Home » Posts tagged 'congressional committee hearings'
Tag Archives: congressional committee hearings
Ink Up for Gun Rights!- A reprint of my blog from August 2013
I’ve been noticing that there are some militant gun owners who’ve chosen to get tattoos of the Second Amendment. This curious trend made me want to research exactly what these people thought they were accomplishing by doing so. On it’s face, it appears that they believe that, having read one sentence out of The Constitution, their brilliant legal minds were instantly able to deduce that all one needs to know are these 27 simple words regarding gun rights. As is quite typical of those who perform these simplistic and reductive acts, they should have read juuuuust a little further along, since there’s quite a bit more to the story.
Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The “well-regulated militia” part is the subject of great debate, with some asserting that it limits the right to bear arms only to a militia. We will not address that issue here because it is, admittedly, vague. I will assume that this amendment gives everyone the same rights, militia or not.
The second part, which says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, is the part that appears to be quite black and white,(aka Tattoo-worthy) with some believing that it settles the argument about gun rights. That would be true until you remember that the Constitution is not limited to the Second Amendment. There’s a few other words in there as well…
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This amendment quite simply states that if the Constitution does not address an issue, then the states may do so. It is often ignored by those who are biased toward the Second Amendment, since it doesn’t serve their purposes. What a shocker.I guess it also doesn’t look as good scrawled across one’s back on a drawing that looks like aged parchment.
So, by simply reading just one more of the Amendments, we should understand why any state can pass laws to modify the Constitution, within the limits of the Tenth Amendment.
Below you will find the language of the State Constitutions of 8 states, which do, in fact, modify the Second Amendment to make it mean something quite different. This list is not comprehensive, only a sampling of the states that have chosen to modify the right to bear arms in their respective states.
I picked out these specific states because there are many, like Michigan and Alaska, among others, which do not modify the Second Amendment at all. In those states, there is no infringement whatsoever on your right to bear arms. In the states I’ve list below, however,(some will surprise you), there are quite specific, legal limitations on your right to bear arms.
On a side note, if anyone doubts the veracity of what is printed below, I got it directly from the NRA’s web site at http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx. We all know that the NRA would never lie, so we’ll use their data to make our point.
Florida: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.” (This basically says you can, unless we say you can’t).
Georgia: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.” (Same restrictions as Florida. Yes you can, unless we change our minds).
Kentucky: “All men are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … 7) the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.” (If they can regulate concealed weapons, they can regulate all weapons).
Missouri: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.” (Same as Kentucky).
Oklahoma: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.” (The legislature can regulate, which is basically saying that the legislature can “infringe”).
Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” (Once again, if that “regulation” lessens anyone’s right, then it is “infringement” and is apparently legal in Tennessee of all places).
Texas: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime” (Who would have thought that Texas can decide when you can or can’t “wear” your arms).
Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.” (Here they simply say that your rights will not be “infringed” but that the legislature gets to define just what “infringed” means).
.
Interpret this as you will, but there is not a lot of road between “regulating” and “infringing”. You can debate this all you like, but the fact that some states limit your Second Amendment rights, and have for quite some time, proves, via statutory as well as case law, that they can.
For this reason, if you don’t want to look like an imbecile, it would be advisable that you know what you’re doing before you put ink to skin.
Unless looking like an imbecile is just how you roll…
.
.
.
.
Repubs spend more money creating veterans than taking care of them
Interesting little tidbit in the news today:
The congressional committee investigating Benghazi, (yes, still), is asking for a budget of $3.3 million, whereas the committee investigating the deficiencies in the VA is only asking for $3 million. Not a very big deal, but it does make one wonder why is costs less money to investigate one of the largest government agencies on the face of the earth, responsible for the health care of millions of veterans, than it does to investigate what has turned out to be a simple, though tragic, attack on an American Embassy (and one of over 15 such attacks in the last 30 years).
Could it be that everyone in Congress knows that the VA is not under the President’s domain as much as it is under Congress’ watch (only Congress can appropriate funds for it) and that it is not controlled by the military (it has a separate cabinet-level administrator) and so does not come under the President’s direct control in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief?
Could it also be that they know that these problems are endemic to the VA and are the result of years of Congressional neglect, spanning the last 5 or 6 Presidents?
Well, who knows? The Repub controlled congress is spending more investigating this attack, not because it’s the first time an American got killed at a US embassy, but because Susan Rice didn’t say the exact words that they would have preferred on some Sunday morning talk shows.
Yet Veterans, (you know, the ones who used to be the “troops” that the Repubs used to admonish us to “support” during the Iraq deception, err, war), are not worthy of nearly as much attention as far as these decepticons are concerned. Apparently, once you’re no longer an active “troop”, (the correct word is soldier. A troop is a small cavalry unit, subordinate to a squadron) your importance to these ersatz patriots diminishes rapidly.
There is a genuine scandal in the way Veterans have been treated in this country for decades, but since the Repubs know they can’t really pin it on Obama or Hillary, they’ve just put it on the back burner for now, while they wait for some other windmills at which to tilt.
Presidents and Their Lies.
.
The latest ACA (Obamacare) controversy is over the fact that some are being forced to dump their non-conforming health insurance policies (AKA garbage policies) for those that comply with the minimum protections required by the ACA.
Some are saying that Barack Obama lied when he said, repeatedly, that any of us who like our current coverage could keep it. This may or may not be true. But for the purposes of this post, I’ll assume that it is.
Although it is possible that he was mistaken, I am willing to give in to Repub admonishments that Barack Obama lied in order to make the ACA more palatable for those among us who were on the fence. I’m willing to accept that Barack Obama may have blatantly and purposefully lied about the ACA to get it passed.
OK now, catch your breath; because I’m not going to let you Repubs celebrate this too much. There’s more to this, and I’m about to explain it to you. Let’s discuss when Presidents lie…
Richard Nixon lied about Watergate, which was an effort to steal information from the DNC (Democratic National Committee) for the purpose of ensuring Nixon’s victory in 1973.
Ronald Reagan claimed that he didn’t know that we were illegally selling arms to the Iranians (one of our premier enemies at the time, if you remember the Iranian hostage crisis that put Reagan into office) and then funneling the money to the Nicaraguan Contras to help them overthrow their dictator (which Congress had specifically forbidden).
His Vice President, George HW Bush, besides claiming to be “out of the loop” on the above Iran/Contra matter (an incredible statement, since he had been the head of the CIA in previous years and could not possibly have been unaware of it), also stated, without equivocation, during his campaign for President, when asked about the deficits that had been left by Reagan and the need for a tax increase, “Read my lips, no new taxes” and then went ahead and raised them anyway.
Even Bill Clinton, when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski”, turned out to have been lying.
Then of course, we have Cowboy Bush, son of HW, who told us, both by himself and through the shadow President, Dick Cheney, that Iraq had WMD when they didn’t, and he knew it. He also let millions of less-than-well-informed Repubs believe that Saddam had some hand in 9/11. He also allowed torture at Guantanamo when he knew that it was illegal. There are parts of the world where he and Cheney can never again travel, since there are warrants against them for war crimes.
Now we have Barack Obama, who may have lied about the ACA.
So, to recap, three Repubs, Nixon, Reagan, daddy Bush lied to avoid potential impeachment since they had performed blatantly illegal acts.
One additional Repub lied and thousands died because he wanted to get the Iraqi dictator who threatened his daddy, and apparently thought water boarding was jumping off a long, springy board into your backyard pool.
Then, the Democrat lied over, wait for it…oral sex, which had no effect on anyone and, although ill advised, hurt no one, other than his own family.
And now we come to the worst liar of all, Barack Obama, who LIED US INTO BETTER HEALTH CARE!
It’s true, folks. We are complaining that this guy might have lied about something that will make us all healthier. He might have lied to us to ensure that the deadbeats of the world who don’t carry health insurance then stiff the hospital when they have to go to the emergency room, forcing all of us to pay for their medical care, now have to hold up their end of the bargain! (That was what the Heritage Foundation, a Repub think tank, strongly recommended in the early 90s. It was also the main selling point of Romneycare in Massachusetts).
This miserable politician lied through his teeth to make sure that all Americans can now have the peace of mind that, if they get sick, they won’t lose their houses trying to pay the hospital bill. That people with serious illnesses won’t have to file bankruptcy when they can’t pay for treatment.
He lied so that a guy like me, late 50s and rather healthy, can save over $300 per month on his new policy under the ACA, (I am already signed up and start paying my lower premiums in January) for the EXACT SAME COVERAGE WITH A LOWER DEDUCTIBLE THAN I HAD BEFORE. It’s even through the same insurance company!
Yup, looks like that son-of-a-bitch really put one over on us…
I Hate Obamacare-Now Why Can’t I Have It?
As of today, the Repubs have outdone themselves in plumbing new depths of stupidity.
Since the ACA was first signed into law, they’ve been telling us how the American people are against it, don’t want it, want to repeal and replace it, etc, etc.
Now that it’s in place (albeit with some website problems) they’re bitching because so many people are having trouble signing up for it! In other words, so many Americans hate it that the web site is crashing under the strain of people trying to buy it!
The ACA is not a website. It is a way for Americans who are sick and can’t afford medicine to finally have a way to buy it. The website is just a portal into that idea. You can buy it by phone or by mail as well-you don’t need the website.
The web site will be fixed sooner or later and those millions upon millions of people who were just a little more patient will be walking taller, healthier and not worrying about going bankrupt when they get sick.
And to those who believe (or hope) that the frustration with the web site will doom the ACA, stop being so naive. Do you really think that the chance to see a doctor for someone who hasn’t done so for years isn’t enough incentive to go back to a website a few times? Are you serious?
And the problems with the web site simply prove its popularity. If Americans hated the ACA so much, they wouldn’t be trying to sign up en mass, and we wouldn’t even know that the site had problems, would we?
I don’t care if the web site is down for months. The net result of the ACA is healthier Americans. Only a Repub could be so cold, so anti-social and so selfish to be against that.
With these congressional hearings, we’re seeing Repubs complaining about the quality of the food in the restaurant, and then immediately getting mad because there’s such a long wait for a table!
We Don’t Want to Look Weak! So Let’s Kill Somebody!
When I hear the chants from members of both parties that doing nothing in Syria will make us look weak, I can’t help but wonder what country they’re talking about. We are in a conflict of one sort or the other virtually all the time-every two years at least.
I’m still on the fence regarding the complex issue of what to do with Syria. But anyone who suggests that the primary justification for killing people in a country most Americans can’t find on a map is to show our strength, is just manipulating our macho-man cowboy insecurities for their own political benefit. Ooooh, we don’t want to look weak, so let’s kill somebody!
One question to ask yourself is, since no other country is expected to intervene every time there is a conflict somewhere in the world, do those countries look weak? Do Russia, China, Britain, Germany, Spain, France, Portugal, India, Pakistan, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Peru et al appear to be weak because they don’t continually send troops and supplies around the world to support this or that dictator or militant group? How the hell can an entire country with the power and heft of the United States look weak just because they prefer to not kill people who’ve never hurt them?
If we are truly, as some are continually saying, the biggest, best, strongest country in the world, why do we have such an inferiority complex? Why do we have to be the bully who everyone is already afraid of, but constantly feel the need to beat someone up, just to remind them that we can?
Here is a list of wars and conflicts around the world that have involved the US in only the last 13 years. Read it and decide how weak we look to others around the world.
2000–2009
• 2000 – Nigeria. Special Forces troops are sent to Nigeria to lead a training mission in the county.
• 2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, US military personnel were deployed to Aden
• 2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).
• 2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, U.S. Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and “begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters.
• 2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaeda Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.
• 2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. “combat-equipped and combat support forces” have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines’ Armed Forces in enhancing their “counterterrorist capabilities
• 2002 – Côte d’Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d’Ivoire, U.S. military personnel went into Côte d’Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.
• 2003–2011 – War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being “to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States.
• 2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 U.S. Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania
• 2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. “US combat equipped and support forces” had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their “counterterrorist capabilities.
• 2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the U.S. Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH
• 2004 – War on Terrorism: U.S. military activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.
• 2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan
• 2005–06 – Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan .
• 2006 – Lebanon. U.S. Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit assists ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.
• 2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.
• 2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.
2010–present
• 2010-11 War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name “Operation Iraqi Freedom” would be replaced by “Operation New Dawn”. This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000.
• 2011 – Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces.
• 2011 – War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of Operation Neptune Spear.
• 2011 – Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia. This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.
• 2011 – Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda.
• 2012 – Jordan. 150 US troops deployed to Jordan to help it contain the Syrian Civil War within Syria’s borders.
• 2012 – Turkey. 400 troops and two batteries of Patriot missiles sent to Turkey to prevent any missile strikes from Syria.
• 2012 – Chad. 50 U.S. troops have deployed to the African country of Chad to help evacuate U.S. citizens and embassy personnel from the neighboring Central African Republic’s capital of Bangui in the face of rebel advances toward the city.
• 2013 – Mali. US forces assisted the French in Operation Serval with air refueling and transport aircraft.
• 2013 – Somalia. US Air Force planes supported the French in the Bulo Marer hostage rescue attempt.
Hero, traitor, meaningless self-aggrandizer
This week’s epic political scandal seems to have been born by Edward Snowden, the Booz-Allen employee who allegedly released secret information that our government was conducting erstwhile surveillance of US citizens. Some claim he is a hero, in the vein of a Julian Assange or a Bradley Manning. Others compare him to Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame. In some circles, he is a traitor and should get 20 years-in the electric chair. Or worse.
Snowden is neither hero nor heretic. He is nothing more than a publicity-seeking would-be political martyr, revealing what he surreptitiously stole before fleeing to, and get this, China, in protest of government surveillance of its citizens. Yup, he went to China to protest that.
(Commence thoughtful pause)
Snowden, having recently made that all too common passage from deserved obscurity to partial notoriety, isn’t the problem. He serves as a mere symptom of something we’d rather not face.
The problem is the presumption, driven by years of common-law based interpretations of the Constitution, that we have a right to privacy. In reality, however, nuh-uh. We don’t.
Any Constitutional lawyer can tell you that there is no affirmative right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution. This “right” is based, firstly, on the 9th amendment, which effectually says that just because a right isn’t actually listed in the Constitution does not mean that it doesn’t exist. This is known in legal circles as the Penumbra, or a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution. It also stems from Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers of the Constitution had created a framework for the greatest right of all: “the right to be left alone.” These sentiments are also found in the 3rd amendment, which guarantees against soldiers being quartered in your home against your will, and the 4th, which protects you from illegal search and seizure of persons, papers, houses and effects.
Irrespective how you read it, this ostensible right to privacy was not baked into the Constitutional cake, even though the Framers certainly understood the word and its implications. The word privacy does not exist in the document. It was left out as a specific article or amendment because, in my estimation, the Framers wanted to leave our privacy open for interpretation by the government. And so they did.
And so, as of today, here is the state of your right to privacy:
Facial recognition technology rivals the accuracy of fingerprints in its ability to distinguish one person from another. DNA can pinpoint not only your genetic identity, but that of your ancestors. Google knows everything you’ve searched for in the last 10 years, Amazon knows what you bought, and Apple knows where you’ve been and whom you’ve spoken to. All of this information is in the same form, stored in the same format-a series of ones and zeros, stored on electronic media. It can be mined, interpreted and acted upon by whoever has the juice to do so. That “juice” can be legal authority or financial heft. And they don’t even need to ask our permission, since we’ll never know that it’s been done.
Yes folks, it’s time to get over it. Whatever privacy you believe that you are currently in possession of is brought to you by your friendly neighborhood government, and it can be retrieved, in full, at the drop of a pressure cooker bomb.
This truth has special significance since Americans decided en mass, soon after 9/11, that their government was supposed to know what every terrorist was thinking, everywhere in the world, all the time, lest we lose any more of those really expensive buildings. Well folks, since terrorists don’t usually identify themselves for us, we have to mine what everyone is doing in order to separate the good guys and the bad. If you don’t know what you should be listening to, you must listen to everything and then sort it out later.
Anyone with a computer can search to see how so many faulted Barack Obama for the Boston Bombing, claiming that he was failing in his role as über protector of the weak. They also complained, quite loudly, about leaks regarding the Bin Laden killing and intelligence we had received about North Korea’s nuclear program.
Just last summer, near billionaire, Congressman and accused arsonist (he settled with the insurance company) Darrell Issa was threatening the Whitehouse with even more investigations into their supposed failures in not stopping leaks to the media of secret information. The Fox “news” reporter, James Rosen, was attempting to interview high level informants who feed us information from North Korea, putting the lives of these informants, as well as American military personnel, at risk, simply to further his career. Yet it is these same people who do Casablanca-esque Captain Renault impersonations when they hear that our government is investigating news personnel to find the sources of those leaks.
We expect our government to keep us safe from those who would harm us, yet god forbid if they also happen to find out anything about the rest of us. We expect the government to know who the “terrorists” are, as distinguished from the rest of us, yet no one has found a way to distinguish them from us. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Well friends, no one is born a terrorist-that tends to happen later in life. And you can’t tell who is becoming one unless you listen to everyone, not just those with funny last names.
As long as we remain terrified of our neighbors, immigrants and anyone who subscribes to a different religion than we, you can forget about privacy. You don’t have any, and you’ll have less tomorrow. Edward Snowden simply told us what we should have already known, if only we had been paying attention.
.
Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.
.
.
Liberal Media Bias and Lefty Universities
The other day I was listening to someone discussing the oft-mentioned liberal bias of the news media. I’ve been hearing about this most of my life, yet after having seen the way every news organization treated Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski scandal, as well as how they let George Bush get away with his cowboy tactics and mendacity, I must say that I’ve not usually agreed that it exists. I generally dismiss it as so much Republican-speak, used primarily as an escape tunnel into which they can dive when their policies turn out to be, shall we say, wrong. It’s always easier to blame the messenger than the message, n’est ce pas?
Fox “News” was ostensibly created to combat this imagined liberal takeover of the media and claimed to show less bias in its reporting. Let me know how that works out for ya’ folks.
I have also heard, again for most of my life, how American universities are considered hubs of liberalism, which is why some consider them a threat to conservative thought. (special mention in my next column to whoever finds the oxymoron in this paragraph).
While reflecting upon whether or not either of these assumptions is true, it struck me that, if either are, I’m not sure that I mind. To wit:
The news media at large are our eyes and ears to the things that happen every day as well as to the people and groups who make them happen. They see the things that go on in the world and report them to us. They see the people, experience the emotions and, at times, hear the lies that are told in order for some to keep their powerful positions in society. Although not all of them are perfectly honest in their reporting, they are, for the most part, to be trusted to tell us what is happening.
These are also the people who get close to the newsmakers. Politicians allow them into news conferences; provide them with direct statements, reveal secrets “off-the-record” and so on. The people of the news media, irrespective their personal biases, receive this information first-hand. They are, truly, the insiders.
And for some reason these people who are directly connected to the most powerful in our government, these guardians of new and developing information, tend to lean ever so slightly to port. Hold that thought while you continue reading…
Colleges, for the most part, are accused of this as well. As someone who has attended two colleges so far, I can’t say that it’s overwhelmingly true, but I will admit that many of my professors have been guilty of pulling more to the left than the right.
Colleges and Universities are the guardians of our collective empirics. They protect the old information: the history of society, the lessons of the greatest and worst among us. They collect and preserve yesterday’s news, the hard sciences, political data, military and law enforcement data, knowledge of medicine and psychology, physics and geology, art and music as well as literature.
In many of these institutions new research helps us to progress in medicine, climate sciences and other complex intellectual pursuits. They guard us, when we pay attention to them, from repeating history’s blunders. They are our intellectual grounding.
My aforementioned refection on this topic led me to the conclusion that when someone identifies both those who are daily on the threshold of new information, learning and knowledge, as well as the custodians of the immeasurably valuable cache of lessons we have learned over the centuries as liberal, I can only wonder why anyone would want to argue.
.
.
.
The Worst that Peggy Noonan can think of…
“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate” ((Peggy Noonan, referring to the IRS scandal (which has been fully admitted to and apologized for by those in charge of the IRS) in the Wall Street Journal, May 17th, 2013)).
Ms Noonan seems to have forgotten:
Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon with no penalties 1974-no apology.
Iran Contra-Selling arms to Iran in return for release of our hostages 1985-no admission or apology.
George H.W. Bush refusing to testify as to his knowledge of Iran Contra 1988-no admission or apology.
WTC Bombing on 9/11-no Congressional investigation-no admission or apology.
Lies about Iraq buying Yellowcake from Yemen 2003-no admission or apology.
Iraq WMD never found to this day-no admission or apology.
Scooter Libby and the Valerie Plame affair 2007-no admission or apology.
Lawyergate, where non-Republican lawyers are fired without cause 2007-no admission or apology.
Jack Abramoff bribery of gov’t officials 2008-no admission or apology.
When someone perpetually claims that whatever happens is always the worst of its type that has ever happened, one must assume that they have:
1. Recently emerged from the womb
2. Just awakened from an especially deep sleep
3. An IQ resembling the temperature at which water freezes.
.
.
.
Do What I Say, Not What I Do
Watergate started with an illegal break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters by people working for Richard Nixon and ended up being covered up by President Nixon. This was an actual, illegal act, for which people went to jail. These are indisputable facts as admitted to by Nixon, not during his administration, but years later in an interview with David Frost.
This is falsely being compared to the current Associated Press and Benghazi scandal because certain political groups are desperate to find some way to negate their shame over Watergate. There is absolutely no similarity between them.
The Iran Contra scandal started with the illegal sale of arms to our ostensible enemy, Iran, with the proceeds being used to illegally fund a war that the Congress had refused the President permission to fund, in Nicaragua. (The word Contra is what the rebels who we were supporting called themselves). Ronald Reagan, after repeatedly denying any knowledge, finally, under intense pressure, went on TV and still denied knowledge of it, but said that he takes “full responsibility for it”, yet never defined what “full responsibility” actually meant, since he never fired anyone, yet others under him went to jail. Years later, when asked about his role in this scandal, Vice President George HW Bush said he had been “out of the loop”. These facts are undisputed.
After the attacks on 9/11, George W Bush commented on more than one occasion that “no one could have foreseen the 9/11 attacks coming”, yet he was informed that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack the US from the air only 1 month before. He has never, to this day, accepted any responsibility for it. These facts are widely known and remain undisputed.
This is not even being mentioned by those feigning such outrage over Benghazi, since they don’t want anyone to notice the similarities with 9/11 and the fact that their outrage right after 9/11 was conspicuous by its absence.
In 2004, the IRS audited the NAACP after they had made some disparaging remarks about the George Bush record on race.
“We have received information that during your 2004 convention in Philadelphia, your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency,” the IRS wrote in an audit notice that the group released to the media at the time. Even the Bush administration never disputed these facts.
This is NOT being compared to the current IRS scandal because these same political interests are hoping that you don’t know it happened. There are lots of similarities between the two, yet no Republicans have chosen to discuss it. None of them are saying that “This is the worse IRS scandal since the one under the Republican’s watch in 2004”, since it was not widely publicized and they’d prefer that it wasn’t.
Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans after spending days in the Gulf of Mexico, heading right for that town. FEMA, the agency which exists solely for the purpose of defending us from natural disasters, (and has years of experience doing do) even with all this notice, failed miserably, causing the unnecessary death of hundreds of people of New Orleans.
This was compared to the Gulf Oil spill, which came without any warning and for which there was no government agency in place to deal with it, since it had never happened before, because certain political groups are desperate to find some way to negate their shame over Katrina. They were desperate to call it “Obama’s Katrina” simply because it happened in the same area of the country. They failed to realize that by calling it “Obama’s Katrina”, they were admitting what they had always denied, that Katrina was in fact a dismal Presidential failure, otherwise there’d be no reason to use the reference.
Republican Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, lied to his constituency about where he was when he went missing for 5 days, got caught, resigned from office in disgrace, yet was just elected a Congressman in his same home state of North Carolina. All is apparently forgiven, Republican Mark.
Democrat Anthony Weiner sends pictures of his covered penis to some women, was forced to resign and likely will never win in his current attempt to be Mayor of NY. No one wants anything to do with Democrat Anthony.
Republican David Vitter, Congressman from Louisiana, got caught with prostitutes, yet got re-elected to his seat just a year later. Hey, boys will be boys, right Republican Dave?
Democrat Eliot Spitzer does the same and is forced to resign from office. Democrat Eliot now works in TV News.
The only true, high level scandal that Republicans have been able to cobble together about Democrats after 1973 was Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal. That’s right, all they have been able to hang their respective hats on is when a Democrat lied about cheating on his wife, and they tried to hang him for it…and failed.
When a Democrat makes the slightest error, the Republicans always resurrect THEIR repeated scandals, illegal activities and bald-faced lies and try to say, “Hey, this is much, much, much worse than when we did it”, and yet, in all this time, they still haven’t found one that actually is.
The pattern here should be obvious. Republicans do the exact things of which they accuse Democrats, only more often and with more vigor, yet rely on the ignorance and forgetfulness of their constituency when they claim outrage over what Democrats do.
And their constituency never disappoints…
.
.
The Causation and Correlation of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi
.
.
Causation: The act or agency which causes an effect. Effect B was caused by Effect A.
Correlation: A relation existing between events or things not expected on the basis of chance. Effect B happened along with Effect A, but no proof exists that A caused B.
Causation: My wife left me because I was losing my hair, and now I can’t find a girlfriend.
Correlation: My wife left me right when I started losing my hair, and now I can’t find a girlfriend.
In March 2004, Condoleeza Rice refused to testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission). The White House claimed executive privilege under constitutional separation of powers and cited past tradition.
The Bush administration repeatedly stated that there had been no way to tell that we were going to be attacked on 9/11, even though others had testified to the existence of memos as early as a month before the attacks. One memo entitled, Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President’s Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday, August 6, 2001, while vacationing on his ranch in Crawford Texas. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.
There have been no Congressional Committee hearings as to what was known, what was said and who was responsible for knowing about and protecting us from these attacks. Neither Condoleeza Rice, our National Security Advisor, nor Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, were ever called to testify before Congress on these matters.
Here is a list of US embassy attacks around the world during the Bush Administration, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell.
Date Location Details Deaths
22 January 2002 Calcutta, India Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate 5
14 June 2002 Karachi, Pakistanal-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate 12
12 October 2002 Denpasar, Indonesia Consular Office bombed none
28 February 2003 Islamabad, Pakistan Unknown gunmen attack Embassy 2
30 June 2004 Tashkent, Uzbekistan Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy 2
6 December 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound 9
2 March 2006 Karachi, Pakistan Car bomb explodes outside Consulate 2
12 September 2006 Damascus, Syria Gunmen raid US Embassy 4
12 January 2007 Athens, Greece RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle none
18 March 2008 Sana’a, Yemen Mortar attack against US Embassy 2
9 July 2008 Istanbul, Turkey Armed attack against Consulate 6
17 September 2008 Sana’a, YemenTwo car bombs outside US embassy 16
Here is a list of attacks on American Embassies during the Obama Administration under Hillary Clinton
5 April 2010 Peshawar, Pakistan An attack near the U.S. Consulate kills two 8
11 September 2012 Cairo, Egypt, Benghazi, Libya, U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. 4
1 February 2013 Ankara, Turkey in the Turkish capital, Ankara, on Friday, 1
60 people died at American Embassies under George W Bush, 13 under Barack Obama. Yet this is the first time the Congress, under Republican Darrell Issa, has seen fit to determine that Hillary Clinton, widely believed to be a shoe-in for the 2016 Presidential Nomination, was a causative factor in these attacks, based on who said what on which day after the attacks.
Causation: Republicans have spent the last 5 years trying to discredit everything about the Obama Administration, and, based on continued failure, they cause the country to continue to waste its time and resources on witch hunts for actions of which they, themselves, are at minimum, equally guilty.
Correlation: There is no correlation between any of these attacks on the Obama Administration (The Birther Movement, accusations of Obama being a Muslim, a socialist, a Nazi, a communist, 40 separate congressional votes to repeal Obamacare, the latest of which will be next week, their discredited economic theories, all proven untrue by recent economic news and now his record on terrorism) and reality.
.
.
Gerald (Jerry) Zezas 