Benghazi, IRS and AP: Is Obama Evil or Ignorant?

Obama taking questions in the rain with the PM of Turkey.

A month ago leftists could argue that republicans were picking on President Obama and have some credibility, this week the democrats are joining the chorus of complaints against the Obama administration. Three different scandals, Benghazi, IRS and the AP, are emerging and they all look bad. In case you live under a rock and don’t know what’s happening on Capitol Hill, I’ll briefly breakdown the scandals:

Benghazi: This is the oldest scandal that was reignited last week when communications were uncovered that appear to implicate that the State Department and the White House were involved in changing the talking points shortly after the incident on November 11, 2012.

What’s the big deal? When the ambassador was killed, the White House quickly released talking points indicating that not all facts were known, but that everything appeared to be a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. A member of the administration, Susan Rice, was then sent out to repeat these specific talking points on the news circuit three days later. When pressed about the details, everyone from the administration, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and Obama, continued the narrative developed by these talking points. They went so far as to create a televised apology and air it across Middle Eastern television station. The exchange about these talking points was an issue during the Presidential debates and ultimately swung some momentum in Obama’s favor after Candy Crowley incorrectly corrected Mitt Romney mid-debate. Questions remain as to who created the talking points, why they didn’t cite terrorist activity initially and why immediate help wasn’t given to the ambassador. The implication is that the State Department and the White House initially knew what happened and lied about it.

IRS: In 2012 the IRS was probed by congress about inappropriately targeting conservative sounding groups applying for 501(c) status. They denied the activity happening at the time, but have recently come forward saying they actually did target conservative groups with extra scrutiny.

What’s the big deal? It almost goes without saying that this is a big deal. Using the power of taxation and additional scrutiny to intimidate political opponents is very dangerous and more like 1970’s Russia than the United States. We do know that the political targeting happened. We don’t know how high up the directive came from and if politics was the driving force.

The AP: On Friday of last week it was revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly tapped 20 individual phones at the Associated Press as well as their phone bay at the White House. The Associated Press broke the story and so far the least has been done about this controversy.

What’s the big deal? The First Amendment, that’s what. The DOJ claims the taps were necessary for national security purposes; however, they have failed to explain why the net was so wide, why multiple locations were recorded and why for so long. The press has special freedoms protecting it from government. Even though this scandal has gotten the least attention so far, this should also be the most alarming.

Individually, each scandal can almost be kept away from the president and explained adequately. In Benghazi, for example, the facts were fluid for a few days. It would be wise to downplay terrorism anyway and especially for political reasons. It’s not illegal to do that. In the case of the IRS, it could have just been the work of a few employees and it could have just been laziness. The AP story could have everything to do with national security and we just might never know the answer there.

However, together the three scandals paint a broad picture of the Obama administration. There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from such a mess. 1) Obama and his administration are using their power to manipulate departments and keep the political winds in their favor or, 2) Obama is completely incompetent. Either the stories are true and there is a cover-up in Benghazi, the IRS was politically motivated and the DOJ is abusing its power, or the White House’s story is true that in each case it knew nothing.

If we are to believe the President, then he is not engaged when our country is under attack and he does not know what has happened even shortly after eye witness accounts relate the facts to the State Department. If we are to believe the President, then he only heard about the possibility of the IRS politically targeting people when he read it in the news this week and not when congress brought it up a year ago. If we believe the President, then he has no say and no clue what the DOJ is doing when we are faced with a major national security leak. If we are to believe the President, then he has no control, no say, and no idea what is going on in 3 major departments that report directly to him.

Either way you look at it, the White House has a problem. They either knew what was going on and are criminals, or they don’t have a clue what is going on and are ignorant.

Lies of the Homosexual Agenda

The issue of gay marriage is an emotionally charged one that evokes deep feelings from both sides. It’s an issue, I believe, that is pivotal for our nation and truly a major issue for my generation. Equal rights, love, genetics, family and tradition are all different parts of the argument. I wish to refute two arguments in favor of gay marriage without being labeled a bigot, which is probably impossible in today’s political environment. There are very real reasons why good people are against the legalizing and recognition of same-sex marriage and they don’t all revolve around bible-thumping, old-fashioned morals (although it’s ok if they do). I’ve written about some in the past here. In this post, I would like to discuss why love or inherent feelings from birth to participate in different sexual behaviors is not sound reasoning to abandon traditional families and support gay marriage and what the cries for equality really mean.

First, we must understand what homosexual behavior is: sexual deviancy. It is the practice of sexual relations outside the established societal norms. Many say, “Who gets to set those norms?” Well, the founding documents of our nation point to the Creator as the one who decides, but we’ve also allowed society itself to set those definitions through courts and legislation. Other forms of sexual deviancy that society generally agrees on are adultery, fornication, pornography, sodomy, underage sex and sexual abuse. Notice, some sexual deviancies are actually illegal while others are simply frowned upon.

In the previous list, the way homosexuality has been viewed in the past most closely relates to adultery. While adultery is legal, it is not the desired social norm. Adultery is not promoted as an alternative to monogamy and it is not given any special recognition by the government. Homosexuality is also legal, as it should be; however, like adultery it should remain in obscurity and not an accepted societal norm. 

One of the most common pro-gay marriage stances revolves around love and genetics. It’s said in different ways like: “if two people love each other they should be together,” or, “two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want,” or, “some people are just born that way,” and many other variations that ultimately can be classified as love and genetics. 

The justification of love and genetics is a smoke screen that could justify a myriad of behaviors, especially sexual deviation. In the example above, love is not a justification for adultery. Leaving your spouse through infidelity is always frowned upon, even if the new couple swears to be in love. The same goes for genetics. Setting the precedence that behavior should be acceptable simply because of an innate desire is very dangerous. Nearly every criminal or wrong behavior could be said to have started with inherent tendencies since birth. 

Now, I don’t wish to equate homosexual behavior with criminal behavior. I only wish to equate the justification of innate tendencies. Just as we would not accept a thief’s explanation of strong tendencies to steal as reason to not label him a thief, we should not excuse the deviant behavior of homosexuals because of their feelings. The snowball effect of justifying behavior based on feelings and impulses is a very dangerous one.

Another common defense of gay marriage purports to leave feelings out of the argument and merely cries, “Equality!” Those with red equal signs on their Facebook profile that espouse this belief argue that if one living arrangement, a married man and woman, receives special recognition under the law, then alternative living arrangements should as well. They can be very convincing because no one wants to deny another’s rights or to be labeled intolerant, right? The problem is a lack of understanding as to why special recognition was given to the nuclear family in the first place. 

The ‘why’ behind tax breaks and other special allowances for married men and women can easily explain why it’s not a rights issue.  Decades ago, those writing tax law and other policies were not inherently bigoted against anyone that didn’t wish to form a traditional, nuclear family. Although, fifty years ago it was ok to tout high moral standards, the laws were written to ultimately better society. Many societal goods are tied to strong, biological families. Among those are lower crime rates, higher education and a more stable community structure. Because our law-makers, at one time, desired society to progress and recognized that raising a family was more economically taxing than being single or not committing to raise a family, they developed benefits and policies to promote families. 

It could definitely be argued that not all of them are necessary, but the truth is, they weren’t developed to benefit every feasible living arrangement. If the requirement to receive these special benefits is simply to live with someone you love, then shouldn’t everyone get them and not just married people? If we give the same special attention to homosexuals living together as we do married men and women, why stop there? Shouldn’t we then allow for any living arrangement to receive benefits? What about college roommates? What about two people platonically living together? What about the cast of Two and a Half Men? It simply doesn’t follow that because we give tax breaks to one living arrangement that we must give the same treatment to every living arrangement for equality’s sake. 

Just as we can all agree that homosexuals are not bad people and that we should all be kind to one another, we must also agree that strong nuclear families are a societal good. The laws and traditions that support the family are there for a reason. Those that argue to promote additional acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle at the expense of the traditional family both harm the potential societal goods and fight under false pretenses of love, genetics and equality.

Press Release: I'm Straight--Celebrate it!

Recently, a lesser-known NBA player has made headlines by announcing his sexual orientation with a press release and the fanfare of Sports Illustrated. His announcement of being homosexual has been greeted with vigor across nearly every news outlet. Politicians, celebrities, journalist and talking heads have all commented about the story; most of them praising the athlete. Both President Clinton and President Obama took time out of their schedules to not just comment about it, but to also personally call the basketball player and offer support. So why do I care? I don’t. I don’t care, and that’s the problem. 

Silly people like this NBA player are getting praise and attention for what? For giving into their sexual desires? For being ‘courageous’? For being ‘different’? Does it take courage to announce your sexual orientation to a world that celebrates anything but the traditional family? Are you really different in a world that demands acceptance and tolerance of everyone except the conservative Christian? 

Do you know what takes courage in today’s world? Deciding to live a chaste and morally clean life. The person who resists temptation to leave their spouse on a fling or the person who passes on career aspirations for a family, those people are different. Those people have courage. It takes very little self-control or dedication to pursue one’s own selfish desires, but it takes an enormous amount of devotion and commitment to raise a family in a monogamous relationship. It takes courage to bring children into a world where the economy and morals are crumbling. It takes courage to say the traditional family is worth fighting for. It takes courage to look the morally bankrupt world in the eyes and say, “I will be different, I will not buy into your latest trend or latest headline. I will stand for something.”

I know it won’t sell papers or increase viewership, but we need to celebrate the right people. We need to celebrate Bob down the street that goes to work every day and comes home tired to his wife and three kids, but plays with them anyway. We need to celebrate Mary who volunteers at the PTO and cares for four kids each day. We need to celebrate people who do really extraordinary things each day by choosing to raise families.

Conservatism Died and Here's Why

There is no other way to spin Tuesday night’s election. It wasn’t just a loss for GOP contender Mitt Romney; it was a stunning rejection of conservatism. Senate seats were lost, congressional districts were lost, gay marriage was upheld and pot was legalized. Nearly every conservative position was shot down and the liberals showed America that we are not a center-right country anymore. So what happened? Conservatives lost for two very simple reasons: conservatism has radical positions and outdated values. 

Conservatives’ Radical Positions

The GOP and its conservative constituency have more radical positions than one person can recount, but I’ll try to enumerate a few. For example, fiscal conservatives believe in a balanced budget. They think that we should reign in our spending as a nation and attempt to not spend more than we take in. Welcome to the 21^st century republicans, the name of the game is debt. We have so many liberties when it comes to the economy. Why not print more money, we own the presses? China has tons of money they are willing to give us, so why not just take it? 

This idea of fiscal responsibility spews over into another area where the right has gone overboard. That is the area of personal responsibility. Conservatives have not caught the vision of litigating lawyers. With borrowed money and a hot-to-trot lawyer nothing ever has to be your fault, so why let it? Dinosaur conservatives attempt to make others feel bad by preaching the notion that individuals have control of their actions and ultimately their destiny. Get with the program sheeple; people collectively need to depend on government, not the individual. 

Personal responsibility leads conservatives to their most egregious and most extreme position; the idea that the first unalienable right endowed by our Creator of life somehow extends to the unborn. Why don’t you just chain up women and tape their mouth shut? It’s 2012 and women can choose now. That means they can choose to kill fetuses if they want. 

Conservatives’ Outdated Values

To borrow and alter a line from our President, “Hey Conservative, the 1950’s called and they want their family values back!” Can you believe that conservatives still believe that the family is the basic unit of society and that by protecting it and strengthening it our communities and our country will flourish? They actually think that children raised in a home with biological parents who honor their marriage will somehow make better citizens and a better nation. 

Hateful conservatives even use the logic of strong homes and families to take away civil liberties from the gay community. Arguing that silly things like children are more important that the desires of adults, GOPers stand on the wrong side of history. With an outdated value system, conservatives have preached their way out of the mainstream.

Hope

If you haven’t caught the heavy sarcasm by now, I’m letting you know right now that I don’t believe conservatism died. It is at an important crossroads though. The election definitely proved that conservative belief is becoming a minority. But, being a minority does not make conservatism wrong! It makes it all the more important to practice these concepts in our home and continue fighting for them in a public forum.  A liberal majority cannot take away the truths of individualism. Hard work still pays off; we just might have to work a little harder. Family values still build communities; we just may be in the minority. Conservatism will still save this country; we just have to be louder.

Obama: "You Can't Build That"

Obama claims he was taken out of context with his “you didn’t build that” quote. An ad was conjured up overnight to refute that he said it, or rather that that’s what he meant. Personally, I don’t think it was taken out of context, but the truth is that it’s neither here nor there. Obama has a history of the government-first mentality and when looking at the entire quote in context of other speeches and actions, it paints a very scary picture of his belief system. The idea he is promoting isn’t necessarily that the government built your business, but that government has provided the resources for you to be successful. This lays the groundwork for raising taxes on the rich and writes the story of how grateful one should be for such a generous government.

The Obama administration feels that an authoritative government allows the governed to use the infrastructure it has created independently of taxes. Because the great government allowed all people to use its roads, those that get the largest return for using the free resources owe more back to this great entity. ‘You didn’t get there on your own’ means that Obama believes that the government freely gave before you even asked and now you owe them. 

I agree that appropriate infrastructure is necessary for success. I also agree that the public education system, educational grants, and other assistance are a part of everyone’s life. So why is Obama wrong? Because it is not a benevolent government that has given me these things!

The government is not a separate entity from the people, bestowing gifts on the people it governs with a hope of future repayment. The government is the people. The money used to provide infrastructure, education and grants is our money. I already paid for the roads that helped customers get to my business; I don’t owe any more to the government than I’ve already given. 

We the people have made a contract to collectively pay into a system to build roads, schools, parks, etc. That contract is that we will pay into the system and we can all collectively use them. My schooling wasn’t free; it was paid for by my parent’s taxes. My college grants weren’t free; I pay taxes for those. I don’t owe the government anything for having provided these services since I’ve already paid for them!

It’s not the one liner that worries people; it’s the philosophy of big-government thinkers like Obama that worries us. The off-script one-liner is merely a great way to frame their thoughts. Obama didn’t mean that you literally didn’t build your business, but he definitely believes that good things can only be built on the back of a large government. He definitely believes that you can’t build that without him.