Benghazi and the coming aftermath

Benghazi was the result of a tragically-failed foreign policy of meddling in foreign affairs, and this was done at the behest of HRC, no matter what lies the “progressive” Left tries to perpetuate. Clinton as SoS supported the undermining of the Ghadaffi government in Libya. Ghadaffi was not a threat to Western powers, nor was he likely to engage militarily with his neighbors. He was, in the words of the Democrats, “contained.” Now remember: the Democrats are big proponents of keeping rogue leaders “contained.” And it is not a bad policy, either.

So here is Ghadaffi, an anti-Western leader who nevertheless rescinded all claims to nuclear ambitions and even shipped nuclear hardware out of his country under the watchful eyes of the French. He did this as a result of pressure put upon him primarily by the US, and after he saw what happened to Iraq. He did this with the expectation that we would then “leave him alone,” mainly because that is what we led him to believe. And that was a good policy, too.

So along comes HRC. She looked at this leader who did what we wanted him to do, who willingly gave up him WMD as we wanted him to do, who ceased the large scale exportation of terrorism as we wanted him to do – and then she still supported the overthrow of his government.

So the next time we go to an anti-Western foreign leader – of which there are many – and tell them “hey, if you stop harassing Western interests and agree to WMD disarmament, we will not interfere with you,” do you really think they are going to believe us? Would you?

Paradigm Shift

Our Founders were intellectuals, a result of the Age of Reason and Age of Enlightenment. They believed in ideals such as virtue, natural rights, etc., and held that people were, by true and inherent nature, free. The question for them – as well as us today – was “why do free people need a government?” The answer to that question is of course rooted in human nature and the proven fact that free will does not always result in choosing a life of virtue: all too often the strong tend to restrict the rights of the weak. Still, the Founders (and all free-thinking individuals) believed that a life lived freely – despite its inherent dangers – was far preferable to that of a life lived as a subject of an all-powerful Government, regardless of how benevolent that government may be.

Today, the “progressive” Left has orchestrated a paradigm shift. The question now – at least to them – is not “why do free people need a government,” but rather “why does a Government need free people?” Whereas the first question leads to intellectual study spanning pretty much the entire recorded history of humans, and is the basis for the formation of our republic, the latter question is more or less rhetorical, sort of along the lines of “why does anybody NEED a gun??” It is no mistake that the “progressive” Left is obsessed with talking about “rights” as if they were “needs,” for while the Government MAY provide (at whim) for its citizen-subject’s “needs,” no government has the power to GRANT rights that are already ours by endowment. More importantly, no Government may take those rights from us. Those rights are ours by a matter of birth, and no government may justifiably strip us of such rights except by due process. Our government, in the form of a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, exists to protect these rights from other people, other governments, and (especially lately) even our own government. Such concepts are an anathema to today’s members of the “progressive” Left. To them, the people exist for the State, and although they may call their ideas “liberal,” we all know them by a different name: Tyranny.