Tag Archives: duty

“We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet”

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama reiterated, in his speech Thursday, his reluctance to strike Syria, whether to support good-guy rebels or to attack ISIS forces there.

He also reiterated his reluctance to go beyond “humanitarian” air strike potshots in northern Iraq, whether to support the Kurds or to attack ISIS forces there.

He also ruled out any sort of military help for Ukraine by the US in the face of the now open Russian invasion of that country.

He also reiterated his reluctance to provide arms and ammunition to the Ukrainian forces so they could defend themselves, even if by themselves.

He didn’t address Iran’s nuclear weapons program at all.

He didn’t address the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly aggressive sea grabs in the East and South China Seas and its increasing harassment of American surveillance flights—in international airspace, albeit above those claimed waters.

This is after two years of butchery in Syria; after four years of watching, according to a West Point report, the growing strength and organization of ISIS; six years after Russia’s invasion and partition of Georgia and six months after Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea oblast; over a year after the PRC began its aggression in those Seas.

We don’t have a strategy, yet.

New Publications

Posted on by
Reply

I’m pleased to announce two new pamphlets, A Conservative’s Thoughts on Rights and Duties, their Duality, and some Implications and A 21st Century American Crisis.

In Rights and Duties I talk about our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties and their attributes as endowments from and by our Creator, as well as how they and the fact that they’re duals of each other, are a part of the fabric of our existence—both as those individual rights and duties and in the capacity of those duals.

Further, and just as importantly, our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties are in each of us as individuals; they are not in groups of us, they are not in the whole of us as a nation. Each one of us is possessed of them entirely in ourselves.

This, of course, has implications for the role our government, and especially the roles of “civil law” and “civil rights,” have in our lives.

American Crisis is a call to arms for all of us to become active and to rescue our Republic from its dangerous drift away from our founding principles of small, limited government; individual liberties; personal responsibilities.

From the pamphlet:

In the era of our War of Independence, governments, said the Conservatives of the time—those monarchists, forerunners of today’s Big Government Progressive disciples—exist first and above the people, and the rights of the people are those granted by these governments.

“The time’s Liberals, though—the men and women of our War, of our Founding, and of our earlier history—had a different view. A man, they held, has rights that are indivisible from him because they are inherent in his humanity, in his very existence, as endowments from his Creator. Government, they held, exists to protect these rights and for no other purpose.

And

The blows we struck in 2010 were a worthy start, but they were only a start. The progress we added in 2012 has been inadequate to our cause. But we are not finished. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day.

See the links to the right or my Books page for information about how to get them in either Kindle or epub (Nook-compatible) format.

I hope you get as much out of them as I enjoyed putting into them.

Clinton’s Signature

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been made of the fact that memos that, among other matters, denied requests for additional security for the Benghazi consulate went out over then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s signature.  In particular, the Left insists that it’s entirely routine for others to affix the boss’ signature to correspondence which the boss never actually sees, much less reads, before that correspondence goes out.

The Left is correct in this.  In large organizations, it is a commonplace practice for subordinates to generate and transmit correspondence that the boss never sees but on which, because of the subject matter involved, the boss’ signature is required in order to give the necessary weight to the correspondence.  State is no different in this regard.

What the Left omits to mention, though—and what the right has missed—is that when subordinates put the boss’ signature on a document, it’s done strictly in accordance with a carefully specified policy, developed and promulgated by that boss, that lays out the subjects and types of correspondence for which this is permissible.  And the boss is briefed, usually beforehand and if not as soon as possible after transmittal, on the content of what he just “signed.”

Clinton knew full well what sorts of correspondence were going out over her signature, and she knew full well the contents of the particular correspondence in question: that she was denying upgrades to Benghazi security that were being requested, repeatedly, by the Benghazi security team and by the Chief of Mission, the soon-to-be-murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens.  That correspondence was executed entirely in accordance with her carefully designed policy.  That she denied the requests of her experts on the ground, and now denies knowing that she denied, speaks volumes about her competence and her integrity.

Alternatively, it’s entirely possible that Clinton, as she claims, really didn’t know what was being sent out over her signature.  Since the policy governing those transmittals and their associated briefings was entirely hers, such a failure also speaks volumes about her competence.

Why Are We Not Surprised?

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrat-controlled Senate Thursday night voted down the House-passed budget that reached zero deficit by 2023.  Then they voted up their own budget, which doesn’t even pretend to try to reach balance, instead adding $7 trillion more to our existing debt over those 10 years.

Via Power Line we learn that Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) offered an amendment to the Senate Budget Committee’s bill as it was being debated on the Senate floor.  Sessions’ amendment, as all of these ought to be, was short, and to the point:

Mr. Sessions moves to commit S Con Res 8 back to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report back no later than March 22, 2013 with such changes as may be necessary to achieve unified budget balance by fiscal year 2023.

From Senator Mike Lee’s (R, UT) office, we get a compilation of the statements of 23 Democratic Senators with the gist of their comments explicitly supported a balanced budget amendment.  One has retired since his statement, and two were defeated in the 2012 reelection process.  The remaining 20 are below:

SENATOR SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SENATOR MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing – balance the budget.” (SENATOR Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (SENATOR Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment’s very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (SENATOR Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SENATOR MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I’ve long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (SENATOR Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. SENATOR Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post, 3/6/11)

SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” “…responding to a question of why the federal government can’t have a balanced budget amendment…” SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SENATOR TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (SENATOR Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (SENATOR Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…” (SENATOR Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (SENATOR Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again…” (SENATOR Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SENATOR TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I’ve been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SENATOR MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (SENATOR Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

SENATOR JON TESTER (D-MT): “It’s absolutely critical.” “My folks did not teach me to not have a fiscal balanced budget. It’s absolutely critical… Because I am of the belief that you take care of your own self and you don’t pass your debts on to your kids… Let’s be fiscally responsible. Let’s have a fiscally balanced budget.” (Montana Senate Debate, 6/25/06)

“Jon Tester will lead efforts to balance the federal budget…” (“Real Change, Real Vision For Montana Plan,” Jon Tester Website, Accessed 7/14/11)

Tester Spokesman: “Of course Jon supports a balanced budget…” (“Rehberg Chides Tester Over Budget-Balancing Vote,” Billings Gazette, 3/3/11)

SENATOR BOB CASEY (D-PA): “I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business.” MR. RUSSERT: “Let me find out how you would implement something that you’re promising the voters of Pennsylvania. Here’s a Casey campaign ad about our budget.” (Videotape, Bob Casey campaign ad): MR. CASEY: “I believe in a balanced budget. Government should live within its means, like any small business.” MR. RUSSERT: “How would you get a balanced budget?” MR. CASEY: “It’s not easy, Tim, but here are the steps we should take. First of all, when it comes to the budget, what’s missing principally is a lack of fiscal responsibility, you know that. We’ve gone from about two, 236 of, of surplus down to 296 in deficit. We need some fiscal discipline.” (Pennsylvania Senate Debate, “Meet The Press,” 9/3/06)

They’re for a balanced budget amendment, but they won’t hold out for a budget that balances…sometime?  Liars all, save Manchin, who was the only one of the crowd above to vote for the Sessions amendment.  If only half of these were worthy of their word, this bill would have been sent back for work.  And we keep reelecting these…fools.

Shame on us.

Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

Politico reports, on matters related to President Barack Obama’s claimed agenda, from immigration reform to deficit “pay down” to increasing taxes to… that

after months of buildup and a week since his State of the Union address, key aides on the Hill and at the White House acknowledge that even GOP senators who fit Obama’s vision of bipartisanship—Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma—are all waiting to hear anything from the president.

More, Republicans from Speaker of the House John Boehnor (R, OH) to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) and everywhere in between have vociferously decried Obama’s lack of leadership in failing to propose a concrete budget, a firm program of (tax increases and) spending cuts, a specifically laid out plan for avoiding the approaching sequester, a detailed plan for immigration reform (never minding that when he did “leak” a pretty specific immigration plan, Republicans angrily told him to butt out), etc.

What about Republicans’ own leadership?  Where’s theirs?  Where is the Republican proposal, passed by the House, that provides the next budget—and where is their explanation of already passed budgets in the last two years that addressed taxes and spending?  Where is the Republican proposal, already passed by the House, that addresses the pending sequestration?  Where is the Republican proposal for immigration reform, already passed by the House—or their tightly reasoned and widely presented argument for why certain aspects of immigration reform needn’t be addressed just yet?

Republican leadership means bellyaching about someone else’s lack of leadership?

What’s up with that?