This was written in regards to this:
“The point they unwittingly made is that the Free State Project is largely comprised of narcissistic individuals who are incapable of consideration for those who live outside of their cult.”
Wow. Ironic. All the other testimonies were their own theatrics, pulling on the heart strings, making emotional-bleeding-heart pleas for taxpayer’s money, in other words, the legalized plunder from others.
“My life story is so much worse than yours that I deserve, no, in fact, I am entitled to your money.” Heck, one guy fell off a skyscraper. He deserves my money. Wheel barrels full of money.
So pathetic and exploitative were their performances, these people had no shame bringing out their own mentally-disabled children, bring them in front of a room full of people, point at them, and tell the committee and all there to hear how worthless and incapable they are, how they will never amount to anything, never overcome their struggles, never make anything of themselves, and can only survive on the government dole. Seriously. That level of dependency was a disgusting sight to see.
In any other circumstance, my heart would go out to these struggles. The pains of life can be heavy. I know it. But to see these “my life is so hard, so unfair, give me your money” was vile. To parade your mentally-disabled children, who had no idea why they were trotted along to sit through a totally boring hearing, to be used as props to get free money is pathetic.
“Incapable of consideration?” Ha! Does Susan not realize for every dollar given to one of these children or their parents is a dollar taken forcibly from someone else and their child? Every dollar taken is a dollar not used for how someone else best sees fit. A dollar lost to someone’s education. A dollar lost to someone else’s health concerns. A dollar to help someone else’s aging grandmother. Government merely redistributes wealth making their decisions, not on who “needs” or “deserves” it most, but purely on political grounds and power. You really think they care? Well they might, if show how influential your voting bloc is. Kind of a perverse rational for distributing funds, no? Talk about a lack of consideration. How is it inconsiderate when there is thievery happening, out in the open, in front of me?
And you know what? I take no issue with people who live on food stamps and use government services, and take as much welfare as is available. We cannot remove government out of our lives completely. They have infiltrated ever living pore of human interaction and society. If we simply refused to involve ourselves with anything government has touched, we would surely die. That’s how much power and influence they have taken over our lives. So, yes, fine, take welfare, because the government has significantly monopolized what used to be church services, changed our culture deeply, and diverted what should be our own personal responsibility and cause to take care of each other, to instead be managed, handled, and determined by bureaucratic committees, their lobbyist friends, and people engaged in unions, voting blocs, and collectivist group-think. Democracy truly is a dying giant.
To perpetuate this system of mutual plunder and sickening dependency made me feel absolutely noqualms to punk that hearing, to punk anyone who thinks this is ethical behavior. In fact, our speeches, even though taken straight out of the movies, were absolutely fitting among the rest of the testimonies.
Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.
Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?
Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.
It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.
Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.
But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.
Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.
Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.
The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.