WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT BE

©2011 jbjd 

In the past few weeks, several blogs have posted articles critical to the campaign spearheaded by President Obama, to transform the 10th anniversary commemoration of 9/11 around the world into what I believe he and his handlers intend is a whitewash of actual horrific circumstances surrounding the event. The WH has issued 2 separate guidelines for conversation and commemoration, one to domestic public officials and government employees and one to embassy staff.  (No official has gone on record claiming responsibility for either the content or the tone of these edicts and so, I will not cite to the articles that reference these anonymous instructions.) Basically, we are told to avoid characterizations that what happened in NYC is unique – after all, al Qaeda is attacking all over the world – and, to downplay the involvement of al Qaeda, presumably lest we incite reprisals predicated on the U.S. involvement in his death.

I see these transparent attempts to re-frame the narrative as adding insult to injury.

For starters, citizens from 115 countries were among the approximately 3,000  killed on 9/11.  Thus, by definition, remembering the victims of 9/11 already is ‘international.”  As for toning down the remembrances lest we be mistakenly perceived as considering ourselves special, well, judging by the world reaction to the attack, ‘we’ are not the only ones who ‘get’ the significance of the event, or who were shocked by it.  Even those nations more accustomed to terrorism carried out on their home turf appear to have been equally traumatized.

Rather, what is being proposed here is that the survivors around the world, keep our collective mouths shut about not just the effect of those events but also the causes, in the hope that those responsible for promoting and carrying out such atrocities against humanity avoid well-earned condemnation for their ongoing crimes.  It is this artificial stifling of open honest dialogue that perpetuates such barbaric conduct.  That is, we cannot prevent such calamities in the future unless we understand what went wrong in the past.

Even if this means, ‘bad mouthing’ some Muslims.

Reading the President’s imposed ‘take’ on 9/11 triggered memories of 2 separate conversations which occurred years ago.  In one, a white woman was recounting that she was mugged by a black man at night in the parking lot of our school.  She said, she heard footsteps as he approached from behind, and became nervous.  She even turned around and saw he was following her.  I asked why at that moment, she didn’t yell for help.  She said, the stranger was black, and she set aside her fear he would mug her because she felt guilty that her feelings might evidence she was racist.

In the other, a white woman admitted she was prejudiced against blacks, supporting her feelings by ‘recounting’ an incident in which approaching young black males were accosting passersby.  What ‘saved’ her was an elderly black couple who, seeing her obvious distress, flanked her on either side and walked her down the block. She sounded genuinely grateful for their heroic act. I asked why she hated all blacks because of the marauding youths but didn’t love all blacks because of the courage of the couple. She didn’t answer.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I would say men who approach women alone in a parking lot at night are rightly feared; an elderly couple who intervene to protect a stranger from marauding youths are rightly revered; and self-identified members of the terrorist group, al Qaeda, who commandeer passenger airplanes and,  shouting Allahu Akbar in Arabic, fly them into occupied skyscrapers in NYC, killing thousands, are rightly called Muslim murderers.

About these ads

7 Responses to WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT BE

  1. teakwoodkite says:

    You write so well, jbjd. I so enjoy the reading of it.

    teadwoodkite: Thank you. Putting together these posts, I try very hard not only to make a point but also to do so in a way that readers can understand. Nice to know, when I succeed. ADMINISTRATOR

    • teakwoodkite says:

      To your knowledge has Obama made issued any EO’s that pertian to voting laws? I ask because Eric Holder came from the the civil rights division and seeing Obama in such denial and his (as you have written about ) “do anything nessasry” to get re-/elected, I am wondering if there are any EO “bread crumbs” may illuminate any changes to states rights in federal races and the state(s) requirements for certification for federal office. We are a year out as it was in 2007, if past is prologue …the 2012 lense will be have a deeper focus with addition of hindsight.
      (just pickin yer brain on a slightly tangential angle.)

      teakwoodkite: Interesting question, for reasons you might not have intended. First, if you want to view Presidential EO’s, check http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html. Second, as a general rule, EO’s are only used in the context of carrying out Executive authority, such as issuing an EO to integrate the armed services which, in turn, are under the command of the Chief Executive. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84 But the most important takeaway viz a viz impacting state elections is this: the Executive has no authority under the Constitution to impact state election mechanisms. And all EO’s must comply with the law, including the Constitution. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. teakwoodkite says:

    the Executive has no authority under the Constitution to impact state election mechanisms.

    So an overt effort by the DOJ on behalf of POTUS regarding voting rights and the mechanics there in are not on the rise? You have documented numerous suspect endevours by the DOJ to shield Obama from scrutiny going all the way back to Chicago. While Lynn Sweet was hard at it back then and you as well, I was wondering what is foot, (’cause you know it is), to re-inforce the legitamcy of these fradulent activities at a state level. I was thinking of the change, if any that would reflect is it will be easier or more difficult to accomplish given the power Obama wields iwhen his own interests are in play. I am not looking forward to what is coming, can’t prove a damn thing but my gut says otherwise and it has kept me alive more than once….

    teakwoodkite: Okay, now I see where you are coming from. Yes; decisions by the DoJ, a part of the Executive branch of government, as to whether to prosecute complaints of voting rights violations (committed at state election sites), which are a discretionary function of the job (as opposed to a ministerial function, such as taking the complaint in the first place, which function can be mandated by the courts (judicial branch) through an action in mandamus); can be guided by an edict from the Executive, and would be perfectly appropriate. That is, the Executive can determine, given finite resources, for example, where the DoJ’s ‘money’ should be focused.

    My problem is, why are the states in which such ‘disruptions’ are occurring, relying solely on the federal government to enforce federal voting rights legislation? Why aren’t people using state criminal laws to zealously pursue those who would subvert the electoral process? For example, those voters menaced by the Black Panthers could file criminal assault charges; or charges under state law related to physical proximity to polls, or interfering with the right to vote.

  3. teakwoodkite says:

    “My problem is, why are the states in which such ‘disruptions’ are occurring, relying solely on the federal government to enforce federal voting rights legislation?”

    Exactly,jbjd. The thoughts in my head were running around like the marble on a roulette table…the marble dropped with the way you put it.
    I can only think on some level there’s a great deal of intimidation and worse. For example, (and this may not be the best example), the case of Arizona looking to enforce state laws that the current administration argues the supremacy clause when the state seeks to enforce it’s own laws, morally objectionable or not. The other end of it maybe that states have, over the last decades, become “gun shy”.
    I was looking at this election cycle wondering if it will be an even bigger repeat of the last one, given the current circumstances.
    TGIF and thanks again. :)

    teakwoodkite: Something happened in school right along these lines, which deserves a post. I will expand upon this reply in that article. Hopefully, it will be up on Sunday. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. This is a very good blog, and I am going to start reading it often. I found it by doing research on the 14th Amendment and the Minor Happersett case. I was a common sense suspicious Birther until Obama coughed up the long form in April, but I was NEVER what I call a Vattle Birther. (it rhymes with prattle. a mnemonic.)

    For fun, you might enjoy The Birther Think Tank, which I run. It is a little different, because I was a WHY Birther who concentrated on a matrix of possibilities.

    I won’t put a link here because then I would be a “blog ho”, sooo I will just leave it for you to find if you like. I am going to put a link to your website on mine, because it is VERY REFRESHING to read a intelligent birther who is not afraid to tell the truth about stuff.

    Sooo, thank you for being honest!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • jbjd says:

      SF: (I could not make my fingers type your chosen nom-de-plume, given Ms. Fromme’s association with Charles Manson. (Did you intentionally omit the “e” so as to draw a distinction between her and you?) And, given your choice of moniker, I was hesitant to peruse your blog However, I have now found it and, at first glance, found it to be entertaining.) If by referencing my being honest you mean, agreeing with you that, not everything Vatel is carved in gold, well, then, there is at least that, we have in common! Thank you for appreciating the work. You will find several references to Vatel on this site. Read away… ADMINISTRATOR

    • jbjd says:

      SF: (I could not make my fingers type your chosen nom-de-plume, given Ms. Fromme’s association with Charles Manson. (Did you intentionally omit the “e” so as to draw a distinction between her and you?) And, given your choice of moniker, I was hesitant to peruse your blog However, I have now found it and, at first glance, found it to be entertaining.) If by referencing my being honest you mean, agreeing with you that, not everything Vatel is carved in gold, well, then, there is at least that, we have in common! Thank you for appreciating the work. You will find several references to Vatel on this site. Read away… ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: