The Quote File

The Political Sphere

I continue to keep a quote file. It’s about the size of a book now, growing since 2010 or so, but I haven’t shared much of it in a while. It’s random. I add on whatever I happen to come across. All the quotes in this collection relate in some way to the Spherical Model—either to political freedom, economic prosperity, or civilization, or sometimes how they interrelate, and sometimes to specific events in the news that relate somehow.

Today’s post isn’t an organized, themed collection of quotes. It’s just the random last few pages, more or less unedited and without comment. Just a glimpse into some of the thoughts accumulated here at the Spherical Model, in hopes they will be enlightening.

Nobody can be a great economist who is only an economist….and I am even tempted to add that the economist who is only an economist is likely to become a nuisance if not a positive danger.—F. A. Hayek

You know, in the oath that brand-new citizens take, it contains six different references to ‘the law.’ If it’s good enough for us to ask brand-new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the president do the same?—Trey Gowdy, speech before Congress, July 2014

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass ‘suggestions.’ We do not exist to pass ‘ideas.’ We make LAW. And, while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to ‘do it’ with or without you, I will NEVER stand and clap when ANY president, no matter whether he is your party or mine, promises to  make us a Constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE…MAKE…LAW.—Trey Gowdy, (same as above) speech before Congress, July 2014

While not all Muslims or all leftists seek, or support those who seek, Israel’s destruction, virtually all those who do are either Muslim or on the left.—Dennis Prager, “The Genocide Label,” July 29, 2014

Truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core.—Frank Meyer

Newark, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles—and Philadelphia, Cleveland, and a dozen or more other cities—have a great deal in common: They are the places in which the progressive vision of government has reached its fullest expressions. They are the hopeless reality that results from wishful thinking.—Kevin D. Williamson, “Who Lost the Cities?” August 15, 2014

Blacks are only 12 percent of the population in America. But 36 percent of the babies aborted are black. That means that of the more than 3000 babies aborted per day in America over 1000 of them are black.—Mike Adams, “Hands Up! Don’t Abort” 8-25-2014

In the words of one distinguished ambassador, General Carlos Romulo, as he left our shores after serving his government here for nearly a score of years. He said, “I admire and love America…. What I have to say in parting is both a tribute and a warning. Never forget, Americans, that yours is a spiritual country. Yes, I know that you are a practical people. Like others, I have marveled at your factories, your skyscrapers, and your arsenals. But underlying everything else is the fact that America began as a God-loving, God-fearing, God-worshiping people, knowing that there is a spark of the divine in each of us. It is this respect for the dignity of the human spirit which makes America invincible.”

 And this, too, is my tribute to America. We all know that material and physical things are not the source and substance of safety, strength, and freedom of our beloved country."—Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, General Conference 1976

Improve your community by active participation and service. Remember in your civic responsibility that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke). Do something meaningful in defense of your God-given freedom and liberty.—President Ezra Taft Benson, April 1988

Your love of liberty, your respect for the laws, your habits of industry, and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.—George Washington

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.—Frederic Bastiat

Men cannot improve a society by setting it to fire: they must seek out its old virtues and bring them back into the light.—Russell Kirk

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.—Thomas Jefferson

A good moral character is the first essential in a man[…] It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.—George Washington

Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.—George Washington

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.—Soren Kierkegaard

All the opportunity for self-government through the rule of the people depends upon one single factor. That is the ballot box. . . . The people of our country are sovereign. If they do not vote they abdicate that sovereignty, and they may be entirely sure that if they relinquish it other forces will seize it, and if they fail to govern themselves some other power will rise up to govern them. The choice is always before them, whether they will be slaves or whether they will be free. The only way to be free is to exercise actively and energetically the privileges, and discharge faithfully the duties which make freedom. It is not to be secured by passive resistance. It is the result of energy and action. . . .

Persons who have the right to vote are trustees for the benefit of their country and their countrymen. They have no right to say they do not care. They must care! They have no right to say that whatever the result of the election they can get along. They must remember that their country and their countrymen cannot get along, cannot remain sound, cannot preserve its institutions, cannot protect its citizens, cannot maintain its place in the world, unless those who have the right to vote do sustain and do guide the course of public affairs by the thoughtful exercise of that right on election day.—President Calvin Coolidge

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.—Winston Churchill

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.—Henry George (1839-1897)

We’ve got a choice. You grow the government economy, or grow the American economy.—Bobby Jindal. Presidential debate October 28, 2015

Long after Barack Obama is gone and ensconced in warm-weather golf-course mansions, the country will remain divided. The them/us splits are the real Obama legacy that tops even his $20 trillion in debt, chronic zero interest rates, a wrecked Middle East, stagnant growth, a hemorrhaging medical system, and record labor non-participation rates.—Victor Davis Hanson, “Community Organizing America,” Nov. 1, 2015

  

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds ... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our mis-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers....

And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another] ... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery.... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and, in its train, wretchedness and oppression.—Thomas Jefferson

Truth Search: Benghazi

I spent some hours over the weekend listening to Thursday’s Benghazi hearing testimony of Hillary Clinton. I’m just a curious American. I’ve been waiting for three years so far to find out what happened in Benghazi, why it happened, and why we got told things that weren’t true about what happened.

I’m not a prosecutor, but I have some confidence in Rep. Trey Gowdy’s abilities to get at the truth. At last. Yes, there have been multiple hearings. As the Democrats on the committee told us multiple times. In fact, in these hearings, the Democrat committee members refrained from asking questions to Hillary Clinton and instead directed attacks at the committee head, Trey Gowdy—reminding us how many previous investigations there have been, and that this one has spent millions of dollars, and so far has found nothing, they claim. Rep. Elijah Cummings, pointed out in his opening comments, before questions had been asked of Ms. Clinton, that the committee hadn’t learned anything. Not helpful.

Rep. Trey Gowdy during committee
hearing Oct. 22, 2015
image from C-SPAN

During the entire questioning, no Democrat asked Hillary Clinton a useful question, with the possible exception of one that allowed her to go through the timeline of what happened in Benghazi that fateful night. Not that the committee needed her testimony for that; she wasn’t there, and the timeline of what happened on the ground was fairly well established—there’s a movie on the subject about to come out. But at least it showed that she was aware of enough details at this point, three years after the fact, to relate them.

There are a few points I noticed, and I’m wondering about. Sometimes I wonder why the media took no notice. Sometimes I wonder what Trey Gowdy knows.

One thing Rep. Gowdy said in an interview afterward, which I didn’t realize, was that he hadn’t subpoenaed Hillary Clinton to testify. She had been asked, and was willing. But that may mean that Trey Gowdy didn’t need her testimony at all, but was willing to use the opportunity as backup to what he knows from other sources. And there's always the chance he can add a perjury charge or two.

He also said that he had given her the option to do the testimony in private or public. Since her testimony wasn’t essential, he could go either way. But he prefers private for several reasons. One is that the testimony can cover classified information safely—in fact, if such questions come up in a public hearing, they must be held and asked later in private. Another is that the person testifying is often more likely to be candid in private, so the committee gets better information. 

In addition, in private hearings, the Democrats do none of the pontificating they do in public; they ask questions. It may be that their questions are designed to allow the testifiers to show themselves in the best light, but at least they’re questioned. They don’t, at all, direct criticism at the committee chair. When they do that in public, therefore, it is merely Democrat theater, and in no way relates to an attempt to find the truth, which is pretty obvious if you’re watching for reasons like mine.

So, if you want to go through this (links below), or any future, public hearing more quickly, simply fast forward through any Democrat questioner; you will miss nothing germane.

I was surprised to see that Hillary Clinton still claims the anti-Muslim video, which was never relevant to Benghazi, a fact known the day of the attack, was a possible cause they were concerned about with good reason. She emailed her daughter, and she told the President of Libya and the Prime Minister of Egypt, indicating clearly within 24 hours that she knew the video had nothing to do with the attack. They knew the attack was planned ahead, by an al-Qaeda-like organization, with names (Ansar al-Sharia) that proved to be involved.

She carefully parsed her words, and made sure the committee understood how carefully she had parsed them, when she said, “Some say…” that the video was the cause. She didn’t say she said so, just that some straw man said so. She and the administration did lead Susan Rice to declare on five TV interviews that the video was the cause, and spokesman Jay Carney to say the video was the cause. And the President said it multiple times, and Clinton herself said it several times—including when she met with families of the deceased and assured them that the makers of the video would be prosecuted, but did not promise that the actual known attackers would be prosecuted. So, using the phrase “some say…” doesn’t exactly explain why this known falsehood kept getting repeated.

After three years, we still don't know
what happened at the Benghazi consulate compound
Map found here

She kept trying to make it sound like that possibility was worth pursuing.[i] The video was claimed to be the cause of a spontaneous demonstration in Egypt—that’s what we were told that day—by the administration in response to that event, prior to the Benghazi attack hours later. In fact, Clinton claimed in her testimony Thursday that the video had been shown on Egyptian television, and that is why they feared it had farther reach and might spread.

But, if I remember correctly, that obscure video wasn’t the cause of the riot in Egypt; that was a preplanned event, weeks ahead, and announced the day before in the Egyptian press, in an attempt to release the Blind Sheikh. That the administration went video shopping was revealed in emails obtained in 2014 through a FOIA request persisted by Judicial Watch.

So the planned riot in Egypt had nothing to do with a video. And therefore it was an absolute known fact that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack. Hillary Clinton knew this without question, and she just lied about it under oath.

One of the questions is why the ambassador was in Benghazi, known to be unsafe, when he had repeatedly requested greater security, since his installation as Libyan ambassador in May 2012. If it wasn’t safe in Tripoli, and was much less safe in Benghazi, what was he doing there? Hillary Clinton claims it was his call, but he was looking into whether a consulate should be opened in Benghazi.

Since within a month after the attack I’ve heard speculation that the administration was involved in gun running, and that was the purpose for the ambassador and the CIA to be in Benghazi, to see to a deal. This was verified in testimony in June, with the speculation Clinton could be subject to treason charges. 

I was surprised when this came up in the hearing. It was a blip. Clinton claimed that of course the administration wanted to see that weapons got into the right hands; all administrations would do so. So, in essence, she admitted that what had until recently been called a bizarre “conspiracy theory” is true, but she said it with an “of course” that led the media to let it go, as if we all knew and accepted this detail all along.

I don’t know what to make of this. I don’t know what Trey Gowdy makes of it either. But gun running is not a normal duty of an ambassador, and is particularly unwise in a country without an established secure government.

Speaking of lack of secure government, she admitted that the security personnel at the consulate were unarmed. She claimed this was normal. It is practice for consulates to trust security of the perimeter to the host country. But why would this would be the practice in a country in which even the citizens wouldn’t trust a weak or non-recognized government to protect them?

She kept saying that it was never recommended that the Libyan embassy be closed. She was sure if Ambassador Stevens had thought it necessary, he would have said so. But she fails to take responsibility for the ignored requests for increased security. 

In an uncomfortable moment, she laughed at the enterprising spirit of the ambassador for “fire sale” shopping—collecting barricades and other safety equipment from nearby closing embassies, since he wasn’t getting anything in response to his requests. (I think there were around 800 requests.) Despite her opening statement that she took responsibility, she said handling security requests was below her pay grade; underlings were tasked with handling security, and they never saw it necessary to bother her about the ambassador’s requests. We do not yet know why these people over security failed to answer the calls. Clinton tried blaming Congress for failing to provide funding, but that seems pretty empty. I'm assuming the committee is following up with the security division she referred to. There's may be among the subpoenaed materials the State Department has yet to provide.

She claims that Ambassador Stevens was a personal friend of hers. But there were zero emails between him and Clinton. She answered that by saying that she didn’t provide him an email address. And she didn’t do much business by email; she didn’t even have a computer in her office. The line of questioning about emails to her from Sidney Blumenthal (which were her emails, only recently revealed, and all related to Benghazi and Libya) showed that he had full and complete access to the Secretary of State, even though he had been refused any official status by the White House. But her “friend,” Chris Stevens, got no access.

She said she used phonecalls and other communications. So she was asked whether she had talked with Chris Stevens by phone after he was made ambassador to Libya. She answered that she was sure she had. On what occasion? When? She couldn’t recall. She was reminded that her phone logs show no calls between her and the ambassador. She shrugged that off as meaningless. He had a direct line to the State Department and could have called at any time. Again, ignoring the 800 or so requests for increased security.

It might be that acquiescing to increased security in Libya would have shown Obama's claim that al-Qaeda was weakened and nearly dissolved to be a lie. That’s an alternative to believing in the gun running scheme. I suppose both could be true simultaneously.

The reason she used a private email server is that private communications (i.e., unrelated to State Department work) are not subject to FOIA requests. She does not choose transparency, even when required by law. But what has been obtained is evidence that she did official work on that server, including classified work.

So she is known to have broken the law concerning making her State Department actions public. And she is known to have allowed multiple examples of classified information outside of a secure government location—a serious law every person with a security clearance understands. She is subject to jail time. 

She didn’t have to testify for this to be known. If there were an explanation that would have exonerated her, she would have provided it. That she did nothing but pretend it was all legitimate may play well in the press, but it will not convince a thorough prosecutor.

We know that many of the emails and resources subpoenaed have yet to be provided. The failure to provide requested information is the main reason the investigation continues. It may also continue because, if she were indicted and convicted in the near future, the president would pardon her, and there would hardly be an inconvenience in her campaign for president. She must be indicted, with rock solid evidence to convict. And it must come before she has any chance of becoming president but close enough to the end of the Obama reign to prevent him from pardoning. Otherwise she gets away scot-free. And the blood of those who lost their lives continues to cry out for justice.

If you want to experience the testimony yourself, C-Span has provided the entire day in four parts:

Part 1: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-1/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-1

Part 2: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-2/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-2

Part 3: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-3/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-3

Part 4: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-4/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-4

---

[i] Note Hillary Clinton’s testimony at 27:50 minutes in Part 3 of C-Span’s recording. 

Random Observations

Today’s post is a few short observations on what’s been going on in the news, and whatever else comes to mind.

 

_________________
I’m glad Trey Gowdy is on the team of truth. Jonathan Gruber didn’t have a chance, repeating a scripted line given to him as PR damage control. He never said he didn’t believe the things he repeatedly said about manipulating through deception to push Obamacare through; he said it was wrong to say those things, even to those who agreed with him, because word leaks out.

If you have to lie about your policies and their likely outcome in order to persuade people to go along, maybe they’re not such good ideas. Watch 6 entertaining minutes here: Post by C-SPAN.

 

___________________

Whites aren’t privileged. Most people, of any race, are just doing their best to get by, get along, get ahead, against great hurdles—often placed there by too much government interference. If some are less privileged, or “underprivileged,” we need to help with urgent needs, and teach the principles that lead to self-reliance and success. Start with the formula for overcoming poverty in America:

1.      Don’t have sex before age 20.

2.      Don’t have sex until after marriage.

3.      Stay married.

4.      Obtain at least a high school diploma. 

 

_____________________

Hypocrisy is exemplified by those who claim there’s a huge portion of the American people who don’t value life if it’s black. That may be true, but totally opposite of how they mean it. They fail to call attention to the raging black-on-black murder rate in places like Chicago; apparently it’s OK for black criminals to kill other blacks, but it isn’t OK for white police officers to kill during dangerous arrest situations. And they fail to value the lives of black babies: 40% of black pregnancies are aborted; 75% of black babies are born without two married parents, which leads to endemic poverty and crime. See formula for overcoming poverty, above. 

 

____________________

Even if Jeb Bush were right that Common Core was the best standardized education system that mankind could come up with (which it isn’t), he would still be wrong. Because it’s standardized. There is nothing in the US Constitution about education. That means it’s not an enumerated power; it is therefore left to the people and to the states. Anything done at a less local level than necessary will do more harm than good. If Common Core is so good, then put it in the free market and let individual school districts (or better yet, individual teachers, or individual families) decide whether to use it in part or whole. If it can’t tolerate competition, it isn’t good enough. I already know better than some bureaucrat in Washington how my children learn best, and I’m the expert on what I want my children to learn.  

 

____________________

The  Republicans just won handily in the House and Senate—and state governorships and legislatures. The people are saying they repudiate Obama’s policies, and Democrat policies. PR threats about shutting down the government being blamed on Republicans are pointless. Refusing to fund what the president wants is not equivalent to shutting down government. The president, throwing a tizzy fit and saying the Republicans want no government, and then spending money to shut down things that aren’t even federally funded—remember when he shut down private parking at the privately operated Mt. Vernon, and shutting down access to private hotels and restaurants on the Blue Ridge Parkway (which wasn’t closed)? Remember hiring personnel to block the view to Mt. Rushmore from public roadways, to make shutting down national parks more painful? Yeah, that was our president.  

He also equated failing to lift the debt ceiling to failing to pay our debts. Because he’s willing to break contracts if he doesn’t have unlimited funds. 

I think the American public is beginning to realize he’s an ineffectual liar, and that the liberal media have been shilling for him. That’s why alternative news sources are turned to more than the old liberal dinosaurs.  

The point is, the Congressional Republicans ought to use their constitutional power of the purse to rein in the power monger’s overspending. 

 

____________________

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments on the Little Sisters of the Poor and some of the other 100 cases related to the Obamacare HHS mandate. We don’t know the results yet. But it should be obvious that, anyone who is forcing Catholic nuns to pay for abortion-causing drugs is on the wrong side. 

 

____________________

Avoiding watching inflammatory video clips allows for a more open mind. This has been working for me since Rodney King days. When the grand jury came out in the Garner case in New York last week, my first thought was, “The grand jury must know more than the news is telling us. I wonder what it is.” I did not jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that the grand jury was wrong because of a 15-second video. Some of the additional information has come out. There was no damage to the trachea; there was no evidence of choking as cause death. What we may have thought we saw on the video looks different if you have enough additional information.  

That said, there’s something really warped about charging more in tax for an item—even an “evil” product like cigarettes—than the item itself costs. Cigarettes cost $4.50 a pack in Kentucky, but $14.50 in New York. And the government assumes they can charge that without causing a black market? And then they spend police resources stamping out black market sales rather than dealing with serious crime.

A wiser government would have let the free market handle cigarettes, leaving Eric Garner alive. A wiser Eric Garner—one who didn’t make a living selling on the black market, and one who didn’t resist arrest, and maybe one who had better maintained his health—might also still be alive. The loss of a life is tragic. But there’s no evidence that it’s racially caused. 

 

___________________

So, let me get this straight: torturing of enemy combatants is so evil that America must risk the lives of people working in her service to atone for that badness. And “torturing” doesn’t include maiming, permanently injuring, or endangering life. However, killing an enemy combatant, without trial, without indictment—even when said person is a US citizen—and sometimes killing innocents nearby (euphemistically referred to as collateral damage) is OK.  

If you were a person given two choices: be captured and “tortured” for information by Americans or Islamists, you’d clearly choose Americans. If you were a supposed enemy combatant, unless you were into suicide missions, you would likely prefer being taken captive by Americans—where you have the guarantee of relative comfort and health and life—to being taken out by a drone, possibly along with your son and friend. 

Our president and cohorts seem to think the use of enhanced interrogation with the guaranteed limits listed above is beneath American values, but execution without trial along with possible innocents is copasetic. 

I’m not willing to say there should never be drone strikes against our enemy in the war against terrorists. But I do have a problem with a president who decides to be judge, jury, and executioner against an American citizen; if there is probable cause, there should at least be an indictment. As for torture—real torture—that’s already against the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war. But terrorists are non-uniformed enemy combatants, to whom the Geneva Convention rules do not apply.  

Since they are human, however, shouldn’t we avoid torturing them? Define your terms. If torture is sadistic, cruel and risks permanent damage or health, then I have seen no evidence that the US has done that. But I wouldn’t be sad if our enemies thought we were willing to torture. If we must do PR with the enemy, it should be to make them fear us more, not less. 

I would not use the term torture for making someone really uncomfortable temporarily for the purpose of extracting valuable urgent information. What we’ve seen evidence of might not seem nice, but it’s not even in the same category as beheading innocents. So, in summary, Dianne Feinstein’s report is hypocritical, politically motivated, and mainly untrue.