EPA Scandal

President Obama’s scandals keep popping up and now that some News agencies are finally doing their job; as I expected the second of the twin terrors (the IRS being the first, the EPA being the second) has just erupted into a scandal as well. We have watched how the administration has refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voters intimidation (caught on video tape), failed our Libyan ambassador at Benghazi, spied on our free press, let’s not forget the Fast & the Furious, and targeted groups using the IRS for political purposes and now we find out they did the same targeting people with the EPA.

The EPA has been giving preferred treatment to environmental and other pro liberal groups while purposely scrutinizing and attacking conservative and watchdog groups.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Public records produced by EPA in response to a CEI Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of bias against limited-government groups, conservative groups, and those who argue for complete openness from the EPA and access to the EPA’s records. The Examiner found the EPA waved fees for green groups 92% of the time yes conservative groups waivers were denied 93% of the time. What would you think if the EPA waivered 92% of white people but made 93% of minorities pay or vise-verse?

This shows pure prejudice against conservative groups and how immoral not only the IRS but also the EPA has become. This is as anti-American as you can get. The CEI stated, “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly. The left hand of big government reaches out to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.” A CEI senior fellow Chris Horner stated, “Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” Does this sound like the EPA is taking an UN-bias approach or a politically motivated one?

This get worse, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the most progressive and law breaking EPA chief in history conveniently announced her resignation in late December. She was caught, breaking federal law, by using an alias "Richard Windsor" and a fraudulent e-mail account to conspire in the establishment media and friendly policymakers in shady deal in an effort to promote Jackson and the administration’s illegal and unconstitutional policies without being uncovered. The address was created specifically to avoid federal record-keeping and disclosure requirements. This would still be going on if CEI’s Christopher Horner, an attorney hadn’t brought it to the light. The EPA was created by “executive order” of Richard Nixon (a Republican) which also was unconstitutional because it didn’t go through congress. Unsurprisingly, the EPA has been redacting (blacking out) massive segments of the documents (to cover up its illegal acts) it was forced to release under court order, but refuses to comply with the court order of many more documents. Why would the EPA need to redact anything, they don’t deal with classified anything. This is pure cover-up to protect their butts. It doesn’t matter if you are a conservative or a liberal, this type of illegal activity cannot be tolerated anywhere in the government.

Lawmakers are launching an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency for discriminating against conservative groups to obtain government records but making it easy for environmental groups. The letter was sent by Republican Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) along with Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe. The question to ask is sense we know this illegal act happened, why isn’t there one Democratic Senator on this letter? It may be conservatives targeted this time but it may be liberals next time.

Mr. Brandon Darby, points out conservative groups targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny in its 501(c)(4) application suddenly started getting attention from the EPA too; does this sound like a connection and willfully done? Catherine Engelbrecht and the King Street Patriots Tea Party formed True the Vote, a nonprofit which focuses on election integrity. Once True the Vote applied to the IRS for their 501(c3) non-profit status, immediately their problems began. Multiple federal agencies, along with an EPA-affiliated began auditing True the Vote and its founders, something that is never done except in extreme cases. The EPA visited their group, their businesses, and asking questions of people who knew them. As I said at the beginning about the twin terrors, you can see them at work here in unison. Ultimately, the IRS determined that it actually owed a refund to Engelbrecht; the BATF found nothing wrong in any of its repeated visits and audits; OSHA’s fine-toothed comb found reason to demand $25,000 from Engelbrecht’s family business; and TCEQ demanded the Engelbrechts spend $42,000 on additional storage sheds. They are thugs pushing a political agenda and if you go against it they come after you. Remember when I asked “Why isn’t there one Democratic Senator on this letter?” In this case in Texas, the Democratic Party of Texas did sign a letters; a letter to filed a lawsuit against her, as did an ACORN affiliated groups because she wanted only “American Citizens” to be able to vote in elections; go figure.

This is why you need a small government not a big one, so they will stay out of your business and stick to keeping our nation safe. We are loosing our rights daily and if we do not change the direction this nation has been pointed by both Democrats and Republicans, our freedom will be the next to go.  

IRS (Immoral Reprehensible Scourge), Do You Trust Them? I DON”T!

How far has our elected officials wondered from our Founding Fathers, about as far as humanly possible. Our great nation was founded because of taxation without representation and today not only is this present but the discrimination of its implementation shines brightly.

White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the legality surrounding the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service is “irrelevant,” but called the behavior “outrageous and inexcusable.” “I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant.”

First this is code for “Darn we got caught so spin it, hopefully it will go away”. If the white house was truly “outraged” they would first fire Dan Pfeiffer for saying it legalities are irrelevant because what was done is illegal and is relevant to all who love this country.  He then said “I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant.”  Isn’t the law here to protect the people from illegal actions; so how can it be irrelevant? Who put this person in this position and why hasn’t he been fired? The truth is because this is how this administration and many of our elected officials from both sides operate; the law doesn’t apply to them. Sheila Jackson Lee was stating rules that didn’t exist and was called on it when she was trying to derail Darrel Issa’s questioning of and Eric Holder. The question to ask is “Why would she defend the indefensible immoral and illegal IRS acts?”

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman faced scrutiny, after having told a House committee in March 2012 there was "absolutely no targeting" by the IRS of conservative organizations. Lois Lerner directed IRS agents to target tea party and other conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status; it took liberal groups 3 months on average to the 18 month for conservative groups (if they received it at all) to receive tax exempt status. When Mr. Shulman stepped down they put Ms. Lerner in charge of the IRS; does this sound like trying to fix the problem? She and these same people would also be the ones with complete access to your medical records under Obama Care; would you trust her? They finally removed her but only after a giant uproar.

"The IRS abandoned good judgment and lost the public's trust," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee but it was his party doing it, at lease this time. In fact, the I.R.S. review requested by Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups but it wasn’t only him. Last year, a group of seven more Senate Democrats which urged the IRS to investigate these conservative parties sent another letter to the IRS demanding them investigate these outside political organizations. All most all of them sent tweets and messages that they were outraged this could happen in America, and it was them doing it; they should resign immediately. The letter was signed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken.In all there were some 120 Senate and House elected Democrats directing the IRS to investigate conservative groups. Do you see something wrong with this; I do.

Such a review threatens to "chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights," wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday; Democrats dismissed the Republicans' complaints as groundless. I wonder what they think now, we were wrong or we got caught? If you are voters in their district and reelect them, you are the biggest anti-American fools in the US today. I don’t care if you are a Democrat or Republican; if you’re an elected official from any party and do this you should loose your job along with everyone in the IRS chain of leadership. This did happen once before under Richard Nixon and all elected officials resigned who were involved; I wonder if these Senators will do the same honorable action (don’t hold your breath)?  

We need to erase the IRS regulations and start over with everything written in laymen’s terms instead of 30,000 pages of lawyer language. If you listen to the experts you can see why. “It’s a game. We [tax lawyers] teach the rich how to play it so they can stay rich — and the IRS keeps changing the rules so we can keep getting rich teaching them.” — Attorney and best-selling author John Grisham, as noted in The New York Times in 1995. We need to have a Flat Tax first because John Grisham is right with only the lawyers and rich winning. If you read “Taxes”, it will show where we need to head.

Every one of the groups was being sniped for political reasons even though they had done nothing wrong. When you have any political party orchestrating and administering this type of illegal and immoral acts against the US Constitution, it is only a matter of time before they start attacking your US Constitutional rights no matter which party or political ideology you believe, just ask the North East Fishing Industry who are now on the verge of loosing their way of life. If we do not start voting for the officials who will protect the US Constitution and everybody’s freedoms, we as a nation will soon have no freedoms.

The Facts about Our Two Parties

Many people believe there is no agreement between our two parties of government but they are wrong; below I have listed where they either agree or mostly agree. The 20 items show the position of the parties and mine.

	Issue	Democrats	Republican	Me
1.	Open Government	No	No	Yes
2.	Term Limits on Elected officials.	No	No	Yes
3.	Giving Foreign governments who hate us our money.	Yes	Yes	No
4.	Lying to get elected is OK	Yes	Yes	No
5.	Banning Ear Marks	No	No	Yes
6.	Making Government live within limits.	No	Mostly No	Yes

1.      I’m for completely open government with every department posting in Laymen’s Terms so any citizen can understand it exactly what they are spending their time, money and recourses. No area should be exempt except Classified or National Security Items but a list would need to be made to what these were or the politicians would put everything there.

2.      We have too many politicians who are making decisions for us in the real world who have never been in the real world; this need to end.  Setting term limits would virtually get rid of all career politicians, this would end most of the stagnant problems due to molded Politicians who have been living in a vacuum.  

3.      We should only help those who help us and need our help. Helping Arab nations who hate our guts and giving them money which will be used to harm our troops is stupid and irresponsible.

4.      When I hear politicians flat out lying about another politician who they are running against, it pisses me off. This is the ones we are suppose to respect and they can’t even tell the true about a subject. What are even worse are the personal attacks instead of debating the issues. I don’t care if you are gay, divorced, or had a DUI in the past; I only care about if you can do the job. Letting our people, including a diplomat get murdered in Benghazi, and then lying about it is when any true American Patriot should rise up and recall or impeach all elected officials involved.

5.      Ear Marks are the number 1 cause for our over spending. They are attachments to bills, usually previous bills that couldn’t pass on their own because they were wasteful, no one wanted, or just stupid. So what our politicians do is attach them to another bill like Defense Funding.  Here are some examples of earmarks in the Defense Bill:

Provides $65 million for Pacific Coast salmon restoration (why is this in the Defense Bill, it has nothing to do with defense.)

Provides $14.7 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (why is this in the Defense Bill, it has nothing to do with defense either.)

Provides $993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners (why is this in the Defense Bill, it sounds good but this isn’t the place for it).  

Provides $10 million for the USDA High Energy Cost Grants (why is this in the Defense Bill, it isn’t for the military.)

Provides $5.9 million for USDA ‘Economic Impact Initiative’ grants, (why is USDA grants in the Defense Bill, it once again has nothing to do with defense.)

This is just a few; there were over 117 so I can’t put them all here.

6.      Our Congress loves to vote themselves pay raises higher then the rest of the federal government and during the Sequester have protected themselves so they do not loose a dime of their pay even though the caused this financial mess, but other federal employee will loose 20% of their pay; ironic.  

	Issue	Democrats	Republican	Me
7.	Civil Rights	Yes	Yes	Yes
8.	Women’s Equal Rights	Yes	Yes	Yes

7.      This one goes back to number 4. If you go back and look at the records from the 1960s you will find it was the mostly Republicans with a few Democrats who were for equal rights. Most Democrats like George Wallace, Bull Connor, and even LBJ if you look it up. The mostly Republicans were the ones who gave the women and minorities the break to be able to work equality to live the American Dream; today the Democrats want to give the minorities most anything but it’s not to help them; it’s to make them along with any others dependent so they will vote Democrat to keep receiving entitlements. These people will never be able to live the American Dream as long as they stay on the entitlements.

8.      It was pretty well covered in number 7.

	Issue	Democrats	Republican	Me
9.	For School vouchers for parents to choose their kids schools.	No	Yes	Yes
10.	For Voter ID	No	Yes	Yes
11.	Pro Union	Yes	Depends on area	Depends on Union

9.      The short of this story is and make no mistake about it; any politician against school vouchers does not care about your children, only the money the unions will give them to defeat vouchers. This comes strait out of the mouth of the biggest teacher’s union president.

10.  You have to have an ID to get cigarettes but you think it is a violation of your rights to show one for the most important thing we will do in our nation. It is kind of being a hypocrite with this double standard; you want to force everyone to show their IDs for cigarettes to ensure they are legal to buy them but no to vote to prevent voter’s fraud. Any politician against voter IDs is UN-American.

11.  You have good ones and you have bad ones like the teacher union from above. Not much more to say.

	Issue	Democrats	Republican	Me
12.	Government knows best for raising your children	Yes	No	No
13.	Getting your kids under 17 medical treatments without your consent.	Yes	No	No
14.	Support Our Military	Mostly No	Mostly Yes	100% Yes
15.	For securing our borders.	Mostly No	Mostly Yes	100% Yes

12.  You have the government telling us they know what is best for our kids; are we turning into a socialist state? If you have kids you are responsible for them, not the government. They now say they can give your child drugs, procedures, and indoctrination and it’s none of your business. This leftist socialistic agenda is only going to get worse. If you read or especially if you are of a religious belief, you had better quit voting these idiots into office because soon they will be telling you what you can and cannot read; what you can and cannot believe.

13.  Read 12, the government will soon be able to tell your child to get an abortion because it’s best and not even let you know. They are now starting it with the morning after pill which has been proven to not be safe and they can give to your child without you knowing. I don’t care if you are for or against abortion but it should be between your child; not the government.

14.   Supporting our military isn’t stabbing them in the back. Barrack Obama wants the military to pay their own medical bills when injured in combat. Many of the benefits people think the military has they really don’t anymore. They have been stripped over the years by both parties in our leadership.

15.  Is it going to take some jihadist coming across the border with a couple of kilos of anthrax or some other deadly agent, climbing to the top of a building and letting it go killing thousands of people before we secure the border? We need to secure the borders.

	Issue	Democrats	Republican	Me
16.	For gay marriage.	Yes	Depends on area	No But for gay unions
17.	For gun control on law abiding people	Yes	Mostly No	No
18.	For changing the Constitution.	Yes	Mostly No	No
19.	For defunding the military for social programs.	Yes	Partly No	No
20.	Bailing out the private sector.	Yes	Mostly Yes	No

16.  The lip service is gays and lesbians want the same legal status as heterosexual married couple. You need to start telling the truth about the “Gay Agenda”. I have worked around gay people all my life and it doesn’t matter to me if they are gay or strait but if you can do your job. Most people in the US would go for a Gay Union which gives all the same rights to a gay union couple as a heterosexual married couple but this isn’t what you want. The whole push is to destroy heterosexual marriage as some gay activist say with no problem.  This is a problem!

17.  Gun control only stops the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. Actually the facts show you are more likely to be attacked in a gun free zone because the criminals know they are safe; but the victims aren’t. The founding fathers wanted to have unfettered guns in the public hands to prevent a tyrannical government which is what we have currently.

18.  I’m tiered of hearing the constitution is out dated; if we paid closer attention to it we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. People need to make it on their own; help them when they fall but don’t help them when they refuse to get back up.

19.  If you look at our history we have been steadily DE-funding our military and giving the money to leaches in our society that refuse to contribute to it. A nation who forgets its military is a nation who is soon forgotten.

20.  This is a capitalist society; we shouldn’t bail out any company big or small. If by bad management they go into the red, it’s their problem. Let them file for bankruptcy like every small company would have to do. All the government is doing is laundering money to get kickbacks in the form of political contributions.  

GMO; not Safe, 200K Farmers Dead, yet Our Government Politicians Protect.

Monsanto, an American mega giant monopolizes and manipulate the Indian government and its farmer to the point that over 200,000 of the farmers have committed suicide; it was and is all about greed. The glowing report Monsanto had shown the Indian government to get their cooperation was false and the farmers, poor, uneducated and not use to unethical manipulative business practices were ripe for the picking. Monsanto shut down the heirloom seed production and promised magic GMO seeds to the farmers to make their lives better, but once they had their monopoly control on the Indian market, the Indian famer’s savior became their enslaver and executioner.

The seeds Monsanto delivered did not produce the crops they promised but only led the farmers into debt; did Monsanto give the farmers a break and try to figure out what was wrong with their company’s seeds, no they raised the priced to an unbearable amount for the Indian farmers. Unable to purchase traditional seeds, the farmers went from paying $15 for 1000 grams of traditional heirloom seeds to paying $15 dollars per 100 grams of GMO seeds, ten times the original price of the heirloom seeds. I bet you are wondering why I am telling you this story.  It’s because Monsanto is trying to, and with the help of our government succeeding in creating the same monopoly in the great USA.

You need to think about this, I bought some bread today for $2 a loaf; if the same happens here as it did in India, I would have pay $20 for the same loaf. A monopoly is never good and is the reason Bell and Microsoft were broken up, it gives the company to much power and the ability to manipulate the free market system for profit. The “Monsanto Protection Act,” was slid into a bill by either Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md or Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO (my guess, he received donations from Monsanto) and signed by President Barack Obama without a congressional hearing. It strips the federal courts from stopping the planting of GMO seeds when they are found to be dangerous to our health; are you kidding me. It allows Monsanto to continue to sell GMO seeds even when the courts discovered they were illegally approved by the USDA.

 Enlist which is intended to replace Monsanto Co.'s successful Roundup Ready system, developed by Dow Agro Sciences; a unit of Dow Chemical in coordination with Monsanto has U.S. regulators with an array of concerns including concerns from public health officials. With this law being passed if these seeds were found to cause grave damage to fields or sickness to people, the courts couldn’t stop it production or sale. Why would any president sign this bill; pay off (donations) or kick-back is the only reasoning that comes to mind.

A study published in the journal “Food and Chemical Toxicology” reported on one of the best conducted and one of the only long-term studies of the effect of genetically modified (GMO) foods on overall health and tumor induction. In this study, animals were fed the GMO corn for two years in concentrations commensurate to what people would eat. What they found is beyond shocking. The animals fed GMO food died two to three times more often than the animals eating a normal diet. Male rats demonstrated liver damage 2.5 to 5.5 times more often than control rats. Some 80 to 90 percent of soy used in our food is now genetically modified, and women are consuming incredible amounts in a mistaken belief that it will prevent breast cancer. Even more frightening is that almost half of all babies are now being fed soy-based formula.

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption.

This is only side one, side two is how in the US Monsanto starts GMO crops next to farmers with heirloom seeds with their only purpose being to later sue the farmers charging them with patent infringement when bees pollinate the heirloom crops. Monsanto then sues the farmers, try to take their land; the question is, “How did Monsanto find out if the crops were pollinated with bees from Monsanto’s crops?” It’s easy, they trust pass, take samples, and then fill charges in nearly every case; isn’t trust passing against the law? Monsanto and its cronies are suing their way to turning our farms into what has happened in India unless you pay their blood money and our government is protecting them, not the people. If you don’t purposely want their pollen on your plants they should pay you for contaminating your crops but our government once again is standing up for the big cooperation; the Democrats blamed President Bush for this but this time it is the Democrats doing it. As I have said; They both, Democrats and Republicans need to go, especially when the don’t stand up for the common every day little guy but for the big companies (this includes unions) who will give them the most donations for the next election. Does this sound like they are “For the People; or just getting elected again”? I didn’t think we could have had a President or government more corrupt then President Nixon was; I guess our current unfortunately has made a liar out of me.

Benghazi Attack, the Complete Truth from Beginning to End.

From the beginning.

January 23, 2012 --A hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Clinton said security requests related to Benghazi were handled by others at the State Department. It is the State Departments job. Later she would say "I didn't see those requests. They didn't come to me. I didn't approve them. I didn't deny them".

Mrs Clinton said, “I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB (Accountability Review Board) placed that responsibility.” Yet a cable bearing her signature dated March 28, 2012, acknowledges a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for additional security assets, but orders the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

House Republican leaders released a report April 23, 2012 on the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which they claim former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally signed off on cuts in security at the compound, which they say would contradict her congressional testimony.

Let’s follow the time line.

January 23, 2012, request to the State Department for more security at Benghazi, it is denied by the State Department.

Mach 28, 2012, State Department orders drawdown of security at Benghazi with Mrs. Clinton signing the document to proceed

April 6, 2012 , the first bombing of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi takes place but is repelled.

April 23, 2012, request for additional security due to threat; request is denied again by the State Department.

June 6, 2012, militants detonated an explosive at the perimeter gate of the consulate, blowing a hole through the barrier.

.August 16, 2012 – Additional security requested due to imminent threats; request is denied the third time by the State Department.

September 11, 2012.

21:40 -- A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA annex and requested assistance.

21:42 -- Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

21:59 -- A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed. Why if an attack is going on would you send an unarmed drone?

22:32 -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

23:00 -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

23:10 -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

23:30 -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

September 12, 2012.

00:00 to 02:00 -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

01:30 -- A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.

02:39 to 02:53 -- The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States (5 hours after the battle began). The team sent was not the closest and landed 20 hours after the attack began.  According to the Pentagon timeline, the first conference call to AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, TRANSCOM, SOCOM and the four military branches occurred nearly five hours after the attack began

05:15 -- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

06:05 -- A C-17 aircraft in Germany is told to prepare to deploy to Libya to evacuate the consulate personnel.

07:40 -- The first wave of Americans are evacuated to Tripoli via airplane.

10:00 -- A second group, including those killed in the attack, are flown to Tripoli.

14:15 -- The C-17 departs from Germany for the flight to Tripoli.

19:17 -- The C-17 leaves Tripoli with the American consulate personnel and the bodies of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty.

19:57 -- The U.S. special operations force team based in Croatia arrives at a staging base in Italy.

20:56 -- One of the Marine anti-terrorist teams from Spain arrives in Tripoli.

21:28 -- The U.S.-based special operations force team arrives at its staging base in Italy.

A Special Operator says C-110 team could have been there within 3-5 hours away; I don’t know if they could have saved the ambassador, but they would have had a better chance then not sending them.

Our leaders in the White House watched in real time the attack happening; they knew it wasn’t a protest but a well coordinated military style attack and did nothing.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified at a February Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that Obama talked to him only once by telephone during the time the consulate was under assault, and never called him back for updates. Your embassy is being attacked and you show where your priorities lay. I have nothing against President Obama, if they would have been any far left liberal, Democrat or Republican in office, they would have done the same thing. You have two incompetent people here; Leon Panetta who should of kept President Obama informed and President Obama for not taking more interest in an embassy being attacked.

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

What made me mad was the lied about it and all the spin-misters went to work including President Obama, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, David Axelrod, and the list goes on and on but the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others where killed during an attack that lasted several hours and targeted two separate facilities and the American people gave them a pass, reelecting incompetence.

What if these dead Americans were your father, your son, your brother, your husband, your uncle, your best friend; would you still voted for incompetence? I don’t like Mitt Romney anymore then I like President Obama but I would fill safer with him. If it was up to me I would want to get rid of most everyone in office and put someone there who will do what is best for the country instead of their own pocket book or party. I wouldn’t vote for a single person that put the spin on Benghazi. If they will sell their soul to cover up something as important as this, I know they won’t protect me, my family, my freedoms, or my country.

This is caused by selfishness; everybody in America seems to want everything for free and when they don’t get it they throw a fix. But as my dad use to say until he died, “Nothing is free; someone somewhere had to pay for it”. His words are so true and if we don’t wake up America, our children will be the ones who pay. As I have told you in a previous post, the President wants a Civilian National Security Force as strong as the US military, why? The answer; control and power.

If we don’t stop giving our rights away and electing politicians who buy our votes by giving us entitlements, we will be the next Beirut. What you are not seeing are the ones giving you all these entitlements are the same ones taking yours and your children’s freedoms and dignity as payment; remember nothing is for free.