Triplegate: It's Like Saul Alinsky is Running the Country

Rachel Alexander

With three full-blown scandals currently surrounding the Obama administration, there are too many “-gates” to name just one. There is the cover-up of the fatal Benghazi terrorist attack, the IRS targeting conservatives, and the Justice Department spying on members of the press. The level of corruption is so high right now it is like Saul Alinsky is running the White House.

Alinsky, the radical activist who wrote Rules for Radicals, which he dedicated to Satan, taught the radical left to use dishonest tactics in order to achieve their agenda – “by any means necessary.” He advocated lying and harassing those with opposing viewpoints. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton were deeply influenced by Alinsky. Alinsky biographer Sanford Howitt has said Obama's 2008 election campaign was influenced by Alinsky, and that Obama followed in his footsteps as a community organizer. Alinsky's son David wrote in an article that appeared in the Boston Globe, “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach his 100th birthday.” Obama revealed a few years ago that his years training as a community organizer at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, “gave him the best education of his life.” He has quoted Alinsky in speeches.

Four Americans died during the Benghazi attacks, and it is now coming out that the White House knew the embassy needed more security, and knew terrorists were targeting it, but did nothing. Three whistleblowers have come forward, in spite of being threatened with demotions, to tell Congress that the administration knew at the time of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's public comments that the Benghazi terrorist attack was connected to terrorists, and they in fact deleted out those references in her talking points, revising them 12 times. One of the whistleblowers, Gregory Hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya during 2012, is a Democrat, not exactly someone who has anything to gain for partisan reasons.

A second scandal is the revelation that the IRS targeted conservative groups with "Tea Party," "patriot," “We the People,” or “Take Back the Country” in their names, and "nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.” Pro-life organizations and generous contributors to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign were also targeted. 75 applications for 501(c)(4) status, almost all from conservative and tea party groups, were set aside for detailed review and required to provide unusual information, like donor lists. Conservative writer Peggy Noonan notes some of the overreaching, prying questions that were asked: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One Tea Party organization responded by sending the IRS a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Those targeted included James Dobson, the well-known Christian author and radio host who has been vocal in his criticism of Obama. Billy Graham, the world-renowned evangelist who is now 94 years old, was audited after he endorsed Mitt Romney. On top of that, the IRS released confidential information about the conservative groups to the George Soros funded liberal media outlet ProPublica.

The head of the IRS division that targeted conservative groups, Sarah Hall Ingram,received more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012, most of it during the time her office was targeting conservatives.

Although Obama has denounced the IRS targeting, forcing the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and a top deputy six days after the scandal broke, it is hard to believe that he was not involved with it. Obama believes Saul Alinsky tactics are brilliant. If you think that Obama was not involved with the targeting of conservative groups, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The third scandal that has arisen is the discovery that the Justice Department conducted a broad search of telephone records from the Associated Press, in search of a government employee who leaked information to the press about the CIA’s disruption of a Yemen-based terrorism plot. Unlike previous Justice Department policy, the government did not bother giving the press a chance to negotiate or dispute the subpoenas in advance. Attorney General Eric Holder insisted that it was one of the most serious leaks he had ever seen, and that is why regular procedures were not followed. But it is coming out that the investigation was done in response to Republicans accusing the administration of purposely leaking defense information to the press in order to make Obama look better, and it was the seventh time the administration had undergone an investigation like this. Even the liberalWashington Posteditorialized that this was six investigations too many, especially considering the cost. The Justice Department essentially disregarded the First Amendment in order to fight with Republicans, not due to a security threat.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) calls the IRS problem worse than Watergate. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan believes it is the biggest scandal since Watergate. Sen. James Inhofe is suggesting impeachment. Mike Huckabee is predicting Obama may not serve out his full term. The mainstream liberal media is actually upset about two of the scandals. The Washington Posteditorialized that Benghazi is nothing, whereas the other two scandals are serious.

Republicans must be careful how they go about investigating the scandals, or it could backfire on them. Political columnist Chris Adamo warns, “Americans should remember how successfully Hillary Clinton was able to generate a 'scandal overload' and by constantly changing the subject, managed to protect the thoroughly compromised administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, from any repercussions for his malfeasance and innumerable violations of the law.”

Washington Times columnist Eric Golub advises Republicans not to try and impeach Obama. He warns, “The left needed and tolerated the Clintons, but they worship Barack Obama...As a supporter of the 1998 impeachment and a believer in the rule of law, there comes a time to admit that many leftists are above the law.” Golub believes that eventually the American public will become tired of Obama, similar to “Clinton fatigue,” which ruined Al Gore's chances of winning the presidency.

Conservative-leaning reporter Major Garrett, who left Fox News for CBS, provides this candid analysis, "The White House believes its greatest ally in all these scandals are Republicans that overreach and they will try to exploit that to the maximum whenever they can."

How serious are the scandals, is Obama really complicit in some of the most corrupt actions ever undertaken by a president? Look at one of the tactics recommended by his mentor Saul Alinsky. Alinsky describes in Rules for Radicalshow he organized a union protest on July 14th. After the organizers had chosen the date – selected because it was the one day the labor unions had no scheduled meetings – Alinsky was asked by a reporter if they had picked that date because it was Bastille Day. Caught by surprise, but realizing he had lucked into a windfall, Alinsky answered, "Not at all. It is fitting that we do so and that's why we did it." He then informed all the speakers to mention Bastille Day in their speeches. Alinsky proudly provides this to the world as an example of justifying lying in order to achieve your means.

We now have pretty overwhelming evidence that Obama is part of serious wrongdoing. But will he ever be held accountable, or have Alinsky's methods become the law?

Read more >>

7 Liberal Fascists Who Are Fine With Using the IRS to Target Political Enemies

John Hawkins

"Progressivism, liberalism, or whatever you want to call it has become an ideology of power. So long as liberals hold it, principles don’t matter." -- Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” -- Ayn Rand

One of the most disturbing things about the IRS targeting Obama's political enemies for persecution is that many liberals seem to be perfectly fine with illegitimately using the power of government to hurt their political enemies. Certainly, no one in the IRS or in the upper echelons of the Obama Administration had a problem with doing exactly that since no one at the IRS was punished for targeting Tea Party groups until a big stink was raised publicly.

This is extremely disturbing because it shows a lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and even for democracy itself.

When you start to conclude that it's okay for your side to ignore the law, break the rules and defeat your political enemies by any means necessary, you're veering into dangerous territory. It's dangerous because a republic can't function over the long haul when one side of the political debate is treated as above the law. Either the law applies equally to both sides of the political debate or good people will begin to feel that they have no choice other than to operate outside the law in order to get justice.

That's not a country any American should want to live in and if you do, there’s a word for people like you: fascist. There have been countless liberals who applauded this sort of behavior online and in comment sections all over the Internet, but here are 7 more prominent liberal fascists who are fine with using the IRS to target their political enemies.

1) I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party. Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist. Who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way. -- NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond

2) Lost in the latest political scandal is a simple fact: The Internal Revenue Service was acting in the public interest when it opted to train its auditing power on the Tea Party and affiliated groups. In castigating government as the root of all evil while portraying taxation as a form of tyranny, the Tea Party is no less than a mass celebration of the evasion of the basic responsibilities of American citizenship. Common sense alone tells you that people drawn to its ranks may feel extra temptation to find ways to limit what they surrender to the rogue federal bureaucrats who have supposedly seized the nation. -- Peter Goodman, Executive Business Editor, The Huffington Post

3) The IRS audits based on "red flags" that get their attention. If u carry big sign saying NO TO TAXES!! yea, u might get audited. -- Elayne Boosler

4) Democrats can’t say it; Barack Obama can’t say it; and the IRS certainly can’t say it, so here goes: The only real sin the IRS committed in its ostensible targeting of conservatives is the sin of political incorrectness—that is, of not pretending it needed to vet all the new groups that wanted tax-exempt status, even though it mostly just needed to vet right-wing groups. 

… The crime here had nothing to do with “targeting” conservatives. The targeting was effectively done by the conservative groups themselves, when they filed their gratuitous applications. The crime, such as it is, was twofold. First, in the course of legitimately vetting questionable applications, the IRS appears to have been more intrusive than justified, asking for information about donors whose privacy it should have respected. This is unfortunate and intolerable, but not quite a threat to democracy. 

Second, the IRS was tone deaf to how its scrutiny would look to the people being scrutinized, given that they all subscribed to the same worldview, and that they were already nursing a healthy persecution complex. -- Noam Scheiber, The New Republic

5) Is it unreasonable to target an anti-tax group? This is after all a group that named itself after a tax revolt that wants to abolish the IRS. It's like when a cop gets shot, the cops kind of take that personally. -- Bill Maher

6) The IRS overtaxing The Tea Party? I never thought I'd say this to the IRS - THANK YOU! THANK YOU FOR DENYING 501C-4 to any group who hates! -- Bette Midler

7) I believe that the IRS agents in this case did nothing wrong. -- MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell

Read more >>

Let’s Exploit Liberal Hypocrisy

Some establishment types are shaking their heads as they warn conservatives that we must not politicize the Administration's Benghazi bungling, its Obamacare shakedowns, its AP records grab or its IRS abuses.

Like hell we mustn't. We must. Big time.

The last couple weeks' revelations of fresh and compelling examples of the kind of duplicity and petty tyranny we conservatives have been screaming about for five years have presented us with what military folks call a "seam." A "seam" is the border where two different units meet, and it is generally the kind of weak point you want to drive your forces into in order to split your opponent's front and rout him. These latest scandals have revealed a seam between two elements of the liberal coalition, the liberals who actually believe some of what they say and the cynical leftists who merely crave power.

Let's split that seam.

But to do so, conservatives must ignore the voices of the fussy and the fainthearted and ruthlessly exploit it. We can and should – and must – politicize the hell out of these shameful imbroglios.

There's nothing wrong with politicizing politics. In fact, it's kind of difficult to imagine why politics shouldn't be politicized – politics is, after all, by definition political. In fact, it's only this week, after it became inconvenient, that the liberal establishment changed its collective mind and determined that politicization was once again a bad thing. It was a good thing when liberals were slobbering at the chance to use the massacre of innocents by a lunatic to deprive law-abiding citizens of their sacred fundamental right to keep and bear effective arms. Back then, politicizing misfortune was not only A-OK but a moral imperative.

This week, not so much.

The hypocrisy surrounding the concept of politicization illustrates the opportunity conservatives have had fall into their collective lap as a result of this tsunami of scandals. Today's liberalism is a festival of hypocrisy, of purported values solemnly praised and heartily defended right up until the second it stops being in the interest of liberalism to do so. At that point, these sacred values get discarded like so many whiskey bottles in the Kennedy compound's recycling bin.

Of course, no discussion of liberal hypocrisy could begin without a reference to Teddy Kennedy, who did his part in the War on Women by personally running up the casualty rate. Bill Clinton was another friend of women, at least until they complained about him and were insulated by his liberal guardians.

Liberal champions of minorities didn't hesitate to make an icon of Robert Byrd, who was either a Grand Imperial Cyclops or an Exalted Kleagle in the Democrat-founded KKK. And the liberal champions of the innocent and the helpless won't help you if you are too innocent or helpless – if you are, say, a fetus you are out of luck.

The current administration's love of civil rights and liberties came to an end about the time the President removed his hand from the Bible in January 2009. Free speech was an awesome concept when liberals were using it against their opponents. But once liberals took power, free speech became an appalling obstacle to true progress. Freedom of religion stopped being important when some religious people abused that right by opposing liberal initiatives on religious grounds. And as for the Second Amendment, well, don't let the text fool you into thinking it gives you any rights.

If it was to the Administration's short term political advantage to quarter soldiers in private houses without the consent of the owner they would be showing the Third Amendment the door.

We now have an Administration that lied about what happened in Benghazi, and is now lying about its lies. We have a cabinet secretary shaking down healthcare companies for "donations" to a propaganda fund for Obamacare. We have the government grabbing up reporters' cellphone records, and we have the IRS randomly selecting for persecution people and entities who just happen to oppose the regime's goals.

For some liberals, this is just too much to swallow, and we should focus on splitting them out of the liberal coalition. This is the seam.

We spend so much time seeing and reading the ravings of the zombie liberals of the media and the blogs that we forget there is another group of liberals who are liberal because – for whatever misguided reason – they think liberalism is the right way to be. In other words, there are liberals who actually believe what liberalism used to purport to support – including civil rights, civil liberties and the rights of traditionally disadvantaged people.

It is interesting that from those ranks come some of the most dedicated and effective conservative activists – people who became conservative not because they changed their views but because they didn't. Liberalism left them. They believe in individual rights and in equality before the law. They hate prejudice and bigotry in all their ugly forms. They embrace every individual's value, and want to see every individual have a chance to live and to succeed.

They are people like Andrew Breitbart. Andrew was not born a conservative. He wasn't raised a right-winger. He started out a liberal, but he actually took seriously what liberals said. His great sin – and why he was and is so hated by liberals – is that he refused to stop believing in those values when those values stopped being useful. His outrage was not that liberals were liberal; it was that establishment liberals were liars, that they struck poses as defenders of what was true and good and then abandoned them without a second thought if another pose better served their purpose.

This is the seam, the liberals who have a sense of right and wrong, who truly believe in the values the liberal establishment merely pays lip service too. You can see them tentatively raising their heads in response to the avalanche of scandals, noting that maybe the Administration could be a bit more forthcoming on Benghazi, that perhaps siccing government enforcers on political opponents is a bad thing to do.

They sense the truth, and they need time to get their head around it. Liberalism has left them too.

This is why it is no time to go all wobbly. This is why it is no time to ease up on the accelerator. The unvarnished truth, presented clearly, forthrightly and undeniably, will be a wedge that drives them out of the liberal coalition.

Now that the mainstream media has itself felt the clammy grasp of government oppression, for the first time since the inauguration the White House has reason to fear the headlines in the morning papers. The press senses blood in the water, and some elements of it seem to be stirring out of their lethargy and spinning up into a well-deserved feeding frenzy.

As conservatives, we should not overplay our hand. We should not babble about impeachment or oversell the revelations. We should let the media be the delivery system for the bad news – it's a lot harder to shoot the messenger when the messenger is the undeniably liberal Washington Post.

But politicize it we must – in hearings, on talk shows, to reporters. We have found the seam. Our wedge is truth. And we need to drive it in with a sledgehammer.

Read more >>

Flattery, Vanity and Ego: Obama's Case Against A Fox News Reporter

As Katie wrote earlier, the President Obama's Department of Justice secretly monitored the e-mails, phone calls and even physical movements of Fox News reporter James Rosen, even going so far as to suggest that Rosen broke the law.

Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker posted the full 44-page search warrant that details the allegations against both James Rosen former State Department employee Stephne Jin-Woo Kim. It's chilling - perhaps none more so than page 26, which details the innocuous relationship between Rosen and Kim: 

Particularly part (b) here, where the Justice Department somehow sees malice in a reporter "employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim's vanity and ego." In other words, any investigative reporter who plays nice with a potential source might be subject to getting their records searched by the Department of Justice.

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit wrote of top Democrats getting fed up with Eric Holder's scandal-plagued Department of Justice:

 [S]capegoating Holder for Obama's anti-leak practices might help liberal O-bots resolve the cognitive dissonance between their idealized view of the Unicorn Prince as a champion of good government and the unpleasant daily reality. Blame Holder, boot him out, and then they can gaze once again at O as the fantasy president they wished he was.

Press Secretary Jay Carney had nothing to say in today's White House press briefing, refusing to answer any question that he deemed even tangentially related to these new allegations of the Department of Justice that were brought to light. It's been his standard practice when dealing with scandal, but today's was a stunning display of obfuscation. The daily press briefings are becoming must-watch affairs, with even the mainstream media increasingly fed up with the Obama Administration.

Read more >>

WHAT DID OBAMA DO ON 9/11/2012?

Jack Cashill asks if BHO pulled a Clinton a la '96 during Benghazi attack

On this past Sunday morning, Chris Wallace of Fox News grilled the administration’s newly anointed flak catcher, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer.

One critical question was how Obama spent that long night of Sept. 11, 2012, while his charges were busy dying in Benghazi.

“With all due respect,” asked Wallace, “you didn’t answer my question. What did the president do that night?” 

This was a good question and one that prompts a careful look at the time line.

At 3:40 p.m. Washington time on Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi called his No. 2 man, Greg Hicks, and told him, “We’re under attack.”

(All times cited will be EDT, six hours earlier than Libyan time).

(Story continues below...)

---

We are in a dire situation in this country today, and small publications like this one do not have the huge resources of George Soros pouring in like our liberal friends.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like NPR.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like PBS.

Please become a supporting member and help fund this ongoing effort to provide you with news and commentary relevant to our divided nation.

Help us get back our simple conservative values. Remember, the Bigger the Government - the Smaller the citizen!

Member Options

Standard Member : $10.00USD - monthly Patriot Member : $25.00USD - monthly Silver Member : $50.00USD - monthly Gold Member : $100.00USD - monthly Platinum Member : $250.00USD - monthly

Your Comments

---

At 4:05 p.m. the State Department Operations Center issued an alert to all relevant agencies, “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.”

At 4:25 p.m. a six-member CIA team headed by Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods arrived at Stevens’ compound from the nearby annex.

Under heavy fire, Woods’ team recovered the body of Foreign Service IT specialist Sean Smith but could not find Stevens’ body in the burning building.

At 5 p.m. President Barack Obama had a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who briefed him on the Benghazi situation.

At 6 p.m. Woods and his CIA team arrived back at the annex, which they would defend Alamo-style for the next six hours. They would kill an estimated 60 Libyans before the night was through.

At 6:07 p.m. the State Department Operations Center shared a report from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack. The terror group also called for an attack on the Embassy in Tripoli.

At 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts Obama engaged in an hour-long phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama hoped to mend fences with Netanyahu to help secure the Jewish vote in the upcoming election.

After roughly 8:30 p.m., there is no known accounting of Obama’s time or whereabouts.

At 11:15 p.m. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, were killed in a mortar assault at the annex. Doherty had just arrived as part of a six-man team from Tripoli.

At 1:40 a.m., having evacuated the annex, the first group of Americans flew out of Benghazi bound for Tripoli. They saw Stevens’ body at the airport and confirmed his death.

Said Pfeiffer to Wallace when asked about Obama’s evening, “He was in constant touch with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.”

Wallace then listed all the critical people with whom Obama had little or no conversation – the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Pfeiffer clarified, “He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council – people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

“Was he in the situation room?” Wallace asked.

“I don’t remember what room he was in that night,” said Pfeiffer. “That’s a largely irrelevant fact.” No, it is not irrelevant at all.

I cannot say for sure where Obama was that evening, but if the night of July 17, 1996, set a precedent, Obama was likely in the White House family quarters.

For the record, at 8:35 p.m. on that turbulent night in the election year of 1996, President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary left a Washington fundraiser and headed back to the White House by motorcade.

At 8:31 p.m., two FAA veterans at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center observed a target arching and intersecting with Paris-bound TWA Flight 800 as it headed east off Long Island’s south shore.

A manager from that center rushed the radar data to the FAA technical center in Atlantic City, and from there it was faxed to FAA headquarters in Washington and rushed “immediately” to the White House situation room.

It was in this room, “in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing,” as Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos unwittingly told Peter Jennings on Sept. 11, 2001, that all key parties converged.

“This looks bad,” said Ron Schleede of the National Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that “suggested something fast made the turn and took the airplane.”

Anti-terror czar Richard Clarke got the message too. By 9 p.m., he was driving in to the White House to convene a meeting of his security group, not at all the norm for a plane crash.

“I dreaded what I thought was about to happen,” Clarke wrote in his best-seller “Against All Enemies.” Clarke called it “The Eisenhower option,” a retaliatory strike against Iran.

When President Clinton met with friendly historian Taylor Branch on Aug. 2, 1996, he also traced the TWA 800 disaster to Iran. “They want war,” Branch quoted Clinton as saying.

On the night of July 17, however, the president chose not to join Clarke and the other agency representatives in the situation room.

Clinton remained holed up in the family quarters with Hillary. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson and others have confirmed the president’s location that evening.

Patterson was in a position to know. He carried the nuclear football for the president, and he too was in the White House that night, though purposefully kept out of the loop.

The one person Patterson has tentatively cited as being in the family quarters with the Clintons is Sandy Berger, the deputy director of the NSA and the Clintons’ political consigliere.

As it happened, National Security Adviser Tony Lake, Sandy Berger’ boss, was not invited to the family quarters. Lake was known to excuse himself from meetings when they turned political.

That night Berger and the Clintons gathered information from the FAA radar, from the satellite data and from the eyewitness accounts and translated the data into electoral strategy.

By 3 a.m. Clinton had apparently gathered enough information to call Lake with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.”

Dust them off, yes, but let’s not get too serious about them. In late summer 1996, with the election comfortably in the bag, war was the last thing the Clintons wanted or needed.

On Sept. 11, 2012, war was the last thing Obama wanted or needed as well. He had already bagged Osama bin Laden, pacified al-Qaida and liberated Libya.

Or so he repeated endlessly. Foreign policy was alleged to be his electoral strong suit. Given the political dynamics, Obama likely retreated, just as the Clintons had, to the family quarters.

As Pfeiffer said, Obama probably did talk to “people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

Obama and certain of these people, the political insiders, would have spent the night translating national security data into electoral strategy.

After all, Obama had a big fundraiser the next day in Vegas. That did not allow much time to establish an alibi that would preserve his carefully crafted bin Laden-slayer narrative.

It was a close call, but with a little help from the media – a special shout-out to CNN’s Candy Crowley! – the alibi worked just well enough to get the man re-elected.

History does repeat itself.

Read more >>

THE SPECTATOR PRESIDENT

Pat Buchanan: Trio of events shows Obama's 'indolence, indifference and incompetence'

No, this is not Watergate or Iran-Contra. Nor is it like the sex scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached.

The AP, IRS and Benghazi matters represent a scandal not of presidential wrongdoing, but of presidential indolence, indifference and incompetence in discharging the duties of chief executive.

The Barack Obama revealed to us in recent days is something rare in our history: a spectator president, clueless about what is going on in his own household, who reacts to revelations like some stunned bystander.

Consider. Because of a grave national security leak, President Obama’s Department of Justice seized two months of records from 20 telephones used by The Associated Press. An unprecedented seizure.

Yet the president was left completely in the dark. And though he rushed to defend the seizure, he claims he was uninvolved.

While the AP issue does not appear to have legs – we know what was done and why – it has badly damaged this president. For his own Justice Department treated the press, which has an exalted opinion of itself and its role, with the same contempt as the IRS treated the tea party.

The episode has damaged a crucial presidential asset. For this Washington press corps had provided this president with a protective coverage of his follies and failings unseen since the White House press of half a century ago covered up the prowlings of JFK.

The Benghazi issue is of far greater gravity. Still, Obama’s sins here as well seem to be those of omission, not commission.

The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12, when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S. personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.

No one seems to know where Obama was that night.

(Story continues below...)

---

We are in a dire situation in this country today, and small publications like this one do not have the huge resources of George Soros pouring in like our liberal friends.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like NPR.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like PBS.

Please become a supporting member and help fund this ongoing effort to provide you with news and commentary relevant to our divided nation.

Help us get back our simple conservative values. Remember, the Bigger the Government - the Smaller the citizen!

Member Options

Standard Member : $10.00USD - monthly Patriot Member : $25.00USD - monthly Silver Member : $50.00USD - monthly Gold Member : $100.00USD - monthly Platinum Member : $250.00USD - monthly

Your Comments

---

The following week, as the State Department, CIA and National Security Council all worked the “talking points” to make it appear that this preplanned terrorist atrocity was a spontaneous event triggered by an anti-Islamic video, Obama knew nothing of the discussions.

Thus, almost a week after the massacre, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was put on six networks to move the line that we could not have better prepared for what would happen in Benghazi because it was all a spontaneous event triggered by a YouTube video.

Rice’s version was untrue, but consistent with Obama’s campaign message: “Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaida is on the run.”

Yet if Rice’s credibility was crippled by what she was sent out to parrot, a week after she got the egg all over her face, Obama was himself peddling the same line at the United Nations. Obama, it seems, may have been the last man to know the cover story had collapsed.

As for the IRS’s targeting of tea party applications for tax-exempt status, this bureaucratic misconduct began as far back as 2010, when the tea party was a national sensation.

Yet, despite tea party protests to members of Congress, who made inquiries of the IRS, the discrimination against groups with “tea party” and “patriot” in their names continued, and was extended to groups whose proclaimed mission was to defend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Literally for years this went on. Investigations were begun by the IRS, and the results reported to the Treasury Department.

But nothing was made public before the election of 2012.

This weekend we learned that the White House counsel was told this April about the IRS misconduct and the investigations, but she did not inform President Obama. He learned about it from news reports.

What we have here, it appears, is a government out of control and a president clueless about what is going on in that government.

And that is the best case. For it is difficult to believe the IRS could conduct a full-court press on Obama’s opponents, that IRS higher-ups knew about it, years ago, and that Treasury knew about it before the election – but the White House was kept in the dark about a scandal that could have derailed the Obama campaign.

But whatever Obama knew, he and his allies in Congress bear moral responsibility for denying these tea party folks for years their right to participate fully in the politics of their country.

For years, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other Democrats have slandered and slurred tea party people as enemies of progress – smears echoed by their mainstream press allies.

Should we then be surprised that IRS bureaucrats, hearing this, thought they were doing what was right for America by slow-walking applications for tax exemptions from these same tea party folks?

Who demonized the tea party people? Who created the climate of contempt? Whoever did gave moral sanction to those IRS agents.

And the Spectator President is right in the vanguard.

Read more >>

My 2-word love note to the IRS

John Rocker tells how insult written on large check to agency elicited audit

Death and taxes.

Two certainties in life.

Right?

A few years ago, the privilege of paying taxes earned me – much to the consternation of my accountant – the joy of an Internal Revenue Service audit.

Even before my baseball playing days ended, I got involved in real estate. After retiring from the game, the dabbling in real estate became a full-time profession.

(Story continues below...)

---

We are in a dire situation in this country today, and small publications like this one do not have the huge resources of George Soros pouring in like our liberal friends.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like NPR.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like PBS.

Please become a supporting member and help fund this ongoing effort to provide you with news and commentary relevant to our divided nation.

Help us get back our simple conservative values. Remember, the Bigger the Government - the Smaller the citizen!

Member Options

Standard Member : $10.00USD - monthly Patriot Member : $25.00USD - monthly Silver Member : $50.00USD - monthly Gold Member : $100.00USD - monthly Platinum Member : $250.00USD - monthly

Your Comments

---

As a 1099 employee of my own company, my paychecks didn’t already have federal, state and Social Security taxes taken out, some of which would have been refunded to me after paying taxes if I were a W-2 employee.

With no interest, mind you.

After one particular fruitful year with my properties/developments, the displeasure of signing over a hefty amount of my earnings – based on a year of tough work, sacrifice and diligent future-time oriented investments – wasn’t exactly an idea I was happy with at the time.

Again, just imagine you were to pay all of your taxes at the same time, instead of having them pulled out of your monthly or bimonthly paychecks.

One big, fat, happy check, with a nice, fat whole number signed over to the IRS.

That wasn’t a fun day.

In the “for” line of the check, my anger at signing over a significant six figure amount to the IRS boiled over in the type of rage that once fueled my relief-pitching days for the Braves.

I wrote a choice, four-letter-word in the “for” line, followed by a much more pleasant “personal pronoun” (use your imagination).

The IRS didn’t take too kindly to the two-word statement – though they had no problem cashing the check.

I was audited.

When my accountant met with the IRS in a high-rise in Atlanta, a bureaucrat pushed the check across the desk and asked him, “Please ask your client not to write that on the ‘for’ line anymore.”

Moral of the story: In the “for” line of checks, don’t write a personal message to the IRS.

Perhaps the audit wouldn’t have occurred if I had refrained from writing a personal message on the check, but seeing the extraordinary dollar amount I owed the government for my hard work, sacrifice and overall risk that exists when one chooses to be an entrepreneur left me in a less-than-charitable mood.

Funny, the same message I put in the “for” line of my check to the IRS is the exact same message many conservative groups, nonprofits and tea party groups received from the same entity.

Scandals are rocking the Obama administration right now, but none cuts to the heart of corruption more than the IRS scandal – after all, it cuts directly into the pocketbooks of a lot of people.

Those organizations and people who want accountability in government and still believe the U.S. Constitution was written as the bedrock of our laws – and not a document to arbitrarily look upon from time to time to validate the latest goal of the left – are now targets of a vindictive Obama administration.

When the Executive Branch can use an existing department of the federal government to target political enemies, you know accountability in government is done.

Instead of having proper checks and balances, you simply have a rigged game of chess.

You have “checkmate.”

You have a situation where potentially the president of the United States himself had a hand in the targeting political enemies by the IRS. Jeffery Lord of The American Spectator reported:

“According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-tea party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30 p.m. that Wednesday noon time of March 31 [2010]. 

“In short: The very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-tea party labor union – the union for IRS employees – met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS ‘Determinations Unit Program agreed’ to open a ‘Sensitive Case report on the tea party cases,’ as stated by the [inspector general's] report.”

The targeting of political enemies, using the IRS and its ability to audit individuals and charitable organizations, is a manifestation of the two-word phrase I wrote on a check to the IRS, earning me an audit in the process.

Death and taxes.

Two certainties in life, right?

Living in the age of Obama, you should by now understand that the primary certainty is that those who stand in the way of his agenda are only targets to be neutralized.

If the IRS can’t handle it, then Eric Holder’s Department of Justice will be called upon to do the job.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution all government employees are supposedly defending remains the primary causality.

Read more >>

WHAT'S BEHIND BLACK FLASH MOBS

Mychal Massie points to false messages sent to young minorities

In the late 1980s, it was called “wilding,” and the actors were called “wolf packs.” Today they are called “flash mobs,” but the actors and their intentions are the same.

Marauding gangs of blacks are terrorizing cities across the country, randomly attacking whites and destroying private property. As journalist Colin Flaherty wrote: “Welcome to the new normal: Large-scale black mob violence is busting out in Philadelphia, Chicago, Utica, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Wilmington (Delaware), Greenville (South Carolina), Grand Rapids, Peoria, Springfield (Ohio), Newark, Boston and Brooklyn.” (“Busting out all over: Black mob violence,” WND.com, April 11, 2013)

(Story continues below...)

---

We are in a dire situation in this country today, and small publications like this one do not have the huge resources of George Soros pouring in like our liberal friends.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like NPR.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like PBS.

Please become a supporting member and help fund this ongoing effort to provide you with news and commentary relevant to our divided nation.

Help us get back our simple conservative values. Remember, the Bigger the Government - the Smaller the citizen!

Member Options

Standard Member : $10.00USD - monthly Patriot Member : $25.00USD - monthly Silver Member : $50.00USD - monthly Gold Member : $100.00USD - monthly Platinum Member : $250.00USD - monthly

Your Comments

---

During the “wilding” days, a group of black youths would randomly target a white person and punch him in the face, often taking time to admire their evil work. There was celebratory recognition for the one who delivered the most devastating assault. Today, 50-100 or more blacks go on wild rampages of unprovoked violence, and the media is mute about it.

There is an understanding in the media that to report on such behavior would be viewed as racist. As my late grandmother was wont to say, “What on earth is this world coming to?” What indeed?

What motivates a people to act out such animalistic behavior?

One obvious answer is that there is no limit to the depths those who do not know the Lord will sink to in their depravity. But the other is raw, unbridled antipathy for whites.

This hatred is fueled by the continued inculcation that white people are not only taking advantage of blacks but that the problems in predominantly black domiciles are inherently attributable to white people in the zeitgeist of today. Whites are viewed as synonymous with all that is unjust and as being unfairly advantaged.

Blacks are constantly reminded – and thus encouraged to be resentful because of past grievances that most today never experienced. Specifically not those involved in flash mobs.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are easy targets when it comes to pointing out those who foment racial discord – and justifiably so. But what about the message sent by the highest law enforcement officer in the country, Attorney General Eric Holder, who refused my official petition and the petitions of others calling for the New Black Panther Party to be prosecuted for voter intimidation? Does not that send a clear and unambiguous message that if you’re black and terrorize white people there is no penalty? What about the transpicuous message of racial demagoguery by Obama when he claimed if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin? What about the message sent by the Obama woman when she stated in effect that she was only proud being in America because her husband was elected president?

Combining messages like those with the inculcation of “if you’re black you’re not equal” fertilizes the seeds of resentment and anger. Mixing that alchemy with the mantra that blacks are poorer and more disadvantaged than whites because the government doesn’t help them enough, adds accelerant to the flames under the caldron of combustible contempt.

Thus, it becomes understandable why those involved in these violent outbursts are given over to same. It is their intention to hurt the people viewed as responsible for their fathers being in jail, their mothers having to work two jobs, their horrid home lives, their brothers and sisters being killed in gang violence, ad nauseum.

They are taught in the classrooms that white privilege is to blame. The government is perceived as a monolith to white imperialism.

The message that is most needed, and that would have the greatest positive impact, is the one that isn’t given nearly enough.

Send the message that getting a good education is paramount, and that doesn’t necessarily imply the need for college – learn a skill or trade. Teach that marketable social skills, marketable linguistic skills, marketable employment skills and proper dress are more important than the number of women males can sleep with. Instead of celebrating the working single mother as worthy of emulation, why not celebrate the woman who respects herself and who abstains from having children (sans abortion) until she is married?

Teach that while America is the greatest country in the world – the reality of life is that it sometimes seems unfair. But that isn’t because a white person is hiding just out of sight making a black man’s life miserable (Democratic race-mongers notwithstanding).

I in no way support the animalistic behavior of flash mobs, but, specific to that point, it must be said that when the message being received on a sensory level every day of their lives is one of “the white man is to blame” what else can we expect?

Read more >>

OBAMA: ACCESSORY TO MURDER?

Joseph Farah says if BHO had his way Gosnell would still be killing babies

Is Barack Obama an accessory to murder?

That question may seem loaded and over the top.

But I would like to point out some simple facts.

Kermit Gosnell was sentenced last Wednesday to life in prison without parole for the murder of a baby born alive in a botched abortion, who prosecutors said would have survived if the doctor had not “snipped” its neck with scissors. He was also sentenced to a total of 30 to 60 superfluous years on two charges of conspiring to kill two other babies. He got off relatively easy on some other charges that included involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman who died after being given too much anesthesia in his clinic.

I’m not going to dignify Gosnell, as many news organizations did, by bestowing upon him the honorific title “doctor.” Gosnell is an abortionist. He never cured people. He killed them.

(Story continues below...)

---

We are in a dire situation in this country today, and small publications like this one do not have the huge resources of George Soros pouring in like our liberal friends.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like NPR.

Worth Reading is not funded by the government like PBS.

Please become a supporting member and help fund this ongoing effort to provide you with news and commentary relevant to our divided nation.

Help us get back our simple conservative values. Remember, the Bigger the Government - the Smaller the citizen!

Member Options

Standard Member : $10.00USD - monthly Patriot Member : $25.00USD - monthly Silver Member : $50.00USD - monthly Gold Member : $100.00USD - monthly Platinum Member : $250.00USD - monthly

Your Comments

---

He was only spared the death penalty because of a plea agreement after his convictions.

So what does all this have to do with Obama being an accessory to murder?

You’ll first notice that Obama has refused to comment on the case from the beginning. Here’s a guy, Obama, who can’t keep his mouth shut on any topic. He loves to hear himself talk. But, when it comes to Gosnell, he’s mute. At first he said he couldn’t comment on it because it was an active trial. What’s stopping him now? Cat got your tongue?

Why can’t Obama talk about it?

Because Obama is on record as supporting the kind of thing Gosnell did.

I know Obama is faced with many scandals, and the opportunities to ask questions of him are, shall we say, somewhat limited.

But wouldn’t it be nice if some enterprising reporter with access asked: “Now that the Gosnell trial is over, do you still oppose laws that protect babies that survive abortions?”

As an Illinois state senator, Obama twice voted against bills that would have “defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a ‘born alive infant’ and entitled to legal protection.” He said he viewed the bills as backdoor attempts to deny women the right to abortion.

So, in other words, if Obama had his way, Gosnell would still be practicing – still free to kill more babies.

And can’t we take it a step further by suggesting that Gosnell, and others like him across the nation who haven’t yet been brought to justice, was encouraged to do just what he did?

The sitting president of the United States twice openly took the position in the short time he served as a legislator that babies born alive following abortions had no right to live. This was legislation he was actively opposing even while abortionists were murdering babies born alive in cold blood in his own state. That’s why the legislation was put forward in Illinois, largely because of heroines like Jill Stanek, a nurse who witnessed such acts of barbarism and brought it to the attention of Obama and the Illinois Legislature.

So maybe that’s why Obama is less than loquacious on the subject of Gosnell.

What can he say?

Has he changed his mind about the very laws that put Gosnell away for life?

Or does he still believe that those laws would merely serve as backdoor attempts to deny women their right to take the life of their baby – born or not?

My guess is he would still take that extreme abortion position if he answered honestly.

I think it would be a tougher question for Obama to answer right now than those he’s facing on Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press scandals – now that the country has seen the kind of barbarism abortionists practice.

Read more >>

BBC: Unexplained 'standstill' in 'global warming' -- since 1998!

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News

The impacts of rising temperature are being felt particularly keenly in the polar regions

Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

Continue reading the main story

"Start Quote

The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before"

Dr Alexander OttoUniversity of Oxford

The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studiedfor several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.

An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.

Transient nature

Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.

Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.

The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than forecast

"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.

"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."

The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.

But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

Ocean storage

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."

The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans.

Not everyone agrees with this perspective.

Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.

"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

Read more >>

DAY-BY-DAY: HOW WHITE HOUSE CHANGES ITS STORY...

The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

Monday's revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration's account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House's ever-shifting narrative.

Here's how the White House account has evolved:

Friday, May 10: IRS official Lois Lerner disclosed at an American Bar Association conference that the agency had targeted non-profit applications from groups with tea party language in their name.

That afternoon, Carney said he didn't know when the White House first became aware of the investigation.

"I don't have an answer to that specifically," Carney said. "I know that when the IG began investigating it, that it's been investigating it for however long the IRS has said, but I don't have a specific answer to that."

Outside the White House, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said that he'd first learned of the details of the investigation from news reports.

Monday, May 13: Obama, during his press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, said he first learned about the IRS story from the press.

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said. "I think it was on Friday."

Later in the day, Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One that White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler's office was told "in the week of April 22" that an inspector general's report was coming "involving the office in Cincinnati."

"But that's all they were informed as a normal sort of heads up," Carney said. "And we have never — we don't have access to, nor should we, the IG's report or any draft versions of it."

Tuesday, May 14: The inspector general's report was released, and Obama released a statement directing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to "hold those responsible for these failures accountable."

Wednesday, May 15: Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned at Obama's request.

Read more >>

The wartime President

Gary Bray

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in Hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Rom 8 20-21

It looks like the messiah's army has become war weary. After so many years of fighting this war it is difficult to continue to rally the troops and it looks like the troops are thinking, nuclear. Just like LBJ's "heavy heart" speech it simply appears the enemy has rallied from the carpet bombing and now is beginning to get a toehold on the Ho Chi Min trail. When you have a super-power like the District of Corruption using all of its force against a group of under-armed guerilla fighters and still are not able to get their surrender you begin to see a misuse of power which is exactly what we are witnessing. Eventually, your army begins to look at the leader and ask if he is up to the task of wiping out such an easy foe.

We have the full force of the United States gummit, the media and academia bringing their power to bear against their most hated enemy which is the American people. These Three Pillars have learned during the last fifty years you no longer have to build gulags when you can enslave their political prisoners under house arrest and silence them through virtual firing squads, scare tactics and intimidation. They are now in complete control by owning the Three Pillars and have absolute power from every front. They are now at war with their number one enemy and as we saw this week anything goes until they crush the resistance.

The enemy the United States is at war is any group which has any words or phraseology such as Americans, Love America, Patriotic, My Country tis of thee, Flag (except when proceeded by burn, spit on, piss on or any desecration), Christian, gun and especially Tea Party. The United States and DC is in the process of purging these groups from the political landscape and consider them the real terrorists in America who must be destroyed. The groups they are allied with have any name relating to hate America, end marriage, communist, socialist, progressive, dirt worship, Al Queda, Islam, or any group bent on the destruction of America. The lines have never been more clearly defined as war has been declared and this is not going to be a fair fight.

Communism is a Godless political religion which is based on evolution and has no moral values. It has been taught in our schools from K-college and many of those who come out are firm believers in moral relativism and no moral absolutes. This means any ends justifies the ends if those ends lead to solidifying power and furthering their communist stranglehold on America. Just like the old Soviet guard who would justify purging political dissidents in the gulags, the modern communist will justify voter fraud, IRS intimidation and murdering Ambassadors and Americans at a marathon if it somehow will allow them to maintain power. There is no greater threat to these people than the possibility a group would have a platform which would point out the emptiness and criminality of their Party so freedom loving groups are the Al Queda in their eyes.

If you have no absolutes or truths, you are allowed to determine what is good and bad. Since man without God is inherently evil, when you have man making that determination using his moral relativism; anything is determined as good or at least justifiable. This is why they think it is just fine to harass Conservative groups with the full power of the IRS while helping their communist based groups. They believe the Conservatives are the enemy and if they could get rid of them then their utopia is right around the corner. Never mind their version of utopia requires the harassment and punishment of those who disagree with them, it is still utopia. Never mind their idea of utopia requires around, 25% unemployment and enslavement of those still working, they enjoy those utopian benefits. Their vision of utopia is they are in it and the slaves maintain their utopian lifestyle without complaint.

Moral relativism also allows the justification of creating a façade of safety in a den of terrorism to the point of making sure nobody has weapons to protect themselves' for fear of offending the terrorists. It allows you to put people in danger unnecessarily so you can create an image of defeating terrorism even when your own people are telling you otherwise. You do not even allow the word terrorist to be uttered for fear of waking the sleeping populous. It also allows you to justify the turning down requests to rescue your own Ambassador when his life is in severe jeopardy because you are afraid a military disaster would reflect poorly on your reelection so you turn your back and leave him to die. The fact you left thirty people on their own to die or somehow escape so you don't have a Black Hawk down situation is easily justified to reach your election ends.

After you watch your Ambassador and some brave Americans who defied your orders, murdered in the most savage way possible you now have to justify how to spin this to get through the election. You make up this phony video story so you can turn the tables on the intolerant Conservatives and begin to lecture America for being anti-Mooselimb and spit on the real victims of this tragedy. You already know America is filled with bigots who are basically evil, so you simply justify your existence with this story to the point you even jail some nobody Egyptian director who made a video nobody ever watched until the coordinated story was blasted around the world. The last thing you can afford is to make it seem like Libya is actually a terrorist snake pit or the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, so you blame some innocent director; the ends justify the means.

You have to make sure nobody asks why the Ambassador was in one of the most dangerous towns in the Middle East or who made the Stand Down order. If people were to actually be told what happened that night and who was at fault it could allow Romney to gain traction so the Three Pillars went to work and promoted this pathetic excuse and if anyone deviated they were put in front of the virtual firing squad. For the Democrat machine it was not only justifiable, but it allowed them to attack the Conservatives as the intolerant bigots they have painted them for decades. This attack was America's fault for being insensitive to islam. Still, nobody dares to ask who made the "Stand Down" call or what the Ambassador was doing in such a dangerous location, the Pillars won't allow that information to be disclosed.

We are witnessing a war weary administration. The same people who believe they are the most intelligent people on the planet are looking very pedestrian right now. There is more corruption being exposed about these moral relativists than we have ever seen in a presidency. We are witnessing what happens when man makes the rules rather than God where ethical behavior is expected. We are seeing the ends justifying any means and what they are justifying to make those ends happen and is very ugly and sinister. This week we had a look behind the curtain and found no intelligence or plan, only Chicago mob politics which uses intimidation and corruption to push people around and a complete abuse of power. For those who were watching it is was not a pretty sight although revealing who the real enemy of Obama's army is. It is you.

Pray for America to Wake Up

Read more >>