Friday, August 01, 2014

BENGHAZI - It is unclear if this is the last word on the investigation, but it is NEWS.

SFGate, here, headlined, and stating in part:

House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack
Carolyn Lochhead - Published 3:53 pm, Friday, August 1, 2014


(08-01) 11:42 PDT WASHINGTON -- The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee.

The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public.

Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.

The online item has six links in that excerpt that are omitted in quoting; and it gives further detail.

So, no report text for media scrutiny, yet; and it is a Dem reporting. However, it seems to contradict earlier Issa grandstanding and finger pointing; and the Republicans as majority party had control of the process that has led to this presently still secret report.

I find it hard to take, offensive even, that anti-tax poseur Harold Hamilton appears to think it's okay to take the SBA for a ride.

This link, this excerpt, you judge whether the partisan blinders get in the way of any form of good sense:

THE SEAN NIENOW AFFAIR

Much has been made this week of news that state Senator Sean Nienow (R-Cambridge) has filed for personal bankruptcy.

The filing stemmed primarily from business debt incurred to start and maintain a small business endeavor that ultimately failed.

Too much has been made of this news in the opinion of the Watchdog.

On the whole, there is really no real news here.

Every day in America, citizens take a risk to start a small business. The reality is that most of these businesses fail.

But it's these entrepreneurial pursuits that build wealth and prosperity through the innovation and competition inherent in these activities.

For every failed business, there's a Microsoft started in a garage. For every bad idea, there's someone who identifies the proverbial better mousetrap. For every man who grinds out a career at a desk in some faceless corporation, there's a man who puts his name on the door and takes the massive risk involved for the opportunity to make the Forbes 500.

So, its okay to take the SBA for a half-million dollar plus ride. Santa doesn't fund the SBA. Hamilton's taxpayers, for whom he claims concern, ponied up the pile of cash that Nienow flushed somewhere, in some hare-brained Nienow way.

And Hamilton's fine with it? Go figure that hummer, folks.

Somebody pat the dog on the head and tell him that Sean Nienow is no Bill Gates. Also, tell him Bill Gates used family trust money to found Microsoft, not sucking at the public teat to take a flyer. Gates had his mom on the United Way national board along with the head of IBM, and young Gates ended up, somehow, with the contract to provide the operating system for the IBM PC. Somehow.

Big difference? I think so. Besides, Bill Gates, he's smart. That's another difference.

If the woofer cared to take care, he'd have analogized Steve Jobs, since Jobs and Wozniak neither came from a wealthy established family, neither had the existing ten million dollar trust fund sitting there that Gates had, when dropping out of Harvard after having gotten family and trustee approval to take the risk with trust fund cash.

Wozniak and Jobs started with a blue box device to evade ATT long distance charges and might have ended up in jail instead of founding Apple, but the authorities moved at their normal glacial pace, and Jobs cashed in first with the Apple II before the Macintosh. And it WAS the Apple II that induced IBM to enter that low end market with the aim of killing Apple, and via that Gates got his ride.

Now, that said, Jobs did NOT take the SBA down for a ton of money. Big difference.

And Jobs, like Gates, is was a bright secular humanist, not a theocratic Bachmannistani like Nienow, who distinguishes himself from Gates and Jobs by being far, far, far from a burning bright hundred watt bulb.

____________UPDATE____________
What is big time news to me is nobody in the establishment media is asking where did the money go, what did Nienow do with that pile of public goodwill; nor is there expressed mainstream concern for how Nienow was able to ingratiate his way into a half million dollar plunder with no real pot to piss in as security. What strings were pulled by whom, when, in return for what if anything, and give me a dramatis personae for the players in the cash-went-where -&- why-was-it-given drama. Nobody it seems, clearly not Hamilton on the GOP side of things, cares a real hoot about accountability in the entire Nienow fiasco.

Why not lift that rock to see what all is under it?

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Hamilton might have analogized Elon Musk, but then again, he's got a brain not a brick, who among other indications shows himself smart enough to play one government off against others. And, secular humanist again. They all seem to sort out that way. The high-tech ones.

Hamilton's got the Hobby Lobby guy, Chick-fil-A, but likely was in a hurry in posting.

Really though, a summer camp placement idea as a business - Nienow's "entrepreneurship;" and the SBA released half a million dollars, on that, to Nienow.

Please tell me and convince me politics were not part of the game. Just awful SBA decision making, by whoever, whenever, based on whatever information Nienow supplied in applying for a bundle of taxpayer money to squander stupidly, (that being the better explanation than stuffing mason jars for a backyard money burial site - either way the money seems publicly unaccounted for at present).

RAMSEY: The Boals/Whelan GOP primary contest for the Abeler House Seat.

ABC Newspapers posts online the candidates' response to specific inquiries; this link.

No Crabgrass commentary or excerpting. The candidate responses tell the story.

(Peter Perovich, the DFL endorsed candidate is running unopposed, hence there is no DFL primary contest in HD 35A.)

Congressional Sixth District: Dueling Platitudes, here.

BOEHNER'S BIG MUDDY: "On Wednesday, House Republicans sued President Obama for acting on his own without approval from Congress. On Thursday, House Republicans told President Obama he should act on his own to fix the border crisis."

Silly season, Boehner style, this link.

For something equally silly, same online source, this.

With The Boehner Lawsuit, my biggest question, will the Secret Service let in a process server, and if not, does Boehner intend to serve Obama by publication per Rule 4?

It appears that as yet the "we don't like you" complaint has not been drafted:

The House resolution does not specify what the lawsuit will allege, but an accompanying report by the House Rules Committee cites a litany of grievances, from the president's implementation of Obamacare to his executive actions on immigration, education and national security. The resolution authorizes the House to "initiate litigation for actions by the president or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States."

The ensuing court case could take years to resolve, and it is unclear whether the House even has legal standing to sue the president under these conditions.

[links in original]

No standing? But it was a standing vote ...

In any event, it appears Boehner has no time to listen/watch YouTube, since it's all only entertainment and such, with no political wisdom, past or present. Stuff like that, if thought over, can get in the way of a shutdown face off or a spite suit. Important stuff like shutdowns and spite cannot be forestalled since a prevailing wisdom among some is, if you do not grandstand an awful lot people will not take you seriously. Boehner must have taken advice from Michele Bachmann about that line of reasoning, about the sense of it, its success.

Minnesota Summer - By Example

Flyer's accompanying website - here.


Click the image to enlarge and read. It brings to mind the immortal question, "Is this important for itself, or as an example of something else?"

The immortal answer also applies, "Yes!"

What exactly does "on leave" mean, in The McFadden's context? Does using the term reflect on his actual expectations?

After all, folks, if he's elected senator, he would not remain "on leave," would he?

The Senator from the hedge fund? The mergers and acquisitions senator?

"On leave" suggests an intention to "go back."

Or am I wrong on word usage?

As in after Al's reelection, "go back?" End of "on leave?"

Not that his handlers have him in there, and Vin, and Norm, to lose, but how else do you construct a meaning to "on leave," beyond intent to return?

______________UPDATE______________
I noticed the big error myself before anybody by email or comment pointed it out. Yes, Honour vs. Al, and its McFadden vs Mark. Last paragraph does not fit Honour vs. Al, but then the two, Honour and McFadden are so similar I admit to finding it hard to tell them apart.

Honour, it would be a list of judicial appointments; McFadden it would be racing commission and airport board.

Got it. Will try to keep that straight in the future.

" "The primary election is August 12 and if you would like a conservative businessman, rather than a career politician, please vote for our son, Scott Honour." "

Yes.

Double quotes for the headline. Because -

Read Sorensen's latest Scott Honour post, where she is saying something indirectly but clearly.

Not a career politician. They say.

Not a Californian, on a visit? Who's to say?

Not a career politician, but with the bevy of career campaign handlers?

Who wrote those parallel letters?

Scott? The Handlers? The Parents?

Was it a fill in the blank form?

And, who among readers wants to guess whether a list already exists, if he's governor, of appointments to the racing commission and airport board?