During the October 16th House subcommittee hearing CDC’s Thomas Frieden testified that “If we try to restrict air travel, people from West Africa may try to get into the United States by land. Our borders are porous and if West Africans enter over land, we will not be able to monitor them for fever or to question them when they enter the country.” (1) Emphasis mine.
Without any qualifier Frieden testifies our borders are porous, confirming every allegation that our borders are not secure made by conservatives over the last six years. Due to Obama’s negligence or outright refusal to fulfill a basic responsibility of the presidency, our safety now depends upon either completely open travel from outbreak areas to the United States and our ability question and monitor all, stopping the transmission chain if infection occurs or relying upon people who have been exposed and have lied to escape their country telling us the truth when they arrive, so we can question and monitor, and stop the transmission chain if infection occurs. I say either or because basis of Freiden’s conclusions are not clear to me.
Every citizen who suffers economic hardship because of missed work due to self exposure or contact exposure, who suffers because of actual infection, who potentially suffers because of loss of a friend, a family member or pet, who suffers because limited resources were reallocated to stop transmission chain, suffers in part due to Obama’s failure to fulfill his presidential responsibilities.
(1)Expert: U.S. playing Russian roulette with Ebola http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/expert-u-s-playing-russian-roulette-with-ebola/#RmPSiLiYdzKIZfBl.99 via WND.com
The Internal Revenue Service has recently generated concern and new scrutiny for an intense and prolonged verification process specifically requested and directed towards conservative groups. While No-smoking gun has, as of yet, linked the democrats or Obama to anything beyond repeated requests to confirm potentially influential conservative groups followed the letter of the law, a plethora of information show the requests were directed specifically towards conservative groups themselves and not the specific problematic actions potentially from all charitable organizations. Virtually impossible to prove partisan intentions of the IRS without confessions or testimony under oath, the result their of their process was blatantly partisan. Even more distressing is the lack of concern from media, democrats, and Obama for partisan actions from an agency that must be non-partisan to function. They have chosen to hide behind the veil of unproven corrupt intentions, claiming no scandal exists as long as a weaponized IRS advances their agenda. On my mind has been the question of what is the best solution going forward concerning charitable organizations, politics, and taxes. I think I may have stumbled upon a possible solution.
What would happen if instead of declaring groups charitable organizations, groups and businesses would have the right to request funds be classified as charitable funds and exempt from taxation. Any funds declared charitable funds would be used only for the management of the charitable organization and already established charitable actions, outreach, and or education. Any and All funds received and used on lobbying, campaigning, or politics (to be better defined) would be subject to taxation. The tax would be the responsibility of group not the donor. Donor disclosure would be similar to what we have now with lots of room to improve.
How could progressives and democrats argue against increased taxes to raise revenue that are sourced from those with excess funds as proven by the voluntary nature of donations. How could they argue that their personal political motives to advance their agenda is of greater importance than the charity and compassion their taxes allow the government to provide. How could they argue one group’s political actions are of greater importance than another groups or even a church for that matter.
One of the skills I’ve learned over the years dealing with people, insurance, and healthcare is problem solving and one of the best ways for me is to make things fit ALL available information to get a starting point for confirmation or further questions. This in no way means that I know what exactly happened but from that point on what happened is changed only as the facts change. What follows is information and questions I have to try and make sense of administrations response to Benghazi. Next post I’ll try and write a theory.
There is a Major CIA annex in Libya doing something. According to Dempsy and Panetta a plan to arm rebels was proposed and nixed by Obama. Then did they do nothing or go another route? If they went another route was the plan of action direct or indirect? If indirect what is the definition of gun running or arming the Syrian rebels? Didn’t Obama say at foreign policy debate when Romney indicated need for making sure the rebels have the arms that they need and need for coordination with Turks and other allies that that’s exactly what he was doing? Is indirect assistance the facilitation of the transfer of weapons through Turkey. Considering we are dealing with an administration who has a history of perverting plain language, a SOS who has years of deflecting answers to questions that would result in negative press, and intelligence specialists let me ask another simple question: Was Obama facilitating Turkey gun running?
Prior to Gaddafi’s eventual fall did Steven’s play a role in arming the rebels. If he did then did he have contacts? Did he have knowledge of resources? Did he have knowledge of weapons needed and acquired by resistance? Lets assume he did IF he assisted prior to Gaddafi fall.
Stevens forwarded lots of information on the worsening condition of Benghazi. Members of annex assisted with attack on Brits so they were aware of worsening condition and would have/should have forwarded reports on their assistance with attack. Hazard pay was increased for DOS employees in Benghazi. Benghazi reported attack, ambassador missing/assault alert made. Steven’s even made a cell phone call indicating facility under attack see link ( http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/ambassador-chris-stevens-called-out-for-help-from-the-consulate-on-9-11-video/) Brits in the area able to assist? Brit assistance availability not confirmed only remember reading one or two articles on this.
Obama was in the midst of a heated campaign battle pushing the meme that al-Qaeda was on the run or decimated. Middle east was undergoing extreme changes and Obama was making all the right moves and its not the time to change to a novice. Romney indicated Obama’s ME was unraveling and because of our generated power vacuum, extremist were moving to fill the gap.
Egypt generated outrage by playing an obscure video on state TV for days. Egypt planned and allowed protestors ( after warning US staff ) to scale the embassy walls. This act and the generated outrage( assisted by MSM, social media and lack of projection of values of free speech and actual apologies for offense) spread like a fast moving virus. The continued apologies for free speech gave cover to express anger over anything from the west.
What is the protocol for ambassador being attacked? Was it enacted? What is the protocol for losing contact with ambassador being attacked? Was it enacted? Did Obama give cross border authority? What is the definition of secure and how does it differ from rescue? What plans over and above routine were made to station assets at strategic positions for 9/11. Did the admission that Hilary was aware Libyan government had no capacity to respond while other ME countries did affect the positioning of assets? Did Major Ham have an armed drone available from one of the navel vessels? Does the response vary based upon designation of protest out of control versus designation of outright attack. Did the communication with Obama change the status/designation of of Benghazi events as the information evolved.
I’m done for the night and still have more info or questions to lists before I propose something that fits.My Theory third in the series instead of second.
I love a good story. A good story can give hope. It can lead to action. It can unite. And it can provide a brief respite and escape; but it can also lead to hopelessness, chaos and division. A story can provide a perspective on the true state of things. The last few days have been significant in that a story has provoked offense, outrage, violence, and even the attack and murder of fellow countrymen and others within various other countries. A leader can use a story to weave a perspective of what a country is capable of or to lay blame. A leader can use a story to compliment a plan or to show effectiveness of leadership. A story cannot lead. A story fills a void or a longing but does not shine a light or lead a nation.
What we need are not more stories and acceptance of stories of moral relativism justifying chaos but clear truths about the values that once embodied a great nation. We need a statement that the United States is made up of individuals with God given rights, one of which is free speech. Because we value the right of speech, we are willing to allow the offensive to uphold the principle of freedom. Free Speech is a principle that the nation upholds to the highest standard of protection and limits only due to direct tangible consequences. We need a statement that intangible, the immeasurable, the moral relative of offense while significant cannot be used as justification for tangible and measurable reciprocity. We need a statement not only of condemnation for the attack but of the significance of embassies being sovereign soil. We need not retributive violence, not a storyteller filling a void but a leader shining a light and leading on principles. That’s my story.