Sunday, February 3

No downside to government lawbreaking

Recent events suggest that the media have doubled-down on their support for corruption and lawlessness in government.  Assured that the press will approve any behavior by this administration, Democratic politicians act as if they can now do anything they want.

If the press winked at a $20 trillion debt, why not go for $40 trillion?

Indeed: Why not?  Does anyone believe the press or voters would react any differently to a $40 trillion dollar debt than to $20 trillion?  If not, why should any Dem pol act with even a tiny semblance of fiscal prudence?

If Obama's U.N. ambassador and Secretary of State can get away with the total fabrication that a deadly attack on our consulate was caused by a demonstration against an anti-Muslim video, and not be met by outrage and grilling from the media, then why not call the next blatant terrorist attack "a riot by Tea Partiers," and jail an American citizen as part of the false narrative?

Indeed, why not?

When a Democrat senator and one of his major donors fly on the latter's private jet to a foreign country where the donor arranges sex with minors, it's clearly not a problem if he can go on the five Sunday “news” shows a few days after the story breaks on the internet and not be asked a single question about it. 

Two decades ago the guy would be forced to resign, but today?  If the media winks, why should the Dems pressure the guy to resign, and lose a vital senate vote?

Why indeed?

When Democrats trying to pass Obamacare have to use estimates and scenarios that lack the slightest resemblance to reality, and then a year or two later--when the blatant lie has been revealed--the media simply winks, where's the downside for Democrats to just make up numbers?

When Democrats control the senate, and refuse to comply with valid U.S. law requiring congress to pass a budget every year, and the president refuses to do his Constitutional duty to "see to it that the laws are faithfully enforced," and no one in the media says a remotely critical word, where's the downside?

Indeed, where's the downside to the president or Dems violating ANY law?  "Why not?"

Then you think back and realize this has been going on for four years:  Violating bankruptcy law in giving GM shares to the UAW.  And in arbitrarily closing Chrysler dealerships owned by Republicans during that reorganization.  And "Cash for Clunkers."  And selling guns to Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious.

And ordering U.S. Immigration to stop enforcing U.S. law by which illegal aliens were being deported.  And giving those persons permission to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, plus a green card.

And invoking executive privilege to enable Attorney-General Holder to avoid complying with a valid congressional subpoena for documents on Fast and Furious--after Holder had earlier asserted that he hadn't briefed or advised or consulted with Obama about the operation.  Which of course would make the privilege claim invalid.

But why not?  If the media says nothing and 40 percent of the public are "low-information voters" whose main political interest is who will give them the most freebies, where's the downside to an administration breaking any law?

More crucially, once an administration has gotten away with breaking the law this often, with not a word of criticism from the media or the courts, what incentive remains to obey any other law?



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home