Busy June

          June hasn’t been a particularly good month.  First we learned that the Chinese hacked the personnel records of a few million federal employees.  The reaction from the White House was rather mild, with no countermeasures planned or threatened.  Then the numbers got worse.  First the administration said that the number of hacked employees, past and present, was 18 million, but only days later admitted the number was probably closer to 32 million.  The consequences of this breach in security could be catastrophic.  Yet, as we’ve seen so many times from this administration, no one has been held accountable.

          The next blast came not from Beijing, but from Rome.  Pope Francis added his voice to the chorus of hysterical climate change alarmists, and, like them, refused to weigh the opinion of dissenting scientists.  That was bad enough, but then he blamed the problem on overconsumption in developed countries, meaning that the wealthy in countries like ours should spend less on themselves and give more to the poor.  The pope’s view is understandable having come from a country where Marxist-inspired liberation theology holds sway.  But when he lays the blame on capitalism, he ignores the fact that capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than the socialism he favors. 
          Finally, we have the Supreme Court veering sharply to the left in its opinion on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage.  On the former, the Roberts court declared itself, in the words of George Will, “obligated to do whatever is required to make a law efficient, regardless of how the law is written.”  “Creative construing,” he adds, “is legislating, not judging.”  Justice Scalia in his dissent called it “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”
          As for the court’s view on marriage, we have to marvel at its ability to find rights in the Constitution that our Founders would have considered not only unintended, but violative of their religious principles.  So much for our Judeo-Christian heritage.
          Not all is lost, however. The Supreme Court did come to its senses in ruling that the EPA disregarded costs in regulating power plant emissions.  A small victory for common sense, and maybe a sign of better things to come.

 

 

My Friend Harry

          I lost a good friend last week.  His name was Harry Esterley.  Our local newspaper printed a simple obituary, and, although St Anne’s Church in Edenton was packed to overflowing for his funeral, there was no eulogy.  He deserved better.

          Harry Esterley was perhaps the most interesting man I ever met.   And the greatest patriot.  Drafted into the Army during the Korean War, Harry was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant, became a combat engineer, earned the rating of Jump Master with the 83^rd Airborne, and later served with the 93^rd Float Bridge Company in Germany.  During the Vietnam War he went to work for the CIA as an undercover operative in Cambodia and Laos.  When The Russians invaded Afghanistan, Harry was in charge of getting armaments to the mujahedin to fight the occupiers. 
          One story he told me was about buying 700 mules in Argentina and transporting them by boat to Pakistan where they were loaded with weapons and then led single file into Afghanistan through mountain passes inaccessible to motorized vehicles.
          In his outstanding career with the CIA, Harry Esterley put his life on the line in a number of clandestine operations.  But the public will never know about them, because they remain classified to this day.  Yet, this unheralded hero, who lived quietly among us in Hertford for the last fifteen years, needs to be honored and remembered as a true patriot.  Those of us who were privileged to have him as friend will never forget.

         

 

Investigeate Now!

          In a June 5^th article in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel described the Clinton Foundation as a family enterprise set up as a global shakedown operation designed to finance and nurture the Clintons’ continued political ambitions.  It’s a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed.  She added that the Clinton Foundation is a parking lot for Clinton campaign workers.  She named ten who previously worked for the Clintons while they held public office, and added that more than a dozen other foundation staffers worked for the Democratic National Committee or other politicians or super PACs.  Many others are paid “consultants” like the notorious hack Sidney Blumenthal. 

          Is it legal? Yes, barely.  Is it dirty?  You bet.  At the very least the Clinton Foundation shouldn’t qualify as a tax-exempt charity.  Only 15% of its funds go to the occasional good deed.  The rest goes to pay for foundation salaries and expenses, not to mention a healthy chunk off the top for the Clintons themselves.  To pay the bills, as Bill Clinton famously said.
          So why would anyone donate to the Clinton Foundation knowing that so little of their donations go to charitable works?  Because donors have expectations that their generosity will be repaid in kind when, for example, Hillary makes it to the White House.  It’s pay for play, pure and simple.
          This is a scandal of epic proportions crying out for a thorough investigation.  Will we get one?  Of course not.  Not while Democrats control the White House, the Justice Department, the IRS, and the FBI.
          The Clinton Foundation would be the biggest scandal in the history of this country if it weren‘t for an even bigger scandal: the failure to investigate it.

 

Hillary Slings Mud

          Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 18^th century editor of the satirical French monthly Le Figaro, gave us the memorable epigram “Plus ça change, plus c’est la mȇme chose,” translated as “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

          I was reminded of that listening to Hillary Clinton last week.  Back in the infancy of our republic, political slander was a veritable art form.  James Callender, for example, a hack journalist and scandalmonger, was particularly vicious in his attacks on George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.   Even after he exposed Thomas Jefferson’s dalliance with Sally Hemmings, Jefferson wasn’t above using him to slander John Adams in their contest for the presidency.
          Now we have Hillary Clinton slandering her Republican opponents by accusing them of “systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of Americans from voting.”  She cited Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush by name and even threw in the Supreme Court for eviscerating key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
          As Hillary’s calumnies were the central part of a speech at Texas Southern University, a traditional black institution, they were clearly a cynical attempt to solidify the support of black constituents.  She will need it.  But can she count on it?  Hillary’s poll numbers show that she is distrusted by an increasing number of voters.  If they don’t trust her, will they buy her mud-slinging tactics? 
          The blowback to Hillary’s speech has been immediate and fierce.  When you engage in a mud fight, expect some of the mud to be thrown back at you.  But if you’re already up to your neck in a virtual cesspool of scandals, what’s a little more mud?