I tried to be offended but the thought of money from selling  trashy books dampened down the feelings of deep hurt. I had a fleeting “if I won the lottery” moment. Really fleeting. Could have been measured in nano-seconds, in fact. It finished with a mental image of the book in a wire bin alongside the autobiograpy of Wayne Rooney in a discount book store. Oh the shame. Would rather change my name to Michael Gove and tell people I play the piano in a whorehouse than languish beside the Spud Faced Nipper in a bargain bin.

As a complete aside, but hey, wtf: I get the feeling that I merrily split infinitives but have no idea how or what or when. Probably doing it now. Hi ho. Doesn’t bother me as I have no idea I am doing it. If it bothers you, and if you are that way inclined, as I know several of my circle are, I am trying to care. Really though, I just can’t. If I even knew what an infinitive is I’d die a more knowledgeable person. Oh yippee.

Back to the list, but before that I’ll try and give a brief idea of why I have a very weird relationship with my Mum. Though I guess most people feel that. Freud could have devoted a lifetime to it but she probably would have weirded him out in some way and he would have left puzzled and slightly scared. Anyhow, in a previous post I rather dramatically suggested she abducted us (I have a long-suffering brother as well) but apparently she did. She lived in Canada, we lived with our father in the UK after they divorced. He sent us on a summer holiday and she didn’t return us. We had no idea and on reflection she had a v. clear idea as from Day 1 she talked as if he was bored of us and had given us over to her care. We were too young to know or care as we were with our mum, and what kid doesn’t like that? As a teenager I was re-homed back with my father because, “if he doesn’t take you I’ll have you put into care”. Thankfully, he did the decent thing.

Herewith the list:

• Beating. Mum had/has a firmly held belief that, especially with boys, the shortest route to their brain is usually through their backside. In the spirit of learning (lessons I guess) we were were regularly and enthusiastically beaten whilst growing up. The fact is that the majority of the time I think we deserved it.
• Fairness. A fond memory is when I witnessed my brother getting his licks. We spent a large amount of time trying to pin the blame for various misdemeanours on one another so I had probably dodged a few bullets and pinned the blame on him. She broke an entire pack of wooden spoons on Chris in a week.  The price of a replacement pack was taken out of his allowance as, “no one should be that naughty”. Oh how I laughed. I think I got a smack for that. Mum was nothing if not a keen sharer when meting out learning.
• Domesticity. She taught me how to sew, iron, clean and cook though. My brother and I were allowed to make the most foul concoctions in the kitchen. Her view was that we were learning and indeed we were. Both of us are pretty decent cooks now. When I joined the Sea Cadets I was issued a uniform, came home with it and very politely and patiently explained where the creases were to go and just how the badges were to be sewn on. She then marched me to the ironing board, iron and sewing kit. Yup, now I can iron and sew as well.
• Chores. On Saturdays we were always keen to go and play. Before that we had to do our chores. Mine was cleaning the back bathroom and Chris’ the front. Think of a barracks inspection by a Drill Sergeant and up the intensity by a factor of five. We had to stand whilst our handiwork was scrutinised. She had a real penchant for a clean lavatory and if it didn’t gleam above and below the waterline, then time to start over as it was likely that the rest of the bathroom wasn’t unreasonably shiny and ready to double as a food preparation area. I remember being regularly exhorted to get my hand right in the loo with the Ajax and clean it properly. Happy days. I can clean the loo well now.
• Equality. “Playing” with Chris once I threw a stone at him as I am sure it was adding to the point I was trying to make. Sensibly, Chris ducked and the stone smashed a plate of glass on the house. Cue Chris looking very pleased at my impending punishment, as would I if the tables were turned, when the scrupulous sharer emerged with fire in her belly to mete out retribution. I was told that I would be docked half the cost of the glass from my allowance and then, get this, Chris was to be docked the other half as, in her view he shouldn’t have ducked and allowed the glass to be broken. Astonished and disbelievingly, Chris very reasonably observed that it was a big rock travelling at high speed and it would have hurt him. He was informed that he should have “taken it like a man”. How I laughed, again.
• Work ethic. Mum is incredibly hard working and proud. She felt that there was always a job if you were willing to do it. Her mantra was “McDonalds are always hiring”, which is true. When we grew up as a family of four kids and two adults in the late seventies and early eighties things were pretty harsh. My step-dad was a helicopter pilot which was a very seasonal feast and famine sort of thing. He would be away working for three months one moment and laid off the next. I distinctly remember Mum had a job on a mink farm skinning minks. She stood there all-day beside the chap that gave the live mink the good news and was then passed the still warm body to her to skin. In case you didn’t know, minks are some of the smelliest animals going so Mum carried Eau de Mink with her everywhere she went. Didn’t really register the social implications as a kid but mingling with others must have been tough. You couldn’t just shower it off. If you read this Mum then may I offer a humble “Chapeau”.
• Self-sufficiency. She also ran a pretty impressive veg garden and about 1/8th acre – maybe more – was grown for food for use. To keep the kids semi-interested, as a source of cheap labour we were allowed to grow our own pumpkins with the aim of getting the largets one come the village produce fair. Totally random as to who won the biggest pumpkin competition, but it was ultra-competitive as the pumpkins were marked when young and green,  and by scratching your name on with a nail. As it grew the scar tissue was just an expanding name. V. cool and removed any opportunity to claim another as your choice all along.
• Hard lessons. I rose v early one morning, and wandered into the garage where the gigantic chest freezers were located, to be confronted by my mother taking some freshly born (sub 30 min) kittens and, one by one, giving them a firm bop on the head. Understandably surprised and a bit of a cat lover, as I had assumed my mother was up to that point, I enquired why she had gone all Hitler on them. She was very cool and replied that there weren’t the resources for them to survive and doing this was a humane precursor to chucking a weighted sack in the river with said kittens in – a traditional unwanted pet disposal method in rural Canada – as it was the decent thing to do. All this was very hard to argue against as she was correct on all counts. It wasn’t nice or pretty but she was absolutely doing the necessary thing despite the unpleasantness of the task.
• Yobs. Mother used to be quite high up in an operational role in the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC from now on) and worked in high security men’s prisons. Mum is a guest in the UK of our then govt prison big-wig, Martin Nairy, and when not sharing her wisdom at a conference goes to visit some ancient old relative. After apparently being taken on a slo-mo but white knuckle ride, the octogenarian lady proclaims that she can’t park her car in the usual place as there is some boy rollerblading back and forth across the entrance. Despite the pensioner’s protest, Mother disembarks and politely requests the young lad go and skate elsewhere. She is met with a less than polite reply. Next thing said young man is being dangled up against a wall by a 65 year old woman who, in her words, used “prison speak” on him to get her point across. When pressed her for a fuller explanation of prison speak I heard words that I was surprised my mother knew, let alone in context. The encounter ended apparently with an offer to, and I quote, “break both of his fucking legs” if he didn’t go now. All delivered with a big smile. When he objected from a safe distance that he’d tell the police he was met with a snort of derision as she observed that the police are hardly likely to believe that a frail old woman had assaulted and properly scared a burly young lad.

So Chris calls me today to check if my appeal to him, Eric and Nicky is serious. I explained that I didn’t just want stories of crazy – which are entertaining I grant you – but also of lessons and insights. Now in our forties and we still don’t *quite* trust one another…

[This post will carry on as long as Mum doesn't have me killed by a special ninja squad from CSC]

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. What price UK democracy?

With all of the recent trials and tribulations (again) about Google, Amazon, Starbucks et al (The Big 3)  not paying their ‘fair share’ of Corporation Tax to the UK Treasury, let me address some of the very basic fundamentals – and the price of a ticket to the game – of being able to run a business of this size in the UK.

Before I start, we should set aside the government ‘incentives’ for these corporations to be here in the first place. I’m sure that a good journalist could perhaps open this particular worm can in due course.

1. Democracy, not Dictatorship. Let the Big 3 try and run their business easily and freely in a totalitarian dictatorship. Let them try and ‘bully’ government ministers and ride roughshod over the tax rules. Good luck with that.
2. Transport links. Despite our winter potholes, our motorways and A roads are excellent. All of the Big 3 uses these roads to distribute their wares in one way or other. We fund these roads, the individual UK taxpayer via our Road Fund Licence (ha ha) and other means. Perhaps they could locate to a country where the roads are made of mud or sand and are frequently washed away or are so riddled as to be useless.
3. Electricity. When one of the Big 3 puts an electric plug into a socket, electricity comes out. All day, every day, 100% of the time. And it’s pretty inexpensive. No major blackouts. No sudden and unexpected power cuts. This is not true across the globe as a whole. Before these power companies took control, the state ran the utilities and we the taxpayers have paid for most of it.
4. Water. Turn on a tap anywhere and potable water flows. All day, every day, almost 100% of the time (I’m not sure the Big 3 have many gardens to water so a hosepipe ban is immaterial). And yes, this good drinking water is relatively inexpensive. Some entire continents have a fresh water problem. Try locating there Big 3.
5. Workforce. We have a plentiful supply of skilled (and unskilled) labour. The majority of these people came through our own education system, once again funded by us, the individual taxpayer. Most are diligent, loyal and hard working and they turn up on time. Good luck with that one Big 3 in some other countries
6. Law and Order. Oh yes! Our Police force and the rule of law. Unless I haven’t been paying attention lately I can’t think of ANY company executives who have been kidnapped and held to ransom. Or murdered. Or who fear for their life on a daily basis and need armed guards around the clock. And who have to live in walled compounds with security 24/7. However, there are many countries like this out there Big 3 if you don’t like our ticket price. Yes, total personal security, all funded by us the small individual taxpayer. Spotted the theme yet?
7. Healthcare. Should one of the senior executives of the Big 3 fall ill, then call 999 and an ambulance or paramedic will rush to your side and then our NHS, funded by us, will do all they can to help you. Free at the point of entry. Lovely. So once again, good luck elsewhere my Big 3 if you find this coverage as standard in your global economy. I’m not sure that the small island tax havens have the budgets for this sort of thing.
8. Telecommunications. Broadband, mobile phones, landlines, satellite television. Almost total UK coverage to some degree, and always near the major conurbations. Makes life easy doesn’t it? Helps to grease the wheels of economic profits. Check out the satellite pictures from space and see the ‘dark’ countries.
9. Culture. Apart from the really rare and isolated incident, you are not going to be shot by a 12 year old with an AK47 and a grin. Or have limbs chopped off with a machette. Or be murdered for your Rolex and dumped in a ditch. The UK has Theatre, Opera, Arts, Monuments, Football, Rugby, Restaurants, (the 2012 Olympics), Cinema, and Literature. This is our fabric. It doesn’t come cheaply or quickly. It takes centuries. So feel free to swan around in your Range Rovers with smoked windows eating in Michelin Star restaurants. Don’t worry – we will pay.
10. Fairness. In the UK we believe in fair play. Decent pay for a decent job well done. We rarely cheat and bribery is rare, as is corruption. It leaves a bitter taste to see others exploit our system and abuse it – BECAUSE THEY CAN. Time to own up and pay up. That’s your ticket price so that you can come here and run a business. If you don’t like our terms then pack your bags and be done with you. You need US more than we need YOU.

Matthews & Sharpton: Obama’s Scandals Prove “Racism” and “White Supremacy” in GOP.

Well, you knew they’d get around to it eventually…

*********

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.

The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The Internal Revenue Service has identified two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office as being principally responsible for “overly aggressive” handling of requests by conservative groups for tax-exempt status, a congressional source told CNN. In a meeting on Capitol Hill, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller described the employees as being “off the reservation,” according to the source. It was not clear precisely what the alleged behavior involved. Miller said the staffers have already been disciplined, according to another source familiar with Miller’s discussions with congressional investigators.

Hey, it was essentially just two guys, and they’ve been “disciplined,” so can’t we all just move on? (Townhall)

They did it ….No! They Did it!…Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!….Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!Oh No We Didn’t They Did it!

Confused  and Frustrated yet?

The Payoff:

Insiders with ties to the Obama administration tell The Cable that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has become the heir apparent to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon — a post at the epicenter of foreign-policy decision making and arguably more influential than secretary of state, a job for which she withdrew her candidacy last fall amid severe political pressure.

“It’s definitely happening,” a source who recently spoke with Rice told The Cable. “She is sure she is coming and so too her husband and closest friends.”

The Speech

“Now, if we’re being honest with ourselves, as you’ve studied and worked and served to become good citizens, the fact is that all too often the institutions that give structure to our society have, at times, betrayed your trust.”

Are you missing out on some great Rewards?

Citysave Rewards is our market-leading member recognition scheme designed to reward our members for your engagement with us. Members build up reward points throughout the year and redeem them in the run-up to Christmas.

Whenever we ask our members for feedback, we learn that many of you heard about us from your friends and colleagues and that you want to feel more a part of Citysave.  Citysave Rewards is our way of bringing these things together and of thanking you for your support, which we really do appreciate.

The scheme is simple to understand and your participation is free, all we need is your e-mail address to keep you updated on your Rewards progress.

How it works

Each time you do something which qualifies you for Rewards, we add these to your points total automatically. There is no need for you to do anything.  Each month we send you your updated Rewards total and update you on any enhancements to the scheme that we’ve managed to secure for you.  When your November statement arrives, you can convert your Rewards into vouchers which can be used across Birmingham in the run-up to Christmas.  And that’s it.  Simple isn’t it?  Simple, free and rewarding.

Getting started

If we have your e-mail address, then you don’t need to do anything. We’ve already set you up to receive Rewards.  If you aren’t sure if we have your e-mail address, then give us a call on 0121 616 6200 and select option 5. We can set you up straight away.

How do I earn Rewards?

This is the best news of all for many of you. To earn Rewards you simply need to keep doing what you’re doing: using Citysave, supporting Citysave, recommending Citysave.  Simple.

Here are some of the ways that you can earn reward points:

• Joining Citysave Credit Union - 5 points
• Recommend us to someone who goes on to become an active member – 20 points
• Start up a new Citysave savings plan – 10 points
• Open our new Citysave 90-day ISA – 20 points
• Take out a Citysave loan product – 10 points * DURING MAY, THIS IS DOUBLED TO 20 POINTS FOR A CAR LOAN OR HOMEOWNER LOAN
• Set up a junior account with an active savings plan for your child or grandchild – 20 points
• If someone you recommend sets up a savings plan or loan product in the first six months – 10 further points
• If you arrange for our Outreach officer to visit your workplace to promote Citysave – 100 points
• If you take part in our Citysave Rep scheme – 50 points
• Responding to one of our member feedback surveys – 5 points
• Setting up Online or Automated Telephone Banking – 5 points

There will also be special incentives throughout the year to help you build up your points and accrue bigger and better Rewards.  

Keep up to date

Enhancements to the Citysave Rewards scheme will be happening throughout the year.  These will be publicised here on Citysave Home, through Twitter, on our Facebook page and through your monthly Citysave Rewards statement.

According to the New York Post “ the moms pay $130 an hour to hire a disabled, “black-market” guide, who uses her position—sitting in a motorized scooter—to help entitled families gain special access to rides.”  Smart ladies if you ask me.  They found an entrepreneuring individual who is turning her disability into an asset. 

I’ve always found the level of service that Disney provided to handicap families amazing and yet a little unfair.  I’m actually surprised it took this long for someone to expose the hole in the system.  The first time I visited Disneyland my mom had recently had surgery and while she wasn’t handicapped by any means, she simply didn’t have the endurance yet to walk around with us all day.  So we rented a wheel chair so she could rest when needed.  That wheel chair was our golden ticket to the front of the line before Fast-Passes had been created.  To this day my dad always wants to rent a wheel chair which I won’t let him do. 

If you go to Disney’s website and look at the details for the Guest Assistance Pass it explains that it’s not a “special fast pass” or “golden ticket” and you’ll find plenty of individuals who used them who say they wait the same as everyone else.  But my experience is everyone I see enter via the handicap line winds up on the ride much faster than if they had been in line with me.  And if it weren’t the case the mom’s from Manhatton wouldn’t have found an area to exploit in the worlds premier customer service organization. 

Source:

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/disney-world-scheme–entitled-families-hire-disabled-guide-to-bypass-lines-194555620.html

Do people not care about inequality, or do they not know the facts?

To test this hypothesis, Ilyana Kuziemko recently conducted an online experiment using members of the Amazon Mechanical Turk community (essentially an online labor market where individuals complete short computer-based tasks for negotiated wages). 

The treatment group received an “information shock” where they were told where they fall in the current income distribution, and what their household income might be if income inequality had not increased between 1980 and 2010. (Recall from a previous post that Americans underestimate the extent of income inequality).

The control group did not receive an information shock. The treatment and control groups then answered several questions about how important a social problem inequality is, and preferences for redistributive tax and transfer policies.

The main result is that across political affiliations and income profiles, people exposed to the information shock express much greater concern about income inequality (40 percent greater), but generally do not support more redistributive policies. Liberal-conservative differences on issues like raising taxes on millionaires hardly budge. They also do not have a huge effect on support for anti-poverty policies (EITC, food stamps, minimum wage).

The one main exception was that support for continuing the estate tax (which almost exclusively falls on very wealthy households), was greatly increased in the treatment group. Here’s one intriguing hypothesis offered by the authors:

“Correcting wildly misinformed views on welfare was not sufficient to change respondents’ support, though perhaps the lack of elasticity is due to the racial stereotypes the word “welfare” bring to mind (Gilens, 1996). It may be the case that the estate tax is one of a few issues on which voters are highly misinformed but is not linked to racial or other stereotypes.”

The other important thing to note is that trust for government was relatively low in both the treatment and control groups – but paradoxically trust for government decreases in the control group even as they profess greater approval for the government taking a more active role in addressing income inequality.

“In general, providing information about the growth of inequality and the ability of the government to raise taxes and redistribute have complicated effects on views of government. It appears to make them simultaneously see more areas of society where government intervention may be needed but simultaneously make them trust government less.”

What do we make of these findings? It suggests that working on anti-poverty policies may be a harder slog than anti-inequality policies. It also could suggest a vicious cycle: people feel less empowered and more distrustful in the face of growing inequality, even as they express an abstract desire for the government to do something about the problem.

Although it’s not ironclad evidence, the authors show that willingness to send an email to a U.S. Senator addressing the estate tax does increase substantially (although they do not have evidence that sending the email actually takes place). Giving people “voice” is in some respects harder in the current era, in which government feels very distant and unapproachable to most citizens. Finding small, but meaningful ways, to get people involved in the conversation on inequality is an important direction to pursue for future politics. Rather than concluding that the public will never support redistribution in policy, those who seek to reduce inequality might try to help voters to see a path that links their political participation with more redistributive policies (and conversely to punish elected officials that do not listen to constituent preferences on redistributive policies).

Setting yourself up an e-mail address is free from a number of different providers and is quick to do. But you must make sure that you do it securely by setting up a strong password and other security questions, then making sure that no-one else becomes aware of them.

Here’s our guide to getting yourself an e-mail account:

Choose your provider

Free e-mail accounts can be accessed by registering with many famous websites such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.com.  A good guide to what is available and the differences between them may be found here: Choose your provider.

Be secure

Securing your use of e-mail secures your data and helps protect you from fraudulent activity such as identity theft (which we discussed recently here).  The most obvious means of doing this is by setting up a secure password.  E-mail accounts can be a target for hacking (breaking in to) and this is done by ‘cracking’ your password.  Strong passwords are more difficult to crack and these are made up of a combination of capital letters, lower case letters and numbers.  Think of it this way, setting your password as “password” would be much easier to break into than if you had used “pAs5w0rD829” for example.  Of course we don’t recommend that you use either of those passwords now that we’ve published them on the internet!  For more information on securing your e-mail account, have a look at this useful article here: Be secure.

Make the most of having an e-mail address

Citysave members who have registered their e-mail address with us have access to more of our services such as:

• Building up Citysave Reward points (click here for more information)
• Using our high-specification secure members’ area to manage your account and check your statements
• Receiving certain account documents immediately rather than waiting for the postman
• Raise queries or provide certain documents to us without having to attend the office

We are committed to supporting our members in becoming more digitally included, why not give it a go today?

Carney tried to explain why he and the president still insist on conditionally condemning the IRS’ actions, depending on “if” something inappropriate occurred.  Reporters from the AP and CNN both pushed back, noting that the IRS has already acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized.  Alas, it seems admissions of guilt still aren’t sufficiently dispositive for our fact-finder in chief

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  The September 11th murders of 4 Americans in Libya wasn’t about some You Tube video and the Obama administration did apparently leave those people out there to die.  They did apparently conceal the truth and they did think we’d be stupid enough to believe them.

And anybody who thought things would be different is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Especially right before the Re-coronation of the King of All Media and your sovereign Lord of all Things, Barack Hussein Obama!

Nothing could be allowed to get in the way. Nothing.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Message is The Message.

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

After all, we are talking about the King of the Orwellian Parse.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

    Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time–and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios (WP)

 

I am concerned for two reasons: first most of us can not afford a 284 percent increase on middle income or retirement income.  Secondly I do not want federal help.  I understand that if you make a certain amount of money you will be able to receive funding from the government to assist  you in paying these steep premiums. In my opinion, it is another way for the government to control us. The government takes more and more control of our lives each day. Our government tells us what we can eat, how we should protect ourselves, what kind of healthcare we are allowed to have, and even legislates our morality.

As an American, I do not want the federal supplement. I started working when I was thirteen. From the beginning I have been independent, working my way through college, starting a career at the bottom of the ladder and living in a small one bedroom apartment using the coffee table for dining.  Many people start out this way. I believe most Americans want an independent society not socialism.

In congress, a legislative bill is being prepared to repeal Obamacare. With all the negative and costly changes that Obamacare has brought us I think this is a good idea. 

If healthcare for the uninsured is something we need, let’s start over with a plan that does not hurt more people than it helps. Research the information on Obamacare and send your congressman an email or letter and support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Related articles

• Lawsuit Claims Obamacare Crushing Small Employers (patdollard.com)
• Lowe’s, Food Lion parent company join Affordable Care Act protest (charlotteobserver.com)

Wow!, now that’s cognitive dissonance (not to mention arrogance)….Always have to have a demonizing figure to galvanize the faithful, don’t you Big Brother!

2014 Totalitarianism or Bust!

WP: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

As we have noted before, the Benghazi scandal is boring.- The Atlantic

Thomas Sowell: There can be honest differences of opinion on many subjects. But there can also be dishonest differences. Last week’s testimony under oath about events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 makes painfully clear that what the Obama administration told the American people about those events were lies out of whole cloth.

What we were told repeatedly last year by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the American ambassador to the U.N., was that there was a protest demonstration in Benghazi against an anti-Islamic video produced by an American, and that this protest demonstration simply escalated out of control.

This “spontaneous protest” story did not originate in Libya but in Washington. Neither the Americans on duty in Libya during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, nor officials of the Libyan government, said anything about a protest demonstration.

The highest American diplomat on the scene in Libya spoke directly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by phone, and told her that it was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya announced that it was a terrorist attack. The C.I.A. told the Obama administration that it was a terrorist attack.

With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the “spontaneous protest” story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information available at the time from intelligence sources.

But that claim cannot survive scrutiny, now that the 12 drafts of the Obama administration’s talking points about Benghazi have belatedly come to light. As draft after draft of the talking points were made, e-mails from the State Department pressured the intelligence services to omit from these drafts their clear and unequivocal statement from the outset that this was a terrorist attack.

Attempts to make it seem that Ambassador Susan Rice’s false story about a “spontaneous protest” was the result of her not having accurate information from the intelligence services have now been exposed as a second lie to excuse the first lie.

Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s loudly proclaimed question “What difference, at this point, does it make?” the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.

Barack Obama’s election campaign oratory had proclaimed the death of Osama bin Laden as an accomplishment of his administration, as part of a general defeat of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. To admit that these terrorists were still in action, and strong enough to kill an American ambassador and three other Americans in a well-coordinated military style attack, would be a politically devastating admission during the election campaign.

Far better, politically, to come up with a story about a protest demonstration that just got out of hand. This could be presented as an isolated, one-time event, rather than part of a continuing pattern of terrorism by groups that were still active, despite President Obama’s spin suggesting that they were not.

The problem with telling a lie, or even a succession of lies, is that a very small dose of the truth can sometimes make the whole thing collapse like a house of cards. The State Department’s own foreign service officer Gregory Hicks was in Libya during the attack, so he knew the truth. When threats were not enough to silence him, it was then necessary to try to discredit him.

After years of getting glowing job evaluations, and awards of honors from the State Department for his work in various parts of the world, Mr. Hicks suddenly began to get bad job evaluations and was demoted to a desk job in Washington after he spoke with a Congressman about what he knew. The truth is dangerous to liars.

The Obama administration’s excuse for not trying to get help to the Americans in Benghazi while they were under attack — namely, that it would take too long — is as shaky as its other statements. A small fighting unit in Tripoli was ready to get on a plane to Benghazi when they were ordered to “stand down.” Other fighting units located outside of Libya are designed precisely for fast deployment — and nobody knew how many hours the attack would last.

But it will take more investigations to determine who gave the order to “stand down,” and why. How many new lies that will generate is another question.

But Big Brother Never Lies. Big Brother always tells you the truth. You just have to trust Big Brother. He’s always looking out for you.

And anyone says differently needs to be re-educated because they are a dirty liar!

Ignore the IRS at your Door, the drone outside your house or the Justice Department listening to everything you say and everything you type. You’re perfectly safe….

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

 

Just imagine how embarrassing this scenario is: I’m juiced to take advantage of my free score reports, I use them all up by signing up to send them automatically by the deadline, send them to the colleges of my dreams, and only a month later do I actually get to see the scores that I decided to send to those colleges. I could’ve gotten a totally gross score like 1500 for all I know; remember, we have to look “marketable” to these colleges (I discuss this in this post here). I could have good grades and still come off as a total numb nut with my SAT score, a score that’s supposed to reflect my reasoning abilities.

My main point: when you already have every aspect of college admissions in the palm of your hands, why make it harder for us, the students, and easier for you, the company? If anything, it should be easier for both parties. Honestly, it wouldn’t hurt a single soul if the deadline was extended so that everybody could get an opportunity to at least consider the score that they got on the test first and then decide if they’ll use the score reports.

Well first sorry I have not blogged in a while I apologize

BLOODY HELL

My BEST FRIEND is celebrating her 19th this friday. Plan is dinner and then staying at a hotel for the night. MY PARENTS are telling me that it is too dangerous and they can’t trust me to be alone in a hotel. 

EXCUSE MOI? When I was 9 years old I would fly alone on the plane. So ridiculous I am so annoyed by my parents. No honestly they are for sale on eBay. Price? A Justin Bieber and Ryan Goslin. 

Joking aside though I am getting extremely tired of the way I am treated. It isn’t fair.

ATOS AND DWP KILL AGAIN

KEY BACKGROUND INFO ON THIS ARTICLE:

The issue of unfair ATOS assessments has been mentioned in the house of commons loads of times and a joke was even made about a tree being found fit for work by ATOS on Have I Got News For You. So far peoples cries of unfairness have been met with replies from Iain Duncan Smith and Esther McVey that the reforms are necessary and fair, and they are not cutting the budget but managing the cost at a lower level.

Last year thousands of people were reported to have committed suicide after being found fit for work when they simply weren’t.

There are many groups on Facebook highlighting the issue, including ATOS miracles and Nurses Against ATOS. As well as there being many videos on Youtube by claimants and reporters.