Benghazi Worst Scandal

The Benghazi Incident and the entire Libya Scandal during Barack Obama’s presidency is the most egregious violation of the Constitution out of all the scandals between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. In the Libya Scandal, the president knowingly lied to the American people, engaged in a military operations and battles without congressional consent, and ended up losing American lives due to the involvement.

President Obama used a legal loophole to circumvent the Constitution, not exactly declaring war on a nation, but still attacking it and laying American lives on the line, as well as those of Libyan soldiers and civilians.

First, he entered armed confrontation with forces in Libya without a congressional declaration of war, violating the Constitution. One could say that this act is no different than President Ronald Reagan’s actions in Iran Contra, but the situations are very different.

In Iran Contra, the purpose of the arms dealing was to save American lives as several Americans were held hostage in Lebanon. While this fact does not exonerate anyone involved in the Iran Contra Affair, because the affair began out of saving American lives and Libya began with expending American lives, Obama’s scandal is worse.

In the Libya Scandal, the White House received information indicating that attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi were imminent, but the presidency decided against acting on the intel, leading to the deaths of four Americans. As if that were not bad enough, the Obama Administration then duped the public into momentarily believing that the attack was spontaneous and prompted by an anti-Muslim film put on Youtube. Once the truth came out, the government lied and pushed their falsified story.

One could say that this is no different than the Bill Clinton‘s Monica Lewinsky Scandal or the Russia Scandal because the presidency blatantly lied to the American people, even after the truth had come out proving them to be liars. However, in the Monica Lewinsky Scandal, the president was never proven of any wrongdoing because the perjury he committed was so inconsequential to the American political system, and in the Russia Scandal, there is no definitive proof of wrongdoing on the president’s part, in fact, the Mueller Report identified that there was no collusion between Russia and President Trump.

Watergate is no worse of a scandal either because the president eventually admitted to his crimes and resigned.

The only similar scandal is President George W. Bush’s scandal in Iraq. The president acted on false information and cost American lives in both situations, but Bush is less guilty than Obama. Bush was likely led to believe by his staff and advisors that the information given to him was factual, that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Obama was handed factual intel that an attack on the American embassy in Benghazi was imminent, but he failed to act and shifted the blame on the terrorist attack.

This makes President Obama most worthy of impeachment because he was not incompetent in the matter; he knowingly circumvented the constitutional limitation that only allows Congress to declare war by dodging the war term and only attacking instead of declaring an official war, he knowingly allowed American lives to perish, and he knowingly lied to the American people.

The entire Libya ordeal is so much worse than any other presidential scandal because the president had correct information that American lives were in danger and when he failed to act, he lied and indicated that there was no forewarning of the attack and that it was largely unprompted, other than that of a film released on Youtube. The only reason President Barack Obama is not guilty of perjury, as well, is because his lie was too effective and he was never put on trial for his blatant crimes.

Jesse A. Cook

“Benghazi Worst Scandal”

June 11, 2019

Mueller Report Trumps Hopes Of Impeachment

Disappointed by the zero amount of evidence provided by the Mueller Report showing President Donald Trump guilty of any wrongdoing in the 2016 election, Democrats are split over trying to impeach the president.

 

Nancy Pelosi notably reported to the world that she was actively against impeachment unless it was absolutely necessary. She said, “I’m not for impeachment. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

 

She said this on March 11, 2019, 13 days before Attorney General William Barr sent a four-page summary of the Mueller Report to the White House. This timetable points to the idea that Mueller disclosed the findings of his report to Democratic leaders before releasing it because they needed to make sure that they distanced themselves as far as possible from desires for impeachment so that when the report came out showing that President Trump was guilty of nothing during the 2016 election, they were not connected to the mass hysteria clamoring for the removal of the president.

 

Essentially, Pelosi, as well as several other liberal leaders, knew that the report found nothing to support impeachment (after over two years of research), so she wanted to look reasonable to the public before the report showed that the entire investigation was an unfortunately futile farce with no founding.

 

The entire report has not been released as the White House decided that, for (hopefully) reasons of national security, parts of the report must be redacted.

 

Michigan Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib and Texas Democrat Representative Al Green still want impeachment.

 

“The president hasn’t agreed to divest in foreign and domestic businesses. That puts him in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. He can’t do that as a sitting C.E.O., working out of the Oval Office,” said Tlaib. “We need to look at and investigate these possibly impeachable offenses.”

 

One problem with Tlaib’s statement, President Trump has divested in foreign and domestic business. Federal Judge Paul Niemeyer said that the president has pulled himself from active management of his various hotels and businesses.

 

Attempts to take down the president on accusations of campaign finance issues, personal tax issues, and current involvement issues have all been proven Democrats like Tlaib and Green to be rowing their boat up a waterfall with no top. Now, Democrats still advocating for impeachment are merely grasping for straws.

 

Jesse A. Cook

“Mueller Report Trumps Hopes Of Impeachment”

March 25, 2019

Green? Gone. Green New Deal Fails Exponentially

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ proposed “Green New Deal” failed in Congress without a single vote in favor for it. With 57 “nays,” zero “yeas,” and “43” votes of present, but not voting.

 

The Green New Deal has faced a great deal of scrutiny, including from President Donald Trump who said that the proposal is so poorly drafted that it makes the Republican platform in 2020 very easy to support. He said, “Please, don’t kill it because we want to be able to run against it. If they beat me with the Green New Deal, I deserve to lose.”

 

The G.N.D. focuses on reducing the United States’ carbon emissions by the year 2050. The G.N.D. reportedly called for an elimination of methane emissions from cows—take from that what you will—and several other reductions of greenhouse gases, focusing mainly on business regulation.

 

Co-drafter of the proposal, Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, said that without the G.N.D., the country will lose 10% of its gross domestic product by 2090. Countering that estimation, the Republicans have stated that the G.N.D. will end up costing the country $93 trillion. That comes out to roughly $250,000 per person in the country.

 

A major tenet of the G.N.D. is eliminating air travel. It does not advocate for ending air travel altogether, but A.O.C. wants to make it unnecessary by the use of energy-clean, high-powered, high-speed trains.

 

Many countries have taken to experimenting with the high-speed railways, but they are still highly experimental, highly expensive, highly dangerous, highly not-ready-to-carry-human-passengers, highly not-close-to-being-under-construction-in-the-United-States, highly not-fast-enough-to-make-air-travel-obsolete, and highly not-feasible-under-A.O.C.’s-ten-year-timeline.

 

(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a ten-year timeline for the Green New Deal to become complete.)

 

First of all, private industries such as Rocky Mountain Rail have already conveyed that the switch to high-speed railways could happen without any government spending, saving the taxpayers money and rendering that portion of A.O.C.’s and Markey’s plan redundant.

 

The fastest train in the world, the Shanghai Maglev, travels at 267 miles per hour. The Boeing 747, a widely used model for a commercial plane, travels at a roughly average flight speed of 540 mph, roughly twice the speed of the fastest train.

 

Planes are still by far faster than trains and the fast trains are incredibly expensive anyway: proposals for a bullet train in California are under review and the projected cost to ride such a vehicle is $86, which is considered inexpensive for a high-speed train. That is roughly the same cost as riding the Amtrak from Boston, Massachusetts 987 miles to Chicago, Illinois.

 

Jesse A. Cook

“Green? Gone. Green New Deal Fails Exponentially”

March 15, 2019

Midterms Foreshadow Blue Presidency In 2020

While the Democrats won the House of Representatives, the Republicans managed to maintain control of the Senate, even gaining a few seats. This bodes well for the Republican President Donald John Trump because presidents rarely maintain control of either part of Congress, but it might also foreshadow a stronger blue presence in 2020.

 

Yes, only two presidents have ever gained seats in either chamber of Congress (Franklin Delano Roosevelt and George Walker Bush), but the Democrats will have a different energy than their failure this midterm election cycle. Joe Biden, who decided not to run in 2016 is likely to take a chance in 2020 and many people consider him to be the strongest Democrat.

 

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is likely to run for the presidency, as well. She is considered one of the more radical leftist politicians in the entire country and that might be exactly what the Dems need to overcome the radical right president.

 

(It might not be fair to call Trump radical right, but he is in the sense that he panders to the right and makes radical, unforeseen moves in his campaigning and his leading)

 

One the most important states in any election is Texas and blue texans are enraged after Ted Cruz (R) edged out Beto O’Rourke (D) in the Senate race. Blue regions in Texas center around major cities and lie along the border with Mexico. This perfectly exemplifies the red/blue split both on city matters and immigration, but it also foreshadows further blue wins in the state.

 

Since 2000, more counties are turning blue and Texas, a key battleground state looks good for Democrats.

 

Liberals have started gaining more power in the South: Arizona is blue, New Mexico is blue, Texas is turning blue, Georgia is turning blue, Florida is turning blue, Missouri is turning blue, and so is South Carolina. Not to mention that historically red Iowa voted blue in the House this time around.

 

Granted, Republicans have started turning historically blue states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, and New York further red, but there is still one huge key state left that the man once voted the most liberal politician in America maintains control in.

 

Sherrod Brown is a bright light for the Democrats out of Ohio and he might be one of their best answers to Trump in 2020. He manages some Republican support due to his support of Israel and his staunch stance on risky trade deals with China. That could turn many centrist Republicans and overtake many “Never-Trumpers.”

 

Additionally, the FDR and Bush midterm years came in times of intense crisis, where people were terrified of a change in leader again. FDR’s was in the midst of the Great Depression and Bush’s was post-9/11. While many indicate that the fact that Trump presides over a nation in an economic boom and not at war could turn more people to his side, people will not be scared in two years to change their leader.

 

The Dems might have taken a hit in the midterms, but they have a hidden advantage in 2020.

 

Jesse A. Cook

“Midterms Foreshadow Blue Presidency In 2020”

November 9, 2018

A Conservative’s Opinion On Why We Need Socialism

Younger voters have become in recent years increasingly further to the political left, to the point where the debate over Socialism is back on the docket. Before, the 2016 elections, just two years ago, Socialism was a little thought of political mindset equated to the forever resented Communism, but now, positive thoughts have reentered people’s minds on the topic.

 

As an economic conservative, I do not believe that the Socialist model works, in fact many countries and cities run by far left leaders have proven that it doesn’t. Detroit used to be a bustling, beautiful metropolis, but over the past few decades, Socialist mayors have let it take a turn for the worse to the point where even the Tigers’ record are reflecting the melancholy. Venezuela, a country under Socialist leadership, is still in the midst of a four-year long economic crisis and food shortage, but they are “protected” by an abusive government.

 

No, this isn’t exactly a poster for Socialism.

 

Then why does a conservative admit that we need it?

 

For a couple reasons: One, if somehow it ends up working, then who are we to complain? Socialism follows the Utopianism model where everything is shared equally and we don’t need money policing our lives. That sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

 

Two (and the far likelier, I think), it will be a disastrous experiment and people will be left in Great Depression-esque conditions. This will definitively prove to Socialism’s supporters how terrible the philosophy really is when put into practice and America will burn it into their minds that Socialism shouldn’t even be a last resort!

 

Well, don’t many European countries use Socialism? Yes, they do, but as Professor Stuart Gottlieb of Columbia University wrote in a letter to the editor of the New York Times, “Despite having the world’s most generous economic and social welfare systems for workers and non-workers alike, depression, loneliness and stress are all on the rise. Young people are reportedly suffering the most.” This quote was written in regard to the European economies and European youth.

 

Gottlieb brings to light the not-necessarily-economic part of the debate to light showing the toll a socialized economy can take on those who have to pay the taxes.

 

In addition to that, if European Socialism works, it’s not for America. France boasts that they use a Socialist model for their healthcare and it works great, as does Canada (though not European), Germany, and a few others. Canada had a population of 36.29 million people in 2016. The state of California had a population of 39.54 million people in 2016. The United States is clearly much, much larger than any of these Socialist countries, so a large scale operation is far more different than in a population of very few people.

 

Socialism would most likely fail in a nation over 100 million, let alone the U.S. with a staggering 325.7 million. If it works, then life’s great, but if it doesn’t, which is far more probably, it will be a stern warning to the nation to never try Socialism again.

 

Jesse A. Cook

“A Conservative’s Opinion On Why We Need Socialism”

October 2, 2018