Victories Against the War on Drugs

 | 

Washington and Colorado have become the first states to pass laws legalizing marijuana. In the election just ended, Washington's Initiative 502 and Colorado's Amendment 64 each are passing by about 55% of the vote. A similar measure in Oregon is failing, with only 45% of the vote. Massachusetts became the 17th medical marijuana state by passing Question 3, with 63% support.

Why Washington and Colorado? Was it because these were the two states in which Libertarian nominee John Hospers made the ballot in 1972? Probably not.

Washington and Colorado were among the earliest medical marijuana states, with ballot measures passing in 1998 in Washington and in 2000 in Colorado. They were not the first, however. California was first, with a ballot measure for medical marijuana in 1996. California voters were offered a legalization measure in 2010, and they rejected it.

Each case comes with specific reasons, and I can speak only for those in Washington, where I live. Medical marijuana has come out of the closet here, with open "dispensaries" all over Seattle. Police shut them down in Spokane and some other cities, but in liberal Seattle they thrive. We have a "Hempfest" here — a huge public music-and-weed celebration, every August. In the middle of the last decade, Seattle voters approved a measure making marijuana possession the lowest priority crime, and the new city attorney, Pete Holmes, stopped prosecuting simple possession cases in 2010.

Still, legalization was a battle — though not so much with the supporters of prohibition. Two more radical efforts to legalize, in 2010 and 2011, didn't get enough signatures to make the ballot. These measures would have repealed all state marijuana laws affecting people over age 18 and replaced them with nothing. The sponsors said the measures were bulletproof to federal challenge, because they created no law. They simply erased. But to Seattle liberals, having no regulation of the private marijuana market was too radical, and the sponsors could raise almost no money.

Then came the mainstream effort for I-502. It was not full legalization. It legalized possession of one ounce for adults over 21, continued the ban on private growing, and ordered the state to set up a system of licensing commercial growers, distributors and marijuana shops. The measure was backed by City Attorney Holmes, a Democrat; the former George W. Bush-appointed US Attorney in Seattle, John McKay, a Republican; travel entrepreneur Rick Steves, who has written extensively about Amsterdam; and the ACLU of Washington. The effort raised lots of money, got on the ballot, and was cheered on by the state's largest newspaper, the Seattle Times.

Mainstream politicians, however, were wary of it: Gov. Christine Gregoire, Democrat, opposed it, as did the Democrat and Republican candidates to replace her — because the measure conflicts with federal law.

Legalization was a battle — though not so much with the supporters of prohibition.

Initiative 502's most vocal enemies were the sponsors of the more radical measures of the two years before. Their beef was that 502 creates a "per se" standard of intoxication of 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. They noted that the Colorado initiative did not have this. They said the standard was unscientific, and would cause medical marijuana patients to lose their right to drive. These opponents had support in the medical marijuana community, part of which was against marijuana prohibition but for a "no" on 502.

The more mainstream supporters of 502 argued that the 5 ng/ml standard was not the main issue, and that legalization was. Vote for legalization, they argued, and if 5 ng/ml is the wrong standard, we'll fix it later.

The conservatives' argument against 502 was that smoking marijuana is bad, and that legalizing it for over-21 adults would encourage more people, especially more teens, to smoke it. They didn't spend any money on ads. And they lost.

The Colorado and Washington initiatives both appear to conflict with federal law. Now we shall see what the federal government does about it.




Share This


The Good and the Bad of this Election

 | 

In an effort to purge myself of this horrible election, I will try to state some ideas that seem obvious (to me). Like other obvious ideas, they may not be true, but here they are. Some of them are sadder than others. One of them doesn’t seem sad at all. I’ll start with that one.

Hillary Clinton is now much less likely to become president. Four years from now, the Democratic nominee will have four more years of abject failures to defend, and Clinton has managed to stick herself so firmly to those failures that I don’t think she can ever get herself unstuck.

But isn’t it likely that the economy will improve by then? Not if Obama can prevent it. It’s true, of course, that money wants to be invested, and that some of it may escape being forcibly invested in government and be willing to rear its head in Obamaland and actually buy (and pay for) a house, or start a business. So the economy may “tick up” slightly. But Obama and his friends will keep doing their best to keep the rich rich and everyone else on permanent “assistance.” There will be more welfare, more food stamps, more bailouts, more government employees with more government pensions, more “green” industries that somehow go bankrupt, only to be replaced by others, funded in the same way. Obama’s goal is to make all this permanent, and he is succeeding very well. That’s not good for the economy.

Even in this election, most voters appeared to realize that. Many voted for Obama anyway, because he is black, because their parents were Democrats, because they are Irish Catholics, because they were educated to hate all Republicans, and so forth. But a few more voters on the margin would have turned him out of office.

The Republican Party will be back. This was not a good year for Republican candidates — by which I mean that many of them just weren’t very good. Romney was no one’s first choice, and the first choices of various Republican constituencies (including Newt Gingrich’s constituency of one) were much worse. Twice (2010 and now 2012) the GOP has thrown away an open invitation to take the Senate. It managed to miss some of the easiest targets imaginable — Nevada, Missouri, Indiana. I doubt that even the Republicans will make the same kind of mistakes a third time. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the two major parties are not organizations of principle or even of geography. They may seem so at any given moment, but actually they are enormous vacuum cleaners, roving the landscape in quest of any available vote. Despite their errors, the Republicans of 2012 operated a vacuum cleaner with impressive power. They’ll do better after four more years of the most incompetent president since John Tyler.

The Libertarian Party will also be back, and in exactly the same way it always comes back. At the moment, national totals are unavailable, but the vote here in California demonstrates the chronic weakness of the LP. California is a state with a ton of libertarians, the party had an attractive presidential nominee, and Obama was bound to carry the state, thus eliminating the “why waste your vote on the Libertarians?” argument. Nevertheless, the LP got only 1% of the vote.

The strength of the Democrats is also their weakness, and it is tremendous, in both ways. You can see this in my own state and city. The state, in which all branches of government are firmly controlled by Democrats, who are in turn firmly controlled by labor unions, is (not surprisingly) broke. It is broke because of the money it pays its employees and “invests” in their projects. It is also one of the highest-tax states in the nation. In this election, the major issue on the ballot was a giant “temporary” increase in taxes “for the schools” — actually for the teachers’ pension fund. Even the proponents of this measure expected it to fail. It passed, fairly easily, because of its support by the teachers’ union. In my city, one of the most conservative large cities in the country, a Democratic former congressman who is detested by everyone who ever met him edged out an attractive fiscal conservative and social liberal in a bitter campaign for the mayoralty. Unions again. Very easily passed, even in these times of serious depression in the state and city, was a ridiculous proposal for the local school district to borrow $2.8 billion to perform the kind of repairs that any sane person would have included in the normal budget. Unions a third time.In the immediate vicinity of my town, two veteran Republican congressmen appear to have been defeated by Democratic competitors. Unions a fourth time. Public employee unions. Statewide, a referendum to curtail unions’ ability to spend workers’ money on politics was easily defeated. But the drunker you are — and these people are, indeed, drunk with power — the sooner you’re going to end up in the ditch. Or, to vary the metaphor, the larger the parasite, the sooner it will devour its host. In this case, one has reason to hope, it will devour only the host’s wallet, leaving the host free to shake the parasite off.

Now look at the national scene. How was Obama “dragged across the finish line,” as Charles Krauthammer put it? Part of it was successful appeals to African American voters to support one of their own — nothing surprising. Part of it was the use of amnesty for illegal immigrants to appeal to Mexican American voters — again, nothing surprising. A much larger part was demagoguery based on issues of race and class and even religion, a campaign of lies against Romney and all Republicans that was almost too vile to contemplate but that apparently had some effect. A still larger part was simple bribes: Ohio and Michigan bribed by the bailout of the auto industry, old people bribed by pension promises, working people bribed by virtually-no-interest housing loans, and virtually everyone bribed by national borrowing without paying back. Because these are bribes and not investments, they gather everyone except members of government labor unions and certain politically connected rich people into the same economic spiral — and the spiral points relentlessly to the drain. Money is finite. Even the ability to borrow money is finite. Support for the Democratic Party’s current program will also prove to be finite.

Where exactly the program and the coalition of the bribed will break down, when exactly Peter will angrily decline to keep paying for Paul, and Paul will angrily demand that he keep doing so — that can’t be predicted. But I believe the breakdown is coming soon. I also believe that under these conditions,

It is easier than ever before to argue for reason and liberty. I suggest we now continue with that engaging and delightful task.




Share This


Election Day, 1849

 | 

On the afternoon of October 3, 1849, a young printer discovered a man wallowing in a gutter outside Gunner's Hall, an Irish tavern in Baltimore. The man was disheveled and semi-conscious, dressed in soiled clothes that were not his own, and clinging to a malacca cane. The stricken man was Edgar Allan Poe. He was taken to a local hospital, where he remained virtually delirious until his death four days later at the age of 40. One of the most important writers of the 19th century, Poe basically invented the short story and made several publishers rich men. But he struggled his entire life with alcoholism and poverty, never earning more than $300 a year.

Literary historians have long speculated how Poe came to be dressed in a stranger's clothes that day. Poe was poor, but he was always fastidious about his attire. Had he sold his trademark black suit to buy liquor or food? Had he been robbed? No one will ever know for sure.

Recent speculation, however, has turned to a theory that is quite timely considering this election day, in what appears to be the tightest and most contentious presidential race in history: Poe may have been trading votes for drinks. October 3, 1849 was a local election day. "Vote early and often" is a cynical phrase that is often attributed to Tammany Hall and the Chicago political machine, but it did not originate there. Unscrupulous politicians from the East coast to the Midwest would often offer five dollars and a beer to anyone who would vote for them, using the names of deceased residents to vote multiple times. To prevent recognition at the polling place, these repeaters would be induced to change their clothes. Out of money and craving alcohol, Poe would have been an easy mark, and that would explain why he was wearing the stranger's clothes.

On this election day, how many people are acting for themselves, and how many are wearing (symbolically) a stranger’s clothes?




Share This


Yahoo! Blimp Crash Lands in Ohio

 | 

My home page is Yahoo! There are reasons for this, some of them good, but all of them dull. I won’t bother you with them. I simply want to notice that the recent college graduates, college dropouts, high school students, and GED pursuers who select and headline the featured articles that run on such digital substitutes for newspapers are even more grossly bigoted than the New York Times.

And that’s saying something.

Here is a selection of recent Yahoo! News headlines:

“Romney on ‘Apology Tour’”
“Did Romney Play It Too Safe?”
“Obama Rattles Romney”
“Romney Blimp Crash-Lands”

Reporting on the most hotly contested “battleground state,” at the moment when it had become still more hotly contested, Yahoo ran this as a headline: “Mitt Romney Still Hasn't Given Up on Ohio.” If you clicked on the headline, you would see this at the beginning of the article: “Seeking middle-class and women voters, Romney intones ‘change’ mantra in Ohio."Can anyone imagine such a site featuring an article in which Obama intoned a “change” mantra?

The old journalistic rule was “dog bites man — not news; man bites dog — news.” The digital clones have it the other way around. No one expected Romney to give up on Ohio, but that’s the headline: he didn’t give up. Meanwhile, Yahoo! found no room for headlines about the shockingly daft response of the Obama administration to the massacre in Libya, or to anything else that might bring the administration into question. There was space, however, for a headline about a Democratic senator in quest of reelection: “Mother of Mo. Sen. McCaskill Dies at Age 84.” Yes, that is the news the nation must know.

There’s no limit to this crap. On the day when tropical storm Sandy struck the east coast, a Yahoo! headline read, “People Named Sandy More Likely to Give to Obama.”




Share This


Are Objectivists Also Libertarians?

 | 

The second Atlas Shrugged movie has now come out. Should this be viewed as a cause for celebration within the libertarian movement? Well, to know that we must first answer whether Objectivists are also libertarians. Is Objectivism a part of libertarianism?

Many people who claim to be Objectivists vehemently say No, it is not. My first reaction, on hearing them say that, is to think, “This is preposterous!” But it is hard to “answer” the question, because there is so much political and intellectual baggage caught up in it. In order to say “Objectivism is a type of libertarianism” you would need to define the two terms, and definitions vary so much that most people won’t agree on any two you give. And naturally, one doesn’t want to start a fight.

But let me put on my Objectivist hat for a moment and say: “In the next part of this essay I am going to demonstrate that reason and reality say that Objectivism is, in fact, a form of libertarianism, and I will be presenting the objective, neutral honest Truth.”

Here goes.

1. If “libertarian” means “extreme and radical defender of capitalism,” and “Objectivist” means “a follower of Ayn Rand,” then because Rand was an extreme, radical defender of capitalism, all of her true followers must be this type of person also. So all Objectivists are libertarians.

2. If “libertarian” means “a believer in the idea that aggression should never be initiated and violence should be used only in self-defense,” and this thought can be seen at the heart of Rand’s politics (consider the Project X episode in Atlas Shrugged, for example), then she was a libertarian and those who accept her philosophy are libertarians.

3. If “libertarian” refers to a belief that property comes from natural rights and human nature, a belief that mirrors one of Rand’s core beliefs, then the same conclusion can be drawn: she was a libertarian and her followers are also libertarians. Rothbardian libertarianism and Objectivism are like brother and sister, and Rothbard’s anti-Rand play “Mozart Was a Red” was merely a case of brother being mean to sister.

4. If “libertarian” refers to a belief that property rights are practical, pragmatic, and utilitarian, in the tradition of Hayek and Friedman, then yes, on the surface one might say that this is different from Objectivism. But let’s look more closely. The utilitarians say that capitalism will produce wealth and make people happy. Objectivism holds that capitalism is the system for “life on this Earth.” Translation: capitalism will make people happy. Rand bases her ethics on what will work in practical reality, although she takes this practicality and dresses it in the language of strict, almost puritan “morality.” Utilitarians like to say that they will obey whatever idea works best, whether it be capitalist or socialist, but in practice Hayek and Friedman were some of the most passionately idealistic and principled of capitalism’s defenders. Libertarian utilitarians take practicality and mold it into a theoretically consistent ideology based on the idea that capitalism will make people happy. Even in this sense, Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, if interpreted correctly.

5. If “libertarian” refers not to specific ideas but to a historical political movement and that movement’s members, then how can anyone ignore the steady foot traffic from Rand’s novels to the libertarian movement, during at least the past 50 years? This is the reason why It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand was so popular among libertarians. I suspect that an accurate poll of movement libertarians would reveal that at least 25% to 30% are post-Randian Objectivists, which is probably just as many as are Rothbardians or Ron Paul fanatics.

The truth is that the “official” Objectivist movement is a subset of libertarianism that, unfortunately, seeks to exclude and cast out anyone who disagrees with it, in an effort to preserve its ideological purity, which revolves around the quasi-worship of Rand; and that the “unofficial” Objectivist movement is overtly libertarian. Another truth is that many, perhaps most, of the other subsets of the libertarian movement are also obsessed with ideological purity and seek to cast out nonconformers. Anarchists hate minarchists, and vice versa, and some followers of Rothbard and his vision of anarchy are as stubborn as any Randroid. A more detailed account is beyond the scope of this essay, but can be found in Brian Doherty’s history of libertarianism, Radicals for Capitalism.

But all these people, including the Objectivists, are libertarians, whether they like it or not. Any contrary belief is illogical, self-contradictory, and blatantly irrational — precisely the type of thinking Rand preached against, although she herself had a spotty and checkered history of applying her theory of strict rationality in her personal life.

Some Objectivists reason in this form:

  1. Rand defined Objectivism.
  2. Rand said that Objectivists are not libertarians.
  3. Therefore Objectivists are not libertarians.

This sequence of assertions has a remarkable simplicity, of the kind that often appeals to the young. But, of course, the truly Randian thought would be: what matters is not what people believe or say, even about their own ideas; what matters is what exists in objective reality. I couldn’t agree more with this essential Objectivism. And I hope I have selected an appropriate way to provide an “unanswerable” question with an objective and obvious answer.




Share This


Distorting the Energy Market

 | 

The government is hurting our ability to develop new sources of energy; and both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

In the most general terms, Republicans support continued tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and Democrats support grants, subsidies, and tax breaks for such new forms of energy as wind and solar. Neither party has a good energy policy. Both are blocking the path of innovation.

To create a fossil fuel alternative we must find an energy source that is cheaper, easier, and better than fossil fuel. But when government is picking which alternatives are worth pursuing, in addition to funding traditional energy sources, our view of what energy sources may work out becomes clouded. As long as government provides subsidies and tax loopholes to oil and gas

companies, they will hold an advantage in the market. Not only does government intervention in this manner make fossil fuels a highly lucrative industry, thus attracting many bright businesspeople, engineers, and scientists, but it makes the introduction of alternatives more difficult, since potential new competitors find working in an unbalanced market nearly impossible. Even if there were an energy alternative that consumers would want, the alternative would not be able to seize enough market share to turn a profit, because the coalition of government and big oil cannot be challenged by a newcomer.

With few exceptions, people agree we need to move away from burning fossil fuels if we want to meet future energy needs with as little disturbance to existing ecosystems as possible or beyond what we might consider desirable. And because oil and gas receive government benefits, the conventional thinking goes, so too should alternative energy exploration, in order to “level the playing field.” But what the best alternative might be is still unclear. One reason why it is unclear is that government involvement clouds the picture.

Think of ethanol. For years, because of Iowa's importance in the presidential nomination process, ethanol was highly subsidized by the government. Now we discover that it was not a workable, standalone alternative to fossil fuels. Consider all the resources that were misallocated because of this pursuit. Private resources, such as time and expertise, were focused on making ethanol work — in order to procure government money. If there had been no government money in ethanol research, engineers and scientists in the energy industry would have had a greater incentive to look elsewhere for a good alternative. But when the government creates a market there is no need to look elsewhere. The only problem is that the government lacks anything like a good record as a venture capitalist.

If it is true that necessity is the mother of invention, then the government is stripping us of that necessity. What is necessary for every company to operate is money, and if it doesn’t have a strong need for money, because government is supplying all it needs and then some, its incentive for invention is stripped away. If we want to find the best energy source, both long-term and short-term, the government needs to stop trying to control which sources come to market, or stay in the market.The government needs to divest itself of all financial interests in the energy industry.




Share This


Persuasive Definitions

 | 

Charles L. Stevenson coined the term "persuasive definitions" (Ethics and Language, 1944). It means: to apply words with favorable or unfavorable connotations to things or actions in such a way as to substitute for actual argument. Examples abound in political discourse nowadays.

I'll focus on just one: "invest." Politicians repeatedly tell us Americans to "invest" in our children, education, job retraining, medical and other research, defense, infrastructure, a healthy environment, clean energy, energy independence, transportation, progress, the future — whatever. Here "invest in" means "have the government spend more money on." More fully, it means "have the government spend more money on such things — money raised by taxes and by increasing the national debt."

What further examples can readers contribute?




Share This


Only 14 Percent?

 | 

Each time Barack Obama and his supporters sniff disdainfully at the 14% of his income that Mitt Romney paid in taxes, I want to shout at them to acknowledge the obvious: Romney does not have earned income.

In the private sector, companies expect their employees to come to work every day. Romney isn’t gainfully employed, because he has spent the past two years campaigning for office. Of course, Barack Obama has spent the past three years campaigning. He has missed important security briefings and delegated most of his duties to others. He does very little actual work and campaigns on the taxpayers’ dime. If you or I tried that, we would have to use up all our vacation days and then take time off without pay — assuming that our employers would be willing to keep us on the books (and the benefits) while we are off job hunting.

Romney paid a higher tax rate when he was working and earning an income. He pays plenty now on his investment income (the principal of which was already taxed at earned-income rates). More important to me than his 14% tax rate is the fact that he has chosen to give away nearly 30% of his income to charities and causes he believes in. He has created jobs throughout his career, and he has given failing companies a second chance. He is, in fact, a great example of how the private sector should function.




Share This


The Law School Biz

 | 

One of the necessary requirements for fundamental reform of a dysfunctional institution is self-reflection among the individuals within that institution. It is now quite obvious to knowledgeable spectators that the American system of higher education is desperately in need of fundamental reform. But this realization has yet to sink into the heads of most of the key players in that institution, the faculty and the administrators. This, I think, is mainly because they are not yet generally self-reflective.

One of the main impediments to self-reflection in the academic world is the tendency among its inhabitants to view higher education — indeed, all education — not as a business but as a kind of quasi-religious institution. Under this view, the key players (especially the faculty) are not agents delivering a service and subject to the same motivations as agents in any other business (chief among which is self-interest), but are instead disinterested and selfless individuals educating young minds as a noble calling.

That is why it is always useful to report data that demonstrate that in fact college is a business like any other, and the agents in it (the faculty, staff, and administrators) as well as the customers — the students — behave as agents and customers do in other businesses, i.e., as rational maximizers of their personal preferences. Recent data on the changing reality of law schools are very illustrative in this regard

Consider first the data on the market for law school graduates, as reported by Deborah Jones Merritt. If you look at the percentage of recent law school grads who land a full-time job requiring bar admission (as opposed to those who get any sort of full-time job, say, as a waiter or bus driver), you see a declining market. In 2001, only 75.9% found such jobs within the nine months after they graduated. In 2002, the figure dropped to 75.3%. In 2003, it was 73.7%; in 2004, it was 73.1%. In 2005, it ticked back up to 74.2%, in 2006, to 75.3%; in 2007, back down to 74.2%. But in 2008, it dropped to 71.2%; in 2009, to 65.2%; and in 2010 it slid to 62.3%. Now; in the 2011 figures, it has sunk to 59.8%. That is, over 40% of law school grads last year could not find full-time work for which their costly education was appropriate within nine months of graduation.

This means that during the past four years, nearly 74,000 law school grads could not find appropriate full-time work (again, requiring bar admission). This represents huge direct costs in terms of money spent to educate these students (and the wages they have forgone in law school) and in even greater opportunity costs. (Most people bright enough to get through law school could have gone instead into medical, business, or technical trades.)

Students have apparently heard about the declining chances of employment in the field. Law school applications are way down over the past two years, dropping by nearly 16% last year alone.

More interesting still, the biggest drop in applications is not among the least but among the most qualified applicants — at least as measured by the ubiquitous Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). Among those who scored at the highest level (175–180), applications were down by nearly 14%; at the next highest level (170–174), they were down a whopping 20%. But at the next to lowest level (140–144), applications were down only about 6%, and at the lowest level (140 and below), only about 4%.

This leads to an interesting conjecture, especially for those who can’t believe that law schools are just businesses like any other. If law schools were run as quasi-religious institutions, solely devoted to the public good, they would respond to the obvious oversupply of attorneys and the resultant decline in the quality of applicants by cutting back on the number of students admitted. But if they are like other businesses that face a declining customer base, they will do what they have to do to attract the same number of buyers.

Specifically, my guess is that at the top-tier schools (especially the top 14, admittance to which usually requires an LSAT score of at least 165), you will see not a reduction in the size of the entering class but simply a reduction in the quality of that class, reflected in lower mean LSAT scores for those students.

We’ll see.




Share This


Negligence of the Inept

 | 

Most people, including many Obama supporters, were stunned when the Obama administration blamed the Innocence of Muslims video for the 9/11 attack on our Benghazi consulate. With his recent swagger ("bin Laden is dead" and "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat"), Mr. Obama seemed to be telling us that his conciliatory diplomacy was winning the day. Surely no one could have predicted that an obscure internet video, based on an obscurer film, would cause the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. But that was the administration’s explanation for the shattering of its Middle Eastern policy.

As for the film: all of us should have been stunned by the administration's betrayal of our First Amendment. Instead of defending free speech, Hillary Clinton denounced the film as "disgusting and reprehensible." Many liberals, of all people, condemned the producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, for the violence he allegedly incited — the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Nakoula is, by all accounts, a sleazy character. But if a third-rate, 14-minute trailer can thrust thousands of Muslims into a barbaric, murderous rage, then "Fire!" is precisely what should be shouted; the theater is already in flames.

Tiny Denmark defended the free speech of Jyllands-Posten, publisher of the Muhammad cartoons, doing so in the face of violent threats by Islamic extremists. America didn't have the spine to do; we apologized for the film, asked Google to remove it, and arrested the filmmaker.

A conflicted Google defended free speech in refusing to remove the video in the West, but caved to White House pressure in pulling it from several Arab-Muslim countries. A confused Nakoula was arrested in a disgraceful, groveling attempt to appease the Islamic world. When it comes to politically incorrect films, Muslims everywhere can now look to America for intolerence rivaling their own.

The foreign policy ineptitude of the Obama administration was exposed by its use of both the film and the arrest: the former as a pretense for causing the attack; the latter as a pretense for calming Muslims sympathetic to the attackers. White House and State Department officials were no doubt heartened by the spectacle of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department taking Nakoula from his home, perhaps hoping that it would quench post-Arab Spring hatred of Americans. But the true spectacle was ironic: the number of law enforcement officials hustling Nakoula off to jail in the US exceeded the number of security guards protecting the four Americans murdered in Libya.

If a third-rate, 14-minute film trailer can thrust thousands of Muslims into a barbaric, murderous rage, then "Fire!" is precisely what should be shouted; the theater is already in flames.

In America, where inflammatory artwork such as Andres Serrano’s "Piss Christ" is celebrated, the moral enlightenment of the politically correct usually comes back to bite them in the ass. So it was with Hillary Clinton, who once pasionately defended the free speech right of "The Holy Virgin Mary," a painting by Chris Ofili that depicts a black Madonna smeared with elephant dung and surrounded by collaged pornographic images of female genitalia. That passion is now a distant, hypocritical memory. In the Obama era of apology and appeasement, Mrs. Clinton is embarassed by free speech. On Pakistan's “Day of Love for the Prophet,” she ran an ad featuring President Obama blathering about our tradition of religious tolerance, and herself, pleading that our government had nothing to do with The Innocence of Muslims.

The day of Muslims loving their prophet ended with 23 people killed in Pakistan alone and revealed the deep folly of Obama's Middle East policies. Violent anti-American protests spread throughout the hyper-senstitve, irony-challenged Muslim world. People burned American flags, ransacked American businesses, attacked American embassies, etc. It's hard to imagine that a more "disgusting and reprehensible" display would have happened, if Mrs. Clinton had run a free speech ad instead.

To the consternation of Barack Obama, the sons of men who hated, but respected, George Bush, have become men who both hate and disrespect him. Subsequent to the Benghazi attack, "Obama, Obama, We Are All Osama" became the chant of the new liberal Arab youth. To many, perhaps millions, of them, Obama's achievement is an abomination. He murdered bin Laden, the spiritual champion who lives in their hearts — hearts that will be inconsolably inflamed upon the release of Zero Dark Thirty, a movie celebrating the killing of their hero. That will be the day when Obama's "bin Laden is dead" mantra will come back to bite him in the ass.

And it is Obama's movie. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-4-to-5-inch-stack-of-overlooked-cia-records-detailing-meetings-with-bin-laden-filmmakers/, the White House worked closely with director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal to incorporate administration talking points and play up the president's role as the gutsy decision maker. To the dismay of Mrs. Clinton, our government is not innocent in the case of Zero Dark Thirty.

What, then, will the Obama administration do to prevent the rampant violence that this film will certainly incite? Pressure Sony to stop its distribution? Perp-walk Bigelow and Boal to jail? These steps may be unnecessary, if the administration succeeds in shifting blame to the intelligence community. Finally admitting that the Benghazi massacre was a terrorist attack, administration officials now tell us that they were unaware of terrorist threats converging on the consulate with the anniversary of 9/11. Had they known, measures would have been taken to protect the Americans stranded in Benghazi.

But, dashing hopes for an Obama Oscar (to go with his Nobel Peace Prize), they did know. There were numerous intelligence and DoD reports warning of the intense al Qaeda buildup in Libya during the six months prior to the Benghazi attack. According to reports such as “Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile” (released in August), al Qaeda terrorists were probably bumping into each other in Benghazi. Ansar al Sharia held a June demonstration at Liberation Square; 15 militias showed up. Recent news reports reveal that, contrary to its repeated claims of ignorance, the administration was well aware of 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya during the period. This is where president Obama's "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat" mantra comes back to bite him, viciously.

Not only was the Obama administration cognizant of the emerging al Qaeda threat, it was aware of repeated requests from Benghazi for additional security — requests that were denied. Moreover, as al Qaeda forces were advancing, US forces were being withdrawn. According to CBS News, the State Department removed three Mobile Security Deployment teams and a 16-member Site Security Team between February and August. In the sobering aftermath of such blunders, a stern Obama warned of the consequences to countries that fail to protect Americans: we will send the FBI three weeks later, after reporters have left, examine the crime scene for an hour, and write a nasty report condemning the murders (after the election).

Not only was the Obama administration cognizant of the emerging al Qaeda threat, it was aware of repeated requests from Benghazi for additional security — requests that were denied.

Audaciously taking credit for the death of bin Laden, Obama purposefully evades responsibility for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and his three colleagues. It is a shameless coverup for monumental ineptitude. He conceals his failed conciliatory policies, his misreading of the Arab Awakening, and his lack of interest in actionable intelligence information. Calls to seek justice and form yet another investigatory panel ("We're still doing an investigation," said President Obama, yukking it up on “The View” while FBI agents fretted in Tripoli) merely hide the negligence that left four Americans stranded in a pathetically unprotected facility to die valiantly and alone, murdered by a horde of terrorist cowards. Negligence, and ineptitude — the ineptitude that has transformed America's "Don't Tread on Me" into Obama’s "Grin and Bear It."

quot;bin Laden is dead




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.