Friday, May 23, 2014

Americans Finally Getting Truth About Benghazi Attack

Emails gathered in recent weeks by Judicial Watch and Darrell Issa's House investigation are finally bringing to light the truth surrounding the Benghazi attack cover-up.

To understand why and how the evidence reveals a premeditated cover up one must look back at what was going on at the time.  This is something Democrats, aided by a complicit media, hope you will not do and the reason why they have delayed and pushed back against any investigation in the hopes that people will forget certain events or fail to make the connections.

The Benghazi attack occurred on September 11, 2012, less than 2 months for Obama's critical re-election campaign.  In the days leading up to the attack Gallup had polls showing Romney within 1 point of the president and Real Clear Politics showed a virtual dead heat.

All election long Obama had been running around the country spiking the football, as he called it, proclaiming victory for assassinating Osama bin Laden and putting, "al qaeda on the run".

We know in the days and weeks leading up to the attack that Obama had been skipping his regular intelligence briefings, saying he reads them on his iPad.  Those briefings contained highly credible evidence of impending attacks across the Middle East on the anniversary of 9/11.

In emails released a few weeks ago to Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, we know the White House was very concerned with not letting people connect the Benghazi attack on Obama's failed foreign policy and instead wanted them to focus on a an Internet video for inciting protests in the region.

While the emails came after the attack, but before Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows  to tell the White Houses version of the story five days later, they reveal a White House that was critically aware of the political ramifications of terrorist attacks against American facilities.

Armed with the knowledge of likely attacks and wanting to mitigate any negative blow back to the president's re-election campaign from any attack, the White House crafted a strategy to get out in front.  The plan they landed on was a poorly made Internet video that hardly anyone had seen up to that point.

On the morning of September 11th, and hours before any protests or attack occurred, the US State Department officials in Cairo released a statement apologizing to Muslims for the Internet video:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
In response, and as if on cue, Muslims in Cairo gathered outside the embassy in protest.

Not long after the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack by Al Qaeda forces.

This is where the White House and Democrats try and make the claim that they believed the attack was another protest about the video.  The claimed it was the CIA who told them it was caused by the video and that that is why they ordered Susan Rice to blame the attack on the video.

But an email released just this morning to the House investigative committee reveals the White House put the blame on the video almost immediately after the attack began and long before the CIA presented them with facts surrounding the cause of the attack.

In the email White House officials are quoted as saying they reached out to YouTube regarding the ramifications of posting the video.
“White House is reaching out to UTube to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon Video.”

The email is yet another piece of evidence that reveals the White House had made up its mind about using the video as cover long before any facts were known about the Benghazi attack.  It also proves that we have not yet learned all the facts.

The evidence is, at the very least, circumstantial enough to warrant a deeper investigation like that which will be carried out by the House Select Committee.  Who crafted the white wash strategy?  Was the president aware?  Where was he during the Benghazi attack?  Which, if any, laws were broken and by whom?

One thing we do now know for sure, we know we haven't been told the truth.

The Political Reason Behind the FCC's Decision to Reverse Course on Net Neutrality

In 2005, under pressure from cable companies and entrenched phone monopolies the FCC ruled that next generation Internet services like fiber optic connections were "information services" and therefor not open to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission.  The motivating factor behind the ruling was to avoid forcing cable and phone companies from having to provide wholesale access to their infrastructure, as was required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The result of the decision was the extinction of the independent Internet Service Provider.  For most Americans their choices for accessing the Internet dropped from more than 7,000 to one or two, their local cable or phone monopoly.

With their virtual stranglehold on the last mile in place, AT&T began a propaganda campaign alleging Internet companies like Netflix and Google were stealing from them.  They argued these companies were not paying them to access their customers and that they should be forced to pay some kind of fee.  (I've explained numerous times in the past why the argument made by AT&T is pure fiction.)

Immediately Internet entrepreneurs became alarmed.  They recognized that AT&T's plan to create a "fast lane," where companies with deep pockets could pay a fee to get priority access to customers, would force prices to consumers to rise and stifle competition and innovation.  They responded with their own plan, Net Neutrality, which would prevent Internet providers like AT&T from effectively throttle traffic from competitors to their own TV and other services and force them to treat all traffic equally.

After allegations and admissions from cable companies like Comcast, who began selling Microsoft preferential traffic priority, the FCC  issued a cease and desist order by the FCC for blocking BitTorrent traffic.  In 2010, a federal court sided with Comcast, saying the FCC lacked the authority to regulate the Internet.

The FCC, responded later that year by enacting tough Net Neutrality rules.  They were immediately sued by Verizon, the phone monopoly that controls the Eastern half of the United States.  Again, the courts ruled against the FCC citing the FCC's own decision classifying next generation communications infrastructure as "Information service."

So, why now, after multiple attempts, do a complete 180 on Net Neutrality?  Has the problem gone away?  What has changed?

The answer boils down to what most decisions come down to... power.  Two federal court rulings and the FCC's own past decisions had taken away the federal government's ability to regulate the Internet.

Some members of congress and the current administration have been pressuring the FCC and federal other bureaucracies to start regulating speech on the Internet because conservative sources like the Drudge Report and other blogs are presenting a challenge to their ability to control the message on various scandals and issues.

These tactics should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention, as Judicial Watch has uncovered numerous emails and documents revealing Democrats like Carl Levin and Elijah Cummings were pressuring the IRS to illegally scrutinize Tea Party groups in order to affect the 2012 election.

By reversing course, the FCC is able to issue a ruling regulating the Internet that cable and phone monopolies will not challenge in court.  The result of which sets a precedence that recognizes the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet and, in turn, their ability to regulate the Drudge Report and other conservative web sites.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Obama is Mad as Hell

President Obama is an angry little man.  Don't take my word for it, just look at what he keeps telling us.
OBAMA MAY 15, 2013: It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.
OBAMA OCTOBER 21, 2013: Nobody's madder than me about the fact that the website isn't workin'.
OBAMA OCTOBER 18, 2011: It's very upsetting to me that somebody showed such bad judgment, that they would allow something like that to happen.
OBAMA APRIL 15, 2012: If it turns out some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I'll be angry. 
OBAMA MAY 13, 2013:  I've got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we'll make sure that, uh, we find out exactly what happened.
OBAMA JUNE 3, 2010: I am furious at this entire situation. I would love to just spend a lot of my time venting and yellin' at people.
OBAMA MAY 15, 2013: We're going to hold the responsible parties accountable. 
OBAMA MAY 16, 2013: The minute I found out about it, then my main focus is making sure that we get the thing fixed.
OBAMA MARCH 18, 2009: I think people are right to be angry.  I'm angry!
OBAMA MAY 21, 2014:  I will not stand for it, not as commander-in-chief ... None of us should. [I]t's dishonorable, it is disgraceful, and I will not tolerate it. Period.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Obama is moody, after all, he hasn't slept in 5 years, having promised to not rest.

Of course we all no how good Obama's promises are.

Sentor Roberts Touts Endorsement From Open Border, Internet Sales Tax Advocate


I am not entirely sure the endorsement of an organization that actively works for open borders, job killing free trade agreements, and new Internet sales taxes is something a Kansas conservative should be proud of...

America Dumbs Down

"The U.S. is being overrun by a wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual thinking. Has the most powerful nation on Earth lost its mind?"  That's how Jonathan Gatehouse of Maclean's, a candian national affairs magazine, opened his latest article.

I always love articles like this because they claim anti-science and anti-intellectual thinking comes from the right.  I agree with him in one sense, America is becoming anti-science and anti-intellectual, not because of the right, but because the left continues to operate with closed minds, preaching dogmas of pure faith disguised as science.

This article primarily focuses on Darwins THEORY of evolution (emphasis added).  The writer claims it's been verified a million different ways, I wonder if he can produce just ten.  How does Darwin's theory explain the Cambrian explosion?  How does explain the transition from simple protein to complex cell consisting of millions of proteins all performing different functions?

The simple fact is Darwin's theory can't explain these things.  That is why it is still considered a theory and not a law like gravity or any of the multitude of other scientific laws.

The left says Global Warming, sorry Climate Change, is "settled science".  What is settled science?

Any scientist who doesn't believe his findings are still open to new data is no scientist.  In the '60's those same people said over population was going to destroy the environment by depleting food and land reserves by the mid 70's... that settled science was wrong.  In the 70's they said Global Cooling was going to put us in an ice age and kill off the human race by within 30 yrs.  After a brief period of moderate warming in the early 90's they again changed their story to say the Earth is warming and we are nearing the end of our ability to do anything about it.  When no new documented warming was found to have occurred in the last 16 years, suddenly it is climate change we have to worry about.

At the same time global warming prostates try and discourage any kind of intellectual examination of their beliefs by labeling them "climate deniers", a term the mainstream media was quick to regurgitate. But who are the deniers, those that continue to question the so-called evidence of global warming or those who close their minds to the very likely possibility the data they have built their house of cards upon is flawed.

Seems their settled science isn't so settled and to claim it is, is clear evidence of their anti-intellectual, anti-science views.

When it comes to other issues, like race, again we find the left doesn't want people to think.  Last weekend Eric Holder gave a commencement speech in which he lamented zero tolerance public school policies as racist, evidenced by the reality that they affect black males at 3 times the rate of white males.  Can a policy that says zero tolerance for violence, drug abuse, rape, or worse be racist?  Shouldn't the correct response be to ask why black males are being affected at a higher rate and not just blame the results of a color blind policy on the strawman of racism?

As Albert Einstein once said, "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Articles of Impeachment for Barack Hussein Obama

Resolution Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully violated immigration law of the United States for his personal gain and with reckless disregard for the safety and well being of American citizens, in that:



On June 15, 2012, Barack Hussein Obama ordered members of his administration to halt the deportation of illegal immigrants who entered the country as children and to begin offering them work permits encouraging them to remain illegally in the United States in direct violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv).  

In doing this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to encourage or induce aliens to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) Beginning on or about January 1, 2013, Barack Hussein Obama ordered the early release of 36,007 aliens with prior criminal convictions awaiting deportation, including violent criminal convictions consisting of: (A) 193 homicide convictions; (B) 426 sexual assault convictions, (C) 1,317 domestic violence convictions, (D) 1,075 aggravated assault convictions, and (E) 9,187 dangerous drug convictions

In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Gov. Jay Nixon Doesn't Want Poor Black Kids in the Same Schools as His Kids

Yesterday afternoon Jay Nixon, confirmed racist according to the Daily Kos, channeled another racist liberal Democrat governor of the past, Orval Faubus, when he vowed to veto the bi-partisan bill that would allow Missouri's school children stuck in failing schools to have the opportunity to move to a good school.  The vast majority of the kids stuck in failing schools are poor black children living in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Nixon seems hell bent on using his veto power as governor to metaphorically deploy the Missouri National Guard to keep black children out of the schools he and his fellow elitist Democrats send theirs.

Where is Lewis Duguid?

Where is the NAACP and Reverends Sharpton and Jackson?

The last time a Democrat tried to keep black children segregated the Republican president responded swiftly and decisively to end the racist actions of the governor.  Where is America's first black president now?

Warmonger McCan Back at It, Calls for Troops to Be Sent to Nigeria



You'd think a man who spent the Vietnam War in a POW camp would be less prone to putting American troops in harms way, but in the case of John McCain you would be entirely wrong.

Apparently hashtags are enough reason in John McCain's mind to send American troops into danger, as he is now calling for that very thing.

It wouldn't be so alarming if this was the first time, but in recent memory McCain has called for arming Ukranians with American weapons, providing military support and weapons to al qaeda fighting the Libyan government, and bombing Iran.

I sure seems like the only place McCain is willing to have America stand down is in defending our own borders and ports from an illegal invasion of human smugglers and drug cartels.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Time for Wolf to Concede Defeat?

The KS election board, consisting of all public endorsers of Sen. Roberts campaign for re-election, have voted to allow the senator to remain on the ballot.

Milton Wolf and his supporters argued that Senator Roberts didn't meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility to run for Senate in KS as he hasn't lived in the state since 1962.  It shouldn't come as any surprise the Wolf team lost, as no other body or court has seemed to care one bit about upholding constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency.  So, why would anyone expect any different of the requirement that a candidate be an inhabitant of the state they are representing when it comes to the Senate or House?

The simple fact is Pat Roberts left Kansas in 1962 to take a job in Arizona for a newspaper.  In 1967, he took a job as a senatorial aid in DC and moved to Virginia where he has lived ever since.  It wasn't until 1981 that Roberts was first elected to office as the 1st District Congressmen for the State of KS, taking over for his boss Keith Sebelius, who happens to be Kathleen Sebelius' father-in-law, after he retired.

Unfortunately for Wolf and his supporters the law does not care about the facts and any hope Wolf had of being able to remove his popular opponent is gone.

Polls show Roberts with a heavy lead in the race over any Democrat candidate, including Kathleen Sebelius, while the generic "other candidate," which would include Wolf, is only polling at a paltry 5%.

That leaves just one question, is it time Wolf think about ending his campaign and conceding?

No one likes admitting defeat, but at what point to you stop throwing good money after bad?  The odds are stacked against Wolf.  He is getting little to no publicity, despite having national Tea Party organizations and a popular conservative national radio show host endorsing him.

Wolf has been unable to distinguish differences between what he stands for and Roberts largely favorable voting record.  Without the residency issue the only thing Wolf has left is Roberts' age and that has never been proven to much of a successful argument.

Perhaps it is time to do what is best for the conservative movement and put this campaign behind us and start mending some fences and rebuilding relationships that have been bitterly torn apart by this campaign that always seemed like more of a forgone conclusion than a true contest.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

KS US Senate Candidates' Support of Other KS Republican Candidates

Recently someone asked which of the current US Senate candidates running in Kansas has supported fellow Republicans in past elections.  It's an excellent question that I don't think all but a few politicos really consider and investigate.

Normally there are clear enough distinctions in principles and policies between primary candidates that one might not have to worry about whether one candidate or the other goes out and works hard to get like minded candidates elected.  But, with Pat Roberts and Milton Wolf having very similar stances, voters need to look beyond those issues and things like their past support for other Republicans. KS GOP primary voters should think long and hard and consider whether their chosen candidate will not just represent their values in Washington, but whether they will also be a force multiplier for the conservative movement as a whole.

When it comes to financial support provided by the candidates in question it is easy to follow the money, as all contributions over $50 are a matter of public record.

Let's look at that record with regards to their personal contributions.

Milton Wolf
  • 2012 - Donated $175 to Amanda Grosserode's KS House campaign.
Pat Roberts
  • 2012 - Donated $500 to Steve Fitzgerald's KS Senate campaign.

Surprisingly, that is it for either candidate when it comes to personal financial contributions to fellow Republican candidates in Kansas.  The surprise wears off a bit when you take into account the fact that Roberts hasn't lived in Kansas for over 50 years and Wolf was a complete unknown until thrust into the spotlight with the election of his distant cousin, Barack Obama, to the highest office in the land.

Moving beyond personal contributions, Senator Robert's campaign committee has made additional donations to other GOP candidates.

Pat Roberts For US Senate
  • 2012 - Donated a net $1,000 to 13 KS House and Senate candidates.  Strangely Roberts campaign donated $500 to each candidate, but 10 refunded the donation roughly one month later.


     
  • 2012 - Received a $500 refund from Steve Fitzgerald's campaign, seemingly negating Sen Robert personal $500 donation.

    The odd exchanges of these donations can be seen in the individual candidates campaign reports at the KS Secretary of State's office.
       
  • 2002 - Donated $4,050 to 3 candidates (including the infamous gerrymanderer and RINO Tim Owens) for office in KS and donated an additional $5,250 to the Kansas Republican Party.


     
  • 2000 - Donated $250 to the Kansas Republican Party.
In taking into consideration the donations made by Robert's senate campaign it is important to remember that the money they give likely came from other campaign donors and not from Senator Robert's personal finances, so they can largely be discounted as the spools of being an incumbent serving in national office.

Financially, at least as it appears, neither candidate can really claim they have provided financial support to their fellow Kansas Republicans.  Yet, both can routinely be found asking their supporters to part with their own hard earned money to help them get elected.  I can't help but find that somewhat hypocritical considering one is a wealthy US Senator and the other a well off radiologist.

What can't be found in any public record is how much help either candidate was intangibly to other candidates.  Did Milton Wolf or Pat Roberts spend hours donating their time to walk precincts, make phone calls, or stuff envelopes for other candidates in the years they weren't up for election?  Did either host fundraisers or help with fundraising in general for other campaigns?

It's safe to say having a US Senator appear at one of your campaign events is likely to be a big draw and result in a high number of donations to a candidate they would not have received otherwise, but is that something you can credit to the man or the office he holds?  Is it not something their successor would also be able to do?

In the end, I think we find both candidates are similar in their support of other Republican candidates and one more area in which voters will have a tough time drawing distinction.

Update 5/8/2014 2:44 pm cst:

Pat Roberts also has his own leadership PAC known as the Preserving America's Traditions PAC or PATPAC.  But again we find very little funds being funneled to Kansas Republican state and local parties, who could use the money to help other Kansas Republicans.  The vast majority of donations being made by the PAC appear to be directed to more establishment class GOP candidates at the national level like Dick Luger, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, and Ted Stevens.  Again you have to wonder if a different Republican from KS held Sen Roberts seat if those finds my be directed more appropriately to further the cause of conservatism.