Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

It's Making Connections Between Happiness & Moral Duty Thing

Dear America,

and Moral Duty
are inseparably connected."
George Washington

isn't it though.

When will we ever learn, right?

This word to the wise, via George, was included within an academic snapshot of the last year -- capturing one's favorite lines and attaching a personal photo completing the sentiment, juxtaposing a quick visual emphasis -- simply titled, "50 Lines to Live By."  It encapsulates a bevy of American classics in literature, and for all intents and purposes, the last 250 years in U.S. History.  It took my girl weeks to complete, if not the entire school year to make.

But having just returned from Kinkos/FedEx to print the thing -- fifty two bucks later, she is holding her own masterpiece, certainly worthy of every bit of an A-plus.  And, boy, is she happy about it.

Oh the joy and value of making the immediate connection between creating our own happiness by virtue of follow through -- sincerely taking all the appropriate steps before that which we generally refer to as The Goal is realized.    It takes time to see it, feel it, and fully enjoy; but like a peach ripening upon a tree, we create good from good, light from light, masterminding ones own happiness in due time.  And suddenly, motherhood doesn't seem all that hard; oh the joy in watching our babies flourish, no?

Note that George is not just saying 'happiness' and 'moral duty' are connected -- no -- they are INSEPARABLY connected.  How strong of a message is that?   It's kinda like "unalienable rights," right?   It's not just a right -- they are UNALIENABLE rights.

The thing is -- the lesson is just not the same when being told by parable or novel, Constitution or Declaration.  In order for the full dynamic to take hold and make an impression upon us, as individuals, the 'moral of the story' must originate organically and intrinsically rooted from within, and allowing for all the hard work... the toil, the effort, the inseparable connection between cause and effect... to come into it's own.

It's the pure joy that only comes after fifty tries, or by the doing something right the first time.  It's the good that surely comes after doing something good... really, really good.  Oh the satisfaction.

And it certainly can't come out of the halls of injustice, fraud, untruths, redirection, cover-up, controversial targeting, gun running, and generally making a mockery of the law.

It's sad to see this administration struggle with all the scandals; but the irony slaps us silly, doesn't it?  "A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself," isn't that right, James Madison... The founding father who just so happens to be the author of Federalist Paper 41 -- and entry number 38 in my girl's "50 Lines."  

When we do the work, it shows.

When we tell the truth, it shows.

When we do good, it shows.

When we make an effort, it shows.

When we lead by example and not by behind, it shows.

When we "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," it not only shows, it's the cornerstone of our American Life.  It's also entry number 44 in my girl's "50 Lines."

And to make a life that truly works, for one and for all, time and time again, it doesn't get any more complicated.

This is a day to take in the bounty at our fingertips and at our service.  The Pursuit of Happiness is never ceasing, always a moral duty to ourselves and something we should welcome with an unwavering sense of purpose.  Have no fear --  confirmation is upon us; as elementary as it may sound, the great duty and responsibility is rewarded ten-fold and fifty pages later. 

Oh how good it feels to witness the beauty of the Divine in motion.

Make it a Good Day, G


Thursday, May 23, 2013

It's About Working Twice as Hard as Anyone Else Thing

Dear America,

this morning little old g thing is disturbed by the general messaging going around...it's about the blur of worlds...of spin, of re-direction; it's about taking something untrue and watching it take on a life of it's own, taking something true and turning it into 'there's no there there' -- or taking something true and not saying anything at all, as in 'on the advice of council...'.

I marvel at the dynamic and cringe at the reality.

It's been days since the commencement -- but in the light of this new day, the lingering ire prompts a comment or two before it's full and obligatory release.  

And just what, pray tell, has me all tied into knots?  A moment when the president said this:

"...as an African American
you have to work twice as hard
as anyone else if you want to get by."

And basically moving on to make the point, a Morehouse graduate is no exception to the rule.

The thing is -- for this president to stoop to such a tired and worn belief system in front of the best of the best within the African-American community, it surely must be a crime against itself.   While the Left loves to remind us -- whether it's involving political campaigns or purchasing groceries -- demographics across America have changed, watching a thirty second Pepsi commercial proves it so.  So in this new day and age, Mr. President -- considering the office you keep and all -- I do believe times dictate an edit, like yesterday.  But more than that -- wouldn't it be more true to say what is true for you, Morehouse, is true for all of us? 

True story coming up, Mr. President:  According to the annals of generations gone by, when my papa brought home an "A" his mama told him 'why isn't it an "A+" son'?   We all heard it, all the time; needless to say, it became a family lesson, of sorts, and likewise became an teachable moment passed on to me, and so on and so on.  Maybe.    Seems over time and through the altering of norms and parenting practices, using a sliding scale with loving discretion becoming widely more acceptable  -- keeping it to a case by case basis, that is -- a simple A became okay.   [Translation: we softened up a wee bit and went the other way!]

And yet -- I can't help myself.  I hear you say what you said to Morehouse and my head begins to spin, wondering, hmmmm, something's not quite right....

If what you say -- as an "African-America you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by" be true and a perfectly reasonable argument... I do believe the jury is still out.  But hypothetically, let's run with it anyway.  So how is it that YOU --

  • are totally unaccounted for during the night of the Benghazi attacks?  As you were sleeping, you, decidedly, are so absent from your duties, the administration was forced to mastermind a total lie to cover for you...developing a lie so big, you had to keep it up for weeks and nearly to this day... beginning with the botched, edited, talking points delivered by the  US Ambassador Susan Rice and continuing with you before the General Assembly at the United Nations delivering a full blown scandal.  Is this working twice as hard as anyone else?  Letting our security slip over months leading up to the attack, commanding a 'stand down' before retiring for the night leading to an horrific outcome of 4 Americans dead, and disseminating a lie to cover up the truth?
Knowing me and watching you -- I would have worked twice as hard as you that night.  I would have never gone to bed.  I would have showed up somewhere all night long if that's what it took.

  • are totally unaware of the IRS targeting of conservatives until it hit the news cycle?   When, in fact, your people [administration] are all over this little tit for tat targeting of  predominately 'white, middle aged, conservative, patriotic, tea party patriots.'  [Actions being not only illegal, but clearly smacks of racism, too]  From the top of the IRS on down, the message -- whether articulated aloud or not -- allowed for a sweeping rule of radicals run amuck to attack the opposition.  [Just go back to read G all last week, it will be good 'n plenty for you...]   Is this working twice as hard as anyone else to monitor such a thing?

And yet -- there is a there, there with a trail far and wide to follow -- see here,   and here:  "it really is inconceivable he wouldn't have known",  and for an encore: "let's give her an upgrade and a pay raise here.

"Why was the culture such, under your watch, that an employee felt comfortable targeting conservative groups? Did you investigate that?"

Wish that question was directed to the president.  It wasn't; it was Rep. Trey Gowdy speaking to Douglas Schulman, former chief of IRS, wondering why he didn't do anything to stop "the insidious practice" of targeting conservatives when he very well knew it was happening under his watch -- choosing to mislead Congress for a year and well after the election of 2012.   For full grilling, go here.
The White House knew -- but you couldn't know, according to the people surrounding you and protecting you; oddly, protecting you by withholding information from you.   See here.

While that Lois -- the one taking "the fifth" yesterday -- oh come to find out -- she has a history of targeting conservatives, mainly the Christian Coalition.  And thank you, Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard!   [And can someone, anyone, really take the fifth after that same someone, anyone, voluntarily rendering themselves available for cross-examination and further questioning by declaring innocence, having done nothing wrong?]
BUT back to the guy who has to work twice as hard as anyone else  -- not because of the content of his character but for the color of his skin, according to the guy, himself.   How is it then that YOU --

  • are totally unaware of your Department of Justice illegally spying upon the AP Service?  Per your talking head, Jay Carney: "As I said yesterday, we have no knowledge other than press reports of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone numbers of the Associated Press."  Is this working twice as hard as anyone else?  Do you even know what goes on under your watch?   What purpose are the presidential daily briefings for  -- if not to make you totally aware of everything going on under your watch -- foreign and domestic?
But while we're at it -- your Attorney General, Eric Holder, who also happens to be an African-American -- said he didn't know either. [I only bring that up -- his color -- because YOU brought it up; clearly, you made the observation, YOU made it fair game for cross examination, if nothing else, no?]   But how is it even possible -- leaving the signing off of a subpoena for phone records to a deputy, maybe, I really don't know?   Is this working twice as hard as anyone else, too? 
Oh "Others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by" Obama has it all figured out, doesn't he?  Aiming to take our attention away from the truth...

He has to work twice as hard as anyone else to cover for not working twice as hard in the first place. 

The irony is rich, isn't it?

But under further scrutiny, doesn't all of this simply explain what President Obama really means by "we are five days away from fundamental transformation"?  Everyone loves to call him a smart man, right?  Wouldn't this mean he knows exactly what he is doing, and more like he is working twice as hard as anyone else being the community organizer with a legacy of Marxism in the family midst?

Alinsky Rule #13: "Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Alinsky Rule #5:  "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

"Others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by. [Benghazi, IRS, AP, and FOX News ]...But the middle class will always be my number-one focus, period. Your jobs, your families, your communities -- that’s why I ran for President. That’s what drives me every day as I step into the Oval Office.  That’s what I’m going to keep fighting for over the next four years." (May 17, 2013)  [Thank you Real Clear Politics for backup.]

Oh yes, every fleeting issue -- the ludicrousness of it all, indeed.

This is what Obama --  courtesy of Saul Alinsky, his mentor -- really thinks about the Middle Class:

"The middle classes are numb, bewildered, scared into silence.  They don't know what, if anything, they can do.  This is the job for today's radical -- to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight...

So you return to the suburban scene of your middle class with its variety of organizations from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches, and clubs.  The job is to search out the leaders in these various activities, identify their major issues, finds areas of common agreement, and excite their imagination with tactics that can introduce drama and adventure into the tedium of middle-class life...

Start with them easy.  Don't scare them off.  The opposition's reactions will provide the "education" or radicalization of the middle class.  It does every time." (from Rules For Radicals,  1971)

and so on and so on.

But what do we get from our president?   I don't know; I didn't know until you all knew; that happened under Bush; talking points came from the Intelligence Community; I don't know; only stylistic changes were made, non-substantive;  I don't know; I will not rest until justice is done; we will get to the bottom of this; if this is true; if this really occurred; justice will be served; I don't know; it wasn't me, it was my deputy; I don't know anything about it...Oh -- and you over there -- AP, IRS, CIA, State Department, Treasury Department, anyone, anyone -- trust your lips are sealed...wink wink.

And this, my friends, is what working twice as hard as anyone else looks like.

Oh lookie there, there, my times up; must head out to my other job (just aiming to work twice as hard as anyone else).

Make it a Good Day, G


Tuesday, May 21, 2013

It's Just a Day for Small Revelations Thing

Dear America,

we begin another week with devastation at our feet; the sheer might, the magnificent path of terror, reveals how truly vulnerable we are to mother nature.

by the end of the day, as America watched first responders pull children from the rubble, all the rest of us could really do was pray for Moore.   Moore, Oklahoma.

Just how does Moore -- a population of roughly 55,000 --  recover when left with nearly nothing remotely close to a town, a community, a village with stores, and schools, and restaurants, and everything else we can't live without?

It is in this moment that little old g thing returns to a message from Sunday's Joel Osteen.  Osteen devoted the morning sermon to holding the vision -- that nothing good comes from a defeatist attitude.  But more than that, we must remain diligent, and vigilant, playing an active role in the making of our goals, large or small, come to life.  But even more than that, we must anchor this vigilance in faith, trusting in the Divine Providence lighting the way, feeding our soul, sustaining our every move with the proper mix of humility, grace, gratitude, and spirit of transcendence and perseverance.

But even more than all that, Osteen recommended that we literally hold the vision in our hands, see it, feel it, give life to it -- cut out a picture of that new body and hang it on the fridge, make a collage of the family homestead of our dreams.  He impressed upon us the pure necessity of instilling the impression mechanism deep within our being like planting a seed; that by placing this deep, spiritually incarnate, motivating, enduring through thick and thin lasting impression, we basically make known to the unknown: this is what we want for ourselves, for our family, for our community, for our country.

Much like the quote of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:

 "Whatever you do,
or dream you can,
begin it.
Boldness has genius
and power
and magic in it."


Strikingly, Osteen reminded us that 'anything that is seen is temporary, subject to change'  -- and instantly, Moore becomes a rather poignant, horrific example.  But to better understand the context and intention -- Osteen included this thought to convince us that we can change our circumstances, our experiences, our lives for the better.   Life in the natural can not only lean upon the Unseen -- life in the natural, as a matter of record,  is dependent upon It.

Sometime during the message, little g scribbled on her notepad, Proverbs 29:18.  So returning to The Good Book this morning, this is how it reads:

 "Where there is no revelation,
the people cast off restraint;
 but blessed is he who keeps the law."

oh but G, where are going with all this, huh?

duly noted.

Getting there.

Patience is a virtue, you know...

I got to hear Glenn Beck for about fifteen minutes this morning as I was taking my girl to school.  In that fifteen, Beck was relaying the twitter brigade out in full force throughout the night just as he was traveling to the epicenter of disaster with his crew.  Let's just say, the comments were of the Unkind kind, poking fun at the Bible belt being thoroughly belted with God's wrath.

And Beck was like, geeze, what the $%&@ --- is this where we are at?  Really?

Which forced G to return to Proverbs for back up --

"Many seek an audience
with a ruler,
but it is from the Lord
that man gets justice."
Proverbs 29:26

"Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield
to those who take refuge in him. 
Do not add to his words,
 or he will rebuke you and
 prove you a liar."
Proverbs 30:5

We are clearly at an age in America, where God is being replaced, rebuked even.

No longer are we a nation living Under God, but a nation mocking those who believe in God, and self-righteously ridiculing the religious lot holding up the middle of America. 

While that's not all -- what began with maybe the very moment we took a moment of silence for prayer out of public schools has evolved into an all out assault against religion -- specifically, the Judeo-Christian foundation this nation was made.

  • Prayer beginning government meetings are being challenged in court.  See here.  Which is funny, considering anyone in the town can step up to offer the day's prayer -- how can the town help it if those who step up happen to shape the prayer following the teachings of Christianity?   It's called the "free exercise thereof,"  in motion!   Hello!

  • Religious beliefs have been ambushed and thoroughly trampled upon by the latest entitlement program known as Obamacare.

  • President Obama simply leaves out thanking God during his weekly address  -- the week of Thanksgiving, of all things.  Upon Inauguration Day, the invocation for Obama leaves out "under God,"  see here.  While the recognition of being fully "endowed by our Creator" is left out all the time nowadays -- no need for back up there, just pay attention and listen once in awhile.
Our humanity is showing in Oklahoma, and everywhere.

Alarms are blaring, people.  

Radical change is transforming the way we think, the way we act, the way we respond by the root.

[Another perfect example of this -- is the targeting of Conservative Groups in the Seen.  The silencing of opposition in the press, being the second.]

Whether it is the Great Progressives of the Early 20th Century, the Great Depression, the Great Devastation of Hurricane Katrina, Sandy or the tornadoes of Oklahoma shattering the earth's record with 200 mile/hour winds, or the Great Recession of today  --- "where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law."  Dare I say, our spiritual lives are experiencing a great, tumultuous, recess.

Is there a correlation to all the madness?  Is there a real, life-sustaining connection between the Seen and the Unseen?  Just a girl says there Is.

Good People require a Good Dose of God -- so stop making fun of us! 
And surely as it is written in the words "free exercise thereof" --  we may practice as we please, as we see fit, as we choose, or not at all.  But as a whole --  the collective, as the Left loves to call it --  it is our duty as a people to leave the impression upon every generation that there is a God and Divine Providence still rules, or we can continue to take our chances.  [It's kinda like  Powerball, only kicked up a notch.]

Make it a Good Day, G


Friday, May 17, 2013

It's a Lightening Quick Response on a Day in the Life of America Thing

Dear America,

so yesterday's incident in the Rose Garden was quite something.

considering the breadth and depth of issues covered within a reasonably short period of time -- in the rain, no less -- my intent this morning is simply to hone in on the words of the president, coming towards the end of his prepared remarks... before the Prime Minister of Turkey spoke to the crowd...and long before questions from the press...


because I marvel at the audacity of it all.

Now without further adieu, to the president [note: G taking creative liberty to color my favorite snippets]:

So, again, Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you for being here and for being such a strong ally and partner in the region and around the world. I know that Michelle appreciates the opportunity to host Mrs. Erdoğan and your two wonderful daughters this morning. I'm looking forward to our dinner tonight. And, as always, among the topics where I appreciate your advice is close to our hearts, and that's how to raise our daughters well. You're a little ahead of me in terms of their ages.

With the Prime Minister's permission, I want to make one other point. There's been intense discussion in Congress lately around the attacks in Benghazi. We lost four brave Americans, patriots who accepted the risks that come with service because they know that their contributions are vital to our national interests and national security.

I am intent on making sure that we do everything we can to prevent another tragedy like this from happening. But that means we owe it to them and all who serve to do everything in our power to protect our personnel serving overseas. That's why, at my direction, we've been taking a series of steps that were recommended by the review board after the incident. We're continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts, including the size and nature of our presence; improving training for those headed to dangerous posts; increasing intelligence and warning capabilities. And I've directed the Defense Department to ensure that our military can respond lightning quick in times of crisis.

But we're not going to be able to do this alone. We're going to need Congress as a partner. So I've been in discussions, and my team has been in discussions, with both Democrats and Republicans, and I'm calling on Congress to work with us to support and fully fund our budget request to improve the security of our embassies around the world. We also need Congress to work with us to provide the resources and new authorities so we can fully implement all of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board. And we're going to need Congress's help in terms of increasing the number of our Marine Corps Guard who protect our embassies.

So I want to say to members of Congress in both parties, we need to come together and truly honor the sacrifice of those four courageous Americans and better secure our diplomatic posts around the world. And I should add, by the way, that we're getting some help from the Turkish government on some of these issues. That's how we learn the lessons of Benghazi. That's how we can keep faith with the men and women who we send overseas to represent America. And that's what I will stay focused on as Commander-in-Chief.

So with that, Mr. Prime Minister, welcome to the United States. I'm sorry the weather is not fully cooperating with our lovely Rose Garden press conference, but I think we'll be okay.


You may link here, for full transcript on the day.


Let's begin with the words, "as Commander-in-Chief," shall we?

As "Commander-in-Chief" --  my first inclination is to hammer you until you respond with the truth As To where you were the night of September 11, 2012; because AS it stands, an horrific rumor to the effect, you were sound asleep, has been broadcasted worldwide.   As "Commander-in-Chief" you laid down the law before retiring for the evening -- citing no military action -- leaving personnel under the "Commander-in-Chief" in charge.

Given what we know now -- the "Commander-in-Chief" was no there, there.

You can call in the marines to cover your head (and naturally, the ass that comes with) while standing  in the rain with the Prime Minister of Turkey -- but sending in the reinforcements for immediate help in Benghazi, that would be a no.  TO send military and security reinforcements leading up to the terrorist attack -- per direct requests by boots on the ground in Libya --  that would be a no.  There is no there, there, we got your back in a no man left behind kind of way, is there.  Is there, Mr. President?

And this part -- compiling the "lost four brave Americans" of Benghazi as  "patriots who accepted the risks that come with service."    Wow.  The "fog of war" is making you sound more twisted on Benghazi as time goes by -- what the &$*% is that?  Oh, how quickly you move through disbelief, anger, shock and awe and somehow arrive at 'oh well, they knew what they signed up for' stage.  That is just amazing.  And not to be outdone or overlooked the great irony before us -- that you, yourself, have never accepted the risks that come with military service and yet there, there, you are -- "Commander-in-Chief" standing in the rain with one of the nation's finest Marine coming to the immediate aid of your head on a moment's notice.

And then, can't help but notice you still can't say it, can you?

After all we have been through -- after all the bickering of the debates back and forth -- after so much "ado about nothing"  -- you STILL can't call it what it really is.

It was a terrorist attack at the hands of Islamic Extremists!

It's NOT your every day "tragedy;" and my God, man -- "the incident"?  

An incident might look more like a shoe being thrown to the head of the Leader of the Free World -- but an all out terrorist attack, planned for the anniversary of September 11th, that killed four Americans - including the first Ambassador in decades, and carried out by Islamic Extremists that have a real name attached -- Ansar al-Sharia?  Um that is no longer categorized as an "incident."  That, Mr. President and "Commander-in-Chief" is called an Act of War.

The manufacture of a lie outside of the realm of any truth was to save your sorry re-election.  And along those lines, the IRS deliberately withheld the information until after the election...but we quickly digress.

Suffice it to day, every thing, thing to date as been a travesty of law and duty and honor and truth.   And for what?

So that eight months down the road, after months of dodging the truth like a soldier going AWOL, after the night of the non-event, the incident itself when the "Commander-in-Chief" was no where, where to be found, after getting his forty winks before showing up for a campaign extravaganza in Vegas without a care in the world -- this is where we are at? ...."I've directed the Defense Department to ensure that our military can respond lightning quick in times of crisis."

Yeah, that should do it. 

But more important -- are you delusional?  Like is that "lightning quick response" supposed to be any different than where we were eight months ago?

Eight years ago, eight months ago, eight days ago, eight minutes ago -- our Defense Department assures us that our military IS the best in the world and can respond "lightening quick in time of crisis." It's what they do.

Hold up -- allow me to be more clear -- this "preparedness" factor is nothing new; it's not some kind of innovation out of the new age of science and math; it's certainly not some kind of newly charged policy, an Obama Doctrine generated from the desk of the "Commander-in-Chief" out of the blue.   

Oh the audacity.

And then there, there is this...

How can you stand in the rain and claim to be the "commander" of anything when you, in fact, deny knowing everything until it hits the New York Times?

Are you really telling us that you are that irrelevant to the running of this country at this present time?  Seriously?  Is that where you want to settle in and bunker down and sit as the "Commander-in-Chief"?  You coward.

Good luck with that --- guess it's just the risk you take.
Oooh, and almost forgot, hope that dinner chatting about your girls was really yummy [nice pull on the heartstrings, there, there -- YOU ARE just like us.   wink, wink].

For the rest of us...

Make it a Good Day, G

Thursday, May 16, 2013

It's Holy Toledo, Fire Them All Thing

Dear America,

"Nearly all men
can stand adversity,
but if you want to test
a man's character,
  give him power." 
Abraham Lincoln 

you know what seems to be a common denominator -- besides the obvious abuses of power and corruption?   Every time something goes wrong within this administration, we can't seem to get a straight up answer.

Was it a resignation or was it something that was forthcoming anyway?

Steven Miller, the ousted IRS Temporary Acting Chief, said in an email to the employees:
'It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June,' Miller wrote. 'This has been an incredibly difficult time for the IRS given the events of the past few days, and there is a strong and immediate need to restore public trust in the nation’s tax agency.
While the Treasury Secretary said in a letter to Steve:

"The Inspector General's report issued yesterday has created an urgent need to restore the public trust and confidence in the IRS by installing new leadership for the Service.  While I very much appreciate your many years of loyal service to the IRS, I find it necessary at this time to request your resignation.  We will work with you to make sure we accomplish an orderly transition.  Sincerely, Jacob J. Lew

So was his "acting assignment" ending just two weeks away relevant, or not?

While I can't help but notice Mr. Miller is leaving with appreciation for his "loyal service" to the Service, making no mention of any "intolerable" or "outrageous" allegations of poor management while at his post.  What gives?  Is this the way heads roll at the IRS -- with sweetness and light?

I thought "Americans have a right to be angry about it and I am angry about it" right, Mr. President...

And if we were to take Lew's letter seriously --  let's nit pick, shall we?    It was simply the release of the Inspector General's report that "has created the urgent need to restore the public trust..." and not the illegal activity under Miller's command.

While I can't help but wonder what in Sam Hill is going on there at the White House?  It's like the president doesn't know anything until it hits the AP.   Are you kidding me?  

What's with the '“[um ]I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday"  approach?   doink y doink y do do duh

And how about that Jay [Carney]:

"We cannot and should not prejudge the outcome of a situation before we know what the facts are," Carney said. "We don't want to appropriate consequences [before we know all of the facts]."  [yeah, like we never do that....Benghazi]

Even though Lois Lerner already said it was all true!

Oh okay, Jay.  So is that the new thing... speculating that a bona fide confession to breaking the law is hardly a confession to a fact at all?  Is a review board required to review the facts and give a full review before the breaking news is acceptable for your immediate review and comment?

While I can't help but notice that it puts a whole new twist on what is, in fact, "wholly inappropriate" to talk about and when and even where...considering this news buster from The Blaze, here.

And SO WHAT if it's an "active investigation."  IF the IRS is indeed independent, isn't breaking the law, breaking the law, breaking the law?    Doesn't the moment, itself, call for a diplomatic response from the highest office of the land as to how unlawful the actions -- fully disclosed and admitted to -- in fact are?   Doesn't it immediately become a teachable moment for what not to do?  Doesn't this become the moment to open the floodgates and spill it -- making way for the president to do what he does best:  bring his high-eloquence and gift-of-gab to the podium and name names (even if subjecting his own democratic congressional insiders a perp-walk of their very own...like Carl Levin)?

So anywho -- moving on.org -- is Lois getting fired next?

Oh, okay.

Just go here for a mad, mad world update on her.  [Update: Oh never mind....guess they couldn't live with themselves if they allowed that to go on as planned.]

But in the "is this a joke" category -- this just in.

And what about this exclusive local news coming out of Fox 19 in Ohio...go here.   Sounding eerily all too familiar these days, just who gave the order?

And get a load of this:  we -- the people -- pay Lois' salary of about $175,000/year for this kind of partisan leadership AND over the last three years, has received about 42k in bonuses!  Amen and hallelujah, it must be great to be a bureaucrat.  I wonder how many middle managers within the IRS get paid that?

Speaking of being in service -- can we just regroup for one minute?

We seem to have the arrogance of power really running amuck these days, no?  

Who serves who?

While no one is even talking about how this on-going illegal activity, wholly permissible under this administration, interfered with the 2012 election.  It's called tampering, harassment, intimidation to sway public opinion and demonize opposition and it's supporters.

Holy Toledo, IF this doesn't just scream flat tax, I'm not sure what will. Fire them all.

Make it a Good Day, G

Mark Alexander

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

It's a Coordinated Red Thread of Radicals to Fundamental Transformation Thing

Dear America,

did you really think "fundamental transformation" would look any different than this?

In order to get to the place that is thoroughly and fundamentally transformed, whatever operates in conflict with such a transformation -- either directly or indirectly -- must be removed, eliminated; all opposition must be taken out and become the new  non-event,  deemed obsolete and totally dispensable for the common good, and basically ridiculed, harassed and demonized until its gone.   poof!

Oh Alinsky rules, doesn't he?

What a brilliant, brilliant mind.

On the back cover of my edition of Rules for Radicals, A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, a quote is offered up as enticement:

"Alinsky's techniques and teachings influenced generations of community and labor organizers, including the church-based group hiring a young [Barack] Obama to work on Chicago's South Side in the 1980's....Alinsky impressed a young [Hillary] Clinton, who was growing up in Park Ridge at the time Alinsky was the director of the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago." 
-- Chicago Sun-Times

oh really?

What is happening within the IRS is not an anomaly of this administration, or the teachings and workings of Saul Alinsky -- or for that manner, the tactics and teachings and workings of a "young [Barack] Obama."

"I have no patience with it. I will not tolerate it and we will make sure we find out exactly what happened on this."  said the aged President Obama yesterday...“If you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way then that is outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions and people have to be accountable and it’s got to be fixed."
Earth to reality check:  "lower level bureaucrats" don't just shoot from the hip and out their paper pushing-behinds pursuing 'fundamental transformation', funneling their energies by attacking organizations formally supporting "the other side" without a directive from somewhere else.   That kind of thing comes from a coordinated effort somewhere higher up in the chain of command.

While a report this morning completes that thought -- to a degree, anyway -- by claiming management is to blame.

This didn't just start like last Friday, folks.  It isn't an isolated incident in and around "Cincinnati," okay...

A caller on today's RUSH LIMBAUGH reminded all of us how Joe, the plumber, was targeted by the IRS immediately after his brush up with the president in the 2008 campaign.   How dare you, Joe, speak to [Barack] Obama like that...questioning redistribution and all...we'll show you....and promptly plastering Joe's financials all over the place.

And check this out from Breitbart;  it details outrageous allegations against the Obama camp, returning to an issue that became campaign fodder over a year ago:

"NOM [National Organization of Marriage]   announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak. Under immense political pressure, Attorney General Eric Holder launched a criminal investigation into the IRS's actions. Congress will conduct its own investigation.

In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM's political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).” 

The Human Rights Campaign's president at the time, Joe Solmonese, "said in the release he felt Romney’s 'funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable.' "  Oh right, because those of us who want to simply support traditional marriage are "hate-filled" bigots.   But the leveling of fundamental damage was in motion; in splendid liberal turn -- in perfect, synchronized coordination --  the full story was planted upon the pages of The Huffington Post with pride and prejudice.

And Joe -- Joe Solmonese --
oh he left the HRC and went on to work directly with the re-election campaign of [Barack] Obama the very next day.

"'After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service,' NOM asserted in its April 2012 release...Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with ‘Official Use’ information'....'The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents whose leader also happens to be co-chairing President Obama's reelection committee,' said [Brian] Brown."

“It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama's would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service," he declared. "We demand to know who is responsible for this criminal act and what the Administration is going to do to get to the bottom of it.”



Outrageous, even.

But you want to know what's even more outrageous?

What's outrageous is allowing Eric Holder investigate it.   We, the people, should feel secure leaving a political appointee of this regime in charge of investigating this crime?  Are you kidding me?

Do you even remember what [Barack] Obama calls the Tea Party? 

He often refers to the genuine, grassroots efforts by everyday citizens generally recognized as the Tea Party, as Tea Baggers -- a gay slur -- forever linking the derogatory, vagrant, seedy slip of the tongue with the Tea Party.

And now remember how quickly it became cool to make fun of the Tea Party Patriots from coast to coast.

Ridicule and delegitimize opposition;  it's simply brass tack tactics for the typical community organizer.

And then there is this --

Oh, but first, one itty bitty caveat -- we can't prove it -- but the story about what happened to Larry Conners  is something to talk about...you know, given the timing of it and all...Reporter: IRS Pressured Me After I Asked Obama Tough Questions

pretty outrageous, no?   And thank you, BuzzFeed Politics, for that.

The new targets --  anything and everything opposing the rosy red regime.

See here.

And here.

And here.

[and thank you, Drudge, for a little help]

Have we fallen down a rabbit hole?  Are we in some kind of parallel America that really lives on the other side of the world, the other side of sanity, the other side of liberty, sitting fundamentally transformed  yet suffocating under a pillow of goose feathers and soft tyranny?

We can't ask tough questions of a president now?    Thank you, Larry.

We can't make our own video and post it on YouTube?  Thank you, one guy who made a video against the prophet Mohammed.

We can't even run a fair and balanced campaign running on the merits.

We can't bear arms?  Thank you, knee jerk reactions following the horror of Newtown....Oh, unless it's bearing arms for Fast & Furious or gun running in Benghazi.

We can't freely exercise our religion?  Thank you, Obamacare, just for starters.  Oooh and this reminds me -- MUST READ THIS:   Religion and Public Life in America, R.R. Reno, Editor of First Things, essay adapted from a speech for Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

The outrageous things this shadow government stands for are finally coming to the surface.  The smudges are glaring, catching our eye no matter where we turn our heads.

But none of this should surprise any of us.

A sinister, creepy realization has come to light.    The uber-coordinated efforts to attack and eliminate opposition in order to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA through deep background and bureaucracy -- through any means possible and available -- even if it's illegal -- thank you A/P -- is hardly outrageous for a community organizer.  It's all in a day's work, and the more under-world the better.   Thank you, Chicago.

There is a coordinated, red thread chaining together each and every dereliction of duty -- whether it be from the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Executive Branch and the Office of the President of the United States.

The only thing really intolerable, inexcusable, and outrageous to the community organizer is getting caught.

That is what we see on the face of our president -- shame.  The shame of getting caught.

This is a sad day for America.

Outrageous and so sad.

Make it a Good Day, G

Monday, May 13, 2013

It's Two Things Jay

Dear America,

"Good Friday afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here.  I appreciate your patience.  Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note, because it’s been reported, we did, as many of you know, have a background briefing here at the White House earlier.  I think 14 news organizations were represented, ranging from online to broadcast TV, print and the like.  And we do those periodically.  We hope that participants find them helpful.  I will say that no one here believes that briefings like that are substitute for this briefing, which is why I’m here today to take questions on whatever issues you want to ask me about."

That was just Jay, Press Secretary Jay Carney. 
Press Conference.
Friday afternoon.

Not to be confused with the "press conference" for invited press only, which occurred just a few hours earlier.  It was a private session offering something called  "deep background" and screams suspect right from the start. 

But please be reassured, "I will say that no one here believes that briefings like that are substitute for this briefing, which is why I’m here today to take questions on whatever issues you want to ask me about."

Oh, I feel better already.

Let's return to a commencement speech of late, and the words of our president:

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

It sheds a whole new light on who to trust, doesn't it?

But what about....

"Thanks, Jay.  Two subjects, starting out with the IRS issue.  The IRS says it's flagged conservative groups with names like “patriots” or “tea parties” for review, and says that in some instances that its workers inappropriately asked for the identities of donors, and it has apologized.  When did the White House become aware that the IRS engaged in this?  And in a tax collection system that relies on trust, isn’t the IRS’s credibility at stake here?  And will the White House, as called on by Senator McConnell, call for an investigation?"

JUST JAY:   Well, two things, Jim.  I appreciate the question, and we’ve certainly see in those reports.  My understanding is this matter is under investigation by the IG at the IRS.  The IRS, as you know, is an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees.  The fact of the matter is what we know about this is of concern, and we certainly find the actions taken, as reported, to be inappropriate.  And we would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and for corrections to be made in a case like this.  And I believe the IRS has addressed that and has taken some action, and there is an investigation ongoing.

But it certainly does seem to be, based on what we’ve seen, to be inappropriate action that we would want to see thoroughly investigated.

Q    Given that the President was so critical of some of these groups, both in 2010 and in 2012, isn’t it natural for the public to think that these things are politically motivated?  What assurances can you --

JUST JAY:  Well, I think that, first of all, two things need to be noted, which is IRS is an independent enforcement agency, which I believe, as I understand it, contains only two political appointees within it.  The individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration.  But separate from that, there is no question that if this activity took place, it’s inappropriate and there needs to be action taken and the President would expect that it be thoroughly investigated and action would be taken.

[Two things:  Jay likes to say two things just before he rattles off a number of things, or repeats old news, things already stated in the first thing.]

ah yes...Mr. President...

"...you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices..."

I do feel better knowing that the IRS is an independent enforcement agency, and just for the record, "the individual who was running the IRS at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration."  Not that we like to make anything political, or anything, or blame Bush for everything.  Oh touché, Jay!

Next question, please, and hurry --

Q    On Benghazi, and with all due credit to my colleague on the right, we have had emails showing that the State Department pushed back against talking-point language from the CIA and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in Congress.  You have said the White House only made a stylistic change here, but these were not stylistic changes.  These were content changes.  So again, what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?

JUST JAY:  Well, thank you for that question...

yeah, okay.  that's sincere. but please, go ahead with whatever you are going to say, Jay...

JUST JAY, cont.:    The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible.  In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee.  And that process, as is always the case -- again, led by the CIA -- involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or a stake in the process, and that would include, obviously, the State Department since it was a State Department facility that was attacked and an Ambassador who was killed, as well as three others; the NSS, the FBI, which is the lead investigating authority, and other entities.

The CIA -- in this case, deputy director of the CIA -- took that process and issued a set of talking points on that Saturday morning, and those talking points were disseminated.  Again, this was all in response to a request from Congress.  And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from -- referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi, from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post.”  I think I had referred to it as “diplomatic facility."  I think it may have been “diplomatic post.”

But the point being, it was a matter of non-substantive/factual correction.  But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this, and is always appropriate.  And the effort is always to, in that circumstance, with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information -- some of it accurate, some of it not, about what had happened and who was responsible -- to provide information for members of Congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it that was based on only what the intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew.  And that is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA.

Q    But this information that -- was information that the CIA obviously knows about prior attacks and warnings about those.  Does the President think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how Congress might use it?

JUST JAY:  Well, first of all, the CIA was the agency that made changes to the edits -- I mean, to the talking points and then produced the talking points, first of all.  Second of all, I think the overriding concern of everyone involved in that circumstance is always to make sure that we’re not giving, to those who speak in public about these issues, information that cannot be confirmed, speculation about who was responsible, other things like warnings that may or may not be relevant to what we ultimately learn about what happened and why...

Well first of all, let's just  stop you right there, Jay.  But second of all, you sound stupid.

So Jay, what I believe you are saying then -- in an effort not to 'gum up' the information available then and now  -- is that only information CONFIRMED was disseminated to the public; for to do otherwise, would be speculative, inaccurate, and prove to be a cause for concern of the American people, and may possibly lead to distrust two things --  either the administration, or the intelligence community as a whole.  Oh the irony looking back at everything, huh, Jay?  But please, go ahead.

"... But on the substantive issues of what happened in Benghazi, and at that time, what the intelligence community thought it knew, that was reflected in the talking points that were used, again, that weekend by Ambassador Rice and by others, including members of Congress.  And I think if you look at the information that’s been reported, you can see that evolution and that it was -- the talking points were focused on what we knew and not speculation about what may or may not have been responsible or related."

For the record, Jay, your administration was on the record for weeks after the terrorist attack in Benghazi blaming a VIDEO!  The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador Susan Rice, even the president, himself, in front of an audience at the General Assembly of the United Nations continued to blame the very same video that was neither relevant then, or now, in any way, shape, or form.  Even you!  All that could be said of the attack on Benghazi was centered upon an obscure, rogue video.

**The question and answer batted back and forth for some time -- just go here for further review of the full White House transcript on the day**

JUST JAY:  But again, I think you're conflating a couple of things here.  The White House, as I said, made one minor change to the talking points drafted by and produced by the CIA, and even prior to that made very few --

Q    But is that just parsing words, Jay?  I mean, does that --

JUST JAY:  -- had very few inputs on it.  The other discussions that went on prior to this in an interagency process reflected the concerns of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue, both the FBI because it was investigating; the CIA, obviously, and other intelligence agencies; and the State Department, because an ambassador had been killed and a diplomatic facility had been attacked.  And what I think the concern was is that these points not provide information that was speculative in terms of whether it was relevant to what happened.  [but the video was a "non-event" per reputable boots on the ground, both Gregory Hicks, as well as, the president of Libya! -- just how could this administration throw out un-verified information all willy-nilly like that?  Wouldn't it have been better to say you know nothing at this present time?]

And what could not be known at that time was the relevance of issues about warnings.  [but that's not true -- Ambassador Stevens asked for help directly to the State Department a month before the attack]  There's the discussion about -- the Republicans -- again, in this ongoing effort that began hours after the attacks when Mitt Romney put out a press release to try to take political advantage out of these deaths, or out of the attack in Benghazi, in a move that was maligned even by members of his own party.  And from that day forward, there has been this effort to politicize it.

And if you look at the issue here -- the efforts to politicize it were always about were we trying to play down the fact that there was an act of terror and an attack on the embassy.  And the problem has always been with that assertion is that it's completely hollow, because the President himself in the Rose Garden said this was an act of terror. [GENERALLY SPEAKING]  And he talked about it within the context of September 11th, 2001.  And then we had other officials of the administration refer to this as a terrorist act...  [um NO, "we didn't"]

blah, blah, blah

Q    Jay, since you say this is a minor change -- a minor change in venue, with the wording changed in venue -- why such a big deal today with this deep background, deep, deep background, off-the-record briefing?  It makes it seem like --

JUST JAY:  Well, let's be clear, it wasn't off the record. [WHAT?  How do you define "off the record" then, Jay?]  And that was an erroneous report.  [Say WHAT? are you calling some in the press corps liars? poor sports?  what then?]    But the -- I mean, it's a big deal because Republicans have chosen, in the latest iteration of their efforts, to politicize this, to provide -- leak this information to reporters -- information that we provided months ago to Republican lawmakers from the relevant committees and Republican leadership, as well as Democratic.  And there's an ongoing effort to make something political out of this.

But the problem with that effort is that it's never been clear what it is they think they're accusing the administration of doing,  [...well for starters, two things,  not telling the truth to the American people, and manufacturing a deep background scandal -- or two! -- within the people's house...but go on...]  because when it comes to who is responsible, we were very open about what we knew, what we thought we knew, what we did for a fact know, [what? "we were very open about what we knew, what we thought we knew, what we did for a fact know....Seriously?  You were very open about a total lie -- it was never about a video, while the consulate -- rather the "diplomatic post" whatever you want to call it  -- was left unprotected for months, including the night of 9/11/12 and the administration knew it and tried to cover it up for there was an election around the corner, wasn't there, Jay]   and the fact that this was an ongoing investigation, and we would certainly learn more that would change our view of what had had happened in Benghazi.

oh my goodness.  enough already.

Take it away, Mr. President:

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices --


-- "Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted--"

Let's wrap things up with a few thoughts from Francis Bacon --

"It is not what you eat,
but what you digest
that makes you strong. 
 It is not what you earn,
but what you save
that makes you rich. 
It is not what you preach,
but what you practice
that makes you a Christian."

And dare we add --

 It is not what you hear,
but how you respond
that makes you wise...
brave even....
very very brave.

Clearly today, that goes for all of us --  from the president on down;  ooooh correction, make that, from we the people on up.  But maybe the old G thing is just "conflating a couple of things" right, Jay -- or just maybe, the substantive issues are just getting blurry in the fog of blog.

Make it a Good Day, G


Thursday, May 9, 2013

It's About the Less You Know the Sounder You Sleep Thing

Dear America,

there's an old Russian proverb ...
menshe znayech - kreptche spish
(the less you know, the sounder you sleep)
The president, if you recall, managed to get a little shut eye in the night of September 11, 2012.   After all, Air Force One was fueled up and waiting for him to climb aboard the very next day; Vegas was calling, fund raising was the mission at hand, and he wasn't about to let any kind of "mob action" get in his way, no matter how great or how small or how radical it would make him appear.  A political gamble, is a political gamble.
The one picture released of the president (October 2012) is supposedly from the night of the attacks in Benghazi.  It's nothing fancy, but it does show the president and all of his men huddled up in the Oval Office -- and presumably just around the corner, past a presidential bust, and down the hall from what's known as the 'Situation Room.'   Guess there were no pictures with the president in the "Situation Room."
Just imagining that if, in fact, President Obama showed up in the situation room at any given point -- such as the night Special Ops took down Osama Bin Laden -- the "situation" might have presented itself with a far wiser Kodak moment for Flickr to flick of the president. 
But hey, menshe znayech - kreptche spish.
And you know what else? I'm told, the less one knows the less accountable to the details one has to be when the alarm bell rings.  And what does it matter for whom the bell tolls?   What difference at this point does it make, right?

The president failed to see the mission through the night of September 11, 2012; for if he had -- evidence would show the Commander-in-Chief present, physically....pictures on Flickr would show the president patriotically, physically, mentally, unemotionally present the whole night through just as the night of May 1st.
But now we know --

The broken pieces known as 'Benghazi' are starting to fit together.
Now we have confirmation --
"The YouTube video
was a non event in Libya." 
Gregory Hicks
Dare we note, it's eight months after the fact and we finally arrive at a bona fide fact, or two.  Who knew?
It was a terrorist attack from the get go, he said.
But people ==   Isn't it enough to know that the very next day, President Obama follows through with his plans to campaign -- in Vegas, no less?  Doesn't that stunning act of defiance against his Constitutional duties to the security of America, and fellow Americans still in harms way, give us enough information to pause and question the president directly?
Wednesday  was a "tough day," for this president. 
Oh but allow me to clarify -- not really referring to yesterday, but I could be -- just give me a moment, or maybe a day or two, to change the talking points to fit; but no, we're talking the Wednesday, September 12th, 2012.  And calling for reinforcements from the NY Times, he added:
“We want to send a message all around the world,’’ Mr. Obama said. “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

Mr. Obama reiterated his intention to punish those responsible, saying: “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead. We still face threats in this world and we’ve got to remain vigilant, and that’s why we will be relentless in our pursuit of those who attacked us yesterday.”

Indeed, "Al Queda is on the path to defeat."  And I'm sure Boston was just a fluke, too.  "And that’s why we will be relentless in our pursuit of those who attacked us yesterday" -- like on 5-8-2013.   [Did you get what G just laid down there?]
Oh menshe znayech - kreptche spish, right?
Remember now, it was  4:05 in the afternoon when Washington received it's first alert.  The now infamous 2am (Benghazi time) phone call between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gregory Hicks came about four hours later.   For an early account of the timeline of communications, go to CBS News, here
But again, not that it seemed to matter for the Secretary of State -- Hicks declared it was always an attack and never a protest. 
While somewhere in the mix, Obama placed an hour long phone call to Bibi Netanyahu to let him know he would not be making time to meet with him during the U.N. General Assembly meetings coming up in a couple of weeks.  [Remember, though, he found time to meet with the ladies of The View]
Oh but back to Benghazi, the whole story gets better --- Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department of volatility in the region a month prior to the attack; while, considering an anniversary of 9/11 was fast approaching, some might think -- putting nine and eleven together -- that the possibilities for disaster could be endless.  GO HERE.
Ah yes.  It must be true then... menshe znayech - kreptche spish.  
And ignorance is truly bliss.
But what about yesterday?

Jay Carney said yesterday afternoon, after the hearings, "there are attempts to politicize this." [Now that is a good one.]  And then, he has the balls to insinuate Washington is covering old ground, old news, and claiming "the fact is this has been looked at exhaustively."  wow...what a way to impress upon humanity this administration intends to find out "exactly what happened" (see below)  
The Washington Post offers one account on the day, just go here.
But just so you know, that I know, that you know -- Stephen Hayes, of The Weekly Standard, made available six days ago a rather stunning breakdown of oodles of information, including the assessment of a 43-page report produced out of the House of Representatives, and having attached a series of talking point edits prior to any messaging from the administration on Benghazi.  Steve's piece is some of the best gathering of things to know in print to date.  But don't take my word for it -- what do I know, what difference does it make what I think  -- read it for yourself, here.
The thing is -- the president can't just make up talking points; he also just can't say things like...
 "Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks."   Jake Tapper, ABC News, quoting the president, October 26, 2012


We left Americans behind; we left Americans in the dust of Benghazi.

WHO called for the stand down?  It's a simple question; and somebody needs to stand up under oath  and answer.

The sincerity of finding out exactly what happened is in question.  The integrity back behind "doing whatever we need to" is in question.   The absurdity of blaming a video is not only in question, but unveils a more sinister plot to deflect, confuse, and obstruct the reality on the ground then, and now.

Even when the entire State Department was told it had nothing to do with a video, this administration dug in, deeper, and perpetuated the telling of a lie to the American people, to the  U.N. General Assembly, in front of live audiences at presidential debates, and throughout the world ad infinitum.  I nod to the gentleman, Mr. Hicks, when saying that was indeed a complete embarrassment.

Oh menshe znayech - kreptche spish, and how!
Our forces are always at the ready; if what this administration is saying be true -- that we didn't have any special forces within a reasonable distance to offer timely reinforcements, to counter attack the volatility,  especially considering its in a part of the world that this administration elected to participate with "kinetic military action" in the first place -- then what are we doing?  What are we prepared for?  And just how will I get to sleep tonight...?
Our military used to be ready for anything; and moreover, it had a reputation of going the distance before boots ever had to touch the ground.  Just the sight of a few planes would have been enough to stop further attacks in Benghazi on fear alone.  For another take, second verse same as the first, go here.
Our consulate in Benghazi was not protected, was not prepared, enough -- and Ambassador Stevens, and many others, knew it!   And at some level, or all levels, Washington knew it, too -- but apparently, they went back to sleep anyway.
I blame NOT our men and women in uniform, but bureaucrats, misguided ideology, ignorance, and political correctness for what has happened with our preparedness and it's effects.
Oh menshe znayech - kreptche spish.
But to end on a note high above the fray, allow me to point you in the direction of a hero in our midst.  It's just a story passed on to me from my pops (xoxo), who happens to also be a career and Commanding Officer, retired, and begins on day that changed America forever.   It tells the story about one Lt. Heather "Lucky" Penney and September 11, 2001.
The intent is to remind us all of the kind of courage that goes on around us in the every day -- calling attention and special commendations to the ones who are, in no small part, responsible for that surreal moment are heads hit the pillow and we fall to sleep without a care in the world.  [Well, most of the time, anyway]
Here she is -- enjoy.
America doesn't leave anyone behind, or at least we try not to -- whether that interferes with a presidential campaign, or not; whether it kills us by our convictions, or not.     And we tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God, whether it comes with the fire power to take out an entire re-election bid and upend a career, or not.  It's called saying and doing the right thing... much like what is expected to happen of a Commander-In-Chief.
Make it a Good Day, G

******Friday a.m. UPDATE****** ABC News picked up the story on the talking points edits, go here. Wonder-land didn't fall back to sleep today.    Is this a sign?  Is there a change in the tide coming?

******And EVEN MORE! from Stephen Hayes****** go here.   Stunning new information, as the Benghazi Scandal Grows -- including opinion from the then CIA Director David Petraeus.

Monday, May 6, 2013

It's de Dia Bonita Thing

Dear America,

feliz seis de Mayo.

clearly, our president lives in a world quite different than the rest of us -- entertaining the illusion of international diplomacy and governance of OTHER countries, even as he acts above the law here at home, becoming more and more dependent upon shrouds of secrecy no matter what happens, no matter where.  

We know what you said last week -- as well as, the week before -- as well as six months before.  Better yet, word travels, and fast, Mr. President; it travels faster than the speed at Talladega (how about that finish? almost worth every minute of that deliriously long rain delay, which naturally created the perfect conditions for an afternoon siesta, but i digress).

His opening line:

"Hola!  Buenos dias!  It is wonderful to be back in México, lindo y querido." 

Nice touch added at the end there...my best translation arrives at "lovely and dear."   And that would be the first thing I think of when I think of Mexico, too.  But of course, this was only the beginning.

Here's more,

"It is an honor to be back in Mexico City—one of the great cities of the world.  Es un placer estar entre amigos.  It’s fitting that we gather at this great museum, which celebrates Mexico’s ancient civilizations and their achievements in arts and architecture, medicine and mathematics.  In modern times, your blend of cultures and traditions found its expression in the murals of Rivera, the paintings of Frida, the poetry of Sor Juana and the essays of Octavio Paz...

Paz once spoke words that capture the spirit of our gathering today—in this place that celebrates your past, but which this morning is filled with you, the young people who will shape Mexico’s future.  “Modernity,” Paz said, “is not outside us, but within us.  It is today and the most ancient antiquity; it is tomorrow and the beginning of the world; it is a thousand years old and yet newborn.”

perhaps this is why some of the immediato y genuino responses to the president included this:

“[That was] a really good speech by President Obama, but what Mexico was he talking about?” said Jose Carlos Cruz, 24, a graduate student in international relations. “Unfortunately in our country, the situation is terrible: There’s poverty, unemployment, and even worse, the future is anything but promising."

FOR MORE from that angle, just go to the LA Times, here.

classic, right?

Surprised a rambunctious 'get real' didn't come bellowing out of the crowd...que insinuas realista? 

Don't even think that translated correctomundo...
but let's get through this, shall we?

"Despite the deep bonds and values we share, attitudes—in both countries—are sometimes trapped in old stereotypes.  Some Americans only see the Mexico depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings.  Some Mexicans may think America disrespects Mexico, that we seek to impose ourselves on Mexican sovereignty, or, alternatively, wish to wall ourselves off.  And in both countries, such distortions can breed myths and misunderstanding that only make it harder to make progress together."

Generalities like this have the power to crush us, Mr. President.  Think Talladega again, with the "78 car" rolling over on top of the innocent bystander just trying to drive within the lines and win a race.  How about we just go back to the 1849 borders while we're at it?

"I have come to Mexico because it is time to put old mindsets aside.  It’s time to recognize new realities, including the impressive progress in today’s Mexico.  For even as Mexicans continue to make courageous sacrifices for the security of your country; even as Mexicans in the countryside and in neighborhoods not far from here struggle to give their children a better life…it’s also clear that a new Mexico is emerging."

where?  where are the courageous sacrifices?   where exactly is that new Mexico emerging?

"Indeed, I see a Mexico that has lifted millions from poverty.  Because of the sacrifices of generations, a majority of Mexicans now call themselves middle class, with a quality of life that your parents and grandparents could only dream of.  This includes new opportunities for women, who are proving that—when given the chance—you can shape the destiny of your country, too."

fluffy y patronizing, ole.

"Here in Mexico, you’ve embarked on ambitious reforms—to make your economy more competitive and your institutions more accountable to you, the people.  As you pursue these reforms, know that you have the strong support of the United States.  Because whether you’re looking for basic services, or trying to start a new business, we share your belief that you should be able to make it through the day without paying a bribe.  And when talented Mexicans like you imagine your future, you should have every opportunity to succeed right here in the country you love."

best part there..."we share your belief that you should be able to make it through the day without paying a bribe."

But doncha know, Mr. President, bribery y threats, boot to the throat y whistle-blower take downs, make the world go round.    Wednesday will be some kind of fun, no?

Oh the things we say, or do, or hide, to maintain political power.

But here's more from the president of the Americas:

"In the United States, we recognize our responsibilities as well.  We understand that the root cause of much of the violence here—and so much suffering for many Mexicans— is the demand for illegal drugs, including in the United States...
We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States.  In America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right—and I always will [until I can get away with changing it]...Meanwhile, we’ll keep increasing the pressure on the gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico, and we’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong—behind bars."  [oh and I had nothing to do with that botched Fast y Furious program.]   

...We’re grateful to Mexican Americans in every segment of our society—for teaching our children, running our companies, serving with honor in our military, making breakthroughs in science, and standing up for social justice.  As Dr. Martin Luther King told Cesar Chavez, we are “brothers in the fight for equality.”  Indeed, without the strong support of Hispanics, including so many Mexican Americans, I would not be standing before you today as President of the United States."

Well, for every reason Mexico sucks, it's America's fault.  

Just what is the president's goal here?  What are his intentions? 
Can't help but notice he seems to be everybody's president these days.

"That’s one of the reasons I acted to lift the shadow of deportation from DREAMers—young people brought to the United States as children.  And that’s why I’m working with our Congress to pass common sense immigration reform.  Reform that continues to strengthen border security and strengthen legal immigration, so citizens don’t have to wait years to bring their family to the United States.  Reform that holds everyone accountable— so immigrants get on the right side of the law and so immigrants are not exploited and abused.  Most of all, reform that gives millions of undocumented individuals a pathway to earn their citizenship.   And I’m optimistic that—after years of trying—we’re finally going to get this done."

Accountable  to a
6.3 Trillion dollar

And muchas gracias to the Heritage Foundation, for the completo y gordo facts on immigration y amnesty real costs --  offering the American people all things supportivo y amplio global of the American Heritage-oh.  But back to the presidente of the Americas....

without the strong support
of Hispanics,
 including so many Mexican Americans,
I would not be standing
before you today
as President of the Untied States."

"Some Mexicans
may think America
 disrespects Mexico,
that we seek to impose ourselves
  on Mexican sovereignty,
 or, alternatively,
 wish to wall ourselves off."

Taking back scratching to an art form --

It's time for real reform.

Indeed.  But now let's surely gum up the day and head to Ohio:

"Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems, nor do we want it to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

The cynics may be the loudest voices—but they accomplish the least. It’s the silent disruptors—those who do the long, hard, committed work of change—that gradually push this country in the right direction, and make the most lasting difference."

indeed. can you say fundamental transformation in Spanish?   anyone? 

And what do mean by questioning those who question authority?   Are you kidding me?  THAT is democracy in action, organizing for action, for AMERICA.   What America are you talking about? Or is it just the opposition of this tyranny that you want us to reject?

[Emphasis added by y for more at The Blaze, here.]

Co-mingling speeches is great fun, isn't it?

"I dare you,
Class of 2013,
to do better.
I dare you to do better."  

The president was speaking in front of graduating students at Ohio State University, somewhere in the middle of the United States of America.

Taking questions, Mr. President?

Do you even know what Self-Rule, self-government, is supposed to look like?  According to these modern times, is government tyranny lost in translation somewhere in the delusions of grandeur of the bi-coastal, bi-America's world, in which you happily reside -- stunningly unaware of reality?  

"In modern times,
your blend of cultures and traditions
found its expression
in the murals of Rivera,
 the paintings of Frida,
 the poetry of Sor Juana
and the essays of
Octavio Paz..."

"Here in Mexico, you’ve embarked on ambitious reforms—to make your economy more competitive and your institutions more accountable to you, the people.  As you pursue these reforms, know that you have the strong support of the United States.  Because whether you’re looking for basic services, or trying to start a new business, we share your belief that you should be able to make it through the day without paying a bribe.  And when talented Mexicans like you imagine your future, you should have every opportunity to succeed right here in the country you love."

For this president ....tyranny y Mexico and tyranny y United States seem to be running incognito y reforma north y south of the border.  For the rest of us --   the loud ones who "incessantly warn of government" --  not so much.  aye, aye, aye-aye

Make it a Good Day, G