Benghazi and the IRS

* Scandals. It's almost too good to be true for those of us who are conservative and never trusted Obama nor believed a word out of Obama's mouth. We have the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi cover-up, the IRS targeting conservative groups and the subsequent cover-up of that, and the Justice Department obtaining the work and personal phone records of AP reporters. At the same time we have the jury decision in the Doctor Gosnell case; finding that the killing of babies born alive, following an attempted abortion, is indeed murder. I throw that in the mix because not only is it a victory for conservatives, but because Obama favored so-called partial birth abortions - not significantly different from what got Gosnell convicted.

* Benghazi. There are three parts to the Benghazi story: why did the State Department fail to provide adequate security for the diplomatic post in Benghazi, why were some troops given an order to stand down instead of go in and assist, and why was there a cover-up of the truth behind the attacks. Underlying all three issues is who was involved in all of the decisions. Or, in Watergate parlance, who knew what, and when did they know it?

* An unwillingness to face the truth. Incredibly, there are still those on the left who will not even acknowledge any cover-up occurred, coincidentally, only weeks before the presidential election. The mainstream media leads the charge with regards to denial. The LA Times (5/9/13) said the testimony of the whistle blowers before Congress "shed little new light on the key questions at issue in the hearing." They continued that "partisan politics loomed large" at the hearings. Every congressional hearing involves politics. That's not the question though; the question is whether independent of the politics, there is a legitimate issue warranting Congressional investigation. Greg Hicks, second in command in Libya in the State Department (and first after the murder of our Ambassador) said it was clear from the beginning it was a coordinated attack. No one there was talking about an alleged anti-Muslim video. When he heard UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five talk shows the Sunday after the attack, blaming it all on the anti-Muslim video, Hicks said he was disgusted.

* As Hicks never reported anything about a video, a real news organization might be a little curious about how Rice ended up blaming the video and not terrorism, as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for weeks afterward. A real news outlet might wonder how it came to be that the highest officials in our government all came to repeat the same lie. Of course, the State Department's Accountability Review Board (A.R.B.) was not interested in the truth either. They did not interview Mr. Hicks, Mark Thompson (another whistle blower), or Secretary of State Clinton. But the so-called media of the left did not want to know why such important people were not interviewed. Neither the media nor the A.R.B. could think of a single question to ask these people. They do not want to know who gave the order to troops at the ready to "stand down." If that order came from anyone other than Obama (and if Obama had stayed engaged rather than worrying about heading to Vegas for another fundraiser) then as Commander-in-Chief he had the absolute authority to overturn that order.

* The NY Times, not surprisingly, was no better than the LA Times. In their 5/10/13 editorial the headline was "The Republicans' Benghazi Obsession." You see, the A.R.B. already blamed unnamed leadership and management at State for the inadequate security and lack of response. So, that's that. Then a funny thing happened. ABC, a mainstream outlet, disclosed additional emails revealing more about how the "talking points" were watered down, with far more involvement by State and the White House than Jay Carney had admitted last year. It's one thing for Fox, The Weekly Standard or other conservative outlets to pursue this story. Now, the NY Times sees one of their competitors in the liberal media pursuing it. So suddenly - overnight in fact - it is not just the Republicans' obsession. No, it's a front page story above the fold on May 11, with a clearly different twist to the headline: "Benghazi e-mails put White House on the defensive." With ABC having taken the lead, the very first paragraph says "the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged." So when White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the only change made by the White House and State Department was to change Benghazi from being a "consulate" to a "diplomatic outpost" it was a lie.

* State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was unhappy with the the original CIA draft of the talking points, referring as it did to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, and possibly making State look bad for not having increased security in light of earlier attacks on various consulates in Benghazi. However, the first rewrite was still unsatisfactory, as Ms. Nuland stated that the changes did not "resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." Of course, her building's leader was Hillary Clinton. But the A.R.B. did not address the cover-up and the NY Times and the rest of the mainstream media could not think of anything to ask Secretary Clinton regarding the cover-up. After all, with regards to whether the attack was a terrorist attack or due to a demonstration over a video, Clinton told us in her testimony before Congress: "What difference does it make?" The media that held on like a pit bull over Watergate, was satisfied with that comment by Clinton. Obama subsequently added with regards to the investigation, "there's no there there." And that satisfied today's mainstream media as well.

* The press serves a unique function in our society. Aside from the constitutional checks and balances on unrestrained government power, the First Amendment guarantees a free press, with the ability to challenge government officials and question their words and deeds. When the press will only challenge Republican leaders, we all lose. One might think that the IRS scandal, in which the Obama Administration targeted conservative groups and individuals which supported Romney, would make the media say "enough is enough." It was not to be.

* The front page of Sunday's NY Times explains in its headline: "Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at Cincinnati I.R.S. Office." In reading the article I counted at least 8 different excuses the Times made for this anti-American abuse of government power. (1)There was a "revolving cast of midlevel managers," (2)there was "miscommunication with IRS lawyers and executives in Washington," (3)they were "confused about the rules they were enforcing," (4)"few if any of the employees were experts on tax law," (5)"people were coming and going, asking for advice and not getting it," and (6)"sometimes forgetting the cases existed," (7)"administering the nearly four million word federal tax code involves so many arcane legalities," and (8)the Cincinnati office was overwhelmed by "60,000 paper applications trying to find efficient means of dealing with that."

* First, none of these excuses explain how the IRS came to target conservative groups. Given all the excuses proffered by the NY Times, one wonders how the IRS could have even figured out which groups were conservative groups. Yet figure it out they did, and targeted those groups accordingly. Second, let me state that it was not only the Cincinnati office targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups. Third, individuals were targeted as well. One Frank VanderSloot made a large donation to Romney in 2011. In April, 2012, VanderSloot and seven others were targeted by the Obama campaign. Mr. VanderSloot was accused of having a "less than reputable record." After never having problems with the IRS, in June he gets audited. In July, the Department of Labor decided they needed to audit the guest workers at his ranch, and in September the IRS decided they needed an audit of his business. (Info from Kimberly Strassel article in the 5/17/13 Wall Street Journal.)

* Strassel makes a brilliant point. Whether Obama ever picked up the phone or directly ordered anyone to engage in these abuses of power is beside the point. It is not just that he is the President. No, it is the tone he has set from the time he first ran for office until now. Everyone who disagreed with him was an enemy; none held their beliefs or acted in good faith. Those who cling to their guns and religion. Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi and others) badmouthing the very peaceful Tea Party, and supporting the far less than peaceful Occupy Wall Street. Obama condemning the "millionaires and billionaires" time after time after time as not paying their fair share. Obama saying the Republicans want dirty air and dirty water. Obama calling supporters of the Second Amendment liars. And the list could go on and on.

* When Obama first ran for President I had suggested to a friend that, regardless of his democrat affiliation, he should be wary of a Chicago politician who not only hails from Chicago, but has a history of engaging in Chicago-style politics. It is a take-no-prisoners approach to one's opposition. And now, if I may borrow a line from Obama's mentor Reverend Wright, "Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."

An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking

Dear Professor Hawking:

As you know, you had recently been invited to the fifth annual President's Conference to be held for three days, beginning June 16, in Israel. The purpose of the conference, hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres and entitled "Facing Tomorrow, 2013," is to address various problems facing the world today. Experts in various fields, and past world leaders and statesmen attend. After accepting the invitation you subsequently withdrew. You are one of the best known scientists in the world. Clearly, you are brilliant within your field of theoretical physics. As is also well known, you suffer from a neurological disease similar to ALS. And, you are an anti-semite.

According to the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, they state you withdrew "based upon (your) knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of (your) own academic contacts there." So, you now support the boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel. You had previously been to Israel. Now, as a leading scientist, you support an academic boycott of other scientists.

Since visiting Israel last you have become increasingly anti-Israel. You claimed that Israel's response to rocket attacks from Gaza was "plain out of proportion." Clearly, Palestinian rockets falling on Israeli cities and civilians was of no concern to you. While Israel's military operates under the strictest rules of engagement, your brilliance does not prevent you from falling for the left-wing propaganda regarding "proportionality." If a burglar enters my home while I am there and shoots me in the leg, how am I permitted to respond? Assuming I have a gun, can I only shoot him in his leg, in order to keep my response "proportional?" What if the second shot the burglar fires kills me? What kind of "proportional" response can I engage in then?

You have also said that "the situation (for Palestinians) is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue." I actually appreciate such a brilliant scientist such as yourself making such moronic comments. You are a perfect example of what I tell my fellow conservatives: liberal ideology trumps logic, consistency and common sense. And now I can add that it trumps brilliance as well.

You should listen to the words of Kenneth Meshoe, a Member of Parliament in South Africa, and a black man who lived under apartheid rule. He said it is "ridiculous" to equate the treatment of the Palestinians with the treatment of blacks under apartheid. He had no freedom of movement. He had to live in a "black" area. He could not move even to a different "black" area without permission; and it was much more difficult to enter a "white" area. There were separate medical clinics for blacks, with black doctors. If a white doctor agreed to see him, it had to be in a back room. Blacks could not vote. They could not hold elected office. A white person would never have to appear in front of a black judge, the way a former President of Israel had to appear in front of an Arab judge. Oh yes, Palestinians vote and are Members of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament. A white would never have a black teacher. Israel has Arab teachers. He said he was amazed by the experience of a fellow black from South Africa visiting Israel. His friend needed medical care and was apparently in an emergency room with a Jewish patient on one side of him and a Palestinian on the other, all getting the same care from the same doctors.

As Mr. Meshoe said, it is insulting to equate the situation of the Palestinians with the real apartheid of South Africa, because it "minimizes the pain of those who suffered in South Africa." Yes, you are brilliant. But your liberal ideology does not allow you to make distinctions. It certainly does not allow you to properly view the real world around you. But now that you believe in academic boycotts, what should I do with some of your books that I own? Should I return them or throw them out? Burn them maybe? After all, you cannot expect me, a Jew who supports Israel, to affiliate myself in any way with you, an anti-semite.

Very truly yours, The Truth-Uncensored

P.S. As a result of your neurological disease I understand that you can only communicate by use of a computer based system. Inasmuch as the system uses Israeli technology, when can we expect you to return the device?

Part II: The Dialogue Continues Into Personal Responsibility

This post is a continuation of the prior dialogue. The conversation veered into issues of personal responsibility. You will see that, regardless of which side you take, there is a clear distinction between the two viewpoints. As a conservative, I do not separate my values from my politics. I do not believe policy should be made on the basis of what "feels good." The institution of "welfare" undoubtedly felt good, yet, as noted below, resulted in the destruction of the black family. We "feel" bad that gays can't marry, so we'll change a definition that has existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Government agencies that are meant to protect us (the FBI, Homeland Security and the military) have purged their training manuals of any references to radical Islam or jihad, so as not to hurt the "feelings" of Muslims in this country. When policy is based upon feelings, rather than truth and logic and common sense, one should not expect a positive outcome. A final note: I agreed in advance to give the reader the last word.

TU: Do you think trial and appellate judges are more persuaded by logical and consistent arguments or illogical and inconsistent arguments? Logic and consistency form the essence of persuasive writing and debating. As to why liberals do not care about logic and consistency, see the January 18 post.

R: I agree in a court logic and consistency should and do prevail. But human beings do not operate on logic and consistency alone. As a matter of fact, they often behave illogically and inconsistently and emotionally. So people vote and behave in significant part on feelings and emotionality and the gut intuitive sense of what is in their best interest, or what makes them feel more secure, or what makes them feel better. Your appeal to individual initiative, responsibility and hard work is laudable. But taken to its logical conclusion creates a very stressful situation in life that many people do not want and cannot handle. The truth is that many of our fellow citizens are not as capable or intelligent or as motivated or emotionally strong as we would hope.

The Reader continues: So just as the far left cannot impose a collective, communist, radical agenda on most of the people; strict conservatives cannot impose a strict individualist and conservative socially agenda on most people. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle. It means they don't want any overly socialistic and regulated society. At the same time, they don't want an overly competitive society in which it is stressful and in which there is an absence of a reasonable level of security, especially in old age and with regard to healthcare. I think conservatives miss the point that most people do not want to face a life of ruin or bankruptcy, due to a fear of serious illness or death within the family. It can be worse than the loss of some freedoms and choice. If Republicans don't speak to those needs it should not be a surprise to see electoral defeat, despite logic and consistency.

TU: I think that every social scientist now agrees that welfare led to the destruction of the black family unit in this country. Previously, the black family unit was strong. Look at the outcome: kids without fathers drop out of school more, are more likely to get lower paying jobs, are more likely to end up in jail, and more likely to have kids of their own at a young age and outside of marriage. As Larry Elder says, it is a liberal elitist attitude that essentially treats others (be it Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, whatever) as being unable to take care of themselves. With all due respect, your family is a perfect example of what I mean. Both you and your wife work hard. All three of your adult kids have significant disabilities, yet all of them also work hard. It is a testament to the values that you and your wife instilled in them. Yet, you do not believe other people are capable of taking care of themselves.

TU continues: Respectfully, I agree with Elder that it is a paternalistic, elitist attitude. That does not mean I would get rid of every single social program. It does mean an extreme rethinking so that we do not create the wrong incentives in people - and that's what most of these programs do. I am not mean spirited. Rather, I have learned from 35 years of dealing with injured people that it is far healthier for them to return to the work force than to be home collecting benefits. They feel better about themselves, feel better mentally, and are productive members of society. Conservative values are better values. You and your family live those values. You just do not believe living like that is good for anyone else. Again, see my 1/18 post.

R: I agree on rethinking incentives. But the policies you advocate need consensus. That means an uplifting, inclusive message and tone, so people will vote for and support your ideas. No matter what Larry Elder says there are people less fortunate, sick, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, etc. I work with them daily. Yes, there are fakers and lazy people. Yes, the welfare incentives have been horrible. Still, the black middle class is rising dramatically, and we have a black president. Corrections need to be made, but conservatives need to get elected to implement their policies. They need an uplifting, inclusive message. People need to be won over, not browbeaten.

TU: I do not need a "consensus" to know the right way to live. I know that you do not either. I also know, without consensus, that it is the best way for others to live. Consensus will never determine my values. That does not mean, however, that we do not need articulate Republican candidates to explain why conservative policies are better. Better for the individual and better for society as a whole. I do not know, however, that you believe conservative values are best for society. Obviously, there are some who need assistance. But the big picture is that we need to restore conservative values to our homes and our schools. It sounds like your comments still consider conservatives as the "other," not ones that you identify with. In other words, I cannot tell if you would argue for a return to the conservative values that you and I live by.

R: In the beginning we were talking about gay marriage as a public policy issue. I did not think we were talking about our individual beliefs or values with respect to gay marriage. They are two different things. As a matter of public policy I believe that it is the right thing to do now. My values versus the values that I wish to impose on other people are sometimes two different things. I think you would agree that a fervently evangelical Christian or an Orthodox Jew have very strong values that are legitimate and mostly worthy of praise. But you would not agree that those values should always be imposed on the larger population. One can be fervently religious and still believe in the separation of church and state, and respect that others think differently. You said you don't need consensus to determine your values, but I thought we were talking about public policy.

The Reader continues: So it seems that we have been talking about apples and oranges to some extent. I don't see that having values means being inflexible with regard to those values. I don't mean moral relativism. I mean just taking into account that sometimes core values compete with one another. I can basically believe in the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility without also being opposed to upholding the value of taking care of fellow human beings. It is clear that certain people need help. From a purely libertarian point of view there would be no taxes except for public security. That means all help would have to come from charity. If there's not enough money for charity, too bad. So the government started to step in. Yes, it can go too far the other way. Yes, there is corruption and faking and waste in all social programs. There's also corruption and waste in our most sacred programs, such as the military. So I agree with you that the social programs need to be rethought and reconstructed to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize incentives. I really did think we were talking about public policy and that is why my themes were centered so much around political dynamics and political consensus.

A Dialogue on Gay Marriage, Part I

Recently, a friend, who is also a reader of the blog, had a dinner conversation with me about gay marriage. What follows is our subsequent email exchange concerning that topic. I had expressed my concern about changing the definition of a (the?) fundamental institution of society. I indicated that I did not feel people were thinking of all the possible consequences. I also expressed my concern about the way the left uses language and changes the meanings of terms to suit their politically correct purposes. As I have noted previously, "gay marriage" has since become "marriage equality." "Abortion," as we know, is "a woman's right to choose." I said it made me uneasy to change the meaning of words; as in "1984" when the government said "War is Peace."

I was not arguing on behalf of polygamy because I believe in it. Rather, I was using it as a tool to highlight what I felt were inconsistencies in the reader's argument. Ultimately, the reader acknowledged the inconsistency, but, as noted in my 1/18/13 blog post, logic and consistency are not big issues for the left. In any event, it is easy to pick up on where the arguments left off at the dinner and where the email exchange continued from there. Finally, I have broken up the dialogue into two different posts, as Part II delves into other subjects, based upon a discussion of the issues of logic and consistency.

The Truth-Uncensored (TU): If the government has no business in marriage, can I safely assume you are okay with polygamy? It is a serious question. Why do you or the government get to define marriage as only being between two people? What if 3, 4, or 5 or more people love each other and want to make a commitment? How does it hurt anyone else? What's it the government's business?

Reader (R): You're right in terms of logic but the big and crucial difference is there is no political constituency for polygamy whereas there is for gay marriage. It is the politics that is driving the issue and I just don't see the equivalence between gay marriage and polygamy or even more taboo scenarios (e.g. beastiality, incest, etc.) that are sometimes brought up in the slippery slope argument. I think conservatives have every right to be against gay marriage and speak out against it and vote against it. I just think it's not a winning issue and I personally don't feel it is so offensive or detrimental an issue to warrant the kind of political capital that is being spent on this issue in light of the apparent changing political climate, and increasing acceptance of the idea of the fairness of allowing gay marriage. Regarding polygamy, there's virtually no constituency, no movement, and no foreseeable effort on the horizon to promote it. The gay marriage issue has political wind at its back, whereas it is hard to imagine polygamy ever having the same. Not a perfect answer but I think it lays out some of the issues that I see.

TU: There are a much smaller number of people that would want polygamy. But so what? Gays are a very small minority compared to heterosexuals. I used all the arguments you used to support gay marriage to argue for polygamy. Now, you are saying it comes down to politics. I know you don't believe "equal rights" should be based upon politics. So please tell me YOUR opinion on polygamy, and answer the questions I asked. And your bottom line: thumbs up or down on polygamy?

R: I don't think polygamy is marriage. I also think the states will decide the gay marriage issue which makes it a political issue in the broadest sense. You are right that eventually other issues like polygamy will be tested in the courts...The issue seems to me to be that conservatives want the federal government to define marriage and block states from allowing it. I don't see states or movements promoting polygamy. So, no, I don't think polygamy is in the same category. If a court rules in favor of polygamy as marriage then that would be a new factor.

TU: First, a correction. It was always up to the States. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Finally, it is the left/gays who want the Federal courts to overturn all state laws banning gay marriage on Constitutional grounds. So now that we are clear on who wants a Federal decision, you have another problem: "I don't think polygamy is marriage." Well, men did have multiple legal wives in various western states for a number of years. And, who are you to define marriage as being limited to two people - you are being inconsistent. I'm not allowed to define marriage but you are.

R: You are right when it comes to consistency. Yes, you have a right to define marriage. I believe, however, that it is a losing issue in the face of gradual change in public opinion. The reason public opinion is changing (in addition to media opinion) is the increasing belief that this is not a terrible thing and not a line in the sand issue. It is a change that an increasing majority (especially young people) can either support or live with. I am no gay marriage activist. I would just as soon they would not make the fuss and be okay with civil unions. There are more important issues. But I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it does not rise to the level of moral imperative to preserve the definition of marriage. I think the idea and institution of marriage can evolve and is not one of those things that is so sacred and elemental as to be untouchable. I don't see the great harm in modifying or broadening marriage per se.

TU: As you have said you don't believe polygamy is within the definition of marriage, the question is: WHY? Again, you already said that marriage was a right. Therefore, a "right" should not be based upon whether polygamists have the political winds at their backs. So, WHY do you believe polygamy should not be considered within the definition of marriage?

R: I don't think marriage is a right. I think it is a consensus issue. I don't think it is one of those things that cannot evolve. That it is so sacred as to be untouchable. I think that opinion is generally moving in the direction of looking at marriage as being able to encompass gay marriage. I respect the other opinion...I think the analogy with Judaism is somewhat relevant. There are many mitzvot (commandments) in Judaism that you and I and most Jews have not seen as absolute or untouchable. I believe that marriage is something like that. It promotes the idea of two people committing to one another. It lessens the number of single family homes. It takes away a certain amount of stigma. The fact that I don't think polygamy is in the same category means I don't see marriage as a right so much as a consensus idea or convention...I also think that it shouldn't be decided solely in the courts...I think a gay marriage initiative today might fare better than it did a few years ago. So I guess I come down on the side of allowing the people to decide. So, no, I don't think marriage is a right.

TU: I don't think that you have answered my question: why doesn't polygamy fit within the definition of marriage? The reason I ask is this - I don't believe that you are able to give an explanation that is any different from the reasons I gave against gay marriage. So, if marriage is not a "right," what's the harm in providing for "civil unions" other than some gay people will be offended? And what about committed heterosexual couples who never marry? Should they get any of the tax advantages, etc. of married people?

R: I think the difference between polygamy and gay marriage remains the commitment and union of two people. That is something that I can accommodate to, given the increasingly slim but growing majority of people. With polygamy it's just different. Sorry. I know it's an unsatisfying answer.

TU: Actually, it's a very satisfying answer. You are defining marriage as being a union between two people. And you are LIMITING it to only two people. I define marriage as between a man and a woman. No different than you in that you have made your own definition and limitations. So have I.

R: At this point I would not say that other than two should be marriage. But (polygamy) as marriage - I just don't see it. I wouldn't vote for it. But I could see it becoming acceptable. I wouldn't outlaw it either. Just seems like it will be on the fringes for the foreseeable future.

TU: My point in our give and take was to make you have to acknowledge the inconsistency in your positions. I am not allowed to define marriage as being between a man and a woman without being called a bigot (by most of the left and the mainstream media). You, however, are allowed to define marriage as being limited to two people. Please read my blog post of 1/18/13 - "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats are Driven by Issues." Then tell me which group you fit into.

R: I grant you the consistency issue, but I still think it's not a matter of consistency. It's a matter of public policy reflecting gradual change in the body politic and cultural norms. I still think the issue is not primarily a legal definition issue. I do see the futility now of looking at it as an equal protection issue because that does certainly open up a can of worms legally. Your viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, I just don't agree. And I don't think the key is having to be consistent across issues but rather to pick the important issues.

TU: You said marriage is a "consensus" issue. I don't think you really mean that. When the "consensus" was that blacks and whites could not intermarry, I know that neither one of us would ever find that acceptable, notwithstanding that there was a "consensus" at the time. Again, see my earlier post of 1/18/13. Liberals are not big on consistency. That is because they let "issues" trump their values.

R: The primary vehicle for ultimately establishing public policy is voting. Is that not "consensus" in its essence? The Constitution and courts are there, among other reasons, to balance majority tyranny and protect individual rights. But the policies of the government reflect consensus among the people.

What's the Difference? Why Do We Make Distinctions?

* Recently, A Middle School principal decided to cancel the school's Honor Night. The rationale was that it would be "devastating" to other students who, although they worked very hard, did not earn Honors. The principal also concluded that a student's achievement can be positively influenced by support of their family - both emotional and academic support. I cannot dispute that family involvement can make a difference; nor can I dispute that some students work hard yet fail to achieve Honors. Given that, why issue any recognition of Honors students (which the principal planned on doing on graduation night)? The singling out of such students still leaves non-Honors students out. Needless to say, this principal had no concern for the students who did work hard and did well enough to achieve Honors.

* But, if we use this principal's logic, and carry it to its logical conclusion, why give any grades? Don't "C" students feel badly, knowing that others obtained "B"s and even "A"s? Can't those students be "devastated" by those lower grades? So, should we not give grades? And if we are not giving grades, how should colleges and universities know who to accept? Or maybe schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford should just randomly pick names out of a hat of all those who apply. And those in the professions tend to make significantly more money than many others; that is surely unfair and can also be "devastating" to those who do not do nearly as well.

* So what's the difference? Why do we make distinctions between Honors and non-Honors students? Why do we give different grades: A, B, C, D and F? Why should some colleges and universities be considered more prestigious than others? And why should some professions pay more than others?

* Gay marriage - is there a difference from heterosexual marriage? The Supreme Court just heard arguments on California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have asked those opposed to Prop 8 if they believe there is any difference between men and women. In other words, are two women (or two men) the same as a man and a woman? What I have found is that everyone agrees there is a difference. If that is the case, what is the argument against calling such a relationship something different, such as a Civil Union? Is it because the term Civil Union might be "devastating" to same-sex couples? Why do we make distinctions?

* As one letter-to-the-editor noted in the 3/27/13 LA Times: "Advocates of same-sex marriage confuse equality and sameness." The writer goes on: "If the Supreme Court supports (gay marriage), it will eliminate the distinctive legal reality of gender. The consequences of this would be far-reaching and dangerous. Men and women are equal, but they are not the same. Marriage is the unique custodian of this difference." Another letter writer (as seen in the 3/28/13 NY Times) opined "I favor full and equal rights for gay couples, but this legally recognized relationship cannot be called "marriage" without hijacking and destroying the meaning of that term." Why do we make distinctions? What's the difference?

* When France recently drafted their gay marriage statute, they added a provision that no government document shall hereafter use the terms "mother" or "father." Is there a difference between mothers and fathers? Why do we have separate words for mother and father? What's the difference? Why do we make distinctions? The US is the most litigious society on earth. I have little doubt that sometime down the road a little boy with two dads will hear his teacher talk about all the things moms do and go home from school terribly upset. The Dads, in turn, will sue - seeking the end of the use of the words "mother" and "father" in the classroom. Before you tell me that is far fetched, would you have expected the country of France to bar the use of the words "mother" and "father" in their government documents?

* Most proponents of "gay marriage" say that they do not believe gays getting married will have any impact on heterosexuals who are married. I suspect that is correct. But those same people have generally given little or no thought to what the other, long term consequences of allowing gay marriage might be. If the US Government decided to ban the use of the words "mother" and "father" as France proposed, the pressure on the private, civil society to do the same would be tremendous. At the Supreme Court hearings, Justice Alito asked: "You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?...We do not have the ability to see the future."

* But the left never worries about consequences. Who does not sympathize with same-sex couples who merely want to confirm their love for one another through marriage? It feels good to allow them to get married. It might be "devastating" to those unable to get married. But, why do we have a "Mother's Day?" Why is there a separate "Father's Day?" Why did one principal put an end to the Father-Daughter dances at his school? Some girls do not have a father. Some may have two mothers. And maybe it would be "devastating" to the girls without a Dad. Maybe. But what lesson do we want to pass on to our kids? That every time it hurts we will change society so the hurt stops?

* When I got a "B" in seventh grade science (yes, I actually remember this) I was, perhaps, "devastated." But I used that feeling to my advantage and worked doubly hard so that the next time grades were handed out that "B" had turned into an "A+." So, do we take away all grades so some kids are not "devastated?" Or, do we recognize that doing so takes away a kid's motivation to strive to do better? Admittedly, gays do not choose their sexual orientation and therefore cannot "strive" to a different outcome. So in that sense the analogy to grades does not work. But is the lesson that societal institutions must change every time someone feels bad? What if I don't feel we should have prisons; after all, the emotional support one gets from their family can determine not only one's grades, but what path they may take in life. Should people who do bad be put away, when maybe their behavior is due to a weak family structure?

* I have repeatedly asked in this blog post: What's the difference? Why do we make distinctions? Maybe you don't believe we should make any distinctions. Maybe you think the banning of the words "mother" and "father" could not happen; or that Father-Daughter dances could ever be banned. But look at what Justice Alito said and then ask yourself - have you really thought about what the long term consequences of gay marriage might be? Personally, I get nervous when we are able to make words mean whatever we want them to mean. Think about "1984." With political correctness, we already have the "word police" in many aspects of our society. As was said in 1984: "War is Peace." But is it? Why do we make distinctions? What difference does it make?

Some Conservative Observations

* I recently complained about Fox News being singled out for bias and not presenting real (hard) news. Now, a new Pew Research Center report on the State of the Media notes that the big three cable news networks have all cut back on actual reporting since 2007. But which station is the worst offender? Far and away it's MSNBC. Per Pew, 85% of their air time is opinion. That leaves a mere 15% for news reporting. Fox? 55% opinion, but that leaves nearly 1/2 of the airtime for news. CNN wins at an even 50-50 split. But MSNBC stands alone with the overwhelming portion of its airtime opinion. I wish they would have studied which of the three has more balance on their opinion shows. I bet Fox would win that one. So, please, my liberal friends, drop the Fox is not a real news station mantra.

* Some more interesting stats. The Gallup Poll recently asked Americans this question: "On whom should the U.S. put more pressure to make compromises," with the choices being the Israelis or the Palestinians. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives: 64% of Republicans said the Palestinians, with only 15% saying the Israelis. Democrats? Only 34% said the Palestinians should get more pressure, whereas 38% thought the pressure should be on the Israelis. As my liberal, Jewish friends do not ever get this, let me state it another way: more Democrats think Israel is the problem than think Palestinians are the problem. Even Independents got it, with 48% saying the pressure needs to be on the Palestinians, and only 22% saying the Israelis. Will this affect the thinking or voting of even one liberal Jew? Sadly, no. In fact, more can be expected to adopt the overall position of their party, and come to believe that the Jews are the problem.

* The LA Times sees the Israeli/Palestinian problem quite clearly. After noting how over 300,000 Israelis (whom they call "settlers") live in the West Bank, they go on to state that the settlement issue is "an easy one." They do not tell us in their 3/19 editorial just what their solution is that makes it so easy. I am still waiting for just one mainstream paper to ask if Israel were to agree to the 1967 borders (but keeping Jerusalem, of course) would the new Palestinian state allow the over 300,000 Israelis in the West Bank to live there peaceably as citizens? Given that over 1,000,000 Arabs live within Israel, it would seem to be a fair question. Somehow, not a single reporter can think to ask Abbas or Obama about it. Good to know that they are so willing to challenge those in power.

* Yet another poor school decision. This time the story is out of Michigan where a teen was dying from a drug overdose of prescription drugs. His friends wanted to have a fundraiser at the school in order to help out the family. But the school officials refused, saying it might glorify drug use. Yes, look at how cool drug use is, here's a kid DYING! The other kids wanted to do the right thing, but the politically correct, unable to think for themselves MORONS at the school were unable to see it. Drugs are bad; therefore a fund raiser for a kid dying from drugs must be bad. Right?

* What? More media bias? NBC 4 News at 11pm, reported this about the sequester: "It's happening because a choice that Republicans in Congress have made - but people are gonna be hurt." I must have missed the part where Republicans got control of both Houses of Congress and could dictate whatever policy they wanted. Sorry NBC 4 - but the Dems and Obama were in on it too. You know what's worse than morons? LIARS!

The Media Research Center reported that 58 of 88 stories (66%) about the sequester on CBS, NBC and ABC for the period 2/14 through 3/1/13 were (as so aptly described by the I.B.D.) "dominated by panic nonsense, without a second of rebuttal of common sense." But, as the I.B.D. also notes, Obama can spend us into oblivion, with no panic from the mainstream media about it.

* The Congressional Progressive Caucus (made up almost entirely of Democrats) wants to see a 49% top income tax rate, with ever decreasing deductions. And they would like to see trillions more in spending. What happens when they have taken everyone's money and there's nothing more to take? Can you say Cyprus? Greece? Portugal? Spain? Italy?

* Cover up? According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, it is "pretty disappointing" that Congress may have to subpoena the many surviving witnesses to the Benghazi attack in order for the truth to come out. Remember how Obama and his Cabinet repeated the lies about the movie trailer? That was proven to be a falsehood. Now, some are claiming the Obama administration is trying to pressure the survivors from speaking publicly about what happened. Transparency?

* The left loves a dictator. Jimmy Carter talked about "the gains made for the poor and vulnerable." Sean Penn: "Poor people around the world have lost a champion." The New York Times said he empowered and energized millions. Democrat Congressman Jose Serrano: "His legacy in his nation, and in the hemisphere" will be "a better life for the poor and downtrodden." Said the LA Times: he "promised to use Venezuela's vast oil wealth to improve life for the country's poor, and by most accounts he did just that." Pretty nice reviews for the deceased dictator Hugo Chavez. And pretty weird. Even the LA Times acknowledged that Chavez used his power "to reinforce his own position, attack his critics and censor the media...extend his time in office...arbitrarily suspend television and radio stations...and stacked the courts with supporters." So, quite the guy. The LA Times went on to note that Venezuela's next leader would face "a bleak economic future, rising crime rates and a deeply polarized nation." Wait a minute. "Bleak" economic future? Didn't they just say he improved life for the poor? Who is most affected by a bleak/weak economy? The poor. See the Times logic? Neither do I.

* The I.B.D. had this to say about Chavez: "The ugly reality is, Chavez's Castro-inspired socialist model, far from helping the poor, left them worse off than ever even as Venezuela's neighbors in Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama and Chile have risen by embracing free markets." The I.B.D. went on: "Chavez's currency devaluation and capital controls made everything from toilet paper to tires expensive and scarce in Venezuela, harming the poor - who spend 80% of their income on necessities - most."

* Those sequester cuts were really nasty. So bad Obama had to cut the White House tours. After taking some flack for that he manned up...and blamed the Secret Service! The good news is that he could still afford a trip to go play golf with Tiger Woods. I mean, the taxpayers could still afford his trip. Not to mention the $102,000 salary for the assistant tasked with watching the First Family's dog! And did I mention the dinner for Mexico's President: $969,793! (As noted by the Washington Examiner, per the I.B.D.) That money could have fed a lot of hungry families. Has any President and First Family ever enjoyed "the good life" at taxpayers' expense more than this one? And all during horrific economic times for so many. Obama, a man of the people.

* Remember Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative? Having a missile defense system to protect the homeland. The idea that Sen. Ted Kennedy referred to as "Star Wars," with the media thereafter mockingly using that term to describe Reagan's idea. It was a fairly bold concept: "What if a free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest on the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies." Turns out Kennedy was wrong - very wrong - and Reagan was right. Just ask the Israelis, who had phenomenal success with their Iron Dome system; claiming they shot down over 90% of incoming rockets from Gaza that were targeting Israeli cities. And now, with North Korea threatening to attack the US, we are deploying more missile defense systems in Alaska and California. Sorry Ted, just another thing (among many) about which you were so wrong.

* Of course, it's not the first time that the Dems and the media made fun of a Republican idea that proved to be correct. Remember Dan Quayle? As the first Bush's V.P. he suggested that TV character Murphy Brown was not the best role model, being a single woman and deciding to have a kid without getting married. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." "Too many fathers are MIA, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes." "...the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." Quotes from Dan Quayle? No, Barack Obama in 2008. "It turns out that with the father being involved, the kids are less likely to do drugs...girls are less likely to get pregnant. And so that message is something that we want to make sure gets out there." Quayle? No, Obama again.

* Conservative ideas: missile defense, a father in an intact home, controlling spending, supporting our true allies - such as Israel, calling a dictator a dictator, and having a media that speaks truth. For those on the opposite side of the political fence, you should try it. If you already live by these values, then now try voting for those who support those values.

Obama's Presidency

* The Economy. In his Inaugural speech, President Obama said: "For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it." In Obama's first 3 1/2 years in office, median household income dropped $4019.00, adjusted for inflation. Unemployment: 7.9%. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses a broader measure and has unemployment at 14.4%. In nine prior recessions, the loss of jobs was recouped in 24 months. Under Obama, it is estimated it will take 80 months. (Data from IBD, 2/4 and 2/15/13.) Although I think that under Obama we are probably looking at permanently higher unemployment, as we become more like the Europeans in every way.

While the unemployed today may equal in number the unemployed during the Great Depression, it is less obvious and apparent. No bread lines or soup kitchens. Just a vast increase in unemployment benefits, food stamps, Social Security disability, and other "benefits." But this does not make for a healthy economy. It requires an ever increasing demand for new tax revenue, which is what we constantly hear from Obama. But we know the President is doing all he can to create jobs, as he told us: "My economic agenda...begins with jobs," (Jan., 2009); "This is my Administration's over-riding focus," (Nov., 2009); "We are going to have a sustained and relentless focus over the next several months on accelerating the pace of job creation, because that's priority No. 1," (Jan., 2010); "Our No. 1 focus has to be jobs, jobs, jobs," (Sept., 2010); "My singular focus over the next two years is...jump-starting the economy so that we actually start making a dent in the unemployment rate," (Dec., 2010); "My principal focus, my No. 1 focus, is going to be making sure that we are...creating jobs not just now but well into the future," (Jan., 2011); "Our top priority has to be jobs and growth" (Nov., 2012). So what happened to all the jobs that Obama was going to create? Here are a few choices: 1. Obama has never had a real world job and has no idea how jobs are created, 2. Obama is an ideologue, and as such, really does not care that his policies have had a negative impact on job creation, 3. It's all Bush's fault. I'm going with numbers 1 and 2, but I know my liberal friends will always and forever go with number 3.

"Narrowing the income gap is essential for ensuring social justice and social harmony. We need to raise income levels of the poor and adjust taxes on the excessively wealthy." While it sounds like something Obama might have said (which he has in other ways) this quote is actually from the The State Council of the People's Republic of China. (IBD 2/28/13 article by Ralph Reiland.) The same article notes that South Korea, a free and capitalist society for six decades, has a per capita income of $19614. as of 2008. Anti-capitalist, government run North Korea had per capita income of $1122. (Bush's fault?) The quote from Obama at the beginning of this post is not unlike China's desired policy. But, as Winston Churchill said: Capitalism is the "unequal sharing of blessings," while socialism is the "equal sharing of misery." South Korea versus North Korea - the same people with vastly different outcomes; capitalism vs. socialism.

* Obamacare. Any company with 50 or more "full time equivalent workers" must offer health insurance to employees who work greater than 30 hours per week. (But the law treats two 15 hour per week employees as one full time worker.) So here's a shock: in order to avoid a penalty of $2000. per employee if they do not offer insurance, smaller employers are keeping their workforce under 50 employees. It bears noting that smaller employers are generally the ones that lead in job growth. Of late, however, job growth has been limited to part-time jobs. Many companies are keeping their employees at 29 hours per week. According to a report (cited in the 2/23-2/24/13 Wall Street Journal) the franchise industry (many fast food restaurants) estimates the cost of Obamacare to be $6.4 billion, with 3.2 million of their employees being "at risk" (presumably for losing their jobs or having a cut in hours). Clearly, Obamacare will be a drain on the employment sector. The question is: still Bush's fault?

In what some will argue is a mere coincidence, The LA Times (2/10/13 edition) announced that the state of California "lacks doctors to fill needs." And why wouldn't it? More people now "insured," older doctors not wanting to deal with the new law, and potential future doctors not wanting to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school debt for a job that will pay less and have greater government control. So one proposal is that physician assistants, optometrists and even pharmacists be given greater power in treating patients. Same quality of healthcare? I remain amazed that there are still those who believe that Obamacare was about improving the quality of care.

Did you know that a family of four with modified adjusted gross income of $93,000. may qualify for a credit of $445. per month to help pay for their health coverage? That equates to an estimated 2.6 million Californians qualifying for some premium subsidies. Meanwhile, with all the "mandates" in the law as to what every policy must cover, one wonders who will be able to even afford insurance. (The mandates include: no charge for "preventive" services, mental health and substance abuse treatment, pediatric dental and vision care, "habilitative services" (to teach new skills to people); as well as limits on maximum out of pocket costs and deductibles. From the 2/22/13 IBD.) Think insurance companies won't raise their rates to cover their added expenses? Or do you believe in free lunches? Remember "if you like your insurance plan you'll be able to keep it?" So said Obama. Pelosi said: "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Well, now that they passed it without reading it, and the President signed it without reading it, and the Supreme Court upheld it without reading it, we do get to see what's in it. And it's becoming more and more clear that only the wealthy are going to be able to afford private insurance. The rest of us will get whatever the government gives us. Except for the President and Congress as they always exempt themselves from legislation that is good enough for the rest of us, however.

* Obama or Nixon? We all know that Nixon had his "enemies" list. We also know that the people at Fox News are at the top of Obama's enemies list. (If you cannot think of anything to support that last comment go back and read the 2/3/13 post entitled "Media Bias, Part IV.") It turns out, however, that also on Obama's enemies list is that liberal icon of Watergate fame, Bob Woodward. While Obama has been criticizing Republicans for the sequester, Woodward had the temerity to point out that Obama lied when he said he did not propose the sequester. Said Woodward, a White House aid "yelled at me for about a half-hour," and then ending with "I think you will regret staking out that claim." Obama and his administration officials were busy scaring the country about how the sequester would negatively impact every aspect of our lives, while Woodward pointed out that under Obama the feds added 130,000 high paying government jobs; and Obama continues to "campaign" around the country in Air Force One (at a cost of $180,000. per hour). Said Woodward: "So now we have the President going out (and saying) 'Because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country.' That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

But Fox and Woodward are not the only ones on the White House enemies list. Former adviser to President Clinton, Lanny Davis, is also on the list. Aside from sometimes appearing on Fox, Davis writes a column in the Washington Times that is sometimes critical of Obama. Davis claims that White House officials warned that the paper might be punished with limited access and even have their White House credentials revoked. USA Today claims some of its reporters have been subject to the same treatment. Ron Fournier of the National Journal said: "I received several e-mails and telephone calls from (a) White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat." The IBD reports that prior to Obama's first inauguration, a White House press aide warned them to back off of their aggressive coverage. (Quotes and information in above two paragraphs from the 3/1/13 IBD.)

Woodward and Bernstein were the type of "investigative journalists" that undoubtedly encouraged many to enter journalism schools. Today's reporters and journalists? How many have questioned the Obama Administration's weeks of lies about what was behind the Benghazi attack? How many cared about Fast and Furious? How many are asking about the drones flying over the USA; or about the Department of Homeland Security purchasing 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition? How many dare ask: "Mr. President, the sequester will only cut $85 billion dollars out of a $3.8 trillion dollar budget. Couldn't you cut back on some of those high paying jobs you have created? Why did you refuse the Republicans' offer to give you the power to choose what to cut?"

Remember when Obama promised to have the most "transparent" administration in our country's history? Did you think "transparent" meant "the press shall only report what I want them to report?" (My phrase.) I know that at least one of my liberal readers will be able to explain to me how Obama's Nixon-like tactics are...Bush's fault!