“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”
– Albert Camus (1913-1960) French Algerian author
“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”
Outside of his home state of Wyoming, former Senator Alan Simpson is best known as the Republican collaborator in the 1986 “Simpson Mazzoli” amnesty bill that officially sanctioned illegal immigration and opened the floodgates on the nation’s southern border. More recently, he signed on to the empty symbolism of the “Simpson/Bowles Commission,” by which Barack Obama sought to put a fig leaf of seeming concern on the nation’s burgeoning debt while ensuring that nothing of substance was actually done to curb spending.
Within the Cowboy State, the Simpson family has long enjoyed a status rivaling that of the Kennedys in Massachusetts, with members from multiple generations holding high public office. And among Establishment Republicans in Wyoming, Alan Simpson is regarded almost reverentially, though this is far more of an indication of a general character flaw in that segment the party than any reflection of his true bearing.
Recently, Senator Simpson decided to weigh in on the continuing subterfuge involving RINO Governor Matt Mead and a faction of complicit state legislators, who flagrantly violated the Wyoming Constitution and usurped the duly elected position of Superintendent of Public Instruction, giving the authority of that office to an appointee (and lackey) of the governor. The good people of Wyoming have been thoroughly outraged by this power grab, which nullified the decision of the voters, who had elected Cindy Hill to that office with an overwhelming majority.
Yet even after the Wyoming Supreme Court declared the move unconstitutional, Governor Mead continues to scoff at the Constitution, the Court, and the law by refusing to comply, and instead plays games within the court system as a delaying tactic. The pattern of total lawlessness and corruption in the State Capitol is ominously similar to that of the Obama Administration and its thoroughly corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder. So at every turn, formerly passive citizens are expressing their anger and standing against the chicanery, doing their utmost to hold accountable every official who participated in the nefarious power grab.
In Park County Wyoming, grassroots Republicans sought to make their sentiments known by voting to censure State Senator Hank Coe, a key player in the SF 104 fiasco. And although the censure effort did not meet the necessary two-thirds vote required for passage, a majority of the delegates at the Park County Republican Convention did support it. It was to their actions, more than any trampling of the State’s governing charter or violation of oaths of office by senators, legislators, and the Governor, to which Alan Simpson took exception. Yet in attempting to make his case against them, Simpson did much more to reveal the tremendous failings of the Wyoming Republican Party, and indeed the national GOP as well.
While deriding the ringleaders of the censure effort as “self-serving” for portraying themselves as “sheepdogs” seeking to ward off the political wolves, Simpson managed to vastly eclipse any conceit on their part by presuming for himself and his kind the role of “shepherd.” From there, Simpson unleashed his very predictable tirade (to those who know him) of unfettered arrogance and condescension, insisting that involvement by the grassroots is tantamount to forcing and foisting “religious and political ideas on the rest of us.” While castigating what he interprets as overheated rhetoric from common citizens in one sentence, he is perfectly willing to hurl venom at those with whom he disagrees in the next. Clearly, in his worldview, the lowly peasantry has no right to engage in such behavior, which historically has been reserved to him and his class.
Amazingly, Simpson asserts that the abhorrent situation created by the Governor and his political minions in the legislature can properly be addressed at the ballot box! One has to wonder what exposure to this situation he might have had, other than his obvious irritation at those little people on Main Street who dare to join forces and speak out against the overreaches and abuses of power by those in government.
Perhaps Senator Simpson does not know that this entire debacle involves the clearly stated “will of the people,” expressed on Election Day in 2010, when voters chose Cindy Hill by a two-to-one margin. Yet their decision to have her represent their interests and those of their children in the office of Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction was circumvented by a lawless state government which, not that it has illegally seized control, is increasingly revealed to be exploiting the office, and the tremendous sums of money flowing through it, for the self-serving purposes of bureaucrats in the “right” places. And in response to this horrendous criminal overreach, Senator Simpson wants everyone to calm down, and wait until the Election Day when they can cast yet another vote which may well be ignored with no consequences?
Clearly, the ruling class has enjoyed its perks of office for far too long, and believes itself inherently entitled to that station in life as does everyone on the public dole from the Obamaphone lady to those entrenched politicians with their shady land deals and fat cat single source contracts. And clearly, the biggest threat to such presumed superiority and privilege is the possibility that the lowly masses may one day recognize that it is they who hold the ultimate power to direct the course of the country.
If Senator Simpson and his cohorts have any real regard for the nation’s founding documents (which of course he claims), he should respect the fact that the “right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances” is among the first and foremost guarantees of a free and healthy political climate. Nor is its exercise subject to any party approved format. And it is hardly evidence of “cabals and cults within the Republican Party.”
Senator Simpson and his kind can seek to deflect attention from the menacing power grabs in the State Capitol and in Washington by stoking concerns over the national debt and its inevitable effects on the future economy. Yet he seems to forget that it was he and his fellow Establishment Republicans who went along with the status quo and thus allowed things to deteriorate to their current condition. Moreover, while claiming to want to limit spending, in the next breath he advocates the dismantling of societal order, the inevitable consequence of which will be ever greater demands on government, at ever greater expense, to deal with the mess.
So if the people of Wyoming and America are interested in actually confronting and reversing the nation’s dangerous downward spiral, they must immediately resolve to face head-on the wholly predictable derision of former political “experts,” recognize the innate failure of their approach, and plot a new course for the state and the country. On the other hand, if the presumed qualities of “experience” and incumbency are indeed determined to be the critical factors framing the political discourse, and the people submit to them, they have no right to expect anything but more of the same.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, a membership advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.
As the self-appointed hatchet man of a Democratic Party determined to divide America for political gain, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been on quite a tear. Apparently unfulfilled by his demonization of the Koch brothers as “un-American,” or branding ordinary Americans who expressed dissatisfaction with ObamaCare as liars, Reid has focused his attention on rancher Cliven Bundy and the people who came to his defense when Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials decided a paramilitary assault was the best way to handle a long-standing case of delinquent grazing fees. “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not,” Reid declared. “They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists. I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism.” While it is true Bundy hasn’t got a legal leg to stand on, Americans might wonder why a United States Senator would forcefully and repeatedly inject himself into this relatively insignificant matter. Or is it insignificant? Perhaps it’s time to shed a little light on Harry Reid himself.
The dispute centers around land, a subject with which Harry and his family are intimately familiar. “In Nevada the Name to Know is Reid,” reported the L.A. Times in 2003. The subtitle of the piece summed up the reason why quite nicely. “Members of one lawmaker’s family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill,” it stated. The first part of the article deals with a bill, “The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002,” introduced in the Senate by Reid, who characterized it as a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at protecting Nevada’s environment and helping its economy. “What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms, federal lobbyist reports show,” the Times reports.
Read on folks that’s if you can get past the stench of corruption.
(This is from the Washington Examiner)
Former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson on Sunday became the latest media figure to expose the rot underneath the facade of “speaking truth to power” that so many media organizations like to present.
Speaking on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” Attkisson detailed how her bosses in New York seemed to lose interest in stories that hit too hard at powerful interests within the Obama administration and certain corporations.
“It’s fairly well discussed inside CBS News that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value,” she told host Brian Stelter.
Attkisson noted that CBS News President David Rhodes “was very much in tune with – he told me at least – the types of stories that I do, the types of journalism he thought we should be doing, and I would say we had a meeting of the minds on that that didn’t translate to the broadcasts.”
Rhodes, perhaps not coincidentally, is the brother of White House deputy national security Ben Rhodes, a key figure in the administration’s messaging on foreign policy.
This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.
Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.
(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)
Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.
The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.
This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.
I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.
The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.
Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.
What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.
The Pentagon recently released the results of a survey that showed 6 percent of the women in the military (a total of 12,000) were victims of unwanted sexual contact. This covers everything from rape to following too closely in the chow line. (Maybe the left wants women issued rifles so they can defend themselves when they’re on the receiving end of sexual friendly fire.)
But as The Washington Times Rowan Scarborough has pointed out the Pentagon’s results are wildly out of step with overall US statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey showed that in contrast to the Pentagon’s 6 percent, only “one-fourth of a percent of women ages 18 to 34 had suffered such abuse in 2010. Preliminary numbers for 2012 show a rate of just over four-tenths of a percent.”
The difference in the numbers reflects methodology. The Pentagon survey, so beloved by sexual harassment axe grinders, used email for results. The Bureau survey used 146,570 in–person interviews and follow–up telephone sessions. In–person and telephone interviews are the gold standard of survey research. By comparison if cheap email surveys were accurate, politicians would use them in their campaigns, but they don’t.
The Pentagon survey even manages to have a larger total of victims than the total of completed surveys. One item that was particularly interesting is the 14,000 men that claimed they were victims of sexual assault, which means some men were evidently telling in spite of official policy not to ask.
Of course inaccurate results are no obstacle for leftist social engineers if the numbers can be used to advance an agenda. The Obama administration likes to depict our fighting arms as havens for macho cavemen that need to be curbed. One gets the feeling they are shocked the military, of all places, attracts men with a high testosterone count.
The Soviet Red Army had political commissars assigned to every unit, maybe the Pentagon plans on assigning sexual commissars to tell soldiers how much fraternizing is allowed with your battle buddy. I’m thinking commissars will prove invaluable during those unfortunate times when females are captured by the enemy and the captors are agonizing over the knotty moral question of whether a simple rape or the more inclusive gang rape is allowed.
Leftist social engineers never account for reality in their planning. The enemies we are most likely to face don’t have women in combat slots and they aren’t making the barracks safe for lavender. The fact that no successful military in history has put women in combat has escaped Pentagon HR planners completely. Brunhilde, and Ripley for that matter, were only a myth.
When conflict occurs armies aren’t matched according to brackets or seeds. If that were the case we could volunteer to fight the Isle of Lesbos and leave it at that. The obvious solution for sexual assault in the military is fewer females in close proximity to males or at least a more accurate survey, but with this administration neither is likely to happen.