security
taxes, and medicare taxes out of your pay stub, as well as
additional social security taxes from your employer for you.

And if they don't take enough money from you to pay for the 
promises they make, they'll go ahead and borrow the money, so
you, or your children, will be paying it back later.

You may think you're making out on this deal.  You're a union
member and you've got political friends who are covering for you.
Or, you're a Wall-Street banker, or, a farmer.  Maybe you're a
manufacturer, or a small businessman.  You might be interested
in protecting the environment.  You could be in the one percent,
or in the ninety nine percent, or in the middle-class.




If you're in any of these groups, or any other group, you may 
think the politicians are looking out for you.  True, they're giving
your group something.  They're also promising all the other
groups something...and they're taking all of it out of your pocket.

If you work for a living, your family is paying for the promises
they make.  It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000 a year or
$2,000,000 a year...you are paying for it.  You are the individual
working person, and you are paying for ALL the special interest
groups the politicians are favoring.

So, the first lesson learned is to start thinking of yourself as an
individual who is paying for all the special interest groups, and
start demanding that politicians justify how they are spending
your money and where it is going.

Use your influence to support candidates that promise to 
support a simpler tax plan with lower tax rates and fewer 
deductions.  My preference would be a plan similar to that
described in my "Tax Overview" and "Five Ten Begin Again"
posts.

With any plan, the general idea should be to simplify the tax
code and prevent politicians from using the code to reward
or penalize individuals and/or organizations, and to force
them (the politicians) to live within a budget, just like the rest
of us do.

Even if you think that tinkering with the tax code was justified
in the past, it has gotten so bloated and inefficient that it has to
be reset before we implode in the future.

If you work for a living, you're being played, one against another.
In order to distract you from asking why anyone who earns less
than $20,000 should pay any federal income tax, or why anyone
at all should pay almost a 40% tax rate, they have you arguing over
which rich guy should pay more than you or which special interest
group should get a special tax break.

The question should be "Why should politicians take so much 
money from my family, and give so much of it to other people?".
Even the Social Security Trust Fund is used as a piggy bank to fund
government spending through special issue treasury bonds at low
interest rates.

A simpler, fairer tax code at lower rates would help impose fiscal
discipline in Washington, would help discourage social tinkering and
political cronyism, and would help prevent politicians from using
the threat of tax consequences to extort political contributions and/or
to silence political opposition.   
   

        

   
    





  

   









   

 
    

Complex Problems

The original purpose of the Federal Government was to protect the 
rights of the individual from the over-reaching tyranny of an
all-powerful federal executive AND from the tyranny of an 
all-powerful majority vote.

That's why it was set up as a democratic republic and not set up
as a pure democracy.  That's why the Federal Government had its
powers limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  That's
why competing power centers were created to diffuse the central
accumulation of power.

The members of the House were elected by popular vote to represent
the people's will.

The Senators were appointed by state politicians to represent state's
rights in Washington.  The election of Senators has since been 
changed to popular vote, with the effect of lessening the influence
of state's rights in Washington.

The President was elected by Electors appointed by representatives
of the states, to carry out constitutional duties and to enforce proper
laws and regulations.  The Electors have since been chosen to 
represent the popular vote for President in the states.

Finally, the Supreme Court was created to adjudicate the 
Constitutionality of Federal laws and regulations.

Over the years, the increasing reliance on the popular vote has
increased the political importance of achieving majority vote and
decreasing the importance of state's rights or individual rights.  
The country has moved closer to a pure Democracy and further
from a Republic.

At first blush, most would think this shift has been a good thing,
but there's a darker side as well.  Power has been gradually 
shifting away from States and individuals to the centralized power
of the Federal government...the polar opposite of what the founders
intended.

To get elected in Washington, one has to deal with power centers
that are more concerned with the welfare of their members than
with the welfare of the Country, the individual States, or any
individuals outside of their membership.

Eisenhower once warned about the rising influence of the 
Military/Industrial Complex.  Today we've progressed to the
Federal Government Complex, the Banking, the Public
Union, and the Environmental Complexes, as well as the 
Healthcare and Welfare Complexes...and who knows how many
more?

There used to be many competing car companies and banks.  Now,
maybe two or three US car companies, and maybe five or six giant
banks, all becoming bigger and bigger until they become "too big to
fail"...protected by the federal government and feeding off taxes paid
by working American citizens.

Millions of Americans wonder "how we ever got in this mess"?  
Others wonder "how we're ever going to get out of this mess?'.  It
started with the well-intentioned shift towards centralized Federal
control.

Some suggestions for getting out of this mess will follow.

  

                 





                    

Strange New World

One day, in a school yard, a little boy and a little girl got angry at each
other.  She called him a "booger".  He called her a "double slimy booger".
They argued.

A teacher came to break up the disagreement, and wondered "how do I
best turn this difficult situation into a teachable moment, so the children
will learn, and no-one will suffer irreparable damage"?

A child psychologist postulated that, in order to avoid self-esteem issues,
children should not call each other names.

Then, the same situation happens at two other schools.  A TV station
picks up the story and starts referring to it as a "booger epidemic".

And, in a completely unrelated incident, the Child Suffrage Movement
succeeds in its hard fought efforts to lower the voting requirement to
five years of age...in order to ensure that the rights of children are
protected in the political system.

And, Washington politicians do become involved in the "booger
epidemic," with Congress identifying children as a protected class,
and identifying "booger" as hate speech under its new "Snot Crimes"
legislation.

Not to be outdone, the President notes that studies have found it
unfair that some children have more Kleenex than others, and
proposes new taxes to invest in a "Kleenex Redistribution Bill,"
as a part of a social justice agenda.

And then, I woke up.  It was all a bad dream.  We still teach our
children about "sticks and stones".  Our children still learn to be
tough enough to stand up to bullies and others who don't like them,
or attempt to intimidate them.

We don't really attempt to limit free speech with politically correct
speech.  We don't really try to over-legislate to score political points
with lobbyists or special interest groups.

Our children know that there will always be someone who dislikes
them because they have too much, or too little, or look too good, or
too bad, or are the wrong religion, or the wrong color, or are too smart,
or too stupid, and on, and on.

We have taught our children not to expect a perfect world, but to stand
up and deal with an imperfect world, and make the best of it, all with
minimum help from the Feds. 

They can "man-up" on their own.  Sorry...that should be "child-up" on their
own.  I don't want to offend gender or age demographics.
'
    

  

                     

 

A Cynical Trip Over the Fiscal Cliff

I wish I was a better man.  I try to look on the good side of human nature.
I do believe that most people will try to do the right thing, given a chance.

So why do I have this nagging suspicion that all the talk during the 2012
election, and after, regarding the fiscal cliff has been an elaborate dance...a
political gavotte, mesmerizing the  public and pundits, setting the stage
for a political kabuki play.

President Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, all appear to be
aghast at the tragic consequences for our country if we go over the "cliff".
All parties are jockeying for position to blame the pending tragedy on
the other side.  No-one wants to admit that they might be the cause
of such an unthinkable event.

But, what would happen if (or when) we do go over the fiscal cliff?

First, the Bush tax cuts would expire, and taxes would go up dramatically
on ALL Americans, not just the top 2%.  In addition, drastic spending
cuts would be SLATED to occur.  The Apocalypse has begun!

Then, President Obama and the Democrats will blame the Republicans.  The
Republicans will blame the Democrats.   Independents will blame all politicians.
Same old, same old...and their true believers will will continue to follow their
lead.

Who gains?  Now, BOTH Democrats and Republicans will have all that extra
tax money to spend.  They can blame each other for their good fortune.

And God knows, it's important to the Republic that we avoid letting those
drastic spending cuts destroy the country.  Republicans can save the defense
budget, etc., etc.  Democrats can save entitlements, etc., etc.  Magically, the
money has arrived in the nick of time.

The rate of growth of the debt has slowed a little, but the debt has not been
reduced.  The red ink continues to flow.

So, in the end, Big Government gets the money and the taxpayer (and the
private economy) get the shaft.

The politicians even get to pretend to be statesmen, doing what needs to be
done to save life as we know it.

I know.  I know.  I feel guilty.  A guy that could come up with such a
devious scenario  involving such treacherous politicians must have had a
terrible childhood.  Washington can't really be that bad, can it?

Let's hope not.  I'm sure they'll do the right thing.