Cognitive Dissidence of the Democrats

Cognitive Dissidence: In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.

A basic example of CD is when presented with a certain set of provable facts that are contrary to personally held beliefs one either suffers physiological tension or goes into denial. This is common among Democrats.

I watching snippets of last night’s Democratic public relations press conference (called a debate) each candidate refused to use or agree with the term Radical Islam when the question was posed by the moderators. Sanders, Clinton and O’Malley. Sanders said the term did not matter and went on to describe the barbarian behavior of the terrorists. Clinton dodged the question with her referral to Jihad excusing Muslims from being terrorist. O’Malley said the problem was radical Jihadis.

Note: Jihad is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihad is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.

In essence O’Malley’s response was saying the problem was radical war makers. This is how the Democrats (including Obama) address the question of terrorists today. It is cognitive dissonance for political purposes, i.e. don’t insult Muslims, they might not vote for us. It should be noted that Islamic Radicals kill more Muslims that anyone else.

They latest attacks in Paris with 128 dead and 300 wounded (80 critically) and the downing of the Russian airliner killing 240 is the latest example of Radical Islamic jihad practiced by ISIS (ISIL). This is not workplace violence, random acts of terror, a criminal act, or senseless violence as some reporters and liberals state. It is (was) a planned, coordinated attack on us non-believers. The Pairs attack was carried out by Syrian immigrants into France. The weapons and tactics they used, including the suicide vests, were planned in detail and highly coordinated. This type of attack is not a random act of violence or senseless. It resembled the Mumbai attack of 2008 where 164 people were killed and 308 wounded.

(Photo of Victims of a shooting attack lay on the pavement outside La Bell Equipe restaurant in Paris Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Well over 100 people were killed in Paris on Friday night in a series of shooting, explosions.Anne Sophie Chaisemartin AP )

Europe in their cognitive dissidence knows that the Syrians and Yemenese are most capable and ideologically prone to carry out attacks like this. They also know that their citizens are going to Syria to join ISIS in the fight. Yet they are allowing thousands of Syrian refugees into their countries with Germany taking the most – 700 thousand. Keep in mind that 70% of these “refugees” are men between the ages of 16-35. Where are the women? Where are the children? Yes the media focuses on one photo of a man holding a dead child who had drowned while attempting to enter Europe. This is fodder for the bleeding hearts and do-gooders. By admitting these refugees they appease their guilt and walk away feeling good about themselves ignoring the threat to national security.

French President Francois Hollande has contended unambiguously that ISIS launched the Paris terrorist attacks Friday night, and ISIS itself has now claimed responsibility. It is not too early, even now, to draw important lessons from this tragedy. We do so both to prevent the near-term recurrence of more terrorist violence against the West, and to address seriously the broader, global Islamicist threat that has been growing, not diminishing, in recent years. We certainly have at least enough information and experience to draw working hypotheses for the next days and weeks until more details become available.

Fox News reported:

“ISIS claims of responsibility for Friday’s Paris massacre are being reviewed by US intelligence analysts Sunday morning, with a focus on the English-language version, which is delivered in American-accented English, Fox News has been told. It is now clear the plot included a rollout of ISIS propaganda, which was prepared in advance, including threats directed toward the Russian people, Rome, London and Washington DC.

Separately, Fox News has learned that four credible, ISIS-linked social media accounts began sharing messages 72 hours before the Paris attack, including images of weapons, the Eiffel tower, as well as blessings for the attackers’ mission. A military intelligence source says the social media traffic is now seen as evidence the three teams had gone operational.

The translations include “God bless you in your mission” and “Support the deployment,” as well as a reference to our “sister,” suggesting an operative, or member of the support team was a woman.

Meanwhile, FBI Director James Comey has told field offices across the country to intensify surveillance on ISIS suspects, hoping to prevent violence in this country. Before the attack, Comey confirmed there are 900 active ISIS investigations, spread over all 50 states.”

Now Obama wants to allow over 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States with more planned. The FBI states it is impossible the vet this many refugees. Where will they go? Where will they live? No doubt they will want to go to places where they can stay under the radar of law enforcement until they have consolidated their cells and planned their attacks. I sure as hell don’t want any of them in my town or neighborhood. According to the FBI we already have many ideologically indoctrinated Muslims and non-Muslims young adults in the country – too many to watch with the resources they have. The latest attack at the University of California at Merced is under investigation by the FBI. The FBI does investigate local murders – they investigate acts of terrorism.

Authors like Brad Thor, the late Vince Flynn, and the late Tom Clancy have written books on the subject of planned Islamic terror attacks in the United States. These books, while fiction might be considered precursors to what is coming. They certainly were for France.

I have often talked about situation awareness and being armed. Both will go a long way in preventing or alleviating such terrorist attacks. We know this from the attacks in Chattanooga in July and Garland, Texas. The list is long.

While most Americans are not legally armed, especially in states like California and New York; they certainly can follow the rules of situation awareness and live in the Yellow Zone and not the White where most people live their lives. For those who are not familiar with these zones here is a brief recap:

White Zone: This is where most Americans live. They walk about with ear buds in their ears or talking on cell phones. They window shop in the mall where I believe the terrorists will soon attack. They are unaware of what is going on in the world or around them.

Yellow Zone: This is the zone you can live in without too much trouble. You are aware of your surroundings and who is around you. You constantly scan your surroundings. You look in shop windows and note not only what the retailer is selling but also the reflections. You note where the exits are and where cover would be. You are constantly aware.

Orange Zone: Now we are in a zone where you need to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you see something that bothers you – you will know if you are in the Yellow Zone. You might see a suspicious person or someone walking about mumbling to him or herself. Seeing a package or backpack unattended. This is where you take flight. You leave the potentially dangerous situation. There is no harm in being wrong. You are still safe. Embarrassment beats the hell out of a 5.56 or 7.62 round in your head or an explosion killing or maiming you.

The Red Zone: This zone only pertains to those who are legally armed. In this zone you cannot take flight – you have to defend yourself. Example might be in a parking structure where you approached by someone about to harm you with a knife, club or firearm. This is where there is not time or opportunity to flee. You have to shoot. It should be noted that you must be trained and proficient at self-defense shooting. You must have the mindset, the skill and muscle memory, and the tools to do this.

One last thought on whether or not words matter. If you don’t define the enemy with clarity you cannot fight and kill them. Just think of the brave soldiers of the 1^st, 29^th, and 4^th Divisions storming the beaches of Normandy on June 4, 1944 being told not to call the German defenders Nazis as they might offend them. Ridiculous? Yes it certainly is. But this is exactly what the liberals are advocating today when it comes to Radical Islam.

Islam is the world's second largest religion. According to a 2010 study and released January 2011, Islam has 1.57 billion adherents, making up over 23% of the world population. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015 there were 50 Muslim-majority countries.

I have tried to get a figure on how many Radical Islamics there are in the world. I had two problems. One is the definition of “Radical”. It runs from dedicated Jihadis like ISIS to those who endorse genital mutilation of young girls along with lack of education for girls to those supporting the imposition of Sharia Law. Second the number ranges from 0.1% to 25%. If I use 10% the number of Radical Islamists in the world would be 157 million. You can make up your own mind on how many have the resources and ability to attack us in the United States. If it’s only 0.1% that’s 157 thousand. Of course as of today it only took 8-10 to cause 128 deaths and over 300 wounded in Paris.

Indeed, this is a time for statesmanship, resolve and determination, not for sweeping the cruel reality of what has just happened under the rug. Our ability to safeguard the future may well depend in substantial part on what we do and how we do it in just these coming days and weeks.

We should not view the appropriate American and Western response as “bringing these terrorists to justice,” in President Obama’s words. This is not a matter for the criminal law, as many American political and academic leaders, including the President, have insisted, even after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

This is a war, as President Hollande has forthrightly called it, not a slightly enhanced version of thieves knocking over the corner grocery store within an ordered civil society. And the mechanism of response must be to destroy the source of the threat, not prosecute it, not contain it, not hope that we will “ultimately” destroy it. “Ultimately” is too far away.

(Photo of rescue workers help a woman after a shooting, outside the Bataclan theater in Paris, Friday Nov. 13, 2015. French President Francois Hollande declared a state of emergency and announced that he was closing the country's borders.Thibault Camus AP )

(You can view more photos at: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article44800977.html)

In light of Paris and the continuing threat of terrorism it so graphically conveys, we need a more sensible national conversation about the need for effective intelligence gathering to uncover and prevent such tragedies before they occur.

Knee-jerk, uninformed and often wildly inaccurate criticisms of programs (such as several authorized in the wake of 9/11 in the Patriot Act) have created a widespread misimpression in the American public about what exactly our intelligence agencies have been doing and whether there was a “threat” to civil liberties. Now is the time to correct these misimpressions, and to rebut the unfounded criticisms that have in too many cases become the conventional wisdom.

Similarly, in the debate over immigration and refugees, it is time to take into account the national security issues at stake.

Law-enforcement and intelligence authorities had already estimated earlier this year that thousands of European and U.S. citizens had travelled to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq, there to receive training and financing to conduct terrorist operations in their home countries. These were individuals with valid passports and visas, taking advantage of holes in our detection and prevention capabilities.

One priority should be to determine if any of those perpetrating the November13-14 attacks in Paris had travelled to ISIS lands. And imagine now the dangers posed by the massive refugee flows moving into Europe from North Africa, the Middle East and even Afghanistan.

A government that cannot keep its own borders secure and will not exercise discretion over Syrian refugees in light of the attacks on Paris is a government that should not stand because if that government continues to stand, the nation itself will falter.

A citizen who cannot look at Paris and realize an open invitation for Syrian refugees is a terrible idea or has faith that our government can quickly discern who should or should not come probably should be ignored.

If we cannot exercise discernment and discretion in letting in refugees from Syria, we should let none of them in. It really is that simple.

The Laboratories of Democracy are Growing Stronger and More Republican

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, March 21, 1932.

I use the Brandeis quote to begin my comments of the new powers of the state legislatures after the 2014 election. I must, however, temper Brandeis’ comments in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann with a commentary by Michael S. Greve in his 2001 article in American Enterprise Institute. After all Brandeis was a liberal progressive and statist.

“Louis D. Brandeis favored federalist “experimentation in things social and economic” as a means to progressive, statist ends. Even his hagiographers concede that Brandeis would have held a very different view of state economic experimentation and its judicial review had those experiments run against, say, trade unions.

Modern justices have tended to overlook, or perhaps ignore, the instrumental and ultimately half-hearted nature of Brandeis’s federalist commitment. For example, they have quoted the “laboratory” dictum in the course of celebrating federalism’s virtues of diversity and attentiveness to local circumstances. Brandeis’s view of state experimentation, however, was entirely disconnected from those notions and instead emphasized its value as a step toward federal legislation. Similarly, profederalist justices have quoted the New State Ice dissent in opinions that reject, on Tenth Amendment grounds, federal impositions on state governments. Brandeis, as seen, did not believe in Tenth Amendment or any other constitutional federalism constraints.

One could easily live with an occasional out-of-context quotation. What distresses is the modern Supreme Court’s sustained Brandeisian tendency of subordinating federalism to progressive dictates and statist presumptions. The Court has empowered and protected state governments through creative interpretations of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. It has, however, refrained from resurrecting constitutional doctrines—foremost, a robust enumerated powers doctrine—that would discipline state governments by forcing them to compete for productive citizens. On the rare occasions that the Court has limited enumerated powers, it first reassured itself that the states can and will in fact regulate the problem at hand—gun possession on school grounds or sexual violence.

On issues that we now call “social,” the Court acts as a superintendent of experimentation. Untoward experiments, such as operating an all-male college, are verboten. Experiments of the right kind are not; in a way they are affirmatively required. If states fail to liberalize, with sufficient speed, laws governing sexual and life-and-death matters, the Supreme Court will move them along; witness Roe v. Wade.”

This “Laboratories of Democracy” concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social “laboratories,” where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to [from] the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a basis for the "Laboratories of Democracy" concept, because the Tenth Amendment assigns most day-to-day governance responsibilities, including general "police power", to the state and local governments. Because there are 50 semi-autonomous states, different policies can be enacted and tested at the state level without directly affecting the entire country. As a result, a diverse patchwork of state-level government practices is created. If any one or more of those policies are successful, they can be expanded to the national level by acts of Congress. For example, Massachusetts established a health care reform law in 2006 that became the model for the subsequent Affordable Care Act at the national level in 2010.

Since the 1930s, and more so in the following decades, the "laboratories of democracy" concept has been undercut somewhat by the growth of federal power under expansive interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. See, for example, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

The Tenth Amendment may be stated as the cornerstone of Federalism. It was added to the Bill of Rights by our Founders. James Madison was not in favor of the Tenth Amendment as he believed the enumerated powers expressed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution would suffice to curb the power of the federal government. Madison finally succumbed to the wishes of the state conventions when he stated:

“I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.”

The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.

This brings me to the focus of this blog — the growing power of the Republican Party in state legislatures and how this may begin to tamper the coercive and over reaching power of the federal government.

Today after last Tuesday’s election there are ninety-eight partisan state legislative chambers in our nation. (Nebraska has a unicameral and nonpartisan legislature.) Not all state legislative chambers had elections this November, but of the seventy-seven state legislative chambers that did have elections, Republicans gained seats in sixty-one, while losing seats in only ten.

This translated into shifting control of ten legislative chambers from Democrat to Republican and included: the State Senate in Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, and New York and the State House of Representatives in New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. Republican power in state legislatures is at the highest point in a century, both in the number of chambers controlled and also in the number of Republicans in state legislature — important facts that tend to be submerged in higher profile races.

Looking at particular regions, the impact of these elections takes new meaning. In the five-state “Great Lakes” region of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana, Republicans made gains in state legislative chambers of each state and did not lose seats in any of the ten chambers. In the five legislative chambers in neighboring Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri that faced voters this midterm, Republicans made gains in all five.

In the Rocky Mountain purple states of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, Republicans gained the Colorado Senate, the New Mexico House, the Nevada Senate, and the Nevada House without losing seats in any of the state legislative chambers. Those gains matter. Governor Martinez will have one house of the New Mexico legislature to help her push her conservative agenda; Governor Sandoval in Nevada goes from working with two Democrat houses of the legislature to a Republican legislature; and Colorado’s Democrat governor, who won a close race, now has to work with a Republican Colorado House.

In the South, in red states thought to be trending purple — Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia — Republicans gained seats in three legislative chambers and lost a seat in one, and the other two were unchanged. Despite the hopes Democrats have expressed of becoming competitive in the South, Republicans now control virtually every state legislative chamber there. Eight of those states had state legislative elections, and in those sixteen legislative chambers, Republicans gained seats in twelve chambers and lost seats in one.

The long-term impact of Republican power in the South and Rocky Mountain areas is enhanced by the fact that these are also the two fastest-growing areas of the country. These are the states that will have more congressmen after the next census, and Republican legislatures will be drawing the new congressional districts.

But even in the Democrat stronghold of the Northeast, Republicans did well. Republican governor Corbett of Pennsylvania lost re-election, but Republicans increased their existing majorities in both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature. Republicans came close to winning the governor’s race in New Hampshire, the only purple state in New England, but Republicans actually did capture the New Hampshire lower legislative chamber and increased the existing majority in the upper chamber.

Republicans now, for the first time in a while, have the power to stop Democrats in states like New York (which now has a Republican Senate) and Maryland, where the unexpected victory of Republican Larry Hogan in the gubernatorial race was complemented by the gain of eight seats in the Maryland House, enough to sustain a veto by Hogan. Republican gains in the Illinois Senate mean that incoming Republican Governor Rauner will now have both houses able to sustain his veto. Governor Dayton will have to work with a Republican Minnesota House.

Perhaps the most important consequence will be in those states where Republicans in state government have shown real gumption. Scott Walker, of course, tops the list. Increased Republican majorities in both houses of his legislature, along with his own re-election open the door for even more revolutionary reforms, which will no doubt include public sector pensions and school choice.. Re-elected Republican governors in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida have bigger Republican legislative majorities, which ought to embolden these governors to push hard reforms of public employee unions, educational systems, and voter integrity, as well as tort reform and other vital issues.

It also should be noted that the state houses (31) and state legislatures controlled by Republicans will no doubt play a major role in the 2016 presidential elections. If these governors and legislatures do good work for the people of their states they will have a great deal of influence in deciding 2016 presidential vote. Their focus should be on balanced budgets, eliminated deficits, increasing employment with business friendly policies and regulations, and repairing infrastructure. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Susanna Martinez of New Mexico, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and John Kasich of Ohio are showing the way.

Finally I think that there are a few points that can be made about the 2014 midterms.

After repeatedly putting off any action on immigration until after the election, Obama announced just prior to the election that he would use his pen to enact immigration reform. This served to motivate the Hispanic vote, but not in the way he intended. Exit polls show that 36% of Hispanics voted Republican. This is a huge change from 2012, when Hispanics voted Democrat at over 70%. It turns out that quite a few law-abiding conservative Hispanics are not fans of illegal immigration or late-term abortion.

Obama said in a speech on Oct. 2, "Make no mistake: my policies are on the ballot." I believe he thought that he could motivate that same base that re-elected him in 2012 to go to the polls by making the election about himself. Think about it. Up to that point in the election cycle, he had stayed in the background. His national poll numbers were dipping below 40%. The Democrat incumbents had run away from him and were trying their best to disassociate themselves from their voting records. Why would Obama, at that point, reinsert himself into the race? Because he was convinced that he could motivate his base to go to the polls to vote Democrat by making the election about him.

This turned out to be a huge miscalculation. It handed the Republicans powerful ammunition just 30 days prior to the election.

In his press conference Wednesday, Obama implied that since two thirds of the electorate didn't vote, he still had a mandate from the 2012 electorate to execute his vision. I disagree. Let's look at who didn't vote. Obama's black base didn't vote. Why? I think his black base is angry with him. They can't bring themselves to vote Republican, so what is the alternative? How has the black community expressed their dissatisfaction in previous elections? They stay home. So Obama's claim that he still has a mandate is hogwash. Everyone is mad, including his base.

The combined shift of the Hispanic vote and the unhappy black community is a real problem for the Democrats. Do you think that the black vote will show up for Hillary? I don't think so. They're mad. They're mad enough to not show up for Obama, even though he told them that he was on the ballot. If the Democrats can't figure out a way to regain the lost Hispanic vote and convince their black base that they need to vote, then 2016 will be another tough year for them.

There will doubtless be more “gridlock” in Washington. Obama is just too arrogant and ideological for anything else. But the chance for dramatic change — something to show America in 2016 — is in Republican hands in many states now. Surely the only counsel now to these Republicans is stay united and be bold.

Is Mr. Smith Truly Going To Washington

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." — Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781

In my last blog, “Will This Election Matter?”, I predicted the high probability that the Republicans would gain control of the United States Senate and the low turnout of the electorate. Both prediction of the low turnout was not too difficult as this is the historical number for mid-term elections. The prediction of control of the Senate was a bit more risky, but most pollsters were predicting this. I was, however, more that a bit surprised at the success of Republicans in gaining control of statehouses. Scott Walker of Wisconsin staved off the third attempt to unseat him. Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, and Arkansas, all blue states, elected Republican governors for a net gain of +3 (Pennsylvania Republican governor lost to his Democrat challenger). Now there are 31 Republican controlled statehouses and 17 occupied by Democrats with 2 races undecided. This was no doubt the largest surprise of the night.

On the Senate and House races the Republicans had a net gain of 7 seats to take control of the Senate 52 to 45 with two races still undecided (Alaska and Louisiana) Alaska will probably go to the Republican Dan Sullivan. With 100% of the precincts reporting Sullivan leads his Democrat opponent Mark Begich 48.96% to 45.34%. In Louisiana Mary Landrieu will face a runoff with her Republican challenger Bill Cassidy next month. The total for the two republicans in the race is 54.72% and Landrieu’s is 42.08%. Louisiana is becoming a Red state it is not to risky to say the Cassidy will win this seat. Also it is doubtful the Democratic Party will pour any money to support a losing candidate. If these two Senate seats are claimed by the Republicans their majority will increase to 54 to 45 with one independent.

For the House of representatives the Republicans picked up 3 seats to increase their majority to 243 to 179. There are still several undecided races but they will probably be split so there will not be much of a difference. This is the largest Republican majority in the House of Representatives since 1946.

So now what comes next? 31 (or 32) statehouses are now occupied by Republicans and 27 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans with 4 states with split control. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Florida, and Virginia (all states that went for Obama in 2014) have Republican controlled statehouses and legislatures. That bodes well for the nation as the states can play a dominant role in the Republic.

Republicans made historic gains in state legislatures in 2010. They held on in many states in 2012, or made up for losses in one state with gains in another — even though Democrats won the national election. And they won even more in 2014. This isn't an accident — it's the result of strategic fundraising from national Republicans, beginning in 2010, aimed at engineering statehouse takeovers. Out-of-state contributions were shuffled to states where they would make a difference, particularly as congressional partisanship and gridlock made policymaking in Washington increasingly unlikely.

And at a time of national gridlock, state legislatures have done an immense amount of legislating. Since 2010, 30 states, most controlled by Republicans, have passed a total of 205 new abortion restrictions. That's more restrictions than were passed in the entire first decade of the 2000s, according to the Guttmacher Institute:

Twenty-two states, 18 with Republican majorities, have passed laws making it more difficult for people to vote.

After the Newtown shootings, most new state laws surrounding guns actually eased restrictions on owning and carrying firearms. Seventy new laws loosening gun control were passed, 49 in states with Republican legislative majorities and Republican governors, compared to three in Democratically controlled states.

Then there was the fiscal experiment in Kansas, where Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and a Republican majority in the legislature slashed income taxes. State revenue came in well below projections and threatened Brownback's re-election — but he won, and has promised to accelerate the tax cuts in the future.

It should be noted that in 2020, state legislatures will redraw congressional district lines. That will mean that the GOP will have an opportunity to carve out districts favorable to their candidates. For those who cry "gerrymandering," I would gently point out that both parties do it and that almost every state's redistricting is subject to judicial review.

Republican wins at the state legislative level underscore just how complete their vanquishing of the Democrats on Tuesday was.

Now that the Senate and House will be under the control of the Republicans it will be time for them to begin lying out an agenda for the next two years. This is a moment when a meaningful change could be made to our nation’s downward trajectory.

When politicians on the Left win, they quickly abandon all man-of-the-people pretensions and reveal their true ideological devotion, which has to do with making democracy safe for activists, abortionists and the NEA.

As for conservatives, the old joke, oft repeated, is sadly applicable: They come to Washington believing it’s a cesspool, but soon discover it’s really a Jacuzzi.

Republicans are noted for, shall we say, losing their reformist edge. The combined influence of well-connected lobbyists, well-financed pressure groups, and well-ensconced party leaders tends to stoke the appetite for higher office and dampen enthusiasm for being tagged a loose cannon by standing on principle.

Whether GOPers can break old habits remains to be seen. But it’s never been more urgent that they do so. This country is in trouble. Serious trouble. And everybody knows it.

There’s a feeling abroad in the land that things are cracking apart. Barack Obama didn’t create the cracks, but the policies, decisions and actions of the last six years have pried them much, much wider.

What’s needed at this moment in history is more than mere tinkering around the edges of policies in place. We must reexamine the philosophical assumptions that have taken over our system of government and come to dominate our public life. We must ask some fundamental questions, like…

What happened to the notion that citizenship is a privilege involving both rights and duties — and for those seeking it, qualifications?

Where are the clear lines of legal jurisdiction and fiscal responsibility that once distinguished the various levels of government and kept power from becoming too concentrated?

When did the concept of civil liberty turn into a license for conduct unrestrained — or, for that matter, a mandate that everyone must accept any behavior, no matter how destructive, all in the name of personal autonomy?

Why is it we can no longer assume the protection of certain basic freedoms of conscience, opinion and expression?

How did the humane desire to help people caught in tough straits become an expectation of unlimited support?

Can they curb the vast influence over our state and local run public education system from Washington?

Will they curb the over regulations from the EPA and the rest of the administrative state.

Those are just a few on the domestic side. Let’s throw in some with a global scope, like…

How can we regain respect in a hostile world that sees us as increasingly irrelevant?

When will we reassert our territorial integrity, affirm our legitimate national interests, and recapture our status as the center of economic and technological leadership?

Can we ever achieve true strategic independence — in terms of both freedom from extreme overseas financial obligation and self-sufficiency in domestic energy resources?

Are there rational plans and realistic methods for beating back the latest waves of totalitarian revival and religious barbarity — which is to say, of securing our children’s freedom and spiritual patrimony?

All hold vast implications for policy development, which means there will be plenty of debate and — let’s hope — honest analysis. But more than that, they demand vision, courage, unity, steadfastness, and no small measure of moral courage.

Are Republicans up to the job?

Do they have the wherewithal to devise logical, comprehensive approaches to addressing our numerous problems? Can they build the necessary party discipline, restrain their individual ambitions, achieve the long-term perspective required for the daunting tasks of restoration and renewal?

Will they be able to craft a coherent message and develop means of communication sufficient to overcome media resistance and rally the people behind them?

Can they hold together solidly enough to oppose a radical administration unfettered by reelection concerns? Will they be confident in withstanding the accusations of “racism,” “misogyny,” “homophobia,” “exploitation,” and all the other contrived charges that have provided life-support to a failed ideology and a corrupt political cabal?

Then, beyond all that, are they prepared to defend their policies and actions in staunch defiance of Hillary’s inevitable onslaught?

Yes, I know this is the GOP we’re talking about — the party that hasn’t been able to save the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.

Many people are deeply disillusioned with the politics of our day. They’ve watched the demolition derby that’s gone on in Washington over the last few decades — since the end of the Reagan era, really — and they’ve concluded that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties.

I understand their feelings, but we now have an opportunity to find out whether their assumption is correct.

According to President Obama and his minions in the media Tuesday was not a reflection on his policies or lack of policy on his part. It was the fault of electorate who did not turn out. Most intelligent people know this is pure spin and balderdash. He will never move from ideological progressive/socialist roots. McConnell and Boehner will have to hold a firm line to get anything past his magic pen. This will require unity and public support. The public support will have to come from a unified message frequently delivered to the American people.

This past Tuesday might have been a turning point. Might have been. Now we shall see.

Will This Election Matter?

"No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." — George Washington, draft of first Inaugural Address, 1789

Much has been said and predicted about and for this upcoming midterm national election. The pundits and pollsters are falling over themselves to toss out predictions as to how many seats in the Senate and House the Republicans will take. The party “strategists” are doing their job of pushing the party’s talking points and spinning their message to potential voters.

The long-awaited midterm elections are but days away, and Republican optimism is beginning to cross the border into giddiness. Last week RedState’s Erick Erickson all but declared the Senate won, despite many close races:

“With the President’s numbers so bad and the GOP’s numbers so good, it makes you wonder what is going on in the state level polling that shows so many races so close. That national polling trickles down to states.

Perhaps there is some over-compensation and over-correction that is, ironically, going to cause a lot of pollsters to repeat the mistakes of 2012. There is no evidence that the voters who vote for Barack Obama are the Democrats’ voters. They are Barack Obama’s voters.

They did not show up for him in 2010 and the hysteria and race baiting the Democrats have stooped to in these final weeks suggests they know these voters will not show up for him in 2014 either.

The end of Barack Obama’s Presidency approaches.”

And at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has been predicting a wave that will finish off the Democrat majority in the Senate for some time. After looking at a round of polling showing GOP fortunes improving in the home stretch, his co-blogger Noah Rothman declared a “universal shift in momentum toward Republican candidates and away from Democrats and the independents who would caucus with them if elected. A late-breaking wave is cresting.”

Erickson, Morrissey, and Rothman aren’t alone. The conservative punditocracy seems almost united in its expectation of a coming Republican Senate, and there are even predictions that the GOP will not just sneak back into power, but will hold a majority with breathing room when the smoke clears.

The GOP currently sits at 45 seats in the Senate, but gains in non-competitive races in West Virginia and Montana — where the Democrats have quite possibly the worst candidate for the U.S. Senate in modern memory — are a given. Despite some buzz earlier in October to the contrary, a Republican pickup in South Dakota now looks more likely than not. And Republicans hold leads in Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Colorado that appear safe enough for cautious optimism. Additionally, Iowa looks like a close victory for the GOP. That lineup would put the party at 53 seats. Then there are potential GOP upsets in North Carolina or New Hampshire, where Democrat incumbents are polling at significantly less than the magic number of 50 percent.

A Republican sweep, the wave election some predict, could carry those last two, push back the Democratic challengers in the red states up for grabs such as Kansas and Georgia, and run the GOP’s total up to 55 seats. And if the number gets that big, then it might even get bigger: Maine’s independent Senator Angus King might note the shifting of the winds and caucus with the Rs rather than the Ds (the Republican governor Paul LePage is now polling at a significant advantage, indicating King might be safer in the new majority in the near future) and it’s not impossible that West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, increasingly alienated from his own party, might decide to flip.

In Colorado, Mark Udall has been dubbed “Mark Uterus” for his incessant reliance on “War on Women” rhetoric against his Republican opponent Cory Gardner. So far a campaign on free contraception has failed to deliver on expectations, particularly when Gardner began to call for birth control to be sold over the counter. Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz earned the disgust of even many in the mainstream media for accusing, at least figuratively, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker of being an abuser of women.

In Louisiana, Democrats are using shadowy union-funded PACs to push black turnout through mailers and door-hangers. In North Carolina and Georgia, the appeal is even more naked — complete with imagery of lynchings and references to the Ferguson riots. A Florida-based, SEIU-funded group is selling bulletproof vests as a fundraiser to support a web ad telling black voters that unless they pull the lever for Democrats the police will shoot their children.

The turnout will be low, probably less than 35% of eligible voters, and the party that can generate the most passion in their supporters will probably win. In some states the election is a walk-away for the Republicans and in other states it’s too close to call. But the trend is towards the Republican Party due to the unpopularity of President Barack Obama. He has been laden with issues and scandals demonstrating his lack of leadership. Issues and scandals such as the; The IRS’s illegal attacking conservative groups, Fast and Furious, the Bengasi debacle, the handling of the Ebola virus, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the aggressions of Russia in the Ukraine, the atrocious performance of the VA, the mass invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern border, and the targeting of reporters of FOX News. Yes, the man who, in 2008 at Mile High Stadium in Denver in front of Greek Columns and 200,000 screaming Germans at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, had the most popularity of and Democratic candidate in decades. Now his popularity ratings are dipping below 40% and the hope and change man is not a welcome guest on the campaign trail of many Democrats.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post:

“Democrats have been running from Barack Obama for some time, but now they’re already beginning to point fingers over the looming Election Day debacle. “This off-year election has become almost entirely a referendum on the president,” said one Democrat consultant. “It’s not just anger at [ObamaCare]. He has become, in my opinion wrongly, the symbol of dysfunction in Washington. That has led to a demoralized Democratic base, energized Republicans and those in the middle have an easy way of venting their frustration, and that is to punish the president’s party.” Another consultant added, “It is not all Obama but a lot of it is.” Part of the problem is that Obama thinks it’s all about Obama. “Make no mistake,” he said, “[my] policies are on the ballot.” And it’s killing Democrats.”

Oh yes this election matters to the politicians but will it really change the direction out Republic is going or stop the slide of governance away from the vision and Constitution of our Founders? I don’t think so. To me the election is synonymous with arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

For the past 100 years the progressive statists have been dragging the Republic away from our cultural, religious, and constitutional roots. The politicians may change, but the masters of the administrative state and academia will remain to carry out their cubicles and classrooms to dictate policy, regulate your lives, tax your earnings, and fill young minds with liberal-progressive clap trap. To change this it will take much more than one election. It may take 5, 10, or 20 elections along with the demise of the academics and statists. It will need a new generation of educated voters steeped in the values of our culture and dedicated to the vision of our Founders to really make a difference and bring our Republic back to the center.

I don’t mean to be a naysayer or negative about this important election, but I am a realists. I have written ad-nauseum about the rise of the administrative state and the power of the statists supported by the liberal progressive agenda along with the corruption of our education system from k12 through the university system. This is a powerful cabal that will be difficult to defeat if we want to return to the roots and visions that made this Republic the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes on culture for the Heritage Foundation:

“There is no sugarcoating it. With each passing year, on most cultural fronts, things have been getting worse. There is coarseness to our society and a shredding of real ties that bind us to one another. Only about half of Americans are currently married, and about half of the children in the U.S. will spend time outside a household with a married mom and dad. Whatever the circumstances, that has an impact on people and culture, and it shows up in indicators from fertility rates to teen drug use. Our brotherly social safety net is fraying, and we now look to government instead, compounding our problems. After all, bureaucracy doesn’t do love as well as civil society does.

The brave new world of family life today, with seemingly endless prospects for future chaos, makes one nostalgic for the days when we were at least agreed on some of the fundamentals for a good, healthy home environment for children and women and men. Our lack of a common vocabulary and understanding of human nature has made public opinion — and now even our lawmaking and courts—susceptible to wild claims about truth and tolerance in spite of social science evidence about marriage and family to the contrary. Devoid of reason, history, and tradition, these claims simply wouldn’t have made any sense a few decades ago.

As recently as a decade or so ago, a sensitive cultural observer might have referred to “broken homes” without the prospect of a politically correct shutdown. That shutdown of serious dialogue about the direction of our society is a hallmark of what has been dubbed an “Insatiable New Intolerance.” As a powerful, thinly veiled intolerance has established its power—throughout the culture: in education, the entertainment industry, medicine, and politics—the outlook can seem grim for anyone holding traditional views of marriage, family, and life.”

Americans have good reason to be proud of our country’s many achievements in science and technology. The U.S. is home to Silicon Valley, the technology capital of the world, and to 16 of the world’s top 20 scientific universities. Many of the essential devices we use every day such as the television, automobile, airplane, internet, personal computer and smartphone were invented by Americans.

The passion for scientific discovery in America goes all the way back to our nation’s founders, many of whom were deeply engrossed in the sciences as well as the politics of their day. In addition to authoring the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson was an excellent mathematician and a prolific inventor. Beginning in 1797, Jefferson served as president of the American Philosophical Society, the country’s leading scientific institution.

When he became president of the United States a few years later, Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to explore the new Louisiana Territory and chart a route to the Pacific Ocean. Before the expedition embarked, Jefferson sent Lewis to Philadelphia for training in medicine and the natural sciences. The president was adamant that Lewis and Clark document every detail of their trip — the people they met, the animals they encountered, the plants they found, and the geology they observed.

The explorers sent many specimens back east to Jefferson, including some live animals (such as a prairie dog and a few magpies). They became the first people to describe a number of plant and animal species for science, including the grizzly bear.

The curiosity of the founding generation of Americans — including such figures as Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and others — shaped America profoundly. The spirit of discovery became one of the nation’s defining characteristics as Americans rushed west into the frontier, then connected the continent through a busy network of steamships, railroads, and telegraphs. The belief that there was a better future ahead — and that American ingenuity was the key to it all — was an important cultural foundation on which many of the accomplishments we see today were built.

Today, the pioneering sense of excitement about the future has all but disappeared, in part because we are doing a poor job of helping the next generation appreciate the great achievements of our past.

Indeed, for two generations now we have failed to teach American history in our schools, and as a result, many students struggle with the very basics. Just 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders and 12 percent of twelfth-graders are at grade-level proficiency in American history, according to the Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress.

A majority of fourth graders don’t know the purpose of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Department of Education data show. Most fourth graders can’t say why the pioneers moved west. And two-thirds don’t understand that westward migration resulted in new states being added to the union.

We must do a better job. If children fail to learn American history, they cannot possibly understand how America became the great country it is today. And more importantly, they won’t be able to help America remain the most pioneering and prosperous nation on earth.

So while this election can be a first step towards returning our Republic to the vision of our Founders it will mean little if we, as a nation, cannot, begin a return to our cultural, religious, and constitutional roots and reverse 100 years of liberal-progressive destruction of these roots. Politicians will follow the will of the people if that will is strong and continuous. Ronald Reagan showed us how to express this will and provide the constitutional leadership this Republic so urgently needs. If we cannot do this than this election is more of a trick than a treat.

What’s Next in Scandal Plagued Washington D.C.?

"If people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution, due process and Rule of Law, then we're going to have some problems here." — Barack Obama

Senior State Department and Diplomatic Security officials may have covered up or stopped investigations of inappropriate or even criminal misconduct by staff, according to an internal memo from the department's Office of the Inspector General.

If Hillary Clinton thought the soft glow of the good press she received while roaming the globe to no great effect during her four years as secretary of state would last until her planned 2016 coronation as president, it’s time to for her to rethink her strategy. Public anger about the lies that were told about the Benghazi terror attack as well as her failure to provide adequate security to diplomats that were placed in harm’s way was bad enough. But the latest State Department scandal linked to her office is the sort of thing that could begin the process by which Clinton’s status as the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee starts to unravel.

As CBS first reported yesterday, investigation into a series of cases involving sexual misconduct by both ambassadors as well as security personnel were called off on the orders of senior State Department officials on Clinton’s watch. Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills gave the order in one case while other top-level officials stopped other probes. The confirmation of the cases in an internal State Department memo shows a pattern of sexual misconduct—including on the part of those charged with protecting Clinton—that is troubling. But the manner in which higher-ups consistently suppressed these embarrassing investigations is even more worrisome. While Clinton is not personally named as the one ordering the cover-ups, the links between the secretary and those committing the bad behavior as well as those shutting down the probes are clear.

The most egregious in a list of potentially explosive stories involves Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium who was accused of routinely ditching his security detail and then soliciting prostitutes, including minors. But Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, ordered the investigation shut down. Gutman was apparently given a stern lecture but otherwise got off without any sanctions and is still serving as America’s envoy in Brussels. According to the State Department report, Gutman’s security detail and staff were well aware of what he was up to.

A leaked internal document obtained by CBS News said staff protecting ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regularly solicited sex workers. The reports also allege a drug ring may have provided narcotics to state department contractors in Iraq. But it is suggested officials may have tried to cover up the misconduct.

According to CBS, a draft copy of a state department inspector general's report alleges eight specific examples of improper behavior by US officials.

Some allegations were suppressed, according to CBS, such as an investigation into an unnamed ambassador who was said to be visiting prostitutes in a public park.

The document cites allegations that the envoy "routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children".

It went on to say that the ambassador's security team and other colleagues "were well aware of the behavior", according to the reports.

CBS reports that attempts to look into the allegations were stopped in their tracks.

According to CBS, the copy of the draft report said: "Hindering such cases calls into question the integrity of the investigative process, can result in counterintelligence vulnerabilities and can allow criminal behavior to continue."

CNN also reports that the inspector general found an attempt to investigate claims that a drug ring near the US embassy in Baghdad was supplying illegal substances to state department security contractors was stopped.

It was also alleged that a state department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" against foreign nationals hired as embassy guards. The same person was accused of similar attacks during previous foreign postings, according to CNN.

Meanwhile, members of Mrs. Clinton's security detail solicited prostitutes on official trips, a problem the leaked report is said to have described as "endemic".

Aurelia Fedenisn, who was an investigator with the state department's inspector general, told CBS: "We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases."

The inspector general's office has reportedly asked external law enforcement experts to look at the way the state department handles complaints of serious misconduct by its senior staff.

Speaking at a press briefing Monday, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said:

"We hold all employees to the highest standards. We take allegations of misconduct seriously and we investigate thoroughly. All cases mentioned in the CBS report were thoroughly investigated or under investigation, and the department continues to take action. Finally, the department has responded to the recommendations in the OIG report regarding the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's of Investigations and counter-intelligence. Diplomatic Security has taken the further step of requesting additional review by outside experience law enforcement officers on top of the OIG inspection so that officers with law enforcement experience can make expert assessments about our current procedures. We take allegations of misconduct seriously and we investigate thoroughly.”

Psaki went on to say the "notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, any case, is preposterous ambassadors would be no exception." Without speaking about specific cases, Psaki described any misconduct as "hardly endemic."

A statement provided to CBS News by the Inspector General's office said:

“OIG does not comment on drafts of reports.

On its own initiative, OIG Office of Investigations has been conducting its own independent review of the allegations made. This is our standard procedure.

We staffed it independently and appropriately and they were people hired specific for this review at the end of 2012. They are on staff. We staffed it with the best people we can find at hand to do the job.

DS does not speak for us.”

The timeline surrounding the allegations places the incidents during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's tenure, opening the possibility that a widening scandal might taint both her record and her possible political aspirations. Clinton has also taken heat for the department's response to the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The memo itself, purportedly written by Ambassador Larry Dinger, describes some of the information as coming from office chatter.

Senior State Department and Diplomatic Security officials may have covered up or stopped investigations of inappropriate or even criminal misconduct by staff, according to an internal memo from the department's Office of the Inspector General.

According to CNN They include:

(1) An active U.S. ambassador "routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children," the memo says. The ambassador's protective detail and others "were well aware of the behavior," the memo asserts. When a diplomatic security officer tried to investigate, undersecretary of state for management Patrick Kennedy allegedly ordered the investigator "not to open a formal investigation."

On Tuesday, CNN obtained a statement from the ambassador, who vigorously denied the allegations, calling them "baseless."

A source close to the investigation of the ambassador told CNN that the ambassador's security detail reported to the inspector general that the ambassador would leave his house at night without notifying the detail. The detail followed the ambassador and saw the ambassador once go to a park that's known for illegal activity, the source told CNN. The detail said they never witnessed the ambassador engage in any sexual activity, the source said.

The ambassador went to Washington and was asked what he was doing and he denied any wrongdoing, the source told CNN. The ambassador explained that sometimes he fights with his wife, needs air and he goes for a walk in the park because he likes it.

Kennedy also issued a statement Tuesday, saying it is his responsibility "to make sure the department and all of our employees — no matter their rank — are held to the highest standard, and I have never once interfered, nor would I condone interfering, in any investigation."

(2) A State Department security official in Beirut allegedly "engaged in sexual assaults" against foreign nationals working as embassy guards. The security official, the Office of the Inspector General says, was also accused of committing "similar assaults during assignments in Baghdad, and possibly Khartoum and Monrovia." The office's memo says that an inspector general's investigator who went to Beirut to try to conduct an investigation was not given enough time to complete the job.

(3) A member of Clinton's security detail allegedly "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries." The inspector general's agent assigned to investigate "concluded" that the "prostitution problem was endemic."

(4) In Iraq, an "underground drug ring" may have been operating near the U.S. Embassy and "supplying" drugs to State Department security contractors, but an agent sent to investigate the allegations was prevented from completing the job.

Also Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has asked his staff to begin an investigation into the allegations, and sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding an explanation.

"The notion that any or all of these cases would not be investigated thoroughly by the Department is unacceptable," Royce wrote in his letter to Kerry.

CNN obtained a draft, dated December 2012, of a report by the inspector general's office evaluating the performance of the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security Special Investigations Division.

The report says that the bureau "lacks a firewall" that would preclude higher-ups from "exercising undue influence in particular cases."

The bureau doesn't have a manual with approved guidelines on how to investigate cases, the report also says. Investigators with the inspector general's office "discovered uncertainty" among state agents about how to conduct thorough investigations, and noted that not going through the proper mechanisms can "ruin" a potential criminal investigation.

The report also calls the department's Criminal Investigations Division "unwieldy" and says that "frequent agent turnover" makes it harder for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to conduct investigations.

The inspector general's office published a February 2013 final report whose key findings are, largely, the same as stated in the December 2012 draft.

The division's current management structure, the report says, does not "foster independence from career pressures and creates significant potential for undue influence, favoritism, and potential retribution.

The implication of the shutting down of an investigation into Gutman’s behavior is clear. Senior people at the State Department, including those who report to Clinton, were obviously under the impression that a scandal involving in a major Obama giver and appointee would be political poison for the president during an election year.

The same applies to the fact that similar investigations into Clinton’s personal security detail were also shut down. Apparently those tasked with protecting the secretary were believed to have hired prostitutes during her trips to Russia and Colombia. The practice was said to be endemic and going on in the same hotel where the secretary stayed.

You don’t have to be a CIA spook or John le Carre to understand the implications of such misconduct in terms of security breaches and possible blackmail by foreign intelligence agencies. Yet none of those involved got anything more than a slap on the wrist.

In yet another case, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff and personal enforcer, intervened directly in order to shut down an investigation into possible misconduct by Brett McGurk, Clinton’s choice to be ambassador to Iraq.

According to a report in New York Magazine:

“Barack Obama's choice for the next ambassador to Iraq has bailed on the confirmation process rather than continue to face questions about his romantic, and sometimes lewd, correspondence with a Wall Street Journal reporter. Brett McGurk, a former national security aide to George W. Bush, got to know the Journal's Gina Chon, now his wife, while they were working in Baghdad (and he was married to someone else). The online leak of their e-mails, which show the pair flirting about and around official business, already resulted in Chon's resignation and has now sunk McGurk too, despite White House insistence yesterday that, "We've made this nomination and we think he will ably serve as ambassador." Scratch that.

Iraq urgently needs an ambassador," McGurk wrote in a letter to Obama and Hillary Clinton today, the Times reports. "The country is in the midst of a political crisis and our mission is undergoing rapid transformation." A vote on his nomination was planned for tomorrow, but may have been delayed due to rising Republican discomfort with McGurk's "poor judgment" in the e-mail fracas. Thanks to his Bush affiliation, the Times notes, Democrats weren't exactly prepared to go to bat for him.”

“I am angered and saddened by the baseless allegations that have appeared in the press and to watch the four years I have proudly served in Belgium smeared is devastating,”Gutman told the Daily Mail. “I live on a beautiful park in Brussels that you walk through to get to many locations and at no point have I ever engaged in any improper activity.”

The Mail indicates that the Ambassador is “a top donor to President Obama, having raised a total of $775,000 for his 2008 campaign and inauguration committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A native New Yorker and son of a Holocaust survivor, he has been married to his wife, Michelle Loewinger, since 1981.”

The British newspaper also notes that “a damning internal memo” from the State Department implicates “Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordering the investigation closed shortly after it was opened”.

While American diplomatic personnel enjoy immunity on foreign soil, they can be prosecuted in U.S. courts for having intercourse with minors.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today — PROTECT — Act of 2003 deems it a federal offense for Americans to engage in such an activity abroad. If convicted of this, one can face serious fines and up to thirty years in prison.

Prior to his ambassadorship, Gutman was a clerk for powerful federal judges as well as a lobbyist and a sought-after attorney. He is not known to have done any work in the diplomatic sector.

In 2011, Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary called the man “a)Washington “super lawyer” who bought his title of ambassador with massive contributions to President Obama’s campaign.”

Only time will tell if Gutman is actually guilty. What does seem apparent, though, is that he did not become an ambassador due to merit in the field of foreign affairs.

Taken in total, the reports present a picture of a Clinton State Department lacking in accountability and mired in a culture of cronyism in which anyone connected to either Clinton or President Obama had a permanent “get out of jail free” card. Like Benghazi and other administration scandals in which President Obama’s defenders are forced to claim he knew nothing about misconduct in order to preserve him from accusations of involvement, Clinton must now use the same excuse. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that if she did not take part in the ordering of these cover-ups, she was completely out of touch with what was happening under her nose.

Hillary Clinton’s approval rating has fallen 12 points in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, especially since some Americans still hold her responsible for the inadequate security in Libya during the September 11, 2012 attack. Now, additional scandals, which may have been covered up by the State Department under Hillary’s watch, could further threaten her approval rating. These scandals, if given enough traction by the media, could possibly jeopardize Hillary’s chances to run for president. It is therefore in the media’s best interest to keep their beloved political candidate away from controversy, and distance the department’s cover-up from her leadership.

Two news accounts do so. CBS News’ groundbreaking story mentions Hillary only once. NBC News’ story mentions Hillary only once, as well.

“CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off,” reports CBS news. “The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples” (emphasis added).

So, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, may have covered up eight different investigations—if not more. These investigations include allegations of prostitution, pedophilia by an ambassador, sexual assault, and drug purchases.

Bloomberg reports that Hillary’s approval rating was at an all-time high in December, at 70 percent. Would it have remained as high had the Inspector General’s report come out with the eight cited cases? It is unlikely.

“Since leaving the state department, Clinton has mostly kept a low profile, other than delivering a few public speeches and releasing a video in March in which for the first time she announced support for same-sex marriage,” reported John McCormick for Bloomberg News. “Even so, she’s done just enough in the political arena to keep potential donors and supporters intrigued by the historic potential of backing a candidate who could become the first woman president.”

According to the recent Bloomberg poll, “47 percent said they disapprove of how Clinton handled the situation in Benghazi, while roughly a third — 34 percent — said they approve.” Bloomberg credits Benghazi as the reason Clinton’s favorability dropped 12 percentage points since last December.

It could have been more, as the recent leak by former State Department investigator Aurelia Fedenisn demonstrates.

The scandal reaches up to Hillary’s right-hand man Patrick Kennedy, at the very least, and involves her own guards. It is no surprise, then, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy interceded on the ambassador’s behalf. “Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo,” reported the Post.

In addition, “At least seven agents in Clinton’s security detail hired prostitutes while traveling with her in various countries, including Russia and Colombia.

Also, the Special Investigations Division was unable to interview Brett McGurk, President Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Iraq, because long-time Clinton loyalist Cheryl Mills “interceded,” according to the memo. Mills has been working for the Clintons “on and off” since 1992 and was the general counsel and chief of staff to Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi attack, reported The Washington Free Beacon, which called Mills “The Whistleblower Blocker.”

For more than a decade, Mills has been a Clinton cover-up expert, specializing in subverting investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Whether in the Bill Clinton White House or the Hillary Clinton State Department, Mills has served as something of a “double agent” — working on the taxpayers’ tab while seeming to spend all her time defending the personal fortunes of the Clintons. If you have ever watched the ABC TV show “Scandal” Olivia Pope fits the perfect image of Cheryl Mills.

Judicial Watch first encountered Mills’ double agent status in 2000, when, as Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, she helped orchestrate the cover-up of a major scandal, often referred to as “Email-gate.” During the course of litigation against the Clinton White House — which pilfered the private FBI files of former Reagan and Bush staffers — Judicial Watch uncovered more than 1.8 million email communications the Clinton administration had withheld from our attorneys, federal investigators, and members of Congress.

When Mills testified on the matter, she admitted that she was aware of the missing White House emails, and that she just “assumed” someone else was handling the matter. But, in 2008, when Email-gate was finally brought before Judge Royce C. Lamberth, he termed Mills’ participation in the cover-up “loathsome.” And he further stated that she was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco — Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”

But, even then, Mills was not new to scandals involving White House communications records. In the early 1990s, she was also one of three Clinton White House lawyers who recommended Bill Clinton release the private government records of Kathleen Willey, who had accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the White House. The release of the information, which included presidential records of communications from Willey to Clinton, were an attempt to discredit the Clinton accuser and help cover up Clinton’s egregious behavior. Mills was also referred to the Clinton Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for her alleged obstruction and perjury in yet another congressional investigation — this one into an illegal taxpayer-funded White House database of Clinton donors. Rather than be prosecuted, Mills gained headlines defending the indefensible as Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense lawyer.

Now, Mills is at it again. According to Gregory Hicks’ testimony before a congressional committee, it was Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, who instructed him to try to derail the congressional investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack by refusing to speak to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Here’s a partial transcript of the testimony:

“Hicks: I was instructed not to allow the RSO [Regional Security Officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): So the people at State told you, “Don’t talk to the guy who is coming to investigate”?

Hicks: Yes, sir.”

Let’s be clear here. Rep. Chaffetz was officially acting on behalf of the United States Congress. He was attempting to get to the bottom of a major terrorist attack that left four Americans dead, including the Ambassador to Libya. And Mills, clearly in her full cover-up mode for Hillary Clinton, ordered her subordinates to stonewall Congress.

If the rule of law meant anything in this morally debauched city, such conduct would immediately result in a criminal investigation. And, who knows, it still may. If so, it will be a clear-cut case of justice delayed — because Cheryl Mills, cover-up expert extraordinaire, has a long track record of using her official government positions to obstruct lawful investigations into Bill and Hillary’s nefarious activities.

After all, we have Hillary’s guards soliciting prostitutes, her right-hand man overlooking alleged pedophilia, and a long-time Clinton loyalist intervening in Iraq. Shouldn’t this put the nail in the coffin for a Clinton presidency, or will the media cover for her as it has the Obama Administration?

No doubt, Clinton’s apologists will use the same tactic as these scandals unravel. But if Mrs. Clinton is truly looking ahead to 2016, she might consider that a bumper sticker that reads “Incompetent Rather Than Corrupt” does not make for an appealing campaign slogan.