An Administration Of Liars Or Incompetents (Perhaps Both)

photo An Administration of Liars or Incompetents (Perhaps Both)

It’s pretty pathetic how many in government service these days provide living proof of the validity of the Peter Principle, which asserts that “Everyone rises to the level of their incompetence.” Either that, or they’re liars.

Starting right at the top, with the President who doesn’t know about anything until he reads about it in the newspaper. He “didn’t know about” the IRS targeting of conservative groups until he learned it from press reports, even though the White House staff knew as early as 2011. The media were also his source for the questionable Associated Press phone record fiasco.

If he really doesn’t know what’s going on in his administration, which is highly unlikely since the politics have his modus operandi fingerprints all over these scandals, then he’s grossly incompetent. If he’s employing this plausible deniability tactic to maintain a distance with the abhorrent actions of his administration, then his moral authority to lead is even more dubious than previously determined.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bloviated her incompetence in a congressional hearing room, either not knowing (or not willing to acknowledge culpability) with anything regarding the Benghazi 9/11 attack of last year. As an exclamation mark to her obtuseness, she finally lashed out, “What difference does it make?” Well, Madame Secretary, to those who want to know the truth, it makes a lot of difference when those at the highest levels of government, including you, lie to us (and four loyal Americans are dead because of it!)

Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, while proving adept at covering for his boss, has lost all credibility with the White House press corps by his obfuscation and mendacity when pressed on recent administration scandals. And with regard to the Benghazi incident, obviously wanting to move on with a cavalier “there’s nothing to see here” kind of attitude, he claims, “That was a long time ago.” Really! Nine months is a long time ago? So if you lied nine months ago, that’s not supposed to matter when we have four dead, including an ambassador?

And we can’t overlook the utter incompetence of the Internal Revenue Service leadership. Former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller knew for over a year that the “Advocacy Group” in Cincinnati had been targeting conservative groups, disallowing tax-exempt status. He claimed to have initiated an investigation, but knew nothing about the results of the investigation or who was running it.

Miller’s former IRS boss, Douglas Shulman, had twice testified to Congress that the conservative group targeting was not happening. And when he was finally confronted with the facts that it was indeed occurring, he claimed ignorance as his defense. And when queried by congressmen why he visited the White House 157 times, more than any cabinet member, while his predecessor had only visited once, he imperiously responded that the only visit he could recall was taking his kids to the Easter egg roll. Seriously, where do they find these guys?

Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS non-profit review division, is perhaps the only one from the administration who seems to have any semblance of integrity. At least she had the scruples to plead the 5th so as to not incriminate herself, although she likely then committed perjury before the congressional committee when she pompously declared, “I have done nothing wrong.” So much for her semblance of integrity!

Heck, IRS leadership can’t even muster the receipts for their conferences and lavish shindigs, including a $4 million “conference” in Las Vegas where they made videos of line-dancing IRS employees and featured a “Star Trek” video production that would embarrass a high school wannabe movie maker. Next time you meet with the IRS, tell them you can’t seem to locate your receipts and see how well that goes over with them!

And just this past week, FBI Director Robert Mueller proved his incompetence as he could not name the lead investigator in the IRS scandal. The investigation was purportedly ordered by his boss (the president) over a month ago; and the head of the agency knows nothing of the status of the investigation, or who’s conducting it!

The only thing anyone in this administration seems capable of accepting responsibility for, or knowing anything about, is the one program run by Washington that seems to be working and working well: the NSA data mining of American citizens. And regrettably, it took a whistle-blowing contractor to expose the extent of that “big brother” program that’s monitoring every citizen’s phone calls, emails, and digital footprint, including social media.

Either the entire administration is clueless, incompetent, and refuses to accept responsibility for anything; or they’re all liars. Either way, we clearly have an out-of-control government, too large and unwieldy to manage, and a gaggle of politicians and bureaucrats too incompetent or dishonest to run it.

 

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Moral Depravity Behind Abortions

abortion is not health care1 Moral Depravity Behind Abortions

Events of the past few months have exposed the grisly, hideous underbelly of the abortion mill in America. When faced with the harsh, gut-wrenching realities of the procedures, the “woman’s right to choose” transforms into nothing more than infanticide, at whatever stage it’s perpetrated.

Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell is now serving three consecutive life terms for convictions on three counts of first-degree murder of infants. He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of a patient.

Conditions inside Gosnell’s infanticide mill led Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams to call the clinic a “house of horrors.” The crime scene investigator said that “The smells were just unbearable. You could tell there was death everywhere.”

His former employees testified during the trial, painting a picture of gruesome violence against babies that could rival any horror flick. They testified how they aided Gosnell in severing the spinal cords and gouging the heads of not just seven infants (as he was charged), but literally “hundreds” of live babies. Steven Massof, an unlicensed medical school graduate, testified that “it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”  Sherry West testified how one baby, born alive, was merely tossed into a glass dish like a piece of refuse, and the baby simply screamed until it died.

Crime scene investigator John Taggart testified that the employees would dispose of fetal remains in a garbage disposal. When examined, investigators found human infant bone fragments inside. Taggart testified that “They were shoving body parts down the garbage disposal, to the point where they plunged it one day and an arm popped out on Lancaster Avenue.”

As if to not be outdone, and proving that Gosnel is not as anomalous as we might otherwise believe, we learn of a Texas doctor who has been running his own house of horrors. Four former employees of Dr. Douglas Karpen have made a public record of the atrocities committed by Karpen at his three abortion clinics. In their taped testimonial, the employees revealed what they had personally witnessed from their boss. They described how he would deliver live babies during third-trimester abortions and kill them by snipping their spinal cord, or stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or stomach. Revoltingly, he even killed them by “twisting their heads off of their necks with his bare hands.” Other times, he would “pull the baby out of the womb in pieces because of how big it was.”

The former employees claim that they observed these horrendous acts on a daily basis. They said that some days, there would be three or four babies born alive and subsequently killed by the doctor. As of this writing, charges have not been filed against the doctor, who continues to run his practices in the Houston area.

What seems clear from these “doctors’” practices is that they’re abortionists, and so it makes no difference to them whether a baby dies by their hands in the womb or out of it. If it’s legal to terminate an infant while still in the mother, why should it make any difference if the baby is either part way out of the birth canal or completely out of it?

Unwittingly, they validate the argument that there is no difference. Regardless of what statute says or what the Supreme Court may rule, if it’s murder to kill an infant out of the womb, it’s also murder to kill one inside the womb. What is it that happens mysteriously at birth that grants an infant rights and protection under the law that are denied it before birth? After all, is it not even more innocent, more vulnerable, and more in need of parental and societal protection before birth?

As grisly and unconscionable as these examples are, it’s crucial that we as a people awaken to the fact that our current laws and our currently “legitimate” abortion industry are immoral and pervert our assignation of value to human life.

We recoil in horror at the news of the Sandy Hook killing of 20 children. Why are we not equally horrified by the murder of over 1.2 million babies every year in this country? Why are those who denounce Adam Lanza’s weapon of choice in the murder of the Connecticut children always the first to defend the weapons of Gosnel and Karpen?

The fact that we allow such murder of innocents to occur on a daily basis in this country, without outrage and denunciation, speaks volumes to the moral depravity and bankruptcy of the nation. After all, one of our founding principles, one that we hold to be an inalienable right, is that of “life.” If we hold unborn innocent life with such low regard, life is not an inalienable right, but a relativistic morally compromised principle that is nothing more than a good idea in some instances.

 

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo Credit: Planetrussell (Creative Commons)

It’s Not Just The IRS, And It’s Clearly Coordinated

DC Aerial 300x200 Its Not Just the IRS, And Its Clearly Coordinated

To anyone with any sense of political propriety, the growing story of IRS abuses targeting conservative groups is beyond unsettling. Even administration supporters must realize that with a change of administration, groups and individuals of their political orientation could be the next targets. But the IRS isn’t the only agency involved in this targeting, which even more clearly validates the hypothesis that it’s all coordinated from the White House, and not just some “rogue agents.”

We now know the IRS was targeting applications for non-profit status by conservative groups. We also know, from recent revelations, that the Department of Justice (which seems increasingly to be an oxymoron) has been targeting media organizations and reporters that are seen to pose a threat to the administration. But that’s just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

The IRS is further implicated in this web of corruption by their audit division. Idaho resident Frank VanderSloot served as a national co-chair to the Mitt Romney campaign, and was a major donor. In April, 2012, the Obama Campaign published a scurrilous piece on their website, attacking the character of eight conservatives who were backing Romney, including VanderSloot.

Shortly after that posting, VanderSloot was subjected to three federal government audits. Two of those were by the IRS, one for his personal income and one for his businesses. The other was a Labor Department audit of one of his businesses. Is this a coincidence? Not according to VanderSloot, who said he “wasn’t the only one” on that list that received the royal Obama treatment.

In 2009 and 2011, Gibson Guitar Corporation was raided by armed federal agents from the FBI and the Justice Department, for allegedly using “endangered” wood in the construction of their acoustic guitars. The agents seized raw materials, electronic files and finished guitars. The raid cost the company over $3 million, not including a $300,000 settlement with the government. None of Gibson’s competitors received this kind of treatment, even though Martin & Co. is known to use exactly the same “endangered” wood. The difference? Gibson CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, actively supports Republican candidates, while Martin’s CEO, Chris Martin IV is a Democrat supporter.

Catherine Engelbrecht, saw a need to educate citizens to prevent voter fraud. She founded a non-profit organization, True the Vote, for that express purpose. Her organization’s non-profit filing was one of those held up for years by the IRS’s “Advocacy Group,” which has admitted to targeting conservative groups.

After filing for tax-exempt status, she has gone through four IRS audits; two of their personal finances, and two of their family business. Her business was also inspected several times by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where only minor issues were found, but they were fined $25,000. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) made an unannounced audit of her business. And not to be outdone, the FBI started contacting them, probing for improprieties. Neither the ATF nor the FBI could find anything to charge them with. It was all harassment.

To believe all of this is coincidental is tantamount to suspension of all cognitive functionality. It is targeted, coordinated, and implemented with the precision that would make Stalin, Mao, or Hitler envious.

Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal revealed a year ago that the president maintained an “enemies list.” Not enemies of the state, but people who oppose his agenda and are outspoken in their opposition. As she said, “Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice. Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules.”

Peter Wehner in Commentary Magazine said recently, “We have seen from this White House Nixonian tendencies and, it would appear, a burning anger and resentment toward its critics. Whether it’s Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, or companies that sponsor reports that take issue with the administration’s assessments, there seems to be a cast of mind that views critics as enemies, as individuals and institutions that need to be ridiculed, delegitimized, or ruined… there are lines that ought not to be crossed, temptations that need to be resisted, and people in the White House who need to say ‘no’ to tactics that begin to drag an administration, and a country, down.”

Obama and his cronies have painted targets on groups and individuals who don’t buy into their statist ideology, and his henchmen in the federal government take the shots. And the proof that it’s coming from the very top is in the pervasive use of government agencies to stifle dissent and intimidate critics. It’s not just the IRS, but includes the Labor Department, the Department of Justice, FBI, ATF, and OSHA.

These are the consequences of sending a Machiavellian to lead a government that has such expansive control of our lives. Obama and his gaggle of “Csars” and government henchmen are only curtailed in their insidious intimidation and attacks on his political adversaries by bringing the administration’s atrocities to light. These are the tactics of tyrants, and have no place in America!

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net. You can connect with him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rlarsenen.

Photo Credit:  Site.gov/SC

Obama’s Culture Of Corruption

Obama NDAA SC 300x180 Obamas Culture of Corruption

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama declared, “It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington.” And change it, he has done! It’s been transformed into even more of a brash, thuggish, and coercive environment than it ever was before. The current IRS scandal of politically motivated discrimination against conservative non-profit groups perfectly characterizes the disturbing ends-justify-the-means “Chicago-style politics” that Obama and his comrades have brought to Washington.

As admitted by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official last week, and confirmed this week by the Inspector General’s (IG) special report on IRS abuses, the IRS, arguably the most onerous and oppressive government agency in the country, was discriminating against conservative, religious, and pro-Israel non-profit groups seeking 503(c) designation. What would normally take 6-12 months for such a ruling was taking up to three years. In addition, the filing requirements of such groups went far beyond the requirements specified for such applications.

To make matters even worse, IRS employees were releasing the confidential filings for such groups to the George Soros-backed liberal propaganda organization ProPublica. They admitted earlier this week, “In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved — meaning they were not supposed to be made public.  “We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy”, according to ProPublica.

There are clearly five improprieties or crimes under one scandalous umbrella here. First, the systemic targeting of groups thought to be critical of the administration; second the demand for information that was irrelevant to the tax status filing; third, obfuscation and outright lying by IRS officials to Congress and the public about those abuses; fourth, sharing those confidential filings with an opposing political group, ProPublica; and fifth, intentional withholding of information until after the election.

And lest we think these abuses were perpetrated by just a couple of rogue employees, all requests for 503(c) status go through the Cincinnati office. The Inspector General’s Report indicated it was the entire division, referred to within the IRS as the “Advocacy Group.” The IG’s report clearly documents that Washington was aware of what the “Advocacy Group” was doing.

So what’s happening to those involved? Not much. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, has resigned, even though he was already planning on leaving the agency. And Sarah Hall Ingram, who had been serving as commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division from 2009 to 2012, the “Advocacy Group,” is now serving as director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act division. That is the unit that’s responsible for enforcing Obamacare. Now isn’t that comforting?

Although this has been going on for at least three years, if we’re to believe White House Spokesman Jay Carney, Obama only found out about it from press reports, though the IG’s report reveals that Treasury Secretary Geithner’s office knew last summer.

The President seems to know nothing about what’s happening in his administration. From the Fast and Furious gunrunning, to the IRS and the AP phone records scandals, the president knows nothing until he hears “from news reports.” Whether he knows personally about these scandalous activities of his administration or not, it seems clear that since he’s surrounded himself with compatible ideologues and sycophants, that the entire atmosphere of Washington has become an extension of his Chicago-style politics of suppressing dissent, colluding against groups opposed to his agenda, intimidating the opposition, and suppressing damaging news.

Charles Krauthammer said this week, “Obama ran as a man who would not only change Washington but change the essence of politics itself in America as a kind of Olympian historic figure. He can’t even run the bureaucracy, that’s what we’re seeing. There’s arrogance here, of course, but there is incompetence of the highest order. He poses as the bystander. ‘I learned about it in the press.’ This is an indictment of people who believe in big government, want to expand it, have it control healthcare and cannot run the minimal essence of the duties of government.”

Harry Truman famously kept a plaque on his desk that said, “The Buck Stops Here.” If Obama had a plaque on his desk along the same lines, it would likely read, “The Buck Never Gets Here.” It could also include an additional qualifier, “And if it does, I don’t know anything about it.”

On March 7, 2010, Obama famously declared, “Ultimately, the buck stops with me.” On Sept. 23, 2012, in a 60 Minutes appearance, he said, “As president, I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree.” Yet still we have Jay Carney denying the president is responsible for anything. Obama has said of the Benghazi scandal that it’s merely “a side show.” If that is the case, this entire administration is a scandal-ridden three-ring circus, and the president is the ringleader.

Even Commissioner Miller understands the idea of accountability. In his testimony on Friday before Congress, he said, “I resigned, because as the acting commissioner, whatever happens in the IRS, whether I was personally involved or not, stops at my desk. So, I should be held accountable for what happened.” It’s too bad the head of the country hasn’t come to that same realization.

Just two weeks ago at the Ohio State University commencement, President Obama said, “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

How ironic that we’ve seen so much of his administration unmasked by his adulating media so soon after that statement, for the first definition of tyranny is,  “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” And that’s precisely what we’re seeing as the Oz curtain is pulled away revealing the tyranny of the Obama administration.

Whether the president is explicitly complicit in all of these scandals or not, his politics and leadership style have created, and are conducive with, the pattern and atmosphere of corruption and abuse now in full display by the administration.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil (Creative Commons)

The Mainstream Media Lies To Protect Their Comrades

640px WTO protests in Seattle November 30 1999 300x182 The Mainstream Media Lies to Protect Their Comrades

For those of us who study the media and what they deem newsworthy, it comes as no surprise that incidents are scrubbed from reporting, for no other apparent reason than that certain incidents reflect badly on the prevalent ideology of those within the media. It therefore is no surprise that hardly anyone in the nation knew of the idiotic and destructive demonstrations that occurred in Seattle and around the world on May Day.

May Day, celebrated on May 1, has a storied history that goes back to pre-Christian times celebrating Flora, the Roman goddess of flowers, and later on as the first day of summer. It was in essence, an innocuous pantheistic celebration of the old aphorism of “April showers bring May flowers,” celebrated in different ways around the world.

That tradition changed dramatically however, after the 1886 Haymarket Affair in Chicago. In synoptic terms, what started as a peaceful gathering in support of striking workers on Tuesday May 4, 1886, ended as a violent precursor to leftist destructive demonstrations. As police attempted to disperse the crowd, someone threw a bomb at police. The blast, and subsequent gunfire, resulted in the deaths of seven police officers, four civilians, and numerous injuries. Investigations led to eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy, with seven of those sentenced to death for their involvement.

The Second International, also known as Socialist International, memorialized the events of the Haymarket Affair by declaring May Day, or May First, an international labor and socialist holiday. Thus, International Worker’s Day became May Day, a celebration of labor and socialism. The significance of this historical connection between ideologically aligned entities cannot be overstated.

Consequently, May Day has become an excuse for labor, socialist, communist, and anarchist groups to demonstrate, destroy property, occupy parks, and denounce capitalism, free enterprise, and America’s founding principles. This may seem inconsequential history, but it establishes the core ideological alliance of political elements whose objectives remain inextricably intertwined in contemporary American politics.

May Day, 2013, followed the destructive historical pattern. All across Europe, demonstrations led by groups carrying “International Workers’ Day,” banners erupted into violent clashes with police. And, as if to not be outdone, the leftist radicals of Seattle created their own mayhem. In what must’ve been accidental truthful reporting by one mainstream media source, the Associated Press stated, “Protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers and news crews. Windows of local businesses were broken and vehicles with people in them were banged around.” This is nothing new for Seattle, as there is even a movie based on the “Battle In Seattle” riots that erupted during the World Trade Organization conference in 1999 featuring the same ideological comrades of the Haymarket Affair.

Greg Gutfeld, co-host of “The Five” delivered the perfect monologue regarding this year’s Seattle riot. “They protested their grievances, capitalism at the top, while championing the same old suspects. And like most anarchic mobs…they just want the free market system to buckle under, making way for a new world disorder.”

“And as if on cue, as it got dark, the mobs smashed windows of local businesses, cars and the courthouse. Yep, the cowardly romance of violence is a marker of such events; the inevitable spasm of idiocy that pleases both the media and protester alike. If these were Tea Partiers, of course, Michael Moore would shout bloody murder from rooftops.”

“But these protesters should celebrate. May Day marks the achievements of communism. That’s why people wear red. It symbolizes blood. When factoring the body count from all the heaviest hitters of communism and socialism, China, the USSR, Germany, Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Mozambique, Romania, the list goes on, we have seen over 100 million people plus murdered in the name of ‘equality.’ You can’t get more equal when all of you are dead. So, congratulations May Day protesters, you truly are number one at something.”

He’s right, of course, in illustrating the duplicity with which the media and the left egregiously, predictably, and consistently mischaracterize the “Tea Party” types; you know, those radicals that believe outrageous things like the Constitution still matters, and that this country was founded on freedom, and for some inexplicable reason, they think it should still be the “land of the free.”

The media never reports on the dearth of misdeeds of Tea Party protests, while allegations, however untrue, are promulgated as if truthful. Meanwhile, the verifiable destruction and misdeeds of the media’s ideological comrades, like the May Day malcontents, are ignored.

If the mainstream media doesn’t deem a story newsworthy, it most likely is, as was illustrated superbly by this week’s revelations of the Benghazi cover-up, and the IRS targeting Patriot and Tea Party groups for harassment. It would appear that the most reliable news sources are not mainstream, as they have maintained a systematic reticence on these issues that alternatives sources have been covering for months. But it’s understandable, since they instinctively protect their comrades.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Obama Intentionally Hurting The Nation

Obama Shaves Uncle Sam Sequester SC 296x300 Obama Intentionally Hurting the Nation

We have a President who is intentionally hurting the nation and the people he’s entrusted to serve. In the name of the sequester, the White House’s own plan to clinch a budget deal last year, Obama is willfully and intentionally doing as much damage as he can. This is not subjective, but is verifiable fact.

The President rejected a proposal by the Senate Republicans to give the President more flexibility to pick and choose which programs should be cut to reach the $85 billion spending reduction over seven months mandated by the so-called sequester. That would have given him the opportunity to meet the requirements of the budget deal, without affecting the people our government is supposed to be serving. Keep in mind, that these legislatively mandated reductions are not cuts in actual spending, but only reflect a 2.5% reduction in the growth of government spending.

According to the President a few weeks ago, “There’s no smart way to do that [the sequester cuts],” he said. “These cuts are wrong. They’re not smart, they’re not fair. They’re a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen.” This is a surprising admission that his own plan is, in fact, stupid!

Actually, Mr. President, there was a smart and prudent way to do it. The third annual installment of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report spelled out a reasonable way to meet the spending-growth reduction. According to Sen. Tom Coburn, “These are among the findings in the new GAO report that found 162 areas where services are duplicated or money is being wasted in the federal government. The annual cost of duplicative or wasteful programs is estimated at roughly $250 billion. That’s 250 billion dollars a year,” Coburn said. “Just in waste, in duplication, in stupidity, and lack of efficiency and effectiveness by the federal government. (It) makes you want to pull your hair out.”

By simply incorporating the GAO recommendations, cost savings amounting to three times the $85 billion reductions specified in the sequester deal could have been realized! And there would be no impact on travelers, no impact on meat inspections, no furloughed TSA agents or Department of Energy employees, and no impact on our military’s ability to protect the nation.

But Obama rejected congressionally authorized flexibility in applying the reductions, and he opted instead to make the sequester as painful as possible. The Washington Times reports of emails to department heads that the administration intended to make good on its warnings of the “painful” sequestration cuts. According to the Times, the emails directed agency heads, “not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.”

It’s clear that Obama intends to make the cuts painful to average Americans while he and his family continue their lives of royalty, which we bankroll to the tune of $1.4 billion per year. In the seven weeks since he announced the White House tours would be cancelled, he’s had ten trips, and two all-star concerts in the White House. Don’t hold your breath watching for the Obama’s to curtail their extravagant travel and vacation plans! The only thing being cut at the White House is White House tours. And further proving that it’s all political, and that the President still does have discretion, Obamacare employees are not being furloughed, or facing reduced pay or work hours.

For air travelers it’s a different story, as they began this past week to feel the pain of the President’s decision as the Federal Aviation Administration has furloughed 1,500, or 10% of the nation’s 15,000 air traffic controllers. This has created delays of hundreds of flights.

Sen. Rand Paul said this week, “I think that it’s inexcusable to take important things like travel, air traffic controllers or meat inspectors or something that most of us agree we should have, and play a game with it,” the senator said. “The same day that [President Obama] announces that we have no self-guided tours in the White House, he sends $250 million to Egypt. We’ve got money. It’s a matter of priorities, and a good leader wouldn’t cut essential services. So I think it’s a bit of a charade and it ought to stop.”

Clearly the White House places politics ahead of the needs and interests of the American people. It would appear that either he thinks the blame should be ascribed to members of Congress who would not agree to the budget deal last year without some spending cuts, or he is intentionally curbing high profile, required services to show that we can’t cut a dime from actual spending. Most likely, it is for both of those reasons, which places his political agenda ahead of our interests.

The President rejected flexibility in applying the spending cuts, ignored the GAO report of where reductions could be made without adversely affecting services, and his agency heads are being instructed to make the cuts “as painful as possible.” This is not leadership; it’s ignominious politics, Chicago-style!

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Is The Constitution An Anachronism?

constitution 2 SC 300x198 Is the Constitution An Anachronism?

One of the most specious and inane arguments in politics today is that the Constitution is an arcane, anachronistic document created by imperfect men, and that it is therefore illogical to interpret it literally. They assert that the founding fathers didn’t have a “crystal ball” and couldn’t have foreseen issues like privacy in the 21st century, and so those of us who believe the Constitution to be a social contract limiting the powers of government must be “out of our minds.”

The first of those arguments is a logical fallacy. The tu quoque fallacy asserts that since the founders were imperfect, whatever they may say or do is equally imperfect or questionable. That would be tantamount to saying that because a certain physics instructor is specious, illogical, and misinformed about history and our system of governance, that he’s equally inept and tenuous in physics. Such a conclusion is obviously faulty logic, and based on a false premise.

The second argument is equally misguided. The founders didn’t need a “crystal ball” to foresee 21st century challenges. A constitution is by definition, “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is to be governed.” Consequently, the founding fathers didn’t need to be aware of “privacy” issues, or the internet, or any historically contextual development that may prove intellectually taxing to those who presuppose in their unwarranted arrogance, that they should have.

The structure established by the Constitution created legislative bodies that could adapt to changing times, by passing laws to deal with such vicissitudes, while the foundation, or fundamental principles, could endure, protecting the individual over the presumed and evolutionary expansion of the “rights” of the state. Plus, provision for changing the text of that social contract was made through the amendment process, which has been done 27 times to date.

Our Constitution established a system of governance that could stand the test of time, as long as citizens valued freedom more than tyranny. A system that, if held fast to, would assure that no one person, or oligarchical self-anointed leaders, could become totalitarians in a republic so structured. And it included guaranteed rights and privileges, for the first time in history, not granted by a monarch, ruler, magistrate, or benevolent dictator, but acknowledged to have originated from deity for all men. This is perfectly illustrated by our current president’s admission that, “I am constrained by a system that our Founders put in place,” although there’s precious little evidence of such constraint.

Is it a perfect system? Obviously not, especially in light of our contemporary crony-capitalism, that corrupts government and capitalism. The founding fathers maintained that for the republic to endure, we must have a moral people, which is the only real anachronism from our founding era, casting the most ominous clouds of doubt over the perpetuity of the republic.

When it is argued that the Constitution is a “living” document, implication is made that the precepts and principles of the Constitution are not applicable to today and provides an excuse for all types of scurrilous and specious assertions for expanded government largesse at the expense of our freedom and our money. To say that the Constitution is a “living document,” hence, not to be taken literally, is akin to asserting that the Ten Commandments are really just “Ten Suggestions.” It also affords proponents of the “living document” theory latitude to pick and choose cafeteria-style, which rights established by the Constitution are legitimate or applicable today. Some like freedom of speech for themselves but not for those they disagree with, for example. And some absolutely detest the freedom to bear arms.

Judicial precedent and daily judicial decisions are judged against the basic principles and rights specified by the Constitution and statute to provide applicability to today’s milieu. In that way alone is it a “living document.” Statute is how the fundamental principles of the Constitution are codified in a changing social structure, but the Constitution provides the baseline.

James Madison, regarded as the Father to the Constitution, said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” We have witnessed this over the generations since the founding of the country, and we see that process of “silent encroachment” of government on the freedom of the people accelerated over the past few years in a way never before witnessed. We see government dictating terms of property ownership, dictating terms of access to health care, and dictating terms of energy use and private consumption, for starters.

The Constitution is not a “living” document. The Founders were specific in their language and did not mince words. They meant what they said. It was written precisely to prevent the incursion of government into our lives to the extent that we see it occurring today proving it is not an anachronism. It is a social contract to assure and guarantee fundamental freedom and liberty for all generations of Americans, and its relevance is reasserted every time a new official is sworn into office, vowing to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The survivability of our republic is dependent upon a knowledgeable and informed electorate, committed to liberty. We need to be intimately familiar with our founding documents, especially the Constitution, and hold those accountable who seek to subvert the freedoms of those who are intended to have ultimate power in this republic: We the People!

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Should Our Children Belong To The Collective?

Kids Sc Should Our Children Belong to the Collective?

Just when we think the secular assaults against the nuclear family unit can’t get any worse, we disturbingly learn that they can. Now, a host on a minor cable news network claims that we have to get over the idea that our children are ours and accept the fact that they belong “collectively” to all of us.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a host for a weekend show on scarcely watched MSNBC, was taped in a “lean forward” (euphemism for “lean more left”) promo for the network, saying that children don’t belong to their families and that they belong to the collective.

The host declared: “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

The context seems innocuous enough: continue to engage in insanity (doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results) by throwing more money toward education. The answer to our educational inadequacies and failings is always more funding, to some. Heaven forbid that we should consider using what resources we have more efficiently and effectively and focus on teaching content that increases academic performance, instead of all the social engineering and politically correct indoctrination that is so pervasively “taught” in our public schools.

Some don’t even think her terminology, referring to collective ownership of our kids, in the promo is controversial. The New York Times and other media and extremist organizations have leapt to her defense. What should not be lost on us is that such entities are ideological compatriots to the host and are firmly predisposed to the collectivist ideals of the left.

I’m sure the folks over at NAMBLA would rejoice over such a concept of collectivist ownership of our kids! And what about all those unborn children who are never given a chance to take their first breath? Should that not likewise be a grave concern to the collective?

In free societies, as America was originally founded to be, private property ownership is sacrosanct. The second line in our Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Lockean Creed, upon which that statement is based, equates private property with pursuit of happiness.

While children are not considered property and are not “owned,” the responsibility for rearing, teaching, and nurturing them is a private one, owned by the parents who brought them into the world. For those who lack the temporal means to support those children, there are safety nets that allow for community support of such disadvantaged children. Even that, however, does not diminish or transfer the very personal and private responsibility of rearing children to the state, or to the collective.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Last year, in the midst of the presidential campaign, Team Obama posted a slideshow on the campaign website, with much fanfare, about the Life of Julia. It revealed the Obama Team dream of governmental (in this context, euphemism for “the collective”) involvement at every stage of life, from birth to death, and how the government would be the nurturing parental surrogate through each stage.

Karl Marx said: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” Ms. Harris-Perry mirrors this sentiment: the children are not ours; they belong to the collective, and we need to abolish the notion that they are ours. Marx also said: “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” The MSNBC host would make Marx proud.

Who has the right to dictate how a child is to be reared? Certainly not the “collective,” and certainly not the government. It’s a private parental and familial matter. Or at least it should be. The more government encroaches into health care management, social-engineering dictates, and the redefinition of fundamental roles in society, the less control parents have over something as fundamental as the rearing of their children.

It is not just the economic aspects of socialistic and fascistic collectivism that must be resisted and repulsed; but perhaps even more significantly, the social and cultural collectivist agenda must be rejected. We have to recognize this steady encroachment for what it is and that it is clearly antithetical to a free America.

 

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: JPott (Creative Commons)

Same-Sex Marriage: An Illogical Counterfeit

Marriage SC 300x285 Same Sex Marriage: An Illogical Counterfeit

Photo credit: loungerie (Creative Commons)

Two cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week addressing the issue of same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of rights, as proponents maintain, nor is it an issue of Biblical marriage, as opponents contend. It is, rather, based in natural law, and is an issue of seismic significance to our culture, our society, and our civilization, and cannot be cavalierly “redefined.”

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist has said, “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds… At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it, and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, and politicians have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization, and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

Foundations must be strong, and built to withstand the elements, corrosion, and the test of time. Otherwise, the structure built thereon will inevitably crumble. If a foundation is made with unmixed cement or just water, as same-sex marriage tries to do, the foundation is weak, and the structure (our civilization) built thereon will crumble. When we tamper with, and attempt to socially-engineer the foundational elements and institutions to civilization and our society, the results will be destructive.

Redefining marriage based on who one purportedly loves, is a spurious dilution of our societal foundation. Rarely in human history, has marriage been based on who one loves, but has always been about perpetuating the species, and forming familial units that construct the foundation to civilization. Sometimes it’s included multiple spouses of one sex or another, but always it has been based on propagational properties, whether age or fertility exceptions apply or not. Any semantic change to the definition is only that, semantic, and does not change the biological or anthropological verities etymologically embedded in the term. Such a change to accommodate same-sex “marriage” would therefore be nothing more than creating a verbal counterfeit to the real thing. Simply calling my Tahoe a Hummer is a lie, and does not change the fact that it’s still not a Hummer.

Nor is there a “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is as most other “rights” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage.

Marriage, historically, has always represented the legal, moral, and cultural recognition of the binding relationship of opposite sexes. Merely definitionally reducing marriage to nothing more than a state legitimized relationship between “people that love each other” is antithetical to the factual basis to our existence as a civilization. The fact is, marriage has always been about protecting society, at least in part, through the possibility of propagation, protection and the creation of family units.

The law of unintended consequences has certainly been manifest elsewhere as natural law, social mores, and societal conventions and institutions like marriage have been redefined and engineered to accommodate exceptions.

Scandinavian countries that have redefined marriage are experiencing a meltdown of traditional marriage. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life and poses a significant risk to the future stability of Danish society.

There are undoubtedly exogenous contributory factors for the Scandinavian states. But the eradication of natural law and social mores in favor of a politically correct or supposedly amoral redefinition of basic social conventions indisputably are the incipient causes to the unraveling of the family unit.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, “I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to look very ‘Huxley-Brave New World-ish.’ So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?”

Pastor Rick Warren made a fundamentally true and valid observation in this regard. He said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” Many are the arguments against same-sex marriage, and none of them frankly have anything to do with discrimination or homophobia.

Doug Mainwaring, an avowed homosexual, proves Warren’s assertion. “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together… Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Words have meaning, and marriage, as the cornerstone to civilization, is copiously imbued with it. I have yet to hear a logical or cogent explanation as to why a binding homosexual relationship must be a marriage as opposed to a civil union or legal partnership. Rather than weakening and diluting the foundation to our society, we should be strengthening and encouraging it. After all, our future, and stability, as a society is dependent on it.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

The Agenda Behind LGBT “Anti-discrimination” Laws

Gay Marriage 300x197 The Agenda Behind LGBT Anti discrimination Laws

Usually when a new statute or ordinance is created at the state or local level, it’s in response to a problem that needs correction. Such is not the case with the “anti-discrimination” ordinances being considered by several states and municipalities across the nation. As such, they are agenda-driven ordinances which solve nothing, but by the law of unintended consequences, can open a veritable Pandora’s box of legal and social problems.

These ordinances seek “to prohibit discriminatory acts in housing, employment and public accommodations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”

Proponents of such ordinances and statutes claim they will “guarantee the safety for everyone living in the community.” There are, in fact, many state, federal and local laws on the books that seek to ensure residents’ safety; none can guarantee it, as evidenced by the police logs which are rife with infractions against the safety of others. Much like so-called “hate crime” laws, these ordinance single out a specific classification of people, granting them extraordinary legal protection beyond that afforded all other citizens.

There is no valid statistical information cataloguing discrimination based on sexual orientation, to my knowledge. All information currently available is anecdotal, at best.

In the absence of empirically verifiable data, we must look for an alternative motive behind the proponents of such laws. We need look no further than the plethora of websites advancing the radical LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda.

The agenda is well defined by their own advocates. Jeff Levi proudly proclaims, “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right to see government and society affirm our lives.” That they seek public affirmation speaks volumes about how they view themselves and their lifestyle.

Gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined a six-point plan in their book After the Ball, referred to by activists as “a gay manifesto,” which laid out the agenda for how the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary Americans could be transformed to affirm the lifestyle. As they stated, “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.” They described how the movement should use “propagandistic advertising to depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals] as being discriminated against, hated and shunned.”

Recent polls indicate a growing level of acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. These data provide empirical evidence which invalidates the movement’s premise; that they’re discriminated against by public opinion. But the problem is in the agenda of those who promote the lifestyle, and seek extraordinary protection, and redefinition and alteration of fundamental social conventions and institutions to affirm the lifestyle of 3% of the population.

Alan Sears and Craig Osten in their book The Homosexual Agenda, identified the four stages that the movement has gone through to reshape the issue. It’s now in the fourth stage of legitimization where, with the full backing of the American Psychiatric Association, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the education establishment, and even local school districts, the issue has been taken from a treatable psychological disorder to normal, if not preferred, lifestyle in less than 40 years.

Most of the movement’s success can be linked to reshaping the argument from a moral and logical debate to one of “human rights.” As such, all who question the movement and the practice are labeled as “homophobic,” “hateful,” or “intolerant” toward those who are merely “different.” And they do so with all the acrimony, animus, and vitriol they can muster and get away with in print and the airwaves.

Society has been reprogrammed to assume they’re victims, even with all the laws on the books preventing discrimination and assuring Equal Opportunity Employment protections. With the passage of “hate crime” legislation, they now have super protection where opponents can and are literally deprived of their freedom of speech for expressing opposition to their agenda. In England and Canada, ministers have been arrested for referring to it as a moral issue. Following our current course, the same will undoubtedly occur here in the not-too distant future.

There is a sharp distinction that needs to be drawn between acceptance of those of different persuasions, and acceptance of the militant, extremist tactics of the movement advancing their cause. Conflating the two is illogical and fallacious.

And this is not a “civil rights” issue like racial discrimination, because it is completely self-defined, based on inclinations and behavior. All one has to do to qualify for protection under this ordinance is claim to be homosexual or transgendered. Civil rights issues cannot logically be based upon what one merely claims themselves to be, without creating inequality under the law.

George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” That is precisely what we are witnessing now, as those who accept and promote normalcy, the orientation which perpetuates the species and forms the anthropological and biological foundation of our culture and civilization, are publicly excoriated for having the temerity to publicly express it.

These “anti-discrimination” laws and ordinances have no needful basis in reality, and should be rejected. We openly and compassionately accept each other regardless of orientation. What we don’t accept is the radical agenda implemented to promote it.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.