A phone and a pen

Now here comes the President and another State of the Union address. He already has lost major credibility on his now famous lines,
"you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan." His story on Benghazi is out of a fairy tale book, and his NSA survelliance of all Americans emails and phone calls really pushes the envelope on the rights afforded American citizens in the U.S. Constitution. The people he appointed to work for him are perjurers, Mr. Clapper, and Mr. Eric Holder. One is responsible for the national security interests of the country the other is the top law enforcement officer in the country. Some excellent choices there that you wonder if your local PTA would allow them to enter schools and affect children.

In any case, Mr. Obama has certainly worked hard to reach this point. As the country falls apart, the war continues, the debt is increasing, and the country is going bankrupt, he can now push his agenda of destroying the country.....

Give him a pen, and a phone and let's see how much more damage he can do.

On that note, give him as many pens as he wants and several phones- he can get much more done faster and he won't even need Congress.

That change is really working now!

Why? Progress with Conjectures

All journalists are taught that there is a beginning and an end story when writing some stories.
A good journalist tries to find the Obama truth between the end and the beginning of the story. Well, they are also taught to be patient and to be objective in assessing information. Well, after all these years of observing the actions of the President and the administration, it is a good time to make a conjecture.

Mr. Obama ran on the theme of change. In order to move forward, achieve progress in society and the world, conjectures must be made. And, even when controversial, honest debate and discourse provide the road to progress. Mr. Obama and his administration at the least do not encourage questions, at worst, they lie. Lying has no integrity or character. In fact, they are character flaws.

Bill O'Reilly has provided honest discourse about what is happening in America for the last fourteen years. Mr. Obama not only exaggerates, he has been caught lying, and the free press has given him multiple passes. The question again is why? Why?

So, is the Obama administration trying to be honest in now serving Gov. Chis Christie with an honest appraisal about what happened in New Jersey and focusing on a federal investigation, or simply trying to eliminate a future Presidential candidate? However, if Mr. Obama is so concerned as is the free press in justice, what happened to Hillary Clinton for being negligent in providing security for the Libyan embassy where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three Navy Seals? Why is the free press avoiding this question?

Why is the free press avoiding asking the Obama administration about the false numbers Mr. Obama is tweeting from the White House concerning the number of people who have signed up for the Affordable Care Act?

Why is the free press not asking the President about his Attorney General, Eric Holder, committing perjury to Congress?

Is this still America?

Why isn't the free press asking the administration why they blamed the attack on Benghazi on a video, when the report released by a bipartisan Congressional Committees reports it was definitely a terrorist attack? Why did Susan Rice lie openly to the American public on the six Sunday television programs? Why is the free press not reporting that no one was held accountable in Fast and Furious,where ATF agent,Brian Terry, was killed? Why is the free press not asking why the FBI is not prosecuting or opening a criminal investigation for the actions of the IRS in targeting members of Tea Party groups due to their political affiliation?

Why did Mr. Obama tell Candi Crowley during the final 2012 Presidential debate, " read back that transcript, Candi?"

Conjectures are necessary for progress.

It seems there was a significant number of Americans that wanted the change Mr. Obama promised until all Americans figured out that it would bankrupt them and the country.
Mr. Obama's former supporters now suffer silently. They now realize that Mr. Obama believes the U.S. is a mediocre country. He destroyed the military ( who wants to serve now) after all these revelations in Bob Gates, former Secretary of Defense with the Obama administration. And, they have learned that Mr. Obama lies to the masses to gain the mandate to destroy the United States of America. He is the wolf in sheep's clothing. And, he has a brigade of supporters who are helping him destroy this once great country.

Mr. Obama wants to make the U.S. a socialist country. He wants a single payer system for health care and provided the Affordable Care Act knowing it would fail. Thousands of Americans lost their health insurance policies as well as their doctors. And, those people who did get insurance had astronomical premium increases which they cannot afford. Mr. Obama pretends to care for this country while destroying it. And, most of the Americans who voted for him are now appalled, and embarrassed.

But the best is yet to come from Mr. Obama's perspective: the destruction of the democratic principles that made America great, and look out whoever gets in his way.
By continual and increased spending and the deficit growing to a historical record of close to 17 trillion dollars, Mr. Obama has made sure this democratic and free country will collapse from within.

Whoever disagrees with this conjecture, "prove it" as Mr. Obama would say.

"Come on, Candi, read back that transcript!"

Why?

V3CBSBPTS8N6

Sometimes one has to listen closely to what people say verbally and non-verbally. Many times the messages are contradictory as the verbal communication does not match the non-verbal communication. Consequently, wise people look at both especially when the message is important.Now we find out that the New York Times was talking to the attackers on the ground in Benghazi as reported in the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick. Now I would like to believe the New York Times. Why would anyone especially a reporter twist a story? Why would the New York Times with all their prestige and reputation on the line print an article from one of their reporters without first making sure all the facts as reported in their article is accurate but more importantly, true? Every journalism student as well as journalism professional with integrity knows this fact. Consequently, one has to wonder why would the New York Times publish this story about a U.S. ambassador that was killed in Libya without taking proper care that the story in fact could withstand scrutiny?

Well, as mentioned earlier and years ago on this blog, it seems that the press has changed during the Obama administration. It seems that stories are just put out there in print that in fact cannot withstand scrutiny. For example, Director of National Intelligence,James Clapper, answered a Senate selected Congressional Committee question posed on March 12, 2012 by Senator Ron Wyden about the NSA collecting data and eavesdropping on millions of Americans and answered,

"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false…From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

Senator Wydon continued and further asked the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper,

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He,[Mr. Clapper] responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

On June 6, 2013 Director Clapper released a statement admitting the NSA collects telephony metadata on millions of Americans telephone calls. Then, On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize."

To most people that would be considered inaccurate especially after it was reported and confirmed that in fact the NSA was indeed violating American citizens privacy and indeed collecting their emails as well as phone conversations and storing them digitally. My point is not the fact that lying occurs and that the Director of Intelligence lied to a U.S. Senator under oath as part of a select Senate Congressional Committee. The important question as with the New York Times article is why?

Could it be that there is a huge campaign to mislead many Americans as to what is occurring to their country? We have truths twisted by Jay Carney, White House spokesperson for the Obama administration. Why would he mislead the public? If one thinks about it, why is such a huge effort being placed on making Americans think and believe that everything is going well with the United States today? Well, think about it. If one wanted to change the country even while violating the principles of our founding fathers, the writers of our U.S. Constitution, one would need to keep the masses of Americans believing everything in the country is all right. The last thing a change agent wants is resistance to the change they deem proper for the country even if that change violates the principles established in the U.S. Constitution. And, think for a moment, that most Americans are too busy working to support their families so the information they receive about their country is controlled by the free press. So, if the free press, for whatever reasons, decides to support the change agent and just put up stories for Americans to read with the belief that the stories are true, well you can figure out the rest.

Consequently, if nothing nefarious is going on, then all questions are encouraged and are supported to get to the truth. However, the Obama administration ran on the premise of transparency during the President's first term. That was the verbal message if you remember what I mentioned at the beginning of this piece. But, if anyone goes back and studies the articles and sound bites of our President and the people he designated to answer questions, what do you think you find? Did you know that the administration wants to now control the pictures that come out of the White House which is something that was never controlled by the White House? Again, why?

If there is nothing to hide on anyone's part, then why did the President never get to the bottom of the story about FAST and FURIOUS, where U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry was killed by criminals working for two FBI operatives? In fact, it was found that that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was actively involved in the cover-up of this story reported back in the press on 10/3/2012. Why did the free press never re-visit what happened there? Why did President Obama invoke executive privilege for the first time in his presidency to not release records or documents related to the Fast and Furious Operation and the cover-up by the Attorney General, Eric Holder? After Mr. Obama exercised executive privilege over the release of Department of Justice documents related to Fast and Furious and Eric Holder, Congress held Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.(For those unfamiliar with executive privilege: it is the power of the President of the United States to resist subpoenas of the legislative and judicial branches of government).

So, the President said he wanted this to be a transparent administration verbally when he first was campaigning for the U.S. Presidency but his actions especially exerting executive privilege send a very contradictory message. The question we must all ask as patriotic American citizens is,
why are questions regarding the truth from this administration not forth coming from the President or his administration?

By the way, on November 14, 2013 articles of impeachment were filed against the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, by Congress for his role in Operation Fast and Furious and other scandals involving President Obama's administration: Specifically,for those readers who want the reference, it is House Resolution 411 which in Article I specifies:

Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the
6 United States, engaged in a pattern of conduct incompat-
7 ible with the trust and confidence placed in him in that
8 position by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by
9 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Re-
10 form on October 12, 2011, in connection with a legitimate
11 Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furi-
12 ous by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that
13 put thousands of illegally purchased weapons into the
14 hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death
15 of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December
16 14, 2010.
17 Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of
18 the United States, is guilty of high crimes and mis-
19 demeanors and should be removed from office and dis-
20 qualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
21 profit under the United States.

Why did the free press let the story go on the IRS targeting Tea Party groups after the White House denied any involvement in that travesty? Why was Lois Lerner who knew about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups allowed to retire with no consequences? Why? In fact, why did the Attorney General, Eric Holder, not prosecute the IRS non-authorized tax records' disclosures?
The Article III of impeachment for the Attorney General filed by Congress on November 14, 2013 further states:

ARTICLE III
9 Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the
10 United States, has failed his oath of office by refusing to
11 prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue
12 Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records
13 belonging to political donors.
14 Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of
15 the United States, is guilty of high crimes and mis-
16 demeanors and should be removed from office and dis-
17 qualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
18 profit under the United States.

< Why, in fact, does it seem that a less than candid Attorney General, holds the highest law enforcement position in the country,if the Article IV of the impeachment article filed by Congress on Nov. 14, 2013 is true, and it states:

And, with respect to the wire-tapping of Associated Press writers by the Department of Justice and their treatment of U.S. reporter James Rosen, Article V of the impeachment article filed by Congress with repect to the Attorney General, Eric Holder, states:

ARTICLE IV
20 Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the
21 United States, testified under oath before Congress on
22 May 15, 2013, that he was neither involved in nor had
23 heard of a potential prosecution of the press. However
24 three days later, the Department of Justice released docu-
25 ments naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator
26 in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, confirmed
2 to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep-
3 resentatives in a letter dated June 19, 2013, that he ap-
4 proved of a search warrant on James Rosen.
5 Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of
6 the United States, is guilty of high crimes and mis-
7 demeanors and should be removed from office and dis-
8 qualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or
9 profit under the United States.

Again, the most pressing question is why? Why is this Attorney General good for the United States of America if these articles filed by Congress are true? Aren't lawyers held to a higher standard of following the law? Is this Attorney General supposed to be a role model for our children and Americans who follow and obey the law daily?

Why is Mr. Holder the Attorney General of the United States if all of this is true? And, Mr. Obama says the country is doing well? It is? Why is it doing so well with this Attorney General again? Does not make sense, or does it?

Why are we supposed to believe anything from the administration if all of the above is true?
And, if all of the above is true, are we supposed to believe that everything is going well in the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave?


Do the actions of the administration support the verbal communication the administration puts out there?

And, how many hard-working American citizens have the time and energy to keep asking questions and keep trying to find out the truth when the administration hopes that most Americans will tire of this exercise and everything will go away. This seems to be the hope of many. Yet, isn't that unpatriotic, dishonest, and morally wrong?
Fooling the American Public, or maybe not?

Again, why are we the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?