Monday, January 7, 2013

Reminder: 4 Americans Dead In Benghazi

Benghazi FIreRemember what happened in Benghazi Libya on 11 September 2012?  Do you remember that Barack Obama and his administration lied to the American People by telling us that a anti Islamist video caused the attack that killed 4 Americans?

Glen DohertyYou know why the Obama administration refuse to send help to our Americans in peril during an attack that lasted for hours?  Why was the Obama State Department negligent in providing adequate security for our personnel on 11 September 2012? Will the incompetence by the Obama administration reach the level of an impeachable offense?
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens
Information Management Officer Sean Smith
Navy Seal Tyrone Woods
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) Utah answers these and other questions concerning the attacks that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi Libya.

Although the established media has refused to even acknowledge there is any thing else to look into after the internal State Department investigation for “systemic” issues that led to the lack of response and security at our embassy and consulate in Libya.

Ginni Thomas asks Mr. Chaffetz these questions and more in the following interview.  At least some in D.C. are finding it somewhat troubling that 4 Americans were killed and the Secretary of State, who is in charge of the Department of State and the facilities that were attacked, still hasn’t spoken, under oath, about this tragedy.

Jason Chaffetz

Ginni Thomas
It way past time for some honest answers to these and so many more questions about the attack in Benghazi.
Click on the link below to see the interview:

Democrats plan another $1 trillion in taxes

Pelosi says last week's $620 billion 'is not enough'

You may notice a smaller total in your first paycheck for 2013, because the “fiscal cliff” deal allowed a tax break for working people to end, and Social Security taxes to rise. It was part of the $620 billion in increased taxes Barack Obama was given by Congress just last week.

Critics warned at the time he’d be back for a lot more of your paycheck.

Now Obama’s party has confirmed that, with several members explaining their demands for another $1 trillion in tax increases on Americans.

“We’ve done about $2 trillion. I thought $4 trillion is the goal we should reach. I think we’re about halfway there. We need another $2 trillion,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., a member of the Finance Committee, in a report in The Hill.

He explained what already was done, claiming a $917 billion cut in spending under the Budget Control Act from 2011, and last week’s $620 billion in new tax revenue. He said the interest and related numbers affected makes that package add up to about $2 trillion.

He said another $2 trillion is needed, of which $1 trillion needs to be in additional taxes.

The report said Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana who won a close re-election in November, has called for similar numbers.

In a report in Politico, ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., noted Americans simply aren’t paying enough. The $600 billion-plus “is not enough on the revenue side.”

Republicans have taken the position that tax reform should be revenue-neutral – that whatever results from closing loopholes or changing requirements should be used to lower overall rates. They say the budget deficit should be fixed through cutting spending programs.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said bluntly that the problem is not that the government gets too little – it just spends too much.

“We spend way, way too much,” he said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” McConnell said, “The tax issue is, finished, over, completed. That’s behind us now.”

Democrats in the majority in the U.S. Senate have failed for years to even establish a U.S. budget, operating on a variety of temporary resolutions and the like. Even the “fiscal cliff” solution that was created to avoid a simultaneous huge hike in taxes under Obama, and mandatory spending cuts, didn’t address all of the pending problems.

For example, it only delayed the planned automatic across-the-board spending cuts.

On “Meet the Press,” Obama suggested he’s going to demand Americans pay more taxes in order to avoid those in the coming weeks.

“Revenues have to be part of the equation,” he warned.

Those in the U.S. House who are part of the tea party movement say Obama’s “fiscal cliff” solution didn’t even begin to address the nation’s debt or job problems.

In fact, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., , told WND “without a doubt” the economic crisis will grow worse, because the “solution” adds $4 trillion to the debt in just 10 years, permanently raises taxes for families and small businesses, and fails utterly to curb spending.

He said the U.S. could look to Greece to foreshadow its future.

“Unless this Congress, administration, and president get serious about cutting spending we’ll very soon be in the same position as Greece,” he said. “We’ll be taxing everyone in the country at maximum rates but still spending so much that we will no longer be able to meet our obligations or provide the government services that we promised those who paid into them.

“That’s when we’ll reach the real fiscal cliff, and as a consequence the United States will no longer be the global leader and economic powerhouse that it once was,” he warned.

The dark forecast continued, with the suggestion that other nations soon will figure out that it’s less than wise to lend to a debtor nation with no real plans to address its bills, he said.

“China has stopped buying up our debt because they can see the writing on the wall – we’re never going to be able to repay it. Without deep, targeted spending cuts we’re only delaying the inevitable. Eventually, the United States will be borrowing and spending so much that the federal government will no longer be able to meet its obligations and our nation’s status as a global powerhouse will slowly fade away,” he said.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., head of the House Tea Party Caucus, said right after the “fiscal cliff” vote, in which Congress gave Obama another $600 billion-plus in tax revenue while virtually ignoring spending cuts, “Washington politicians have engineered a last minute backroom deal that does not address America’s jobs and debt crisis.”

She said her opposition rested on the fact that, “Rather than a deficit reduction plan, the Senate sent us a grow government plan. I cannot support a plan that has billions in tax increases with no meaningful cuts in spending. It’s time to solve problems rather than delay them.”

And observers have pointed out that the real fight over spending is just now developing – because the House Republican majority will be asked soon to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

Obama has said he won’t negotiate over it, but without approval from Republicans, the nation’s spending would be limited to the essentials, such as Social Security payments, national defense and border patrol.

Obama’s spending packages such as Obamacare may not be funded without the increase, which gives the GOP considerable negotiating power in requiring spending cuts to accompany any debt ceiling increase, according to observers.

Recently, more than 100 conservative leaders from across the nation sent a letter to GOP members in Congress encouraging them to “negotiate from a position of strength” with Democrats regarding the trillions of dollars in tax increases Barack Obama is demanding.

“It’s in the interest of the country and in your personal interest for you to use the power you unquestionably have now to stand firm and not surrender your conservative principles, no matter how loud the clamor of people whose central interests is to advance the left’s agenda,” says the letter.

The letter was signed by Morton Blackwell, chairman of the Weyrich Lunch, Colin Hann of Let Freedom Ring, Ed Meese of the Conservative Action Project, Jim Martin of the 60 Plus Association and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, among others.

A separate “No More Red Ink” campaign explains what authority the GOP currently holds as the majority party of the U.S. House, where all national spending bills must originate.

The GOP can decline to authorize an increase in the national debt limit and force billions of dollars in spending cuts, because programs would not legally have money available to run.

Joseph Farah, CEO of WND and originator of the campaign, noted that House Republicans can take such action unilaterally. They wouldn’t need a single Democrat vote, he said.

“It will take only 218 House Republican votes to stop the borrowing next year. And I’m pretty certain Republicans will maintain control of the House and possibly gain control of the Senate next year. That’s why I’m optimistic about the success of this powerful, nation-changing plan,” he wrote.

“Just think what it will mean if, following this campaign of relentless, grass-roots lobbying, Republicans actually live up to their rhetoric about the Constitution and limited government and balanced budgets next year. We can have a balanced budget overnight!”

He also said “unconstitutional and destructive bureaucracies” could be eliminated, such as the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, Planned Parenthood funding and obscene artwork sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts.

The letter from conservative leaders isn’t as specific but addresses GOP members of both the House and Senate, warning that they will be tested.

“In the House, the nation elected in 2012 one of the largest Republican majorities in the past 100 years. You have a mandate to fight for conservative principles that is arguably much broader than the one that narrowly reelected President Barack Obama claims to have for his leftist agenda,” the letter continues.

“Of course, House Republicans alone cannot pass a law, but united you can stop any bill which violates the principles you publicly committed to support. In the Senate you have more than enough Republicans to prevent the passage of anything truly harmful to our country.”

While there is building pressure for the GOP to give in to the White House, the letter warns of the results.

“They want to increase federal power, federal spending, federal taxes, federal deficits, and federal debt.

They want to give more advantages to their liberal allies and put more federal money into the pockets of their political cronies. They want to undermine further traditional values and to surrender more of our national sovereignty to international bodies. They want to weaken our country militarily and move America more rapidly in the direction of European socialism.”


GOP Could Use the Whiskey the Tea Party Drinks

While many of our heroes have lost their gloss, Abraham Lincoln still shines brightly for many Americans because there is so much to learn from his life.

For example, in 1858 Abraham Lincoln was defeated in his race for the United States Senate by Stephen Douglas, making it Lincoln’s third electoral defeat in a row. As Lincoln emerged from the telegraph office into the rain-soaked street in Springfield, Illinois he lost his balance when his foot slipped on the slick boardwalk. Catching himself before he tumbled into the mud Lincoln muttered to under his breath, “A slip, but not a fall.”

He then smiled brightly.

Recognizing the symbolic importance for his political life of catching himself before he fell, Lincoln understood that his political career was not over despite his string of defeats. He started for home reenergized. In two years he was elected President of the United States.

“I claim not to have controlled event,” Lincoln candidly wrote in 1864, “but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”

Lincoln’s critics (both contemporary and posthumous) have often pointed to this confession as a sign that while Lincoln successfully rode the whirlwind of Civil War, he was not the builder of the nation that others have claimed- a kind of second founding father after Washington.

But it was this essentially negative trait (negative in the sense that it was passive and did not require action) that allowed Lincoln to remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal,” to include African Americans. He was able to accomplish this revolutionary object through passive management of the Civil War without turning it in to a “remorseless revolutionary struggle,” which might have irreparably divided the nation during Reconstruction. 

Nowhere was Lincoln’s task more arduous than in managing and massaging the personalities of his generals (and to a lesser extent, members of Congress). Many of Lincoln’s strongest critics were generals who felt that Lincoln wasn’t taking their advice on how to conduct the war. In this chapter we will explore how Lincoln ignored personality (and public opinion) in supporting his generals and stuck to the principle of rewarding those that fought and won battles.

The most striking examples of this were the cases of General George McClellan and US Grant.

McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac and later general-in-chief of all Federal forces. 

Mostly on the strength of a strong personality, McClellan dazzled soldiers and politicians despite the fact that he squandered several opportunities to beat the Confederates in battle. He was glamorous, good looking and just credible enough to be plausible. Lincoln however was not fooled.

Instead, Lincoln found himself drawn to the unpopular and often shy US Grant. Grant won battles even though he was publicly ridiculed for being a drunkard, slovenly and lacking in refinement. When a group protested Lincoln keeping Grant in command despite hearsay that Grant was a drunkard, Lincoln only reply was asking them what brand whiskey Grant drank so he could get some for his other generals who hadn’t yet won a battle.
Lincoln once famously observed, “I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Indeed, during Lincoln’s life he was ridiculed over his origins, (from a log-cabin); his looks (he described himself as “homely”); his lack of formal education (he was mostly self-taught); his wife (who could be quite arrogant and aggressive, not to say crazy); and a great deal besides. Probably no President dealt with as much abuse as Lincoln. Yet throughout his life Lincoln rarely struck back at his critics. He maintained, instead, a firm confidence about who he was which helped him turn critics into supporters.
In 1855, for example, Lincoln was hired to represent Cyrus McCormick who was claiming patent infringement against a defendant. In addition, McCormick retained a number of better established lawyers from the eastern US, including Edwin M. Stanton. As the trial commenced in Cincinnati, the other attorneys ignored Lincoln, shutting him out of the case with Stanton going so far as to call Lincoln “that damned long armed Ape,” within his hearing. Lincoln swallowed his pride and watched the trial from the courtroom with other spectators.

When McCormick later sent Lincoln a check for his services on the case, Lincoln returned the check explaining that he really hadn’t done anything to earn it.    
When the client returned the check to Lincoln and insisted that he cash the check, Lincoln again swallowed his pride and cashed the check despite his grumbling about the “rough” treatment he got from Stanton.

What’s most amazing is that Lincoln later picked Stanton to become his War Secretary after the resignation of Simon Cameron. At the time of his selection Stanton was still an avowed critic of Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to overlook this because of Stanton’s superb managerial skills. As their relationship matured Stanton became one of Lincoln’s warmest admirers. Standing at the foot of Lincoln’s bed as the latter died of a gunshot wound to the head, Stanton proclaimed of Lincoln: “Now he be belongs to the ages.”

The GOP right now could use a backward glance at Father Abraham and the lessons he bring with the ages.
Defeat in one election doesn’t always mean defeat forever. It helps, however, if you know what you where you are and whither you are tending; if you have high ideals and stick to them, as Lincoln did.

Too, we mustn’t always be so ready to excoriate our foes- foes inside our own party who are often arrogant, unreliable and closed minded, these people we call RINOs. We will later need these valuable allies to get elected and run the party.
But to those who are quick to criticize the Tea Party trend inside the GOP as unrefined and often perhaps extreme, I would remind them that just like in the case of Grant, the whiskey we drink more often leads to victory than defeat. And really, you can’t say that much about your other generals.

Obama's Affirmative Action: Tax Increases for Everyone! 

By: Morgan Brittany / Townhall Columnist

Here we go again folks, the Obama lies continue to flow.  Remember when he said this?  “I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains, not any of your taxes.”  Really.  Then how is it that this week when people got their payroll checks they were a little thinner than they were in 2012?  I’m not talking about the “evil rich”, but the average everyday worker.  

With the expiration of the payroll tax cut, Americans just saw a 2% bite taken out of their checks.  Beginning in 2009, Congress cut the payroll tax in order to put more money into people’s pockets.  The tax was reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%, but now that tax rate has bounced back to 6.2% for good.  This means that the average worker who earns about $50,000 a year will see around an $80 a month bite out of their earnings or about $1000 a year.

Of course the White House is spinning like a top over this.  They are playing the usual sleight of hand and word parsing exercises that they always do.  “It’s not REALLY a tax increase; it was scheduled to happen anyway.  Besides, it was only TEMPORARY to begin with.”  Now we all know what happens when you give something to someone and then take it away.  They aren’t going to be very happy about it.  Just look at what happens when cutting entitlements is mentioned.

So, Middle Class, you’ve been conned once again.  How many times will you fall for the same old lies, the same old promises and then get punched in the gut when you open your paycheck and see more of your money being stolen? 

 This isn’t going to end.  Oh no, it’s just the beginning.  Wait until Obamacare kicks in with its massive taxes and fees and premium hikes that were oh so sincerely promised to not change.  Just wait until that famous lie, “You can keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want.”  Sure you can, if your doctor is still practicing and your insurance company hasn’t gone out of business.

What is with these Washington types?  Why is it that they can’t just come out and say, “Hey, this country is up the creek and we lost the paddle. Every American is going to have to suck it up and pay more taxes.  Not just the rich, (who if you took 100% of their earnings wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket.) but everyone.  Rich, middle class, even the poor, who will have to do with fewer entitlements.”  Just tell us the truth, don’t dance around with lies and promises just to get re-elected and then zing us with “just kidding!”

We don’t have a prayer of reducing our deficit with the ridiculous deals coming out of Washington.  The Fiscal cliff deal was an absolute joke and will do absolutely nothing to stop this train wreck from happening.  The debt ceiling issue is up next and here we are, back to square one rehashing taxes and spending once again.  

I know how this movie ends.  The Democrats are already screaming for more revenue, the Republicans want cuts, yada, yada, yada.  Unless someone really gets serious we will be watching the same old re-runs year after year until one day the tv set goes dark, the lights go out and the country is done.

We all know that middle class taxes have to be raised to tackle this problem.  No amount of lying from Washington can deny that.  They may as well just tell us now.  There is no Santa Claus, face it and grow up.  You can’t keep getting stuff for nothing.  The man in the red suit is broke, the elves went on strike and there are no goodies anymore.

I vote for the Steve Forbes solution.  Let’s institute a flat tax.  Take a look at his proposal and tell me it doesn’t make sense.  Throw out the tax code and create a 17% tax across the board exempting poor families who make less than $36,000.  It would be simple.  No tax on Social Security, no tax on pensions, personal savings or capital gains.  17% flat and fair.

Why is this so difficult for Washington?  Are they just gluttons for punishment?  Do they like to argue and fight among themselves just to prove who has more power? I think I know the answer to that.
I’ve got an idea.  Let’s vote in term limits and see how things change. 

“No, Ma’m” – Former U.S. Marine, Joshua Boston, speaks out about his letter to gungrabbing hypocrite Senator Dianne Feinstein


The letter starts out, “No, Ma’m, I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.” …”I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.”

ORIGINAL STORY: u-s-marine-to-gun-grabber-senator-diane-feinstein-no-mam


From BNI Reader Mary Lynn:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

 In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!



You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~

Interesting info for Mathematicians:
From Bill O'Reilly's message board

Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government and media refuse to do anything about it.

As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.

Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama
received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for
Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of
the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their
polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney.
(Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only
98,213 eligible voters.

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered
eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie
County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.

* In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of
eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Political theater and nothing more
By: Diane Sori

The loons on the left and the conspiracy theorists on the right are at it again, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama is sitting back laughing at the sheer absurdity of it all as ubber liberal Congressman Josè Serrano (D-NY) again introduced his previously denied House Joint Resolution 15* calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Briefly, the 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress on February 27, 1951.  It limited the number of terms anyone could serve as president to two 4 year terms.  However, to account for those who might have taken over the office in the middle of a term, they could then serve as president for ten years.
So, if this amendment did get repealed, in NO uncertain terms, the presidency could then possibly turn into a dictatorship...and all those in Congress know this.  And even though this resolution has been referred to committee, it has a ZERO chance of passing said committee, let alone making it to the floor for discussion, for it received NO seconds and has NO support from either side of the aisle.

In other words it thankfully is going NOWHERE because even the most liberal of the liberals know that 'We the People' would NOT sit idly by for such a drastic and dangerous change to our Constitution, which would allow Obama, or any future president, to serve an unlimited number of terms.

Besides, repealing an amendment isn't that easy to do.  As stated in our Constitution in Article V, Congress would need two thirds of both Houses to propose an amendment or two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.  And regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the states with three-fourths of the state legislatures approving of the proposed amendment or three-fourths of the states must approve of the amendment via ratifying conventions, and it must be done within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

And Serrano and his resolution do NOT have those numbers...or any numbers at all.

So the bottom line is that Serrano's proposal is NOTHING but political theater.  Knowing this I would hope the American people would draw a line in the sand when it came to something of this proposed magnitude.  If this resolution was or is sanctioned by Obama himself, and the public found out, NO doubt revolution might NOT be far behind for our Founders intended this country to be a republic NOT a monarchy or dictatorship, and for the government to be based on the concept of citizen rulers NOT ever to be ruled by a monarchy or a 'president for life.'  Remember, these honorable men saw the office of the presidency as a position from which to serve the people NOT as a position of adoration where one can reign like royalty until either choosing to step aside or until death makes that choice for them.

And that intention is something 'We the People' hold dear to our heart. 

And those in Congress, even those with a 'D' after their names, know that this resolution will NEVER pass for the numbers are NOT there for such a major Constitutional change.  I just wish my fellow Republicans and TEA Partiers would stop spreading this Congressman's nonsense around for every time someone posts it, whether on FB or the alternative venues, it allows Obama and his minions another laugh at our the foolishness of those on our side who think this could ever happen because simply it won't...'We the People' won't let it.

* This bill is a reintroduction of H.J. Res. 17, introduced by Serrano to Congress in January 2011. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but did NOT make it to a floor vote.