The Scandal That Never Seems to End: Police Chief Murdered With Rifle Lost in Operation Fast and Furious

Yet another gun lost in the ATF’s disastrous federal gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious” has reportedly been used in a murder.

A high-powered rifle from Fast and Furious was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records. The new revelation suggests “that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

Only 47% of Adults Have Full-Time Job

The release of the June Jobs' Report Friday was something of a relief for the markets. The Labor Department reported that the economy gained 195,000 jobs in June, which beat economists' expectations. The Department also reported that the economy gained 70,000 more jobs in April and May than it originally estimated. The report, however, also provides clear evidence that the the nation is splitting into two; only 47% of Americans have a full-time job and those who don't are finding it increasingly out of reach.

Of the 144 million Americans employed last month, only 116 million were working full-time. Friday's report showed that 58.7% of the civilian adult population of 245 million was working last month. Only 47% of Americans, however, had a full-time job.

The market's positive reaction to Friday's report is another sign of how far our economic expectations have fallen. If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would by almost nine million more people working. Just in the last year, almost two million Americans have left the labor force. With a majority of the population not holding a full-time job, it isn't surprising that economic growth has been so weak.

In June, the number of Americans who wanted to work full-time, but were forced into part-time jobs because of the economy, jumped 352,000 to over eight million.

The Jobs' Report is increasingly measuring only a part of the American economy. While Friday's report was better than expected, it only measures those who are working or actively looking for work. There is a growing number of Americans slipping through the cracks of the job market.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/05/only-47-americans-have-full-time-job

PK'S NOTE: MR IGNATIEV, YOU GO FIRST.

Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race

A Harvard professor wants to abolish the white race.

Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it.

In excerpts appearing this week in newspapers nationwide, Mr. Ignatiev, who is white, writes that "every group within white America," including "labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers and white women" has at one time or another "advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race."

Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."

His colleagues at Harvard seem not to take his proposal entirely seriously. Others cite the article as an example of Harvard's institutional racism.

Sara Stillman, assistant to the publisher of Harvard Magazine, says there's clearly some "misunderstanding" about what Mr. Ignatiev means by the inflammatory language.

Asked in a 1997 interview with the New York Times if he hates his own white skin, Mr. Ignatiev said, "No, but I want to abolish the privileges."

"The white race is like a private club based on one huge assumption that all those who look white, are, whatever their complaints or reservations, fundamentally loyal to the race. We want to dissolve that club, to explode it," he said.

Christopher Reed, executive editor of Harvard Magazine, defended what Mr. Ignatiev wrote in the September-October issue. "He's arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness," Mr. Reed said in a statement.

The university's public affairs office said it had no comment.

The article already has stirred anger among some conservatives, who see the article as typical of the liberal climate in academia. "Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'?" asks David Horowitz on his magazine's Web site. "What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is 'Whither the Art Museum?'

"Race hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture," says Mr. Horowitz, a radical-turned-conservative and author of "Civil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery."

Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."

"The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal's statement of purpose says.

"The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse."

Among the "privileges" of being white, according to Race Traitor, are not being followed by security in stores, not being harassed by police, having easier access to better schools, jobs and housing, and not being asked whether skin color or affirmative action got you a job.

In the essay in Harvard Magazine, Mr. Ignatiev says he always expected "bewilderment" at his views from "people who still think of race as biology."

"We frequently get letters accusing us of being 'racists' just like the KKK, and have even been called a 'hate group.'" he wrote.

Mr. Ignatiev attempts to clarify how he could be seeking to abolish the white race without calling for genocide. "Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc."

Abolition of a monarchy has often been marked by killing the monarch and sometimes his family members; for example, England in 1649, France in 1792, Russia in 1917 and Iraq in 1958. Even those nations that have abolished kings or emperors without regicide generally have forced the monarch into exile.

Mr. Ignatiev grew up in a Philadelphia family that he says was devoid of racial bias. As a child, he swam at a free community pool, where he was the only white patron. He says his parents refused to pay a $1 fee that was designed to keep other public pools all-white.

Mr. Ignatiev's parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia, were not college educated, but he attended the University of Pennsylvania, dropping out after three years. He worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades. At the steel mill, he helped organize strikes and protests by the predominantly black work force.

He was laid off from the steel mill in 1984, a year after he was arrested on charges of throwing a paint bomb at a strike-breaker's car. He set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Mr. Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning his master's, he joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history.

His dissertation was his book, "How the Irish Became White." Mr. Ignatiev said the book told how Irish immigrants came to the United States and became "oppressors" by emulating American whites.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/#ixzz2YI6Lxe28
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Dangerous Times: Obama's Arab Spring Logic

Wanna have an authentic people's revolution? Wanna have an Arab Spring?

Well, Egypt is having a people's revolution of sorts, as the Egyptian military have cobbled together a political coalition ranging from the Coptic pope to the hyper-reactionary Salafists. They all support the overthrow of Brother Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama is a community organizer by profession. He knows all about organizing "spontaneous" demonstrations for the people's revolution. The tricky thing is deciding who represents the real people. In the long history of communist agitators -- the original term for "community organizers" -- they always get that part wrong. In the Soviet Union, the kulaks were never real people, but the tiny Bolshevik mob thugs were the authentic vox populi. After all, Vladimir Lenin told them so.

Obama can tell the real voice of the people in the Muslim world, because, as he told Hillary in the White House, according to the New York Times and the Carnegie Endowment, "The best revolutions are organic."

Let's call it the "arugula standard" of revolutionary authenticity. People like Ayers and Jodie Evans understand these things in Hyde Park, Illinois. The rule of thumb is: If they hate America, they are authentic, and you gotta send them money, arms, and propaganda media clowns.
How do you tell who's a real organic revolutionary to Obama? Well, the more radical they are, the farther they want to go back to the Muslim Dark Ages, and the more leftover leftists like George Soros they have on board, the more "authentic" they are.

This is the same logic our vaunted media use to prove that Governor Sarah Palin is not a real woman and Justice Clarence Thomas is not a real black man. These folks understand in their bones who is authentic and who isn't. It's radical chic: Jeremiah Wright, authentic. Lt. Col. Allen West, a total phony.

So here is how our president decides on the fate of nations.

1. You can overthrow Muslim regimes in nations like Egypt, where Obama told President Hosni Mubarak to "leave now" in February of 2011.

But:

... if you tell Brother Morsi to "leave now" today, that's a profound violation of democratic principles.

2. You can invade Libya with no provocation, and start a civil war against Moammar Gaddafi, without even checking with the U.S. Congress.

But:

You're not allowed to overthrow the nuke-happy mullahs in Tehran, no matter how often they threaten to destroy their neighbors -- not just Israel and America, but also the Arab Gulf regimes.

3. In 2011 you can celebrate the authentic people's revolution in Tahrir Square as it is twitter-mobbed by one Google Vice President Walid Ghoneim, from a safe loft in New York City. That Tahrir demonstration proved that the authentic people of Egypt rejected Mubarak.

But:

In 2013 you can't celebrate another tweeted people's revolution in Tahrir Square because it violates true democratic principles.

And, needless to say, you couldn't possibly celebrate the young people of Iran's Green Revolution, even if they are fighting the moral monsters of mullahdom.

But wait -- there's more!

4. You can fight al-Qaeda by killing Osama bin Laden, and the media will celebrate your victory.

But:

It's okay to arm and train al-Qaeda in Syria, where they are killing Assad's troops and any Christians they happen to run across.

5. You can direct Predator assassinations at Taliban killers in Afghanistan, the worst reactionary throwbacks in the modern world.

But:

You have to sabotage Afghanistan's elected President Karzai to negotiate a "peace" settlement with those very same Taliban, as Obama is doing even now.

Get it?

I don't.

Where's the logic? Where is the coherence? Where is the strategic purpose? Is it just to stir up trouble in Muslim nations on the chance that Obama can manipulate the outcome? Is this revolution for its own sake?

Dare I ask, where is the moral core of this administration?

Let me know if you can figure it out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/dangerous_times_obamas_arab_spring_logic.html#ixzz2YI7KEXSN

Washington & Wall Street: Barack Obama's Dangerous Foreign Policy Adventure

“Commerce between master and slave is barbarism.” -- Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

Americans just celebrated the declaration of independence from Great Britain in the late 1700s with the Fourth of July holiday. The rebellion against British colonial rule was as much about taxes as it was about political power. The unfair British taxes that so vexed Americans, we ought never forget, were high because of the ill-considered foreign wars and financial speculations of the English crown. No nation, no matter how mighty, can long afford the cost of war or empire in a financial and economic sense.

As we celebrated the Fourth of July, Americans were greeted with the spectacle of a military coup in Egypt, another former British colony that has not yet recovered from centuries of foreign rule and the aftermath. The whole notion of Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations as states is a legacy of foreign colonial rule going back to the Ottomans and Byzantines. Watching the cronies of former president Hosni Mubarak taking power in Egypt should remind us all of the evils done in the name of empire, most recently by Rome, Britain, and the United States.

Since a declining Great Britain withdrew its military “East of Eden” in 1971, Washington has been the great colonial power of the world. The military industrial apparatus in Egypt has been a client of Washington for decades and before that, of the Soviet Union. What we call Egypt today has been dominated by European powers for centuries. In Iran, by comparison, a largely secular military industrial state that happens to be anti-American rules that nation under the religious label of the "Revolutionary Guards."

The ability of great foreign powers to guide outcomes in these various states is uncertain at best but is always done under the guise of good intentions. Such are the rules of “the great game,” to borrow another phrase from the era of British colonial power a century ago. Brian Urquhart writes in The New York Review of Books, “Disaster: From Suez to Iraq”:

Only seventy years ago, Great Britain ruled over more than one quarter of the land surface of the planet. It policed, as far as anyone did, the oceans and seas, and it was the most important force in world finance, trade, and economy. All this was a source of national pride and a sense of mission that, for most people, conveniently evaded moral questions about the right of one race or nation to dominate another. Lord Curzon, the ultimate British proconsul, wrote that the British Empire was the greatest instrument for good that the world had ever seen.

America likes to believe that it too is a great instrument for good in the world, but in the Middle East you can certainly ask whether Washington’s policies are creating stability or larger chaos. President Barack Obama has overtly encouraged social unrest in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, but without any apparent grand goal. Veteran foreign affairs analyst Sol Sanders notes that “Obama is on record publicly as negating the concept of American exceptionalism,” but he notes that Obama and his advisers have no vision for the future.

They do not believe in the U.S. overwhelming role as the leader of the free world nor in what most observers see as its constructive and stabilizing influence since World War II… They do not believe in guiding the almost inevitability of a huge role for the U.S. in international politics because of its inherent overwhelming and comparative economic, political and military power.

In a sense, the U.S. under Barack Obama has declared independence from world leadership and accountability. The cadre of incompetents buzzing around the American president don’t see any problem allowing events in the Middle East to careen out of control or to encourage precisely that outcome. The Obama Administration has even considered military intervention on the side of Syria’s insurgents, many of whom have ties to Al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel, the policies of the Obama White House lack any evidence of thought, much less a clear U.S. objective.

Along with this dangerous political trend, growing energy production in the US is causing the financial unraveling of the Arab oil cartel led by OPEC -- and with it the financial underpinnings of the pro-Western regimes of the Middle East. Despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration to curtail energy production and waste billions on failed energy projects at home, the US is about to become an exporter of crude oil and eventually natural gas. Nobody inside the White House has even begun to consider the strategic implications of U.S. energy independence for our allies in the Persian Gulf.

It’s the children’s hour at the White House. A combination of technological innovations and market forces has lessened America’s need for imported energy and thus the need for America to play the role of global policeman in the Middle East. The bad news is that the misguided foreign policy of Barack Obama in the Middle East could eventually lead to a regional war or worse.

In the absence of a global power in the Middle East, events in that region will increasingly take their own course. Hundreds of millions of people are declaring independence from Anglo-American colonial rule. All this is happening under an absentee American President who neither understands nor cares about the historical or global implications of his reckless actions. And best of all, Americans face three more years of non-government under the lame duck regime of Barack Hussein Obama.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/05/Washington-Wall-Street-Barack-Obama-s-Dangerous-Foreign-Policy-Adventure

Real Americans Don't Trust the Government

...The very meaning of America is that imperfect men must both be restrained from potential misdeeds by government, yet those same imperfect and untrustworthy men also populate the government. The same nature of people who make government a necessity also fills that government and makes it also dangerous and suspect itself.

Therefore, we must always suspect, distrust, supervise, and suspect government. Always. It is in the DNA of America that we tolerate a limited government because people are capable of evil. But those same fallen people (capable of evil) also work in the government and run the government. So we cannot trust the government any more than we would trust a society without a government.

In The Federalist Papers, No. 51, first published February 6, 1788, James Madison explained:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This is the problem: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." James Madison understood that government is not run by angels. Yet, the government being made up of perfect, noble, demi-gods who are all-wise and morally pure is the vision of liberals, moderates (but I repeat myself), liberal-tarians (nasty liberals trying to hijack and abuse the noble libertarian tradition), and the like.

But how dare we assume evil motive by government leaders? Well then, why do we need a government at all if you believe that people are fundamentally good?

Conservatives fight for precautions to make sure that dangers do not materialize. Even if you have never been robbed, do you lock your door? Do you leave your keys in the car? You've never had a fire, so go ahead and smoke in bed or put candles next to the curtains on the window sill. The entire concept of America's political tradition is to prevent problems by assuming the worst, and creating structures that minimize the risks. The goal is to make sure that bad things almost never happen.

When conservatives fight for safeguards, checks and balances, restraints on government, protections, and precautions, they are scoffed at and ridiculed, on two themes: First, that conservatives are paranoid and worried about nonexistent or minimal threats. Second, that it is offensive to suggest that our American government could ever misbehave or trample on our rights.

From the other side, a tea party sign "Dissent is The Highest Form of Patriotism" headlines the political website "Delaware Politics." One cannot be a real conservative, or even a real American, without recognizing the danger that government decisions cannot be trusted and that government needs to be viewed with skepticism, and with public scrutiny. Distrust of government is baked in to the cake of America's governmental institutions and traditions.
A real American believes nothing the government says -- but remains open to seeing proof. We know that the government lies. But more than that, we know that everyone lies more the more often they see they can get away with it.

If the government ever declares martial law, it will be done in the name of some good purpose like saving the children. A law that suspends the U.S. Constitution will be labeled "the child protection and defense of women act of 2017." And naïve and gullible people will fall for it, and believe the label, without looking at the substance.

So, this 4th of July weekend, let us celebrate our unique, strange and wonderful American invention: we live with a government we must never trust. And that is not so unusual, really. The government should be applauded when it does well and criticized when it does wrong. But government leaders and bureaucrats must realize that we are watching and we will know the difference.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/real_americans_dont_trust_the_government.html#ixzz2YI8GhIJT

Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism

The excellent AT article "Conservatives Pushing Back" by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), "[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism."

Walker's article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx's social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.

Marx's key concept was "class struggle." That's where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.

PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its "truth" must be forbidden -- eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie." Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.

PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the "answer" is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC's desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, "[T]hat her [Paula Deen's] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America."

PC, just like Marxism, depends upon defining what it considers good and bad groups. It defines good groups as "victims" of bad groups. The victims can never be anything but good, regardless of what their actions may be. Witness what the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia, PA in 2008 and 2012. Any group identified as good by PC (homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminist women, mentally and/or physically challenged people, the poor, environmentalists, the list goes on and on) must be shown deference, both physically and linguistically. They must not be offended, must not be insulted.

Any group identified as bad by PC, such as white males or any Christian group, can be offended. This offense, PC practitioners say, "makes up" for past offenses certain to have been committed in the past by bad groups. And what's worse is that the PC practitioners get to define the offenses committed by the bad groups. This situation, by definition, is a "self-fulfilling prophesy."

Rush Limbaugh, in 2010, said, "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." The PC crowd labeled Limbaugh's statement offensive and insulting. Imagine that. Limbaugh was just "calling a spade a spade." Like it or not, PC cannot prevent mental retardation, cannot alter reality. But that doesn't stop them from trying.

PC, just like Marxism, depends upon expropriation. PC is literally taking over our language, and woe be unto him/her that dares speak the truth. When Marxists took over Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie by confiscating their property. Similarly, when PC takes over our culture, quotas are set. The so-called bourgeoisie are told whom they can and can't hire, and in what quantities they can hire. As an example, see what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently up to. And let's not forget affirmative action, a system of expropriation if there ever was one, another PC favorite. When a black or Hispanic student (or some other "victim"), who isn't as well-qualified as a white student, gains university admittance through affirmative action, the white student's admittance is expropriated.

PC, just like Marxism, has a single factor explanation of all of history. PC says that all history is determined by power, by which groups have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. Period. PC is all about gaining power for the good groups that it defines. To further that goal, PC literally rewrites history. And PC says that the Bible is actually about race and gender. Nothing is beyond the PC crowd.

As an example of what PC has done and is currently doing, examine the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case/trial. First, always PC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said, "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." Then, ever PC NBC doctored the 911 recording; thus, "NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman's own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made." Here is what PC tried to do before the trial. "Many viewed the early lack of charges against Zimmerman as unequal justice for a black victim. More than 2 million people signed an online Change.org petition demanding 'Justice for Trayvon Martin.'" Now, the prosecution is trying to say that Zimmerman is a liar, that his injuries were not life-threatening. I'm quite certain that AT readers can cite numerous other examples.

The U.S. has become an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology and history that has been defined by PC. People convicted of "hate crimes" as defined by PC are currently serving jail sentences for political thoughts contrary to PC. And it's only getting worse -- PC continues to spread.

Marx believed his ideology, his economic system to be true. But, reality contradicted his system. His ideology did not adjust to reality. Hopefully the PC ideology will soon suffer a similar fate. It is, as Walker points out, a corrupt ideology. The only problem is that we will have no country, will have an economic disaster once people are confronted with reality, when enough people say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true." Meanwhile, the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals who will not adjust to reality continue the PC ideology. And they have convinced the MSM and enough low-information voters to continue to empower them as all three groups continue to ignore reality.

Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Tyranny, yes, but practitioners seem to have forgotten the manners part.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/political_correctness_is_cultural_marxism.html#ixzz2YI8gyaNy

Sarah Palin: Quit Making Things Up!

Must I Repeat? Quit Making Things Up!
Outrageous. Once again the cover-up is worse than the “crime.” Secretary of State John Kerry WAS on his boat while Egypt fell into turmoil resulting in an overthrow of its new government ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood that the Obama Administration had so recently supported and may still support. (That, however, we do not know because President Obama's absolutely dithering foreign policies, his "leading from behind," and his benign statements on the Muslim Brotherhood make no sense to sensible people.)

The State Department categorically denied Kerry was on his boat. Yet CBS had pictures to prove it. Goodness. There is no need to lie, even on such a "little" thing as the location of a government leader during a military confrontation happening in real time. (Benghazi? Ring a bell? There still isn't anyone in the media who'll find out where our Commander-in-Chief was that night.) Come on, Obama Administration! It's no big darn deal that Kerry was on his boat! We expect, and deserve, to assume that our highest ranking public servants to whom We the People have given the most responsibility are always working – even when they're clearing their heads and breathing in some fresh air on a yacht, or sweating away stress on a basketball court, or yukking it up with pals on the fairway... let's trust they're always preparing for the proverbial 3:00 AM phone call.

Being on his boat isn't the issue. Blatantly deceiving the American people is the issue.

Our government, yet again, either had no idea where the boss was, or worse yet, they lied to us. (Oops-a-daisy. Correction. In Obamaspeak, we were told the "least untruthful statement.") Our government directed its swift-ly boat changing denials to what one can only surmise is their perception of who we are: a nation of sheep – heads down, grazing away, gullible, ignorant, and undeserving of truth.

Confronted with photographic evidence, the State Department merely tossed the public a handful of hay today in its tepid effort to kinda-sorta explain the whole thing away. Something about, well, yeah, so the evidence contradicted all their public claims, but… eh, no harm, no foul. And like good herder dogs, with calm authority to avoid commotion, the bureaucrats barked the suggestion that we all just move along now.

No. You move along, little doggie. Enough is enough. It's unacceptable. Remember, the nation's Mama Grizzlies don't just rise up to swat away threats to protect the next generation. They also school, scold, and signal to teach a lesson. One lesson taught all children is if you lie on the little things, you'll lie on the big things.

George Orwell wrote of a time when citizens could no longer trust big government, and by wearing down the citizenry through doublespeak and lies a tired country finally retreated to its dark and depressing demise.

America, we shall not go there! Why? Because if we know from our nation's forefathers that weariness is not in our blood! It's not in our DNA to retreat. Have faith that there are enough patriots in our exceptional nation willing to fight together for what is right. Proof of this is all the families still encouraging and supporting their loved ones who choose U.S. military service. And proof of a unified commitment to defend our republic is what the independent tea party movement is all about. Disregard the constant criticism, mocking, and flagrant lies about this diverse, proud movement that still spew from big government cheerleaders and their lapdogs in the media. Despite harassment and intimidation, commonsense conservatives are rising up again to get a better view of what is ahead. They are identifying threats to our Constitution and our children's future. The permanent political class angrily bemoans this because they know our diverse working class – those who make the world go 'round – can shake off the slumber, unify, and effectively encourage others to come out of a 2012 hibernation and demand accountability at the 2014 ballot box. It's there we prove the average, everyday American's ferocious strength when exercising that beautiful belief in loyalty only to a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Until then, we mustn't have the fighting instinct of sheep. Pay attention, do your own homework on candidates and political machines, turn off media that would disrespect you by continuing to deceive, and keep the faith.

While celebrating America's glorious Independence this week, be secure in knowing that there are more of us who support men and women ready and willing to fight on our behalf for freedom and truth than those who would continually deceive us. Thank God. And thank a Vet.

State Department: say you're sorry and don't ever do this again. CBS News: thank you for doing your job on this issue.

Happy 4th of July weekend, America.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151711884873588&l=2d778442db

Thurston, We Have a Problem

...On the other hand, as Richard Fernandez writes, give Kerry credit for getting as far away as possible from the hash his boss is making of the Middle East:

Perhaps some people might have thought that John Kerry had the sense to go fishing, as that would be a higher and better use of time than hanging out with the White House wrecking crew. Better to be on the “Isabel” than on the “Titanic.”

It is not unreasonable to wonder how the president can go forward in Syria, Turkey, Libya, Jordan and Iraq — remember Iraq? — with American diplomacy in this condition. My advice: if someone asks “who lost the Middle East?” — go look for a YouTube video to blame.

Oh, and continuing the theme of this administration being rudderless and adrift at sea, this was an official Tweet from the Obama administration today:

obama_kayek_tweet_7-5-13