Last week the executive branch of our nation's government seemed recklessly ignorant of nearly everything related to their job. For a group of highly educated, highly accomplished, highly perched folks who seem to regularly look down on regular Americans they seemed extraordinarily ignorant of things they should at least have basic knowledge of.
The President claimed he had no idea of the findings of the IRS' Inspector General's report citing systemic agency wrong doing until he "saw it on the news (like the rest of the American people...)" The Attorney General said, "I don't know" so many times before congressional committees last week that private citizens began doing montages of the collected admission of ignorance for their YouTube channels. Then on Friday--trying the President's tactic--the outgoing IRS Commissioner reverted back to being unable to know anything until he had seen it "in the press."
While campaigning in 2008 & 2012 this administration asserted things all the time. When they made assertions they seemed nearly offended if someone questioned them. For after all they are a bunch of highly educated, highly accomplished, highly perched folks who seemed to think they had the right to look down on regular Americans.
But that's largely the way it's been for much of the last few years.
When running for office this President referred to people who knew their Constitution (normally in spite of their public education, seldom because of it), and worshipped God, as "Bitter Clingers."
After winning office he had his Secretary of Homeland Security classify people who lawfully owned firearms, happened to go to church, happened to respect the lives of unborn children, happen to have previously served in the nation's military, happen to strongly support the nuclear family, happen to pay their taxes, happen to walk dogs, or happen to wake up on Tuesdays and make it to their place of employment, labeled "potential extremists."
Meanwhile he removed "Islamic terrorism" from the White House lexicon, and called acts of terrorism on American soil "workplace violence."
The scandals bleeding profusely from the executive branch this week have been both acknowledged and denied by that branch of government. Apologized for and defended by the President's team. Condemned and excused by executive branch appointees.
And while this duplicitous approach seems to have now been noticed for the very first time by much of the White House press corp, in reality, we-the-people, have been putting up with this behavior since the first year of the Obama administration.
The difference now: the press is finally reporting on that their two-faced nature. So smart they should never be questioned in their assertions, but ignorant beyond degree when wrong doing takes places in their departments, offices, and White House.
John Stewart, hardly a conservative apologist by any stretch, made one of the strongest points of this last week when he observed that the last "arrow in the quiver" for the administration had been their believability and trust. The President mocked and disputed the idea that any American should ever mistrust their government--for instance--on the issue of guns being confiscated from regular citizens. Stewart followed that clip with a CBS News clip showing evening anchor Scott Pelley announcing the IRS' admission to systematically and systemically targeting what in essence amounted to groups of people that were expressly opponents of Obama policies.
But the real low-water mark this week came when journalists across the nation realized that while they had basically reported to the American people for the last six years that the President was a man of trust--they themselves discovered their phone lines, conversations, numbers dialed, tips shared, and sources outed--all in the hands of the administration.
At least the journalists of America were smart enough to figure out that in previous administrations when investigations were done to find someone in the administration who was leaking information to the press--it normally wasn't the journalists who were spied on, and treated with suspicion.
Then came the justification memes in the news cycles. The fact that David Axelrod and Steven Miller both ended up arguing that the American government is in essence "so big" that no one can fully know what was going on "below" them only served to reinforce what millions of Americans of every political stripe already believed.
Either through malfeasance or through ignorant negligence a big centralized government will crush the freedoms, rights, and protections of the "free" individual.
The distinct problem for the administration at this point is that so many facts are being revealed, so many wrongs have been committed, and so many of them point directly to a motive that seems to address a President's ambition to be re-elected, that this President will more or less find himself on defense whether each and every act involved him or not.
The very same way the left punished President Bush for the actions of those involved in Abu Graib, even though he had nothing to do with the acts committed. Obama's scandals are in the same buildings, committed by people that meet with him or his cabinet every day, and who knew his mind, and followed his wishes.
The fact that the President, the Attorney General, and the outgoing IRS Commissioner, came out looking like tweedle dee, and tweedle dumb and dumber--while openly admitting to nothing, but saying they had perfectly good motives for all of it, points to one very big problem for them.
>ul>The administration has crafted an environment where hubris in wrong doing has become their altered reality.
As the whistleblowers line up, there will not be enough cover for everyone, and low level resignations will not cut it.
I've believed it since his days in the Illinois Senate, President Obama is a more strident purist in his leftist agenda for America than Bill Clinton ever was. But Clinton was the more clever operative. The Obama team's consistent chorus of, "Uh... I don't know... I only saw what was on the tee-vee," has already lost its shine.
We are about to see one of the ugliest chapters in elective politics, and the administration has only itself to thank for it.
President Obama continues to break barriers in his historical Presidency.
Some of them infamous barriers, but he breaks them nonetheless.
This past Friday was just such an occasion. Because, to my knowledge, for the first time, a sitting President brought the full weight of the office he holds face to face in support of an organization that killed 339,000 American children, the last year we have records for.
Not only that President Obama beamed proudly, as he congratulated the "good work" this organization has done (while killing 339,000 children a year), and pledged continued support from you and me--the American tax-payer--to do so. In fact in Friday morning's speech he seemed to imply that if any of us objected to our tax dollars being used to burn, chop, and stab children to death, that we were from some throwback era. He implied we were stuck in fact in the 1950's.
I guess he picked that decade because it was still illegal to burn, chop, and stab children to death--much less get paid to do so with tax-payer dollars then.
Oh and did I mention--we gave this organization just shy of one half billion dollars to burn, chop, and stab those children to death.
See Planned Parenthood touts cancer screenings, but Lila Rose proved they don't do mammograms. They claim they are improving the health of women, but they have become the biggest cemetery of unborn women in history. They say they give women choices--which they interpret to mean--encourage them to be as promiscuous as possible. Planned Parenthood may be many things, but helpful to women, is not one of them--so says every woman I've ever spoken to on the matter.
But that didn't stop President Obama: "You've also got a president who's going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way."
Fighting what Mr. President? Fighting to defend innocent children as they struggle to survive? Fighting to protect baby boys and girls who 100% of the time would choose to live rather than be snipped at the base of their brain stem?
Simultaneous to President Obama's big appearance the relatively unnoticed trial of Kermit Gosnell continued in Philadelphia.
You may not know anything about it because the main networks have purposefully chosen to ignore a trial that includes 300 plus bodies of dead children, jars of pickled feet, children struggling, gasping, crying out for life, only to in fact have a cold piece of steel slice their brain stem and immediately fall silent.
See Mr. Gosnell is on trial for the murder of at least eight children and one woman because he had an instance or two of malpractice in his procedure office.
Well in Planned Parenthood's 100+ years there have been far more women who have died from exactly the same cause, and the number of children killed in their procedure offices is Gosnell's total multiplied hundreds of thousands of times (in just the last year we have on record.)
What is also stunning is the abject racial self-loathing it must require for President Obama and Kermit Gosnell to directly and unequivocally contribute to an organization and "medical" practices that were set up by design to extinguish the people with their same color of skin.
Margaret Sanger--Planned Parenthood's founder--argued in articles such as "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921) that sterilizing the "unfit" Negro was her "plan of Salvation" for the American civilization.
Evidently President Obama and Kermit Gosnell strongly agree with that racial "solution." Their actions certainly demonstrate as much.
The truth is Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors where he burned, chopped, snipped, and stabbed babies to death, is very little different than the Planned Parenthood "super-sized" abortion mills. Very little different indeed.
The truth is that both Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell prey upon mostly immigrant minority women and while President Obama trots out Sandra Fluke to yell "squirrel" about contraception, and has attempted to force those of us who have a moral objection to providing money to those who will burn, chop, snip and stab babies, the smoke screen never fools the children who always end up dead.
Thinking about it from the moral arguments in fact, if Planned Parenthood is providing tremendous "health services for women" by way of killing 339,000 children (of which half of them are likely to be female), than Kermit Gosnell should be in the women's health care hall-of-fame. He did it for the poorest, and those with the least amount of resources, and at least most of the women walked out alive. Only a few ended up at the hospital to get sutures redone.
Yes President Obama, Planned Parenthood, and Kermit Gosnell, unified for the cause of women's health--so long as you define children as removable tumors.
You're just unlikely to see President Obama showing up at Kermit Gosnell's side to tell him he'll be fighting alongside him every step of the way.
For the last two weeks Bill O'Reilly has committed multiple journalistic mis-steps.
As long as he is allowed to define the terms of the narrative of what happened they will not be corrected. His failure to do so is a massive public relations problem and a mis-step in itself.
He owes a significant demo of his viewership an apology. He owes them one quickly so that his previously demonstrable prejudice against people of faith does not cause unintended long term effects.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said on his evening broadcast March 26, 2013. “The argument on the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”
The final half of that statement is erroneous. Some would assert--knowingly so. In saying it O'Reilly is either ignorant of the process, or negligent of the facts.
Laura Ingraham attempted to help him see as much on April 2, 2013, but the host ran over his guest and used her as a rhetorical punching bag. He also compounded the original problem.
"I made a very honest point... That if you're going to stand up for heterosexual marriage, and exclude gay marriage, if you're going to do that... You've got to do it outside the Bible. You can't cite the Bible. Because you'll lose if you do," O'Reilly attempted to explain.
When Ingraham very politely attempted to explain that the statement was itself disrespectful, the host went off.
"It's not disrespectful... In their private life they can. We're talking a policy deal here," O'Reilly shouted at Ingraham. "Don't you understand (eyes squinting with a soured look plastered on his face) the difference between private beliefs, and public policy? There was no insult at all to any Christian belief system in that comment. There was no insult!"
But Mr. O'Reilly there was, and you added another insult in the follow up with Ingraham. Here's where you went wrong:
In the first statement O'Reilly asserted that the side arguing in favor of leaving marriage defined as it has been for over 5000 years had done nothing but "thump the Bible." The term itself is always used derogatorily and usually in demeaning fashion to describe those who study sacred scripture, adopt its principles for their lives and attempt to be true to its meaning. It should be understood that the group O'Reilly was really describing wasn't any specific religion at all, but rather all people who are devout to the sacred moral law of their religious beliefs--be they Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. But O'Reilly is aware of the culture war, specifically measured out against Christians and as such he has to be aware of how the term is used to demean pro-family voters specifically.
His original statement is entirely inaccurate. In the Supreme Court arguments, and much more thoroughly in the many court cases leading up to it, and from the very earliest of the public debate over whether marriage should be changed and redefined, the pro-family side has always used abundant amounts of historical precedent, documented research, and case law to argue it's side. Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly just plain didn't pay attention, but Senior Counsel Paul Clement arguing on behalf of DOMA before the Supreme Court used specific previous historical precedent and case law to argue--for example--the federal government's right to limit the institution of marriage and the laws governing marriage. Clement rightfully argued that the federal government had banned polygamy, and in some cases expanded marital protections from the civil war era. These and other arguments had literally zero to do with the Bible, or even religious teaching.
By asserting that the Bible itself, and the moral code it argues for can not even be "cited" is to arrogantly ignore the will of the people of the nation, who base much of their life on the moral codes contained therein. It is also completely disingenuous. The original basis for most of our basic laws stem from the ten commandments. The original version of any form of recorded law is the Bible, and the founders of the United States sought the God of the Bible (Nature's God) in establishing the most moral system of law our world had ever seen. So to assert--as O'Reilly clearly did--that the Bible can not so much as even be a piece of the discussion ultimately dooms, what is largely an issue that is based on moral behavior, to be decided upon entirely secular or non-moral, amoral, or immoral viewpoints. To refuse even citation from the Bible, is to also arrogantly assume that 5000 years of humanity that observes its moral code from the Bible, was unenlightened and unworthy of a voice in a discussion as important as this.
By claiming that the citizens of this nation do not deserve a place in this debate is to misunderstand federalism and the individual's control of government in our representative Republic. But to assert that those citizens may only engage the debate if and only if they disallow the impact of their moral character, moral beliefs, and moral code to contribute to what in essence amounts to a discussion of morality is disrespectful--to most of America. Remember that in all but one state, where voters have been allowed to decide the matter of redefining marriage have the voters ever actually done so. Even in quite leftist states like California, the voters have--in overwhelming numbers--on multiple ballots--rejected the idea of redefining marriage. You also need to understand Mr. O'Reilly that people who live by the Bible, generally tend to allow it's impact to touch all areas of their lives, hence it's almost impossible for one to both believe the Bible privately and it not have an impact on all things in their lives publicly.
The idea of the First Amendment is to protect religious people and practice from coming under assault by the force of the federal government. But no where in our nation's founding, nor courts, has there ever been an idea upheld that said religious people can not participate in the governance of our nation.
Mr. O'Reilly, respectfully, you owe American Bible-believers an apology, but if you wouldn't listen to Limbaugh, Ingraham, or McCullough, at least listen to your instinct to hopefully not permanently injure your prospects with one of the most important demos to your show.
After all Bible-believers also firmly believe in... forgiveness!
This last Tuesday I awaited the reporter's next question.
We were sitting in the ultra modern business lounge of the Mamilla hotel in East Jerusalem. The reporter had been tailing me as I toured some yet-to-be-made-public excavations in the City of David, just outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.
My seven days in Israel went by in such a flash it was genuinely difficult to focus on doing an interview with the nation's leading newspaper. My mind raced as the people I had been with were much on my mind, and the sights I had seen--especially those that were relevant to my faith--stirred something deeper in me than I had realized. Nonetheless my visit was almost over and here I sat with a reporter who wished to ask my opinion of the things I had experienced.
Finally, in somewhat broken English came the query, "What do you think President Obama will do when he visit's Israel next week?"
Having been warned by my hosts to be leery of reporters from Israel's largest newspaper, I wished to choose my words carefully.
"What I hope President Obama will do on his visit here... is to listen twice as much as he speaks," I replied.
You could visibly see that she was taken by surprise by this answer. I had not mentioned Iran, Palestinians, Netanyahu, or even Syria.
She was curious and wished to understand my response further.
I had just concluded six days of listening to Israel personally.
I had listened to incoming Knesset members--like former Deputy Speaker Danny Danon--explain to me their worries about Iran. I had listened intently to the son of Israel's beloved Prime Minister Itzak Shamir--Yair--a newly seated Knesset member himself--beam with pride over Israel's explosion in start-up technology businesses.
I had just listen to Dani Dayan, president of the YESHA council who has responsibility for the protection and safety of 450,000 Jewish residents in communities (the Israeli and American press call them "settlements") inside of Judeah and Samaria (the Left call these "The West Bank" even though we were 30 miles from the Jordan river's edge.) Mr. Dayan spoke passionately about the safety of the region, the commitment of keeping the Palestinian and Jewish communities safe, and the beauty of the agricultural industry in the region that employs both Arabs and Jews in helping them provide for their families. This agricultural excellence has been proven by the numerous awards the Israeli wineries are now dominating the competition in.
I had also listened to the CEOs and founders of some of Israel's most successful medical technology firms. One from Jerusalem that is heavily traded on the Nasdaq, and one in Tel Aviv that soon will be because the technology they offer is so profound in correcting the musculoskeletal effects of osteoarthritis.
As a Christian, I also listened to the heart of the people, as I was invited to Friday night prayer at the wailing wall, and following that a Shabbas dinner at the home of Aba and Pamela Claman.
The Clamans have restored one of the most beautiful homes in the Old City. Every Shabbat they have anywhere from 30-60 Israeli Defense Forces troops in--many--whose families are far from them. The night I was there IDF members stemmed from London, Belarus, South Africa, and some 20 other places. These IDF were mostly women, and not unlike the U.S. the dominant left in Israel's media often besmirch the motives, intention, and service of their military forces. It was an honor to hear each of them tell why they serve (most had gone well beyond the government mandated two years.)
I even listened as an Israeli Arab spoke passionately in the beach town of Joffa about a community center he has been running for the past few years. In a booming but gentrifying community Arab, Jewish, and Christian children learn instruments, sing in choirs, learn acrylic and oil paints, play sports, together as children of the same community. According to that Arab--Ibrahim Shindi--no such center exists in any Palestinian area, nor any Arab or Muslim country surrounding Israel.
I also listened to the heart of an Israeli feminist explain her critique of modern American feminists and her passionate desire to develop an ongoing conversation about women's roles in Israel. She keeps that conversation lively through her online blog and Facebook pages.
And on my final night, backstage at the Tel Aviv equivalent of Manhattan's Lincoln Center, I sat in a reserved theater for thirty minutes listening and learning about Israeli popular art and entertainment with Aki Avni, who--as many Israeli girls described to me in advance of the interview--is the Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp of Israel.
Since the press are reporting that President Obama's trip which kicks off this Wednesday will be largely to tour sites he wishes to see, my advice stands.
Listen twice as much as you speak Mr. President! Your mind, heart, and soul just be surprised by something you had not expected.
Israel is our most important ally in the region, but their heart and ours beat almost as one. And in us listening to them we might learn more than we believed we could!
This past week an episode of Sesame Street set off a firestorm of debate over whether a boy muppet named Telly should be ashamed that his muppet friends caught him playing with dolls.
In one corner "traditionalists" who called out the episode as gender and sex confused. In the other "modern feminists" who were offended by almost everything the traditionalists said and believe.
In light of these op-eds and arguments I decided to do a bit of personal surveying for myself.
I popped the question to my bride and her best friend as the two couples were headed to Gramercy (in Manhattan) for dinner on Friday night.
"What do you think about boys playing with dolls?" I asked.
"If the dolls are laying around (belong to another child), then it's unlikely to bother me," one of them replied. "If they happen to pick it up, if they are at friend's homes that are girls then it's almost unavoidable."
"But would you ever buy a doll for your young son?" I followed up.
"NEVER!!!" came the reply.
The fervor with which they answered the second question intrigued me. In essence it boiled down to the reality that boys are boys, they are designed to do boy things, and grow from boys into men. Throwing feminine play into the mix delays, interrupts, or intrudes on the development of masculine identity.
In one article Caryn Rivadeneira, writing for Christianity Today, in her even more boldly titled piece, "God Made Boys To Play With Dolls," she argues that: "When we say baby dolls are for girls, that only girls should cuddle and coo dolls, we claim that babies are women's domains, that only mothers should rock and coo and play with their children."
Even though I disagree with her premise, I also disagree with her comparison, and the implied conclusion.
She is arguing that boys should play with dolls because men should become the primary or equal caregivers for newborns? Really?
In a world where abject fatherlessness already exists. In a world where that fatherlessness has single-handidly created the largest welfare state in American economic history. In a world where discernment and wisdom about appropriate sexual behavior is threatening the very well being of our children's future...
Do we really need to question whether or not women are--by nature--designed to be--better at nurturing children?
There is a fascination with the theological and political left in America to appear to have an absence of judgment against immorality, while simultaneously attempting to judge the theological and political right so as to win popularity with the culture, to appear to be intellectual, and to imply that God would love it all.
But to be candid, we are entering "stupid territory" now.
I even confessed to the girls last night that I imagine it won't be all that long into the future before someone writes an article for Christianity Today on the idea of allowing the man to carry the baby to term (since it appears to be medically possible) and that in some way some person will write an article defending it as the ultimate sign of feminist justice.
Meanwhile God sits and laughs at us.
Why? Because we are going to such great lengths to go the other way around the universe to arrive at a simple conclusion: "What's best for children?"
No God didn't make boys to play with dolls. God created boys to grow up and become strong men who would provide for their family and would protect them from the harmful elements of this life. That is the true core of manhood at it's most basic element.
But men that I know personally who excel in that, also generally tend to be some of the most tender-hearted fathers I've ever seen. Fathers whose children feel their love, appreciate their sacrifices, seek diligently to obey or to make them proud, and even desire to pass on a similar legacy when they become parents themselves.
Sometimes the modern feminist (someone who believes in "sameness" between men and women and NOT "equality") ties themselves into pretzel-like knots to argue something foolish to replace something traditional--almost always for no good reason.
In life children are a blessing. In training them to become responsible for their own behavior and consequences it is important to groom them with truth. And the truth is few boys who ever became great fathers ever "played with dolls."
Taking responsibility for your future, owning your actions and behaviors, understanding the choices you make in this life will affect those you love, and preparing them to be ready for it, is what our young men most need to learn.
Miraculously... Having affection for their flesh and blood, learning to be tender with them when they are little and can't sleep, and loving them with all their heart comes much more instinctually to fathers than most feminists would like to believe.
And I should know...
That humility, affection, tenderness and love grew deeper with all three of my sons, and I never played with dolls.
Critics of a free market economy are also critics of individual responsibility. Because they believe in higher taxes, centralized control, and absolute intolerance to other viewpoints, they find themselves reducing free market ideas to that of human flatulence.
At least the current governor of California--Jerry Brown--did this week.
The seventy-four year old was quite taken aback. He was asked by California media this week if Texas Governor Rick Perry's recent poaching expedition would matter much to the state's future. His reply was direct.
"It's not a serious story, guys. It's not a burp. It's barely a fart," replied Brown.
Maybe Governor Brown is just in just denial but Governor Perry's three fold plan appears to be working like a charm.
In the initial stage the Texas Governor voiced a personal public service announcement to the CEOs and gatekeepers in California's business leadership communities. He placed moderate advertising buys in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and other specialty areas. The commercial created a firestorm of attention in the state and gained Perry additional earned media coverage.
He followed that up with a fact-finding mission and personal meetings with some of California's largest corporations. It should also be noted that he was invited to do so by some of California's elected leaders in Sacramento. It was this in-person visit that seemed to rile the California Governor's feathers the worst.
Lastly comes the elbow grease and follow-up with companies that had additional questions, and this appears to be where the real story lies.
Since governor Perry's return home--only days ago--the Greater Austin (Texas) Chamber of Commerce reports a definitive spike by inbound inquiries by California companies. And since the November elections--when California saw state tax increases passed (not even including looming federal tax and Obamacare increases)--businesses in the Golden State are investigating a move to a state that offers much lower regulatory hurdles and ZERO state income tax.
“We have had a spike of double or triple the amount of normal (business relocation) activity since the November election in California,” said Dave Porter, senior vice president at the Greater Austin Chamber.
Critics of Governor Perry's attempts to boost inbound business growth in his state dismiss the efforts out of hand.
Greg LeRoy, long time progressive, and now head of the liberal activist (and heavily pro-union and pro-green) "Good Jobs First" stated, "Interstate job piracy is not a fruitful strategy for economic growth." He argued that "poaching... amounts to a geographic reshuffling of existing jobs." (As opposed to new business activity.)
Recently numbers of governors are joining the open-poaching policy with fervor in a dispute that is raging first philosophically, but secondarily, economically.
Why else is it that states with the strongest economies are poaching from the states in deepest economic trouble?
Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Governor Scott of Florida, Governor Chris Cristie of New Jersey, Governor Daugaard of South Carolina, and Governor McDonnell of Virginia have all made direct plays for companies in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota to relocate.
So while Governor Brown would like to dismiss the effort, and while leftist progressive think tanks inside the beltway claim a zero sum economic advantage, why would I still argue that poaching is good for the nation?
Significant reason number one: greater, more wide-spread fiscal accountability!
The idea of risk and competition scares progressives because there is no guarantee of "equal outcomes" (which are never actually equal, they only pretend to be.)
Governor Brown--in an already economically near-bankrupt state--could stand to lose massive tax generation from the mere number of employees that one to ten major corporations take out of state (not to even mention the corporate taxes involved.) This reality further hits the pocketbooks of the tax-payers he has promised to solve the economic woes of. If those companies leave he must find alternative solutions for balancing the cost of the state to do business which could mean: spending cuts.
The same for Maryland, Illinois, New York etc.
Significant reason number two: continued job development.
When a company saves money on regulatory costs and on taxes (which serve as a pure burden on the cost that is passed on to tax-payers--remember companies never pay taxes--their customers always do) they can create more jobs in the new location than they previously had in the higher regulatory and taxed region.
Poaching has multiple benefits most immediately for the states that are engaging in it, and long term for the states that are forced to admit that other states are beating them in the contest of ideas, revenues, economies, and contentment.
Governor Perry is right to not only brag about his state's economic growth, but he has a moral obligation to do all he can to expand it.
And while it may give Governor Brown a bit of gas, ultimately he will be forced to accommodate, innovate, or step aside.
Astoundingly we have seen the media turn into hypocrites in recent days.
Shock of shocks... how can it be?
But when the President that an overwhelming majority of media members voted for, was running for President, they parroted his message of compassion, and American humility, and the need for us to talk to our enemies instead of torturing them.
Being in the solid minority of media members who held that we either kill the guys who are trying to kill us, or at the very least, extract information about when they are next going to try to kill us, I couldn't have disagreed more strongly.
Then President Obama threw some curve balls at the media that supported him. He kept all of President Bush's senior defense advisors. Kept his Secretary of Defense. And even increased the use of drones and kills by drones in the war on terror.
The media that supported him--predictably--didn't say much about it, because they were never principally all that upset about the stuff they were criticizing President Obama's predecessor about. They were merely pandering to public opinion because they hated President Bush (mostly for stuff unrelated to the war, like abortion and sex) and they knew that piling on in the area of defense, torture, and such would increase the overall fury and drive Obama to victory. (Notice how it didn't even matter that John McCain held many of the same beliefs, and they pummeled him just the same.)
In recent days, however, President Obama's drone program has come under observation. He has killed American citizens without the benefit of a trial or a verdict. He has ordered the deaths of Americans--in fact--without so much as charges or indictments.
And I'm okay with that.
In broad general principles Americans have always viewed those who betrayed the nation--and by betrayal it is easy to agree that collaborating with those who have taken an oath to eliminate us all fits the definition--deserve to lose their rights as citizens, and be counted among the enemy dead.
There were Americans among the dead in Japan and Germany following World War II and there was no need to shed tears because they had shifted loyalties to align themselves with those who sought our end.
In the war on terror, these "Americans" have surrendered their identities, loyalties, and abilities for the purposes of strengthening the efforts of those who would nuke us all if they but had the capacity to. In a technically legal sense--as in only on paper--they may be Americans. But they have taken different names, different looks, different views, different languages, and different locales as "home." So how are they yet "Americans?" Further the taking up of arms (which should be meant to include laptops with strategic plans, attendance in training camps, and the assistance in jihad against U.S. targets, persons, and interests) is the most overt act of treason, betrayal, and threat that can be communicated. Some have gone so far as to create dogma and propaganda for the enemy asserting overt threats against their nation of origin. For these reasons and more, if they die as a result of a drone strike, Americans should not be confused about the issue of conscience. They are responsible for their choices, and we are responsible for ours. The neutralization of their threat makes Americans safer.
The media makes many of these arguments in their defense of the President. They are rational arguments, and I agree with them.
But many of these same priorities and neutralizations can be achieved by capturing the same operatives. However in capturing them, there is one added bonus: information.
If capturing these individuals and interrogating would yield us greater knowledge of coming plans and attacks, doesn't it make sense that harvesting that information and then letting them sit and think about their sins would be equally beneficial? What if after sitting and thinking about things over long periods of time we could even recruit 1-3% of them to become covert operatives for us? What if we could get them to re-infiltrate old networks, former circles that we can't penetrate, and continue the stream of information for us long term? Doesn't this ultimately make much more sense?
The media will scream, "What you're advocating is torture." But it doesn't have to be...
Torture consists of methods used where bones are broken, permanent damage is done to the subject's body, and long term effects emerge as part of that person's physical reality. One only need to look at the difficulty Senator McCain has pulling his arms back and you understand that true torture took something from his life that he can not reclaim.
But water-boarding does none of that... Sure it scares the jihad out of them. It makes them believe they are about to see Jesus. But it is not torture. Because it is not torture, we have used it in the training of our own forward serving military men and women in SERE school.
And for the jokers who would still try to argue "morality," does one honestly believe that water-boarding--but allowing the person to continue living--is less moral than turning them into vapor?
The agenda driven media has had its naked partisan fervor exposed.
Common sense would tell us they are wrong. Based mostly on moral confusion...
Because while killing evildoers is more honorable than letting them kill again, getting them to give us greater amounts of information so that we can stop their attempts before they start is even more honorable.
It's just so sad that the majority of talking heads can't understand the difference between the two.
Leftist, liberal, and progressive men are ushering in the greatest pansi-fication and weakening of our nation in the modern era.
Awkwardly refusing leadership in times of real crisis, the men of the left, are allowing women and children to literally be the mouthpiece and driving force behind the cause. They do so dishonestly, disingenuously, and they do so without discernment.
In recent days the president hid behind the letters of four children that he claimed, "were really smart" to help shape his approach to reforms he claimed constitutional authority over, to implement in response to recent shootings. (Not ever having it cross his mind that perhaps the co-equal legislative branch of government was designed for such purposes.)
The letters asked him the penetrating policy questions like, "Will you please stop all gun violence?" Or, "Please get rid of guns, 'no guns, no guns, no guns, no guns.'"
Yet the executive order wand he waived will likely increase gun violence, at least on law abiding people.
Also this week Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta--no doubt acting on behalf of the President--decided unilaterally to push the women of America into front line combat roles in our nation's wars. Note that it is a man who unilaterally makes the decision, without input of military leaders, or the vote or voice of women in America at large.
I spent hours of broadcast time this week, on my daily radio show, (that reaches in excess of 300 cities) asking the women of America their thoughts on the decision. Of the hundreds of email, phone calls, tweets, and facebook messages returned I could not get one woman--not one--who would personally say she was willing to go. And in overwhelming ratios--last count close to 29 to 1 women believed it was not even proper for women to be put into combat scenarios. I might also add that amongst the responses included, were a large percentage of active duty women.
This week also noted the 40th commemoration of the historically laughable piece of adjudication known as Roe v. Wade. A case so thoroughly debunked on its grounds that law schools across America poke mockery at it's existence. Nonetheless the fraud of judicial activism that it is, continues to be celebrated as an important step for women... but mostly by men.
"Reverend" Harry Knox of the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, being foremost among them.
"Reverend" Knox claimed this week, "The right to abortion has given women enhanced spiritual development and more joy in life." He added, "That by supporting legal abortion, the RCRC is picking up the mantle God is calling us to carry."
That's right folks, the good "reverend" is saying abortion makes life peaches for the lady-folk, and that by advancing the killing of the pre-born he's doing God's work.
Evidently the "reverend's" perspective as a man, runs fairly counter to women in general. On Friday, with no prearrangement at all, I opened up my phone lines and allowed any woman the right to say anything they wished to the "reverend" directly. Over three hours, all but one woman had actually had an abortion. None who had, confirmed Knox's assertions. Only one supported Knox--but not in the literal meaning of what he said--but by claiming that he must have been taken out of context. (That woman later admitted that she supports abortion on demand, though she has never had one.) You can hear the stories of these women here: Hour 1, Hour 2, Hour 3. (They include women whose husband had forced them to get an abortion, and a woman who had been twice raped by her father at 13 and 14 and was forced to have consecutive abortions by the same father.)
It was a heart-breaking reality to see this man, "Reverend" Knox, lie about how women truly feel about abortion--especially given the reality that in 98% of all abortions women indicate that a man in their life is the primary reason they are choosing abortion as opposed to welcoming an innocent child into this world.
Also publicly defying Reverend Knox's absurd, distorted, deceptive, lies were the ladies of "Silent No More." These are post-abortive women who led the more than half-million throng in this week's March For Life. It is also important to note that the March For Life this year, at close to 600,000, out paced the 400,000 who turned out for President Obama's inauguration.
I am not sure why they are doing so, but it is clear that the men of the political, theological, and cultural left have become weak of mind, will, and temperament. Hiding behind the legitimate but uninformed voices of children to put anti-consitutional reforms into place on the issue of keeping our society safe, hiding behind political correctness that argues for sameness instead genuine equality to protect our nation from its worst enemies, and claiming God would be pleased, when women themselves know God's truth otherwise, in the killing of their own children--the men of the left resemble nothing like men at all.
Rather they most strongly resemble a strange effeminate characteristic. Weak when God made them strong. Dumb when God designed them to discern. And dishonest when our culture needs them to be truthful.
They are in short very little of anything God made them to be, and it is the women and children in our nation and in our future who will suffer most!
And now boys and girls, it's time for "Fun with Words!" Today's featured contestants are Vice President Joe Biden and a man whose television ratings are so bad it's a wonder he still has a job, Piers Morgan.
Perhaps it’s because he was disgraced in scandal--in his beloved England--getting caught publishing fake photographs of British troops committing fake atrocities in Iraq. But whatever reason, American television viewers consistently overlook him when choosing prime time viewing.
Vice President Biden used a lot of interesting expressions this past week. He kept reiterating that the President, for example, will utilize the executive order (a noun: rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law) on the issue of either limiting the ownership of, or the confiscation of, guns owned by law-abiding citizens.
Simultaneously Piers Morgan was eschewing the controversial internet talk show host Alex Jones one night, justifying the execution and shooting of Jones the following, and then got "pwned," diced, char-grilled, and feasted upon by best-selling author Ben Shapiro one night later.
Throughout both Biden's odd media appearances and Morgan's inept ratings stunts both men repeatedly expressed their respect for the Constitution's Second Amendment. It is an amendment that defines rights given to us by the divine, and enumerated and recognized by our basis of law.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with what the political and theological left continue to call, "respect for the Second Amendment."
I think most of America has as well.
Personally, I couldn't care less if you respect ("a noun: proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment.") it or not.
The Constitution of the United States declares you may not infringe upon it.
Beyond that, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times--most recently in 2008 and 2010--that infringe means what we think it means. (A verb: acting so as to limit or undermine something; encroach on.)
The problem for the left is known as cognitive dissonance. ("a noun: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes. Often occurring when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information.")
Because Joe Biden and Piers Morgan believe that the world sees things the way they do, it is almost impossible for them to handle honest to goodness fact, truth, and demonstration of ideas that would solve the actual issue we face in school shootings. This is very much the case for those ideas that run contrary to theirs.
Yet Shapiro was right, Morgan, Biden and others exploit the deaths of the children of Sandy Hook, to solve a problem that does not need to exist. And it wouldn't--if only there were more guns in the hands of We The People.
In both Newtown, Connecticut and the Portland, Oregon shootings, the character deficient individuals who were killing innocent people, immediately ceased shooting others and shot themselves, the moment (not a second before), that they realized a gun was aimed at them.
In the Newtown case the shooter had already jumped through the hoops of the gun control legislation on the books. He had been denied the opportunity to buy a gun based on his desire not to have a background check run. Additionally, the Newtown school's gun-free security system made it harder for him to get into the building--trying separate locked doors--and finally blasted his way in when he had grown frustrated enough.
But imagine if an armed security officer, policeman, or school personnel had been waiting on the other side. 20 children would be alive today that are not with us.
I find it excessively odd that the solutions of Biden and Morgan appear to only attack, address the behavior of, and seek to limit the actions of law-abiding people. As if after passing more than twenty thousand federal, state, and local gun laws, this nation still believes that legislation will prevent criminal, heinous acts from happening.
In reality the only thing that will prevent heinous acts, is fear by the people who would be prone to carry them out. We call it an incentive towards good behavior, and it is not rocket science. Why do conceal carry states have such precipitous drop in violent crime--the immediate year following such deregulation.
And Misters Biden and Morgan, why did the three worst shootings of last year occur in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut which already have restrictive gun laws. Why not in Texas?
I also find it odd that while President Obama signed legislation this week that insured himself armed guards as lifelong protection at the expense of the taxpayer, that he also voted in 2004 against allowing people simple handguns to protect their home, and in 1996 answered a survey where he indicated in his own handwriting that he was in favor of a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handguns of any sort.
So while arming himself, President Obama has literally worked to disarm everyday Americans--his boss.
Whatever executive action (used by Joe Biden this week: a noun: used by the Central Intelligence Agency starting in the early 1950s to refer to their assassination operation) the administration decides to take, they had best be prepared for the fallout. For the controversial Internet personality Alex Jones said on CNN that there would be a second American revolution. The best-selling author Ben Shapiro said, Americans have a right to be armed against "the tyranny" (a noun: oppressive power exerted by government) of a government that overreaches. The two men who couldn't be more different from one another both speaking what the majority of Americans already know.
That we will not allow any power, foreign or domestic to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
A disturbing bit of news came out of the President's decision to sign our newest defense bill into law. The sizable bill ($633 Billion) covers the majority of the appropriations needed to run our nation's defenses for the next year.
I don't have an issue with it, the size of it, or the purpose of it.
In fact, I especially like provision 533 of the law. Because it put a check on the executive branch from being able to bully any further our military men and women, specifically those in uniform but who answer to a power much higher than one Barack Obama.
The provision specifically allows chaplains of all faiths to opt-out of being required to serve as an officiant or a celebrant at any "religious ceremony" that would conflict with their own deeply held religious faith.
To be clear, this provision has nothing to do with people who engage sexually--in any fashion. It has nothing to do with people who have ideas about how conservative or liberal the social mores of the day are (or should be.)
Instead it's sole language is aimed at giving 1st Amendment guarantees to military chaplains on issues that their faiths may find objectionable.
Because the President can't not sign a military spending bill--in order to keep our nation's defenses operating--he had to sign the measure, but in doing so he broke a "fundamental principle" that he held for many years--the inclusion of a signing statement.
In 2008 the President said this from the campaign trail:
"I disagree with that [issuing signing statements]. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States - we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." - Barack Obama (May 2008)
Yet this seemed of little importance when he added this signing statement to the signature of the defense bill:
"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."
As a lover of words, I always enjoy dissecting the meaning of something when someone states it, especially if they do it in a way that they said they never would.
Obama says, "unnecessary and ill-advised provision... because the military already protects the freedom of conscience."
Well Mr. President--I don't mean to speak out of turn--but if that were true, then why did people find it necessary to include this provision in this bill?
Obama, "The Secretary of Defense will ensure... regulations do not permit... discriminatory actions..."
Again, Mr. President, this seems to be saying that your designee will be the arbiter of what is moral. Not the conscience of the chaplain. This provision is designed to keep you from being able to order the chaplain to do something that violates his conscience. (You're pretty much missing the point here sir.)
Obama, "My administration remains committed to continuing the... implementation... of the repeal... of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But wait, Mr. President, you took some law courses right? Once you've repealed a bill, there is no "continuing the successful implementation of." A law is repealed or it isn't. Someone isn't "almost" pregnant.
Obama, "Section 533 will not alter that."
Except Mr. President it completely will, as long as the section is allowed to stand under the law as passed. A law you signed. A law that even you yourself now sit under the authority of. And nothing you say about section thus and so will make it any other way.
Now I fully expect the President and his gaggle (Holder and the like) to go on a hot streak of investigation to purge all the discriminatory chaplains that exist in the military. Court cases must be filed, and these rampant abusers of power, the highly exalted military chaplain corps must be humbled. Because you know if there is one place to find discrimination it's in the military, and above all else you know how rotten to the bone military chaplains are in their uncaring desire to administer faith and comfort to wounded service personnel.
Today I am thankful for the men of conscience that make up our chaplain ranks. I pray for their future. And I hope that someday our President will learn to respect others' differences rather than insisting that his view of what is moral always be the law of the land.
President Obama is not God, though in his signing statement to this measure he sure seems to wish to sound like him.
If someone had told me in 2009 that President Obama would get close to ten million fewer votes in 2012, I'd have both laughed out loud and simultaneously thought to myself, "we'll take that."
Of course now, I can't eplain why I would've been so happy.
Nonetheless the President's underwhelming yet historic win, buy a quite slim margin of victory, has caused the word "mandate" to cross the lips of left-leaning opinion makes once again showing the true delusion of those who back team Obama.
One of the specific areas that such a "mandate" is demanding adherence to across the nation is found in the discussion of an actual legal mandate listed in the Obama-care legislation.
The requirement of the Health & Human Services mandate to force employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control and abortions--without question--violates the conscience and deeply held beliefs of committed Christians and pro-life voters. The administration, assuming they have a "mandate," believe now is the time to enforce THE mandate.
Never mind that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops felt so assaulted by the requirement that they hauled the Obama administration into court. Never mind that dozens of additional faith-based institutions have joined the cause. Never mind that President Obama's most loyal base--African American church goers--violently disagree with the plank, the administration presses ahead.
There is little violence that compares to the violence of forcing an individual to take actions against his own soul.
Yet the reality of this violence, this torture, this pain--is something that the administration seems immune to understanding.
To be clear, forcing a person who has honest pro-life convictions to supply the means, money, or mechanism to have a child aborted is the equivalent of forcing a Jewish prisoner of war in World War II to place the the bodies of fellow Jews into the incinerators at Auschwitz.
There is no difference.
This striking, hardened, indifference by the President and his staff tells us a great deal about the character, temperament, and values of our newly re-elected first-servant.
Since the courts will now not overturn the Obama-care legislation, since the elected class sneers at the idea of doing away with the mandate, and since there are no other paths to legal change for this matter it becomes clear the only path left is defiance.
The government has no more right to force a person of deep religious conviction to provide the means of death to innocent children, than do they to come into one's bedroom and rape one's wife. The difference being that rape is a lesser crime than extermination.
In the principled argument of obeying the human law of established government, God is clear that we should obey the human government. The exception to this biblical principle stems from a conflict between the law of man and the law of God.
For those that believe their relationship with God is of moral priority, to violate His law, is to commit multiple transgressions against the author of their soul. It is to commit blasphemy and rebellion against the one they are pledged to obey.
Thusly, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer defied the tyranny of the National Socialists of his time, it is time for people of genuine faith to run the risk of consequence in order to demonstrate faithfulness.
Demonstrate such faithfulness to God and his principles...
Demonstrate such faithfulness on behalf of the innocent victims who would be exterminated otherwise...
The consequence of such defiance is not yet understood. If successful it might create such a constitutional crisis that the court might be forced to reexamine what it has done to force violence upon the human soul. At worst those who do defy might begin to be jailed, as they are in Canada, and other nations in which the governments have limited religious freedoms and are seeking to choke people of faith with a society of pagan secularism which is in itself a propagated religious belief system.
There is a time of great purity that awaits people of faith in the days, weeks, and next four years to come.
An Eric Holder led justice department--actively seeking to subvert justice, implement a political agenda, and give almost no thought to accountability for its own actions--may be quite eager to engage, pursue, and prosecute those who they deem political opponents. A Janet Napolitano led Department of Homeland Security may work hand in hand with Holder to track those she has already labeled as dangerous--all the while ignoring genuine national security threats. And a Barack Obama appointed and remade Supreme Court may throw out the actual rule of actual law and for the foreseeable future checks and balances may be lifted all together.
Bonhoeffer can almost be heard warning us from the grave.
Yet by his example, we must be faithful, regardless of the consequence that awaits.
So... Disobey the mandate, and defy this law.
For when it becomes necessary to follow one's conscience--especially to save the lives of those who are most vulnerable--citizens and institutions have a requirement to violate that law.
And when any law violates human dignity, and by extension God's greater moral code--"We The People" have the responsibility and moral authority to disobey it.
Those of us who use words for a living, like to play with their nuance, their sound, even play them in our heads long before we put them on paper or speak them.
At least most of us do.
Those who edit my written words have gotten hugely frustrated with me. My syntax, grammar, and even meaning have sometime--in their opinions--been left askew because I wanted to insist on using a certain word, or using it in a certain context, or order of words.
Yet through the writing of three best-selling books, more than a 1000 op-ed columns, and more broadcast show prep than I care to think about, I bet I have used the word optimal less than a dozen times. The reason being that it's just an odd word.
It's not a word that people use often. It's not as flashy as say the word fantastic. It's not as elite as the word excellent. In fact it's kind of a hard word to say, starting with that awkward "ah" sound. A sound that left by itself much mirrors a gag reflex.
Such a reflex was largely invoked on Thursday when within seconds of appearing on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, first the transcript, and then the video itself began pouring out across the internet with President Obama stating that losing four public servants in Libya was not "optimal."
You see optimal is supposedly a declarative assertion of what is best. Yet just saying the word doesn't seem to lend one's thoughts to such an idea. In fact when I think of the word it always strikes me as better than average but not necessarily the very peak of perfection. It's a funny word. Kind of a shadow of what it's own meaning is supposed to imply. Like a bumper that's mostly chrome, except for the rust just on one end.
So using it to describe the brutal assault that killed a beloved ambassador, a retired Air Force officer, and two of our nation's very best--Navy Seals, seems to be a bit of an insult, even if none was intended.
I mean, I think I know what the President meant to say. I think he wanted to say that the taking of our personnel was "awful," "tragic," "a loss and a sting that their families will mourn through for the next year, and beyond that endure sadness on every holiday." Doesn't that sound a whole lot more like what a President should have said?
Maybe it's because law professors tend to be such... eh... law professors, that somewhere along the line the part of them that feels human emotion just completely unplugs from their brain. You know the type. They will sit and argue any issue from every possible perspective, all the while, not really telling you which one they think is right. Because making a moral judgement in court cases may not always be "optimal."
Then again perhaps the idea of current affairs being far from "optimal" is weighing on President Obama more than in the past. More people being out of work than when he took office sure isn't optimal. 500,000 more women being out of work than when he took office isn't optimal. 3,500,000 women now being homeless, some with their children is increasingly "less optimal."
What seems astoundingly crummy in President Obama's case though is that he brought a lot of the less-than-optimal to the table in terms of Libya.
Does anyone remember that he decided to invade that little country, but to do so by "leading from behind?" Any former generals or admirals want to weigh in on just how optimal it is for U.S. forces to be following the direction of other nation's military leaders?
Of course once we invaded not everyone was pleased so we had to send more special forces into Libya to protect the diplomats who were working hard to turn that hellish nightmare of a nation into a representative form of self governance. So how optimal was it for President Obama to draw down the military security, marines, and special ops forces we had on the ground, say in the last thirty days before Al Qaeda carried out the attack it had openly advertised it would make happen?
Optimal?
Was it very optimal to not even repair the outer wall of the security perimeter when Al Qaeda "practiced" carrying out their attack by blowing a chunk of it open with an IED? Was it optimal to not respond--at all?
Yes Mr. President the killing of four Americans was certainly "less than perfect." (If that's really how you want the tape to be played.) It's just that, well... from my own perspective... it just seems like you don't care anymore.
Yes you love the optimal trappings of being President. Air Force One is a hoot. More golf in four years than your predecessor had in eight--very, very, optimal--for you.
But the running the world thing? Making tough decisions that don't start and end with bowing to George Soros, or by expressing worship to the ACLU, the SEIU, or Planned Parenthood -- these are really tough things. And truly difficult for someone who's never really run things before.
Our nation's economy, our national security, the fiscal cliff, the state of the underemployed family, worker, and woman, the cuts you're attempting to make to our military, the lack of attention you give to anything on the border--except the guns you let flow to drug cartels, and the list goes on--none of these things are optimal.
In fact they're pretty bad.
So like the African American gentleman who questioned you in the second debate, (President Clinton said he thought the man was going to start crying) about why he should vote for you again this go around, many are wondering is the current state of America what you would consider to be optimal?
It is such a funny, uncomfortable, and usually forgettable word, but this week Mr. President you've given it a whole new level of meaning.
And to be candid Mr. President, we're not finding it very optimal.
Dr. Susan Rice should resign her post as the U.N. Ambassador of the United States.
The bald-faced lies that she blatantly repeated five days after the savage and brutal attack against the American compounds (plural) in Libya on September 11, 2012 are enough to bar her from being allowed to represent the United States in any position of trust for a very long time to come. Americans don't like it when facts get mixed up or miscommunicated, but purposefully using the media megaphone that is the top television news platforms to openly lie to the American people defies Nixonian and Clintonian levels of brash arrogance and contempt for the Americans who pay her salary.
But it also must be clearly understood, that Dr. Susan Rice simply resigning from her post as a highly placed official within the current administration accomplishes almost zero.
It's not like Dr. Rice has been all that busy pressing for human rights and the spread of freedom at the United Nations. She, like her supervisor President Obama, was evidently too busy for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and boycotted his speech before the General Assembly--just like Iran.
Her lack of importance within the administration was in fact probably one of the ideal reasons she was touted as the mouthpiece on something as important as the U.S. rapid response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2012.
But Dr. Rice is not the only one who participated in the blatant falsehoods told to the American people, told to the media, and most importantly told to the families of the victims of the 9.11.12 attacks.
According to multiple sources, including Israeli and British journalists, Fox News' Catherine Herridge, and finally some outlets in American broadcast media, the trail of dereliction, disaster, and dishonesty was shared by many.
Reporters who work for the Jerusalem Post were able to confirm, that as early as September 4th, Libyan intelligence was issuing warnings to the Obama administration as to the looming violent environment, the intentions of the organized terror forces on the ground in Benghazi, and the approximate timeline of a coming attack. This was followed closely on the heels with British media on September 9th.
The Ambassador's itinerary still had him out of Libya and tending to matters in Europe. Instead of acting on the early intelligence, keeping the ambassador out of country for a few more days, the administration took no action--an epic shoulder shrug if ever there was one.
This was followed by direct communication from Libyan intelligence to U.S. intelligence in the final 48 hours that conditions on the ground were hardening and that an attack on an American outpost was imminent. These concerns were mirrored by thoughts that Ambassador Stevens had been documenting in his own personal journal, in his own personal handwriting, fearing for his own life.
Sources confirmed this week that after the attack the U.S. was told clearly of Al Qaeda's involvement, and what meticulous planning had gone into shelling both the American consulate, but also the CIA safe-house. It was nearly 5 days later that Dr. Rice began disseminating a narrative that President Obama continued to repeat--even to the U.N. this week, and having the creator of the film at question in the narrative arrested.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton also both repeated the known-false-narrative at the memorial homecoming ceremony of the four dead Americans, as the ceremony was carried live to Americans by news networks.
In large measure the pro-Obama media had been willing to overlook the entirety of this story. After Obama's repeated false assertions at the U.N. and more sources beginning to speak with journalists, not to mention the Prime Minister of Libya--on NBC--was seen openly laughing at the idea that a YouTube video had caused the attack, only then did senior officials Clinton and Panetta change their public confession of the narrative. Meanwhile Press Secretary Jay Carney seemed stunned and offended when the White House press corps asked him simply why the President hadn't clarified his view of the events.
But now we--The American People--are to believe that a resignation from perhaps the least effective U.N. Ambassador we've ever had, would somehow solve the issue of the dishonest narrative, the mangling of intelligence, the negligence of sending a great Ambassador to his own assassination, lying to the national media, forcing an innocent man to do a perp walk, arresting him, and continuing to tell the same lie to the gathered body of nations?
Does anyone suppose that the families of the ambassador, the retired air-force officer, or the two navy seals that we buried would believe that was good enough?
The perpetration of this lie, the continuation of this false narrative, and the attempt to distract the whole of the American people did not end without severe loss. We not only lost one of our best ambassadors--who was dearly loved by even the people of the nations he worked in. We not only lost heroes of the first degree as those Airman, and Seals did all they could to protect our sovereign space on that hostile night. We did not only lose most of the intelligence that had been gathered and many of our live assets in the almost forgotten about attack on the CIA secret safe house. We lost hard drives with information, lists of assets across our northern Africa operation. And we lost our dignity as other terrorists in other nations seized upon that moment of American weakness.
It is of no surprise that our assessment can only be--of this entire operation--total and absolute failure on every level.
For such outcomes people should lose jobs at minimum, and in some cases where criminal lying was perpetrated, perhaps even harsher outcomes for some of those involved.
And if this is but one snapshot of our effectiveness and readiness in that region of the world.
Last week the executive branch of our nation's government seemed recklessly ignorant of nearly everything related to their job. For a group of highly educated, highly accomplished, highly perched folks who seem to regularly look down on regular Americans they seemed extraordinarily ignorant of things they should at least have basic knowledge of.
The President claimed he had no idea of the findings of the IRS' Inspector General's report citing systemic agency wrong doing until he "saw it on the news (like the rest of the American people...)" The Attorney General said, "I don't know" so many times before congressional committees last week that private citizens began doing montages of the collected admission of ignorance for their YouTube channels. Then on Friday--trying the President's tactic--the outgoing IRS Commissioner reverted back to being unable to know anything until he had seen it "in the press."
But the real low-water mark this week came when journalists across the nation realized that while they had basically reported to the American people for the last six years that the President was a man of trust--they themselves discovered their phone lines, conversations, numbers dialed, tips shared, and sources outed--all in the hands of the administration.
