Street Light Truth

AM:  Contrary to Democrat claims and even the New York Times Editorial Board position of “nothing new here,” yesterday’s Benghazi hearing revealed a lot.

IM:  I agree.  It demonstrated what I call street light truth, where the one who controls the streetlight, controls what is illuminated (even by the very objective, by their standards, New York Times).  Yesterday, there was a tug-of-war for control of the street light.  Republicans tried to shine light on how the Benghazi narrative was developed and Democrats tried to move the light to trivial or unrelated matters; but, worse, Democrats accused Republicans of political smear. 

Old Gadfly:  What made the greatest impression on you?

AM:  Evidence of deception and obfuscation.  In the run up to the Presidential election, many of us suspected the “video claim” was a deliberate deception.

IM:  At the time, I thought American leadership was being somewhat duplicitous by impugning freedom of speech if there really was such a video.  And our government even “tracked down” the video creator, arrested him, and sent him to prison.  The word, “fraud,” seems to have been the central reason for the conviction.

Old Gadfly:  Ironic isn’t it?  Fraud means deceit or trickery for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.  I watched the hearing and what Republicans revealed was a clear case of fraud for political gain.

AM:  Remember, this attack occurred not only on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, but within weeks of a Presidential election.  Obama’s campaign slogan was:  “GM alive, bin Laden dead, al Qaeda on the run.”

IM:  Within 72 hours of Obama’s second-term inauguration, Hillary testified before a Senate Committee.  During this testimony, she still defended the video narrative.  When she said, “What difference will it make,” I got a chill up my spine (no, not down my leg) that Hillary was actually being transparent—Obama won the election, after all, so let’s press forward. 

Even Harry Reid was finally transparent in admitting he lied on the Senate floor to defeat Romney. 

AM:  This was further evidence, in my mind, that the current cohort of Democrats truly believe in a win-lose strategy.  They subscribe to any means to achieve this end.  And if they can’t win, then both must lose.

Old Gadfly:  This dynamic explains to a certain extent the circumstances in Iraq—Bush had bipartisan support before going into Iraq; yet when it was reported that Bush had nearly 90% approval ratings for doing this, I anticipated Democrats would recognize the balance of political capital would favor Republicans.  Sure enough, Democrats and a complicit media forced Bush into a two-front war against foreign-born insurgents in Iraq and an opposing political party in America. By the way, the Democrat victory in this case is still providing fraudulent ammunition for today’s political contest.  But we’ll save this for a future discussion.

AM:  Wow, the street light is illuminating some serious corruption in American politics.  This brings me to the second impression the hearing made on me:  obfuscation.  Congressman Cummings was the lead pit bull in this effort.  He worked very hard to defend Hillary while viciously attacking committee Republicans.  Cummings and other Democrats kept complaining that the seven previous hearings found nothing, had consumed 18 months and nearly $5 million in taxpayer funding; Chairman Gowdy asked where were the Democrat complaints when it was revealed the Administration had invested $50 million to train four or five Syrian rebels.  Chairman Gowdy’s point was right on target, except the amount was $500 million, not $50 million.  The obfuscation by Democrats was to shift the light on Hillary strengths and successes.  But, if you were to listen to a progressive news analyst like Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News, you see more evidence of street light truth by criticizing the waste of $500 million and then linking that criticism not to Obama but by suggesting none of the current Republican Presidential candidates should be taken seriously.  See the pathetic analysis here.

IM:  You would think Congressman Cummings would keep a lower profile.

Old Gadfly:  Why?

IM:  While mainstream media is reluctant to shine a light on it, Cummings has fingerprints on the IRS scandal (for example, see here, here, and here).   Cummings and his staff were involved in clear attempts (and an unconstitutional abuse of power) to silence political opposition.

AM:  Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in this discussion?

Old Gadfly:  Shine a light on it.

AM:  Think “cover up.”

Old Gadfly:  You’re teasing us.

AM:  How many Americans died during the Watergate incident?

IM:  None.

AM:  At Benghazi?

IM:  Four.

AM:  That’s correct.  What was the motivation for the Watergate break-in (the Democratic Committee National Headquarters)?

IM:  It involved breaking and entering in an attempt to discover democrat strategy.

AM:  Correct.  But it was the “cover up” that generated the greatest interest and outrage. 

IM:  So who is the gorilla?

AM:  Hillary Rodham as a recent Yale law school graduate and staff member of the House Judiciary Committee doing legal groundwork to impeach Nixon.  While there are conflicting recollections (for example, see here and here) between some key members of the staff, two facts are undisputed:  Hillary wrote a memorandum that declared Nixon had no legal right to counsel during an impeachment process, and she collaborated in concealing evidence (in other words, made arrangements to prevent public access to relevant legal documents).  The concealed evidence in this case established a precedent in terms of the right to counsel in a previous impeachment proceeding involving US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.  Let me repeat, Hillary and others concealed it. 

IM:  Of course, Hillary was also intimately aware of the legal maneuvering involved an impeachment attempt against her own husband when he was President.

AM:  And look how they trashed those who brought scrutiny to Bill Clinton—not just Monica Lewinsky, but Paula Jones, and others who were sexual assault victims.  My good friend and former professional colleague, Buzz Patterson, a former military aid to President Bill Clinton, had the courage to present first-hand testimony about the Clinton’s abuse of power and varied corrupt behaviors in his book, Dereliction of Duty.  Buzz made a special point that there was a plastic box of files that never left Hillary’s presence.  Hmmmmmm . . . do you think they might have included files of evidence in the Whitewater case?  After all, a constant refrain from the Clintons when asked about wrongdoing in Whitewater was not that they were innocent of any wrongdoing; the response was “there is no evidence.”  So, is there any surprise that Hillary made sure there was no evidence of any wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State?

Old Gadfly:  Notice, none of the Benghazi hearings inquired about what the American presence at Benghazi was all about.  We, however, have discussed this in previous discussions (see here, here, and here) about CIA gun running for Syrian rebels.  Was this legal?  Now we know the Syrian rebel force consists of a formidable force of four to five men.  But where have all the arms gone?  How did the Jordanian fighter pilot get shot down?  Where did that missile come from?  But I digress.

AM:  Wouldn’t honesty be refreshing?

Old Gadfly:  The progressives sadly believe, as did Jack Nicholson in the movie, “A Few Good Men,” “you can’t handle the truth.”  Even after this latest Benghazi hearing, Hillary still has 53% of the vote in Iowa.  That is a large segment of our population that is truly drunk, looking for truth under the street light controlled by progressives.

Women in Combat Units

AM:  Gadfly, while we were discussing the mugging that took place two days ago, I noticed you had received an article on women in combat jobs.

Old Gadfly:  The article was penned by a professional colleague of mine who has dealt with security policy issues at the national and international level.  Besides being a Marine fighter pilot, he also has a master’s degree from Princeton and a Ph.D. from Columbia.  Here is what he wrote (published here with permission):

Ray Mabus, current SecNav, has “made it clear he opposes the proposal from [Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford] and has recommended that women be allowed to compete for any Navy or Marine Corps combat jobs” (Lolita C. Baldor, WashPost.com, September 19, 2015). This was predictable and there is no practical value of railing against his decision. There is, however, a sound alternative to integrating women into mixed combat units.

We should form all-female combat units. The SecNav and others claim that women who meet standards are equal to the men who meet the same standards. Based on this assertion, the combat efficiency of an all-female unit should be equal to any all-male unit and any argument to the contrary would weaken their opening assumptions.

There are some very serious reasons for doing this:

• There is an inherent protectiveness on the part of most men toward women and this could get men killed if they treat a female comrade any differently than they would a male comrade. While the frequency would be hard to predict, it is certain that this would happen at least occasionally in integrated units.
• It is impossible in any mixed organization for attractions not to emerge between men and women and the bonding (especially if it is sexual) will be different than male-male bonding (unless this too is sexual). In addition, sexual harassment, while regrettable and criminal is pervasive in all of our society and will not be different in integrated units.
• There is an inherent intimacy that is associated with the normal elimination of bodily waste. Men have a preference for privacy relative to other men and this is much more important for men in the presence of women and women in the presence of men. In live combat, privacy is near impossible.

Each of the above seriously impacts unit cohesion and unit effectiveness and all-female units are seen as the best way of addressing these concerns.

Over time, opportunities for promotion for women in combat arms would be available and increase proportionally as the number and size of all-female units increased. Further, female commanders certainly could be considered for command of company level and larger units comprised of all male platoons or a combination of male and female platoons so there would be no discrimination in the opportunities for promotion.

           John R. Powers

Colonel   USMCR (ret.)

jrpowers@us.net

            IM:  Colonel Powers offered a logical set of arguments.  Why is the Secretary of the Navy so compelled to go against empirical studies and the advice of the former Marine Commandant, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

            AM:  Obviously for political reasons.  Women are an important “instrument” in politics.  Small battles such as this reinforce the image that one political faction is committed to protecting against another faction and its “war on women.”  In this case, the political faction accumulates political capital and our overall capacity to fight and win actual wars is diminished.

            Old Gadfly:  Yet, Colonel Powers advanced a well-reasoned solution that would protect a woman’s presumed right to serve in combat.  Further, his solution would be a win-win for both political factions.

            IM:  Win-win means compromise.  However, my recent experience reveals a win-lose or lose-lose perspective from the left.  They will not tolerate the other political faction accumulating any political capital.  They want it all and will resort to any means (think Saul Alinsky) to get it.  Generating discontent, then amplifying mass agitation justifies the need to organize for political unity.  Similar behavior resulted in disastrous totalitarian regimes today (e.g., North Korea) and during recent times in history.

            AM:  Sad.  Very sad.   

Another Mugging

AM:  America got mugged last night.

Old Gadfly:  Are you referring to a funding bill that includes Planned Parenthood?

AM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  Explain.

 

AM:  Democrats said to Republicans, give us the money or we’ll shoot.

Old Gadfly:  You are saying “shoot” metaphorically?

AM:  Yes.  Democrats, who are heavily supported by Planned Parenthood lobbying and campaign contributions, said they were essentially committed to shutting down the government, knowing Republicans would get blamed for it.

IM:  Such corruption and collaboration is not new in our history.  Don’t forget the Barbary Pirates.  Here is an interesting passage in Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “Dane-Geld,” that rings so true of the Planned Parenthood-inspired mugging:

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

 

AM:  Is the soul of our nation lost?

Old Gadfly:  If we can’t grow a backbone and stand on principle, then, yes.  However, we overcame the Barbary Pirates.  Can we overcome Planned Parenthood?

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

IM:  Gentlemen, remember scenes when Forrest Gump’s mother coached him on life matters?  One of the notable quotes in the movie is from Forrest’ own observations:  “stupid is as stupid does.”

Old Gadfly:  Where are you taking us with this theme?

IM:  Current talk about a possible government shutdown.

AM:  And the question is typically worded this way:  Are Republicans willing to shut down the government to push legislation to defund Planned Parenthood? 

Old Gadfly:  What exactly is the logic being implied by this question?

AM:  The majority of Americans are repulsed by videos portraying the harvesting of fetal tissue for profit.  Responding to this concern, Republicans in the House have advanced legislation that shifts nearly half a billion in taxpayer funds away from Planned Parenthood and to reallocate these same funds for other health providers providing similar services, but not the abortions.  Democrats are saying they are opposed to defunding Planned Parenthood and will vote against the legislation.  Republican leadership in the Senate, fully aware that Republicans were blamed for the last shutdown talk about kicking the can down the road because even if the Senate passed defunding legislation, President Obama will veto it.

IM:  If Democrats and the Administration are not willing to acknowledge the will and intent of the majority of Americans and to compromise with Republicans who are legislating on behalf of the people, then why is it logical to blame Republicans for shutting down the government?  It sounds like Democrats are not willing to compromise, but expect Republicans to fully capitulate, that is, surrender any moral obligation to stand on principle.

Old Gadfly:  Americans have short memories.  During the last shutdown, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried several iterations of legislative language to defund or at least delay funding portions of the Affordable Care Act.  The final version gave Democrats everything they wanted but delayed funding for some of the more controversial measures of the Affordable Care Act.  Two months earlier, the Obama Administration issued an Executive Order delaying the employer mandate by one year because it would have been a political disaster for upcoming Democrat elections.  Not only was the Executive Order unconstitutional, it was an insult to the Republicans who already understood the consequential impact on the American economy.  Ever since the passage of the Affordable Care (without a single Republican vote) the labor participation rate plummeted and is now the lowest it has been since October 1977, with most of these Americans now on government subsidies.

It was the Democrat caucus that refused to compromise even on this last version proposed by the House.  By choosing not to compromise, Democrats are the ones that chose to shut down the government because they could shamelessly blame it on Republicans for refusing to compromise.  Republicans made numerous compromises.  Democrats allowed none.  This Democrat-manufactured notion that Republicans shut down the government is called a meme, and it took on irrefutable truth in the minds of Americans.  This was a case of unconditional surrender, and Republicans bought it.  And now they own it, until they grow a backbone and argue for the actual truth. 

AM: So, why are Democrats willing to lie and cheat to keep Planned Parenthood funded?

 IM:  It’s all for political power.  Planned Parenthood spends millions each year lobbying the government and contributing to political campaigns.  Just in Colorado, according to Secretary of State data, Planned Parenthood spent $3.3 million since January 2013.  This money was spent on promoting Democrat candidates, defending two Democrat incumbents during recall elections, and on opposing statewide ballot measures to redefine the term "person.”  These data represent only one of the 50 States.  Can you imagine the impact defunding Planned Parenthood would have on Democrat resources for political campaigning?  The half billion in funding does not just go away.  House Republicans reallocated the funding to other health care providers to provide similar services, minus abortion.

Old Gadfly:    Walter Cronkite, often called “the most trusted man in America,” wrote the preface to a 1983 Signet Classic version of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Here is an excerpt: "If not prophecy, what was 1984? It was, as many have noticed, a warning: a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages." In our time, it is manufactured "pop culture" folklore (such as “the war on women” and “war against reproductive rights”) that wires so many to think the way the political establishment wants. Progressive Democrats cannot continue their success in advancing an administrative state (as we discussed in our last conversation) without the duplicitous, mendacious, and complicit collaboration of Planned Parenthood.  This is why Obama and Democrats in Congress have drawn a line in the sand.

IM:  So, if I may be so blunt, who are the stupid ones?

Old Gadfly:  Well, I think we can identify at least three groups:  (a) establishment Democrat politicians who subscribe to their own lies and deceitfulness; (b) Democrat constituents who subscribe to the establishment narrative; and (c) establishment Republican politicians who are either naïve in the face of blatant duplicity, mendacity, and complicity, or lack courage to stand for moral principle.

AM:  How about Republic constituents?

Old Gadfly:  Republican constituents are frustrated and disappointed.  Elected Republicans failed to deliver on expectations following elections in 2010 (Republicans took control of the House) and 2014 (Republicans kept even stronger control of the House and regained control of the Senate).  The notion that “we just need to elect the right people” is not working.  Thus, there is now a growing movement to seek another solution to overcome the corruption in Washington, D.C.  It is called the Convention of the States Project (www.cosaction.com; authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution under three main topics:  fiscal responsibility, power and jurisdiction, and term limits.  If 34 State legislatures pass a resolution for such a convention, Congress shall establish a date and a location.  Any amendments proposed by the convention would then be sent to the State legislatures for ratification, which requires 38 or more States to approve.  This is a peaceful, Constitutional solution, advanced by “we the people” on behalf of State legislatures to rebalance political power in our nation. 

IM:  Of course, understanding the vision and wisdom of our Constitutional framers, who anticipated the need for such a solution, requires some refresher education. 

Old Gadfly:  The fate of our nation depends upon such a refresher and a commitment to action if we are to preserve our self-governing Constitutional Republic.  We cannot assume this problem will take care of itself.  We will all own the consequences, whether we choose to be stupid or not.

Evidence of an Administrative State

IM:  Gadfly, what are your thoughts about the recent Planned Parenthood revelations?

Old Gadfly:  You are referring to the harvesting of fetal tissue?

IM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  Interestingly, those who support abortion frame the issue in terms of the means by which this practice was revealed, and find that part immoral.  So they attack the messenger and not the message.  Many of these same people have no issue with Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years and then recently publicly acknowledging it was a false statement from the outset.  His response to a reporter was “Romney lost didn’t he?”  Where is the outrage for blatant dishonesty?  But, I digress.  This current debate is really about unalienable rights—one party believes the unalienable right to life came from God.  The secular humanists, however, believe the administrative state has the superior authority to grant the unalienable right to abort a life— the Supreme Court institutionalized this unalienable right in the Roe versus Wade ruling in 1973 and now the administrative state funds the largest abortion producing institution, Planned Parenthood, with around $500 million annually.  

IM:  Joy Overbeck wrote an interesting column along these lines, singling out Hillary Clinton and her perspective on this subject.  What many good Americans do not comprehend is the very deliberate machinations taking place to secure political power.  By eliminating or diminishing God, the administrative state becomes the ultimate moral authority.  This is exactly what has happened in totalitarian nations that embraced fascism (Germany and Italy) and Communism (the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea).

AM:  Yet, I must say Planned Parenthood does have an attractive leader at the helm.

Old Gadfly:  I offer two comments in response.  First, the leader is paid over $590,000 per year in salary and benefits for a 35 hour work week (according their most recent IRS Form 990 report).  Second, Hannah Arendt might have something to say about the “banality of evil” when associating apparent attractiveness with the insidious evil taking place under the leader’s command.[1] 

IM:  This conversation motivates me to reread Jonah Goldberg’s, Liberal Fascism.  And, as I recall, one of our discussions about deliberate engineering of public sentiment was based on clearly establishing indentured classes—women being one of them.

Old Gadfly:  Sadly, too many within these indentured classes believe the progressive rhetoric and acquiesce to being human instruments in the elite, central planner cause to achieve and to maintain political power.  As C.S. Lewis astutely observed in his book, The Abolition of Man, the conditioners are relatively successful in conditioning those who become the conditioned.  Even before Lewis, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book, Democracy in America, warned of the “soft tyranny” that would evolve when people vote for “government-provided entitlements.”  Politicians and government administrators would then abuse this dynamic.  Lacking this understanding, Americans will become, in Tocqueville’s prophecy, “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

AM:  To accelerate a move toward a timid flock, progressives must attack those who seek the truth.

IM:  AM, that is a very sobering observation:  “progressives must attack those who seek the truth.”  We have discussed numerous times Hayek’s observations about the end of truth:  that it is not tolerable to disagree with elite, central planning values; that each individual must internalize those values to the point where he or she spontaneously reacts to any opposition.[2]

AM:  Exactly.  Four U.S. Representatives, all Democrat (Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke) have thus reacted and asked the U.S. and California Attorneys General to open a criminal investigation against the Center for Medical Progress, which collected the Planned Parenthood video footage.

Old Gadfly:  We have previously discussed how controlling the narrative is critical for the progressive movement.  Manipulating language to conflate and obfuscate is an important tactic.   A university professor describes how this tactic was employed in 2006 by the State of Maryland to successfully pass legislation allowing state taxpayer funds for human embryonic stem cell research.^[3]  She emphasized the role of “clear, non-controversial terminology in debate, discussion, and potential compromise. . . . For instance, what does the term ‘embryonic’ stem cell evoke in ordinary citizens, and how can policymakers avoid images of little fingers and toes, or abortion clinics, when discussing them?”^[4]  After describing the chronological development of legislation, the professor highlighted the key changes in wording that led to successful passage:  “Throughout the bill, the words ‘human embryo’ were replaced by ‘certain material’ or ‘unused material.’”^[5]  She continued with this observation: “Proponents of stem cell research funding had to learn to use less politically sensitive terms, substituting ‘unused material’ for ‘human embryos’ when discussing donations from infertility treatments.”^[6] This is clearly an example of one ideological group—that is, the elite, central planners--manipulating language to achieve a desired outcome. Once enacted, settled law achieves momentum that makes it difficult to reverse or change course.  As my good friend, Dennis, and I discussed just yesterday, settled law, or legal precedents, are treated as unchallenged axioms, even though subsequent conditions and circumstances may be significantly different.

AM:  Are we destined, then, to be “a flock of timid and industrious animals” controlled by the administrative state?

Old Gadfly:  Not necessarily.   Americans have unwisely and unwittingly outsourced that political power to a growing administrative state.  For those Americans that possess the capacity to think for themselves, “we the people” still have inherent, political power and unalienable rights that are God-given.  I believe we still have time to restore the balance of political power.  The Article V Convention of States project (www.ConventionofStates.com) provides such a remedy, and I am fully on board with this peaceful, Constitutional solution. 

IM:  Count on me being part of the reawakening!

AM:  Count me in as well.    

---

[1] See Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York, NY:  The Penguin Group, 2006 [1963]).

[2] F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007 [1944]), p. 171.

[3] Patricia M. Alt, “The Political Linguistics of Maryland’s Stem Cell Research Bill,” Ethics Today, Volume 8, Number 4, Summer 2006, retrieved October 7, 2011 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/aspa/unpan024115.pdf 

[4] Ibid, p. 5.

[5] Ibid, p. 11.

[6] Ibid, p. 12.