The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: http://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/131836
Opinion C-2 Wednesday, May 22, 2013 The Press-Dispatch Observations by Thomas Sowell Lies about Libya There can be honest differences of opinion on many subjects. But there can also be dishonest differences. Last week's testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth. What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control. This "spontaneous protest" story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither the Americans on duty in Libya dur- The no-spin zone—by Bill O'Reilly The recurring debt-limit drama By Ed Feulner Get ready for a little deja vu from Washington. The federal government is about to hit the debt ceiling, now set at a whopping $16.8 trillion. Yes, again. It's like the Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day"—only this time, unfortunately, no one is laughing. Time and again, Congress bumps up against the debt ceiling amid talk of finally getting spending under control. Time and again, they raise the ceiling, but only after a sufficient dose of political theater. How's this for a punch line: The gross debt breaks down to more than $140,000 per American household. Still not laughing? Small wonder that more serious-minded lawmakers are trying to escape the cycle. They don't want to risk another credit downgrade, which happened for the first time ever in 2011, the last time both sides were playing political football with the issue. Avoiding another downgrade, though, will require a lot less theater and a lot more action. "The United States of America, the most creditworthy nation on Earth, ought to pay all its debt in a timely fashion," said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat and House minority whip. "Playing politically motivated games with the creditworthiness of the United States will only risk another downgrade." Exactly, and so it's past time to get spending under control. Some GOP lawmakers have other ideas, however. The latest proposed tactic: attract conservative support to yet another debt-limit increase by tying it to tax reform. GOP lawmakers have long argued for a thorough overhaul of the nation's tax code, which is needlessly complex and weakens the economy by perverting incentives. There's no question that tax reform is a worthy goal. But this is no time to fall for the old "fake stick toss." To agree to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a vague promise to pass some kind of tax reform somewhere down the road would be a mistake. It would be a different story if the debt limit were to increase if and only if President Obama signed into law a concrete tax-reform proposal, one that actually instituted the kind of pro-growth tax reform our economy needs. That might be worth supporting if the tax reform was good enough. It all depends on the details. It's true, as economist J.D. Foster notes, that "tax reformers have good reason for optimism." There is bipartisan interest in tax reform, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, Michigan Republican, and retiring Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, are working to find a way to harness that interest and get something accomplished. Mr. Obama has voiced support for tax reform as well. There seems to be broad agreement, at least in principle, on cutting the corporate income-tax rate and making the tax code simpler, more transparent and more conducive to economic growth. "All good," Mr. Foster writes in a recent blog post, "but there is as yet only the outlines of broad consensus, and much, much work left to do, a message given greater Continued on page 3 What happened, Mr. President? It hasn't been a great week for the Obama folks, as the scandal du jour tour has firmly taken hold. Every day it seems another federal agency is exposed as having intimidated, snooped, covered up or gone to Vegas on the taxpayer dime. Zimbabwe is even making fun of us. On Jan. 21, 2009, in remarks welcoming his new presidential staff, Barack Obama said: "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." So what happened, Mr. President? Why so much stonewalling? Let's take this one by one. Obama has to know that nobody is buying the assertion that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made a simple error when she blamed the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on a spontaneous Muslim uprising caused by a stupid anti-Islamic video. No one believes that was an honest mistake, Mr. President. So it is on Obama himself to explain the Rice deal—and also to explain why armed U.S. assets in Tripoli were not immediately sent to help the ambassador and other Americans under siege in Benghazi. But for eight months, the president has refused to explain. The IRS chaos is newer, and the president was forced to respond by firing Steve Miller, who ran the agency. But again, how could the powerful IRS get so out of control? Was it loyalty to a liberal president that made agents unfairly target conservatives? We need some clarity here. On the Associated Press front, all the president has to do is what Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to do: explain in general terms why the Justice Department thought it necessary to secure the phone records of AP re- porters; explain why there was an urgency to the investigation. Obama can certainly do that without compromising national security. So why isn't he doing it? The answer to that question lies in accountability. When has Obama ever been held accountable for anything? The press largely covers for him when mistakes are made, and the public seems to be in a very forgiving mood, especially on economic matters, where, according to some polls, almost half of the voters believe the sluggish economy is George W. Bush's fault. Sensing blood in the water, the president's ardent opponents will continue to take the scandals as far as they can. The only way this stops is for Obama to take control, admit whatever mistakes were made, explain how and why they happened, and hope the public understands. If he doesn't do that, his second term could well be a national nightmare. Points to ponder—by Ford Bond The Face of Mass Murder In a recent address at Quinnipiac University, CBS Newsreader Scott Pelly though praising the American Mainstream Media [MSM] as the best in the world, admitted, "These have been a bad few months for journalism; we're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again." The MSM sets the agenda for news. For nearly a century, the MSM has had a stranglehold upon reporting: deciding what is news either by enforcing compliance by a Manual of Style (rules) or by pressing political correctness or enforcing a news blackout. The ongoing trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell should be Front Page news, but few know about it, and even fewer know the barbarous acts this man is standing trial for in a court of law. Several conservative watch groups are calling the MSM out and accusing them of imposing a news blackout because the charges cast a pale upon the abortion mills of America. Dr. Gosnell was facing 250 criminal counts in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, court. He has been found guilty of three out of four counts of first degree murder of infants born outside of the mother, racketeering, and failing to counsel patients in advance of performing abortions. To escape the death penalty, he has agreed not to appeal his conviction in lieu of two life sentences. A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen Fight the power Speaking at Ohio State just a few days before abuse of power and dishonesty scandals swept over his administration, President Obama sang one of his trademark odes to the benevolence of government: 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 of our problems. . . . They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our . . . experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted. It was vintage Obama—caricaturing his opponents' views (who believes government is at the root of "all" our problems?), and implying that concern about government overreach is equivalent to rejecting self-rule. It's plausible to grant that Obama himself did not know that IRS agents were targeting tea party groups, Jews and other—one almost wants to write "enemies of the state"—for audits, harassment and delay. If Obama understood the conservative critique of big government even a little, he would know that his lack of knowledge is expected. In fact, it's part of the problem. As David Axelrod put it, the government is just "too vast" for the president to control. Who would have thought? Obviously the government has always been too large for any one person to control. But our brilliant founders arranged matters so that power would be diffuse. Interest would counter in- ing the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration. The highest American diplomat on the scene in Libya spoke directly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by phone, and told her that it was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya announced that it was a terrorist attack. The C.I.A. told the Obama administration that it was a terrorist attack. With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the "spontaneous protest" story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information Continued on page 3 terest, branch would check branch and transparency would ensure accountability to the voters. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51: Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? The tea party movement—those the IRS harassed—dressed up as Founders, a rich irony. A good progressive, Obama finds Adams, Jefferson and Co. passe. He doesn't recognize the capacity of government to abuse power when in the proper (i.e. Democratic) hands—or, more likely, doesn't care. His arrogance about his own good intentions for the "middle class"—odd that he almost never speaks of the poor—makes him contemptuous of those who agree with Madison that government power must always be carefully constrained. You needn't believe that Barack Obama personally texted IRS agents and instructed them to harass conservatives to know that he disdains the constitutional order. The evidence is in the legislation he signed. Both the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank create boards with utterly (in the case of Dodd Frank) and nearly (in the case of Obamacare) unreviewable power. Both are the subjects of lawsuits challenging their constitutionality. Dodd Frank (aka "Dodd Frankenstein") creates at least two panels that are insulated from Congress's power of the purse. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council derive their funding directly from the Federal Reserve. The president can appoint the director of the CFPB but can remove him only in very limited circumstances. The courts, which can normally overturn agency actions deemed "arbitrary or capricious," have limited review. The president highlighted his contempt for law by illegally naming the current director of CFPB as a "recess appointment"—when the Senate was not in recess. The FSOC can declare firms "too big to fail" and thus obligate taxpayers for bailouts. The courts will have no say. Under Obamacare, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is exempted from the notice and comment rules of federal agencies. IPAB dictates automatically become law unless Congress itself intervenes, but Congress has little time to do so and must vote by a three-fifths majority to modify an IPAB decision. The courts are not permitted to review its rulings. Even abolishing IPAB has been made virtually impossible by the law. At his Thursday press conference, Obama promised that if "there's a problem in government, we'll fix it." But his overweening signature legislation guarantees that power will be abused. Shielding government agencies from judicial and congressional review is an open invitation to the kind of misuse a wiser person would guard against. Wiser men did. They created our constitution, which Obama and his progressive allies flout. The case came to light two years ago when police entered the premises of the clinic looking for evidence of drug abuse, and instead found "bags and bottles of fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises." The details of how he killed babies outside of the womb are almost beyond description. Testimony at the trail revealed "one of the babies was nearly 30 weeks along when the abortion took place and was so big that Gosnell allegedly joked the baby could "walk to the bus." A second baby was alive for about 20 minutes before a clinic worker snipped the neck. A third was born in a toilet and was moving before another clinic employee severed the spinal cord. Both sides of the abortion debate have chimed in. David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee said, "This has helped more people realize what abortion is really about, and that more states pass bills that prohibit abortion "once the unborn child can feel pain." Supporters of abortion view the case as a warning of what poor young women could face if abortion becomes more restrictive. Ilyse G. Hogue, president of NAR AL Pro-Choice America said, "Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care." This case is the true face of everything abortion is and is the legacy of Margaret Sanger and her affection for eugenics; the women who sought Dr. Gosnell out were described as "low-income women in the largely black community." Other supporters remind the public that Gosnell's abortion clinic was not connected to Planned Parenthood. Yet, according to published reports, "Planned Parenthood Southeast Pennsylvania president and CEO Dayle Steinberg admitted that the abortion business knew of the problems at Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion facility." In Planned Parenthood's defense, Steinberg remarked, "We would always encourage them [womContinued on page 3 The P Dispatch ress- MR. AND MRS. FRANK HEURING, PUBLISHERS ANDREW G. HEURING, EDITOR JOHN B. HEURING, ADVERTISING MANAGER Wednesday, May 22, 2013 Entered at the Post Office in Petersburg, Indiana for transmission through the mails as Periodical Mail, Postage paid at Petersburg, Indiana. Published weekly. Change of Address—Subscribers changing addresses will please give old address as well as new one along with phone number. We cannot guarantee prompt change unless this is done. Postmaster: send changes to Post Office Box 68, Petersburg, Indiana 47567-0068. Phone 354-8500 • FAX—354-2014 P.O. BOX 68, PETERSBURG, INDIANA 47567 E-mail—subscribe@pressdispatch.net (604-340)