It's About How Much More We Are Willing to Concede Thing

Dear America,

From The Guardian --

Just when you think American politics cannot get weirder, the White House announced that Barack Obama will trek through the Alaskan wilderness with Bear Grylls for an upcoming episode of Running Wild with Bear Grylls...

 But it fits a pattern. Obama uses unorthodox methods and stunts to project his agenda...

Indeed.

And talk about patterns?

Should we discuss the many mini ice ages?   Or a time when the planet Earth was nearly covered in ICE many millions of years ago, running into a pattern three to four times over?  Or perhaps demand that all 7 billion of us go back to school, to perhaps the sixth grade, to discover the essential elements of the earth and plant growth fully dependent upon CO2, deriving a pattern of the natural give and take of oxygen and CO2 that becomes almost like a daily occurrence -- and a pattern of necessity me thinks?  Has anyone watched the pattern of ice coverage over the are of the Great Lakes, given fluctuations in the natural, in winter, a season that comes and goes, kinda like summer?  Or how about we just take a gander at the pattern of the many embarassing predictions of an Al Gore and his bevy of Global Warming Fanatics?  How about the patterns of using fear and hysteria of all things now generally assumed as "man-made" Climate Change to move bergs of mankind, for political expediency and gain -- if not also to topple America off it's high horse, right Obama?

Here's a really good read from Forbes,

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

[Now, it was written a year and half ago, so bear that in mind.]

But let's return to the smartest president we have ever had and hear directly from the Authority-and -Theory of Everything-in-Chief:

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters waiting at the base of the glacier.

Here's another quote that begins to make heads and tails out of it all, falling into the same honor of never letting an agenda disaster or someone's idiotic hide go to waste; it's pulled from the "Embarrassing Predictions" article (from 2014, linked above), citing within the section titled, "Pentagon Climate Forecasts, " a follow up question in the Washington Times goes to Doug Randall for an explanation for such a great disparity in reality over the last decade, and he says:

“When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,” Randall said. “But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”

Exactly.

And thanks for the honesty, Doug.

"...[T]o motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,"  he says, "whether the actual specifics came true...that never was the main intent."

The sideshow going on up in America's upper one -- you know, in the context of the settled science of the lower 48 -- by the O-so-High-One, himself -- proves to be nothing more than another scandalous fraud at the foot of Denali.

It's all about the strategy to create the very conditions  on the ground to warrant the policy changes from On High that The Left deems vital, leading America into energy decisions, economic decisions, quality of life decisions, inhospitable to a growing, abundant, free-enterprising, upwardly mobile, capitalist-friendly, market.

So in hopes of ending this day, rather abruptly -- (what can I say, some days are just better than others) -- let's go to Henry David Thoreau, from deep within his essay on Civil Disobedience:

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America.  They are rare in the history of the world.  There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day.  We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire.  Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation.  They have no genius or talent of comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture.  If we were left solely to the wordy with of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among nations.  For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has the wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to , -- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, --is still an impure one; to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed.  It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it,  The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.   Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire,  Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?  Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?   There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

Or  to put it in terms that may strike a  more resounding chord -- is America producing so much CO2  it is now stifling the growth of everything pure, enlightened and magnificent -- more specifically, an intellectual willing to rise up, to offer a wee bit of civil disobedience, when needed -- and chock full of good science to back it up?   Much like the way of the overgrowth within the world's mightiest of rain-forests -- perhaps too much of a good thing leads to a competition of sorts.   A competition of words, resources, ideas, a way of life from this generation and well into the next, and the next.

The thing is --   AMERICA is receding; just how much more are we willing "to concede" these days?

It's a good question.

Make it a Good Day, G

It's a Prelude to a Magnificent Mistake Thing

Dear America,

"unfettered access to our users' data are simply untrue"

and we can prove it, if this fine government of ours loosens the gag order on us.

...according to Google and facebook.

Quibbling over the definition of "direct access", the size and scope of the PRISM operation (of which we had no prior knowledge) --  in hopes of reconciling whatever trust remains in relationship with the public -- the companies are demanding from the Department of Justice an opportunity to explain.

Per Dominic Rushe, for The Guardian, just yesterday --

The letter and statement come days after Google and Facebook categorically denied knowingly participating in Prism. Internal NSA documents state that Prism involves "collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple".

In the wake of this breaking news, many have quickly rationalized the snooping and hoarding of all this data as just a new reality we have to live with in this new age of terrorism wreaking havoc around the planet.

It was yesterday -- when reviewing the current Pew Research available -- that the collection of information was amply supported by 2/3rds of the people sampled; but when it came to actually looking at our emails -- clear opposition rises to the majority position.

Something I heard this morning on one of San Diego's newest talk radio duo's -- Armstrong and Getty -- brought this comparison to the head of a pin, while making distinctions to the argument from Google and facebook at the same time.

As they put it -- in the irreverent fashion they are famous for -- what if, we had to document every phone call, every email, everywhere we went, who we talked to, what we purchased, every Skype, facebook post, blog post, text...every link, youtube video, search...in a generic log and were told to send it off to Washington every single waking day?

...Even if it were just for storage, for the record -- no content -- all for safe keeping...as nobody would really look at it;  it's just in case some time down the road we f&$^ up and become radicalized, acting out accordingly, as insurance -- just so that the records could be accessed under a "heightened standards" necessity should the time come.

Would you comply?  Would you be okay with this?

Perhaps we could save the billions of dollars that we really don't have just by turning over the records to whomever it concerns willingly, without going through all the FISA rigamarole.   Who needs a massive NSA data farm coming through our back door anyway, when we can simply walk out our front door and mail it the old-fashioned way to Pennsylvania Avenue?

John Stossel has a brilliant response to all of this, so let me take you there now -- Why worry about the NSA when Google already knows everything about me.


The truth is -- our privacy has been blown; in the real world, there is no balance between security and privacy, Mr. President.  It's non-existent.    How about telling it like it is -- by all appearances, we can take it.

Better yet -- where's the link to "unsubscribe?"  I know who I am; I am a Patriot, a Patriot with a capital P & G.  There is no need for alarm; where is my right to opt-out knowing full well where my loyalties lie as a proud, honorable, citizen of this great country?   My civil liberties are being directly violated; I should have every right to say, this isn't about me.

[now allow me call out Google and facebook in this very moment -- for you guys can't have it both ways; you can't claim you know nothing when you already know everything...while some of you guys (speaking of the Big Nine) even sell what you know; and about that "share everything" plan, you got that right, Verizon, but you may wanna think twice about advertising it...] 

In order for us to have that world back, we would have to forfeit the freedom and liberty of expression and incorporation and industry that is fully supported, augmented, enriched, and enlivened, by the tools of technology allowing us to have access to the whole entire world every single day.  Of course, it also opens us up to fraud, corruption, identity thieves, and the quick dissemination of sex, lies, and videotape, there is that.

If you really think about it -- what Snowden has actually given to us is a gift.

The opportunity is here and standing right in front of us to question everything, even if it's just for a moment, a nano-second given the full scope of time and place.

We have a chance to stop and question authority, the rule of law, who has authority, and who can use the rule of law to their benefit, not ours.

"But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of the people whose manners are universally corrupt.  He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."  Samuel Adams

We are losing control of our liberties, little by little.

Unexpectedly, and seemingly out of the blue -- thanks to Snowden -- we find ourselves in a heightened state of awareness to all the ways our liberty and freedom and responsible self-governing this nation has survived are being compromised -- individually, and collectively, violating our every move and virtue.  No longer in the dark of night, but in the light of day, the cornerstones of the greatest nation on earth are being usurped under the guise of accountable federal intervention, in keeping with a myriad of excuses and reasons to comply without question.   We are being invaded by the enemy, and it is within -- and what do we do, but turn the other cheek.

Whatever happens to America from this day forward, make no mistake -- it will be the people's fault.

Under the caption, "Prelude to Monarchy," from my favorite book, The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen -- we gain further incite of America's future (and I've used this before, so forgive me):

"There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh -- get first all the people's money, then their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever.  It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings.  I know it.  But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government.   It sometimes relieves them from aristocratic domination.  They had rather have one tyrant than 500.   It gives more the appearance of equality among citizens; and that they like.  I am apprehensive, therefore -- perhaps too apprehensive -- that the government of these states may in future times end in a monarchy.  But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor places of profit.  If we do, I fear that, though we employ at first a number and not a single person, the number will in time be set aside; it will only nourish the fetus of a king (as the honorable gentleman from Virginia very aptly expressed it) and a king will the sooner be set over us."  Benjamin Franklin

It's like we have 500 kings and queens over us --  and we're okay with it.   The natural inclination to have someone watch over us is comfortable, secure, even if restraining and tempestuous -- even if in real life it looks an awful lot like one president, one Congress, and a band of judges in cahoots and taking full advantage of the kind of power it brings.

My flag is being whipped by the off-shore breeze; the skies are overcast with a little drizzle; but in this moment, me thinks it's a reflection of something deeper.

Make it a Good Day, G

It's a Turn Key Tyranny Thing

Dear America,

"As a precaution we have evacuated Toontown."

enter an excerpt from the Remarks by the President, May 23, 2013 @ the National Defense University:

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society.  As Commander-in-Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field.  To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information.  But a free press is also essential for our democracy.  That’s who we are.  And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.  Our focus must be on those who break the law.  And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach.  And I’ve raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concerns.  So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review.  And I’ve directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

good to know, right?  (somebody mark the calendar)

Flash forward two weeks, taking us to a June 7th mad, mad world update from Reuters:

"President Barack Obama's administration is likely to open a criminal investigation into the leaking of highly classified documents that revealed the secret surveillance of Americans' telephone and email traffic, U.S. officials said on Friday."

enter another view --  something featured on Mother Jones of all places [normally a place little old G never wanders... at least not without my concealed weapon, my sense of humor] -- but surprisingly, what I discovered not only put my senses on high alert, but at ease, too; quickly putting my own bias' in check, if not to rest, my first inclination wanted to keep reading, dig in for the long haul, a cosmic trip to the moon and back.  A piece alerting us to some kind of alternative universe, a secret sweet spot set aside to protect civil servants in high places who "break the law" caught my eye. [Virgin Galactic's got nothing on this, but you wouldn't know that, now would you, Beiber...]

Following up with some deep background after a couple of Democratic Senators met up with some kind of secret garden wall, clearly unable to get a jump over on their own, David Corn writes,

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program.

Enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest group focused on digital rights. It quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Justice Department for any written opinion or order of the FISA court that held government surveillance was improper or unconstitutional. The Justice Department did not respond, and EFF was forced to file a lawsuit a month later...

On its website, EFF observes, "Granted, it's likely that some of the information contained within FISC opinions should be kept secret; but, when the government hides court opinions describing unconstitutional government action, America's national security is harmed: not by disclosure of our intelligence capabilities, but through the erosion of our commitment to the rule of law."

...There's no telling if the 86-page FISA court opinion EFF seeks is directly related to either of these two programs, but EFF's pursuit of this document shows just how difficult it is—perhaps impossible—for the public to pry from the government information about domestic surveillance gone wrong.

there's no telling...Corn duly notes.

and yet, so telling it is.

All of this just doesn't sit quite right with us, does it?

It's uncomfortable; it's like, what did they know, and when did they know it?  How much did they hear, what did they see, and at what point is domestic surveillance taking it a high speed link, a bridge, too far?

enter an excerpt from a recent hearing:

At a hearing of the Senate intelligence committee In March this year, Democratic senator Ron Wyden asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

"No sir," replied Clapper

Liar, liar, pants on fire; how about you stand in front of your webcam so we all can see?

And again, from President  "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls" Obama:

But a free press is also essential for our democracy.  That’s who we are.  And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.  Our focus must be on those who break the law.

[journalists, no --  well, some journalists anyway -- but whistleblowers, yes]

Our focus must be on those who break the law, he says.

And about that "government accountability" --

• it was precisely this government that let America down when this administration ignored concerns from the Ambassador of Libya, questioning their own security, needing support, for months leading up to the attack (the attack planned by Islamic Extremists for the anniversary of September 11th).   OR, was it simply the fluid and fully reckless situation on the ground -- having masterminded a trade of prisoners, or a gun deal gone bad, that turned Benghazi into the magnificent melee of bureaucrats up against jihadists in it's final hours?   The secret's safe with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, now in his final resting place.
• it was precisely this government that let America down when this administration ignored concerns by everyday Americans, having been prejudicially targeted by the IRS, as well as the EPA,  because of their beliefs, religion, the content of the prayers, conservative ideals, dating back the last four years.  The secret's safe in some government cubicle, somewhere high up and in a place where breaking the law meets excuses meets promotion for someone like Sarah Hall Ingram
• it was precisely this government that let America down when this administration ignored concerns -- deep throated Russian warnings, actually -- of the brothers Tsarnaev that led to the Boston Bombing....hello?  Can you hear me now?  Could it have been any more clear?   Record of Verizon text messages, phone calls to Chechnya, have got nothing on this; we were told in no uncertain terms,  "Этот парень беда"  (this guy is trouble)... [Oh and you can sue Bing translator if that is entirely wrong.]   The secret's safe with the secret agency first notified; the same agency to be monitored more closely from here to eternity from here on out, and you can file a motion on that.
• it was precisely this government that let Americans down when this administration ignored concerns, warning signs from here to Yemen, on the Army infiltrated Radicalized, Islamic terrorist/psychiatrist --  "Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people, told a judge on Tuesday that he believed he was defending the lives of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan from American military personnel when he went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood here in November 2009."    The same freak who gets to serve on behalf of his own sorry defense now.  The secret's safe to say, this will be a courtroom circus -- justice will never be served for the American lives lost on the day domestic terrorism, cultivated within our very own Army, was allowed to go unchecked, unbalanced under the fallacy of policy favoring tolerance over common sense,  Political Correctness gone wrong.

Holding this government accountable will never happen as long as this administration leads it's own Department of Justice; make no mistake, this is America's Department of Justice, not Obama's.

But let's get back to mixed messages, leading from behind, and talking out of both sides of the mouth:

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants.  There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.  Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home.  Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world.  In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

This is what the president wants us to hear; but this is what the president wants us to fear, so much so, that it fully warrants the government to continue doing what it is doing -- for our own good, you know:

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists.  From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.  But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.  With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them...Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home.  To address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review and engaged with law enforcement....Thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home.  That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are.  That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

"...but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse?"  really?

oh okay.

enter news from the other side -- the 29 year old guy described as a mediocre student/computer geek turned whistleblower -- Edward Snowden:

A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under." 

enter another random excerpt from the president's remarks @ the National Defense University just for kicks:

....And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States.  Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history.  Deranged or alienated individuals -- often U.S. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad.  And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

So our president starts off citing:

1) An ex-Army, white supremacist  from 2012  
2) followed by the white, Bush-Hater, neo-communist flying into a government IRS office, 2010
3) followed by the white supremacists blowing up children in Oklahoma, dating back to 1983.

Of the "many forms" this president chooses to highlight, notice how the white, neo-Nazi linked crazy dudes come first. "Deranged or alienated individuals -- often U.S. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad" and this is what it looks like.  Oh my -- might as well throw in your go-to derogatory mischaracterization of choice, "teabaggers," while you're at it....and maybe even Christian, too, right Mr. President?  

But there it is in black and white.  Fine examples laid out by the president.
Then, consciously choosing to soften his approach, the president is forced to include:

"And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon." 

The prelude of an horrific act becomes "that pull" (as if by some kind of natural progression).  While he claims it to be "towards extremism"  but doesn't actually say so; while it "appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," but we can't really be for certain.  

The intelligence just hasn't given us enough information to say for a fact --  or maybe it's just "workplace violence" gone seriously awry, or maybe it's simply the fault of the American  way of life altogether.  Oh you know how it is, the challenges are just far too great for the poor immigrant, and family, to overcome sometimes.   Oh what difference does it make, anyway --  he's decidedly tying up the uncomfortably loose ends as if in a bow and sending the package FedEx, if not also in code, back to the Arab world, with apologies.

The Remarks by the President are worthy of every American having a go at reading every single word.  It's like this great maze, or labyrinth, taking us to parts known and unknown.   As the administration grapples at keeping a fine balance between keeping the peace with the Muslim world, he sends America, under the guise of diplomacy, six feet under already. 

The president makes a game of it, meandering  through age-old topics of policy and expectations, like hopscotch, skipping across the words he needs to put in place to sound authentic, intelligent, and trustworthy, on one foot, but then allowing the other foot drop and settle upon a notion so obtuse it makes sense to  us, the masses, and we follow along mindlessly.

In sweeping tones of tolerance and appeasement, the president takes us into a new era -- one that audaciously, tyrannically, allows for Americans to be questioned, watched, tracked, with high-tech surveillance and all, totally unafraid of how it looks, or how it feels, for the true blue American citizen -- while real terrorism goes on everyday within our borders, through cover organizations yet to be unveiled to the American people, and even within his administration.  Or see here.  Or read here.  Or become totally aghast here.

All the while saying, oh, you can't see that, that's classified; it's on a need to know basis, and well, for you all,  you all don't need to know that (flashing that million dollar smile of his).  Oh, and you, over there, you can't do that,  or we will call you a co-conspirator (putting the boot to the neck).  Oh and nobody is listening to your phone calls (rolling his eyes back).  And the rule of law is the rule of law -- we'll be coming to get you Snowden (extending that presidential thumb from the podium).

enter somebody new and totally out of the blue --

According to Rep. Maxine Waters (CA) who told Roland Martin, as told by Rush Limbaugh -- way back in February she said this: 

"Well, you know, I don't know.  And I think some people are missing something here.  The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.  That's going to be very, very powerful.  That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before."  Rushbo carries the transcript with full EIB Network, Excellence in Broadcasting, commentary, here.

Highly classified?  my sweet tush.  
To the full extent of PRISM's operation -- some might question; but needless to say, lots of people knew about this; lots of people -- even Maxine Waters -- knew the president was community organizing a database supplying "everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before."

So, from my perspective --  even Waters leaked the massive government overreach (badump ba); and it was months ago.  But since nobody takes her very seriously, we let it slide right on by as if it was silly database dribble.

My latest goal -- to give those covering surveillance a field day every waking day;  what with imagining them watching every key stroke, and link, and comment, and opinion all through the day...it makes me just giddy.   oh we are gonna have some fun now, eh kids?


Make it a Good Day, G


 

It's Caving without really Caving Thing

Dear America,

it's fascinating what gets picked up as a story-line and carried like the wind in the effervescence of the free Internet air; the story leads on redflagnews.com, freerepublic.com, politichicks.com, jewsforsarah.com, yahoo.com just to name five. (and since we're keeping track -- it's day five of the strike -- the president still hasn't told the teachers to listen to their mayor, respect the needs of the children, and get back to work; and did you know it may actually be illegal? )

Neil Munro of The Daily Caller gave us this:

Obama Caves to Romney, 

Embraces Free Speech for Critics of Islam

as he then continues to unravel the nitty gritty details, and more, reciting Jay Carney's official clarification to the American people via the press corps briefing; he was speaking on behalf of the president, on board Air Force One...bear in mind, everyone was en-route to Vegas for that campaign gaffe.  Calling it that, considering nobody in the press seemed to be all that affected by the rush to stump in the midst of the chaos on the day. But be that as it may.

It was a great article.

And yet, when I pulled up the transcript of the president's remarks, I discovered the full text on the subject to be considerably choppy, sometimes biting, sometimes juvenile, sometimes amnesiac, and got a slightly different feel than from the headline -- and remember now, Jay is quoting President Obama to answer the question, pulling the response from an interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. I'm not even going to watch it; but no surprise there, huh?    So here's the Goods -- taking creative license to em-bolden a few of the president's remarks -- and as expected, G's commentary are in pink...carry on...

“I think most Americans, Democrats or Republicans, understand that there are times where we set politics aside [interesting -- from the guy who never sets politics aside -- and beginning by talking politics...he's brilliant, I tell you, simply brilliant], and one of those is when we've got a direct threat to American personnel who are overseas. And so I think that if you look at how most Republicans have reacted [but not romney], most elected officials [but not romney], they've reacted responsibly [but not romney], waiting to find out the facts before they talked [but not romney], making sure that our number-one priority is the safety and security of American personnel. [but not romney:  moving quickly into becoming the expert witness on speaking out of turn -- and ironically, before UPHOLDING FREE SPEECH he outright extinguishes that very right from Romney.  As luck would have it, his comments serve as an excellent example of Saul Alinsky's Thirteenth rule, under Tactics:  Pick the Target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it] 

It appears that Governor Romney didn’t have his facts right. [even though in the broader picture it doesn't matter; for the FACTS remain:  America APOLOGIZED and BEGGED for Mercy FIRST.   In other words, it immediately became akin to the moment when the Embassy decided to 'shoot first and aim later.'  The embassy, as part of our State Department didn't look down the road for "ramifications" to come.  Moreover, the COMMAND begins at the level of the Presidency.   Hence -- whether you want it or not -- the PRESIDENT IS responsible for our Diplomats around the world to act under his leadership and his messaging accordingly]  The situation in Cairo was one in which an embassy that is being threatened by major protests releases a press release saying that the film that had disturbed so many Muslims around the world wasn’t representative of what Americans believe about Islam, in an effort to cool the situation down. It didn’t come from me, it didn’t come from Secretary Clinton; it came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. [who apparently, acted stupidly; and so, doubling down -- the buck really doesn't stop with him --  "it didn't come from me" -- it's not my fault]

And my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance, rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office. ["from the comfort of a campaign office"?   Clearly here, having misspoke, not recognizing that his duties of the Oval Office come first]

And I do have to say that, more broadly, we believe in the First Amendment. It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold. And so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind [everyone except Romney, of course]. On the other hand, this film is not representative of who we are and our values, and I think it's important for us to communicate that. [don't ya just love mixed messages....so much for conviction, yo] That's never an excuse for violence against Americans, which is why my number-one priority -- and my initial statement -- focused on making sure that not only are Americans safe, but that we go after anybody who would attack Americans.”

The President continues, “There's a broader lesson to be learned here, and Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as President, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that, that it's important for you to make sure that the statements you make are backed up by the facts, and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

First, we're gonna have to cut this president some slack when he said this --

 "And I do have to say that, 

more broadly, 

we believe in the First Amendment. 

It is one of the hallmarks 

of our Constitution 

that I’m sworn to uphold."   

On the other hand, no I'm not.  When he says "And I do HAVE to say" -- it's not that he really wants to at this time, but it's expected of him; and when he says "more broadly, we believe in the First Amendment"  -- you know, it's generally speaking; and when he adds "that I'm sworn to uphold"  -- but it's begrudgingly really, for he's studied it, he knows it, and in the end, he doesn't like it nor respects it.

"it's important for you to make sure that the statements you make are backed up by the facts, and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Get the facts first.   Is that what you just said?  okay, we'll get back to that.  but first --

When these remarks and reality meet and placed further into context -- considering the facts and all -- what happened in the Middle East was expected.  Intelligence reports were crystal clear.  The facts tells us that the State Department, the Embassy's in Libya and Egypt, and even the office of the president, were all well aware of the possibility of an uprising 48 hours before the outbreak on the anniversary of September 11th.  These attacks were coordinated and planned and this administration knew it was coming.

So if we knew something was coming -- just how come we were not better prepared?  How could this slip by you, considering your level of intelligence and information available to you?  But seriously, just why were our Marine guards carrying guns with no ammo?   but we digress.

Getting back to getting the facts first -- before speaking:

Like when you immediately lambasted the Boston Police Department for acting stupidly?

Like when you had to walk back and clarify remarks made regarding "the wisdom" of building a mosque a half block from the World Trade Center?

Like when you said, in the last campaign, first thing you were going to do, as president, is close Gitmo?  The facts back behind Gitmo made that a little difficult, now didn't it?

Like even after compiling all the facts, you still call something - something contrary to what it is.  Like when your administration considers the Fort Hood attack an act of "workplace violence", not an act of terrorism?

Like when you said, "you didn't build that" or "if you got a business, you didn't get there on your own"?

Like when you -- as a short-time-Senator running for office -- called President Bush -- the sitting president of the United States -- "unpatriotic" for growing the national debt (4.5 billion in eight years), before having rolled your own debt of 5.5 billion in less than four years?  (Hey, it was during the heat of the moment in the campaign , right?  How could you know that your policies would make things worse?)

...And, Mr. President, can you just imagine the ramifications if Romney called you UN-patriotic?

no, no, I got a good one --

How about when you said that Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

Isn't that a wee bit inappropriate, you know, given that Americans, at American Embassies throughout the Middle East, are under attack and on fire as we speak --  still -- and on it's fourth day? Where's your sensitivity?  Do you regret saying that?

I'm sure you regret this one by now --

Responding to a question on Telemundo, and considering all the facts to date are in -- and being that you are the president of the United States --  you say:  "I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy."    referring to Egypt... 

Like, what, you don't know?  the Muslim Brotherhood is cleaning our clocks here, there, and everywhere, and you don't know?...the Muslim Brotherhood wants to wipe Israel off the map, and you don't know?  All the facts are in.  Or did you just shoot without taking aim first?  Did you respond to that question too soon?  Cause this response sounds weak, at best, before easily deteriorating into wishy-washy.  

The thing is: the president's remarks are hardly a plug for embracing free speech -- but more of censorship; what's more, in full context --  make no mistake -- the words hardly sound like a president caving to his opponent.  It's a nice thought, but more wishful thinking.

Whole New Thought on a Brand New World

I heard an interesting analogy on the radio yesterday  - - think it was during the Sean Hannity show -- from a caller referring to our foreign policy coming out of the "Timothy Treadwell" philosophy.  Basically, and summarizing, that if we sit with that which is perceived as the enemy, try to make nice long enough, we can all live happily ever after together...out of mutual respect, or something like that.  But in reality, after something like thirteen summers, Treadwell, along side his girlfriend, were found mauled to death. 

In a review of a movie made on his life, Grizzly Man, a not so surprising conclusion is reached:

"Timothy Treadwell's problem was that he saw wild nature as essentially friendly; Herzog sees it as essentially hostile. Where Treadwell saw the signs of personality in the eyes of the bears, Herzog sees "only the overwhelming blank stare ... [and] a half-bored interest in food." It's a bleak vision, pitting Treadwell's American optimism against Herzog's Germanic pessimism, and sometimes during Grizzly Man you catch yourself wanting to believe in the former: those bears can seem awfully cute. But then you remember how fast they can run, and how they can smell their next meal from nine miles away, and at this point British pragmatism kicks in."

 
Let's make time for one more plug; from the German Press Review:  and yes, I picked what fit.

The conservative Die Welt writes:
"US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It's a bitter outcome for Obama."

"Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali."

wow.

So tying the day in the life of America all up with a bow:

Obama, the antagonist, "caves" to Romney, the pragmatist.

oh, and about those Radical Islamists --

simply savages;

essentially hostile;

animals behaving like animals, 

wreaking havoc upon civilization.

There is no common ground living by their rules.
They're kinda like bears --
they only get along with other bears --
and that's only on a good day.

Make it a Good Day, G

I know the day got long winded, but we got a long way to go...and not apologizing for it whatsoever.

But understand this --  jimmy carter was up six points in september, increasing to an even greater lead in october -- only to have Reagan win in a landslide in november.  thank you, media.