Jay Carney’s vicious, blood thirsty comment: “If even one child’s life is saved…”
A quick rant in reply to this ass of a Press Secretary, Jay Carney, speaking on gun control:
“JAY CARNEY: If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals. He is not naive about the challenges that exist, but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child’s life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions.”
What an unbelievably vicious, blood thirsty thing to say.
“…if even one child’s life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions…”
Really. Why? Because one child’s life is saved? THAT calculus is what you propose to drive the laws that will govern your lives, America?
So you’re going to get into a pissing match of tallying children’s corpses? U.S. Grant’s “terrible arithmetic” as the basis of law?!
What do I mean?
What if someone proposes a law that promises to save two children’s lives? Must you take those actions as well? What if it conflicts with the plan you proposed? What if they can show more dead bodies would result from your plan than theirs? Do you then get into a counting match, counting children’s bodies… what then, the one that produces fewer corpses, wins?
What if I propose the immediate slaughter of everyone who has ever shown a tendency towards improper behavior towards children… anyone who has ever spanked, beaten or leered at a child… that would undoubtedly save more than one child’s life… must we put that action into law as well?
Is that the sort of life you want for your child?
You cannot make decisions regarding people’s right to live their own lives, based upon some utilitarian calculus – such a life would not be worthy even of rising to the level of being nasty, brutish and short.
“The NRA did not return messages seeking comment on Monday. A representative for Facebook told CNN they were not able to speak for the NRA and do not comment on organization’s actions on their own pages.”
In our collective consciousness we seem to have allowed central casting to award the part of “The Law” to to be played character actors who specialize in wimpiness like Don Knotts’s Barney Fife, or the oiliness of a more modern Grima Wormtongue… or, splitting the difference, a SOBbing John Boehner. The effect has been to sap our laws of having anything like the force of law behind their words.
They’re just not taken seriously. Lately, it doesn’t seem as if our first ten amendments to the Constitution even rise to the level of the 10 suggestions. Go figure.
You mean that a culture that educates their children to learn useful skills, rather than to understand what is Right and Wrong, doesn’t take meaningful words seriously, unless they’re delivered in a skillful manner that captures their attention?
What a surprise.
I suggest rebooting the franchise.
How about… if the NRA pays for new advertising, casting the wizard Gandalf to read the 2nd Amendment in darkened halls of congress, in the manner of his facing down the Balrog in the mines of Moria? Now with that in mind, picture Gandalf in congress, his voice and demeanor full of the sort of conviction millions have seen him express with “You … Shall… NOT pass!“, as he thunders out the 2nd Amendment,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Eh? Whatcha think?
And no need to stop there, perhaps the NRA &… well… some other interested party, could get together for some cross promotional opportunities, and pay him to read the 1st Amendment too… I mean seriously, the language is there, we just need someone, someone with some solid screen presence, some gravitas, to bring those words to life in the same manner that Ian McKellen brought Gandalf to life in the minds of millions:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’d be something, wouldn’t it? Maybe if we bring some drama to the law, people would think of the laws and of our liberty, half as seriously as they do the movies.
What, are you complaining that I’m not taking this ‘latest issue’, (CRISIS!!! NO MORE!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!) seriously enough? Oh? Well how about you tell me why I should be taking this latest assault upon all of our individual rights, any more seriously than that of a casting decision? I should behave as if their hysterical words claiming power over our lives, have more meaning than those meaningful words which were written into law to defend our right to live our own lives?
Oh come on, give it a shot (!)… my comment box is functional, spill your guts.
While you’re at it, I tell you what, try telling me why any organization, be it the NRA or any other, should be considered by lawmakers and the media, as having to defend and justify ANY of our Rights, against the government and the media’s desire to abridge them? For our own good?
And you want me to take your latest ‘crisis’ seriously? Excuse me for a moment while I reach for some rotten tomatoes. Don’t move now….
Since I was a kid I’ve always been fascinated by history. Especially early American history. I’ve always wondered what it would be like to live “back then”. I’ve always been amazed with the hard times and struggles that people throughout history h
ave overcame and also I suppose it’s an escape for me into a search of simpler times
I’ll never forget when I was in sixth grade I got to go with a group of students to stay overnight at Ft. Massac in southern Illinois. We got to sleep in one of the bastions and were able to see Kentucky across the Ohio river. Looking back what a strategic location and picturesque as well. I’ll never forget the gentleman and ladies dressed in Colonial clothing and military uniforms or the smell of fire wood burning and the reenactments and the authentic Colonial foods (apple fritters) and hot chocolate in the morning. See their site here. http://dnr.state.il.us/Lands/landmgt/parks/R5/frmindex.htm
Fort De Chartres. Illinois
My wife and I used to take a monthly road trip to “wherever”. We would just get in the car and drive and stop and see anything and everything that was interesting. One of our favorite drives was down Illinois’ Great River Road where we found Fort De Chartres which is pictured above. Unlike Fort Massac (a wooden structure) this fort is an enormous stone structure. We made this trip several times and it’s reenactments and museum are really a must see in early American history.
Cahokia Mounds, Illinois.
Although at times I take it for granted I suppose and drive by it twice a day to and fro from work but another great part of American history is at Cahokia Mounds. Home of the largest ancient earthen structure in North America. Acres of amazing mounds. Mounds that are the only thing left of what was once a huge population of Mississippians or some times called Cahokian or Kahoka. I grew up in the town in which this legendary part of American history resides. Years ago it just had a small museum and now it has an elaborate interpretive center and it’s free to the public. I encourage visits and donations Here’s their site. It’s a good one. http://www.cahokiamounds.org/ .
A short distance away is St. Louis. St.Louis itself was once known as Mound City. St. Louis once had mounds on its riverfront. Settlers built homes and go figure, taverns on top of some of them. There are remnants of that age in a riverfront street named Mound street and also in its turn of the century advertising on it’s riverfront buildings.
Nearly ten years ago we moved out into “the sticks” built a home nestled in farmland. Far enough away from the hustle and bustle of the great city of St. Louis (which I love as my own) but close enough that I can make the trek into work every day. I’ve heard a couple people in town mention a place called Cox Monument. I never gave it much of a thought until my neighbor mentioned it again and in asking him about it he told me there was a massacre there. I looked into it and found it was just a very short distance from where I live.
I went online and found out where it was. After Church this morning I took my kids down a long gravel country road to show them the history in their “backyard” I told them the story about the Cox massacre along the way.
In 1808 the Jesse Cox family settled in what this area and worked to clear and cultivate the land. They built a log cabin and were in the process of building a mill to grind their corn meal. In 1811 while away from their cabin. Some say working on their mill and others say they were at nearby Hill’s Fort to gather supplies. http://www.fortsofillinois.org/ While away a party of Pottawatomie Indians found 16 year old Rebecca Cox and her 20yr old brother Elijah Cox left alone.
They murdered Elijah, cut his heart out and placed it on his head. They put Rebecca on a horse and started heading North. Rebecca left strips of her apron along their path so she could be traced. Rangers from Hill’s Fort and surrounding areas tracked down the Indians near Litchfield, Il. Rebecca it is said in seeing the trailing Rangers jumped off the horse but not before receiving a blow from her captor’s tomahawk to her hip.
The Rangers caught up to them and rescued Rebecca and then killed the band Pottawatomie. Rebecca would recover and later marry her boyfriend William Gregg and then move to Arkansas where he was also killed by Indians. The tension was building at this time in the country and it was a time in history leading up to the War Of 1812. Many of these native tribes were encouraged and often paid to kill or rob American settlers. Which may have been the case in the Cox murder.
The kids and I pulled up to this tiny area deep in America’s heartland. I was disappointed to see the surrounding property junked up with old cars and farm equipment and well…junk. I was grateful at the same time however that the property owner allowed this easement in his property for people to see this forgotten place and place of American history. The grave of Elijah Cox was on the property of where the family cabin once stood and owned. I was also disappointed in that the local cemetery who is in charge of care of this monument has allowed it to be covered in leaves and debris. I’m going to offer to clean it up myself for free.
This is the original head stone for Elijah Cox, I wasn’t able to get close enough so that it’s legible here.
There is however a recent plaque placed last year in honor and in memorial of this young man’s death and local history. It doesn’t take much effort to see that we are surrounded by great history and can easily witness the struggles and triumphs of the American spirit anywhere. Stories like the Cox Family story. Stories like this are strewn across the country if you look around. Many say today that we are in need of a change in our culture. I’m convinced history is where to find it. The notion of getting back to our founding is talked about now more than ever. History is all around us. Take your kids.Take your grand kids there or just revisit it yourself. It’s everywhere. You don’t have to look very far or dig very deep because our history is really right in our back yards, no matter where you live.
ance companies have already gone out of business — Obamacare will leave only a few huge insurace companies with monopolistic protections.
2. An exchange set up by the state does not give us control. HB609, the 2011 bill to set up a Missouri exchange included at least 40 references to federal laws or bureaucracies that dictate virtually every meaningful aspect of the exchange. Click for a marked up copy of HB609.
And here’s the Missouri First analysis of that bill.
Here are a couple of very good articles by the Cato Institute’s Michael F. Cannon pointing out the need to fight the exchange:
Call or email each Republican senator. Time is very short as they will be discussin this Friday and Saturday. Tell them the people of Missouri don’t want them to set up an Obamacare exchange any more than they want the governor to. The sentiment behind the Prop E vote applies to them, too!
(Here are the senators for whom we have public contact information. Some of the new senators don’t have published information yet.)
g that this country has been doing for the last five..History shows it has to come home to roost if it is not stopped.
#2 There are those (many) in Government who wish to see the Capitalist Market (I would say free market but it hasn’t been that in a long time) collapse here in the United States. They are doing everything they can to over load the system and force it to collapse…and now for the next four years there isn’t much that will prevent them from doing just that. (Excessive taxation, high unemployment and reckless government spending is going to collapse the system nicely.. since it all feeds into each other like a snow ball rolling down a hill.)
Second, I would prepare to defend certain important areas of the country. Now yes I do mean stock up on firearms and ammo and no I’m not a nut job. Here is why..
The Communists (Aka uber Progressives) have a long history of violently taking over nations in times of crisis. When a nation collapses (financially or otherwise) chaos reigns as people realize their ‘normal’ lives are no more and the leadership that was in place becomes (usually) useless. The Communists actually have plans in place to step into that void left by the previous leadership (Or at least be teamed up with the uber progressives that do). Now they aren’t going to call themselves “Communists” Hell it will prob be lead by a well known politician and or they’ll do it ‘peacefully’ by having the President issue “orders” so that they will get control of the country (As in “Oh Capitalism failed so now we have to do this etc etc…”). Either way history has proven this is how drastic and radical change is forced on a country by Communists…(Granted the past 100 years they have done a good job in pushing the country their way gradually but historically that is new for them.) And after reading and watching the Communists for the past 5 years..I know for a fact that they are hoping and praying for such a collapse. (By the way this is not a push for civil war or some kind of threat.. it’s just observations based upon historic facts and it needs to be said. No law against preparing to defend yourself.. this is not a call to arms.. So DHS bugger off..)
Third thing I would do is get involved as a citizen journalist or something in that realm. As it stands right now the Internet is our last “Free” place on the planet for ideas. Besides we can do the most good by not only researching and informing ourselves but sharing what we have learned with others. The internet is our Front Lines and right now we are in dire need of reinforcements. Btw..Don’t expect to make money doing this because it’s not going to happen. You do this because it needs to be done..
Fourth.. don’t give up on the Future and make sure you educate your children.. what I have written above may not happen in our lifetime (I know I’m dreaming) but it is imperative that we train our replacements. Looking to the future is where we have failed and the Communists have not. We think it’s our job to fight so our kids can live “normal” lives.. that is a crock.. normal is about defending your Liberty and training those future generations to defend theirs. It is NOT about watching TV, going to Disney World or buying the latest new “gadget” … without Liberty none of that is going to mean squat since you will be too busy doing the Governments bidding. Besides if you do not teach your children your values.. someone will teach them theirs….and the Communists are more than happy to teach them theirs.
Anyway.. that is my short answer.. “shocking” as it maybe.. honestly I’m tired of people not saying what needs to be said. Am I violent.. No.. do I wish harm on others.. No.. but only a fool fails to prepare for what history teaches us will probably happen.
And if it doesn’t happen then we will all laugh about it later.. and you can call me quack for the rest of my life.. a name I will gladly wear with pride.
In otherwords, prepare yourselves. There is nothing silly about stocking up on non-perishables. Canning and jarring is simple and smart. (tutorial to come)
It is easy to stock up on a three week supply of food, water, and toiletries…including a makeshift toilet. Think about this…what if a quake hit, a perfect storm, unrest, whatever. Food on your shelves rotates out, so you never lose the investment. Even better, if you are like me, I hibernate-ish in the cold of winter. That food supply allows me to shop if and when I choose. It really is nice to have your own private grocery store. It doesn’t matter if it is a cultural, social, economic collapse. What matters is you be prepared for anything. Remember Hopkin? What about Superstorm Sandy?
Another point, keep books…not only to pass time, but more importantly, to educate your children. Curriculum are cheap…and you avoid indoctrination.
One final diamond in the rough…stock up on booze and tobacco, as well as small toiletries…great battering items.
Lastly, most importantly, trust in the Lord. He is our refuge, He is our strength. All things are Him (even if it is to press into him in the wake of a tragedy). THAT is the key to survival. Trust in God and speak to Him daily. Open your ears. Gird your loins!
And never, never forget who we are, what we are doing and why we must.
hinking what went wrong and how to fix conservatism, it’s set one of George Carlin’s old comedy routines running around through my head on continuous loop, the bit on words that don’t go together,
“…the term Jumbo Shrimp has always amazed me. What is a Jumbo Shrimp? I mean, it’s like Military Intelligence – the words don’t go together, man… “
That’s what I especially hear when I hear that according to numerous rethinkers upon the state of conservatism, that in order to save conservatism, conservatism needs to be modernized, conservatism needs to get with the times.
Conservatism + Modernize. See what I mean? Just like Jumbo Shrimp.
Unfortunately, while George Carlin was trying to be funny, these folks are dead serious. They say, with a straight face, that in order to ‘modernize’ conservatism it will require ‘bold’ ‘new’ ‘thinking’ in regards to conservatism’s positions on college ‘educated’ youth, Latinos and supporters of gay marriage.
My immediate reaction, other than laughter, is that
‘bold’ thinking is not to be found in chasing after the presumed hot button issues of popular opinion.
‘New’ thinking is not found in reasserting the need to pander to decades old issues (and I don’t mean ‘decades old’ as in Old, but as in what’s merely fashionable, a passing fad).
‘Thinking’ is not what results from crunching numbers and electing to follow the higher tallies.
In addition to those obvious points, there’s also the fact that to the extent that you try to put a new face on an old philosophy in order to better appeal to the appetites of one particular group or another, it cannot be done without severing its principles, wrenching it out of its orbit, and transforming the entire project into an unseemly fraud. Continue reading →
Especially when I hear mirror images claiming the same ground, I want to get clear on what it is that we’re talking about. And not just out of curiosity or for argument’s sake but because if they are being principled or behaving conscientiously in doing what I am not doing – then what am I doing?
If I don’t agree, and have no basis but inclination for my position… then that’s some scary thin ice to be standing on. That’s disturbing. And it should be disturbing. Matters of principle and conscience should be taken seriously, and when people you respect come to opposite conclusions from yours, it’s well worth reconsidering the issues and your reasons for them. Why? Because ‘The Good Life‘ depends upon how you live your life, and if how you are living your life has little to do with being (properly) principled and conscientious… what kind of life can you be living? Isn’t that Reason enough?Are there more important issues to your life as a whole, than living it thoroughly and well?
And if on reconsidering them, you find you still disagree? A decent respect for the opinions of others requires that you declare the reasons for your disagreement.
In this case, I only wish that I could chalk up the disagreement to disagreement alone, but for all the claims being made on the basis of principle and conscience, as I’m looking at their positions – and I have listened and reexamined them – I am not seeing actual principles being upheld – I see only the appearance of them… not the substance; a preference, not a principle.
Of course I grant the grounds for personal choice and disagreement as to what is best, but these particular claims, are claimed to be being made on the basis of principle and conscience, and that exceeds the reach of personal preference, or the deference of friendship.
And for one friend (who, BTW, has donated countless hours of his own time, effort & money defending our Rights in court) who thought my rant couldn’t possibly apply to him:
“… are you suggesting that, me being a principled libertarian who has never voted for candidates based on their political party, I would not be acting on principle by continuing to vote only for those I believe to be the best candidates?”
, I’ve got to answer that if by ‘best candidate’ you mean, here and now, after the primaries, in the general election, if you are voting for who you think the best individual candidate is, who most reflects your views and convictions, as the primary purpose for giving them your vote; without regard to the purpose of the office and without regard to the dynamics of the race, without regard to the immediate and long term consequences of one the most likely winners winning, etc, then I regretfully must say – yes, then it applies to you as well, and perhaps it even applies to you most of all.
Despite what ‘common sense’ might tell you, voting for who the best individual candidate is, is not the purpose of an election. To vote for A candidate, without taking into consideration the dynamics of the race itself, the realistic chances of your ‘ best candidate’ to either win or affect the overall race, and the consequences of the election going to one or the other of the most likely winners, and what effects the likely winner might have in that office, then you have divorced your principles from the purpose they are principally supposed to serve – how the nation will be served by the person who is elected – rendering your actions, unprincipled.
First, keep in mind that Principles are an aid for thinking, not a substitute for it, and it is an ever present temptation to cast what is the more pleasing choice, for the short term, as an appealing escape from the more difficult consideration of the long term deeper and more important issues, especially when it is so easy to name such actions as ‘being Principled’. But you can’t delegate your conscience to a single issue, and while I hope all will reconsider their positions, I strongly suggest you begin by looking beyond your positions to what principles are, and what they are for.
(Cross posted from Blogodidact) I’m just a little curious about why those who are paid to be curious, are showing so little signs of being, even the least bit, curious. Those of you who saw the MO Senate Debate last week… saw Claire McCaskill wearing her usual calm, cool & collected, poised and color coordinated self, the very picture of the moderate professional.
I almost missed out on the opportunity to see the movie premier of Hating Breitbart in St. Louis last week, with a number of friends and core Tea Party activists. But unlike my order cheap cialis onlineact.blogspot.com/2012/03/warrior-poet-goes-unexpectedly-to-rest.html” target=”_blank”>several chances to meet Breitbart in person, all missed, this one I made – by the skin of my teeth (thanks again to Chris Loesch for hanging out in the lobby and getting us stragglers into the sold out show!).
I guess when I first heard of Andrew Breitbart, it was when O’Keefe & Giles made their underage prostitution bust of Acorn. The way he promoted it, flat out, with no reflexive nod to progressive sacred cows, no obeisance to political correctness, and a full out in your face laughing FU to those who expected him to, it was a thrill that ran up far more than just your leg, it charged all of our spirits, nationwide.
There’s been much said already, and deserved, about Breitbart’s mastery of the New Media, but IMHO what was truly different about Andrew Breitbart was that he didn’t try and pander to the Tea Party – he didn’t need to, he got it, he felt it and he believed it too.
Note: I’m not saying that he believed IN the Tea Party, but that he believed WHAT makes the Tea Party what it is, that we all have a right to live our own lives, and no one has a right to take that away from us. He didn’t believe in a movement or in something that was interesting new news, or the latest political happening. Instead he did what he did because he too had been someone who understood it, and, like the rest of us, was a believer before there ever was a movement to get behind. It was because of that part of Breitbart that is in all of us, that the movement caught fire in the way it has, from the healthcare battles and on down to today, and because of that, he knew exactly how to communicate it, rally it, and affirm it, with one or both of his two emotional settings: jocularity and righteous indignation.
To watch the movie ‘Hating Breitbart‘, is to see and experience all of that again, first hand, and there’s nothing quite like seeing someone saying and doing exactly what you would like to imagine yourself saying and doing, were you in the same position to. Continue reading →
(Cross posted from Blogodidact) Some folks are surprised by the ire directed at CNN’s Candy Crowley for her efforts in moderating the last debate, particularly for her ‘factual insertion’ regarding an ‘act of terror’. Well, since the context depends just as much upon what was not said, as well as what was not said, lets have a look at what was, wasn’t, and should have been said, both during the debate, and in the original White House statement’s – what was written and approved, and the President’s live comments, the day after the attack took place.
This all began of course during one of the many prickly moments in the debate, this time when it ‘strayed’ towards Libya and Obama tried to erect himself with a comment that,
“… the day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
Romney knew that to be untrue, and set out after the president. After some back and forth, Romney pointed out that it was in fact 14 days before Obama called it “an act of terror“. Obama retreated, and then told Romney to,
“Get the transcript”
Crowley, seemingly shocked at this questioning of the media narrative, and stuttering in a manner that’d make Obama proud, said,
“eh,eh,eh, he, ah, he did in, in fact sir, so let me, let me, uh, call it an act of terror, so ul [garbled]…”
At which point Obama takes advantage of being let off the spitted hook Romney had him on, says
“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
She chuckles, as does the much pleased audience, and she says
“He did call it an act of terror, he did as well, uh, take, it did as well, uh, take, two weeks or so, uh, for the whole idea of their being a riot out there about this tape, to come out, you’re correct about that.”
There are many things to criticize Crowley for on this, not least of which was that she was supposed to be the moderator, not a tag-team player in the debate. Her job was to keep the candidates moving along and on point, not to help one of them to make their point for them, or to restrain the other from pressing home their point.
The fact is that Crowley not only did not insert facts into the debate, she effectively removed them, and in the process helped Obama to escape from a very, very, uncomfortable situation. There are many things which that is, but moderating isn’t one of them; it was instead tantamount to a referee knocking the ball out of bounds for the home team.
The words you choose have meaning – as do the words not chosen
As to factual evidence of the President’s statement in question, while in the leftist world, where concepts and principles are relegated to 2nd place, and at best to factoids, her comment was neither factual nor accurate. People like to say that words have meaning, but what meaning they have is determined by the context of the passage (comment, speech, book, etc) they are used or abused in. Noting that the word ‘terror’ was used, is a meaningless factoid, of not much more worth than noting the total number of words used in the speech.
The question is did the President call the Benghazi attack and ‘act of terror’, and the answer, easily verifiable by looking at his own words, is no, he did not.
The official transcript does not even mention the word terror at all. Not in any way shape or form. Nada. Zero. None. Look for yourself (at the link, or it’s reproduced at the bottom as a courtesy to my intellectually lazy readers):
“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi,…”
Here it is simply characterized as an outrageous attack. Of course… he also called Romney’s comment to him in the debate outrageous, presumably he wasn’t calling Romney a terrorist, or imply that he was engaging in a terrorist attack?
He closes out that paragraph with the comment that those killed
“… stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.”
Callously took their lives is a far different thing than being murdered for a political cause. He then directs that the barn door be closed, now that the horse, 9/11, is out, by having his administration
“…provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya…”
and around the globe. He then refers to what he has already put forward as the cause of unrest in the region, the obscure anti-Muslim video (which he was to hang Susan Rice out to dry on, that Sunday)
“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”
, and says that
“we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”
“That kid of senseless violence” is also not calling, or even appropriately hinting at calling, the Benghazi incident a Terrorist Act.
In his words at the podium, he says he will
“Work with the Libyan govt, to bring to justice, the killers, of our people.”
The word Killers is also not a reference to terrorism, and that failure to not state it flat out, clearly, as an act of terror, is a much louder statement, portraying this as simply a ‘man caused disaster’. He then says that:
“…there is absolutely no justification to this kind of senseless violence.”
Yet another deliberate instance of Not referring to an act of terror. He continues, “… None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” Another deliberate instance of Not referring to an act of terror.
He makes further references to ‘attacks’ and ‘attackers’, but pointedly not to terrorism. After an extended comment on Ambassador Stevens activities, he finally gets around to mentioning 9/11 (but not terrorism) and how he’d visited wounded warriors and then learned of this, you guessed it, ‘attack’. Finally, he manages to eek out the word terror,
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values we stand for. Today we mourn four Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done in this terrible act, and make no mistake, justice will be done.”
In that context, and following his ramble about what he did to mark 9/11, it was at best an oblique and very general comment about terrorism in general, it was NOT an instance of coming out and calling the Benghazi attacks to be an act of terror, made all the more obvious by his reference immediately afterward to a ‘terrible act’, and then again, to attackers:
“But we also know that the lives these Americans led, stand in stark contrast to their attackers.”
The very deliberate intent of this entire speech, and of the complete absence of the word ‘terror’ from the official statement, is to deliberately Not refer to Benghazi as an act of terror.
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
"The fight for liberty begins in our own backyards. Gateway Grassroots Initiative embodies the fighting spirit of our Founding Fathers. It's a model for locally-based, limited government activism. Kudos to all the modern-day minutemen who refuse to depend on Washington pols to secure the blessings of liberty. We can't wait!"
-- Michelle Malkin
"Enough talk. The Gateway Grassroots Initiative is about taking action."
-- Roger Stone
"American without civic action is not citizenship. The Tea Party is about ideas in action--real activism that affects change. Gateway Grassroots is a way to make constitutional ideas reality. Good luck to the new effort!"
-- Dr. Melissa Clouthier
"The future of the Tea Party movement isn't marches, but organizing. This initiative looks like a good start."
-- Glenn Reynolds
"Love it...'every citizen a soldier for freedom'!!!"
-- Steve Bannon
"Since people aren't wired to stay in one frame of mind forever, all great historical movements have a limited shelf-life. It's exciting to see the next incarnation of conservative activism taking shape and moving forward from the rallies of the Tea Party. I fully support the Gateway Grassroots Initiative's mission of action."
- Brooks Bayne
"It's always a great thing to see Conservatives coming together and organizing for a cause and purpose like the Gateway Grassroots Initiative. Nobody needs to tell them to do it, nobody needs to goose them along, bus them in or make them sandwiches. They do it because they believe in it. Period. That's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals."
- Steven Crowder