Our Free Press embraced the George Washington Bridge Scandal to ignore Robert Gates’ Autobiography
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Wendell Phillips. To name a few. John Philpot Curran may have said it first when he said, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
This is why the Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment. And freedom of the press. Which exercises that eternal vigilance. To safeguard democracy. By keeping government transparent. And making it difficult for government to hide things from the American people. Especially when those in power use their positions of power for self interest. Instead of the public’s interest.
So this is the free press as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Is it still that noble institution? Well, you be the judge. Recently Robert Gates just published a tell-all memoir putting the Obama administration in a very poor light. Saying things like Vice President Joe Biden has been wrong on every important foreign policy issue. That senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the surge in Iraq for political reasons. What was best for them. Not their country. And that as much as Candidate Obama said Iraq was the wrong war while Afghanistan was the right war he never believed in the war in Afghanistan. He didn’t have any interest in winning. Only in getting out. Big news. But now you don’t hear anything about it because someone in Chris Christie’s administration caused gridlock on the roads leading to the George Washington Bridge.
President Obama sacrificed the Americans in Benghazi for the sake of a Campaign Message
The George Washington Bridge scandal has gripped the media. It’s all they can talk about. Unlike those ‘phony scandals’ president Obama complained about that the Republicans were creating out of nothing. Like the ATF Fast and Furious scandal. Gunwalking to put thousands of weapons on the street. So the Obama administration could pick them up after they were used in a crime and say, “See? We need to pass new gun control legislation.” In Fast and Furious that meant new controls for multiple rifle sales or long guns. As explained in Demand Letter 3. One of these guns killed a U.S. border agent. And countless people in Mexico. But that was a phony scandal. Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.
The Solyndra scandal funneled money to a maker of solar arrays that was bleeding money. To delay the bankruptcy until after the 2010 midterm elections the Obama administration promised the largest private investor—and Obama donor—to restructure the loan. To put him above the taxpayers in any bankruptcy filing. In violation of Section 1702(d)(3) of Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Obama administration did. And the taxpayers’ ate the private investor’s loss. But that was a phony scandal. Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.
With the death of Osama bin Laden President Obama said al Qaeda was reeling. On the ropes. On the path to being no more. And he was going to ride this foreign policy achievement into the 2012 presidential election. Which is why when Ambassador Stevens requested additional security at the Benghazi mission the Obama administration denied his request. For how would it look if they were beefing up security in the country they just liberated when the threat from al Qaeda was receding? The problem was that al Qaeda was resurgent in Libya. It was so dangerous the British pulled out completely after an attack on their people. But President Obama sacrificed the Americans in Benghazi for the sake of a campaign message. And after four Americans died President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice blamed their deaths on a spontaneous protest that turned deadly due to an obscure anti-Muslim video no one had heard of in Benghazi. A spontaneous protest where people had rocket propelled grenades. And mortars that were pre-sighted on their targets. Things few people normally carry on them. The administration lied and they stonewalled Congress over Benghazi. Hiding the truth. Of how politics trumped the lives of four Americans. But that was a phony scandal. Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.
Our Free Press is NOT exercising that Eternal Vigilance that safeguards Democracy
CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson was one of the few in the media to investigate the Obama administration. Breaking stories on Fast and Furious. And Benghazi. Someone hacked into her computer in late 2012. Someone sophisticated who was searching for something on her computer. And knew how to cover their electronic tracks. Well, almost. The Obama Justice Department denied any involvement. But they did spy on reporters at the Associated Press. And Fox News journalist James Rosen. Attorney General Eric Holder even personally signed an affidavit naming him a potential criminal for doing his job. And then lied under oath when asked in Congress. Saying he didn’t get involved with the prosecution of journalists for doing their jobs. Even though he had. But these were phony scandals. Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.
And then there was the IRS scandal. Which targeted enemies of the Obama administration. Holding up tax-exempt status for Tea Party groups. Hindering their ability to fund raise and exercise their free speech during the 2012 presidential election. And conservative donors faced punitive IRS audits. Dissuading others from donating. Further hindering fund raising and free speech. The Obama administration said that those responsible were low-office holders in the Cincinnati office. But when the head of the tax exempt division, Lois Lerner, appeared before Congress she pleaded the Fifth Amendment. For the paper trail led to her. And possibly into the White House. For she was an active Democrat supporter. And wasn’t above breaking the law to help her party. Such as violating Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. Forbidding her to disclose income tax return information to anyone. Even another governmental agency. Which she did. And now we learn that the Justice Department lead investigator for the IRS scandal is a Democrat donor. But the IRS scandal was a phony scandal. Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.
Of all of these scandals which one are you most familiar with? Probably the George Washington Bridge scandal. Because our free press is NOT exercising that eternal vigilance that safeguards democracy. They have become an extension of the Democrat Party. Putting politics above the wellbeing of the people. Helping the Democrats to advance their agenda. While hiding their scandals. To destroy what the Founding Fathers gave us. Liberty. And expand one-party rule. Putting us on the road to servitude. Just as John Philpot Curran warned.
Tags: Al Qaeda, Ambassador Stevens, Associated Press, Barack Obama, Benghazi, democracy, Democrat Party, eternal vigilance, Fast and Furious, Founding Fathers, free press, free speech, George Washington Bridge, Hillary Clinton, IRS, James Rosen, liberty, Obama, Obama administration, President Obama, Robert Gates, safeguard democracy, scandal, servitude, Sharyl Attkisson, Solyndra, The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
Week in Review
Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security as the safety of Westerners in Benghazi was tenuous. The British had already left after an attempt on their ambassador’s life. But Secretary Clinton denied Ambassador Stevens’ request. For it didn’t look good politically.
All during the 2012 campaign the Democrats repeated over and over how Osama bin Laden was dead. And General Motors was alive. Not only that al Qaeda was on the ropes. Because President Obama defeated them. Making them an empty shell of what they were when President Bush was president. This is why we needed to reelect President Obama. Because only he could defeat al Qaeda. And did. After winning the War on Terror it just wouldn’t look good to be beefing up security to defend against a resurgent al Qaeda. Because that would go against the narrative that President Obama defeated al Qaeda. So Ambassador Stevens and the Americans in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves so they wouldn’t reflect adversely on the president’s reelection campaign. And then came 9/11/2012.
Four Americans died so as not to be a political inconvenience to President Obama. And Secretary Clinton let that happen. For their safety was her responsibility. And it was no secret that Benghazi was not a safe place. Which is why the British left. When Secretary Clinton finally appeared before Congress to explain how four Americans died under her watch she got indignant and simply yelled “what difference does it make” to their questions. Refusing to answer them. Angry and annoyed that these Republicans even dared to ask her these questions. Why wasn’t security beefed up? Why didn’t we send help when they were under attack? Why did she lie about it being a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video? Who edited the talking points given to Ambassador Rice? She did not like these questions. And she made her resentment clear. Funny when the shoe is on the other foot (see Documents show Bill Clinton’s close dealings with Richard Nixon on Russia, foreign affairs by Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press, posted 2/13/2013 on The Vancouver Sun).
Richard Nixon, in the final months of his life, quietly advised President Bill Clinton on navigating the post-Cold War world, even offering to serve as a conduit for messages to Russian President Boris Yeltsin and other government officials, newly declassified documents show.
Memos and other records show Nixon’s behind-the-scenes relations with the Clinton White House. The documents are part of an exhibit opening Friday at the Nixon Presidential Library, marking the centennial of his birth.
Clinton has talked often of his gratitude to Nixon for his advice on foreign affairs, particularly Russia. In a video that will be part of the exhibit, Clinton recalls receiving a letter from the 37th president shortly before his death on April 22, 1994, at a time when Clinton was assessing U.S. relations “in a world growing ever more interdependent and yet ungovernable.”
What really makes this remarkable and relevant to Hillary Clinton is this.
Clinton in his younger days was no fan of Nixon — as a college student in the 1960s, he opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. And his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a young lawyer advising a House committee when she helped draw up impeachment papers against Nixon.
Hillary Clinton helped draw up the impeachment papers against President Nixon which led to his resignation. For Watergate. Which amounted to a burglary. And some wire-tapping. There was no loss of life. President Nixon’s crime, the cover-up, didn’t kill four Americans. Yet Hillary Clinton helped to destroy President Nixon. Even though he was a good president when it came to foreign policy. At least, according to Hillary Clinton’s husband. President Clinton. But when she’s on the hot seat she responds with righteous indignation. Even though her actions, or her lack of action, caused the death of four Americans.
So what can we learn from this? President Nixon was a good president that put his country first. Even helping the man whose wife destroyed his career. President Clinton was not as good a president as President Nixon was. And Hilary Clinton ruined a good president who didn’t do anything as bad as she did. Allowing four Americans to die on her watch. Because she put politics first. Instead of her country. Just as she did when she helped to destroy President Nixon.
Tags: Al Qaeda, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, impeachment papers, politics, President Clinton, President Nixon, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Watergate
President Obama’s Idea of Compromise and Bipartisanship is Unconditional Surrender
President Obama’s State of the Union Address was a little light on details. But the general gist is no spending cuts. And more taxes. Which makes the sequestration about to hit a crisis in the making for the president. For it was sort of his idea. And he did sign it into law. But to him it was more like playing a game of chicken. Confident that the Republicans would cave and roll over. Giving him whatever additional tax increases he wanted to prevent cuts in defense spending. But the Republicans aren’t blinking. Because this is the only way they’re going to get any spending cuts. Even if it means gutting defense spending. Something the president didn’t consider.
Despite being an architect of the sequestration he called it a stupid idea during the State of the Union. He doesn’t care about the cuts in defense spending. He is, after all, a leftist liberal. And they hate defense spending. He even denied Ambassador Stevens’ request to beef up security in Benghazi. Which led to Ambassador Stevens’ death. Along with three other Americans. But it’s the equal cuts in things he does care about that has him worried. That social spending. The kinds of things that buy votes. And makes people dependent on government. Helping to endear the Democrat Party to the American people. While making them hate the Republican Party. Who want to take away the great things the Democrats so generously give them. Even if the government can’t afford to give these things to the American people.
President Obama may talk about compromise and bipartisanship but he doesn’t mean it. His idea of bipartisanship is unconditional surrender. He has no interest in meeting Republicans halfway. He wants to destroy the Republican Party. And undo the Reagan Revolution. And bring back the Big Government of the Sixties and Seventies. When the Democrats ruled supreme. And you do that with spending money. Not cutting spending. Which is why the sequestration bothers him so much.
Running Deficits is OK if it provides for Senior Citizens, Our Children and Clean Stuff
Leading Democrats are saying we don’t have a spending problem. We’re just not paying enough for the stuff we want. Which also happens to be the stuff that buys votes. So the excess spending to buy votes is not the problem. The problem is that we’re not raising taxes enough to pay for this orgy of spending that is the problem. We’re not taxing rich people enough. Or corporations. And once we do then we won’t be taxing the middle class enough. And once we do that it probably won’t matter what we do as the country will be so deep in debt that no amount of new taxes will help. Unless they figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of a person’s earnings.
So low tax revenue is the problem. Well, that, and spending money on the wrong things. On things that don’t buy votes. Things that weren’t on the laundry list President Obama rattled off during the State of the Union that we need to spend more on. Defense spending. And…, well, defense spending. Which is the only thing the Obama administration is willing to consider cutting. Because we can get a lot of free things by gutting defense. New programs that won’t add a single dime to the deficit. Something he said more than once during the state of the union. Obamacare, for example, will be deficit neutral. Because the money we were going to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will pay for it. So even though the spending will still add to the deficit it’s now Obamacare spending. Not defense spending. Which is OK.
You see, running deficits is OK if it provides for senior citizens. Our children. If it gives us clean water. And air. Invests in clean energy. And in those jobs of the future. If it builds roads and bridges. For less face it, we would be nothing without our government-provided roads and bridges. Which we simply could not have it if it weren’t for government. (Then again railroads build and maintain their own roads and bridges. With funds they earn operating their railroads. But I digress.) In fact, any deficit reduction that comes from cutting this spending is just about the worst thing in the world we could do. According to those on the left. So we should tax rich people and corporations more. And cut defense spending more. Because we spend way too much on defense spending anyway. And for what? It’s not like we’re going to use it for anything. Such as protecting our ambassadors in hostile lands.
Defense Spending is the only Spending growing at a Rate less than Total Federal Outlays
If you listened to the State of the Union (and didn’t fall asleep during it) you’ve learned that we don’t spend enough on our social spending. And too much on defense spending. That’s what the president said. But what do the numbers say? To find out let’s look at federal outlays (see Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2017). The following chart graphs the historical data from 1958 to 2011 and the projection for 2012. We look at 4 areas of spending: defense; education, training, employment and social services; Medicare; and Social Security. We calculate the spending as a percentage of total spending and graph the results.
The one area we spend too much on that the Obama administration is willing to cut is the one area that has seen the greatest decline in spending. Defense spending. Which as a percentage of total outlays has fallen while non-defense has trended up or held steady. This tells us the government has pulled money from defense to pay for these other things. But this chart doesn’t tell the whole story. For although Medicare and Social Security have trended up they haven’t taken as big a piece of total spending as defense gave up. And education spending has been pretty flat. Perhaps giving credence to President Obama’s claim that we’re not spending enough on education. But if you look at the year-to-year growth in spending you see a different picture.
Here we divide each year’s spending by the spending in 1958 (or 1966 for Medicare). Showing the increase in spending over time. This chart also includes total federal outlays. Which tells a startling story. Not only is defense spending being gutted to pay for other spending it is the only spending growing less than the growth rate of total federal spending. While the other three areas are growing at greater rates. In 2011 Social Security spending was 8,892% of the spending in 1958. Medicare, which came into existence in 1965, grew at an even greater rate. In 2011 it was 17,673% of the spending in 1966. More than twice the growth in less time. And education spending tracked pretty close to Medicare spending. In 2011 it was 15,744% of the spending in 1958. While defense spending in 2011 was only 1,509% of the spending in 1958.
Note that the general trend of increased spending holds regardless of who is in power. That’s because of baseline budgeting. Which provides for automatic increases in spending. When government talks about spending cuts it not really spending cuts. It a cut in the rate spending increases. You can see some dips in the graphs and where they may have cut the rate of growth. But nowhere is there really a cut that results in reducing net spending. Except for defense.
Increases in spending on education (and training, employment and social services) has grown at a rate greater than most other spending. And what can we learn by throwing money at education? Well, based on the president’s remarks, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t increase the quality of education. At least based on the great increases year after year that only give us the need to spend more money. And this spending doesn’t even include the bulk of education spending. That generated from property taxes. Which can mean only one thing. If we’re paying more and need to spend even more the quality of education is not as good as it should be. Or all that money is going to teachers’ salaries, pensions and health care benefits.
Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays. While increases in the other spending is going off the chart. With the slopes of these graphs getting ever steeper. And the closer they get to vertical the more impossible it will be able to pay for these programs. That’s why Medicare is near crisis mode. With the cost of our aging population pushing that graph closer and closer to vertical. Where our spending obligations will approach infinity. Which is, of course, impossible to sustain.
Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays. While increases in the other spending is going off the chart. Contrary to what the president said we are increasing spending in these areas so much that we won’t be able to sustain it. For there just won’t be enough money to tax away from the people. Unless we figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of their earnings.
Tags: Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, bipartisanship, compromise, defense spending, deficit, Democrats, education, federal outlays, federal spending, Medicare, Obamacare, President Obama, Republican Party, Republicans, roads and bridges, sequestration, Social Security, social spending, spending cuts, spending problem, State of the Union, tax revenue, taxes, total federal outlays, unconditional surrender