Who?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Why, Oh Why Am I A Racist?
Why is it that I should feel like a racist when I find out the president
has issued an Executive Order entitled "White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans"? <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am>
Why should I feel like a racist for being angry that there is a special
carve-out for almost every group but mine? Is it because I'm really just a closet racist? Is it because I'm
selfish and want other people to loose while I prosper? Is it really
just because I want to put everybody back in chains so that I can hold
the whip? Why should I have to feel like a racist for believing that
these kinds of things damage society in the long run by pigeon-holing
and stereotyping entire classes of people? Why should I feel like a
racist for believing that every time the government has tried to do this
kind of thing it has made people's lives worse instead of better? Why
should I feel like a racist for believing, naively, that the president--MY president--should be working on behalf of ALL Americans, not just a conglomeration of
subsets? Maybe I feel like a racist because I am one. In this
modern America, listening to MSNBC, et al, I am told I am one simply
because I was born a white male, own my own home, and went into debts
that I am still paying on in order to go to college. Maybe I am because all the "authorities" are telling me I am. But there is still
that stubborn little voice inside that says "the emperor has no
clothes"--that all the arguments used to prove and validate my racism
are empty and hollow and shallow and ultimately reveal only the dark and
corrupted lens of those who make them. But then, I guess that just
means my little voice is racist too.
So much for "unity" and a "post-racial America." Divided we stand.
So much for "unity" and a "post-racial America." Divided we stand.
Monday, February 6, 2012
How The Mighty Have Fallen
JFK was my parents' president. Both have vivid memories of where they were when they were told of his assassination. How unbiased history may have judged him will never be known. His death, in the minds of many, enshrined him among the presidential pantheon of Washingtons, Lincolns, and Roosevelts. He was, and, perhaps even more so after death, became the ideal embodiment of youth, energy, and the American spirit. That is what makes his moral demise even more devastating than his physical demise.
I have never idolized JFK as some have, but I have always respected him, and, in many ways, held him up as a truly great leader. His presidency was marked by notable failures--the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the open ended escalation that would become the Vietnam War, to name two. We would have disagreed vehemently on politics. But in spite of all that, his dynamism and idealism extends even to today, echoing greatness. The challenge to reach the moon and overcome other obstacles "not because they are easy, but because they are hard," his publicly strong and determined refusal to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the inspiring call to "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"--all encapsulate the best of what America, and Americans, can be. More, then, is the pity and the sorrow when such are tarnished by the very man who espoused them.
I know JFK was an adulterer. Covered up at the time, his numerous transgressions have gradually come to light in the 50 years since his death. But I had never personally examined any of the particulars until today. Following a link to the New York Post, I read about Mimi Alford and the upcoming expose of her 18 month affair with JFK.
Ms. Alford recounts how, 19 years old, 5 days into her internship in the White House press office, and one day after meeting the president at the White House pool, she was invited to an after-hours party by JFK's “first friend” Dave Powers. The article recounts how she and two others were given several daiquiris by Powers as they waited for the president. When he arrived, he whisked her away for a private tour of the residence, ending at Mrs. Kennedy's room. There, he began to move closer, edge her toward the bed, and began to undress her. The article continues:
The last occasion of their meeting revealed even more:
But I also have no problem whatsoever stating that the greater fault lies with the President. He was well old enough to be her father (he was 45 when the affair began) and stood as the embodiment of the power and virtues of the nation. For such a man to use the combined effects of alcohol, the naivete of youth, and the powers of authority, office, and ethos to defile the sacred vow made to his wife, strip such a sacred gift from a young woman within his care, and pressure the same to drug use and further promiscuity is inexcusable, disheartening, and deeply disturbing.
Another idol has been cast down; I will never view JFK the same--and that is a true sorrow. But perhaps the deepest sorrow is the vile shadow his immoral actions cast over all the greatness he espoused--for himself and for his office and for his country.
God grant me the courage to embrace and live out the high ideals that I espouse in every moment, thought, and action of my life. And God give me the courage, when I fail, to return to that which is right and leave the evil far behind.
__________________________
Cynthia R. Fagen, Teen mistress addresses relationship, pol's Cold War fears in memoir, <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7OdoQozP4tyySsmK>, 02/05/2010; accessed 02/06/2012
I have never idolized JFK as some have, but I have always respected him, and, in many ways, held him up as a truly great leader. His presidency was marked by notable failures--the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the open ended escalation that would become the Vietnam War, to name two. We would have disagreed vehemently on politics. But in spite of all that, his dynamism and idealism extends even to today, echoing greatness. The challenge to reach the moon and overcome other obstacles "not because they are easy, but because they are hard," his publicly strong and determined refusal to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the inspiring call to "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"--all encapsulate the best of what America, and Americans, can be. More, then, is the pity and the sorrow when such are tarnished by the very man who espoused them.
I know JFK was an adulterer. Covered up at the time, his numerous transgressions have gradually come to light in the 50 years since his death. But I had never personally examined any of the particulars until today. Following a link to the New York Post, I read about Mimi Alford and the upcoming expose of her 18 month affair with JFK.
Ms. Alford recounts how, 19 years old, 5 days into her internship in the White House press office, and one day after meeting the president at the White House pool, she was invited to an after-hours party by JFK's “first friend” Dave Powers. The article recounts how she and two others were given several daiquiris by Powers as they waited for the president. When he arrived, he whisked her away for a private tour of the residence, ending at Mrs. Kennedy's room. There, he began to move closer, edge her toward the bed, and began to undress her. The article continues:
He paused when he noticed her resisting.Other, more disturbing events followed. At a Hollywood party hosted by Bing Crosby, Alford states:
“Haven’t you done this before?” he asked.
“No,” she said.
“Are you OK?” he asked.
“Yes,” she said. So he kept going, this time a little more gently.
“After he finished, he hitched up his pants and smiled at me” and pointed her to the bathroom.
When she was finished, he was outside in the West Sitting Hall, where their evening had begun.
“I was in shock,” she writes. “He, on the other hand, was matter-of-fact, and acted as if what had just occurred was the most natural thing in the world.”
“Would you like something to eat?” he asked. “The kitchen’s right here.”
“No, thank you, Mr. President.”
He called a car to come pick her up and take her home
On the ride home, it “kept echoing in my head: I’m not a virgin anymore.”
“I was sitting next to him in the living room when a handful of yellow capsules — most likely amyl nitrate, commonly known as poppers — was offered up by one of the guests. The president asked me if I wanted to try the drug, which stimulated the heart but also purportedly enhanced sex. I said no, but he just went ahead and popped the capsule and held it under my nose.”More disturbing still was the President's solicitation on his "first friend" 's behalf during a noon swim at the White House:
He didn’t try it himself.
“This was a new sensation, and it frightened me,” Mimi recalls. “I panicked and ran crying from the room.”
Powers had rolled up his pants to cool his feet in the water. “The president swam over and whispered in my ear. ‘Mr. Powers looks a little tense,’ he said. ‘Would you take care of it?’But such an apology didn't keep the President from making similar solicitations.
“It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant. This was a challenge to give Dave Powers **** ***. I don’t think the president thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did . . . The president silently watched.”
Alford, then Mimi Beardsley, says that later the president apologized to them both.
One of their last times together was at a Boston Democratic fund-raiser. Ted Kennedy, the president’s baby brother, was in the room with them.On that occasion, Alford refused.
“I could see that mischievous look come into his eye. ‘Mimi, why don’t you take care of my baby brother? He could stand a little relaxation.’
The last occasion of their meeting revealed even more:
About to be married to her college sweetheart, Tony Fahnestock, she met Kennedy for the last time at The Carlyle hotel in Manhattan on Nov. 15, 1963, just seven days before his assassination in Dallas.I am not like some, who for political purposes, can vilify Kennedy and excuse Alford. She was 19 at the time--she should have known something of the folly of mixing alcohol and drugs with power and secrecy and attraction. She failed to refuse what she should have. And she showed no respect for Mrs. Kennedy or the the sanctity of the marriage. The article states Ms. Alford "never once ran into Jackie during these flings and admits to not feeling guilty."
“He took me in his arms for a long embrace and said, ‘I wish you were coming with me to Texas.’ And then he added, ‘I’ll call you when I get back.’ I was overcome with sudden sadness. ‘Remember, Mr. President, I’m getting married.’
“ ‘I know that,’ he said, and shrugged. ‘But I’ll call you anyway.’ ”
But I also have no problem whatsoever stating that the greater fault lies with the President. He was well old enough to be her father (he was 45 when the affair began) and stood as the embodiment of the power and virtues of the nation. For such a man to use the combined effects of alcohol, the naivete of youth, and the powers of authority, office, and ethos to defile the sacred vow made to his wife, strip such a sacred gift from a young woman within his care, and pressure the same to drug use and further promiscuity is inexcusable, disheartening, and deeply disturbing.
Another idol has been cast down; I will never view JFK the same--and that is a true sorrow. But perhaps the deepest sorrow is the vile shadow his immoral actions cast over all the greatness he espoused--for himself and for his office and for his country.
God grant me the courage to embrace and live out the high ideals that I espouse in every moment, thought, and action of my life. And God give me the courage, when I fail, to return to that which is right and leave the evil far behind.
__________________________
Cynthia R. Fagen, Teen mistress addresses relationship, pol's Cold War fears in memoir, <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7OdoQozP4tyySsmK>, 02/05/2010; accessed 02/06/2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Google = "Big Brother" = Really Bad Idea For Google (are you listening, Big Bro?)
So likely you have heard about the latest brouhaha over Google changing its tracking policies. It now will combine all your data and you have no ability to opt out. Rather than opine on the menacing feeling I get from this Big-Brother-esque maneuver, I'll leave that to others. You can check out these two articles on the WashingtonPost.com about the backlash and about the specific changes.
I'll reserve my comments to the following three (Listen up, Googie!):
First, the issue for me is not that Google is making their own rules as they go along. These are THEIR products and I believe THEY have the right to do with them as they see fit. If I don’t want to use them, I can cancel them (or never sign up in the first place. I read the "fine print" and it bothered me, but I signed up anyway. How much did YOU read before you clicked the "I have READ and AGREE TO..." button?) To bellyache about the freebie someone gives me and I have agreed to use on THEIR terms is ridiculous.
Second, having said that, the issue I have with this is it exposes Google’s complete hypocrisy. Do not tell me your mantra is "DON’T BE EVIL" and then expect me to swallow terms that increasingly echo something out of Orwell’s “1984.” Do not tell me you are "helping" when I have no freedom to say "No thank you." Do not try to convince me you are my "friend" when I cannot tell you, "Leave me alone right now." or "I do not want to talk to you about that." or "I don't want to share that secret with you." It is the height of hypocrisy. I would be much more satisfied with a simple, "We are Google. Resistance is futile!" then all of the phony baloney platitudes and blatant lies.
Third, I believe ultimately this is a foolish business decision for a brand that has tried to portray itself as the “Don’t Be Evil” anti-Microsoft. Most people who are flaming Google right now are just blowing off steam and will go right back to using the products they are addicted to. And Google knows this. It is not going away anytime soon--it has integrated itself into modern life too deeply (though the Netflix/Quiksterfiasco should be a warning to any modern corporation: Upend the rules of the game at your own peril). Yet I believe ultimately these kinds of decisions will hurt Google, because they erode the "benevolent superpower" image that it has meticulously tried to craft and even more importantly, these kinds of decisions leave openings for other competitors who market to (as Google once did) the "leave me alone and let me do my own thing" crowd.
Don’t think it’s possible? Remember, just 12 short years ago Google was that new website nobody had heard of.
Here's hoping the "next great thing" learns these lessons. And here's hoping it comes along very, very soo[**blurk** Blog terminated for "technical" reasons. Please read Blogger.com-aka-another-tentacle-of-collective's "We owns your privacy and security policy" section MXLII, subsection QQQ, paragraph 176, Sentence cxciii, sub-sentence .76984g for more information. We are confident it's in there somewhere. Thank you. Signed, Your Benevolent Overlord, GOOGLE]
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Feelings are important unless they aren't mine, right?
I don't agree with Rick Santorum on everything. I don't know if I will vote for him or not. But the flak he is catching over how he chose to deal with the death of a child is despicable. Mark Stein rips into the hypocrisy underlying such attacks like a hot knife through melted butter. I highly recommend it.
The power-grab and the silent power-hungry--and we had better get serious!
I ran across an article today by a guy named Andrew McCarthy (I have no idea if he is related to Joe) that really got me thinking about the responsibility of both parties for our current mess. I highly recommend it.
You may or may not know that on Wednesday President Obama preempted the Senate to appoint the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board. What made this extraordinary was two factors.
#1, the Senate was in Pro-Forma session, not in recess. Article 2, section 2 of the the Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." However, if the Senate is NOT in recess, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
The White House, to justify its move, argued that the Pro-Forma session does not actually qualify as "in session." Though no real meaningful business is conducted during a Pro-Forma session, the Senate is considered "open for business" and thus NOT in recess. In fact, on December 23, the the Senate passed the payroll tax extension during a Pro-Forma session. Add to this the fact that this use of Pro-Forma was begun by Harry Reid in 2007 to prevent then President Bush from making recess appointments AND was supported by the Obama administration as recently as 2010.
#2, A larger issue is that the appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Richard Cordray) seems to run afoul of the written law of the CFPB itself. Title X, Subtitle A, SEC. 1011, sub Sec (b), sub-sub sec. (2) of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ (if you'd like to "follow along" at home, turn to page 589 of 848) states the Director of the CFPB "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Additionally, Title X, Subtitle F, SEC. 1066, sub Sec (b) (page 680, please!) states: "The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011." Thus, unlike the concise and elegant wording of the Constitution, the bloated verbiage of "Frank-Dodd" conspicuously (and ironically?) leaves out a recess appointment option for the the CFPB head. Thus it seems the legislation leaves only the option of being confirmed by the Senate, and thus would bar appointment during a recess, bypassing altogether any debate about what does and does not qualify as "recess." (For another take on this, check out this Daily Caller article).
But it's just the law. What does it matter anyway, right?
As an added bonus, you might be interested to know that Richard Cordray (the newly minted CFPB head) believes anything that "has incidental effects on the economy" can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. If that be the standard, what action or inaction that you or I or any citizen of these United States might take would NOT have "incidental effects on the economy?" This standard opens the gates for Government regulation of every single aspect of our lives on an economic basis. Just for grins and giggles, you might remind yourself once again of what the all-powerful Commerce Clause (found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), actually says: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." I am no Constitutional scholar, but this simple statement seems light-years away from the all-pervasive power claimed by those of Cordray's ilk today.
But, all of this misses a much larger and more important issue, namely that the usurpation of power is NOT simply a Democratic phenomenon that needs a Republican solution. It is a drug to which BOTH parties have become addicted and from which BOTH parties must be weaned. Until we (you and I and every American) learn this lesson, we will continue to be disappointed by those on "our" side--whatever side that may be! Not until we demand of BOTH parties that power be returned to "the People" from whence it originates and to whom it rightly belongs, we will continue to slide ever further into the abyss we find ourselves in today.
I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article I mentioned earlier. It is a great overview of the the consequences of these recent events as well as the broader and more fundamental question of why they are allowed to continue--by BOTH parties.
You may or may not know that on Wednesday President Obama preempted the Senate to appoint the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board. What made this extraordinary was two factors.
#1, the Senate was in Pro-Forma session, not in recess. Article 2, section 2 of the the Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." However, if the Senate is NOT in recess, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
The White House, to justify its move, argued that the Pro-Forma session does not actually qualify as "in session." Though no real meaningful business is conducted during a Pro-Forma session, the Senate is considered "open for business" and thus NOT in recess. In fact, on December 23, the the Senate passed the payroll tax extension during a Pro-Forma session. Add to this the fact that this use of Pro-Forma was begun by Harry Reid in 2007 to prevent then President Bush from making recess appointments AND was supported by the Obama administration as recently as 2010.
#2, A larger issue is that the appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Richard Cordray) seems to run afoul of the written law of the CFPB itself. Title X, Subtitle A, SEC. 1011, sub Sec (b), sub-sub sec. (2) of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ (if you'd like to "follow along" at home, turn to page 589 of 848) states the Director of the CFPB "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Additionally, Title X, Subtitle F, SEC. 1066, sub Sec (b) (page 680, please!) states: "The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011." Thus, unlike the concise and elegant wording of the Constitution, the bloated verbiage of "Frank-Dodd" conspicuously (and ironically?) leaves out a recess appointment option for the the CFPB head. Thus it seems the legislation leaves only the option of being confirmed by the Senate, and thus would bar appointment during a recess, bypassing altogether any debate about what does and does not qualify as "recess." (For another take on this, check out this Daily Caller article).
But it's just the law. What does it matter anyway, right?
As an added bonus, you might be interested to know that Richard Cordray (the newly minted CFPB head) believes anything that "has incidental effects on the economy" can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. If that be the standard, what action or inaction that you or I or any citizen of these United States might take would NOT have "incidental effects on the economy?" This standard opens the gates for Government regulation of every single aspect of our lives on an economic basis. Just for grins and giggles, you might remind yourself once again of what the all-powerful Commerce Clause (found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), actually says: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." I am no Constitutional scholar, but this simple statement seems light-years away from the all-pervasive power claimed by those of Cordray's ilk today.
But, all of this misses a much larger and more important issue, namely that the usurpation of power is NOT simply a Democratic phenomenon that needs a Republican solution. It is a drug to which BOTH parties have become addicted and from which BOTH parties must be weaned. Until we (you and I and every American) learn this lesson, we will continue to be disappointed by those on "our" side--whatever side that may be! Not until we demand of BOTH parties that power be returned to "the People" from whence it originates and to whom it rightly belongs, we will continue to slide ever further into the abyss we find ourselves in today.
I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article I mentioned earlier. It is a great overview of the the consequences of these recent events as well as the broader and more fundamental question of why they are allowed to continue--by BOTH parties.
Friday, January 6, 2012
The President signs indefinite detention into law
When you find Alex Jones (often hyperbolicly hyperventilating radical-right radio commentator), Rand Paul (Libertarianly rooted Republican son of Ron Paul), Diane Feinstein (uber-liberal Democrat), and the ACLU (aka the Anti-Conservativism Legal Union) all agreeing, it probably ought to get your attention. It got mine.
The bill has been signed into law. I will not claim to be able to wrap my head around all the mumbo-jumbo. However, reading the important parts of the text do bring up alarming concepts, including:
May liberty and freedom forever reign in these United States and grow to spread throughout our world!
Resources:
The Bill (scroll to pages 264 & 265): <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf>
The Bill (of Rights): http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends
Some Articles:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121475544131362.html
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
The bill has been signed into law. I will not claim to be able to wrap my head around all the mumbo-jumbo. However, reading the important parts of the text do bring up alarming concepts, including:
Subtitle D, SEC. 1021, (a) "IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons ... pending disposition under the law of war."Under SEC 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS, we also find an interesting wavier:
Subtitle D, SEC. 1021, (c) "DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
(a)(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.And one more for good measure:
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.I am not a lawyer. I will not hyperventilate. Nor will I venture into the realm of second guessing how a war should be prosecuted. But I do know we are currently detaining individuals indefinitely as we speak. All I know is that the rights enshrined in the the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution are to be jealously guarded at all cost.
May liberty and freedom forever reign in these United States and grow to spread throughout our world!
Resources:
The Bill (scroll to pages 264 & 265): <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf>
The Bill (of Rights): http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends
Some Articles:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121475544131362.html
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The President and First Lady of the United States on lies and honesty
SOURCE: Barbara Walters interview on ABC News; <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-michelle-obama-answer-10-personal-questions/story?id=15190535#.TvSGlfKCaeU>; 12/22/2011; accessed 12/22/2011.
Keeping in mind the wisdom of Luke 16:10 ("He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much"), what does the following reveal about the leader of United States of America?
Keeping in mind the wisdom of Luke 16:10 ("He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much"), what does the following reveal about the leader of United States of America?
On what occasion do you lie?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Usually, the only time I lie is very personal interactions with family members, who you say, "You look great," and they don't. "Wonderful dress..." Uh, not so much.
MICHELLE OBAMA: Things where the truth would hurt other people.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right, the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I'll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I'm not perfect, but you'll know what I believe.
MICHELLE OBAMA: I think the same thing. When it would hurt somebody else's feelings. When the truth isn't helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)