It's About the Boss and Other People's Paws Thing

Dear America,

so everyone keeps looking for the smoking gun...

asking, if only there was something we can find to connect this guy, this president, this administration, to prove involvement --  by nudge or by shove, I know they did it...just gotta find it.  

if only...

Here's some breaking news -- we won't ever find it.

Something like that would be like --  "It would be the dumbest political effort of all time."   And a great big smothering hug to David Plouffe for such an articulate way of putting it. [And an even bigger hug goes to Hot Air from where I plucked it.]

Same verse, same as the first -- and spoken out of the mouth of David Axelrod:  "If there was somebody political involved in this, it never would have happened,” Axelrod said, “because it was the stupidest thing you could have imagined."  [again, more smokin' hot air from Hot Air]

Now allow me to switch gears for a second, and take you to a little fable paraphrased this morning on my favorite Talk Radio local, Mike Slater.   This dude rocks my world every day; he's just so good at what he does and the way he does it.  But I digress.  Too early in the blog to get carried away, right?

Anyway -- Slater retold the story of the cat and the monkey -- or is it the Monkey and the Cat?   No bother, the end result is all the same.  As the fable goes (rumored to date back to the 16th century), the smooth little monkey sweet-talks the cat into snagging a few roasting chestnuts from the fire -- and so burning it's itty bitty paws each and every time, he pulls out the yummy roasted chestnuts.  While what's the monkey doing?    He is eating them one by one. The master comes home and finds his chestnuts all but gone and what does he do (seeing the scorched paws) -- he blames the kitty-cat!

So I may not have a smoking gun, but just go here for a quick read on the smoking kitty and the monkey who turns out to be so smart and cunning, the master will never know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And then of course, it got me thinking about Obama's roots. 

Of course, for my frequent flyers on the old gthang...We've talked ad nauseam over the years on just this subject, from numerous directions, up and down, making all kinds of loop-tee loops back and forth, from childhood, to mentors, to his minister of twenty years, to his political beginnings in Chicago, to his father's Marxist dreams, to being associated with an unapologetic domestic terrorist - Bill Ayers, to his staunch following of community organizers -- Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis...

enough.

Suffice it to say, we've all been there, done that, together.

This isn't conspiracy talk; little G isn't speaking in tongues; it IS Obama's history -- his truth, his life -- and it is well documented to boot....of course, if only one is truly brave enough to seek and find.

Where am I going, you ask?

With regards to the IRS (and perhaps everything else this administration does) --- we won't find the smoking gun linking the upper echelon of the Obama Administration -- for that, quite honestly, would be breaking the Chicago code.

How does the mob work, how does organized crime communicate orders?   Much like any decent community organizer might do -- the underbosses and foot soldiers do all the dirty work.  Marching orders are entrusted to a trusted  Consigliere, family confidante; maybe the evidence comes few and far between, but make no mistake --  the corporation runs from a chain of command from the top down, and never to impugn the Boss [rats are bad....vewy vewy bad].

And sure, it's so outrageous, so absurd, most of us trusting souls (meow) recognize this stuff as only happening in the movies; but let's face the facts, folks -- this is what Obama knows.  This is his way of doing things.  Chicago taught him well. 

This even explains why everybody is still so madly in love with him, as if he can do no wrong -- he's the monkey in the fable, in a smooth-talking and flattery will get you everywhere kind of way.

This is why all he needs to do is flash his smile, and we wilt.

This is why all he needs to say is 'I didn't know until you all knew...' and we say, oh, okay.

This is why all he needs to do is tell us he will get to the bottom of it, not resting until justice is served, and we will believe him.

Remember the scuttlebutt about the 'on the fly' meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister, just after the Boston bombing?  This is just a perfect, recent example of how it works...  The White House sets up a 'drive by' sit-down meeting with the president -- a meeting not on the schedule, not on the record; he simply goes down a hall and boom, a door left open shows the Saudi Foreign Minister sitting there and awaiting his five minutes with the boss.  Oh, hey, good to see you...what's going on...how are the kids...sure wish I knew you would be dropping by...but what a nice surprise...  [See April 17th from this timeline, here at Investor's Business Daily]


I would bet there are secret sit-downs  happening nearly as often as the use of secret email accounts;I'm sure of it; just can't prove it. 


The president is a master at using other people's paws.  And it's as simple and as old as time as that.

bang.

Make it a Good Day, G
 

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

 

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

Epi-Blog

Read

Mark Alexander

The Patriot Post

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.”

Indeed.

Shocking.

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

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 --

[and]

-- "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