It's Excelling At Telling a Little Lie or Two Thing

Dear America,

age of reason, edge of reason, tomayto, tomahto.

happy Monday.

Considering my head is about to explode -- as there is simply way to much to opine upon for one day -- let me begin here, by diverting your attention away from the gruesome brain fragments about to plaster the page, and take you to the comments made by one of California's very own, Darrell Issa:

"We understand — these are in real time.  And the administration is still — their paid liar, their spokesperson, pictured behind, he’s still making up things about what happens in calling this [a] ‘local rogue.’  There’s no indication — the reason the Lois Lerner tried to take the Fifth [Amendment] is not because there is a rogue in Cincinnati. It’s because this is a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we’re getting to proving it. We have 18 more transcribed interviews to do...The president’s spokesperson is saying whatever is convenient at the time and the story changes..."
 

For more, go to The Daily Caller, here.


Ouch. The truth hurts.

If given the chance to piece together the barrage of responses from Jay Carney, specifically concentrating on the last year -- a twelve year old could figure out something is quite amiss.

In action, in reality, in living color, in broad statements, in swift and on the fly parsing of words, in stylistic changes --  taking full creative license to the max,  in obstinate disdain, in an aloof display of superiority....Jay Carney prides himself of his very ability to distract, interfere, misrepresent, the whole truth.    And honestly, Issa's observance is courageous and spot on, for Carney is being paid to do it:  to Lie.

Carney's job is all about buying enough time on the backend of a scandal -- using whatever skills and untruths he can muster from his arsenal -- to allow for the people to forget all about it, to move on, and otherwise manage to scoff off magnificent assaults of the rule of law as if what we all know to be true, with evidence to show for it, is just a bunch of malarkey.

The truth is, it doesn't get any easier telling the truth -- either to ourselves, our spouses, our children, our society and specifically within the village we live -- even as adults.  Thou shall not bear false testimony against thy neighbor isn't up for debate; it's not even open to conversation, let alone a question worthy of a truthful response.

It's kinda funny, considering truthfulness was a large enough issue in biblical times to count it among the Top Ten Things (for the good of humanity)  per God, almost as if God saw this coming. 

Human nature has a real hard time with telling the truth; while some might even say, being a wee bit deceitful is in our DNA, and will continue to be, until the end of time. [oooh, speaking of DNA]

One of the first things we should do is stop teaching the importance of telling the truth in our schools; yeah, let's stop all moral teachings and from whence it comes full stop. yeah, yeah, that's sounds sound; that sounds real good.

[happy snarky Monday to me.]

Have you watched any of the American Greed shows on CNBC?   It's an hour snapshot on some really bad dude who takes advantage of one, and usually more, trusting souls who end up handing over their life's savings for a sure thing and super bad investment.   The story is as old as time, right?  Snake oil and fool's gold and swamp land and easy, sleazy, huge returns on investment with other people's money.    Turns out -- the bevy of liars, cheaters, schemers and dreamers are well supported by an equal bevy of believers and dreamers who trust they are telling the truth.

At first blush, isn't it nice to know we are still so trusting, confident that the good in man as a rule, rules?

And yet how sad. 

How sad that we still make people who unabashedly, unapologetically,  see how far they can go ripping good people off and living the highlife on lies. 

Leaders of corrupt countries do it by the billions [see current news on Equatorial Guinea, here and here.]

And how about really larger than life lies that we tell ourselves to rationalize behavior?

The spark between Erick Erickson and his comments arriving from the data of a recent Pew Research study showing that in 'four out of ten households,' the woman is the sole or primary breadwinner, and concluding:  "having mom as the primary bread winner is bad for kids and bad for marriage, and reality shows us that's the truth."

The whole truth on this one kicks us in the gut, doesn't it.

The growing dysfunction in families -- with the proliferation of prescription drugs (both adults and children), increase of school drop outs, high divorce rates, the perfectly acceptable and common occurrence of unwed mothers, latch-key kid syndrome in both rich and poor neighborhoods, gang membership growing more attractive to the lost teen, the uprising trajectory raising the simply spoiled and rotten, shall I go on? -- society proves just how detrimental the loss of mom home after school truly is.

Sure -- some according to Megyn Kelly  and Greta Van Susteren -- manage to pull it off; your fellow contributor's on the Fox News Channel might just be Neanderthals.   But as a whole --  as the collective meanders through this maze of misdirection, attempting to meet up the challenges with conscious solutions that satisfy the tremendous responsibility of good parenting and the security that comes with, and sheltering both our children and our ambitions in equal portion -- let's face the facts!  We have some serious issues going on, seen and unseen.  Not all of us do parenting well and effectively; and we would be lying to ourselves -- individually and collectively -- to say that we do.

And Erick Erickson, from www.redstate.com, gives us some serious rebuttal, too.   Read THIS: The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean.

Complimentary roles are at play when it comes to the working family in order to fulfill the direct and many needs of the child (first).

The truth is, to have a single parent working full time, something's gotta give.

The truth is, to have both parents in a household working full time -- no matter who the breadwinner, something's gotta give.

What we have allowed to let go is the responsibility of childrearing, through the most formative years, to other people -- be it schools, household staff, grandparents, or no one at all.

This has been a conscious change, evolving since the sixties, coming out of the think tanks of the progressive, liberal, intellectually superior Left that has allowed for the traditional family to take a back seat (while today, looking more like being frowned upon). 

Oh sure, disguised under the rights of women to have their careers and family too, no one wants to discuss the repercussions now.   No one wants to discuss the issues we seem to be having with this openly and honestly; but no bother, pretty sure there is a pill to take for it anyway.

Do you think are kids are fairing well?  Really?

Personally -- I think it's great news that 40% of our households are led by a female breadwinner. Halleluiah!   That should nip tuck the whole conversation on the inequality in the workplace and at home, at the very least, right?  Next.

Erickson pointed out another stat from the same survey, noting:  "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did."

So 75% of those surveyed admit the difficulty of raising children, and "half worry that it's bad for marriages."  And still half believe moms staying home with younger children is best.   Real people reveal there is a real toll and recognize the whole truth.   We give up a little something in the end.

Is it worth it?  Is what we give up better for society and families in general, in the specific?  [It's just a question.  Don't hate.]

More from Erickson (although, easy does it, for some of you, it just might make your head explode):

"Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon."

yeah, something like this might as well be coming out of the dark ages...there is that; and then again, there is also the truth.   And somewhere in between are some answers; answers that carry the potential to truly hit home and make the future bright.

But the truth is -- at the end of this day -- we seem to be excelling at the art of telling a little lie or two.

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


 

It's Small Things, Medium-Sized Things, Big Things Thing

Dear America,

It was a classic press secretary response... to the question: "What is the President doing about the economy?" this morning:

"So there are small things, 

medium-sized things, 

and big things 

that this President has done 

and will continue to do, 

and will look forward to doing.  

And he will work with Congress 

to do all of them."

thank you, Jay Carney 

let's have a show of hands on that one...

c'mon everybody,
give it up for Jay!

so, just so we are clear, he cited the new Fuel Efficiency Standards as a conduit to save consumers some money, with the assurances that green jobs will come (Chevy Volt sales in July:  125); and cited the "additional forbearance" coming to the financially strapped homeowners; but all in all, he, Jay, quickly wrapped things up offering  no specifics or new things at all.

so, can we look at that number again, Jay....125.  In all of America, with 300 million people, and millions of cars, trucks and SUV's sold each year (averaging 17 million/year) -- the Chevy Volt sold 125 cars in the month of July.

so, all this should come as good news when we realize who will be leading OPEC for the next year.  A nice guy, I'm sure -- probably earned a great deal of respect over the years, in certain circles anyway; not all that attractive, however, but how narrow-minded and superficial of me is that? what a silly girl I am this morning.

He runs with the name:  Brig. Gen. Rostam Ghasemi (Qasemi) heads Khatam al-Anbia (KAA), an IRGC-owned industrial and engineering giant targeted for U.S., European and United Nations sanctions for activities relating to Iran’s nuclear program.  Go here to get a good look at him yourself.

oh yeah, and there's more, Jay, tell us what we've won:

Ghasemi himself was added in February 2010 to the U.S. Treasury’s Department list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) whose assets are frozen and with whom Americans may not do business. Designation was made under an executive order that targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems

so, that  part about "with whom Americans may not do business" seems a bit awkward, doesn't it?  Oh I am sure it is no big deal; it's just OPEC; it's just Iran having a little fun with us westerners (again). oh and about that IRGC -- it stands for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- who considers this sweet deal "a blow to the West."  just gets better and better, doesn't it?

so, it is a good thing we've got a Volt or two hanging around to beat them at there own game.  yes, indeed. we should be able to nip this burden of oil dependency in no time. no time at all.

What is the president doing about it -- just demanding car makers confirm to the new standards, or else; he has continued to put the boot to the neck of the Gulf oil production stream; he has deemed areas "protected" to protect the lizards and birds; he has restricted America's production of oil in any way possible, answering the call of the wild environmentalists (just one of his many favorite lobbyists).

so, at least we were at about a 9% overall approval rating, now we are at just five...according to the Arab World which loves to rate how they think the United States of America is treating them.

A recent survey tells us that

"the Arab world's image of the US as a whole has also soured to become even less favorable than during the last year of the administration of president George W. Bush, under whom the United States led an international coalition that invaded Iraq.

and that...

"the poll found that Arabs see the Obama administration's handling of key Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving relations between them and the United States.

In fact, the two issues on which the US administration has invested "considerable energy -- the Palestinian issue and engagement with the Muslim world -- receive the lowest approval rating."

so, this made me think...you know that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when dealing with someone -- who, as a whole, you respect and adore and value -- as you enjoy their company and accept your differences -- and then, after maybe a breach of circumstances and natural evolution, you come to find out that after all this time, after all the breaking of bread, after all the niceties of relationship to and fro, that you come to find out underneath it all, they were really looking at you with contempt -- judging you from top to bottom.

this is how it feels after all this time, through dignitaries, ambassadors, kings and queens, sheiks and imams, prime ministers and presidents, from subjects to rebels to revolutionists to students, the richer the poorer, struggling to be in relationship with the Middle East.

We were doing a lot better when we kept to ourselves as much as possible; we did better when we kept at a reasonable distance; we were happier without the pushing and pulling and negotiating and compromising on the values we hold dear, vacillating with our own truth, making security breaches against our own personal security. The relationship is toxic, in seemingly every foreign relation's way possible.

and what is this president doing about it?   everything from bowing, struggling, angling, reinforcing, cajoling, manipulating, threatening in virtually every way he can think of just to make them "Like" us.  It is beginning to look like we are hanging our every move evaluating what they will think of us first.  How inauthentic is that?

so, you know that old Ricky Nelson line, 'you can't please everyone, you gotta please yourself...'

if you actually clicked into Ricky there, it tells you a story about how the song "Garden Party" came about; capturing the devastation to the psyche following a time when he was just being himself, putting himself out there from the heart, and getting booed off the stage (of course, the story says it may have just been a misunderstanding, that the crowd was really booing the cops, but Ricky didn't know better)  He took it personally and he held onto that feeling for a long, long time.  The song was the product of the cathartic, creative process to move himself up and out of his funk. (Kudos to 'Pequinito' on youtube for the project...nicely done)

This girl believes that we need to come to the Middle East from a different approach; we need to come from a place of personal power, our personal best, and stand up for ourselves.  All G see's is  the US standing up for them, in hopes it will work in our favor in the end.  This is clearly not working.

All the Arab world sees is a nation bowing with their insecurities and vulnerabilities leading the way; we are not meeting them with a sense of REAL authority, or authenticity , at all.  While with certain, there is no clear line of mutual respect between us.  And now with our unconscionable growth of our nation's debt, with little wiggle room anywhere to be found, we are forced into a relationship intent on being the submissive, affected, weaker party which clings to giving in more often than standing up.

and for that matter, now that I'm thinking about it, the entire world is watching the once Super Power fall into the position of Weakest Link.


Our actions must align with our talk, otherwise there is no power in it;  no one will take us seriously.

The Arab World doesn't have to like us; they don't want to like us; and they don't care if they like us or even if we all get along.  Actually, just guessing here, they would probably prefer to hold us in contempt rather than work things out.  It's just easier to make us the villain so that they can live on tip-toeing through the tulips (poppies) in their fairy land Arab Spring.  As a whole, the Arab World holds the power over us because all we want is for them to like us, and just maybe keep selling us that black gold that runs through their veins. 

The relationship will always be make believe; much like the stance of a typical presidential press secretary/spokesman/mouthpiece -- like Jay -- the fodder for what to believe about the things a president will do, wants to do, intends to do, dreams of doing, and what he actually does -- it all spins from a podium -- the explanations of the past, the amplifying of the present, and the safe-keeping of the future rests in the hands of how much "Jay" [and the president] can make the people, the press, the Arab world, believe.

In the end, though, like Ricky's song, it all falls back on each and every one of us -- to believe in ourselves, to believe in our own truths, to stand up for our own principles, to sing our own song, to follow through with our own word -- even if it might have the power to break a relationship and especially if it is toxic.

Because our life is not make believe, is it? 
It is real and it is right in front of us and it is what we make of it every day.

"So there are small things, 

medium-sized things, 

and big things 

that this President has done 

and will continue to do, 

and will look forward to doing.  

And he will work with Congress 

to do all of them."

Make it a Good Day, G

It's an EIGHT Trillion Dollar Man Thing

Dear America,

so here we are...

currently at about 14.3 Trillion.
Obama wants an additional 2.4 Trillion
(just to get him through the next election...
just one year away)

then, attaching the current deficit at 1.65 Trillion...

we come to, for all intents and purposes,
roughly an 18.35 Trillion dollar National Debt by fall of 2012.

And if John Boehner gets his way...on target to reducing deficits by only 22 billion in the next year, and pledging a promise of debt reduction by 1.2 Trillion over the next TEN years... he will play a part in setting us up in 2021 for what?  hmmm...conservatively speaking, adding maybe a trillion for each year, 28.35 Trillion in debt.

But from another angle -- because the many facets of this are just so illuminating -- taking all this into consideration, Obama is on track for bringing America to about 18 Trillion dollars in debt -- BY NEXT YEAR!

Thus -- under the Obama Administration he will have accumulated  EIGHT trillion dollars in debt, being solely responsible for the DOUBLING (and then some) of our national debt in a matter of four years [comparing him to Bush -- which Obama loves to do -- who added 4Trillion over eight].

But think about it:  it took 43 presidents to bring us to 10 Trillion -- but it just took one term under President Obama to bring America to her knees.

So, what we have then, from another angle, it took 232 years to make ten trillion -- while before this administration is through, he will have added 8.35 (trillion) in just four short stupid reckless... "brainless dickless hopeless heartless" (in an ode to Christmas Vacation on the fly) ...years. that's what I'm talkin' about.

A local talk radio young gun in the San Diego area is Mike Slater; yesterday, his topic was wrapped around the whole "compromise" thing.  And it was funny...he's like, you know, [which, if you are a Slater Crusader, you would recognize the "like" thrown in.  His reputation of over-using the word "like" is something of fascination out here...he gets dinged on the show every time he throws it around and they count them...but I digress]  anyway, he's like telling us what's with this idea of compromise?  essentially wondering how exactly does it work, when it is such that those of us who do not want the debt ceiling raised at all, are forced to give in, to the tune of trillions of dollars?  how is that right?

Posing it from another angle, he's like:  [paraphrasing] 'how about we go to the president and say we want to lower the debt by ten trillion, but we'll settle for five?  how 'bout that compromise?' or something like that, anyway....but interesting point, doncha think?   just why does the party who wants a real Cut,Cap and Balance have to compromise UP and conform to the liberal scale, clearly hellbent on government running amuck?

how is that a compromise that works, unless you are insistent on a compromise of values, let alone dollars and common sense?

"I want everybody in America to do well. I want everybody to have a chance to become a millionaire. I think the free market system is the greatest wealth generator we have ever known. This is not about punishing wealth. This is about asking people who have benefited the most over the last decade to share in the sacrifice, and I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in -- if they're asked -- because they know that middle class families shouldn't have to pick up the whole tab for closing the deficit."  President Obama

does this actually reflect the real feelings and actions of this president?

...bu  bu but but but Mr. President ...thought it was the "millionaires and billionaires" who are the villains in all this -- now you are suggesting you want everybody to be one?  Oh, that's right...not one who earns it the old-fashioned way, but becomes one ....through special favor, through policy of redistribution, and foregoing a fundamental American principle built upon self-reliance, promising equal opportunity, not equal outcome -- and thus taking from one, right now, in order to give that wealth to another.

..and Mr. President...you want everybody in America to do well, except the oil companies along with any energy un-green, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies.... small business owners.... nearly everyone in the private sector, and otherwise, anyone who is not a member of a union

...everybody DOES have a chance to become one [a millionaire], Mr. President.

...the free market system, when government gets out of the way, IS the greatest wealth generator..perhaps if you say it often enough, Mr. President, you may actually begin to believe it!

(that is like a flip on “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  -- Joseph Goebbels.)

...this ADMINISTRATION IS about punishing wealth -- not to mention controlling it, manipulating it, stealing it, violating it, diminishing it, chastising it, eliminating /redistributing it in every way...isn't it, Mr. President.  isn't it?

When Obama was just a candidate, he made many promises -- insinuating in every possible way a firm alliance and allegiance to America, both in principles and core values, from all angles.

If we can force ourselves to look back to 2008, he promised to go LINE by LINE on the Federal Budget to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse of the the federal bureaucracy...instead, he has added 22% to the growth of government; he promised to cut the deficit BY HALF before the end of his first term...instead, he has quadrupled it; he promised to show "sausage making" on C-SPAN...ha ha hahaha; he promised he would be different, bi-partisan, reaching across the aisle, changing Washington and the status quo....ha ha hahaha; he even promised to stand by his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman...instead, he has simply decided not to defend DOMA.

The character of a man during the campaign is simply indistinguishable as president (who we have come to know as just a boy).

Another fallacy came to light in the last twenty-four hours.  Going to words of the administration press secretary, Jay Carney, when he explained the road ahead like so:

“It’s a Sophie’s Choice. Who do you save? Who do you pay?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/27/wh-spokesman-calls-debt-decisions-sophies-choice-rejects-questions-on-wh-plan/#ixzz1TPqjpeci

So, with the audacity to contradict his president really -- a president who very recently stood firm on fear mongering and claiming that he is "unable to guarantee social security checks will go out" -- Carney admits THERE IS A CHOICE.

Well, there you go; returning to multiple angles, of course there is a choice!  As well as, a LAW, that requires Social Security to be paid; which just so happens to be the same LAW, spelling out explicit policy guaranteeing payment on our debt/interest on debt first, to prevent a default from happening at all! [Not to mention the bi-weekly payroll deductions feeding directly into the funds to pay social security checks, without disruption]

But thank you, Jay, for making it so clear.  The president has a choice -- it is also known as a duty...to God and to country....something he swore to, on the Holy (Lincoln) Bible, just two and a half years ago.

Of course, given his track record, it is awfully hard to tell if he will hold himself to it.

So here we are...just letting a little light shine upon all the angles...free will...duty...responsibility...self-reliance...law...indebtedness...prosperity...

in the end...all of us --  in equal portion -- are at CHOICE.

Make it a Good Day, G

ps. I take exception being equated to either a Hobbit or a Terrorist...and so choose not to link you to either original source of those stories.  why bother. but let's just say we "hobbits" can't wait for 2012.