Local Reporter: Jay Carney is given Press Briefing Questions in Advance

How interesting.  I saw this initially posted on The Weekly Standard, and since it is something I have long believed anyway, I clicked on it and listened.  Presidents refuse to answer any questions but those that are scripted, and they only answer "softball" questions regardless.  Do you know what is more interesting: when their cronies grovel at their feet and come to their desperate aid whenever their master comes under attack.  What is more unnerving to me is when that person is none other than one of my own shipmates and a Naval Academy Grad.  I will address this individual by name because he is a public servant in a politically appointed position.

 Reuben Brigety is a government wonk in the State Department and was serving under Hillary Clinton when President Obama was, in Brigety's words, rudely and offensively interrupted during a press conference a couple of years ago.  On Facebook, Brigety went on to ask where the respect for the office of President had gone.  Interesting.  I responded to his post because at that time we were "friends" on Facebook, but I realized that he could not engage me due to his position as a public servant.  I stated to him that the President leaves reporters no choice when he only chooses to answer questions from predictable reporters, those whom the President can "trust" not to ask unscripted questions.  To Brigety, I asked when the public can approach its President to ask him the difficult questions given the fact that the President limits his access to the public to these extremely short press conferences and even then to limit it to only his favorite reporters.  To make matters worse, even those reporters can only ask approved questions; therefore, the entire process is a dog and pony show.

I do not know whether Brigety was simply trying to be loyal to his boss or if he truly feels like reporters should not be able to ask real questions to which the public, the President's constituents, want to know the answers.  Since I am a curious individual, I took the liberty of looking up my acquaintance on Facebook in order to send him a message with the link to the subject story along with my question of whether or not his stance changed.  He is a public servant after all and ought to answer questions when asked.  To my chagrin, he had "unfriended" me, which I suppose is an honor in that he proved to me another belief I always held: All public servants are political tools, cogs in the government's machine.  They have no interest in public welfare except in maintaining power for as long as it lasts.

Forget the fact that I'm no less critical of Obama than I was of Bush.  When pressed with a stance counter to their own, Democrats reduce your opinion to be that of only ever to have been against them, and they give no credit to previous criticisms that you may have placed against Republicans previously in power.  To this end, I maintain that regardless of your party status, if you maintain a role in government, you stand a good chance of being a disingenuous turd, incapable of maintaining integrity, seeking your own benefit, and being a self aggrandizing fool much like the sitting President, regardless of party.

During our country's foundation, we recognized that government was inherently bad, but necessary to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.  Under this recognition, the framers drafted a Constitution to outline a limited government which in modern times has been stretched as far as it can go without being reigned in by any self interested parties possessing the necessary authority.  Instead, they sit back and watch in selfish blindness thinking that no little step would seriously damage our framework, but in their ignorance, they forget that even a meter has one thousand millimeters.  Given enough time, the most tiny iterative changes transform a mind and then a country.  It's time to wakeup.  It's time to rattle some cages.

Rescue the word.

Ever wonder how people and organizations name themselves? I do. Take liberals for example. Do you know what the word "liberal" means?

Liberal in its old use described freedom and liberty, the opposite of authoritarian, but does it mean the same thing today? If you check a dictionary, the word roots from a Latin word for liberty, yet new definitions have been added. Specifically, you can now see that liberal describes a political party that uses the government to enforce equality. How has government enforcement ever resulted in equality?

If I'm not mistaken, it was laws that created segregation, slavery, and the inability for women and minorities to vote. How then do we subsequently credit the law for somehow giving it back? It was the law that started the original disparity.

Without laws to enforce privileges to the ruling class, we would have been a much more equal society. Now, liberal refers to the use of government to engineer income equality, religious equality (or lack of it), job equality, etc.? We need to get back to the original definition of the word. We need a rescue.

The word liberal ought to belong to those with minds of liberty. We need to take it back and keep it with those who cherish its real meaning. As misrepresented, it misleads the youth of our country when they see the word liberal, presume it stands for freedom, and see it as the moniker of the authoritarian party. Do you not find this confusing? An act of fraud?

Rescue the word. Take it back. Wake up the public and educate America on the real definition of liberal, the definition that founded our Republic. Strip those who would use the government as a bully pulpit of the euphemism which they claim that covers their felonious actions, then leave them naked and exposed.

Respect Nothing!

The latest in the news is John McCain decrying Ted Cruz for his collective statement that people, of which Bob Dole happened to be one, lacked principle in their previous political existence.  McCain demands that Cruz apologize for the lack of respect which Cruz bestowed upon the undeserving Dole.

Respect nothing.  We're Americans, not subjects.  I also am a veteran.  I hear the "respect" mantra from some in response to what they consider to be disrespect to politicians, but I disagree.  In America, politicians are public servants, not public employees.  I don't think they should be treated like slaves, but they don't deserve favored status either.  These people buy and sell favors behind closed doors and use tax dollars to live in conditions that are way beyond normal.  Everything from their food to their housing, parking, and vehicles is subsidized by our tax dollars; therefore, to the demand for respect, I shake my head.

We are not subjects, but when you tell me that we need to respect our politicians, you ask me to switch roles such that the public master becomes the servant and the political servant becomes the master.  Forget that jazz.  The minute you submit your package to run for office, all your previous events that proved your integrity become a faded memory.  You don't live in a jailhouse for 20 years and come out unscathed as if you are a saint.  When you kiss the ring and become a public servant, it is because you want to achieve elite status.

If you are a veteran and run for office, regardless of your wartime status, when you choose to become an elite by your own volition, you become one of "them".  Don't expect me to believe that because you stormed the beaches of Normandy as you were commanded that you somehow achieved teflon status and have been immune to the thirty years of graft and corruption within which you immersed yourself in Washington DC when you chose to run for office.  While you certainly did not create it, you also were powerless to stop it, so leave the uniform at the door and don't tarnish that of honor with the dishonor of a political life.  When you conduct yourself as such you act as if we should look to you, the veteran, like one incapable of doing harm, all the while the memory of your uniform and heroism fights for you up front as you cash in favors in the rear.

Freedom to choose

Freedom isn't always pretty, and  sometimes it hurts people's feelings. When you were in school, certain people liked you and others didn't. No one forced you to be friends or enemies, so people choose their own path. In the end, I still believe people ought to be able to choose for themselves, without the government choosing sides.

Government ought not be used as a bully for any groups' agenda. No exceptions. If you want to be the morality police, be careful, one day, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the gun with someone telling you what to do instead.