By now, most of us have heard the reports that the Tsarnaev family received some $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance.

It touches on a key question that arises when government pays people to basically do nothing: what the heck are they up to, all day?

The classic story that welfare-spending advocates give us is, The Family Who Just Need A Little Help To Get On Their Feet: imperfect but responsible parents who are going to school and looking for jobs (however desperately), while they take care of kids or others who depend on them. I’m sure that some proportion of recipients is like that. I’m also sure that at least some other recipients sit on their rear ends for years at a time. And finally, some others must be up to no good: running meth labs, planning crimes, or studying radical Islam and (perhaps) learning how to commit terror. What are the true proportions of the three groups? That, I do not know.

When people must work for a living, we have a pretty good idea what they’re up to all day: Their jobs. If they’re going to make trouble, they must do it more in their off-hours.

Back in 2001, Mickey Kaus noted some of the links between welfare benefits and terrorism. I also remember Bruce Bawer talking about it in his 2006 book: the idea that the European welfare state paid benefits to its unassimilated Islamist immigrants as a kind of appeasement, oblivious to the fact that it was (in effect) paying them to remain unassimilated and Islamist.

The headline is what I just saw on Yahoo! (hence the quotes). The article is from Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor:

Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.”

In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself. The forced lockdown of much of the Boston area, police riding armored vehicles through the streets, and door-to-door searches without warrants were all reminiscent of a military coup or martial law, Paul added.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul.

Furthermore, this response did not result in the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Paul charged. He was discovered hiding in a boat by a private citizen, who called police…

The article seems to be written by a leftie: it unfortunately goes on to quote the pompous and silly Glenn Greenwald, and uses guilt-by-association to insinuate that Austrian economics (Ludwig von Mises) somehow goes with racism.

But brush that aside: the main topic is still interesting. Your thoughts? Who went too far: Ron Paul, or the Boston police?

From Reuters, Obama talks tough, shows no rush to act on Syria chemical arms evidence:

President Barack Obama warned Syria on Friday that its use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer” for the United States but made clear he was in no rush to intervene in the civil war there on the basis of evidence he said was still preliminary.

Speaking a day after the disclosure of U.S. intelligence that Syria had likely used chemical weapons against its own people, Obama talked tough while calling for patience as he sought to fend off pressure for a swift response against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Talked tough while calling for patience? Huh?

Obama’s inaction comes as no surprise to many — and certainly not to the Syrians who have learned that Obama may talk tough, but he carries his “big stick” only reluctantly and wields it rarely.  If ever.

RELATED: White House: We’re Diligently Endeavoring To Defintively Determine if Syria Use Chemical Weapons, Thereby Politically Embarrassing Us*
* (more…)

This article from Femen, the feminist protest group, just came across HotAir’s Headlines section:

For the past five years now, we here at the international women’s movement Femen have been waging an active campaign of resistance to the patriarchy in various corners of the world…

The most obvious illustration of the patriarchy is Islamic theocracy, a symbiosis of political and religious dictatorship…

At the heart of Islamism lies the enslavement of women based on control over their sexuality…

I hereby both promise and threaten to deploy an entire network of Femen activists in Arab countries. We will hound Islamic leaders across the globe, subjecting them to desolating criticism. We intend to hound spiritual leaders who are personally responsible for mistreating women…

Femen stands for “democracy, atheism, and sexuality” (per the article), and famously protested Vladimir Putin a couple of weeks ago (video here).

I do NOT endorse everything they believe or do[1], but what’s interesting here is the phenomenon of a left-wing protest group realizing that Islamism is a major threat to the freedom that they seek to live out, and declaring their intention to confront Islamism. We see that occasionally, but not often enough. Some other leftists go for safer targets (such as Christians who, in reality, pose no great threat to them).

These women may be in for some rough times, if they carry out their declaration. While not necessarily endorsing all that they do, let’s give them some credit for their new-found insight, and wish them health and safety! (more…)

Rand Paul’s filibuster ended yesterday, after 13 hours. Neither Bruce nor I were clear on how to turn off GP’s post that was counting it, so…it’s gone. We executed it (so to speak). But where did America end up?

• Before: A poll showed that fully 41% of Democrats think the president should be able to order pre-emptive drone strikes on American soil without review or oversight (that is, “on his own” in the poll’s wording).
• After: The Democrat-led Senate has refused to pass this resolution, “Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute Americans on American soil”.

I think that means: according to the Senate, if Obama decides that you are a “suspected terrorist”, he could execute you and your family in a drone strike on your home. At least, the question is open. Obama’s America, Forward!

UPDATE (from the comments): heliotrope informs us that Senator Paul has just received a letter from Attorney General Holder, writing that the president does NOT “have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” That’s better.

UPDATE: Republican senators McCain and Graham are clueless as ever, while liberal comedian Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul, sort of.

Lots of talk lately about the Obama administration’s policy of drone strikes on terrorists.

“Bush did it too”, but Obama has escalated the number of these strikes, and also conducted the first strike ever against an American citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki).

I’m not sure yet if these strikes are right (i.e., legitimate combat / battlefield strikes), or wrong (i.e., more like extrajudicial killings; possibly war crimes, when they hit civilians on non-battlefields). But I do know that they provide a fascinating window into left-wing hypocrisy. I’ll tally some examples.

• When Bush was President, these strikes were, to lefties, a sign of American darkness. But now that Obama is President, … ?

(more…)

Admiral James Lyons hammers the Benghazi scandal in a column today.

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.

Lyons lays out a much debated rumor about WHY Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with.

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

I had seen these reports for weeks, but Adm. Lyons discussing it gives it credence and suggests that other current senior US military officials are pissed off. (more…)

Putting the president’s recent statement calling the death of four Americans in Libya “not optimal” into context, Bethany Mandel (like Allahpundit) is not as harsh on the Democrats as some on the right of been.  Still, she believes the coverage of the gaffe is telling:

What this exchange showcases, however, is the lack of scrutiny Obama’s gaffes seem to elicit from the media.

The media narrative for this campaign has, in large part, become set by the talking points of the Obama campaign and young, liberal Tumblr creators. The latest Romney “gaffe” has become, as Alana mentioned earlier, an absolutely exhausting display of liberal faux-outrage, a desperate attempt to drag down Romney’s soaring poll numbers. The media has had an incredible ability to beat to death any real or imagined Romney gaffes while ignoring far more egregious ones from President Obama.

The Democrats and their friend in the legacy media are still trying to keep the 47% meme alive, but how often do we hear them mention Obama referring to a terrorist attack as “bumps in the road“?

If she had fallen on her sword, she would not just have (verbally) taken responsibility for Benghazi, but would also have resigned her post.

Hillary Clinton, headlines Adam Clark Estes’s post on Yahoo! News about the Secretary of State taking responsibility for what happened in Libya on 09/11/12, “Falls on Her Sword“:

To put things quite literally, she told a CNN reporter on Monday, just a few minutes after landing in Peru for a visit, very plainly, “I take responsibility” for what happened in Libya on September 11. CNN makes it clear that she “insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.” With the election right around the corner and everything, Clinton added, “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Estes (or his editor) has no clue about the meaning of the expression, “to fall on one’s sword.” Nor do the others who used the expression to discuss Mrs. Clinton’s statement yesterday.  Falling on one’s sword does not mean taking responsibility.  ”If someone falls on their sword, they resign or accept the consequences of some wrongdoing.“*

Mrs. Clinton has not announced her resignation.  And even if she did, she wouldn’t get Obama off the hook.**

Indeed, her statement may actually hurt Obama.  Given her prominence, by saying she takes responsibility, the Secretary of State elevates the story; it has gotten a lot of coverage already — and will get even more today.  People will wonder why it took thirty-four days for someone in the administration to take responsibility for our failure to secure the consulate in Benghazi.

And we see no indication that the administration intends to shake-up things up at the State Department on in the intelligence community.  Though we would if Mrs. Clinton did indeed fall on her sword — and offer her resignation.

* (more…)

For the past forty-eight hours or so, I have been printing and reading articles, saving links and collecting notes for a blog post on the Obama administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the murder of our ambassador there.  I had a basic notion of my general theme, then last night, reading Michael Barone’s excellent piece on Obama’s campaign from the past, found that he had nicely, succinctly summarized my argument:

Biden’s [denying "that the White House knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was attacked by terrorists rather than in a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an anti-Islam video"] statement was either an untruth or a confession of incompetence. If the State Department had the information, why didn’t the White House?

Emphasis added.  And that is the nub of the matter.  The State Department, the intelligence community knew that this was an act of terror  Moreover, State was aware that we needed to beef up security at our consulate in Tripoli.

So, let’s say (for the sake or argument) that no one in the White House was aware of information that was in the hands of other members of the administration.  These members of the administration, at the State Department — and in various intelligence agencies — surely saw other administration officials offering incorrect information to the public.  Didn’t they have a system in place to alert White House officials to their errors?

In this case, to borrow Barone’s expression, Biden’s statement was an incredible “confession of incompetence.”  With his denial, he acknowledge then that officials in the Obama administration failed to communicate important national security information to the Obama White House.

If this is their story, why then haven’t they announced a shake-up in the way the intelligence community communicates with the White House?  Why aren’t they asking the individuals who failed to communicate the information to step down? (more…)

This flat-out lying to the American public by the Obama Administration is beyond the pale.

So President Obama can stand up for “Big Bird”… but our Ambassador and three other dead Americans in Benghazi were just “bumps in the road.” Roger that, Barack.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In a piece reminding us why the Drudge tape shouldn’t “Overshadow Libya News“, Jim Geraghty cites this tidbit from Reuters:

Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said. Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

Wonder if more than just a handful of journalists in the legacy media will start asking whether, as one talented journalist put it, the administration is “covering something up”.

“In a different political environment,” laments Allahpundit

if Congress wasn’t back home campaigning for reelection and demands for answers from the top weren’t fated to be met with screeching about how the GOP is “politicizing terror” before the big vote, I think the House would already be moving towards holding hearings about what the White House knew.

Richard Grenell, however, believes Congress should hold hearings immediately:

We should do it immediately, because we’ve already seen the State Department scrubbing some of its information from its website. . . .  The State Department gave a warning that said, ‘We don’t have any intelligence that anything is going to be wrong on 9/11.’ And then they removed that from the website. . . . So we already see a scrubbing from the State Department and it’s really important for congressional committees to quickly get in and figure out what’s going on.

He calls media “completely complicit in trying to make this all about a film, a YouTube video that had been out since June, and the narrative was falling apart.”  He also scores the administration from being oblivious to increasing turmoil in the Middle East: (more…)

If our legacy media covered the Obama administration with any degree of scrutiny, we might see more reports like this:

Ed Morrissey catches a detail in the lastest Bloomberg poll which suggests that information is getting through the legacy media’s filter.  ”One month after Democrats bragged at their convention that they would pound Mitt Romney on foreign policy and national security,” he observes, “Barack Obama suddenly finds himself at a disadvantage on the issue of terrorism.”*   He cites Uri Friedman’s post on Foreign Policy reporting that 

The foreign-policy results of the new Bloomberg National Poll haven’t gotten much attention yet, but the survey contains some bad news for the Obama campaign. According to the poll, Mitt Romney has a 48-42 advantage over Barack Obama on the question of which candidate would be tougher on terrorism. Romney, in other words, has encroached on one of Obama’s signature strengths.

Polls taken earlier in September and in August, showed Obama leading Romney on the issue, usually by double-digit margins.  If the legacy media had been doing their job this past month, the Republican might have opened up a double-digit lead on terrorism and national security, instead of just edging ahead.

Instead of covering Obama’s foreign policy/national security blunders, the legacy media have been covering for them.  Democratic pollster Pat Caddell wonders why the media have not devoted much attention to the president’s decision to jet off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the day after the terrorist attack on our diplomatic personnel in Libya:

First of all, we’ve had 9 days of lies…If a president of either party…had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified…it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. (more…)

Reader Kurt passes on this video where Kirstin Powers lays it out quite well, quite well indeed.

If our friends in the legacy media had covered W the way they are covering Obama, every time John Kerry criticized Bush’s policy in Iraq, they would have spent the days following the critique faulting the Massachusetts Democrat for his remarks and ignoring the substance of the charges.

As our friends in the legacy media wring their hands about the Mitt Romney’s supposedly inappropriate critique of the administration’s apologetic statement* to those attacking the American embassy, the conservative media are doing their work for them, with Breitbart’s Wynton Hall reporting:

According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing–known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)–in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff . . . .

This failure to attend the briefings is particularly striking given evidence that the attack was planned in advance.

And yet our media dwell not on the administration’s incompetence, but on Romney’s response.  ”The fact“, quips Instapudit reader Leslie Eastman that “the elite media was more upset about Romney’s critique of the White House than our dead ambassador says all there needs to be said about our press.”

Oh, and, John Nolte reports that the Obama camp condemned Romney’s statement before condemning the attacks in Egypt and Libya.

And Glenn Reynolds wonders “what would they be saying if President Bush had gone to Vegas for a fundraiser on a day like this? Heck, what would they be saying if Romney were doing so?”

Will this report on Obama’s failure to attend intelligence briefings ever receive as much coverage as did the crazy comments of a socially conservative Congressman?

——-

*The U.S. Embassy in Cairo in a branch of the administration.

UPDATE:  Instead of asking Mitt Romney about the substance of his remarks today, Obama’s allies our friends in the legacy media asked Mitt Romney, in a possibly coordinated effort, only about the appropriateness of his criticism.   Over at Ace, DrewM tells his readers to “Go to the PJ Tatter to see the pitiful questions Romney was asked. Almost all of them were attacks on the timing of his statement last night.”  This week, we’re seeing not only the failure of Obama’s policy in the Mideast, but also of the legacy media’s coverage of this campaign — and this president.

“If President Mohamed Morsi wants a single dime of American aid,” writes Michael Rubin in Commentary:

he should arrest every single Egyptian who violated the embassy walls. Remember, when the U.S. embassy in Tehran was seized on November 4, 1979, it was actually the second attack on the embassy. A few months earlier, Iranians had violated the embassy grounds and Carter administration inaction had convinced them that they could get away with it again. There can be no excuses, nor should President Obama or the Congress accept any.

Read the whole thing.

SIDE-BAR:  Fascinating how our legacy media focus on the supposed inappropriateness of Romney’s criticism of the administration’s action and not on the administration’s own inept response.

Just two days ago, American Enterprise Institute Fellow Marc A. Thiessen wrote in the Washington Post that:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Emphasis added.  Hasn’t attended over half of his daily intelligence briefings?  Over half?  This led Richard Grenell, a former aide to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton (in an exclusive to GayPatriot) to comment:

It’s troubling to see the president is skipping his daily intel briefing much of the time. As commander in chief, he should prioritize these meetings and start his day understanding the threats facing our country. This is a scary development.

Scary indeed, particularly given yesterday’s events in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya.  Indeed, the Democrat’s obliviousness to the gravity of the crisis,  an increasingly bold anti-American movement in Arab countries, continues today.  Instead of huddling with his national security team today — or meeting with congressional leaders, the president, after making a brief public appearance, will be jetting off for campaign events in Las Vegas.

Perhaps, had Mr. Obama more regularly attended his intelligence briefings, he might be more aware of the ongoing activity and continued growth of Islamofascistic organizations in the nations which experienced the once-much heralded Arab Spring.

ADDENDUM:  And let’s not forget that he doesn’t have time on his schedule to meet with the Prime Minister of our most steadfast ally in the the Middle East.

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin was stunned was the lame White House response to the attacks on our embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi:

An increase in security? That’s it? The president’s statement was farcical, issuing an empty condemnation with no statement regarding an appropriate U.S. response or our determination to go after those responsible. (more…)

Today, eleven years after the terror attacks on America, I once again dedicate this space to my lost friend, James Joe Ferguson, who was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when that plane was used as a weapon and crashed into the Pentagon. This posting goes up at the exact time that the plane was flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

We miss you, Joe.
-Bruce and John

Addendum: Most folks on 9/11 naturally think of the thousands who died in the WTC, or in the Pentagon or on Flight 93. When I reflect on this day, I immediately think of Joe and his fellow passengers on Flight 77. In some ways, they are the forgotten victims. “Truthers” insist no plane hit the Pentagon. The families of those who died on Flight 77 would beg to differ. In any case, Flight 77 illustrates how ruthless Islamic terrorists are. Imagine sitting in your seat as your plane accelerates to 500 mph but you see the ground coming up fast and you know you are going to die. That folks, is the definition of “terror”.

********************

The last time we had dinner, Joe told my partner John and I about how much he was looking forward to being a part of the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Typically, I found myself jealous of him. In his role as Director of Geographic Education at the National Geographic Society, Joe had one of the most unique and rewarding jobs I can ever imagine having.

He traveled around the world, bringing American school children face-to-face with the natural wonders of our Earth. He was not only a teacher but also provided a critical turning point for these kids, many of whom had never before left their own neighborhoods. Joe provided the path for these students to experience things that many of us never will in our entire lives.

In addition, he got to travel to the four corners of the globe. How rewarding that must have been. How do I sign up for that job?

I got an email from Joe on Thursday, September 6, 2001. “Hi cutie” it started — typical opening line for Joe to any of his friends. He had just returned from Alaska and wanted to tell show me all the pictures, but the following week he said he was headed to California for another work trip. I printed out and kept that email for many months in my briefcase as a way to keep Joe alive.

As dawn broke on September 11, 2001, Joe called his Mom in Mississippi to give her a wake up call as he always did when he traveled. He said to her, “I’ll call you when I get to California. Have a good day.” He was that kind of person. The kind of person, who, no matter where he was and how busy he was, dropped a postcard to his friends so we could share a part of his experiences throughout the world.

At Dulles International Airport, Joe stood with his group traveling to California and took some last minute photos. He and another colleague were scheduled passengers on American Airlines Flight 77, accompanying three D.C. public school teachers and three students on a National Geographic-sponsored field trip to the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, Calif. After the photos were taken, they bid farewell to the children’s parents and proceeded to their gate.

At 9:37AM, Joe lost his life at the young age of thirty-nine when terrorists slammed the plane into the side of the Pentagon at 500 mph. A teacher and positive role model to young Americans was taken from the world in an act of sheer violence and viciousness.

As I was dealing with the many emotions of the events of September 11, a thought crossed my mind the next day. Gosh, I thought, Joe had said he was traveling and now he’s stuck somewhere until the airlines are allowed to fly again. So I called his work number in DC and left a message. After I heard his voice for the last time, I said “Give me a call if you are checking messages.” “I hope you make it home soon,” I concluded. When I called that day, I had no idea.

It wasn’t until Friday, September 14 that I found out that one of my dearest friends had become a casualty of the attacks on America. Suddenly, this war was personal — it had hit home. I wasn’t expecting to have to go to two memorial services and walk around in a state of numbness for many weeks.

At Joe’s memorial service, there were lots of tears and lots of laughs as well. One of Joe’s friends told the gathering that Joe had this way of making you feel as if you were his best friend in the world. I knew exactly what he meant. I saw Joe every once in a while. We would have lunch, or more likely trade emails or phone calls. But every time we talked, I felt like Joe’s best friend. Joe still has a lot of best friends all around the world.

Perhaps Joe’s death hit me so hard because it was the first death of someone close to me that I had experienced as an adult. I am still surprised by the impact that his death has had, and in many ways continues to have, on my life.

In fact, I did a lot of personal reflecting in the months following 9/11. I questioned how important my job and even my life were in a time of war where terrorists could invade your workplace or your school and slaughter you with no remorse. I questioned what value and worth my own career had in comparison with a man who had chosen to teach and change the lives of young people. I felt trapped in a good job that was giving me no personal satisfaction.

All I could remember was how happy Joe always was and how that cheer was infectious to all of his friends and colleagues. I would miss that cheerful influence on me. Joe had made the choice to live life to the fullest extent possible. He was the model of the optimistic American who knows no frontiers and no bounds. He was doing more than his fair share of contributing to a better society.

My partner John and I took a trip to the American West in the summer of 2003 and followed some of the Lewis & Clark Trail. I know Joe would have loved the scenery and spirit of America that lives and breathes in the land of Montana and Wyoming. The IMAX film about the “Corps of Discovery” produced by the National Geographic Society — Lewis & Clark: The Great Journey West — was dedicated to the memory of Joe Ferguson. It is available on DVD and I strongly recommend watching it.

One day in early 2002, I heard a song on the radio that I don’t remember hearing before 9/11/2001. I didn’t even know it was LeeAnn Womack’s voice, because the words are the soul and essence of Joe Ferguson. The words are an expression of his personal passion and love of life. And the words are also an inspiration for all of us to get through the many trying days of our post-9/11 world.

I hope you never lose your sense of wonder.
Get your fill to eat, but always keep that hunger.
May you never take one single breath for granted.
God forbid love ever leave you empty-handed.
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean.
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens.
Promise me that you’ll give faith a fighting chance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.

I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance.
Never settle for the path of least resistance.
Livin’ might mean takin’ chances, but they’re worth takin.
Lovin’ might be a mistake, but its worth makin.
Don’t let some hell bent heart leave you bitter.
When you come close to sellin’ out, reconsider.
Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.