(Above: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as captured on camera during her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the accusations of failed security measures at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya on January 23, 2013. Photograph courtesy of The Blaze.)
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
-Plato, The Republic
First of all, I want to apologize to my readers for failing to address both the Benghazi hearings that are going on before the House Oversight Committee as well as the gun control debate before today. I wanted to do so badly for the past several days, but because my blog is so new and therefore that means that I have missed several very interesting political news stories and articles that have been reported and authored in the preceding days and weeks, I felt it incumbent upon me to address those issues to correct the liberal intellectual elitists about conservative and Libertarian philosophies and our perception that government is, indeed, overreaching and overbearing. Such topics as President Obama's commencement speech at The Ohio State University and the fallacious article by a liberal psychologist that was published in Psychology Today really struck a nerve with me because the liberal lunatic fringe always gets away with spreading lies and perpetuating false stereotypes about conservatives. As a result, I felt the necessity to address these examples of political slander and libel by attacking the left with my own diatribes based on empirical data as supported by one of the Left's most powerful foes: the annals of history. Liberals, though, often go to great lengths to discredit the lessons history teaches us despite it being an account of things which have already occurred by rewriting what happened into a form that is favorable to their political positions. This phenomena is what is widely known as historical revisionism, and examples of these are extremely common; for example, when Hollywood, which is mainly inhabited by leftist actors, directors, producers, and screenwriters, revises the real stories behind many historical events or even the subjects of the movies that are filmed to either fill a need for dramatizing the action on screen, or worse, to rewrite what they feel to be a politically incorrect account of the way history actually was shaped because it does not coalesce well with their political beliefs. When it comes to biographies and narratives, the main method for historical revisionists to bastardize the past is to repetitively pass judgment on the historical figures' actions or the events that occurred within a given society for not acting in the manner the author feels would have been morally and socially justified based on the standards of the time the book was being written rather than accepting the fact that societal norms and mores greatly differed from those of today. Such things, though, are all too common within our world today because those who are most closely associated with pop culture, politics, and in particular scholasticism, know for a fact that a stereotypical professor is unfortunately so far to the left that, in the one instance I mentioned from my second Western Civilization class with regards to a debate I was engaged in with the professor in my blog about Obama's commencement speech, the liberal movement in the United States is not liberal enough because there is not enough social and economic equality even though the Democrats who are in office are constantly looking to act upon the promise of redistributing wealth from the tax dollars collected from first the rich and, later, the middle-class.
As we digress and move forward, let us focus on the testimony and revelations being presented before the House committee on the Benghazi attacks and the scandal that has people talking of a possible political disaster a kin to the iceberg that sunk the Titanic for the Democratic party. Eight months have passed since the attacks on September 11, 2012, and the American people are just now to the point where they may finally get some answers and a little bit of satisfaction. The House Oversight Committee has brought forth whistle-blowers who are singing their hearts out, communicating their vast knowledge about the situation from their experiences from the attack, and exposing the Obama administration's "inept, dishonest response to it." (Source: The Blaze) To read the article from the link provided, today could be a politically devastating day for the president and his party or, unfortunately, it could also mean that we will only find out what is already known and nothing at will happen to affect the plight of the Left in this country at all -- which would mean that, as usual, the Democratic lawmakers in Washington will have gotten away with murder quite literally.
Worse still, this could turn into another free-pass for the Obama administration and the Democrats just as the "Fast and Furious" scandal did for the president and Attorney General Eric Holder. The American people tend to more than occasionally forgive liberal lawmakers because they manage to convince the public of their record as champions of the poor and underprivileged, as having the labor unions' backs, of giving the minorities in America jobs within the government as well as tax exemptions and subsidies white Americans do not get because it is done so in the name of social justice in retribution for the 250+ years of slavery and the pain and emotional suffering the Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Movement caused. Most of all, they derive their support in times of political crisis because they manage to convince the American public that they have created a concept that has been in the modus operandi of Democratic lawmakers since Lyndon Johnson's administration: the concept that their vision of the "great society" has been created. This is what Obama managed to do despite a record of the highest unemployment rate since the early 1980's at the end of his first term as president, for his economic policy of printing money without those "funny-monies" having a weighted-standard to fund his economic stimulus package, and for what will ultimately be what former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in reference to the proposal to privatize British Railways: in the case of the president, who has secured the increase of taxes as part of the Fiscal Cliff Agreement and proposed another tax hike among both the rich and middle-classes in his failed attempt at a budget proposal twice within the past four months in order to pay for the "train wreck" that the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obama Care, will undoubtedly become, he is still the darling of the liberal media nuts and the blithe public figures of society. The same thing happened with Bill Clinton when he was impeached by the House of Representatives but was acquitted by the majority of lawmakers in the Senate acting on the fear that popular opinion that was in favor of Clinton would result in Republicans in the Senate ultimately being voted out of office.
For the moment, though, let us return to the facts of the case, and the possible disastrous consequences that could occur for the Democrats politically with the revelations of what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows or did not know about the incident. We know these items as being facts:
- There is absolutely no one denying the fact that crucial warnings were ignored leading up to the Benghazi attacks. The security at the embassy was deteriorating due to negligence and oversight, and moreover, multiple requests for military help and intervention were either ignored, not taken seriously, or worse still, the supervising official who should have been paid attention, in this case Clinton, dropped the ball completely for perhaps no other reason other than pure abject apathy.
- No matter how you slice it, this is incompetence at its most obvious. Unfortunately for the American people and fortunately for the Obama administration and Clinton, anything less than a series of new revelations coming from this will result in no change in the cluster you-know-what that is our current bureaucracy, which was largely created by those self-proclaimed "masters of reform in government infrastructure," aka. the Democrats. The type of information that must be revealed before the House committee has to relate to what Clinton knew and what her direct role was in this situation. In other words, without the appropriate qualitative and quantitative evidence to implicate her for being as incompetent as I have always believed her to be, "the line to the top dog will continue to be riddled with red tape."
- The administration's position with the public that so adores it during the course of time the attack commenced could "be up for a major thrashing." According to Deputy Chief of Mission, Greg Hicks, senior administration officials failed to act decisively to save American lives, and even stood in the way of an effort to do so.
Reports over the news have revealed that fighter jets were located just 600 miles from the embassy. Hicks stated that, in his opinion, F-16's could have been employed as a show of force over the area. In his testimony, Hicks opines that such a maneuver as simply "buzzing" the area could have deterred the attackers by causing them to disengage and withdraw for fear of being targeted. The airbase in Aviano, Sicily, or the Naval Base in Greece's Souda Bay could have possibly provided sufficient fighter aircraft. Should this be true and corroborated as such, it shows the sheer incompetence of the former Secretary of State for not only failing to plan for such a "worse case scenario," but also in portraying the chain of command answering to Clinton as well as her boss, President Obama, as unwilling to compromise what is probably her soft, weak stance on conflict by refusing to take a risk and gamble by ordering the deployment of manned aerial assets to help those fighting off the terrorist attack.
Ironically, this falls right in line with the typical liberal policy of "hands off" foreign and defense policies. Since President Obama has been in power, I can name at least two acts of terrorism committed against Americans on U.S. soil: the first one is the Benghazi attacks by terrorists at the Libyan Embassy on September 11, 2012, while the second occurred just seven months later with the Boston Marathon bombings There is nothing in a liberal's political platform on foreign or domestic policy with which I agree, but I think of all of their attributes that are monumental failures every time a Democrat is president, the foreign policy and national defense are the Left's weakest links. Every Democratic president since Harry Truman has failed at both foreign policy and national defense. Truman, to his credit, gave the go-ahead to drop atomic bombs on Japan, but he failed to thwart the communist revolutionaries from North Korea; when Gen. Douglas MacArthur suggested to Truman that the army go ahead and conquer North Korea and then advance northward and invade China, this was too much for the President to bear, and he subsequently fired MacArthur. As a result, there was no victor in the war, only an armistice that was signed between the North Korean and South Korean governments that still is in effect today between the divided Korean peoples. John F. Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs situation, even though he managed to avert nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lyndon Johnson made it a personal crusade to fight an unpopular and unnecessary war in Vietnam, sending thousands upon thousands of troops to the obscure and embattled nation to fight off the communist forces of the Viet Cong, which led to his administration and the Democrats in Congress instituting the draft. The problem was not that we did not have the ability to win the war, it was we did not make the kinds of decisions that resulted in a decisive outcome, i.e. we did not fight to win, but rather not to lose, and we only fought to contain the tide of communism to North Vietnam rather than fighting aggressively to eliminate its presence in the country. Jimmy Carter might have achieved a high water mark when it comes to the Middle East Peace Process by overseeing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sign a peace agreement, but his failure to resolve the Iran Hostage Crisis along with the economy experiencing stagflation led to his ouster as president. Bill Clinton also was guilty of allowing terrorist attacks to occur on both U.S. soil and against military personnel, including the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, and the U.S.S. Cole later on. Clinton's answer for everything was to either bomb Iraq or step up the aerial assault in the Balkans conflict, especially when it came to attempts at covering up the Monica Lewinsky scandal. One note not to be forgotten is this: every single Democratic president since Jimmy Carter has cut military spending to the detriment of the cause of national defense. Clinton's cutting of military and intelligence apparatus' are ultimately what led to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trades Center and the Pentagon that led to the deaths of more than 3,000 people since the federal government's capacity to monitor security through various methods of surveillance were hampered due to the lack of funds. These examples of the Democrats who have occupied the White House over the past 68 years and their failures at foreign policy and national defense support the true and factual stereotype that Democrats do not keep the American people as safe as do Republicans.
This brings up the question of whether aerial forces were ordered to stand down. Hicks reportedly told House investigators that a Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli was detained despite being ready to deploy to Benghazi. This delay occurred before the second wave of attacks on the annex facility, which could very well have cost American lives. If this is true, than Clinton's errors go well beyond simply being egregious; they are, as stated above, tantamount to a show of sheer and utter apathy toward the very people who attempt to ensure there is good will between the two nations. The Blaze is more aggressive in asserting its opinion with the following paragraph:
"That any U.S. official would hamper from deploying with all due haste to assist a U.S. Ambassador and numerous other Americans in jeopardy defies our most basic expectations. If political optics -- the possibility that a large, sustained gunfight with Benghazi terrorists would have looked bad on television the next day -- influenced the decision to give the stand down order in any way, the American people have the right to know. And someone must be held accountable."
(Above: The aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on September 11, 2012. On the wall is blood believed to have belonged to someone who was inside the complex, possibly U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. Photograph courtesy of The Blaze.)
So, how high up the chain of command does this act of what is essentially politically-motivated criminal negligence go? Also, how deep? The Blaze correctly asserts the undeniable fact that "Anyone with an internet connection can prove that the Obama administration lied to prevent an election-changing narrative from taking hold in the minds of the American people." This is a given because initially, the President intentionally avoided declaring it a terrorist attack by stating that the State Department did not have all the evidence at their disposal at the time of the incident, and therefore he did not want to jump to any conclusions until an investigation could produce the facts of the case. In another lesser-publicized instance in front of television cameras, though, Obama softly and almost surreptitiously made reference to the incident as a terrorist attack. Still, the lies were not through. Obama did the quintessential "flip-flop" routine so often that he stumbled over the exactness of what he said in a debate with Republican Presidential challenger Mitt Romney. By this time, however, the American public had begun catching on to what had happened in Benghazi and began to associate it with the ugliest word in the political dictionary: a scandal. But because Obama lied to cover up the situation, and because the liberal media outlets brushed it under the table, the incident did little, at least for the short term, to damage his political capital or credibility, and he went on to win a second term as president. However, false innocence in the place of real guilt never lasts forever, and that is what we are seeing now with the House committee's investigation. The three whistle-blowers to speak today could be in a position to make such an airtight case for a cover up at the top levels of the administration that efforts by our former Secretary of State and President Obama to downplay, dismiss, or entrust the liberal media outlets to bury the story will become impossible to achieve.
As has been stated, this was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the liberal media outlets tried to keep the American public from referring to the attacks at Benghazi as terrorist attacks most likely because they probably politicized this incident as Democratic politicians do so often and did not want the nation, or the "collective" as Marx and Engels liked to put it, to stereotype the people who were responsible, which once again were Islamic fundamentalists of Middle Eastern descent. This is most likely because the worst kept secrets in Obama's closet are he was born in Kenya and therefore not constitutionally allowed to be the President of the United States, and that he is a Muslim. Once again, the word "stereotype" is used, which is one of the liberal fringe's favorite words to use in making accusations against conservatives. Then the President and Secretary Clinton tried to perpetuate the claims about the YouTube video that was filmed and produced as being "a cynical smokescreen, meant to stall the news cycle." That last fact I found to be absolutely amazing since the Democrats rely so heavily on the mostly-liberal mass media to serve as the mouthpiece for spreading their political propaganda and as the apparatus that pontificates to the American people what the ideal Utopian society would be like and how the "collective" should intermingle, behave, and innovate for the good of what Rousseau called "the general will." More damning is that the FBI took a total of 24 hours to get on site, long after most of the major news networks had the opportunity to examine the wreckage. But what the Republican-controlled House, the American people, and the liberal media outlets do not know that might be revealed to us by today's whistle-blowers is who exactly made the decision to not deploy fighter jets or provide any other kind of military assistance to the victims at Benghazi. We can all probably draw our own conclusions, but this is the United States of America, where the Constitution that the Democrats like to make a mockery of and yet will follow its directives to the "T" should it contain a law or legal technicality that suits them, states that all suspects of a crime, no matter how heinous or benign, are innocent until proven guilty. There just is not any hard proof as of yet.
The next question that probably should be asked is what are the political ramifications for President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party? Here are my conjectures on both the potential consequences of the two politicians and political party as well as the potential courses of action they might take in order to sabotage the Republican-controlled House of Representatives' attempts at finding them liable for those deaths, which will be compared to the article's statements from The Blaze:
- Both The Blaze and I agree on one very important characteristic of the Democratic party's platform that I mentioned above: Republicans have correctly asserted for decades that the Democrats' foreign and national defense policies are soft and therefore weak, and that the Democrats focus almost solely on domestic policy by attempting to socialize the economy and regulate all aspects of public life. The Blaze's exact wording was this: "...that Democrats are feckless on national security and place raw domestic considerations above all else." And just as the article and I agreed on the biggest weaknesses of the Democrats' political platform earlier in the paragraph, we also agree on something else that could be the difference between whether a Republican is elected president in 2016 or if the nation has to suffer through another four years of socialist domestic policies coupled with soft foreign and defense policies: this scandal could prove to be the death knell in the coffin of Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes in three years. Think of another legend of modern Democratic party politics: Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy ran for the Democratic party's nomination for President of the United States in 1980. There was just one problem, though: the looming ghost of one Mary Jo Kopechne hanging over his head, screaming for justice to the party's delegates for his killing her. There is no doubt Kennedy would have made a more formidable opponent for Ronald Reagan because Jimmy Carter had failed as president and was therefore highly unpopular, but the fact he committed what was tantamount to vehicular homicide of a passenger in his car due to drunkenness proved to be his undoing. Of course, Kennedy did not admit that was why he did not win the nomination; he simply said that he did not want to put another Kennedy life in danger in the pursuit of the White House. And just as Kennedy was a murderer, so, too, is Hillary Clinton should she be found culpable for politically-motivated criminal negligence.
- While I mentioned above that it will be impossible for President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the party in general, and of the cursed institution known as the liberal mass media to overcome and therefore hide the evidence and details as described by the surviving parties of the Benghazi attacks, do not think for one second that these figures will not try to put on a "full-court press" to try to deter the House committee's efforts. The Blaze suggests that the Democrats will attempt to undermine the credibility of the whistle-blowers. As I was watching live footage of today's hearings while I was eating lunch, one Democratic congressman was already ripping whichever one of the whistle-blowers was currently taking his turn at the microphone as well as the Republicans on the committee for dragging this issue before the committee since, in his opinion, there was no evidence that any wrongdoing occurred. Thus, this tactic has already begun being employed by the congressmen on the left side of the aisle. The other tactic the Democrats could employ, according to the article, is to say that this issue is old news, and claim that everything the Republicans in the House are doing is geared toward pursuing a "political witch-hunt." This tactic has been used many times in the past by the Democrats, most recently being during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky sex scandal that led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives and the subsequent failed attempt by the Senate to remove him from office due to the brilliant maneuvering by the Democratic party to use his high approval rating to influence lawmakers to vote to only remove him at their own political peril.
- The Democrats' primary goal, which again is a point both the article and I agree upon, is to protect Hillary Clinton's legacy. They managed to preserve her husband's popularity after his time in the White House concluded despite a bevy of scandals that rocked his political life from the time he was Governor of Arkansas until the last three years of his presidency, and it is very possible they could do so again because, as I said earlier, the American people tend to be more forgiving of a Democrat for becoming involved in a major political scandal involving the committing of a crime or a breach of an ethical code of conduct than they are a Republican because, again, the Democrats come across as the champions of the poor and middle-class through promises that they will lower the gap differential between the incomes of the richest Americans and the poorest by taxing the rich more and redistributing the wealth to the rest of the population, whereas Republicans like to use the visibly less-attractive method of engendering wealth by creating jobs and opportunities for the poor, unemployed, and disadvantaged so they can go to work and therefore have a chance through free-market economic initiatives to increase their financial, economic, and social well-being. The phenomenon of President Obama's election and time in office rests solely on the fact that he was the first black president ever elected in U.S. history; it did not hurt him one bit that he was also dynamic and very charismatic, which made him exciting to see as well as being a spectacle in comparison to his two Republican opponents, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The same is true of Hillary Clinton. Should she be elected, she will become the first female president of the United States. Her popularity among liberals is extremely high, and because she is a woman, she will have the entire female gender demographic at her disposal just as Obama had 95% of the total black registered voters' votes. Her one drawback, though, is her age, as she is nearing 70, which is older than Ronald Reagan was when he won the election of 1980 at the age of 69. However, Clinton might be stuck with the Benghazi albatross over her head, and if that is so, I am being sincere in that I cannot see her winning the Democratic nomination for president, much less the presidency in 2016 should she choose to run. After all, a U.S. Ambassador and three other people were killed on her watch, and her signature, automatic or not, was on cables pulling back security resources. It goes without saying that her testimony in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing back on January 23 of this year was at the very least misleading. Thus, the Benghazi hearing will not only be a search for the truth as well as justice in vindicating the deaths of an U.S. Ambassador and three other people, it will also be what The Blaze calls "a preemptive political battle against Hillary Clinton, the presumed next Democratic nominee." Thus, the Republicans have a golden opportunity to set the Democratic party back for years if they approach this situation the right way.
- The line from The Blaze says it all: "While Benghazi is definitely much worse than Watergate, the consequences for President Obama will definitely not be." This is sad but true, because even if the House of Representatives were to vote in favor of the articles of impeachment, any attempt at having him removed from office would fail miserably in the Democratic-controlled Senate. And let us face the truth: when President Clinton was impeached in 1999 for perjuring during his testimony before independent council Kenneth Starr, he did not get removed by the Senate, which was controlled by the Republicans. And again, I will bring up Ted Kennedy and his killing Mary Jo Kopechne and not being removed from office or being forced to serve time in prison, as well as another Massachusetts Democratic lawmaker in Barney Frank, who carried on a sexual relationship with a 15 year old boy many years ago and was not forced to serve a prison sentence for child molestation or statutory rape, much less be forced to resign. All of these things to me suggest the Democratic party, as a whole, is filled with politicians guilty of licentiousness, corruption, and murder, and therefore exude the qualities generally associated with immorality. In essence, I will borrow the nickname of late mobster John Gotti when I refer to the Democratic politicians in Washington when they become embroiled in scandal by referring to them as "Teflon dons" since so often, Democrats who wind up in trouble manage to finagle their way out of it due to the support of the constituents they promised to take care of if they were willing to relinquish a liberty or two that were dear to them. This includes President Obama, who while he may not be impeached and subsequently removed from office, he might find himself playing the role of the "lame duck" president three years sooner than he planned. That is the most that will happen to him.
- My last conjecture, of which no part is even mentioned by the article from The Blaze, is that the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives could fail to capitalize on this fresh new shred of political leverage that just dropped in their laps. As I have said many times in prior blog entries, the greatest, most savvy politicians in the history of the United States are the Democratic party lawmakers that have served in various public offices since 1932. Why 1932, you ask? That is because 1932 was the year Franklin Roosevelt was elected president over the Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover, who was charged as being the figure head solely responsible for causing the conditions to be right for the Stock Market Crash of 1929 that spawned the Great Depression. The significance of FDR is his politically-innovative idea of creating America's very own brand of socialism and the welfare state, which had never existed before in the U.S. This ideology has been expanded on by Democratic politicians of all public offices, and over that 80+ year span, the party has held more elected positions than the Republicans by a considerable margin. The party in the 1960's added new dimensions to its public appeal when it became associated with the segment of the population calling for the banning of mandatory prayer and biblical recitations in public schools. A couple of years later, the Democrats became the party that appealed most to the black population demographic as a result of President Lyndon Johnson signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the late 1960's leading into the 1970's, the party became the political apparatus of choice for feminists, gay rights activists, pro-choice advocates, and gun control lobbyists fighting the NRA because the Democrats had a history of perpetuating the myth that America is always in the middle of a class struggle. The Democrats appeal to all segments of the population who have cried foul at the general establishment over the years, and this appeal, to me, is what could keep the president and Hillary Clinton from suffering the wrath of the conservative establishment due to its political incompetence that has become a classic trait of the Right for the past 20 years. This would mean that in Clinton's case, she could still be in the hunt for the Democratic nomination for president, which, if nominated, she would win the election due to possessing a high level of popularity within a significant liberal lunatic fringe that is vast in numbers, a quality that is similar to that of Mao Zedong and other totalitarian dictators in the form of a "cult of leadership." In other words, if you are the political establishment that practices the "Robin Hood philosophy" of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor," you always have an excellent chance at getting elected, and that is what Clinton does so well. To conclude what I believe about Clinton's chances of earning the Democratic Presidential Nomination despite possibly being found liable for the deaths of four people due to politically-motivated criminal negligence, I would say her chances still are at 50/50, meaning she has just as good of a chance to be nominated as she does at not winning in three years time based on past accounts of how the Democrats often manage to find ways to legally absolve themselves of wrong doing and resurrect their careers sort of like the mythical bird called the phoenix. If Clinton gets nominated, she will win convincingly over whatever Republican candidate they throw into her cage. For all of my affinity for the platform and policies of the Republican party, I am also a realist: not since 1980 did the last truly emblematic, iconic, charismatic, humorous, and pragmatic politician and statesman ran and won the presidency, and that was Ronald Reagan. Sadly, the best the Republican party has been able to do for us is produce President George H.W.Bush and his son, George W., as well as the candidates who lost their elections to their Democratic opponents in Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Whether or not Hillary Clinton runs for the presidency in 2016 is beside the point; what is important is the Republican party has had few stars to nominate to give a serious challenge to even a mediocre Democratic candidate. Over the past five years, the GOP has been guilty of supporting candidates who are more liberal than conservative. This is bad because it does not give voters a real choice in picking a candidate that does not resemble the other. The Democrats have not changed their platform, and why should they? They have been more successful over the past 80+ years winning elections than have the Republicans. I hear people I know say that the Republican party today runs candidates who are far too conservative, and I heartily disagree with that assertion, choosing instead to believe the exact opposite to be the truth. The party is moving too far to the left in my opinion, leaving the voters the unenviable task of choosing between two candidates who might be of different political parties, but are on the same page on a number of issues as McCain and Romney were with Obama. (The similarities between Obama Care and Romney's health care system he created in Massachusetts were scary!) The three brightest stars within the Republican party today are Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Of these, I am willing to support Sens. Paul and Cruz because they follow the directives of the Constitution very closely. However, Sen. Rubio is another clone of McCain and Romney and must not win the Republican nomination in 2016, for if he does, even Vice President Joe Biden will beat him because there is not enough difference in the two men's politics for moderate and undecided voters to differentiate between when they used to have a politician like Reagan who left no doubt about his conservative convictions. As a result, these moderates and undecided voters will go with the known quantity, the Democratic candidate. Should Sen. Rubio win the Republican nomination, this will result in at least four more years of socialist policies geared toward restricting the rights of the individual as well as what is guaranteed in the Constitution, with the goal of governing the nation under the terms of a "common law" system based on tradition and precedent as opposed to having a system of law whereby checks and balances are used to keep tabs on the activities of different branches of the government or a portion of the document guaranteeing certain inalienable rights and liberties. The Democratic president instituting said-laws promoting the socialist ideology's virtues of society will no doubt pontificate that prosperity is achieved according to the philosophy that all people will give willingly to the "collective" based on the teachings of Rousseau whereby one must, as a matter of law, implicitly agree to a "social contract" that compels one to adhere to the legitimacy of the governing "general will," or the legitimacy upon which the Democratic president derives his authority, or be "forced to be free"; and the continuation of class warfare being conducted through oppressive taxation in which the tax dollars collected as a result of the legitimacy of this "general will" in accordance with the "social contract" will be redistributed evenly across the population under the pretense that the government is bridging the gap between rich and poor, resulting in every income bracket of the population being worse off financially than it was before because all initiatives for the talented and gifted members of society who used to do great things under Republican leadership will cease to be. There will be no rewards nor incentives for initiative or excellence, only a bottom line which must be met to make the society of the "collective" survive regardless of quality and craftsmanship. That is the authority of "the general will," and while this is a dramatized version of a possible dystopia that could be on the horizon that no doubt would be dismissed by the Democrats as "a fantasy that was cultivated by an overactive imagination," there are liberals throughout the world, even in America, who have such fantasies of a society whereby such things as a "general will," a "social contract," and the concept of society indoctrinating its citizens to believe fervently in the concept of people giving willingly to the whole, or a "collective," since the person, who once lived in the guise of an "individual," is no longer one with his or herself like the way Republicans catered to people.
Normally, I derive great pleasure out of authoring my own conclusions in my articles. However, in light of reading the last paragraph of the article used to provide supporting material and updates on what will be happening today in the House committee meeting with the selected whistle-blowers that were subpoenaed to testify on the events that occurred and the knowledge of any orders that were or were not given to send in military reinforcements to save their lives from the attacking terrorists, I feel more compelled to simply quote that last paragraph because I cannot more eloquently express my opinion of what needs to happen, what is at stake, and what could happen to the Republican cause should justice not be served and what political capital the Democrats have hanging by a threat is not snipped off:
"Americans had a chance to enforce accountability at the ballot box last November, and more than half failed to do so. If the whistle-blowers have their say, and enough of the American people are listening, we may have one last chance to punish -- or at least avoid -- dishonest leadership in the form of Hillary 2016."
No comments:
Post a Comment