Message

We were sitting in Hunan’s, a Chinese restaurant in Arcata, California.  At the bottom of the menu, I saw something that puzzled me.

Holding up the menu, I pointed at the words, asking Cathy, “Does ‘no message,’ mean there’s no fortune in the cookies, or something?”

She looked at me, studying my face to see if I was serious. It didn’t take her long to figure out that I was really sincere about what I was asking.

“That doesn’t mean ‘message,’ she responded.

“Yeah,” I argued, “that’s the abbreviation for the word, ‘message.’”

Cathy smiled, “M-S-G means monosodium glutamate, not ‘message.’”

She had to excuse herself from the table for a few minutes in order to regain her composure.  I could not help hearing her in the women’s room, laughing.

Advertisements

The Clinton’s ‘Golden’ Touch

The Soccer Cup scandal’s now connected to the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Bill served as the honorary chairman of the U.S. committee that worked unsuccessfully to win the right to host the 2022 World Cup while Qatar, its organizing committee and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) donated between $1.3 million and $5.55 million to the Clinton’s.

FIFA’s $50,000 to $100,000 donation was a membership fee to take part in the annual Clinton Global Initiative event in 2009 and 2010. Shortly afterwards, the FIFA announced it would build 20 community centers in Africa in association with the South African World Cup in 2010.

As for Qatar 2022, a foundation official said the organization was a CGI sponsor in 2013. It remains unclear however, how much of the $250,001 to $500,000 changed hands before December 2010, when Qatar won the rights to host the event.

The government of Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas, alone gave at least $1,000,000 and maybe as much as $5,000,000. The money, according to the Clinton Foundation website, is for “research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world.”

Bill traveled to Zürich in 2010, hoping to secure the rights for the U.S. to host the 2022 tournament – however FIFA chose Qatar instead. At a conference the next day, he attributed the decision to FIFA’s wish to “make soccer a world sport.”

The Clinton’s and their so-called philanthropic organization have been under scrutiny since February after learning Bill cashed in on lucrative speeches in exchange for official favors from the State Department, which Hillary ran from 2009 to 2013.

Under Hillary, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation. She also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation.  In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Hillary have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Meanwhile, Progressives are more concerned with the fact that Hillary has ties to the company Monsanto and is endorsing genetically modified foods.

The Real Threat to National Security

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s injunction ordering a complete stop to President Obama’s executive order providing amnesty to illegal aliens already in the U.S. The order also puts a stop to ‘delayed deportation,’ saying wasn’t an executive order by Obama, but rather memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at the president’s direction.

The administration argued that the injunction was unlawful, claiming a single court shouldn’t be able to impose it’s will on a nationwide program implemented by executive order. It also argued that the 26 states suing to stop Obama’s action were not suffering any real damage which gives them standing to sue the federal government.

The court saw it differently: “The district court found that Texas would lose at least $130.89 on each license it issues to a DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) beneficiary, and the United States does not dispute that calculation on appeal. It is well established that a financial loss generally constitutes an injury so Texas is likely to meet its burden.”

The Obama Administration claims that the hold is a hazard to reforming the immigration system, will damage the economy and worse — is a threat to national security.

“The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said in a statement.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the decision in a statement, saying Obama tried to force “a drastic change in immigration policy” and that it’s “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.”

“We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration,” he added.

Meanwhile, Obama has shown he doesn’t care what the court ordered, telling a crowd in Miami that “he will move ahead with his executive action on immigration and vowed that his administration will become even more aggressive in the weeks and months to come.”

Recently, it’s been learned that the Obama Administration violated an injunction issued in February by approving about 2,000 amnesties even after the court ordered its halt. Worse yet is the fact that Congress passed an appropriation bill allowing Obama to use taxpayer money to carry out his Executive Order-driven program.

Obama’s lawlessness and Congresses compliance – these are the real the threat to our National Security as both willfully disregard the U.S. Constitution.

Demilitarization and State Rights

“We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights in, to get the right to vote,” Al Sharpton recently said “We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

This isn’t the first time Sharpton has called for sidestepping of the 10th Amendment.

“States rights has (sic) always been the enemy of civil rights. The idea of the civil rights movement was for the federal government to protect citizens, not leave them alone,” Sharpton said in 2011 during the NAACP State Convention.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution delegate’s authority to the people: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Calls for a federal takeover align with earlier comments made by Barack Obama when he was originally running for president in 2008.

“We have got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded.”

Shortly after Sharpton’s call for a nationalized police force, Obama has decided to end the federal transfers of some combat-style gear to local law enforcement.

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force, as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” Obama said. “It can alienate and intimidate local residents and send the wrong message.”

This comes after the White House defended the Department of Defense’s 1033 Program, in December 2014, which distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police in the past five-years. The program’s authorized by Congress each year.

The Obama administration has continued a move began during the Clinton era to federalize state and local police. Earlier this year Obama introduced a “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” that developed a report that imposes federal standards and state and local police.

Among the report’s recommendations is a call for more police officers, training “on the importance of de-escalation of force,” and “positive non-enforcement activities” to promote police trust like Camden, New Jersey did — “sending an ice cream truck across the city for Mother’s Day treats.”

Meanwhile Operation Jade Helm continues in nine U.S. states through mid-September.

Worse Than Watergate

The first claim was that the U.S. was in Libya to conduct diplomatic efforts as a result of the Arab Spring which ousted the Qaddafi government at the time. While true, it’s now known that the Obama administration was also there to speed up the secret shipping of arms and munitions to anti-Assad rebels in Syria.

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents, dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi terror attack, say the attack was planned on or before September 1, 2012 by the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR) terror group. BCOAR is a branch of al Qaeda.

It was sent out to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and well before the President Obama’s U.N. address on September 25th, blaming the attack on “The Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.

The report also came out ahead of Hillary Clinton blaming the same YouTube video while she delivered her remarks at a state funeral held September 15th. And before Susan Rice’s now-famous Sunday talk show tour on September 16th.

The documents show that the Obama administration was well aware that Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the beginning. However, the State Department punished Gregory Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya for being a so-called whistleblower anyway.

And now it’s confirmed that the Obama Administration ran guns from Benghazi to Syria before the attack. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence was fully aware of the weapon running scheme as another DIA memo dated September 16, 2012 and copied to the National Security Council, CIA, reads in part:

“Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,” says the document,  noting  “The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were [500] sniper rifles, [100] RPGs, and [400] 125 mm and 155 mm howitzers missiles.”

The document was circulated to top administration officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, four days before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on several national television shows claiming the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest.

The White House has yet to release an official statement to the media about the recent DIA memos.  This newfound discovery also spells troubled waters for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose involvement in the Benghazi scandal may further damage her 2016 campaign.

Meanwhile, the national media fauns over President Obama finally getting a Twitter account.

California’s Man-made Drought

Climate change is “damn serious,” according to California Governor Jerry Brown, who has repeatedly blamed it for the state’s four-year drought, despite a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report released in December 2014, that found computer models of global warming show increased winter rains. They concluded a La Nina weather pattern was the primary driver of drought.

And while man is responsible for the majority of California’s drought, it’s not in the way Brown claims.

Central and Southern California is a creation of mankind — who engineered the desert to suit his fancy. Since then, environmentalists and their regulation, coupled to poor water management have actually led to “tens of billions of gallons” of water going out to sea over the years.

In recent years more than 4.4 million acre-feet of water — enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland — has been diverted to save the endangered Delta smelt. Unfortunately for the fish, a National Geographic report dated April 3, 2015, shows only six were found during the most recent survey.

One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, the average annual water usage for a suburban family household.

Meanwhile, Brown is cracking down on water use by fining over users, and trying to reduce overall usage by 25 percent from 2013 usage levels. However, the Associated Press reported that when local water departments were surveyed, water use had fallen by less than four percent in the month of March.

More than half of California’s surface water flows from the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the east down to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California. Much of the mountain runoff’s managed by two of the world’s largest water storage and transport systems – the federal Central Valley Project and California’s State Water Project.

Increased surface storage would give regulators more latitude to conserve water during heavy storm-flows and would have allowed the state to stockpile larger reserves during the 15 years that preceded the last drought. Yet no major water infrastructure project’s been completed in California since the 1960s.

Environmentalists have stopped the construction of water storage and delivery systems through legal and political actions. They have also fought to make sure that captured water’s released into streams and the ocean — rather than the water delivery system — in order dilute the salinity of the delta.

The Klamath River diversion project was canceled in the 1970s, putting an end to the Aw Paw reservoir, potentially the state’s largest man-made reservoir with 15 million acre-feet of water — enough to supply San Francisco for 30 years. And recently they put a stop to the construction of dams at the Sites Reservoir; the Los Banos Grandes facility; and the Temperance Flat Reservoir, while moving to freeze California’s water-storage resources at 1970s capacities.

It’s interesting to note that Israel is 60 percent desert and because of this they built giant desalination plants that run on natural gas. California could have improved its situation by increasing not only reservoirs, but by building desalination plants and prioritizing people’s water needs over a fish.

And instead of standing up to the Progressive Environmental Movement, Californians are opting to get their drought-parched lawns painted green.

Life Lesson #20

Stop wasting time explaining yourself to others.
Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe it anyway.
Just do what you know in your heart is right.

Forest Fox

So enamored with the idea of creating myself into a leader, I embarrassingly nicknamed myself the ‘Forest Fox,” when I was a teen. Yeah, jus’ like Revolutionary war General Francis Marion, the ‘Swamp Fox,’ or German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, dubbed the ‘Desert Fox.”

In the military, I was passed over for positions of leadership because I was too ‘gung-ho,’ – which I mistook in my youthful ignorance as a compliment.  Looking back, I realized my neck was good and stiff – making me a danger not only to myself – to but others.

There’s very little difference between a title and a label if the person given either has not earned or deserves it.

Oh, sure, I’ve been put in charge at various workplaces but then any schlep can cajole others, but it takes that special person to lead that proverbial ‘horse to water’ and too ‘get them to drink’ as well. Getting that ‘horse to drink’ has never been my forte’.

Time after time, I’ve made myself into a boss, which spelled backwards is “Double S-O-B.”

And I’m an even worse follower — who’s willing to bet that if you’ve ever defended your actions saying, “I thought…” you aren’t a follower either. After all – lets be honest here — ‘not thinking’ is the number one rule of a real follower.

Certainly, I’ve done some following in my day. It generally ended poorly with me in trouble because I got caught thinking or I was heading down a path I shouldn’t have been on.

When we’re truthful with ourselves, we know who we are.

Yet there is still a yearning in me that wants to do…what?  Manage, command, direct, head up, rule, conduct, control, guide, pace, shepherd, skipper, supervise – nope, none of these fit.

Maybe I’m meant to inspire. Affect, animate, arouse, cause, embolden, excite, influence, instill, motivate, provoke, spark, spur, stir, trigger…take your pick.

Yeah, I like the idea of inspiring, so I’ll leave the leading to others. The difference between the two is slight – but wider than the Grand Canyon.

Small Word, Big Implication

Anytime a Progressive asks a GOP presidential candidate the question, “If you knew then what we know now, would you have authorized going into Iraq?” that candidate should pose an “If you knew then…” question of their own.  Here’s a dozen suggestions:

  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that ISIL would invade Iraq, would they withdraw all U.S. troops, then ignored the country, like they did?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that Russia would invade Ukraine, would they dismiss Mitt Romney’s suggestion that Russia is a threat?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that the Arab Spring would lead to the death of over a quarter of a million people, would they cheer it on?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that Obamacare would only cover 15 percent of those promised, would they read it first?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that Dodd-Frank didn’t reform banking, but created more homelessness, would they want it?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that the Stimulus package wasn’t really “shovel-ready,” would they pass it?”
  • If Democrats knew then what we know now, that Obama’s election would lead to worsening race-relations in the U.S., would they choose him?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, that he deported nearly two million people — more than any president in history – would they vote for him?”
  • If Democrats knew then what we know now, that Obama wouldn’t shut down Guantanamo as promised, would they pick him?”
  • f Democrats knew then what we know now, that the promise of ‘transparency,’ would lead to ramped-up NSA data collection, would they vote for him?”
  • “If Democrats knew then what we know now, would they support an ‘anti-war candidate,’ who has U.S. combat forces fighting in 70-percent of the world?”
  • If Democrats knew then what we know now, that the WH phone really wouldn’t be answered at 3 a.m. during a terror attack, would they vote for Obama again?”

Sadly, no one has the courage to ask such questions. And sadder still, is that ‘yes,’ would be the answer from a majority of Democrats (and some Republicans,) to the proposed questions.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑