The Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) recently awarded Borowski the “Best Video Blogger” award.  And it is no wonder.  While her videos can be very persuasive, like her videos on the Boston Marathon bombing and the searches that followed, and the scandals of the Obama administration, her videos can also be very funny, like when she ridiculed Obama voters, and when she complained of her recent treatment at the hands of the TSA.

In this second half of her interview, Borowski discusses her response the Lena Dunham political video calling for young people to vote for President Obama’s re-election, the clichés that liberals inject into political discussions, and the current collection of conservative political leaders.

Question:  One of your videos was an answer to that silly Lena Dunham video that was made shortly before last fall’s election, in which she advocated casting your very first vote for Obama, making it sound like a sexual thing.  You must have made your video answer to that one in record time.  Do you have any thoughts about the irrationality of today’s younger generation voting to re-elect a president who has loaded that generation with so much debt?

Borowski mocks when mocking is needed, like when she mocked the silly Lena Dunham video that called on all cool 20-somethings to vote for President Obama’s re-election

Answer:  Ha, yeah.  That video was gross.  I think the Democratic Party has done a much better job at marketing to young people than has the Republican Party.  The Democrats have marketed themselves as the party of tolerance, peace, and freedom (sooo not true).  The Republicans are seen as the party of intolerance, war, and old people.  They are usually on the defensive and rarely on the offensive.  The Republican Party needs to re-brand and re-think foreign policy and social issues.  Big government foreign policy as promoted by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham is the opposite of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and life.  On social issues, the Republican Party needs to be more consistent.  It’s fine to have social conservative views (I definitely lean that way in my private life), but it’s not fine to dictate moral values through the government.  We should be advocating for limiting the size and scope of government in every aspect of people’s lives.  The government isn’t the answer to a moral society.

Q:  How huge of a mistake was it for the American people to re-elect President Obama?  In one of your videos you seemed to agree with a fictional argument that an Obama re-election will doom the US.

A:  Yes, it was a big mistake to re-elect Obama.  I would have been disappointed no matter who won the general election though.  Ha.  I actually think Congress matters more than the President.  All I have to say is that we have a lot of work to do.

Q:  Have you read the book Tyranny of Cliches, by Jonah Goldberg?  Actually neither have I.  But I heard a great interview of Goldberg, in which he made the point that liberals like to win political arguments by using clichés instead of actual arguments.  It has occurred to me that you do the opposite in your videos, you engage and argue conservative principles instead of using clichés.  Seems kind of complicated!  (Playing Devil’s Advocate here): wouldn’t it just be easier to throw out a cliché or stereotype of the opposition and win the argument without having to engage in actual arguing?

A:  I haven’t read that book.  Sure.  Going back to the college question, it is so easy to write papers supporting universal healthcare.  Argument: everyone should get free health care because compassion, niceness, butterflies.  You have to be a monster to argue with butterflies.  But in all seriousness, libertarian arguments seem to be deeper than that.

Q:  I saw by your website that you oppose the death penalty, proving that you aren’t perfect.  Are there any libertarian policies with which you disagree?

A:  Yes, I oppose the death penalty.  I used to be a big supporter of the death penalty so I understand the emotional arguments for the death penalty.  I started to oppose the death penalty when I started to think about more than just “I want to get revenge.”  If you distrust and want to limit the government, then you shouldn’t give the government the power to kill people especially if it cost more taxpayer money.  Also, I got to experience the ridiculousness of the judicial system: guilty people are let free, innocent people are put in jail all the time.  Now, I just can’t trust the government with the power to end lives.

I don’t know if there are any solid libertarian policies with which I disagree.  There are a few policy issues where libertarians disagree with each other: most notably, immigration and abortion.  I am pro-immigration and pro-life.

Q:  As a libertarian, how do you feel about libertarian voters in 2012 throwing various elections to the Democrats?  Mike Flynn of Breitbart wrote a great article pointing out that two Senate races and six House races could have gone to the GOP if Libertarian voters had voted Republican.

A:  I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party.  Good liberty minded-candidates won’t get elected by running on the LP ticket.  They can get elected by running on the GOP ticket.  See: Ron Paul, Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Thomas Massie.  We don’t have 30 years to build up the Libertarian Party, especially when the system (unfortunately) is stacked against third party candidates.  That being said, I have voted for the LP candidate when I couldn’t stand the Republican or the Democrat on the ticket.  I know the LP candidate stands no chance of winning but if someone wants my vote, they have to earn it.

Q:  Speaking of humor, are you following or and impressed or unimpressed with any of the current crop of politicians?

A:  There are a few good ones out there.  But they are few and far in between.

Q:  If Rand Paul were somehow out of the picture or decided not to run for president in 2016, whom would you consider supporting for president and why?

A:  That’s a tough one.  Rand Paul is the most libertarian-leaning potential candidate with an actual chance of, you know, winning.  I haven’t been impressed with any of the other potential candidates the media is throwing around.  Same old type of candidates they recycle every election.

Q:  What is next for Julie Borowski?

A:  People keep asking and I shrug my shoulders.  I think I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing and see where it leads.

Thanks for your time, Julie.  Keep up the great work!

Pointless MP3 Borowski Interview

This column was originally published in Big Hollywood

The political arguments are never really made, just hinted at.  But the viewer gets the impression, backed up by mockery, laughs and applause, that it sure is un-cool to be conservative, and that it is only sensible, kind, neighborly, and hip to be liberal.

Only recently has there been any attempt by conservatives to use humor to fight back.  Unlike the leftist comedians, these conservatives, like Bill Whittle, Andrew Klavan, Kurt Schlichter and Steven Crowder, reason the arguments through, use facts, consider alternatives, and anticipate results.  The conservative keeps the viewer hooked by using visual props and comedy.  And it works!

One such conservative, who says she is more of a libertarian than conservative, is Julie Borowski.  Julie Borowski’s blog-videos, entitled Token Libertarian Girl, can be found at You Tube, and her personal blog can be found at julieborowski.wordpress.com.

While some of her videos can be serious, like when she discussed the Boston Marathon bombings, oftentimes Borowski dresses herself up, like when she discussed minimum wage arguments, or when she criticized make-up ads in women’s magazines.  Many of her videos are just so funny you watch them just for the humor, no matter what the message is.

And that is where she advances conservative and libertarian causes, because she keeps viewers engaged and entertained.  And persuaded.  The viewer can watch both the Comedy Channel and Julie Borowski’s videos, and come away much more informed and persuaded by Borowski’s videos.

Borowski agreed to an e-mail interview, and below is the transcript of the first of a two-part interview.

Question:  Congratulations on the CPAC award for “Best Video Blogger.” Your YouTube videos are very entertaining and persuasive of conservative and libertarian ideas. What is your goal in producing these videos?

Answer:  Thank you very much.  My goal is to spread the message of liberty to as many people as possible.  No one wants to watch boring videos.  I can get a little unpredictable and downright goofy at times.  But hey, if that’s what it takes to get people to care about the decline of liberty in this nation… then I’ll gladly do it.  I have fun thinking of new weird things to do.

Q:  Now that you are rich and famous, do you still make these videos by yourself at home?  Who does the editing?  Have you considered adding a laugh-track or sound effects?

A:  Since starting to make videos, I’ve moved out my parents’ house.  So that’s pretty cool.  Ha, yes, I still make all my videos by myself in my bedroom: writing, filming, changing costumes, editing, etc.  I go to the Party Depot frequently for new costumes so the cashiers probably think I’m a big time party animal… nope.  Just being weird at home.  I am trying to learn new editing techniques like laugh tracks and sound effects.  Just one step at a time though…

Q:  What else do you do?  I noticed you work for Freedomworks, and there are a few columns of yours at Townhall.

A:  Yes.  I do have a regular column at Townhall and my day job is working as a Policy Analyst for FreedomWorks.  I’ve been there for over 3 years now.  I just started making videos on the weekends, completely separate from my normal job.

Q:  Growing up, did you always want to be a video blogger/columnist/trouble-maker?

Julie Borowski is not above be-clowning herself in her videos. Here is what she looked like in one video after criticizing the make-up ads in magazines.

A:  When we were little, my older brother and I liked to make silly skit videos.  I was the co-host of his Late Night TV show where he would interview guests such as Barney the dinosaur and Bob Dole.  But it was just us dressed in crazy costumes.  Somewhere there is a video of us doing a Cops parody show.  My brother was the police officer and I was the drunken troublemaker resisting arrest.  I was maybe 8 years old.  I never thought I would be making a fool out of myself on camera when I became an adult, but here I am.

Q:  Where did you get your humor?  Did you have any favorite comedy acts or movies when you grew up?  How about nowadays?  What humor do you enjoy?

A:  My family has a wacky sense of humor.  I grew up watching Conan O’Brien, Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies, skit shows like Saturday Night Live and All That on Nickelodeon.  I always liked to make people laugh.  I love stand-up comedy.  I always keep my humor on my YouTube videos clean.  I get messages from parents thanking me for keeping it PG since their kids like to watch my videos.  I don’t want to lose their trust.  I think it’s incredible that 10 year olds watch my videos.

Q:  Where did you get that facial expression?  It looks like a mix between genuine surprise and “I’m trying to look strange.”  Maybe an homage to Jim Carrey?

A:  I spent a lot of time alone as a kid so I practiced ridiculous faces in the mirror.

Q:  Is that a southern accent you have?  I thought you were raised in Maryland, land of no accents whatsoever.  At least that is what it says on Maryland license plates.

A:  Do people from Maryland not have accents?  I don’t live there anymore but it’s funny to see people guess in the comments where I am from.  Some think Boston.  Some think Alabama.  Others think my “accent” is fake.  Nope, it’s real.  It’s probably because neither of my parents is from Maryland.  My mom once said something like: “you have a Yankee Polish father and a southern mother, you weren’t meant to speak normally.”

Q:  Where did you get your political beliefs?  Any family, school, work influences that led to your libertarian/conservative views?

A:  The Internet made me a libertarian.  My grandfather also had a lot to do with it.  He is the most libertarian member of our family.  I listened to him speak about politics and how dumb politicians were at the holiday dinner table growing up so that had a big effect on me.

Q:  I read an April interview of you by Joseph Diedrich of the Washington Times, in which you mentioned toning down your political views in college so that you would get a good grade from your liberal professors.  There is this guy I know who did that when he was in the political science program at UC Santa Barbara.  Would you also advise today’s college-age conservatives to tone down their political beliefs to get decent grades? 

A:  I don’t know if I’m the right person to give that kind of advice.  But yeah, I played the game most of the time.  It worked.  I wrote papers that I disagreed with but that helped me to understand the other side of arguments and their weaknesses.  There was one liberal political science professor that I had for public policy class who was really interested in my libertarian views.  He would always call me out during class to give the libertarian perspective on everything.  It just really depends.

To be continued …

Pointless MP3 Borowski Interview

This column was originally published in Big Hollywood

If privacy were a patient, you could say that in 2013, this sick patient has finally died.  Under President Obama, the federal government has seized phone and credit card records and emails, catalogued images of the front and back of mailed letters, gathered information from Internet searches, given IRS records to political opponents, and soon: medical records gathered, managed and interpreted by the helpful and omniscient IRS.

It has gotten so bad, that someday we may see the headline: “government has placed listening devices in everyone’s bedroom,” and such a headline would not be from The Onion.

Not bad for a president who only five years ago proclaimed “as for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our security and our ideals.”

But wait – I thought the War on Terror was over, and we won it.

As Mark Steyn recently pointed out in National Review Online, it is not as if all this snooping is geared towards fighting terrorism.  Just look at the public statements Maj. Hassan made in public for all to see before his jihadist rampage at Ft. Hood, or the suspended immigration controls that allowed free entry and departure for the Tsarnaev brothers before their terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon.

The federal government appears to be accumulating information on citizens for reasons that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.  Sometimes the reason is to harass political opponents, like what happened to True The Vote, and prominent Romney donor Frank Vandersloot, or the information given to the groups ProPublica and the Human Rights Campaign on their political opponents.  But for other citizens, whatever the reason, it is impossible to imagine the sum total of information the government over the past few years has amassed on all of us, to be used whenever the government deems necessary.

One NSA whistleblower, William Binney, has said that everyone in the United States is under “virtual surveillance” and the NSA has dossiers on nearly every United States citizen.

What if you have nothing to hide, that you have done nothing wrong, as Senator Lindsey Graham recently suggested regarding his own Verizon account?  This is a common rebuttal to complaints of loss of privacy.  According to the former NSA analyst Binney, “the problem is if [the citizen] thinks they’re not doing anything that is wrong, they don’t get to define that, the central government does.  The central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you.”

So what if you want to live your life in private?  What if you say “I just won’t mail any letters or go online, use a phone, make any credit card transactions, make any campaign contributions, participate in politics, and just mind my own business on my own land”?  Some people actually think by living without the activities government routinely snoops on, they can “escape” the surveillance and live a life of complete privacy, being “left alone.”  Well, think again: government use of domestic drones for spying on American citizens is being considered by county and local governments, including law-enforcement agencies.

In addition, hiding in plain sight is the omnipresent, watchful eyes of Google Earth, which will give anyone with a computer a snap-shot of your land.  Some local governments have already used Google Earth to detect zoning and permit violations.

It is not so farfetched to envision a day when we could see a government agent approaching you on your land and saying, “we noticed from satellite images of your land that you were planting some vegetables that are high in carbohydrates.  This will cause more expenses, longer term, for the government under the Affordable Care Act.”

Same for smoking cigarettes, sunbathing, barbecuing red meat, or any other activity you think you are engaging in in private on your own land.  The government is now a partner in your everyday activities, and it feels it has a right to know … everything.

There really is no escape – no possibility of just being “left alone.”  1984 indeed.

Pointless MP3 6-10-2013

This column was originally published in The Blaze

A quick re-write later, and this is what made it into the wedding video:

“May you embrace one another, but not encircle one another, or become obsessed with each other and certainly not stalk each other.”

It is June, the month of weddings, and countless other brothers, sisters and relatives of all kind will be handed similar overly-sweet and corny things to read in a wedding.  Or be told to participate somehow in a wedding with pre-planned, pre-approved comments.  Everyone has been through it.  The whole family is there, even people who have lost touch with everyone else.  Cousins and in-laws you haven’t seen for decades will be there.  What you figured will be 20 to 30 people will be more like 100.

The only suspense is whether anyone will mess up their lines and how badly they reveal their nervousness.  “Can they see me shaking?” countless people will be asking themselves as they speak into a microphone.

And the words usually spoken don’t really matter.  People expect to hear trite, well-worn empty phrases at a wedding.  To the person not asked to participate in the wedding, the spectator,  it usually becomes a blur of predictable wedding phrases and words, easily interchanged and rearranged from one wedding to the next.  Nothing original or memorable.

Don’t do it.  Don’t read that assigned boring, statement you are supposed to read, or speak that scripted comment.  Spice it up.  Rewrite in an awkward comment or two, blend it in with other wedding-like comments, and make it funny.  Don’t overplay the humor, and remember this is someone else’s wedding, not yours.  Don’t take too long, just make your comments or read your speech a little different from what you were handed, and a little funnier.  People will think you are really reading your lines as assigned.

When I re-wrote that brief speech and read it, there were no smirks or smiles, and certainly no laughs that I could hear.  As I read my amended speech I didn’t laugh or present it like it was anything out of the ordinary.  For a few seconds after my speech, I thought no one had really heard what I said.  The wedding proceeded as if nothing unusual had happened.

But at the reception it was the only subject people wanted to discuss with me.  And when the wedding video was mailed to everyone, surprisingly very little of the wedding itself was in the video except for my strange speech.  Success!  And I am not normally a funny guy!  Well, not intentionally funny.

What will you do when you are handed a corny “wedding reading” to read?

Every occasion when people are asked to make a comment at the podium, everyone in the audience is nervous and everyone knows that the person at the podium is nervous.  Very few people at these occasions do these ceremonies all the time.  The nervousness transmits itself from the podium to the audience, and then back again.  So bring in some humor.  People will appreciate it.  In fact, even slight attempts at humor will go over very well.  You will be surprised.

Of course there are limits.   After all, you are at a ceremony celebrating real love for two people, and this is their show, not yours.  So don’t stray too far in your humor.  Sexual jokes and crude comments will not work; they will just embarrass.

But if you keep it funny and not crude, an unexpected rewritten speech with some comedy in it will go over very well.

It has been five years and two adorable baby girls born since my little sister’s wedding, and while it was otherwise a beautiful wedding, what family members still remind me of was my wedding reading and how unexpected and funny it was.  And I know that 10, 20, 30 or more years from now, people will still be talking about that slightly-changed wedding reading and its unexpected humor.

So just do it.  Years from now this will be a great memory, and you will be glad you did it.

Pointless MP3 6-3-2013

This column was originally published in Caffeinated Thoughts

Our daughter Rachel, after we brought her home from India.

In 2009, my wife and I adopted our daughter Rachel from India, and immediately petitioned the local California court, which then officially declared my wife and me to be Rachel’s adoptive parents.  We gave the local Social Security office all of our paperwork, but it delayed giving our daughter a social security number.  A few months later, we filed our 2009 returns anyway, and the IRS audited our adoption expenses.  After much shuffling of papers, the IRS notified us that our adoption tax credit would not be allowed for 2009, but could be used for 2010.  The IRS even suggested a specific dollar amount.

When we filed our 2010 returns, we claimed the exact amount for the adoption tax credit that the IRS had suggested.  The IRS audited our adoption expenses anyway!

This time I re-sent to the IRS not only all of our adoption expenses – the exact same expenses sent in the previous audit – but I added a copy of the IRS letter from the previous audit.  The IRS accepted our adoption expenses and allowed the tax credit.  No changes were made to our 2010 tax returns.

This saga was all in the back of my mind when I heard that the IRS was harassing various conservative groups that were applying for non-profit status.  There were also reports of IRS audits expanding beyond the group itself, auditing the personal and business returns of the person filing for tax-exempt status on behalf of the conservative group.  In one case, an application for non-profit status by the group “True The Vote,” resulted in not only hundreds of questions from the IRS, but an over two-year wait on the application.  The IRS then audited the personal and business returns of the head of True The Vote, and ATF, OSHA and a state version of the EPA all piled on and inspected the family’s business for good measure.

My ears really perked up when I heard that a non-profit application by a pro-life group in Iowa was delayed by IRS demands that the group pledge not to protest outside Planned Parenthood clinics.  The group was also asked to explain how their prayer meetings were scientifically or medically educational.  IRS harassment of other pro-life groups has also been documented.

Adoptive families have also been targeted.  A recent IRS Taxpayer Advocate Report revealed that 90% of all families claiming the adoption tax credit experienced an IRS audit of some sort, so our family is definitely not alone.  I was not able to find out how many adoptive families experienced two successive audits, as was our family.

To be fair, because a tax credit, as opposed to a tax deduction, results in an immediate transfer of money from the federal government to the taxpayer, it would make sense that the IRS would more closely scrutinize a taxpayer filing for a tax credit.  But in the case of adoptive parents, a very small amount of the credit in prior years has been disallowed (only 1.5% in 2011, for example).  Definitely a waste of time for both the IRS and the taxpayer.

On the other hand, it could be that standard tax enforcement was not the real reason for all these adoptive tax credit audits.  Of all the adoptive parents I have met, most of them appear to have pro-life views.  And that would make sense: part of the rally cry against abortion is for a pregnant woman to bring the baby to term, give birth to the baby and give the baby to a family eager to adopt.  The more people like us adopt, the more credible that argument becomes, and the fewer children are aborted and adopted instead.

And those are the real losers in this part of the IRS scandal: the children.  While the link to abortions is more theoretical, the link to adoptions is real and tangible.  Fewer families will adopt now that the word is getting around that an adoption will likely trigger an IRS audit.

I have personally encouraged countless families to adopt a child like we did, whether the adoption is domestic or international.  “There are millions of amazing children in need of a loving family,” I tell them.  I also advise them of the legal hoops and inches of paperwork that our family had to wade through, and the expenses involved.

The feedback is usually positive, until the family asks me about taxes.  “There is a tax credit, so you will get back much of your adoption expenses.  But keep track of all of your expenses, because you may be audited.  Maybe even twice, like we were.”

“Twice?!”  After a pause, it usually goes downhill from there.

Thanks to the harassment the IRS has given adoptive parents, fewer parents are willing to go through with an adoption.  Why would anyone open themselves up to an IRS audit?  Shame on whomever is behind this extra, pointless auditing of adoptive families!

As for myself, I am still waiting for a third audit of our adoption tax credit.  Our CPA is skeptical, but you never know.  I didn’t think we would have a second audit, but that happened.  Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog Day relived the same day more than twice, you know.

Pointless MP3 5-27-2013

This column was originally published in The Blaze

In 1996, as he faced an incumbent state senator and two other challengers for the Democratic nomination for state senator in a heavily-Democratic district in Chicago, then-candidate Barack Obama directed his campaign staff to challenge the candidacy petitions of his opponents.  By disqualifying signatures one by one, as one local columnist put it, Obama “made sure voters had but one choice.”

Then, in 2004, not only in the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Illinois, but in the general election, Team Obama perfected the art of getting confidential documents on Obama’s opponents unsealed.

First, Obama’s primary opponent had to try and explain to the voters the contents of recently-unsealed divorce records, which included allegations of spousal violence.  The former front-runner finished third, far behind the winner, Barack Obama.  Then, in the 2004 general election, Republican nominee Jack Ryan ended his race for the Senate after child custody records were unsealed, revealing allegations of wild forays at sex clubs with his actress wife, Jeri Ryan.

Is it any wonder that once President Obama’s signature accomplishment, Obamacare, came under scathing criticism from Tea Party groups in 2010, that the IRS suddenly began to give extra scrutiny, and in many cases deny non-profit status to groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name?  The extra IRS scrutiny and audits were blamed on a few “rogue” IRS agents in Cincinnati, but the scandal is big enough to be blamed for the harassment of over 500 conservative groups.  Reportedly, 63% of all Tea Party-related groups that applied for non-profit status since 2010 eventually withdrew their applications, obviously limiting donations to these groups, and their ability to promote conservative ideas.  Government harassment works.

With the non-profit voter integrity group “True The Vote,” a delayed application for non-profit status was only the beginning.  In the two years since the group applied for non-profit status, the founder and her family’s business became targets of other government agencies, including the FBI, the ATF, and OSHA.

And despite denials to the contrary, evidence suggests direction from the top of the executive branch.  An anonymous IRS official employee from the Cincinnati office confirmed that orders of singling out organizations based on political belief is something that would only “come from the top.”

Old Chicago habits die hard, and during the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign website posted the names of 15 prominent donors to Mitt Romney’s campaign, sending the message far and wide to investigate these people, possibly unsealing any confidential files, at the least dissuading other possible Romney supporters from donating to the campaign.

Apparently the IRS and the Labor Department took the bait and audited one of the listed Romney donors, Frank VanderSloot.  Within weeks of being listed on the Obama website, IRS agents audited VanderSloot’s personal and business tax returns, and the Labor Department even investigated VanderSloot’s business.  VanderSloot says he is not the only person on that list to be audited.

How extensive is this scandal?  As far as we know today, the IRS took the lead in harassing conservatives and Tea Party groups, occasionally joined by the Department of Justice, OSHA, the ATF, and the Labor Department.  If you were to add some news of spying on reporters – that was announced Monday — then it all becomes reminiscent of the following exchange from the 1976 movie All the President’s Men:

Bob Woodward: Segretti told me and Bernstein that…

Deep Throat: [interupting] Don’t concentrate on Segretti. You’ll miss the overall.

Bob Woodward: The letter that destroyed the Muskey candidacy… did that come from inside the White House?

Deep Throat: You’re missing the overall.

Bob Woodward: What overall?

Deep Throat: The people behind all of this were frightened of Muskey and that’s what got him destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern.  Look who they’re running against. They bugged offices, they followed people, falsified press leaks, passed fake letters… they canceled Democratic campaign rallies, they investigated Democratic private lives, they planted spies, they stole documents… and now don’t tell me that all of this was the work of one Donald Segretti.

With the latest scandals engulfing the White House looking more and more like Watergate, expect to see more flashbacks of Woodward and Bernstein in 1973, including all the bad hair, sideburns, bell-bottoms and wide ties. It could get ugly.

Substitute the phrase “a few rogue IRS officers from Cincinnati” for Doanld Segretti, and a few other updates, and this exchange gives a glimpse at how big and how far this scandal may go.  But one thing is for sure: all of these actions are part of an old Obama pattern since his days in Illinois of doing whatever it takes to get one’s opponents, be they candidates or groups, to withdraw from the competition of ideas.

Pointless MP3 5-20-2013

This column was originally published in Front Page Magazine

Recall that in the 1993 firings of employees at the White House Travel Office, a determination was made early on by the new president Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came with it, given to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.

But simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically embarrassing, so the Clintons concocted a story whereby the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there needed to be fired.  An audit was conducted on Travel Office finances, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, there was no smoking gun of corruption or embezzlement.  No matter.  The FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.

White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism.  Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired.  A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal.  Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office.  A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

In retrospect, it is kind of funny that the Clintons would ever complain about corruption from anyone.  Pot, meet Kettle.  That kind of thing.

But the point is that the initial decision to replace government employees with the president’s cousin, so that she could make commissions from arranging White House travel, was a bad decision.  Everything following that decision, the firings, the made-up charges of corruption, the federal prosecution, and the denials from the Clintons that later proven to be untrue, were an effort to distract people from the initial bad decision.

Fast forward to the fall of 2012, when the State Department repeatedly denied requests by officials at the American consulate in Benghazi for more security.  This was the initial bad decision from which flowed all other obfuscations.

Who would make such a bad decision?  In his recent congressional testimony, consulate security officer Eric Nordstrom blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pointing to a memo signed by Secretary Clinton, denying additional security.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies in a House hearing on Benghazi. Or was it in the Senate? At this point, what difference does it make?

What would lead Clinton to make such a bad decision?  Remember that in the summer of 2008, when her presidential campaign had ended and the Russians invaded South Ossetia, Hillary Clinton was formulating what would later be her “reset” policy towards Russia.  Such a policy assumed that whatever frostiness existed between the United States and Russia had been caused by American belligerence.  If only the American side would initiate a fresh “reset,” then the Russians would be more accommodative to United States interests, like our policies concerning Iran’s nukes.

It may be difficult to grasp, but liberals, Hillary Clinton included, actually believe that bullies like Russia, can be appeased by weakness of others, hence the “reset” policy towards Russia, and the later denial of more security for the consulate at Benghazi.  Clinton probably thought that a strong American military presence at the Benghazi consulate would be provocative.

Obviously this was a bad decision.  On September 11, 2012, the American consulate was attacked and overrun by terrorists in a planned, coordinated attack.  While under attack, officials at the consulate called for help, which could have made it from Italy in time to help.  But if provided, this military help would have highlighted the earlier, bad decision to keep security there weak, so the request for military help during the attack was denied.

When the smoke had cleared, an American ambassador and three other Americans were dead.  Anything besides a narrative that this attack was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-Muslim You Tube video would have led people to question the initial, bad decision by the State Department to keep consulate security weak to begin with.  The following week, UN Representative Susan Rice appeared on five television news shows to reiterate the story that the deaths were caused by a spontaneous uprising related to the video.  A few days later, President Obama stated at a forum hosted by Univision, and again later at the United Nations, that the Benghazi attacks were provoked by the video.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton even filmed their own public service announcement, played in Pakistan, apologizing for a private American production of the anti-Muslim video and calling for calm.  This PSA later became a self-fulfilling prophecy, when its reference to an anti-Muslim video caused riots in Pakistan that led to the deaths of 18, and scores of injured Pakistanis.

All these actions were taken to distract people from the initial, bad decision made by Secretary Clinton to keep consulate security in Benghazi weak.  Apparently, when defending a bad decision by Hillary Clinton, anything goes.  The standard operating procedure was apparent as far back as 1993.

Pointless MP3 5-13-2013

This column was originally published in Front Page Magazine

Thanks to the Monty Python Youtube channel, the viewer can watch all the classic, hilarious Python scenes from their movies and TV shows.  Comedy nirvana, with the only price being the viewing of a brief antacid commercial.

One of my favorite Monty Python movies excerpted on this YouTube channel is the Life of Brian, which contains a stoning scene that is actually very instructive for today’s Republican party.  In fact, a comment made by the person about to be stoned should be front and center in the mind of every Republican who ever proposes cuts in government spending.  Sounds a little far-fetched, but let me explain.

“You’re only making it worse for yourself!”

The scene starts like this: in Jerusalem, 33 AD, a man is brought in front of a crowd holding stones, and a magistrate who reads from a scroll the defendant’s name and the conviction of blasphemy, and repeats the sentence of death by stoning.  The magistrate yells out the charge of “blasphemer,” as the man was caught saying the name of Jehovah, and angrily points at the defendant.  The defendant explains that at the blasphemy in question he was merely complimenting his wife’s cooking, saying it was “good enough for Jehovah.”

The crowd gasps, ready to start the stoning, and the magistrate yells “he said it again!”  The prisoner says “what, Jehovah?”  The magistrate shouts “hey, you’re only making it worse for yourself!”

To which the man says “how can it get any worse?”  Then he begins dancing and crying out “Jehovah! Jehovah!” to the outraged crowd.

But you can’t really blame the guy.  If ever he had any inclination to say the name “Jehovah” out loud, he might as well say it now, as many times as he wants.  He is about to get stoned to death for saying that name anyway.  At this point he really has nothing to lose, and it certainly won’t get worse than getting stoned to death.

Fast forward to the summer of 2011, in Washington DC, when President Obama proposes, and the Republican House agrees to a series of “sequester cuts,” as a way to delay definitive action on raising the debt limit that was about to be exceeded.  The deadline eventually agreed to: March 1, 2013, conveniently after the 2012 elections, which would lead to automatic budget cuts unless a deal is agreed to before then.  If no other agreement were made, the federal government would spend $85 billion less this fiscal year than originally planned, followed by $1.2 trillion cuts in increased spending over the next ten years, half from defense spending and half from domestic programs.  Very few people thought that the sequester date would come and go without a new debt limit deal.

Well, it did.  In the days shortly before the cuts in spending went into effect, polls showed that most Americans blamed Republicans for the sequester.  Almost immediately after the cuts went into effect, White House tours were cancelled, “due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration.”  Republicans got the blame.

The sequestration was listed as the reason to cut spending in food inspections, Head Start, Meals On Wheels, schools in military communities, and, most recently, the staffing of flight controllers, causing flight delays all over the country.

In all the sequester cuts, even though the administration made sure the public felt the pain of any spending cuts, Republicans were still blamed.  Yet the cuts amounted to a total of 2.5% of total federal spending.  Granted, with current annual deficits of over $1 trillion, spending cuts are needed, or, in this case, a reduction in the growth of spending.  But if this is the way to cut bloated government spending, it is small potatoes indeed, despite so much blame being thrown around.  Kind of like the man sentenced to be stoned to death for blasphemy, all because he said his wife’s cooking was “good enough for Jehovah.”

And this is how the man about to be stoned in the Monty Python movie so closely resembles today’s Republicans.  For the minor misdeed of cutting spending a mere 2.5%, Republicans are sentenced to be stoned.  No doubt there are some Republicans in Congress who would like to make deeper cuts – this year’s federal deficit is still projected to be $900 billion, you know – but others in the GOP are probably counseling them “not to make things politically worse.”

But truly, how can things be any worse for Republicans?  Republicans need to kick up their feet and sing “Jehovah!  Jehovah!”  and propose even steeper spending cuts.  They are getting the blame anyway, so why not make the cuts that really need to be made?

So that is the plan, Republicans.  Make the cuts that need to be made to get this budget in balance, and take your PR stoning like a man.  After the blame you have gotten for these current minuscule cuts, you really have nothing more to lose.  And the country will be much better off as a result.

 Pointless MP3 5-7-2013

This column was originally published in Big Hollywood

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married…  That isn’t how I’ve always felt,” Portman wrote.

That’s an understatement!  Portman was among those who through the years has wholeheartedly supported traditional marriage.  In 1996 as a congressman he co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, which is now up on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.  He also supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and he also voted to prohibit same-sex couples in Washington D.C. from being able to adopt.  If another gay marriage issue was to come before the Senate, Senator Portman was expected to cast his vote to defend traditional marriage.  But a visit home from his college-age son changed all that.

Senator Portman has taken some heat on the apparent fickleness of his conviction on this issue, and rightfully so.  Was this the first time he had considered the effect of his policies on his family members?  It sure looks that way.

His reversal raises many questions, like what about fathers of other sons who had decided they were gay?  Maybe those gay men were out of luck and would not be able to marry, so far as Senator Portman was concerned, at least until last week.

And if a visit from his son prompts a reversal of position on marriage issues, one can reasonably ask about other changes of policies Portman may have had based upon a son’s change of heart.  What if Senator Portman had a son who came home with two fiancés?  Would Senator Portman then support polygamy?

What if Senator Portman’s son changes his mind, and later days he is heterosexual after all?  Would Senator Portman “walk back” his support for gay marriage – kind of a Kerryesque “I was against it before I was for it, and now I am against it again”?

Ohio Senator Rob Portman. He was against gay marriage before he was for it.

Sure, this may be good for a laugh or two, but defending traditional marriage is serious business, and the people of Ohio take it very seriously.  For an issue as serious as this, you would think that Senator Portman would have been more seriously grounded in his position than changing his mind based on his son’s sexual orientation.  His home state of Ohio is one of the states that has passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and the 2004 vote wasn’t even close.

But there is a much bigger issue: how can we trust Senator Portman on any other political stance he has taken?  What if Senator Portman had a son who came home from college and said he favored a federal budget that was way out of balance and relied on spending and tax hikes for years to come?  Well, that is easy: Senator Portman would change his position to support the current Democratic proposed federal budget.  I could go on, but you get the point.

Here is some advice not only for Senator Portman but for every person who wants to serve in elective office, and it is offered free of charge: take your positions seriously, respect your electorate, and anticipate your policies’ effects on family members and other citizens alike.  As for any “evolving” that you will do on any issue, do your evolving on your own time, before you run for office, or at least let the electorate know that you are open to opposing viewpoints on issues that are important to them.  And campaign accordingly.

Honest and forthright campaigning!  What a concept!

As part of his hit 1973 album, Aladdin Sane, David Bowie produced this incredible song with strange lyrics that may or may not have referred to the Detroit riots of 1967.  It had some nice, raw guitar riffs and a steady drumbeat, punctuated by some strangely-accenting vocals.  A truly great song!  Tailor-made for this story!

But it was not to be.  Talk radio has mostly ignored the subject of Detroit’s bankruptcy, along with the obvious and great David Bowie bumper music that would go with it.

As for Detroit, it has been a basket case for many years.  A few years ago I went to a legal conference there, and many things about Detroit didn’t sit well with me, starting with the fact that from Detroit, you can walk south across a bridge, and enter Canada.  But how bad can a city that birthed the 1959 Cadillac Eldorado, or the 1967 Ford Mustang be?  During the breaks in the conference, I set to find out.

Across the city, it appeared to me as if Detroit had at one time been a very vibrant city, but had since seen a few decades of decline.  The parts of the city where you don’t feel safe encircle the city downtown, which was sprinkled with new government buildings.  Looking at the people of Detroit, it seemed as if anyone who had any financial or business ambition was doing their best to leave.

The “good” part of Detroit, right here. Some of these restaurants are open 24 hours.

Even a lunch at a nearby White Castle restaurant offered no relief (you people in the eastern U.S. have no idea how lucky you are to have White Castle restaurants).  It had the kind of plexi-glass protecting the people who worked there, like what you would see in a bank.  I almost asked “how many times have you guys been held up?”  But the answer was obvious: enough.

Other parts of the city were just as disappointing.   A third of the residential lots in Detroit are vacant or abandoned.  Things have gotten so bad that the city has decided to tear down abandoned houses, but the backlog, 80,000 abandoned structures, is huge.  Foreigners come to Detroit specifically to tour abandoned houses and buildings – kind of a cynical tourist attraction.  I remember driving by an abandoned house with an “auction” sign in front, and wondering if the auction was how high the owner would pay someone to take the house off the owner’s hands.

After a few more failed attempts at enjoying myself in Detroit, I did what I normally do when I get desperate to enjoy a new city: I went to the “rich” part of town to hang out and people-watch.  In the case of Detroit, the rich part of town in called Grosse Pointe, where rich people like Michael Moore have their mansions.  And I saw something amazing: beautiful, huge, lakefront mansions, with 2+ acre front yards, going for $200,000!  Yes, there is something seriously wrong with Detroit.

The great thing about successes or failures of any state or city in our country is that people can see what policies are being implemented and learn accordingly.  Texas, for example, has no state income tax and a manageable regulatory environment, and the result is a strong economy with almost full employment.  On the other hand, my state of California has just raised its taxes to be the highest in the country, and with the stifling regulatory burden, most everyone with any money is considering their ability to move their families and businesses out of state.  California could very well be the next Detroit.

True, the main industry of Detroit, the American car industry, has had quite a decline, so the population of Detroit has been cut in half since its peak in the 1950’s.  Yet the city government and the public sector unions spend like the good times are still here.  Detroit has a massive total debt of $14 billion, including a recent $237 million deficit just for last year.  And the city has less than 1 million residents!

A couple years ago the city laid off about 9% of its workforce, which was a good start.  But pockets of union excesses still exist.  A recent survey found that even after a recent pay cut, teachers in Detroit are paid higher than their counterparts in richer cities like New York and San Francisco.  A local columnist discovered so much waste in Detroit’s water treatment services that he called it “intolerable.”  One local reporter even discovered that Detroit has on its payroll a horseshoer, and while the city of Detroit has been dealing with horse excrement in its finances for many years, it hasn’t had an actual horse that has needed shoeing in several decades.

At the same time, the national news on Detroit’s effective bankruptcy seems to treat it all as if it is just one of those things; another sad chapter in the history of Detroit.  And that is the real panic of Detroit: the fact that the media coverage on this development is so muted that the rest of the country will not be able to learn from it.  Maybe that is the point.  The mainstream, left-leaning press doesn’t want us all to see where liberal policies inevitably conclude.

At least my trip to Detroit wasn’t a total loss.  The mandatory legal education conference was about as fascinating as always, but I got a real lesson in how dire things can get in a once-great city, now ruined by government mismanagement.  And we call all still enjoy the David Bowie song “Panic in Detroit,” even without any reference to the city’s recent troubles.  The song features Mick Ronson on the lead guitar, you know.