It's About a Country Being Worn Inside Out Thing

Dear America,

it was a telling statement, an innocent, rambling thought that just spilled out for all the world to hear...if watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that is.  And no, it wasn't so much what Chris said, it was broad-casted from an all too familiar face sitting alongside him -- the constant and politically correct puppet of the Left, Juan Williams.

I will have to paraphrase it, unfortunately; for it hit me so hard over the head, it took a minute or two to find my balance or a pen.  But it went something like this -- oh, and the subject that set it off?  Gay Marriage -- so here ya go:  'you can't say in one state you can and in another you can't.'

Oh Juan.  juan, juan, juan, juan juan.

Have you no recollection of the most acute semblance of common sense thrust upon mankind since the discovery the world was round?  Have you no shame, man?  Oh how far we have fallen from the vision and foresight of our founders...The level of sensitivity and prudence for every living breathing detail of our lives was carefully thought out and outlined for posterity and beyond -- and pretty much left intact and untouchable -- and what have we done?  We've unraveled nearly every bloody thread.  poof! our republic was here just a minute ago...

Ya see, this is why we never should have messed with the Senate chamber -- turning over direct control of the election process of a State's representative body to the people.  Who's great idea was that? [purely rhetorical; many thanks to the progressives hellbent on achieving fundamental transformation, early 20th century style...and basically upending the checks and balances of the federal government, while losing all representation of the sovereignty of the state, just  like that...geesh.]

The whole idea back behind the U.S. Senate -- originally a decision delegated to the individual state legislature, and not through the process of the popular vote -- was to elect  representatives fully committed to the interests of the state.   The House of Representatives was intended to be the voice of the people; the Senate, the voice of the State; with the President being in full control of the limited voice of the federal government.  The Judicial branch then wraps it all up in a tidy little bow.

Enter the Seventeenth Amendment.  Thus, we arrive at the day cementing the loss of State Sovereignty; thus, the detached body previously only interested in the interests of the state, is decidedly decimated.  poof!

And from here on out...America has never been the same.   All things usurping the interests of the state became vogue.  It was a new day, a new deal, donning new threads, and all re-imaging and re-imagining the power of the federal government.  Vanished into thin air -- boundaries.

But back to the fool rushing in to make her review of the comment expressly produced by Juan...

The original thought anchoring our Republic was centered upon maintaining a real, true balance in between branches -- with no aspect of government superseding the other.  Here is Alexander Hamilton:

"This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance.  It forms a double security to the people.  If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.  Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits, by certain rival-ship which will ever subsist between them."

The thing is, what is so wrong with states keeping a certain allegiance to what the will of it's people really, really want?  Whether with regard to it's natural resources, it's people, it's ability to produce and trade it's share of goods and services -- it's stance on social/cultural beliefs -- why not, why can't the state have the power to demonstrate and define the things of importance and relevance?   Or why have state lines at all? [oh you laugh...]

Proven by the electorate time and time again, a majority of states are not ready for same-sex marriage.

More important, states have rights, too.

Don't we already do that with each state deciding it's own tax code?  Isn't giving total  freedom and jurisdiction over federal law --  as in giving states like Washington and Colorado the authority to sell an illegal substance, like pot, like candy at the Five and Dime -- exemplifying such an idea?   Haven't we gone through enough with the fight to keep our Right to Work states?

Matter of fact -- originally -- according to the Tenth Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."  At first blush, that would have worked out well, no?

It was James Madison who gave us great clarification on such, saying:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary, course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."   Federalist Papers, No. 45, pp 292-93 -- pulling the quotes from both Hamilton and Madison from The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen.

But Juan, allow me to get to the real thing clamoring for attention.  It comes from an American historian, John Fiske; but prepare yourself, for it's quite stunning --  it may just blind you for a moment [and for avid readers of G...I beg of you, please don't shun me for the season over season repeat...how garish, gaudy and gauche is that, right?]

"If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England -- on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired."

Well, I'll be...we've plum been there and done der that, haven't we now?  [guessing we can take the country girl to the city but we can't take the hillbilly out of the girl.]

We've been robbed.  We've been robbed of our most interesting and valuable features.  Oh woe is me, what is to come of us now?

Me thinks I need a piece of fluff to read -- you know, to get my mind off all the stupidity of man (as in man in the general, not necessarily in the particular).   Anywho, having just recently watched the modern adaptation of the Clare Boothe Luce book, The Women --  I'm hungering to read it from the genuine article.   Consider it on the official Christmas list -- currently making that little item wish number eight, if keeping tabs. [ While crazy is as crazy does, this wish might actually be a doable and durable good for us all to get our hands on...you, too, can buy it here] 

Now talk about a woman ahead of her time -- scratch that -- making her own time...in fame, politics, talent, industry, and all with an overwhelming sense of knowing herself.  It might just lead me to a double header for the wish list for one day -- enjoying the company of this woman over dinner.  [I know, I know -- maybe in heaven we can get together once or twice...]  An ambassador and congresswoman for the ages; don't we just love how conservative women just do it already, no fanfare required, as I undress and digress all at the same time.

That's it then, Juan. It's all I have to say to you this morning.... Mr. all-about-town-and-totally unaware-you're-wearing-your-country-inside-out. [maybe it's not your fault...perhaps you're just throwing it on without thinking for yourself.   It's a fad!   Hopefully, it will pass]

Make it a Good Day, G

 oh this is rich.  from yahoo! news today..."59 is the Age women should stop wearing red lipstick..."  get a load of this comment from 'Franky":  "After a certain age - women don't give a flying f-k what others think they should wear" -- it got 4258 thumbs up at last count (63 thumbs down).   I love my country! 

Dear America,

We are so very sensitive these days.

Having awakened to extremism in journalism and correspondent candidness in action, I am feeling the shock waves roll through my body, while shuddering in disbelief of where we linger in political correctness...it just keeps coming.

Apparently, Juan Williams, has been fired from NPR for an off the cuff comment he made with Bill O'Reilly, comments that "undermine his credibility."

He's been with NPR for years!  He is well read and an established author himself.  He speaks of civil rights, the abhorrence of racial profiling, holding to the rights of all Americans with compassion and common sense, sometimes drifting into personal bias, but most often, he is level headed and balanced in waging his opinions -- welcoming the discussion of both sides of an issue.

I don't subscribe to everything he says, but naturally, right, as we have lived very different lives --  for starters, me being just a girl and Juan being all boy...me, leaning right, and Juan, veering left...but as Americans, I feel quite certain we relate on many levels at the heart.

So at issue, is Juan's natural concern when he said this:

"But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

First and foremost, if you watched the whole thing, this wasn't the prevailing message from Juan, and he projected a greater concern to the bigger picture than anything else -- but now, you wouldn't know that, by NPR's response.

This conversation happened following O'Reilly's blunt blurt out on The View, when he simply said that we were attacked "by Muslims" on 9/11...of course, what ensued, was as we have well covered over the last several days, an embarrassment of ignorance raging from Whoopie and Joy, to the point of taking their surly, loud mouths of incivility off the stage -- they just walked off in the middle of the show.

At the heart of the matter, was the fact that Muslims did commit the crimes and punishment on 9/11-- all in the name of Allah.  Bill noted that fact out loud without sugar coating; because he is cool like that -- and unfortunately, it's true!

The destruction of 9/11 was done by Muslims, and only Muslims. They, this special little band of Islamic extremists, acted according to an age old radicalized, religious, Islamic tenet of Jihad on Americans, simply because we are home to the Western Culture, we stand for the Judea-Christian beliefs and foundation, we live under the rule of law based upon individual freedom and liberty, and go against the beliefs of the growing fundamental Muslim extremist view in every way.  This is the bad element who attacked America -- Muslims, in the name of Allah and motivated purely by religious rage.

Anyone who knows Bill, knows that this is the element he was referring to.

Anyone who knows Juan, knows that this is the fringe layer of thought back behind seeing Muslims in "uniform," in the burqa, in the wrap, under the cover of Islam.

But it wasn't just about what Juan said, was it?  NPR fell to the threat and pressure of CAIR, an organization claiming to have America's best interests at heart when moderating the conversation between Arabs and Americans;  but if you take the time to tiptoe through the tulips, peep through the poppies, there is a reality of inherent bias within that should shake us up a bit.

And because we are so nice about it, because we are so accepting and so trusting, we, as a nation, are being surrounded by organizations who have polished up on the Saul Alinsky's, Rules for Radicals, without blinking an eye; the fundamental goal to change America is happening from the inside out -- sometimes quietly, sometimes on attack, but in every way making inroads and putting the America we know and love in flux. 

What should worry us, is the level of power to alter our world, overnight; the very ulterior motive that lives and breathes within, under the cover of darkness, acting like the rest of us, changes the face of this organization in a flash -- and we should be afraid; when NPR fires someone simply on the measure of pressure from such a questionable source, along with the clear and present danger of total absence of any benefit of the doubt for a correspondent undeserving of such action, a seasoned journalist and commentator with years of experience and a open heart, a rushing wave of unbridled fear should hit you, too.

For an era that was supposed to bring us together, under the naivete of high expectations of a young gun president who aimed to make all things right side up again, we seem to be going backwards -- things seem worse than ever before.

Or, is this just the natural culmination of our fears over the years?  Or, are we at the cusp of deeper realizations and understanding of who we are and what truths we wish to hold onto, as a nation?

But, besides the heightened security risks which we now live with and make wide accommodations for daily, our heightened sensitivities is off the charts, mounting to unreasonable levels; and right now, today, the side of political correctness is winning, and that is not a good thing.

The thing is, what happened to Juan should never happen in America (feeling like I am channeling Barbara Walters there for a second); we have a right to speak our mind and express ourselves, whether we like it or not; whether it breeds fear or love, in good times or bad, in sickness and in health, in richer or poorer, this freedom is fundamental to who we are.

Question, where is the President in this?  How come he hasn't jumped into the fray on behalf of Free Speech everywhere, or for Juan-- as an African-American and one of his own liberal faithful-- or on simply the premise and purpose and agenda of National Public Radio, in and of itself  -- where is he on this? Or, is this just a case where the Muslim in him wins out, flat out?   This isn't crazy town speaking, this is just fact,  taking into account of his heritage, as in the kind of Dreams from My Father, sort of thing. 

And look, he's jumped in on lesser counts, like the Massachusetts Professor/OfficerGate, why not now...he jumped into the Breitbart Media meets Shirley Sherrod case, why not now?  where are you Mr. President, jump in, the water's fine.

 I feel ill, just completely ill.

I need to lay down.
But before I go:

"it is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies..."

Thomas Paine

The odds may seem against us now, in an age where appropriate response and censured commentary dictates the whole; we have risen to the cause before, and I have every faith it can happen again.

And to think, I woke up thinking I would be squawking about the Queen, having to cut back on crumpets to the tune of 14%; the austerity factor getting cut off at the knees by whole lot of audacity, huh...funny.

Make it a Good Day, G

Fox News should bring Juan on full-time somewhere, maybe something like..Juan's World...and we're smiling already...

one more thing, with regard to the liberal left media who seems to be going to bat for Juan in droves against NPR -- hmmmmmm, wonder what they would say if Sarah said it? if O'Reilly said it?  would Fox News fire a commentator for making such an observation -- evidently not, as Juan is still on, still speaking, and now commenting on his comment "undermining all credibility."