Archive for the tag “MURDER”

‘Decimated’ Al-Qaeda Captures Fallujah!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.


Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life.


However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.


However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.


Thank you for visiting!


Reblogged from:


Posted by:John Lillpop 


While Barack Obama vacationed in comfort and luxury in Hawaii, his foreign policy disasters continued to wreak havoc throughout the world.

This time it is the city of Fallujah, Iraq, scene of one of the bloodiest battles that US Marines fought in 2004.

As reported, that city has been captured by Al-Qaeda, the ‘decimated’ enemy:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.”

To those American families who lost brave warriors in Fallujah, this news is particularly distressing, since Obama’s policy is akin to spitting on the graves of those brave Americans who gave their all in the name of freedom and good.

To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who unquestioningly support Obama: Is the latest from Fallujah yet another smashing foreign-policy VICTORY for The One?


Ever heard of this? The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.


Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life.


However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.


However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.


Thank you for visiting!


Reblogged from:


Posted by:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.

Ben Franklin

The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

Truth or Fiction and Fact Check are silent on this as of 2:27 PM CST Feb. 23, 2013 

Snopes, of course, tries to weasel out of the truth.  Go here to find the truth as it is written in law:

Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN!

Are you aware of this law?

DICK ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don’t know this, their rights and the constitution. Don’t prove them right.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.





Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from 



Army killer gets $80,000 a year, helicopter rides while victims suffer



Nearly four years after Islamist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar!” (“Allah is greater!”) and brutally murdered 14 people (including an unborn baby) and injured 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas, he now receives free helicopter rides from the local jail nearly every day, lives in a private room built to accommodate his medical needs, wears a beard against Army regulations, travels with his own security detail, has received numerous trial delays and collects a full salary of about $80,000 a year – all while many of his victims say they’ve been forgotten.

According to KXAS-TV, the NBC News affiliate in Dallas, the Army psychiatrist has been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting because the military has said it cannot suspend his pay without a conviction.

Hasan, 42, is facing 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder as his trial begins Tuesday. The New York Times reported the Army has spent more than $5 million on Hasan’s case and secured the courthouse with massive sand-packed barriers to protect him from explosions.

The Army has paid for Hasan’s military defense lawyers, paralegals and experts for his defense. Hasan also enjoys a heavily guarded trailer near the courthouse. The court-martial is expected to last at least a month.

No other inmate at the Bell County jail is treated the same way.

After struggling to cope with the tragedy, Staff Sgt. Josh Berry, 36, a soldier who survived Hasan’s attack committed suicide on Feb 13.

In what his father described as the “his absolute proudest moment in the United States Army,” Berry met President Obama at a service for victims of the brutal attack. During the memorial service, Obama never once used the word terrorism.

Berry, who had suffered from post-traumatic stress in Afghanistan, injured his shoulder as he leaped for cover in the storm of bullets at Fort Hood.

“He was in a war zone 24/7,” his father, Howard Berry, told NBC. “He honestly was.”

After he survived the worst shooting on an American military installation, the Army sent Berry to receive treatment at a VA hospital in Cincinnati, but his condition worsened as he no longer felt safe at home.

“He was never at peace,” Howard said. “He was never at peace. Every day, since the Fort Hood shooting, he suffered.”

According to his father, Sgt. Berry felt the Obama administration had forgotten the victims of that tragic day. The victims were denied Purple Heart medals and combat-related benefits because the Army determined the shooting was not an act of terrorism – despite Hasan’s own admission that he killed innocent Americans to defend the Taliban.

As WND reported, for years, the Obama administration has maintained that the victims of the 2009 shooting simply were in the crosshairs of “workplace violence.”

“He felt that there were considerations being given to the shooter that weren’t being given to the victims, and he couldn’t understand,” Howard Berry said.

Maj. Greg Majewski, Berry’s former commander, said the government’s delays and treatment of the victims “weighed heavily” on Berry.

“It affected his ability to cope because he would definitely get obsessive about it,” Majewski said. “It was something that was constantly on his mind. … I just cannot imagine Josh taking his life if the events at Fort Hood had not happened that day.”

Howard Berry said, “I can understand why [Josh] did what he did, because he felt that our country left a wounded soldier on the battlefield. And he felt that he wasn’t given the same consideration that our enemies were, and he didn’t understand.”

Hasan had been on federal officials’ radar screen for at least six months prior to the shooting over postings he made on the Internet. He likened a suicide bomber who kills women and children to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to give his life in a “noble cause.”

Intelligence officials also intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan told al-Awlaki in one of the emails, “I can’t wait to join you” in paradise. He also asked al-Awlaki whether it was appropriate to kill innocents in a suicide attack, when jihad was acceptable and how to transfer funds without attracting government notice.

Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning was shot six times in the attack, yet he is denied the same benefits a soldier shot in a similar action overseas would receive.

Fellow soldiers that day “were killed and wounded by … somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying,” Manning said. “And if that’s not an act of war, an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. was shot once in the head and six times in the body. He pretended to be dead and then tried to get out of the building, but Hasan shot him again in the back.

Now, according to the New York Times, Lunsford will face Hasan in court Tuesday when he testifies at the trial. Lunsford told the Times the Army garnished his pay when he sought treatment at a military post-traumatic stress disorder program and rejected his request to pay for an operation to remove a bullet still lodged in his back.

“We don’t get passes the way Major Hasan got passes,” Lunsford said. “Each one of us has gotten a raw deal somewhere down the line.”

Spc. Logan Burnett, another survivor of the attack who was shot three times, said he feels the Army has catered to the needs of Hasan but forgotten his victims. Burnett told NBC he was particularly disturbed by the government’s refusal to designate the shooting as a terror attack.

“The day that came out was the day the government looked at every single one of the victims of the Fort Hood shooting and spit in our faces.”


The Obama Stasi Rolls On

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from 

Posted by Donn Marten 


This video was posted by Glenn Beck over 4 months ago. Boy was he right to sound the alarm!

NSA’s Utah Data Facility

When former Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA operations just remember that he warned that all that was missing for “turnkey tyranny” to ensue would be a change of policy. That of course would be public policy, this government works under the veil of secrecy and this has been ongoing for quite awhile while Americans tuned out of  working to be informed and tuned into Dancing With the Stars or some other televised crapfest. The real policies were birthed from the still smoldering ruins of WW II with the creation of the National Security State and the CIA (formerly OSS) and NSA (formerly Armed Forces Security Agency). Riding high after whipping up on the Germans and Japanese the powers that be were out to make damned sure that unlike the Third Reich the American Empire would last for a thousand years and with the right kind of luck for eternity.  Largely comprised of the Wall Street elite such as Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner and others the CIA would along with the military component NSA make the planet safe for big American money no matter what the consequences were. The methods did not matter and morality was never a consideration as it was all done under the pretense of fighting communism, a reliable bogeyman until the USSR collapsed. Whether it engaged in propaganda campaigns, funding foreign right-wing groups and death squads, assassinating leaders who refused to come to terms with the capitalist mafia, overthrowing regimes to install U.S. friendly despots who reveled in murdering their own people and to wage war, a very lucrative business indeed.

The Massive NSA Facility Under Construction in Utah

Utah Data Facility

The metastasizing of the National Security State and it’s components throughout American society would be a gradual process, and again, the ability to conduct anti-Constitutional spying on its own citizens was critical for any of it to work. Challenges had to be eliminated, be it the infiltration of domestic leftist groups, blackmailing of aspiring politicians and even termination with extreme prejudice were just tools in the box, all dependent on the situation at the time. The advent of computer technology, especially over the past quarter century has rapidly accelerated the process. Former NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently gave an interview where he confirmed that reporters, lawyers, judges and aspiring politicians were spied on by the agency  including then Senator Barack Obama. This revelation like all other inconveniences to the establishment never made it into big media (they are too busy sniffing the royal baby turd as of late) instead being relegated to internet talk shows and alternative media sites. Now the pocket media can just invoke the magical talisman of “conspiracy theorists” and it all goes away. Move along, nothing to see here.

Years before Snowden’s exposure of NSA criminality, Tice came out during the Bush years and eventually revealed that journalists were being spied on. He did so most notably in an interview on the since cancelled MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann Another Bush era whistleblower named Thomas Tamm gave his account in an interview with Newsweek that exposed NSA activities, notably a program called Stellar Wind.  September 11, 2001 would prove to be fortuitous in that it provided justification not only for an eternal “War On Terror” but also ensured that the growth in surveillance, policing, military and propaganda funding would be unlimited and the oversight virtually nonexistent, further more it provided the impetus for the reconfiguration of America into the ominously sounding Homeland. Now communism, the Manichean Devil that justified all evils perpetrated by the United States government finally had an official replacement in terrorism. Not that the construction of the all knowing surveillance and police state ever took a break, it has been a progressive construction project. Before PRISM there was PROMIS, ECHELON,REX 84, COG (Continuity Of Government) and TIA (Total Information Awareness) and no public debate was ever held on any of this yet it fundamentally changes our entire society. You see the policy has always there but only as a component of the secret government that functions outside of the public sphere and transcends presidential terms, it never sleeps. The real horrors along with the final descent of this country into all out fascism will be when that which has been constructed in private becomes the official public policy of the United States of America. I suspect that we will see that in our lifetime and probably sooner rather than later if it can’t be slowed.

Obama is just doing his part in providing the official cover for these programs by defending the indefensible and making damned certain that his Justice Department will go after any leakers with hammer and tong in order to make examples of them as is being done with Bradley Manning who is now undergoing a show trial, Ed Snowden when captured will face much worse than Manning and  sadly a good amount of the public will actually cheer on the persecutors as they destroy him physically, mentally and legally. Obama just keeps the machine running and provides a happy face until the rest of the work that really matters  is done. He is a presidential placebo and anyway, the real  details are way above his paygrade and he already has his golden parachute. Obama just like his loathed predecessor who have both been instrumental in building the coming tyrannical system are set for life now. He is a part of the club (the one that you are I are not in) and he recently signed off on lifetime Secret Service protection for himself and George W. Bush. Both of them will be sitting pretty when the shit finally does hit the fan which will likely be sooner rather than later and they will not have to bother with hearing the screams from inside their fortified homes, elitist vacation resorts and exclusive golf courses.

The enemy in the event there was ever any doubt is US.

Coming on the jack-booted heels of Friday’s rubber-stamping of the NSA’s extension to vacuum up all Verizon customer phone data, a bi-partisan effort yesterday beat back an attempt by insurgent Congressman Justin Amash. Joining Amash was longtime thorn in the side of the establishment John Conyers who tried in vain to reign in the civil liberties shredding surveillance colossus. Amash, a Tea Party Republican from Michigan has now offered proof that zany cultural populist nonsense when replaced with a serious defense of the very real invasion upon civil liberties will allow for stronger alliances with libertarians and progressives to slow the juggernaut while there is still a sliver of time left in which to do so. That sliver however gets tinier by the day and the forces arrayed against the destruction of the tattered remnants of a free society only get bolder and further consolidate their already dangerous positions of power. The Obama administration has proclaimed that it is above the law when it comes to spying on Americans and that their divine right of kings shalt not be challenged in court. In the same sort of twisted legalese that the Bush administration used to justify torture the Obama mob pushed back against the recent anti-spying lawsuit by the ACLU, claiming that it is in the “public interest” and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

The aforementioned pro-civil liberties amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill (the country may be broke but there is always money for more war) went down in defeat 217-205 with such staunch and strident opponents of big government as John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann right along with the insipid and shrill Nancy Pelosi in defending the American Stasi. I suppose that there should something of merit in the amendment even being brought up, something that would have been inconceivable earlier in the post 9/11 era of fear, loathing and the extortion of taxpayers to fund their own enslavement. However, there have been some changes in attitude since Edward Snowden’s leaks but the defeat of the bill only provides more evidence that the system it rigged and that greed, war and oppression are the real things that bring Republicans and Democrats together. In a rare preemptive strike, El Presidente Obama even came out and had his flacks and shills issue a press release urging the defeat of the Amash amendment. NSA Commandant Keith Alexander also called for an emergency private briefing to rally the troops on the hill against the amendment lest his grossly perverted amassing of power take a hit. The whole rank process once again proved that in this rapidly decaying system there would be no challenge brooked nor the governed to be asked for their consent. The Alexander private decree is just like those secret courts that are the antithesis to any serious concept of democracy. Alexander is the strutting epitome of a military dictator salivating over the coming crackdown.

It is by now brutally evident to pretty much anyone who has bothered to read this far that we have a huge problem right now in America. It is a problem that dwarfs all others simply because the ability to collect and store information on all citizens is the primary lynchpin of a full-blown fascist state. But such a state also needs a propaganda spewing media machine, a desperate and poorly informed public, a paramilitary police and a myth of a constant outside threat that is used to justify the need for increasingly radical measures. The mass collection of the data is absolutely crucial in that it will be used when the ubiquitous outside threat is formally changed to an internal one.  That will be the time that the state will ruthlessly crush all perceived threats that may one day work to organize, inform, challenge and reverse the tide. As has been reported the NSA is now capable of conducting three hop data queries which as explained by Philip Bump at Atlantic Wire:

Think of it this way. Let’s say the government suspects you are a terrorist and it has access to your Facebook account. If you’re an American citizen, it can’t do that currently (with certain exceptions)—but for the sake of argument. So all of your friends, that’s one hop. Your friends’ friends, whether you know them or not—two hops. Your friends’ friends’ friends, whoever they happen to be, are that third hop. That’s a massive group of people that the NSA apparently considers fair game.

Theoretically anyone who is currently reading this website and about the entire country would be fair game for future pickup, interrogation, detention, torture and possibly even more extreme measures. This is not hyperbole either, as history has repeatedly proven, power always corrupts and in an end stage capitalist system such as the United States in the 21st century where the elite continue to gorge themselves at the expense of the vast majority and to do so with impunity and the full sanction and protection of the state it is inevitable that a backlash is coming. The backlash will not be tolerated under any circumstances as those who are elite will have no mercy or pause if their ill-gotten gains are ever threatened. When that does occur the pickup lists will be massive and generated instantaneously and that for profit prison system that rivals Stalin’s gulags will provide wonderful temporary housing for the enemies of the state. Programs have already been rolled out encouraging citizens to watch and rat each other out for any type of vaguely “suspicious” behavior so the conditioning is already in the minds of Americans. Decades of movies and television programs have cemented into the consciousness a reverence bordering of worship of the police while the police have subsequently become armed to the teeth and transformed into paramilitary forces. This began with advent of SWAT teams late in the last century and now even Dogpatch USA likely receives war zone grade equipment from the government for their local cops. Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop writes in his article A Decade After 9/11, Police Departments are increasingly Militarized that:

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.


The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent justification for further militarization of America’s police departments: the need to protect the country from terrorism.

Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork with a series of ads (featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary targets.

In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new era, a new time,” here,” one sheriff told the Syracuse Post Standard. “The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to use it.” The same sheriff said later in the same article that he’d use his new SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things.” In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper, Florida — which had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade — were each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer program, leading one Florida paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”

And according to Balko, the Obama administration is actually accelerating the militarizing of the police.

So what exactly do you think is going to happen when the interrogations begin? And another question, are you the type who wallows in denial by reassuring yourself that – I have nothing to worry about if I’m not doing anything wrong? Well you should worry and worry like hell because the probability that you are already linked to someone is pretty much a certainty. Oh, and there is an NSA fortress in Utah that will ensure that there is more than enough storage and computing power to see just what those “three hop” queries may turn up on you. The inquisitors as they always do, will be able to cut deals and people will gladly tattle on just about anyone to save their own asses because this is the way that it works in any closing society where the authoritarians are in total control. During the Nazi transformation of Germany such a system, albeit limited by the lack of high-technology existed and was used not only by the state but by enemies looking to settle scores and others to provide tips that did not exactly lead to enemies of the regime. As Richard J. Evans wrote in his book The Third Reich in Power:

So many denunciations were sent in to the Gestapo that even fanatical leading Nazis such as Reinhard Heydrich complained about them and the district Gestapo office in Saarbrücken itself registered its alarm at the ‘constant expansion of an appalling system of denunciation’. What dismayed them was in particular the fact that many denunciations appeared to be made from personal rather than ideological motives. Leading figures in the Party might have encouraged people to expose disloyalty, grumbling and dissent, but they wanted this practice to be a sign of loyalty to the regime, not a means of offloading personal resentments and gratifying personal desires. Thirty-seven percent of 213 cases subsequently studied by one historian arose out of private conflicts, while another 39 per cent had no discernible motive at all; only 24 percent were clearly made by people acting primarily out of political loyalty to the regime. Neighbors often denounced noisy or unruly people living in the same building, office workers denounced people who were blocking their promotion, small businessmen denounced inconvenient competitors, friends or colleagues who quarreled sometimes took the final step of sending in a denunciation to the Gestapo. School or university students even on occasion denounced their teachers.Whatever the motive the Gestapo investigated them all. If the denunciation was without foundation, they usually simply relegated it to the files and took no further action. But in many cases, denunciation could lead to the arrest of the person denounced, torture, imprisonment and even death.

But if you see something, say something, Homeland Security commands it and it is all for your own safety and happiness.


An Anthology Of ObamaCare’s Broken Promises

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from 

Posted by Brian Carey 


Barack Obama

No piece of legislation in this history of this great country was sold to the American people on as many outright lies as ObamaCare.

The marketing was clever. The President used pithy lines like “quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.” We were promised that it was going to insure an additional 30 million people. Anyone who opposed it was a selfish, soulless freak who supported financial profit above the good of society.

The marketing worked. ObamaCare was signed into law in 2010.

Since then, we have learned that basically everything that conservatives predicted would happen with ObamaCare has come true. Since all of these predictions were bad, this is not a compliment to the President or his healthcare plan.

Here is a list of ObamaCare’s broken promises.

1. You can keep your own doctor

Nope. The unequivocal promise that you would be able to keep your own doctor under ObamaCare has turned into “you may be able to keep your doctor.”

That’s funny. We don’t remember hearing the word “may” when the Democrats were stressing the importance of passing ObamaCare in 2010. We remember clearly hearing “will”, as in: “you will be able to keep your own doctor.”

2. ObamaCare would reduce the deficit

Nobody reading this probably believed it, but that’s what we were promised by numerous Democrats.

Surprisingly, it turns out that a nation cannot insure millions of additional people without spending any additional money. In fact, ObamaCare adds trillions to the long-term deficit.

3. Lower insurance premiums

You were also told that, under this massive expansion of government regulation on the healthcare industry, somehow insurance premiums would miraculously go down.

Not only is that not happening, but quite the opposite is happening. Rates are rising. In fact, they are rising dramatically.

4. You can keep your existing health insurance

Quote Obama: “If you’ve got health insurance [and] you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor [and] you can keep your plan.”

The reality? Um… no.

In fairness to the President, he did publicly admit this two months before ObamaCare was signed into law. However, he didn’t advertise the fact during those two months. In other words, he didn’t go out of his way to tell the truth.

5. It would protect Medicare

We were told that the President’s healthcare plan would protect Medicare. But, as Tim Phillips over at Townhall notes: “ObamaCare actually takes money from Medicare and Medicare Advantage to fund many of its new programs. According to the CMS Actuary to the Medicare Board of Trustees, ObamaCare didn’t even attempt to resolve $37 trillion in unfunded obligations and instead took nearly $716 billion out of the program.”

6. The promise of “quality” healthcare

As noted previously, President Obama promised “quality, affordable healthcare” to all Americans.

Question: if ObamaCare provides “quality” healthcare, then why are unions, who once supported ObamaCare, now complaining about it? Additionally, why does the IRS employees’ union want out of ObamaCare when it’s the IRS that will be enforcing ObamaCare?

Maybe the “quality” isn’t there after all.

7. ObamaCare is a tax on all income levels

The President, when campaigning for office and for ObamaCare, said that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 per year.

However, the reality is that ObamaCare survived constitutional challenge only because the individual mandate is considered a tax. That individual mandate affects everyone who doesn’t have health insurance, no matter what their income.


Accused Fort Hood shooter releases statement to Fox News

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1)  I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from 

Posted by Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne 

FT. Hood murder talking: Video

EXCLUSIVE: Acting as his own attorney, accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has released a statement to Fox News claiming that the U.S. military is at war with his religion.

However, he does not directly address the shooting at the Texas Army Base in November 2009 that killed 13 and injured more than 30 others.

Cause he’s a COWARD hiding behind his supposedly “peaceful religion”

“My complicity was on behalf of a government that openly acknowledges that it would hate for the law of Almighty Allah to be the supreme law of the land,” the 42-year-old Army psychiatrist said. Hasan then apparently asked if this was a war on Islam. “You bet it is,” he said. “I participated in it.”

The statement, which begins “In the name of Almighty Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, my name is Nidal Hasan, Major Nidal Hasan, and I would like to convey a message to the world,” runs more than six pages.

Hasan also says he regrets his years in the Army, claiming that his service was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.  “I would like to begin by repenting to Almighty Allah and apologize to the (Mujahideen), the believers, and the innocent.  I ask for their forgiveness and their prayers.   I ask for their forgiveness for participating in the illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims, their religion and their lands,” he said.

Hasan also criticized U.S. policy in the Middle East toward the Palestinians.

While Hasan’s motivation for releasing the statement is unknown, Fox News has repeatedly requested an interview with him, with a specific focus on his alleged actions at the Fort Hood Readiness Center on Nov. 5, 2009.

It is believed to be the first lengthy statement by the Fort Hood suspect, whose court martial begins August 6. The judge in Hasan’s case recently ruled that he cannot argue as part of his defense that the shooting was an effort to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan – the so-called “defense of others” strategy.

George Stratton and his son — who was wounded in the attack — will both testify at the trial.  Stratton told Fox News he is not surprised by the statement.

“I have all along believed Nidal Hasan to be a Muslim terrorist, so it confirms what I’ve always thought,” Stratton said. “I believe that’s exactly how he felt when he did what he did. We should take him at his word.”

Lawyer Neal Sher, who represents Fort Hood shooting victims and their families in a separate legal action, said “This is yet further confirmation of a fact that everyone knows except our government. That is, the Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist jihadi attack.”

If convicted, on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, Hasan faces execution or life in prison without parole.

Take Life in Prison off the table straight to EXECUTION with bullets dipped!

An extended examination of his statement, and reaction to it, will be part of an upcoming Fox News special investigation scheduled to air in early August. “Fox Files: The Enemy Within,” first broadcast in June 2012, was part of Fox’s ongoing investigation into the Fort Hood shooting and the connection to the first American targeted for death by the CIA, Anwar al-Awalki.

Cyd Upson and Gregory Johnson contributed to this report

Read more:


Alleged Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan Receives Promotion, Legion Of Merit

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from


Nidal Hasan Legion of Merit

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KSArmy officials have confirmed that Nidal Hasan was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel yesterday in a small and solemn ceremony in the gathering room of Fort Leavenworth’s maximum security prison.

The alleged mastermind behind the Fort Hood Shootings was ecstatic about the crossing of a major milestone in his military career and thanked all those in attendance. Meanwhile, protests were held outside the base, with people chanting “justice for the victims” and “don’t promote.” One participant stated that this ceremony was a “slap in the face of all the victims” from the massacre. Base officials refused to comment, declaring that Hassan’s promotion was decided months ago by personnel management officials.

When asked about the promotion, Major General William Hewitt, Commanding General of Human Resources Command (HRC), stated that Hasan’s personnel record was not negatively flagged by the chain of command and that by regulation the “Army had no choice but to award promotion to the service member.” When asked to elaborate about how such an oversight could occur, the general stated that the Army’s electronic human resources systems were undergoing upgrades that may have affected Hasan’s status.

“HRC has been physically migrating its systems to a new building at Fort Knox [Human Resources Command Headquarters] after the discovery of asbestos and mold in the current data storage warehouse. Unfortunately the files have been moved to a computer system that is not yet Y2K compliant. This might have affected the records of hundreds of personnel, including Hasan.”

During an investigation of Hasan’s service record, The Duffel Blog obtained several evaluation reports detailing the officer’s performance history. Of note is one report covering the period during Hasan’s alleged shooting spree. His superior officer, Colonel Nathan Butterworth, stated that Hasan has an excellent record stained with the occasional blemish.

“While not the best team player, Major Hasan has a peerless tactical mind with a demonstrated record of close quarters combat marksmanship.” Butterworth goes on to state “Major Hasan is an unparalleled asset to the Army. His capability to think like the enemy, allows him the ability to provide the military with a perspective not seen by the rest of the organization.”

Hasan also received a Legion of Merit from his superiors at Darnell Army Medical Center at Fort Hood upon Hasan’s transfer to Fort Leavenworth. Standard practice in the Army is to award soldiers a “Permanent Change of Station” award reflecting the sum total of their contributions while at their installation. Since Hasan’s movement to Leavenworth’s maximum security facility was technically a Permanent Change of Station, he was submitted for the award as a formality. The Legion of Merit was awarded during the same ceremony as Hasan’s promotion, although the officer presenting the award was forced to move Hasan’s beard to one side to affix it to his uniform.

The award now hangs inside Hasan’s cell, below a framed letter from Osama Bin Laden, congratulating Hasan on the “successful slaughter of dozens of infidels.”

Luckily, said Hewitt, the error was caught in time to prevent the promotion of SPC Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked over 40,000 top-secret military and diplomatic documents to the WikiLeaks website in the largest confidential document dump in American history. His adverse action flag was restored before he could attain the rank of Sergeant.

Manning was reportedly disappointed in being removed from consideration, as he had already begun studying for the Sergeant Promotion Board, but at least has the consolation of having received a Good Conduct Medal during the interim. It is unknown at this time how many personnel received promotions and awards in error, and the Army Inspector General’s office is continuing to investigate.

Read more:


Rise of the Obama ;Reich;

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

Posted by Paula Helton

    The time has come for Americans to stop bending to the will of the PC enablers and define the Obama Administration for what it is;

The Obama Reich. How else to describe the eerily similar parallels of Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler?

There are numerous comparisons to be made. In writing this, I focused on four of them.

Hitler Youth

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”…Mein Kampf

An excerpt from a History Place article titled “Hitler’s Boy Soldiers – 1939-1945” gives us a chilling look at the Hitler Youth.

“From 1940 to 1945, about 2.8 million German children were sent to these camps. There were separate KLV camps for boys and girls. Some 5,000 camps were eventually in operation, varying greatly in sizes from the smallest which had 18 children to the largest which held 1,200. Each camp was run by a Nazi approved teacher and a Hitler Youth squad leader. The camps replaced big city grammar schools, most of which were closed due to the bombing. Reluctant parents were forced to send their children away to the camps.

Life inside the boys’ camp was harsh, featuring a dreary routine of roll calls, paramilitary field exercises,hikes, marches, recitation of Nazi slogans and propaganda, along with endless singing of Hitler Youth songs and Nazi anthems. School work was neglected while supreme emphasis was placed on the boys learning to automatically snap-to attention at any time of the day or night and to obey all orders unconditionally “without any if or buts.”

Obama Youth

The use of songs and chants to brainwash the youth of America has also been the method of choice for Barack Obama. Videos of very young children singing his praises can be found here , here, here and here .

Obama, however, has decided that our children must be indoctrinated at an even younger age as documented in this speech, wherein he demands universal pre-school.

The further indoctrination of college students occurred in his recent address to graduates at Ohio State University. In the speech found here, he admonished the students “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” Whose voices are they to reject; the Founding Fathers, their parents, grandparents, etc.?

The speech at Ohio State also offers further proof that Mr. Obama knows nothing of our Country, as evidenced by his many instances of referring to us a Democracy. Perhaps We the People can aid in Barack’s education by forwarding on to him this explanation of who and what we are:

“When Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was approached by a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia. It was then and there that she asked the now famous question, “Well, Doctor, what have we, a republic or a monarchy?” It is said that Dr. Franklin, without hesitation, said, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

To further enlighten our poser in the White House, Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law defines Republic thusly: a Republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” In other words, a Republic is a system of government where the ultimate power lies with the people; that power executed by way of elected representatives who are responsible to those who elected them and according to the rule of law.

Hitler’s Gestapo

From a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum articled titled, “Nazi Terror Begins”, we learn the following:

“Essential to the intimidating effects of the terror was the willingness of many German citizens (whether out of conviction, greed, envy, or vengeance) to denounce their fellow citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the police. The Gestapo could not have exercised such control over German society without the benefit of this steady stream of denunciations, many of which were entirely unfounded.”

Obama’s Gestapo

Not to be outdone by Hitler’s Gestapo, “Big Sis” Napolitano announced her ”IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING” CAMPAIGN, states:

The “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and now licensed to DHS for a nationwide campaign—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced new partnerships between the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “If You See Something, Say Something™” public awareness campaign and several sports organizations and collegiate universities. Partnerships include National Football League (NFL) teams, Major League Baseball (MLB) teams, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships (USTA), Ohio State University, and the University of Oklahoma.

Over the past year, DHS has collaborated closely with federal, state, local and private sector partners, as well as the Department of Justice, to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative—an administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and ensure the sharing of those reports with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led Joint Terrorism Task Forces for further investigation.

Other partnerships with the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign have been recently launched by the states of Florida and Maryland, the cities of Baltimore and Newark, the Inaugural Baltimore Grand Prix, and state and major urban area fusion centers across the country.

DHS will continue to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign nationally to help America’s business, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe.

A 2009 article from the Washington Times described a new Department of Homeland Security Report this way:

“The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

It says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”

The joint federal-state activities will have “a particular emphasis” on the causes of “rightwing extremist radicalization.”

The nine page DHS report can be found here

Ric Bradshaw, a Palm Beach County Sheriff anxious to do his part to encourage his constituents to become spies for the Obama Gestapo, was recently awarded one million dollars by the Florida Legislature. As for what the funds will be used for, Sheriff Bradshaw summed it up in this article from the Palm Beach Post :

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?”

Mein Fuhrer would be proud!

Hitler’s SS

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”…Mein Kampf

Another excerpt from “Nazi Terror Begins” points out the intimidation tactics used by by the Hitler SS to silence his opponents:

“Hitler and the Nazi regime also resorted to simple and extra-legal terror to intimidate opponents. Nazi paramilitary formations, such as the Storm Detachments (Sturmabteilungen or SA, more commonly known as Storm Troopers) and the Protection Squads (Schutzstaffel or SS), had been established during the 1920s to terrorize political opponents and to protect Nazi leaders.”

Obama’s IR’SS’

In order to ensure the Obama regime can steal the amount of wealth from American citizens it feels it is entitled to, Obama’s 2012 budget calls for the hiring of 5100 more IRSS agents, bringing the total number of agents to over 100,000. It also calls for increasing their budget by 12%, for a total IRSS budget of $13 billion. Details can be found in a Washington Examiner article titled, ”Obama ‘12 budget: More IRS agent pit bulls for tax and health care fraud”.

I would say it’s time for We the People to demand a flat tax and eliminate the IRSS. Picturing the IRSS agents standing in unemployment lines is the stuff dreams are made of.

The IRSS will also be the stormtroopers tasked with enforcing Obacare. To accomplish terrorizing and intimidating American citizens and businesses, the bill calls for an additional 16,000 IRSS agents. In this CNBC article, we learn the extent of the power Obama has given his IRSS troopers.

That brings us to the latest abuse of power welded by the IRSS. In a play strait from the Fuhrer’s handbook, Obama has used his IRSS thugs to intimidate conservative groups with the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, as well as those having concerns about debt or taxes, government spending, or educating citizens on the Constitution. An article from the Wall Street Journal, titled “Wider Problems Found at IRS, examines exactly what transpired, as the ensuing attempt to cover it up.

Famed conservative talk radio host, Mark Levin, revealed last week he was also a target of Obama’s goons. He also shone the light on the fact these stormtroopers are armed and defended packing heat by claiming “we’re law enforcement.”

But, not to worry, today Mr. Obama pronounced his outrage and vowed to get to the bottom of it. Seems I’ve heard that song before.

Hitler’s Sheltering in Place

The documentation of Hitler’s Ghettos and Death Camps is ongoing, as decribed in this recent New York Times article

“The documented camps include not only “killing centers” but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named “care” centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel.

Auschwitz and a handful of other concentration camps have come to symbolize the Nazi killing machine in the public consciousness. Likewise, the Nazi system for imprisoning Jewish families in hometown ghettos has become associated with a single site—the Warsaw Ghetto, famous for the 1943 uprising. But these sites, infamous though they are, represent only a minuscule fraction of the entire German network, the new research makes painfully clear.

The maps the researchers have created to identify the camps and ghettos turn wide sections of wartime Europe into black clusters of death, torture and slavery—centered in Germany and Poland, but reaching in all directions.

The lead editors on the project, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites that they have identified as part of a multivolume encyclopedia. (The Holocaust museum has published the first two, with five more planned by 2025.”

Another excerpt from Nazi Terror Begins recounts, “In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany”

Obama’s Sheltering in Place

“All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”…Mein Kampf

I first became aware of the term “shelter in place” during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers. I was astounded that nearly one million people followed the order to stay confined to their homes and the city of Boston was completely shut down. Think about how easy it was to convince an entire city to obey the directive to “shelter in place” as armed government agents blocked off all points of exit.

The full unbelievable account of American citizens, in a city known for it’s contribution to the American Revolution, allowing themselves to be confined in their homes can be found in this NBC news article

Watching dumbfounded the continuing coverage of “sheltering in place”, I wanted to discover if this was phenomenon was occurring elsewhere. Apparently it’s occurring all across America. A few of the instances I found can be found here , here, here, here>herehere, and even at the U.S. Naval Acamedy

Of course coverage of the “shelter in place” in the Boston suburb of Waterton wouldn’t be complete without also mentioning the armed SWAT teams that roamed the streets, dragging residents from their homes and conducting warrantless searches of their homes. Video and pictures can be found here and here

I find little difference between the actions of these SWAT teams and the Hitler SA and SS. How easy would it have been to install barricades and fencing and wall the people in?

If you have a little time on your hands, more interesting reading on Hitler and Nazi Germany can be found in the “The Nazification of German Society” By Jake Cmarada.

Hopefully more Americans will start connecting the dots in Obama’s quest to become our Mein Fuhrer. For the sake of this country, it needs to happen soon.

I leave you with this from an event in Florida as reported by Mike Synan, WOFL Fox 35 reporter:

Crowd Chants “Hail Obama”

Hundreds of people at a Florida campaign rally in featuring First Lady Michelle Obama began chanting “Hail Obama”, according to a television reporter who was covering the event.

“Crowd for #FLOTUS event in Daytona now chanting “Hail Obama,” tweeted WOFL Fox 35 reporter Mike Synan. “Wow, just wow.”

The rally was held at Daytona Beach’s Ocean Center. More than 5,000 people showed up—the crowd described as restless and boisterous.

Synan said the chanting came during a warm up session before the First Lady appeared on stage.

He repeated the claim in a follow-up message on Twitter, “True. Would not lie. Chanting “Hail Obama.”

Synan later said someone in the crowd would yell “Hail Obama” and then “hundreds that could hear that person would repeat.”


Press Starts to Turn on Obama Over Benghazi

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

Posted by Tad Cronn

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I sense a disturbance in the Force.

In recent days, we’ve been treated to renewed hearings on the Benghazi cover-up, with witnesses who have been suppressed by the Obama Administration starting to come forward and detail how badly the public has been lied to.

Then the mainstream media, or at least some individuals and elements within it, have begun putting aside the I Heart Barry buttons and covering the story that’s been simmering for some eight months.

That was followed by rumors from some corners of the capital, including some Democrats speaking anonymously, that the Man Who Would Be King might be in trouble finally.

These facts alone were enough to generate a feeling that something had changed in the Halls of Power, that perhaps Obama’s hold on the Oval Office is not as strong as it once was.

Now come two events that would have been unthinkable even a week or two ago.

First, ABC News has come out with its story that the Obama Administration scrubbed the original CIA talking points of any reference to terrorism, and backed it up with copies of 12 different versions of the talking points that altogether prove that the White House and State Department knew from the beginning that al-Qaida was involved in the Benghazi attacks.

Second, in the wake of ABC’s story, the BBC has apologized for its coverage — or lack thereof — of the Benghazi story.

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North American editor, wrote in an article titled “After Benghazi Revelations, Heads Will Roll” that he’s changed his mind about the Benghazi story now that ABC’s spoken up.

“In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. … It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

“This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment. …

“There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.”

It should do more than haunt Hillary Clinton; it should decimate this Administration and if justice were to prevail, drive this president from office.

The line “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack” is one of the parts the State Department had struck, along with any references to CIA warnings in the months leading up to the deaths of four Americans.

That shows an Administration that is willfully giving terrorists a pass when it comes to national security and foreign operations, then covering its tail when things inevitably go south.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If the media were to really start doing their jobs at long last, they would uncover an Administration that has colluded with al-Qaida terrorists around the globe while pretending to fight them in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Administration and the media may yet choose to continue the cover-up. As the Benghazi hearings wound down on Friday, Democrats were circling the wagons, claiming there was no evidence of cover-up. The White House was planning a confidential briefing on Benghazi with select members of the Press Corps, and Politico predictably had already declared the ABC report a “distraction.” The State Department has decided its official line is that the Benghazi hearings haven’t revealed anything new.

In one sense, that’s true, because this information has been circulating for some time.

What’s changed is that this is the first time a large (mostly liberal) portion of the population will hear it because they’ve been trained to ignore anything not from the sanctioned left-wing media.

The other thing that’s changed is that the opening of the discussion by first CBS, then ABC, then the BBC may finally put pressure on the rest of the press corps zombies to wake up and look at reality for a change.

If that happens, it may set a dangerous precedent — dangerous to the people in Washington who count on the public to remain blissfully unaware of what’s been going on.

Read more:



Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

General: ‘A dereliction of duty this nation has never seen before’

Lt Gen Tom Mcinerney

Revelations in Wednesday’s congressional hearings on the Benghazi terrorist attacks prove it is a massive scandal that will carry significant consequences for those involved in the cover-up, according to retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

McInerney served at the highest levels in the Air Force, including time as assistant vice chief of staff and vice commander in chief of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He believes the Obama administration deliberately misled the American people on the motivation for the attack and is now covering its tracks on decisions to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi. He told WND that is more clear than ever following Wednesday’s testimony of former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and two others before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“This is going to be the biggest scandal. It is going to make Watergate look like kindergarten because Watergate was primarily limited to the Oval Office. This cuts across the whole national security apparatus, where people were lying and covering up,” McInerney said. “It is a dereliction of duty that this nation has never seen before.”

So what consequences could that mean for the highest levels of the administration?

“Well, just see what the consequences were in Watergate. If it’s far worse than Watergate, the consequences will go right into the Oval Office,” he said.

McInerney said the tell-tale sign of Obama’s dereliction of duty can be determined in the admitted White House narrative of the president’s actions as the terrorist attack played out the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

“When is the exact minute he knew? We don’t have the timeline, and it was well before the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went over there. He only talked to the secretary of defense one time, so it’s obvious he knew that he had given the stand-down order and did not need to talk to the secretary of defense or anybody else after that,” McInerney said. “Then he goes the next day out on a fundraising campaign to Las Vegas. That is a low for the commander in chief of this great nation.”

He also insists the stand-down order could only come from one source: the president himself.

“The only person who could have given it was the president, and he had to give it through the secretary of defense, secretary of state. The word came out so it came from the combatant commands and other unites below, but nobody could have given that except the president of the United States, and that is very clear,” said McInerney, who noted that the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board likely reached a similar conclusion in its report, which is why so few have seen it and the leaders of that study refuse to appear before Congress. McInerney believes they should be subpoenaed.

While he believes Obama has a lot to answer for, McInerney made it clear that many top-level subordinates deserve a lot of the blame too, and that’s what makes the scandal so troubling.

“It’s going to have significant consequences because it impacts two CIA directors, two secretaries of state, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two secretaries of defense that are all involved now with the cover-up,” he said.

The general also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her comment at congressional hearings in January in which she bristled severely at accusations the administration concocted a plan to blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam YouTube video that got out of hand. Clinton slammed Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, saying, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

McInerney sees that as a low point in American history.

“That is one of the most despicable statements that any American has said about such a tragic incident when you lose people like that. It makes a huge difference that our troops know that they will always be protected as much as they can and we’ll do anything to protect them,” he said. “She says, what difference does it make? That will live with her til the day she dies. I can tell you, all the people I know, both active and retired, think that is one of the most despicable statements we have ever heard a civilian leader say in our country’s history.”

McInerney said the administration’s story is full of holes on a number of fronts, including the narrative about the supposed video protests. But the general said his own experience serving in that theater convinces him there was plenty of time and opportunity to deploy U.S. forces to protect Americans in Benghazi.

“We have never done that, that I know, in our military history, where we just abandoned and did not try to send in rescue forces. They could have gotten there from Aviano (Air Base in Italy) the F-16s. I used to fly F-16s out of Aviano when I was vice commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. I know that scene very well. They could have made it. They said they didn’t have tankers. They could have dropped their tanks. They could have recovered at a nearby Italian air base on an island,” he said.

“So it is unacceptable to me that we didn’t send those forces from Tripoli that we had there. We didn’t send F-16s and the FEST team to go in and to try to rescue those people. That was unacceptable, but from the get-go they had a narrative that they wanted to stick with that was a political narrative that the war was over, they had defeated al-Qaida,” he said.


  • Yes, and the consequences for the president and those who enabled Benghazi-gate should be more severe than those of Watergate (44%, 375 Votes)
  • Yes, Benghazi-gate was infinitely worse than the Watergate break-in. It’s truly in a league of its own (31%, 265 Votes)
  • Yes, the Watergate burglars didn’t result in deaths, let alone the killings of an ambassador and 3 American heroes (8%, 72 Votes)
  • Yes, the cold-hearted response to the crisis and the outrageous, ongoing cover-up far exceed Watergate (8%, 67 Votes)
  • Yes, of course it is. But the left-leaning media will not hold this president accountable as they did with Nixon (7%, 58 Votes)
  • No, Watergate was clearly a premeditated crime, and Benghazi was a combination of ineptitude and cover-up (less than 1%, 4 Votes)
  • Yes, it’s as least as bad, and Watergate produced jail terms (less than 1%, 4 Votes)
  • No, this is a ridiculous attempt by nutty right-wingers to advocate for Obama’s impeachment (less than 1%, 2 Votes)
  • No, of course not. Watergate reached the highest level of the White House. Benghazi was a mishandling by the state department (less than 1%, 1 Votes)
  • Yes, the cover-up in Benghazi is at least as disgraceful and documented as Watergate (less than 1%, 1 Votes)
  • Other (less than 1%, 1 Votes)
  • No, this is a political witch hunt to weaken Democrats before the 2014 election (0%, 0 Votes)
  • No, and at this point, what difference does it make?! (0%, 0 Votes)
  • No, I’m confident the Obama administration made the right call in Benghazi (0%, 0 Votes)
  • No, Republicans will put ‘-gate’ at the end of any Obama issue (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 850



Nearly 70,000 Petition Administration to Tell the Truth About Benghazi, 25,000 in Past 24 Hours

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from .

Posted by Craig Bannister

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) said today it has obtained nearly 70,000 signatures – 25,000 in just the past day – to a petition demanding the truth from the Obama Administration about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya eight months ago. That attack resulted in the assassination of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.

“The Obama Administration has been stonewalling and withholding information about this attack from the very start,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.

“We are now learning important new information from people who were on the ground on September 11, 2012. There are many critical questions facing the Obama Administration – including former Secretary of State Clinton.”

These questions include:

  • Why did the State Department strip the Benghazi facility of security even as threats escalated?
  • Did the Administration order rescuing forces to ‘stand down’ – leading to the deaths of brave Americans fighting for their lives, outgunned in a hostile land?
  • Did the Administration lie to cover up its failures and downplay the terrorist threat in the middle of an election season?

“The American people deserve answers. The American people deserve the truth. It’s our hope that the hearing in the House tomorrow begins to uncover the real facts behind what happened in Benghazi – what our government knew and when,” Sekulow said.

“With continually changing stories and inaccurate accounts, the American people have been misled. Terrorists attacked American soil – our embassy – we need the truth and accountability,” the petition reads.

The ACLJ is notifying the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is conducting tomorrow’s hearing, about the petition response and will continue to add names in support of Congressional action to get to the bottom of what happened in Libya.



Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from .

Posted by BOB UNRUH

More serious than Watergate ‘because 4 Americans did in fact die’



To this day, it is not known what role President Richard Nixon played in the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, but the tape recordings from the White House confirm he and Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman discussed using the CIA to slow down the FBI investigation.

It was the cover-up, as history records, that eventually brought about Nixon’s resignation in disgrace.

Now, Congress is investigating an alleged cover-up of the terrorist attack Sept. 11, 2012, on the U.S. foreign service facility in Benghazi, Libya, amid predictions from prominent voices that the scandal will bring down the Obama administration.

Former Arkansas governor and onetime presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the bold prediction this week, ahead of a House hearing Wednesday that will feature witnesses of the attack.

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term,” he said. “I know that puts me on a limb. But this is not minor. It wasn’t minor when Richard Nixon lied to the American people and worked with those in his administration to cover up what really happened in Watergate.

“But, I remind you – as bad as Watergate was, because it broke the trust between the president and the people, no one died. This is more serious because four Americans did in fact die.”

Meanwhile, John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has also declared the Benghazi scandal could lead to Obama’s removal from office.

“This could be the hinge point,” he told Newsmax. “It’s that serious for them.”

Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in a Washington Times column that “the dam seems to be breaking on the nearly eight-month-long cover-up concerning the deadly jihadist attack on Americans and their facilities in Benghazi, Libya.”

After the foreign service facility in Benghazi was attacked, the Obama administration initially claimed Muslims spontaneously rioted over a little-known online video that defamed Islam’s founder.

But now there is evidence that the administration knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack and altered its talking points.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is digging into the truth, holding a hearing that calls on those who were in Benghazi to explain what happened.

The questions will probe who created the story that was delivered to America and why.

Hear Huckabee:


Critics have asserted that in the heat of the presidential election race, Obama, who had been campaigning on the claim that al-Qaida essentially were defeated, was unwilling to provide ammunition to his GOP critics by confirming such a brazen terror attack on America, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11.

The witnesses include State Department career worker Gregory Hicks, who already has provided sworn testimony that American resources were told to “stand down” that day while four Americans died.

That statement would directly conflict with multiple statements by the Obama administration.

Rep. Darrell Issa, D-Calif., pointed out that the Obama administration specifically denied that anyone was told to stand down.

The Washington Post also reported that U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets in a show of force. The embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack.

Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks’ coming testimony. It includes his report that the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told him he was sorry that his men had been held back.


Hicks said he received communication from Stevens, saying, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

In an interview with the Fox News Channel, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said getting the information is going to be a chore.

“There are people who want to testify that have been suppressed,” he said, according to the Washington Times“They’re scared to death of what the State Department is doing with them.”

Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack, has a huge stake in the outcome of the investigation, as she is considered the favorite for the 2016 Democratic Party nomination for president.

She famously unleashed an emotional outburst at an earlier hearing on Benghazi, dismissing questions about the reason for the attack with, “What difference does it make?”

Chaffetz expressed little confidence in what Obama and Clinton have told the public.

“We were certainly misled at every step of the way,” Chaffetz said.

In his Washington Times column, Gaffney noted the combination of congressional hearings along with reports that “long-silenced witnesses are determined to reveal what they know.

“At the instigation of Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and with encouragement from more than 700 special operations veterans and family members of those lost in Benghazi, some 135 legislators in the House of Representatives and three U.S. senators are calling for a special investigatory committee,” he wrote. “To be sure, Team Obama seems as determined as ever to defy efforts to ferret out the truth about Benghazi. In this, they have been aided by the failure of Congress to date to mount a single, concerted investigation of what led up to, happened during and took place after the attack.”

Gaffney wrote that it’s critical to know the truth about where Obama was during the attack and what was he doing.

“He evidently did not order a rescue operation,” he said. ” … We need to know why not, and what the president was doing instead of his first responsibility: protecting Americans.”

Gaffney said there are also questions about Hillary Clinton’s role, particularly why she failed “to intervene on behalf of her subordinates in harm’s way.”

Huckabee acknowledged that if Democrats continue to control the U.S. Senate, nothing will happen.

“They won’t let it happen, not because they’re protecting just the president, they’re trying to protect their entire political party. If they try to protect the president and their party, and do so at the expense of the truth, their president and their party will go down. Now, here’s what I’m going to suggest will happen – as the information and facts begin to come out, it will become so obvious that there was a concerted and very, very deliberate attempt to mislead this country and its people to lie to Congress, as well as to you.”

Huckabee continued: “When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern. And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, once commander of missions for the Army Rangers and now executive vice president for the Family Research Council, said the truth needs to come out about Benghazi.

In an interview published by WND, he said there has been no acceptable explanation for not rescuing Americans under siege in Benghazi, and nothing less than a special House committee investigation will satisfy him.

He said the lack of answers since has been bothering him for months, and that’s why he worked on a letter to Congress.

“I’ve been working this since not long after the events on the 11th of September. That said, the U.S. Congress has been sort of ignoring all of our efforts to try and get some full accounting on this thing,” Boykin said. “I just simply reached out to some people that I knew had a deep passion for this, that would in fact bring a different dimension to it and that’s the retired special operations guys that spent a good portion of their professional careers preparing for and executing these kinds of operations. They’ve risked their lives for this. They’ve seen people that have sacrificed their lives to save other Americans, and I knew these people would come on quickly and would come on with deep passion.”

The letter to the House of Representatives called for the creation of an investigative committee. It was signed by hundreds of members of the military.

Boykin said what’s baffling is why there was no attempt to rescue the Americans.

“Why was there no attempt to recover the bodies before they fell into the hands of the Libyans? We find that perplexing and inexcusable that we don’t have those answers,” he said.

Issa’s committee praised Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counter-terrorism; Hicks; and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer; for agreeing to testify.

The committee’s analysis indicates Clinton cut her own department’s counter-terrorism unit out of the situation, and a source reported the U.S. military could have reached Benghazi in time to save lives.

It’s not the first time talk of of impeaching Obama has come up.

Lawmakers who have broached the subject of impeachment include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Steve Stockman. Others include former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; and author and columnist Pat Buchanan.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. Nixon resigned before the full House voted on his impeachment.

Besides the Benghazi disaster, issues that have prompted the impeachment discussions include Obama’s Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, his decision to order the assassination of an American-born Muslim cleric who joined al-Qaida, his “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board even though Congress was not in recess, his appointment of many unvetted “czars,” his fight against enforcing immigration laws, amnesty, U.S. involvement in Libya and gun control.

Specifically on Benghazi, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused an anti-Muslim video on YouTube of inciting the attack. On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made five Sunday morning television appearances in which she claimed the attacks were spontaneous reactions to the obscure film. Obama mentioned the YouTube video six more times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.

However, there was never any kind of protest at the Benghazi compound that night.

WND also reported a March poll showed advocates for impeachment nearly equal to those against it. For example, regarding Obama’s campaign for amnesty to illegals, 44 percent said he should be impeached for it, while only 48 percent say he should not. And 46 percent said Obama should be impeached for launching the war to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, while 49 percent said no.

“Taken by itself, any of these questions about President Obama could be ignored, but it becomes much more questionable when all of these … administration actions are taken as a whole,” said Fritz Wenzel, whose public opinion and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies conducted the poll.

“Obama appears to have found a way to split the nation directly down the middle on each issue, but, as his plummeting poll numbers may now indicate, the American public may well be catching up with the cumulative effect of this administration’s handling of the Constitution and the federal government,” Wenzel said.

Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Obama.

Another recent call for impeachment came from rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent.

“There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment,” he said. “There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”

“It’s so diabolical,” he said.

Ted Nugent

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on his program that the Obama administration’s release of hundreds and potentially thousands of illegal-alien criminals from U.S. detention centers in connection with possible budget cuts is “an impeachable offense.”

“In what used to be considered (if we can remember this far back) normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense,” Limbaugh said. “This is action being taken against the country. … It is sheer madness to be doing this. It is petulant, it is childish.”

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.

On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin said she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.

See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:

Dennis Kucinich

See Texas congressman lobby for impeachment over gun control:

Texas Congressman lobby for Impeachment

See Andrew Napolitano talk about impeachment over the budget:

Andrew Napolitano

The idea of impeachment actually seems moderate given the results of another recent poll.

The poll, conducted by telephone by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind, found that 29 percent of Americans believe armed revolution may be necessary, with 5 percent saying they’re not sure.

While 18 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of independents believe that to be true, 44 percent of Republicans questioned in the poll said armed revolution may be needed.




Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from .

Posted by JOE KOVACS

‘This is significant. This is not a throwaway. That’s a dog whistle


President Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City, May 3, 2013.

PALM BEACH, Fla. – President Obama is sending secret, coded messages to Mexicans, letting citizens south of the border know that he agrees with their contention that much of the Southwestern U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico, claims radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Last week, Obama addressed students at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City, saying, “Our attitudes sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico that is depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings – and let’s admit it. Some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or thinks that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty or just wants to wall ourselves off. And in both countries, such distortions create misunderstandings that make it harder for us to move forward together. So I’ve come to Mexico because I think it’s time for us to put the old mind-sets aside. It’s time to recognize new realities, including the impressive progress of today’s Mexico.”

Limbaugh says he was at first puzzled by Obama’s statement that America was imposing its sovereignty on Mexico, before it finally struck him.

“This sovereignty business, this is significant. This is not a throwaway. That’s a dog whistle,” he said.

“It’s a huge dog whistle to radicalized young Hispanic voters. What he did was send signals to that voting block beneath the radar, because most people not gonna understand what is sovereignty business. That block that’s underneath the radar – Telemundo, Univision – he’s telling them that he agrees with them that California should still be Mexico and that New Mexico should still be Mexico.”

Limbaugh indicated Obama counts on the mainstream of America not hearing or understanding what he’s saying in speeches meant for foreigners.

“But we just blew his cover decoding this,” he continued. “I won’t be surprised if we get some blowback on this. They’ll start calling me a bunch of names and accusing me of making things up or accusing me of harboring hate for all these people. Accusing me of, once again, Limbaugh goes off on an extreme tangent, expect something like that, because this is huge. There are radicalized Mexicans [who believe] California’s still theirs, particularly Southern California. Arizona, New Mexico, radicals. And Obama’s just fueled ‘em. He just told ‘em he agrees with ‘em.”

Limbaugh called the coded messages “a big deal,” adding:

He didn’t talk about Mexico immigration policy. He didn’t talk about Mexico’s need to reform its government, its socialist policies. He didn’t talk about how America helps Mexico financially. He didn’t talk about how we feed and clothe and educate and provide health care to even those from Mexico who are illegally in the United States. The sovereignty business, if you wanted to go to an extreme, you could almost say that Obama has it actually backwards, that it’s Mexico imposing its sovereignty on us. Because we are being made to feed, clothe, and house and provide health care for its citizens. Is Mexico doing that for American citizens? Huh! Try to go down there and become a Mexican. You can’t do it. Their immigration laws, you don’t even want to mess with it, folks. You do not want to mess with it. They do not play games with their immigration.

When has a president of the United States ever attacked America’s sovereignty? I think this is a first. I am not aware of any president ever attacking America’s sovereignty. And in coded language, which is what this was, he’s winking and nodding and dog whistling to the radicalized – not all of them – the radicalized Hispanics. (imitating Obama) “I get it, I get it, we should never have taken Mexico. It’s really yours. I get it, I get it. We’ve been mean. We’ve been imposing our way too long.” Time for a new mind-set.

In one final political dig, Limbaugh noted, “By the way, the warmonger president who took Mexico, James Polk, was a Democrat. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.”



DUH!!! Report: Suspects had no gun licenses

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from

Posted by Mike Lillis

The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.

Because Massachusetts state law bars handgun ownership for those younger than 21, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was the only brother who could have obtained a license from the town of Cambridge, Mass., where he lived. But he didn’t take that step, Dan Riviello, spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department, told Reuters.

“There is no record of him having a license to carry,” Riviello said, according to the news service.



Massachusetts state law allows residents under 21 to have rifles, but only those weapons holding 10 rounds of ammunition or less, and only then if the holder has a police-issued ID card. Several local jurisdictions where the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, has lived and studied told Reuters they have no record of issuing him such a card.


More from The Hill:
• Boston surveillance footage sparks privacy debate
• Lawmakers question FBI handling of terror suspect
• George W. Bush: ‘No need to defend myself’
• Dems scramble to change subject after gun bill collapses
• Obama raised $43 million for second inauguration
• Senate poised to back Internet sales tax


Police say Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went on a deadly shooting spree Thursday and Friday, killing a university policeman before confronting local officers in a wild firefight in the middle of a Watertown, Mass., street that left the elder brother dead and a transit policeman injured.

In between those two attacks, the brothers allegedly carjacked a motorist at gunpoint, later releasing the unnamed victim unharmed.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev then led law enforcers on an exhaustive manhunt, which ended in his capture Friday night after yet another dramatic shootout with police.

He remains in a Boston hospital in serious but stable condition, according to the head of the Boston police, recovering from injuries that may include a self-induced gunshot wound to his neck.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Slapped Down by Senate, Obama Prepares Executive Gun Orders

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all



I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a reblogged from.


Posted by Tad Cronn

A minor miracle occurred the other day when the Senate, despite months of buildup and lobbying by the Obama Administration, rejected an entire slate of gun-control proposals.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats who jumped party lines voted against the gun grab because of principle or because they fear for their jobs. Either way, they wound up doing the right thing.

And boy, was Obama ticked. If he had clenched his jaw any tighter during his press conference, his teeth would have started shooting out of his mouth from the pressure, like blown rivets.

The classic Obama tantrum should be taken as a warning sign. Obama’s not one of those guys who just takes his ball and goes home to brood. He’s the type who nurses thoughts of revenge.

On Thursday, “Crazy Uncle Joe” Biden briefed the troops to reassure them that the Man Who Would be King would not be so easily defeated by the majority of American rabble who want to keep their right to self-defense.

During a conference call which was supposed to be kept from the press, Biden assured gun-control groups, lobbyists and other participants that Obama would follow up his defeat in the Senate with new executive orders on guns.

It’s been Obama’s pattern throughout his presidency to go around Congress whenever he suffers a legislative defeat.

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she would find ways to bend the law, such as via the “Slaughter Rule,” to make sure that Obama got his way in the House, and she was usually able to bully Harry Reid into making the Senate roll over. Since voters knocked Pelosi off her dais, Obama either has resorted to ordering his “czars” and Cabinet members to implement incremental policies that don’t require congressional approval but have the same effect as the laws, or he has issued executive orders.

It’s the executive orders that are most dangerous to the country because they further solidify his monarchical approach to the presidency. The turning point was when Obama, frustrated by the failure of the Dream Act to pass in Congress, unilaterally wrote it into law with an executive order essentially granting amnesty to millions of children of illegal immigrants being educated in public schools.

Congress didn’t challenge that order, which completely ignored the constitutional separation of powers and secured for the president the power to initiate and pass laws.

So if Obama now wants to write an executive order on background checks, limiting gun magazines or even outright outlawing guns, Congress will have a much harder time challenging it, no matter how far Obama feels like pushing his gun-grab agenda.

Brace yourselves for federal gunfight, part two.

Read more:



Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all



I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a reblogged from

Posted by JOHN NOLTE

29 Sep 2012

Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” President Barack Obama: Sept 6th, 2012, at the Democratic Convention.

Late yesterday afternoon, in an obvious attempt to rescue President Obama from what could and should be a brutal round of Sunday shows examining the cover up the White House is currently engaged in with respect to the sacking of our consulate in Libya, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a statement revising its assessment of the attack. It is now the official position of the American intelligence community that what happened in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack.

The statement comes from Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence — the office that speaks for the intelligence community as a whole:

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

This is not news. In the last few days, the White House and State Department have both made statements saying exactly that. 

This, however, is news and should be read carefully:

In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

There’s no question that what we have here is the DNI (Obama appointee James Clapper) attempting to fall on his sword and to put an end to the drumbeat of scandal coming mostly from Republicans and right-of-center media. What’s been exposed, just weeks before a presidential election, is the fact that in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, the White House and State Department knowingly misled and lied to the American people about what they knew and when they knew it.

But what the DNI statement is really meant to do is muddy the waters.

The statement deliberately omits any information as to exactly when the determination was made that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. Most importantly, nothing in the statement contradicts numerous news reports that U.S. officials were certain within 24 hours that they were dealing with a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous protest gone bad. 

In other words, the DNI statement is so intentionally vague that it could read as confirmation that our government knew within 24 hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and still lied about it for days afterward.

And this, my friends, is how a cover up works.

And so, the only response to this cynical muddying of the waters is a 30,000 foot approach that might help connect some dots.

Standing on the shoulders of those who have done the admirable work of digging into and investigating this story (most notably, Brett Baier of Fox News, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Jake Tapper of ABC News, and the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake), what I want to do is lay out a timeline of known facts that answer a very simple question:

What did our government know and what were we told when they knew it?

What you’ll see below was inspired by the vitally important video-report Brett Baier closed “Special Report” with last night, but this will hopefully go into even greater detail. We’ll also look into three specific areas: 1) Security failures. 2) The lies. 3) The attempted cover up of numbers one and two.


In an attempt to justify that the security at our Libyan consulate in Benghazi was “adequate,” the White House laid a narrative along two tracks. The first, obviously, was that there was no way anyone could’ve predicted that a “spontaneous” protest would go bad. In fact, that defense would be the White House position for a full eight days, until Sept 20th, when White House Spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit it was “self-evident” Benghazi was a terror attack.

The second narrative track, however, is as shaky as the first. Essentially, the Administration’s line is that, based on what we knew, security was adequate.

That’s a judgment call, I guess, but let’s look at what we did know for a fact prior to the sacking of the consulate and determine if having no Marines, no bullet-proof windows, no threat assessment, and no real security other than locks on the doors was indeed adequate…

1. We’ll start with what is the most underreported fact of this entire episode: the fact that this very same consulate had been targeted and attacked just a few months earlier, on June 6, in retaliation for a drone strike on a top al-Qaeda operative:

U.S. mission in Benghazi attacked to avenge al Qaeda

The United States diplomatic office in the Libyan city of Benghazi was attacked Tuesday night, the embassy in the capital Tripoli said Wednesday.

A Libyan security source told CNN a jihadist group that is suspected of carrying out the strike, the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, left leaflets at the scene claiming the attack was in retaliation for the death of Libyan al Qaeda No. 2 Abu Yahya al Libi.

“Fortunately, no one was injured” in the improvised explosive device attack, the embassy said.

2. It was the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, a date that should mean heightened security regardless of what our intelligence says. 

3. In the days just prior to the Benghazi attack (September 9 and 10), al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri….

….posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization’s second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan.

In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi’s “blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders,” leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists.

Another version of the video was actually posted on YouTube on September 9[.]

4. Just a couple of months prior to the Benghazi attack….

…an unclassified report published in August that fingers Qumu as a key al Qaeda operative in Libya. The report (“Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile”) was prepared by the research division of the Library of Congress (LOC) under an agreement with the Defense Department’s Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office.

The report details al Qaeda’s plans for Libya, including the growth of a clandestine terrorist network that has attempted to hide its presence. The U.S military has concluded that al Qaeda is in the final phase of a three-step process for developing a full-blown al Qaeda affiliate.

5. Our assassinated Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, feared al-Qaeda’s growing influence in Libya and  believed he was on a hit list.

6. Sean Smith, one of our diplomats killed along with Stevens, also feared for his life prior to the attack:

One of the American diplomats killed Tuesday in a bloody attack on a Libyan Consulate told pals in an online gaming forum hours earlier that he’d seen suspicious people taking pictures outside his compound and wondered if he and his team might “die tonight.” …

But hours before the bloody assault, Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of “Goonswarm,” Smith’s online gaming team or “guild.”

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Within hours of posting that message, Smith, a husband and father of two, was dead. Gianturco, who could not be reached for further comment, got the word out to fellow gamers, according to Wired.

What we have here are six concrete, non-speculative red flags that indicated our consulate and Ambassador were in danger, vulnerable to attack, and targets.

To justify a lack of adequate security, the Obama administration spent a week blaming the attack on a “spontaneous” demonstration they  couldn’t have possibly predicted would occur. We now know that’s simply not true. But here are two more justifications we were told:

1. CNN Sept 21: Clinton says Stevens was not worried about being hit by al-qaeda:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday she has “absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis” to suggest that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

The remark came after a source familiar with Stevens’ thinking told CNN that in the months leading up to his death, Stevens worried about constant security threats in Benghazi and mentioned that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list.

So Clinton is saying that Stevens wasn’t on a al-Qaeda hit list. Stevens’ diary says he was. Oh. Okay.

2. White House Spokesman Jay Carney on Sept 14: [emphasis added]

ABC NEWS’ JAKE TAPPER: One of my colleagues in the Associated Press asked you a direct question, was there any direct intelligence suggesting that there would be an attack on the U.S. consulates. You said that a story — referred to a story being false and said there was no actionable intelligence, but you didn’t answer his question. Was there any intelligence, period — intelligence, period, suggesting that there was going to be an attack on either the –

CARNEY: There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is — I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this, that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false.

Note Carney’s careful wording; how determined he is to stay in the arena of “actionable” intelligence and intelligence that “could have been acted on to prevent these attacks.” Also note how Carney never answers Tapper’s general question about “any intelligence” or intelligence in general. 

Summation: Let’s give our government the benefit of the doubt and assume the stories about Stevens’ fear of being an al-Qaeda target are incorrect — or, if true, that for some inexplicable reason he never communicated those fears to his superiors.  Here’s what is indisputable…

The Obama administration didn’t act upon the fact that the anniversary of 9/11 is an obvious date to be wary of or the fact that our consulate had already been targeted and attacked just a few months prior. We also didn’t act upon a report that said al-Qaeda’s influence was growing in Libya or a video-threat released by an al-Qaeda chief just days prior to the red-flag date of 9/11.

But security was adequate.


Taking the just-released DNI statement at its word, let’s argue that for a time our intelligence services believed the fatal Benghazi attack was a “spontaneous” protest gone bad. Then, on a date not specified in the DNI statement, the assessment was updated to a pre-meditated terrorist attack committed by affiliates of al-Qaeda.

None of that contradicts what we already knew.

According to a number of reports based on numerous sources, we can ascertain exactly when our government determined Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and that was just 24 hours after the attack.

Let’s run through the facts:

1. In a Rose Garden statement the morning after the attack, the President himself referred to the attacks as terror:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

2.  “Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day…”

… in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The sources said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike. 

3.  “In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya…

…U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s North African affiliate.

In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press.

4. “Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi…”

U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Again, let’s be clear: The DNI statement released yesterday does not dispute any of this. And yet….


For an extensive rundown of the false and misleading statements surrounding the Benghazi attack, let me refer you again to Brett Baier’s video report and to a Washington Post rundown put together by Glenn Kessler.

What I want to focus on here is the administration’s narrative. There’s simply no longer any question that in the days following the attack, a coordinated White House narrative was orchestrated that was intentionally misleading and completely false.

And that narrative went something like this:

1. There was no security failure at the consulate. The attack was birthed by a spontaneous protest gone bad — so how could we have known?

2. Obama’s brag before the country that al-Qaeda was on the road to defeat just five days before the Benghazi attack remains true. After all, this wasn’t a terrorist attack, it was a protest gone bad.

3. Obama’s Middle East policy of disengagement and assuming his own awesomeness would buy us goodwill with radicals worked. After all, these massive, deadly protests in two dozen countries have nothing to do with anti-American sentiment; the bad guy is a Coptic Christian filmmaker who insulted Muhammad.

I’ll reiterate that this is how a cover up works. You don’t tell the truth and you don’t lie; what you do is manufacture a false narrative built on misleading statements that aren’t outright lies. As you can see, many of the statements made by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Jay Carney, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are loaded with caveats and escape hatches: “Based on what we know…” and “What we do know is…”

Defenders of the President and his administration officials will and are using these escape hatches to defend the intentional spinning of a patently false narrative. But there’s absolutely no question that for a full week this false narrative — a glaring lie of omission  — was also used to strike down, downplay, dismiss, and distract from any raising of the question that what might’ve happened in Benghazi was the work of terrorists.

Moreover, this narrative was so intentionally stifling and oppressive, it wouldn’t even allow room for an either/or possibility. The lie of omission was that no administration official told us that what happened “could’ve been” or “might’ve been” a terrorist attack. Quite the opposite. The narrative was used to tell us the raising of that possibility was outrageous.

This, even in the face of numerous news outlets reporting just a day or two after the attack that terrorism was a likely motive. On September 12, both Fox News and CBS News reported the possibility, and on September 13, CNN joined in.

And yet, this narrative lie of omission that was used to scape-goat this filmmaker and to shout down anyone who even entertained the notion of terrorism, remained firmly in place until Sept. 20, the day Jay Carney finally admitted it was “self-evident” terrorism was behind the attack.

But just day before, on Sept 19,  the White House was using this narrative to treat those who even raised the possibility of a terror attack like they were crazy. Watch this bizarre exchange between Carney and CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante a full eight days after the attack:


That memorable exchange occurred the very same day National  Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen told Congress that the Benghazi attack was indeed an act of terror.



Not every statement made by an administration official contained the necessary escape hatches to avoid being outright lies. In fact, if you look closely at numerous statements made by Susan Rice and Jay Carney, regardless of how much benefit of the doubt Obama’s defenders wish to summon — both of them looked the American people in the eye and lied. 

Let’s start with Carney.

The following is a transcript of a Sept. 14 exchange between Carney and ABC’s Jake Tapper: [emphasis added]

TAPPER: Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

CARNEY: Well, as you know, there — we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be –

TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough.

CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region [1]–

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. [2] The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy.

TAPPER: The group around the Benghazi post was well-armed, it was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have — but I answered the question.

ANOTHER REPORTER: But your operating assumptions — your operating assumption is that that was — that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework; that’s the operating assumption?

CARNEY: It’s not an assumption –

TAPPER: Administration officials have said that it looks like this was something other than –

CARNEY: I think there have been misreports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned. [3]

What I’ve bolded and numbered are undeniably false statements. On Sept. 14, a full two days after the attack, Carney is falsely but declaratively stating as fact that…

1. “[L]et’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.”

Carney isn’t stating this as a possibility, he is stating it as settled fact. Even if you give the White House as much benefit of the doubt as possible, no one believed that was settled fact. And yet,  this is what the White House told America.

2.  “[W]e have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

That’s just false. By this time that was probably the only information the White House had.

3. Carney doubles down on the patently false “no information” claim.

As we now know, numerous reports based on numerous sources say that within 24 hours of the sacking of our consulate, we not only had information that al-Qaeda was behind it, but on day one, in order to release the necessary resources, we had designated it as a terror attack.

If that isn’t bad enough, a full five days later, on Sept. 19, Carney had this exchange withCBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante: [emphasis added]

PLANTE: You are still maintaining that there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack–

CARNEY: Bill, let me just repeat now–

PLANTE: But how is it that the attackers had RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars…

CARNEY: Bill, I know you’ve done a little bit of reading about Libya since the unrest that began with Gaddafi. The place has an abundance of weapons.

PLANTE: But you expect a street mob to come armed that way?

CARNEY: There are unfortunately many bad actors throughout the region and they’re very armed. ….

PLANTE: But they planned to do it, don’t you think?

CARNEY: They might, or they might not. All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated. There’s an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that is where the investigation has led. Our interest is in finding out the facts of what happened, not taking what we’ve read in the newspaper and making bold assertions that we know what happened.

Once again, you have Carney stating declaratively and falsely stating that “we [still] do not yet have indication” that the Benghazi attack was pre-planned — eight days after the attack!

Again, under the most generous benefit of the doubt one can summon, what you have in these two examples is the White House lying to the media and to the American people.

Impossibly enough, what Susan Rice did was even worse.

On September 16, a full four days after the attack, and at least three days after the White House knew  Benghazi had been a terror attack, Rice was sent out on a round-robin of five Sunday morning news shows to push a narrative the White House knew was false.

What’s worse, however, is that like Carney, Rice also made declaratively false statements: [emphasis added]

Fox News Sunday:

RICE: The best information and the best assessment we have today is that was, in fact, not a pre-planned and pre-meditated attack. That what happened initially — it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don’t see at this point — signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack.Obviously we’ll wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

Face the Nation:

As soon as the president of Libya’s National Congress, Mohamed Magariaf, finished telling host Bob Scieffer….

The way these perpetrators acted and moved, I think we– and they’re choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no– this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined. months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their– since their arrival.

…Ambassador Rice took her turn:

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

This Week:

JAKE TAPPER: It just seems that the U.S. government is powerless as this — as this maelstrom erupts.

RICE: It’s actually the opposite. First of all, let’s be clear about what transpired here.What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region…

TAPPER: Tunisia, Khartoum…

RICE: … was a result — a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. We have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, there is — that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.

Rice declaratively states as settled fact that the Benghazi attack was a “direct result” of the video.

Meet the Press:

DAVID GREGORY:  Was there a failure here that this administration is responsible for, whether it’s an intelligence failure, a failure to see this coming, or a failure to adequately protect U.S. embassies and installations from a spontaneous kind of reaction like this?

SUSAN RICE:  David, I don’t think so.  First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that– that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent.  In Cairo, we did have indications that there was the risk that the video might spark some– some protests and our embassy, in fact, acted accordingly, and had called upon the Egyptian authorities to– to reinforce our facility.  What we have seen as– with respect to the security response, obviously we had security personnel in Benghazi, a– a significant number, and tragically, among those four that were killed were two of our security personnel.  But what happened, obviously, overwhelmed the security we had in place which is why the president ordered additional reinforcements to Tripoli and– and why elsewhere in the world we have been working with governments to ensure they take up their obligations to protect us and we reinforce where necessary.

Note how, like Carney earlier, Rice rephrases the question into “actionable” intelligence. Because we most certainly had intelligence, including a video threat from a top al-Qaeda operative.


As if all of the above isn’t on its own frustrating, heart-breaking, maddening, and unforgivable enough, let me close with one more deceit.

During her Sunday blitz, and in an attempt to explain the criminal and fatal lack of security in Benghazi, Susan Rice told Chris Wallace this:

WALLACE: And the last question: Terror cells in Benghazi had carried out five attacks since April, including one at this same consulate– a bombing at this same consulate in June. Should U.S. security been tighter at that consulate given the history of terror activity in Benghazi?

RICE: We obviously did have a strong security presence and unfortunately, two of the four Americans who died in Benghazi were there to provide security. But that obviously wasn’t sufficient in the circumstances to prevent the overrun of the consulate. This is among the things that will obviously be looked at as the investigation as the investigation unfolds.

That’s also not true.

Whatever security there was, the White House cannot use two dead Navy SEALs as window dressing that makes some sort of case that says, Well, at least the White House had Navy SEALs protecting the ambassador and the consulate — because regardless of the spin Rice put on it, that simply wasn’t the case:

As recently as Sunday, UN Ambassador Susan Rice gave a similar description. “Two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them,” Rice told ABC’s This Week program.

In fact, officials said, the two men were personal service contractors whose official function was described as “embassy security,” but whose work did not involve personal protection of the ambassador or perimeter security of the compound. …

They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him when he traveled from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, the officials said.

The two ex-Seals and others engaged in a lengthy firefight with the extremists who attacked the compound, a fight that stretched from the inner area of the consulate to an outside annex and a nearby safe house — a location that the insurgents appeared to know about, the officials said.

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes asks:

Some of the misleading information provided to the public could not possibly have been a result of incomplete or evolving intelligence. The information about security for the ambassador and the compound, for instance, would have been readily available to administration officials from the beginning. And yet when Susan Rice appeared on five political talk shows on September 16, she erroneously claimed that the two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were, along with several colleagues, providing security. They were not. Why did she say this?

Good question. But I have a better one: Why did our president say the same:

Glen and Tyrone had each served America as Navy SEALs for many years, before continuing their service providing security for our diplomats in Libya. They died as they lived their lives — defending their fellow Americans, and advancing the values that all of us hold dear.

This is a legitimate scandal of the highest order. Four Americans are dead, our government is still attempting to cover up what really happened, and as of this writing. the F.B.I still hasn’t gained access to the consulate.

And what’s the response of those charged with the sacred duty of holding our government accountable?


Holder gets stormy reception from House panel

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information

and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to

the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my

blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all



I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to

different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a reblogged from.



Holder in the hot seat

The fact there is no love lost between Attorney General Eric Holder and House Republicans was on clear display again Thursday afternoon at a stormy House appropriations panel hearing which culminated with the subcommittee’s chairman declaring he’d given up on Holder and his stewardship of the Justice Department.

“Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it,” an exasperated Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) declared after Holder refused to commit to a deadline to answer 91 questions Wolf had prepared. The lawmaker, who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, said he planned to forego asking the questions orally so that Holder could leave the session in order to attend a meeting relating to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.

“We’re just going to ignore you. I’m going to ignore you,” said Wolf, who complained earlier in the two-hour-long hearing that Holder and his aides had not responded to a slew of letters seeking information on various subjects. “Your civil rights division is a rats’ nest….I think you’ve been a failure with regard to the prison industries. You were a failure with regard, with regard to prison rape….If you’re not going to answer the questions….”

“Frankly, I’m not going to pay any attention to you because your positions with regard to these budget….You come up here. You were initially going to stay for the whole time. If you’re not going to answer these questions, then we’re not going to pay any attention to you. Hearing adjourned,” Wolf declared.

“No, Mr. Chairman….if you want me to stay, I’ll stay. I will stay,” Holder replied. “That meeting will just have to wait. If you want to ask some more questions, let’s go.”

“It is an important meeting, but I’m making a determination, if you want me to stay, I’ll stay,” the attorney general said.

“They told me it dealt with the Boston issue. Is that correct? That’s an important issue and I wouldn’t want you to miss it,” Wolf said, rising to his feet. “The hearing is adjourned. I think you ought to go to the meeting.”

Ignoring the fact that the hearing was adjourned, twice, Holder launched into a defense of his tenure at the department.

“You said some things that I think are a little unfair with regard to the civil rights division,” Holder said. “A lot of what the inspector general found in the civil rights division preceded my time as attorney general. We have taken steps to try to deal with the issues that were identified there.”

The chief of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, has been nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next secretary of labor. However, Holder conceded that “there’s no question that work needs to be done” to address further the problems described in the IG report.

The attorney general also said he’d worked diligently on the prison rape issue and to provide work for federal prisoners. He also took a shot at the management of the department under his GOP predecessors.

“I’m proud of what we’ve done across the board at the Justice Department in the last four and a half years. I’m proud of what I’ve done as attorney general. The department that we have now is fundamentally different than the department I found when I got there. We don’t hire people on the biases of political orientation. We don’t do things as was done in the previous administration. We don’t write memos that say that torture is appropriate when dealing with interrogation techniques.”

Relations between Holder and Republican-led House were never good, but went completely sour last June when lawmakers voted, 255-67, to hold Holder in criminal contempt for failing to turn over all the records a House committee subpoenaed about the department’s response to the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal.

In an interview in February, Holder said he had no respect for those who joined in what he dismissed as an act of “partisan sport.” All but three House Republicans backed the criminal contempt measure.

“I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder told ABC News. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

Earlier in Thursday’s hearing, Holder came under fire from GOP lawmakers for refusing to commit to brief them by a particular time about whether the Justice Department recommended to the Pentagon that it not label as an act of terrorism the attack at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. They pointed to an interview Army Secretary John McHugh did recently in which he suggested, but did not say outright, that the Justice Department advised the military against awarding medals to those injured in the attack because doing so could undermine the court martial for the alleged perpetrator, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan.

Hasan had been in touch by e-mail with Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, but investigators have indicated they don’t believe Al-Awlaki or others directed or helped plan the shooting spree.

Two victims of the attack and the wife of a soldier killed in the attack were in the audience at the hearing, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) pointed out as he raised the issue. The lawmaker, who once served on the base, said the victims were being denied medical care and other benefits as a result of being denied Purple Hearts.

Hasan is being prosecuted in the military justice system, not by the Justice Department, something Holder noted. “If we’ve had some interaction with [military prosecutors], I’m just not aware of it,” the attorney general said.

When Holder refused to commit to brief Rooney and other lawmakers about any such contacts, Wolf’s frustration boiled over.

“We’re never getting responses. Once you get out of here, you’re gone, there will be no response,” the chairman said.

At one point, Holder replied: “As soon as I can….that’s the best I can do for you.”

The attorney general eventually said he could “probably” brief lawmakers by the end of next month on any DOJ involvement in the case. He also thanked the victims for their service and said they had his “sympathy for the losses they’ve had to endure.” After the hearing, he spoke briefly with the three audience members involved.

Fattah tried to deflect some of the GOP anger, saying he thinks the Pentagon is “completely wrong” to have declared the event an incident of “workplace violence.” However, he said the decision to hold back on the awards may have been justified by a desire to “further the effective prosecution of the gentleman who did this.” Fattah, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, also urged Rooney to take up the issue with McHugh directly.

Rooney conceded that might have been the best way to proceed, but he also lashed out on behalf of the victims. “There’s a guy in the back of the room who has a bullet that needs to be removed from his body,” the lawmaker said angrily. “He has to wait with a bullet in his body until we figure out what the hell we’re doing in here.”

Wolf’s frustration with Holder seemed to extend beyond the attorney general to his staff. “They’re passing you notes left and right on every issue,” the schoolmarmish chairman complained. Later, he abruptly called out some of Holder’s aides seated in the front row.

“I see you whispering there, back and forth,” the chairman barked.


Guns: The Left’s True Aim, and How to Thwart It

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information

and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to

the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my

blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all



I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to

different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a reblogged from

posted by Lewis Dovland

We must not lose focus on the end goal of progressives regarding guns.  Make no mistake; regardless of what they say, their ultimate goal is confiscation of all guns in America.  And a “universal background check” will get them closer to this nirvana than the banning of a few selected weapons ever could.

To understand progressive methodology, let’s use another similar issue: the gay marriage agenda.  Say the current definition of “marriage” as it has been for thousands of years is represented by “A” on a continuum of A to Z, with “Z” being the left’s ultimate goal.  Asking for “Z” now would be a major overreach (and “Z” is much farther than just gay marriage), so progressives ask for “N,” which is just enough of a stretch to make people push back only a little.

So to protect a foundation of society, the people of California overwhelmingly vote a law that defines marriage — an appropriate state’s rights issue.  The left goes to court and has California’s decision overturned.  The people next pass a state constitutional amendment, and again the left gets it overturned, and now it is in the Supreme Court.  The left also applies public pressure through the media to brand anyone who doesn’t agree as a homophobe or hater, all the while controlling the educational curriculum so only one side of the argument is taught to our children.

Eventually, progressives will get only “C” this time, which is really all they wanted for now.  But note something powerful here.  “C” becomes the new “A.”  So there is never a way to back it up to the original “A.”  Over time, they will win another “C” that becomes “A.”

Before long we find that we are at “H” on the original A-Z scale, but “H” is now considered “A”.  And so it continues.

Note the steps:

  • Ask for more than you know you can achieve.  In fact, ask for something you don’t even want.  Then everyone will be focused more on that than on your real goal.
  • Use all media and educational tools to inculcate your view in the public and low-information voters.
  • Develop your own lexicon, redefine words, and then keep pounding those words into the psyche each time you speak.
  • Attack your opponents not on logic or facts, but by name-calling and emotion, and accuse them of being “obstructionist.”
  • When you concede, always be sure you’ve moved the marker a little farther toward your goal.
  • Reset the measures so that the new position is now considered “normal,” which makes it impossible for anyone to argue against or reverse.
  • Never, ever give up or stop pushing, even when you (temporarily) lose.

How does this strategy apply to the gun issue?  At this time, the left does not expect to restrict the sale of “assault weapons.”  That effort is a deliberate misdirection to throw us off-base so we are jousting with the wrong target and using up energy.

What the left wants is universal background checks.  If leftists get that, they actually leapfrog the restrictions on certain weapon types.  How?

No one can buy a modern operational firearm from a licensed dealer today without a background check.  Period.  There is no “gun show loophole,” because to buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer — the only entity permitted to sell at gun shows — one must pass the background check or show a firearms license.

Not controlled are sales of guns between private parties.  You can sell me your gun in a face-to-face transaction without requiring that you get a background check on me.

Look at where this is going.  The left is asking to ban the sale of “assault” weapons.  Using the marriage example above, this is moving the marker from “A” to about “N” on the scale, since “Z” would be the total ban and confiscation of guns.  The left knows that a ban is not possible, although “Z” is their ultimate goal.  But what are they doing?

Ask for “N” when you know that “C” is possible, use the media and lexicon (“assault weapon,” “gun show loophole”) to pound home the message, demonize those who disagree, and get media support.  Use emotion — see Obama’s recent “shame on us” speech with the Newtown families standing behind him.

And then, the final, sneaky step.  Say, “Well, the American people just don’t understand the need to ban these assault weapons, so at least give us background check legislation.  That is not too much to ask for the children’s sake.”  And if we don’t agree to that, they call us “obstructionist” and other names, trying to shame us into action.  If they succeed, we will have just moved from “A” to “S” on the scale, well past “N.”  How?

Enforcing the universal background check will require registration of all guns in a national database; otherwise, how and where do we prevent private sales without background checks?  And the details of how to enforce the background checks will be handled by the legislation, neatly out of the direct view of the public.  Once that occurs, the government will have a list of all legal guns and owners in the U.S., making confiscation extremely easy when the time comes.

And where are the teeth to make a gun owner register a gun, when he never expects to sell it?  All the left needs to do is make possession of an unregistered gun a felony — a “minor” clause in the law when they craft it.  Then, when you defend yourself at 3 a.m. from an armed home invasion and your gun is found, you will be in more trouble than the perps.  As a felon, you then lose your right to own any guns. 

That is the goal here.  Watch for the left to cave on the assault weapon ban and “settle” for just universal background checks.  Sounds innocuous, right?  If granted, it will provide the left with much, much more than they ever hoped to get at this juncture.

Our answer must be: “Never, never, never — not one inch.”  No universal background checks, ever.  Enforce the laws we have now.  Otherwise, game over for us.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Tough Gun Votes Could End Careers on Capitol Hill

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and

advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information

and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to

the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my

blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all



I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to

different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a rebloged from

posted by Jill Lawrence

TARP, taxes, Obamacare, and guns have been blamed for scores of defeats in the last 20 years.

Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., face red-state challenges. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There aren’t too many votes with the potential to make or break a congressional career, but the upcoming gun-control showdown on Capitol Hill is one of them. For true believers aligned with their states, red or blue, the choice is easy. The rest could face difficult questions, such as “Am I willing to lose my job over this?” and “Will I be able to live with my vote?”

Rightly or wrongly, scores of defeats in the past 20 years have been blamed on votes that live in political infamy: Bill Clinton’s 1993 budget that raised taxes, the 10-year assault-weapons ban passed in 1994, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (better known as the bank bailout), and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare).

Support for gun control in particular is perceived as a career killer, largely because of the outsized reputation of the National Rifle Association. The group’s electoral record isn’t as bulletproof as you might think. As Dorothy Samuels noted in The New York Times in 2009, several factors contributed to the Republican sweep of 1994. Clinton went on to highlight his gun-control successes in his winning 1996 campaign. And four years later, gun-rights stalwarts backed by the NRA lost to Democrats in Senate elections in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington.

So you can buck the NRA and win. That could be particularly true this year, when the NRA is on the wrong side of public-opinion polls that show nine in 10 Americans support universal background checks for prospective gun buyers. Still, crossing the NRA is not risk-free. It could encourage primary challenges next year against Republicans. It could also boost GOP odds in conservative states now represented by Democrats, such as Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

But voting the NRA line isn’t entirely without risk, either. Lawmakers could be accused of doing the bidding of a group so far right that it even opposes a new bipartisan compromise to close major loopholes in the background-check system. Or, as former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough put it this week on his MSNBC show, Morning Joe: “If you’re Kay Hagan in North Carolina and you’re Mary Landrieu and you’re running for reelection (next) year, do you really want to go to women’s groups and say, ‘You know, I didn’t have the courage to vote to make sure we could have criminal background checks so rapists couldn’t go and buy guns?’ ” He went on to say that “anybody that votes against criminal background checks” is basically saying “let’s give them a free pass” to buy guns.

There’s room for ambivalence toward the proposals coming before the Senate this week, including expanded background checks and limits on assault weapons and magazine clips. You don’t have to be a Second Amendment fanatic to wonder, as Kathleen Parker did Wednesday in The Washington Post, if at least some of them are simply “balm” to make us feel better. Yet she’s wrong, for instance, to say categorically that it wouldn’t do any good to limit the size of magazines because “maybe a killer simply would carry several small magazines and swap them out.”

In the January 2011 Tucson rampage, several people tackled Jared Loughner and wrested a new magazine from him after he had emptied a 30-round clip and was trying to reload. And in Newtown, where Adam Lanza’s ammunition included 10 30-round clips, parents and other relatives of the victims said 11 children escaped while he was reloading. The families say more lives would have been saved if he had been forced to reload more often.

Once they make their decisions, the questions for politicians are all about the future. When the next shooting happens, as it will, are they prepared to defend a vote against a restriction that might have stopped it? And if they vote for new gun controls, are they prepared for the possibility that voters will oust them?

Former Reps. Marjorie Margolies of Pennsylvania and Karen Shepherd of Utah both lost their seats after voting for Clinton’s 1993 budget, and they say they don’t regret their decisions. “You really have to do what is right and not what you have justified is right” because of your determination to win, Margolies told me three years ago.

And of course, there is always the possibility of a second chance. Margolies recently confirmed that she is considering a race for the House next year, 20 years after her defeat. If she does it, she’ll be owed plenty of help from Bill Clinton, whose daughter is now married to her son, and whose economic plan she saved with her eleventh-hour “aye” vote.



Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;


3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;


4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.


I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!


This is a Reblogged from




Exclusive: Andrea Shea King laughs at folly of leftists, exposed online



Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman, Episode 1: #DoItForGabby

Entertainment lovers! Have you seen the “Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman” show? It’s a situation comedy starring a modern day duo destined to beat the hilarious foibles of the all time classic Lucy and Ricky Ricardo.

“Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman” stars Gabrielle Giffords, the poster child for gun grabbers, who has achieved stardom with her own Twitter hashtag: #DoItForGabby, and her knucklehead but adorable husband, Boobie the Rocketman, who has circled the earth weightless in oxygen-less outer space.

The series’ opening credits roll to this popular Elton John tune.

The set-up: Giffords survives a gunshot to the head during a political event in Tucson, Ariz., two years prior. Fast forward: Now in league with The Brady Bunch, Gabby’s “raison d’être” is to be the poster child for gun control in tandem with the network’s related program starring another comedic tour de force, “Preezy B ‘n da Boyz”. It’s rich!

In Season One, Episode One (“S1Ep1″ in TV talk) #DoItForGabby, with air dates in February and March, hubby Boobie stubs his astro-toe. The hapless anti-gun Rocketman is publicly outed as a hypocrite when he attempts to purchase firearms he says will give him “first-hand knowledge” about the gun-buying process. Oops!

Things really get rolling when, caught by a hidden camera, Boobie says he doesn’t intend to keep the guns, but is going to hand them over to a straw-man third party (the police). What Boobie doesn’t know is that he’s just admitted he’s going to commit a felony.

In a cameo appearance, Mayberry’s patrolman Barney Fife shakes his head: “I don’t know, Boobie. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud.”

Scared and shaken, Boobie, left with only one leg to stand on, hops home to cry on Gabby’s shoulder. Will Boobie be charged with a felony? Hilarity ensues, as Twitterdom erupts in gales of laughter.

In S1Ep2 (TV lingo) – titled, “Ban all dogs!” Boobie the Rocketman strolls on a California beach with his teenaged daughter and her 65-pound bulldog. Boobie tries to control the semi-automatic assault dog when it breaks loose and mauls a sea lion to death. Unbeknownst to the Rocketman, the entire scene is captured on video, making Boobie the butt of more jokes, headlines and hashtag hijinks.

The “Time to ‘ban dogs’?” episode brings Rocketman’s Facebook page more than 5,000 comments, launching the series into the ratings stratosphere with the tagline: “Better add dog to the banned list in the assault weapons bill.”

In the current episode “Join the fight for safer U.S.” (S1Ep3, air date April 7), the couple’s sidekick Geobbels Axelgrease walks Main Street clad in an electronic sandwich board advertising a “poignant” op-ed written by his friend Gabby. In it, Gabby complains she’s impatient. Will the loveable Boobie the Rocketman try to hurry things along? Stay tuned! Like “I Love Lucy,” this comedy duo is definitely snort-worthy!

Speaking of snort-worthy …

Comedy gold

As his career with the peacock winds down, Tonight Show host Jay Leno got a few yuks at the media’s expense with this remark during his opening monologue last week: “And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’ That is the newest – ‘undocumented Democrat.’”

We’re not sure if it was AP or Leno that got the biggest laugh, but both got plenty of Twitter attention.

Sen. Ted Cruz no April fool

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, revealed Easter-bunny-quick wit and humor with a hat trick of April Fools Day jabs at President Obama. He tweeted three photos mocking the President’s statements on Obamacare, leaving the president with er … leftover Easter egg on his face.

The honorable senator from the great state of Texas was on a roll when he also mocked this egg laid by the New York Times: “Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz 1 Apr Can’t make this up: NYT issues correction on Easter, a holiday about which they apparently weren’t that familiar: …

We’ll be watching for more Twitter asides from Sen. Cruz in the days to come. Related: #DefundObamacare: Sen. Ted Cruz takes the fight to defund Obamacare to Twitter

Not funny: Leftists gleefully hope pastor’s son’s suicide gay-related

This past weekend we learned that Matthew Warren, son of mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, had taken his own life. Sadly, not everyone on the Web reacted with compassion.

Blogger “Sooper Mexican” aggregated some of the hateful, vicious tweets, noting, “I find it odd that people who would call themselves gay advocates would hope so ghoulishly that Rick Warren’s son, who tragically committed suicide yesterday, was gay in order to smear Christianity. According to news reports, Warren’s son had struggled with mental illness all his life.

“Of course, there are many kinds of illness that strike all kinds of people, but leave it to the despicable left to hope to justify their hatred for religion by wishing a suicide was caused by homosexuality,” Sooper Mexican concluded.

Pastor Rick Warren authored “The Purpose Driven Life,” which has sold over 32 million copies worldwide.

How did #stupidcelebs get there from here?

Pop stars Beyonce and her hubby “Jay-Z” are under scrutiny by at least two members of Congress for tripping to Cuba. Their jaunt made worldwide news, prompting the investigation by Florida’s Cuban community reps into why the pair was allowed to visit the off-limits, communist-ruled country.

Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, whose districts have a high Cuban-American population, wrote to the Office of Foreign Assets Control demanding “information regarding the type of license that Beyonce and Jay-Z received, for what purpose, and who approved such travel.”

Among those weighing in with 140-character opinions was Cindy McCain, wife of Sen. John McCain, who tweeted: “Rodman goes to N. Korea, Beyonce goes to Cuba. Do these people know how to read? Freedom enabled them to be successful. Not oppression.”

But the final word came from Ros-Lehtinen herself with this tweet: “But @Beyonce and Jayz @S_C_ r having such a good time! MT @TIMENewsFeed: 7 Cuban ballet dancers defect 2 US, Mexico.”

Twitchy asks “Is she still invited to perform for Michelle Obama’s next birthday? Stay tuned!”



Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: