Glenn Reynolds wrote an April 19 column at USA Today, exploring the motivation that citizens have for following the law.
There are different reasons for choosing to obey or disobey the law. One reason for following the law is fear of consequences: If you break the law, you could be sent to jail, fined, or even killed…
But a society in which abiding the law is based purely on consequences is likely to be an ugly one. Laws will be broken willy-nilly, while the government will, to the best of its ability, crack down on people because consequences are the only motivator. The end result is likely to be anarchy, tyranny or an ugly combination of the worst features of both.
It's better, of course, if people follow the law because they want to. In a society in which people are generally law-abiding, the law enforcement presence can be light, and people can be reasonably confident that their fellow citizens are honest…
It's much better to live in a society in which the laws are just, and in which people follow them as much out of moral obligation as fear of consequences. But such a society requires a degree of self-discipline and self-restraint on the part of its members, and especially of its leaders. Does our political class possess these traits? If not, how long can we expect the rest of society to?(the emphasis is mine)
Mr. Reynolds wrote the article in reaction to calls for President Obama to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court at the points where they inhibited his vision for the country, but perhaps his lessons would be better applied in the light of the most recent Clinton scandal.
The latest is rooted in a book by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer's upcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
I have not read this book (it's not out yet), and I have no plans to read this book. Someday, when the Clintons have agreed that they're too old to run for public office, someone will doubtless write ONE book about ALL the Clinton scandals. When they do, maybe I'll take the year off and give that one a read.
Thankfully, and wisely, the known conservative author sent his book and research to universally respected news outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post which apparently found it credible enough to base their own reports off of.
The result has been the news cycle of the past few days.
A Business Insiderpiece condenses the New York Times' reportand captures the spirit of the thing best.
· According to The Times, Uranium One's involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev's bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
· Soon after, Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan's state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton's foundation.
· After the legality of the Kazakhstan deal was called into question, Uranium One asked the American embassy in Kazakhstan for help. Uranium One's executive vice president copied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a cable saying he wanted an official written confirmation that the company's licenses in Kazakhstan were still valid, according to The Times. Soon after, the embassy's energy officer met with Kazakh officials.
· In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government. Rosatom also said that after that, the agency "did not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private," The Times noted in a timeline of the events.
· Investors with ties to Uranium One and UrAsia donated millions to the foundation in 2010 and 2011. These donations were disclosed. In addition to this, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month that the Russians closed the deal for the majority stake in Uranium One. The speaking fee was one of Clinton's highest, according to The Times.
· The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state, were charged with reviewing the deal that would give Rosatom a majority stake because uranium is "considered a strategic asset with implications for national security," according to The Times.
· The concern was American dependence on foreign uranium. The Times notes that while the US "gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves."
· Four members of Congress signed a letter expressing concern over the deal, and two others drafted legislation to kill it. One senator contended that the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity" as well as "a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission made assurances that the US uranium would be preserved for domestic use regardless of the deal.
· Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, "including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One," The Times notes.
· After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves."
· A source with knowledge of the Clintons' fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: "Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?"
· Despite claims by Russia that the country didn't intend to increase its stake in Uranium One or take the company private, ARMZ — the subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency — took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange in January 2013.
So, the bottom line is, our former Secretary of State and former president seem to be suspiciously involved in transferring ownership of 20% of our nation's much needed uranium into the hands of our… well, let's just say they're not our best friends.
As liberal columnist Jonathan Chait points out, "the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy."
There's no real reason to assume the best case scenario, but let's do so for a moment, and let's go back to Glenn Reynold's column that I referenced at the beginning.
Such a society[in which the laws are just, and in which people follow them as much out of moral obligation as fear of consequences] requires a degree of self-discipline and self-restraint on the part of its members, and especially of its leaders. Does our political class possess these traits? If not, how long can we expect the rest of society to?
If we assume the worst case scenario, we definitely don't want a power-hungry traitor as president; if we assume the best, do we even want a president with an unmatched record – almost a legend – of being, "disorganized and greedy?"
Let us hope that in 2016, America says 'no.'
To support efforts please click here or mail your gift to American Decency Association (ADA), PO Box 202, Fremont, MI 49412.
American Decency Association is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.
photo credit: Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington DC via photopin (license)
Call us:
231-924-4050Email us:
info@americandecency.orgWrite us:
American Decency AssociationCopyright 2024 American Decency
