Secretary Kerry's Defense of Fiddling

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, earlier this week we suggested President Obama is fiddling, that is, political campaigning while America and the rest of the world are burning.  Today, Secretary Kerry went on most or all of the Sunday talk shows to defend the fiddling.  Of course, I pictured my daughter learning to hit a baseball with the ball sitting on a stationary tee when David Gregory kicked the interview off with Obama’s criticism of his predecessor in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gregory sets the stage by suggesting Obama’s grasp of foreign policy is superior to Bush because Obama says so.  What a joke.  If this were Jeopardy, and the emcee asked to whom this quote was directed among the 43 American presidents, I suspect most sufficiently educated contestants would say either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. Yes, bin Laden is dead (technically a battlefield execution in violation of international law and norms) but Islamic extremists are proliferating.  A President with superior judgment regarding foreign policy might have demonstrated the courage to actually apprehend bin Laden to put him on public trial.

Old Gadfly:  Do you think much could have resulted from such a public trial?

AM:  Do you remember the Scopes trial?  While it pitted religion against science, in the end it demonstrated the power of ideology—whether it be religious or scientific dogma.  A bin Laden trial could have put such ideology on trial.  That’s what our war on terrorism is all about.  And now we see a caliphate emerging in portions of Syria and Iraq.

Old Gadfly:  Why do you think this option was not considered?

AM:  There would be no political capital to be gained from a trial.  But to declare “bin Laden is dead” made for great political capital in election campaigns.

Old Gadfly:  That’s interesting.  When President Bush exercised bipartisan Congressional authority to invade Iraq in 2003, his popularity was nearly 90% and I remember seeing members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, holding hands to demonstrate national unity.  Within a year after the invasion, harsh criticism from Democrats and the left-leaning media began.  I offered an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal that attempted to explain the quick reversal by the left-wing.  I called it the political dilemma (a spinoff of the prisoner’s dilemma used in game theory).  In the article I explained that if Bush were successful in achieving stability in Iraq and the region, this would result in significant political capital for Bush and by association the Republican Party.  This would not be good for Democrats.  Thus, the left-wing undermined Bush’s effort in Iraq.  To Democrats, the outcome must be win-lose—Democrats win and Republicans lose.  If this outcome is not achievable, then the alternative outcome needs to be lose-lose.  If Democrats cannot win, then by God, Republicans won’t win either.  In the Iraq scenario, this tactical objective was achieved (Democrats eventually won large majorities in both houses of Congress).  But not part of the political calculus was a strategic major win for the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq--as we see in Syria and Iraq today.  I am terribly disappointed when I hear or read people say today’s circumstances in Iraq are based on conditions established by the Bush Administration.  The Bush Administration had to fight a two-front war, the one against Iraqi insurgents and the other against political opposition on the home-front.  Democrats demonstrate more animus towards conservative Republicans than they do against militant jihadists/Islamists.  As they say in the Middle East, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.    

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Well, Kerry did defend Obama’s foreign policy by laying out what he called “facts,” such as Obama’s team is far more engaged in foreign affairs than any predecessor.

AM:  Some, I for one, would argue “being engaged” in this case is more accurately described as ”tampering,” or if you prefer, “fiddling,” with existing norms and traditions that produced stability in the international system.  For example, the left euphemistically referred to the eruption of chaos in northern Africa and the Middle East as “the Arab Spring.”  This happened under Obama’s watch.  How would anyone celebrate the Arab Spring today?  Yes, North Korea is quiet for now—wow!  I’m sure any North Korean that is not a member of the government appreciates that consoling thought.  China continues to advance its strategic reach militarily, while America mothballs equipment and gives folks pink slips.  Then, there is Putin and the Ukraine situation.

Old Gadfly:  Watch and listen to (or read the transcript of) to Kerry’s outrage about the Malaysian airliner shoot-down.

IM:  Amazing . . . utterly amazing.  Here are some incredible statements by Kerry:

·         So there's a stacking up of evidence here, which Russia needs to help account for. We are not drawing the final conclusion here. But there is a lot that points and the need for Russia to be responsible. And what President Obama believes and we, the international community, join in believing, everybody is convinced we must have unfettered access.

·         And the lack of access, the lack of access, David, makes its own statement about culpability and responsibility.

Old Gadfly:  What is the significance and irony of these statements?

IM:  The “stacking up of evidence,” a lot of points and the need . . . to be responsible,” “we must have unfettered access,” “the lack of access makes its own statement about culpability and responsibility.”  Yes, there were nearly 300 casualties (to include some Americans) in the airliner shoot-down and the killing of innocents demands culpability.  Yet, in our own country, we see an Administration that seems well beyond culpability when we hear about hundreds of Mexicans being killed from weapons involved in the Fast and Furious operation.  Erik Holder refused to completely cooperate with Congress in its investigation, getting top cover through Obama’s use of executive privilege TO DENY UNFETTERED ACCESS to evidence.  How about the IRS scandal (to censor opposing voices)—Lois Lerner’s invoking the Fifth Amendment as a public servant, the loss of emails, and other points or “stacking up of evidence” that suggest deliberate efforts to deny unfettered access?  And while there are certainly other notable examples, the same critics of Russian attempts to delete social media information regarding who was involved with the Malaysian airliner shoot-down, accuse critics of Administration motives for blaming a video for the attacks at Benghazi as conspiracy theorists, right-wingers, or extremists.  Many of these same critics deride those who watch Fox News as a leading and reliable source to learn about many of these points that become a “stacking up of evidence.”  Of course, if you don’t get an alternative narrative, then the only narrative one knows is reality, even if it’s not true.  Many people in other parts of the world only get the narrative the state wants them to know, such as in North Korea, many parts of the Middle East, and so forth.

AM:  Recall our recent discussion, “Yes We Can!”  The Obama Administration wants to control the narrative to distract Americans from knowing about the need for culpability in our own nation.

IM:  For those who believe in immortal culpability (and accountability well beyond the state), there is great wisdom in Matthew 7:3:  "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (New International Version)”

Prog: The god of Progressivism

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, did you follow any of today’s Congressional hearing testimony from groups targeted by the IRS?

            IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  I did, and it was disturbing.

AM (an American seasoned aviator with an inquiring mind):  It was clear to me the exchanges demonstrated two different frames.  Republicans evaluated the circumstances from a Judeo-Christian view that once upon a time underwrote our Nation’s founding principles.  Democrats evaluated the circumstances from a progressive view.

Old Gadfly:  Interesting, AM.  How would you characterize the major distinctions between the two views?

AM:  One view centers on God, the other around Prog the god of progressivism, and each view with clear, respective tenets for how to live our lives.

IM:  Tell us more about the tenets.

AM:  The Judeo-Christian frame subscribes to what are called the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21).  I know this sounds old-fashioned, but our laws are based on these tenets.  The progressive view mirrors the same concepts in contrary ways.  The following Table summarizes the differences.

Old Gadfly:  Very impressive AM—the tenets really need no further explanation to comprehend the implications of the different views.

IM:  Ironically, with AM’s explanation, and recalling how the hearing played out, I realized the Democrats at the hearing feared blaspheming Prog. The following image came to my mind:

 

AM:  Clever, IM.  Yet, when Democratic politicians did speak, arguments were pretty lame and obviously structured in such a way as to (a) distract the logic of discussions by inserting Bush into the context, a blasphemous adherent to the Judeo-Christian view; and (b) demonstrate sycophantic loyalty in a patent defense of Prog’s tenets and his symbolic representative—Obama.

Old Gadfly:  It seemed as though committee Democrats, in an obviously deliberate and collaborative way, sought to protect any appearances that Obama and his disciples in the White House were somehow connected to IRS’s censorship of conservative views and clear intimidation of those who express them.  The timing of these actions is as disturbing as the suppression of the truth in the Benghazi incident, especially in relation to midterm and Presidential elections.  Does this pattern sound similar to our Club Mentality discussion?

IM:  Amazingly, the language was very transparent in revealing how ingrained the tenets of progressivism are with people like Congressman McDermott, a Democrat from the State of Washington.  He argued, with obvious disdain toward the individuals testifying, that the only question the Committee should be examining is whether the American taxpayer should subsidize efforts of these targeted organizations.  In other words, to McDermott, tax exempted contributions are considered government subsidies, not charitable contributions freely and “voluntarily” given by individuals to a service or program they choose to support.  This “subsidy” meme is a common misunderstanding of most progressives.  For example, if I donate $1,000 to a 501(c)(4) organization, then I can include the $1,000 as a tax deduction when calculating my annual income tax liability.  At a 30% tax rate, the donation would reduce my tax liability by $300.  This amount is $300 less than what I would ordinarily pay to subsidize the government.  Yet, progressives would say the government is subsidizing my income by $300.  If this were true, then where did the government come by this $300?  I’ll tell you where—from those who pay taxes to the government.  And to add further insult to this progressive delusion, it’s perfectly alright for the federal government to subsidize Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 organization, in the amount of $500 million annually—all from taxes mandatorily paid by income earning individuals who comply with tax laws.    

AM:  Good arguments, IM.  Yet, as many of us wonder where these IRS targeting hearings may end up, I tend to agree with Herbert Meyer, former Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council, who contends there will be no “smoking gun.” To explain, Meyer argued there is no need for traceable telephone calls or written memos.  And, while he used Hitler as an analogy, the purpose was to explain how only a “leader’s” public tone is sufficient in generating actions by followers within a regime.  There are ample records of Obama denigrating the Tea Party.  For example, according to Kenneth Walsh, with U.S. News & World Report, “Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent ‘Tea Party’ movement that was then surging across the country.”

IM:  This entire discussion is disturbing. There are far too many Americans, the so called “independents” straddling the ideological fence so as not to be accused of being ideological, that passively acquiesce to the same Zeitgeist the Chinese and other totalitarian leaders exploited in the recent past.

Old Gadfly:  What do you mean by Zeitgeist in regard to the Chinese?

IM:  I’m talking about Mao Zedong’s coercive efforts to instill communism in China.  I highly recommend you read a fascinating article by Bret Stephens, who wrote about Yang Jisheng, a 72-year old Chinese journalist, and his book, Tombstone.  To whet your appetite, here is a quote from Stephen’s article:  “Mr. Yang quickly saw that in Hayek's warnings about the dangers of economic centralization lay both the ultimate explanation for the tragedies of his youth—and the predicaments of China's present. ‘In a country where the sole employer is the state,’ Hayek had observed, ‘opposition means death by slow starvation.’"  Yang was referring to Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom.

AM:  History is well documented.  Being very familiar with information operations from years of military experiences, I am convinced the Administration is orchestrating a very sinister strategy to further distance the American public from gross and impeachable dereliction of duty in the Benghazi incident, which is perhaps a culmination of other foreign policy failures.  With its unholy alliance with progressives in Congress, an increasingly unionized federal bureaucracy (nearly 40%), and news media (not to mention academia and the Hollywood cohorts), the Administration’s strategy involves three layers of shields to keep Benghazi buried:  first the IRS issue, then the AP issue, then the James Rosen and Fox News issue.  This strategy should consume enough time for progressives to regain control of both Houses of Congress by 2014.  Then, progressives will have two full years to completely kill remaining threats to the progressive agenda.

Old Gadfly:  I noticed this evening that Diane Sawyer with ABC News found it more important to have a segment on window washers in costumes than any mention of the IRS hearing.  Unfortunately, when so many Copernican drones are content to believe Obama and a large central government can really deliver hope for the masses, history may not be complimentary of how the great American experiment in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was derailed by the delusional orthodoxy of progressivism.