We’re giving away
To the editor:
Back in 1775 the colonists fought for their freedom, and for the freedom of their descendents. They believed in the cause, they believed that cause was worth dying for, and they fought a very difficult war. The colonists won, and a new country was created and a government formed. The government was supposed to ensure that the citizens had rights and freedoms that they did not have under British rule.
We have essentially given away everything those colonists fought for. Our legislative branch has created so many agencies over time that the government encroaches on every part of our lives. The legislature has also created laws that reward people for being lazy and irresponsible by providing those people with food, housing and health care. The reward for being hard-working and responsible — you get to pay for the food, housing and health care for the others.
The judicial branch has decided that personal responsibility is no more. We can legally blame someone else for everything from spilling hot coffee on ourselves while driving to being obese from eating too many Big Macs. Our child gets hurt falling off his bike — it must be the manufacturer’s fault. The cigarette companies are to be blamed for lung cancer even in people that started smoking long after it was determined that smoking causes cancer. We get arrested for drunk driving — it must be the bartender’s fault. We assault somebody, it is because we were abused as a child.
The judicial branch has also decided that immigrants, legal and illegal, and criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens. And along with that, those criminals, including illegal immigrants, have the right to an attorney paid for by the law-abiding citizens. The illegal immigrants also have the right to an education, housing, and health care, all paid for by the law-abiding taxpaying citizens. The courts have also given more rights to tenants than to property owners and more rights to employees than employers. People no longer have the choice as to whom to rent to and whom they can hire.
The executive branch does not even think the Constitution matters. The president is supposed to be the top law enforcement agent in the country, yet he has chosen to enforce only those laws that he agrees with and to ignore the ones he disagrees with.
I believe those patriots of long ago would be deeply ashamed of what we have allowed to happen to our country. I know I am.
Obama passes the buck on Benghazi
To the editor:
Comparing the scrutiny Barack Obama has undergone in the aftermath of the slaughter of 9/11/2012 in Benghazi, Libya, with the support George W. Bush received in the wake of 9/11/2001 simply does not work, especially if aimed at exonerating Obama while excoriating Bush.
There is much to question about Bush’s tenure as president, but his early response to 9/11/2001 is not an area where he can be much faulted, if at all. Without blaming or suggesting blame, he examined the threat and responded to it. Not one of his cabinet or supporters was held up as the fall guy. What actions were taken up to the point of going to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban as enablers and al-Qaida as perpetrators was admirable and directly related to the protection of Americans. That’s the president’s job.
With Obama and Benghazi there is a closer parallel to Nixon’s actions after Watergate. Historians are still working that one out, but it would appear that Nixon denied, negated, modified, amended, tested and challenged any attempts to tie him to the break in. So have Obama and his administration’s minions where Benghazi is concerned.
But Obama’s level of personal integrity has allowed something else into the disturbing story. That would be the element of blame, the revealing, sophomoric need to shift the heat to someone other than himself. Nixon at least did not offer up for sacrifice any of his closest advisors. That is precisely what Obama has done.
First to go was an old enemy, Hillary Clinton. Here’s the progression:
Approximately 9-10 hours after the Libyan attack began, Obama responded. The word “terror” did not appear. In light of what he first said, the decision to follow the fictitious, deceitful narrative of a spontaneous attack brought on by a 13-minute movie trailer had probably already been made.
But three hours later, Secretary Clinton began to unravel that narrative with what were the most honest, and possibly heartfelt, words of the day. Her speech mentioned “heavily armed militants” as well as “violent extremism” and she posed the question: “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate?”
These remarks probably infuriated Obama. He appeared within an hour of Clinton’s remarks, this time with her at his side. Listening to him, but watching her, I had the distinct impression that she was being presented as the person to blame and was not there at his side, but at his insistence.
It was Obama’s second public response that included the words “no acts of terror,” the kind of generality Obama’s speech writers provide for him regularly as a last resort whose meaning he can distort, whenever convenient.
The next blame-takers, plan B if the muck does not stick securely enough to Clinton, have been the never-identified intelligence community.
Some have recently expressed offense that Obama has been unfavorably mentioned vis a vis Harry Truman’s “buck stops here” observation. It is unfair to Truman. Barack Obama’s placard should read: “I make sure the buck never gets here.”