Friday, June 28, 2013

Subject: S. 744 Amnesty for illegals

Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich:

Illegal: not according to or authorized by law; not sanctioned by official rules; unlawful, illicit.

Senator Begich and Senator Murkowski, would you let me crap on your lawn, leave garbage strewn about your property, pee on your flowerbed, use your property as a corridor to run drugs into the neighborhood?

Would you allow me to kick down your door anytime of the day or night, enter your house unannounced and take up residence in a bedroom, vacant or not?

Would you like it if you were forced to feed me, to provide for my medical care, to educate my kids by edict from an elected body that decided to use your tax monies contrary to the uses set forth in the Constitution?

Would you like it if you were required to stand idly by and to allow me to take jobs away from your children.

Would you stand idly by and allow me to commit crimes of violence in your house without fear of repercussion?

How do you think those who have been complying with our laws and awaiting years for their turn for citizenship feel? You and the other 66 so called senators of the United States Senate have slapped them in the face.

Against the testimony opposing this literal illegal amnesty by the Border Patrol and ICE, you have voted to allow criminals into this country.

With S. 744, you, like this President, have chosen to allow the violent criminal free reign.

You have violated your oaths by compromising the borders and sovereignty of the United States.

You have violated your oaths of by imparting privilege to those who have broken our laws, who have come into our house without our permission, some of whom have repeatedly harmed, maimed, killed our citizens, who have taken the jobs of Americans, who now demand the benefits of citizenship, who fill our prisons, because of their violence and disrespect for our law.

We are a nation of laws. You have chosen to ignore that fact.

You both owe a very public explanation to the people of Alaska as to why you voted the way that you did.

The solution to the illegal immigrant problem was so easy, it is incredible that so many allegedly intelligent people could be so wrong in their putting special interests above the interests of the country at large. Illegals need jobs. They come here for jobs. They work to send money back to their home country. They are not here to become citizens, they are here as migrant workers. If the jobs dry up, they go home.

The way that the illegal problem can be dealt with effectively is simple. Make it a felony to hire an illegal. Simply enforce the law. The illegals will go home, because of no work.

Oh, wait. Such a solution implies that the federal government would enforce such a law when it refuses to do its constitutional mandate to secure our borders.

Yet, the federal government that collects every conversation and e-mail in the U.S. cannot come up with a simply system to allow migrant workers into the U.S. and to track them while here. Just too hard for you all. Maybe, you should seek help from Russia. I guarantee they know where their people are at any time of the day and night. Or, the Israelis whose migrant workers are hostile to Israel.

Abortion created this problem, that and the liberal desire to pit one group against another so that they can pander and stay in power. RINOs have allowed this paradox to continue. The paradox is the fact that illegals are migrants, and here only because we have allowed 53 million Americans to be killed in the womb and after birth–creating a need for labor. Labor which the third world was all too willing to provide.

Instead of opening immigration to persecuted Christians in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, wherever there is Islam, there is persecution and death for Christians. Even in the West, Christians are persecuted. However, the last thing you liberals want is more people of European or even African origins who believe in God in this country.

What is the sector with the greatest increase in single parent families and abortion? Hispanics. Not those who are citizens, either.

Most of the Hispanic illegals are largely Catholic, hard working, good people. However, that does not forgive or excuse that they broke our laws.

Do you not realize what their cheap labor does to the economy? How wages are driven down, how legitimate companies are put at a disadvantage? You think that situation will change of the House adopts the tenets of S.744?

Given their average level of education, do you think that their ability to be successful in the U.S. will be enhanced by citizenship, or is this going to be a generational drag on the U.S. economy? Will one generation, forced on welfare to supplement low income will continue in that vein until the entire family are welfare recipients, as happened with the Hmong and other immigrant groups brought in legally?

Do you think that they will just become Americans, and set their loyalty to Mexico or wherever aside? Do they now? No, they do not. They are whatever first. Otherwise, why would there be any argument over the American flag flying over an American school on Cinco de Mayo?

On the one hand one can see why the Senate tried to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, the Senate ignored the impact of not making the border secure and creating a workable migrant worker program as part and parcel of S.744. Without secure borders and a workable, secure migrant worker program, we would either have to close the borders, or eventually cede the southwestern U.S. to Mexico.

How can our young get entry level jobs to build a resume and work to achieve a better life?

Illegals send money home, about $26 billion every year. If that was the only impact, that would be one thing. However, illegals suck up benefits and impose an unreasonable and costly burden upon the people and economy of this country. They can go home. They cost Alaska at least $35 million every year.

Have you noticed? There is now a Mexican Consulate in Anchorage on C Street. Wonder why? Just wander around the malls or the Valley stores and you know.

My company has worked Outside and I have seen the illegals by the thousands.

Leaving the border open is treason. Migrant workers are not the only ones coming across the border, jihadis have been passed through without concern by you in D.C.

Yes, we are all immigrants.

My family were immigrants. Wood came in 1748. My mother’s family in 1656. My mother’s maiden name was Washington. They earned their citizenship by blood in the Great American Revolution. George Washington is an uncle and great-step grandfather.

The Apache and Cherokee in my line were also immigrants of a different sort, and, they, too fought to preserve their way of life. As will we all, if this insanity and disconnect in D.C. with We the People is not corrected.

In voting for S. 744, you are not in tune with the majority of Alaskans or Americans. We understand the threat. These illegals do not act as Americans, they fly foreign flags, celebrate foreign holidays, they speak their native language, and they do not assimilate. They mock our law.

Your votes mock our law.

In 2014 and 2016 we have elections.

We still have a rule of law. For now, no thanks to your pandering and failure to live up to your oaths.

S.744 is treason.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Homosexual "marriage" is now legal . . . DOMA is dead.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on the SCOTUS decision:

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals.
Marriage was a mutual covenant between a man and a woman sworn before God. Literally, a contract undertaken before God. A religious ceremony.

In today’s bastardization of the English language and the usurpation of terminology to mean other than the traditional meaning, marriage is now a social contract between “persons”. God is no longer involved. Hence, the high divorce rate, especially amongst those homosexuals who’ve married in civil unions under State law.

Why has marriage become such a social issue for some?

Quite simply put, it is money, stupid. There exists no civil rights nor any Constitutional issue, except in the minds of socialist liberals hell bent on the destruction of the western Judeo-Christian moral foundation and law.

The tax code and law extend to married couples mutual property rights, survivor’s benefits, and health benefits. The homosexual agenda for marriage has to do with money, not ‘rights’. This was never and is not a civil rights issue. It is a legal issue regarding property. Something that the States should have could have take care of, if the majority of people in each State required such from their respective legislature.

In any case, the issue of homosexual unions under secular law, as they cannot exist under Chrisitian religious doctrine/law, were an issue for the People of the various States to resolve, not nine unelected jurists who cannot leave their ideology and prejudice out of their decision.

Unfortunately, there is another component to this issue that is going to get ugly. That is the homosexual hatred of Christianity and the Christian beliefs of the individual not a homosexual.
What makes that issue ugly is the homosexual goal is to gain privilege and power over the common heterosexual man and woman and their beliefs so that they may be “punished” for those beliefs. As we Christians say, “it is the sin, not the sinner, that we oppose.”

There have been law suits attempting to force caterers and other wedding service companies owned by Christians to do business with homosexuals against the wishes of the business owner based upon the owner’s Christianity. This activity will increase, as will lawsuits by employees and their significant “other” over survivor’s and health benefits by unions, government, private industry and small business.

The same attempt at using the courts to coerce Christian churches into performing homosexual marriage ceremonies has failed. The 1st Amendment should be inviolate regarding the court or government from coercing the churches’ religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of the individual against that individual’s will and religious beliefs.

The President has stated that he will not force a church to marry a homosexual couple. Such a promise from this President, who prior to his election in 2008 and 2012 opposed marriage by homosexuals does not give one comfort. However, he is barred by law from trying to order a church to perform a religious ceremony to the benefit of homosexuals.

1st Amendment to Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Thus far, we have not seen any such attempt to coerce Muslim Imam into performing a marriage between homosexuals in a Muslim Mosque, or force a Muslim owned marriage service business to do business with homosexuals. When that happens, what happens next should be very interesting.
Under Islam, homosexuals are to be beaten publically, and, if they do not change their ways, killed.
Yet, homosexuals abhor Christianity and Christians above all. We will see how long that lasts, given the rise of political Islam in this country. There will come a day when homosexuals in this country will fervently pray for a return of the tolerance of Christianity.

What the Supreme Court did was demonstrate that modern federal courts do not hold the three branches of government equal, each with its respective responsibilities, but holds as standing above the Legislative Branch and willing to usurp that legislative power in the absence of will on the part of the Legislative Branch.

In the slip opinion released by the SCOTUS, in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia, joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in that slip opinion, Justice Scalia wrote the following:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under theConstitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of therole of this institution in America.

The legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete "Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; andthey agreed in the court below that the court below thatone got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?
The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portionof today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.” Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotationmarks and brackets omitted).
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.
This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

Justice Alito, with Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

We have seen the abuses of the IRS in the current IRS scandal that are so egregious and outrageous that this abuse of power should catalyze Congress into seriously considering the abolishment of the IRS and the adoption of a flat tax or national sales tax in the stead of the several thousand pages of political pandering that is our tax code. Eliminating the IRS would be a decided boon to the promotion of business and freedom in this country. Unfortunately, this is not a Congress to desire smaller government.

The only way that we can prevent a repeat of what the Supreme Court did with the homosexual marriage issue is to require the Supreme Court and the federal courts to view constitutional issues with respect to the intent of the Framers. In other words, a strict constructionist view. Only the Legislative Branch can impose such a limitation. Further, the Legislative Branch can also limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal courts as to subject matter. The Legislative Branch of the federal government and of the various States can effectively end the courts legislating from the bench at all levels of government.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Katie Johns was an admitted usurpation of legislative authority by the federal court.

Nullification under the 10th Amendment is another way a State can ignore an unconstitutional law imposed by Congress or decision on the part of a federal court.

The courts have no standing army, no police force, no means to enforce their decisions. There decisions are enforced through the good will of the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. With the courts ever expanding usurpation of Legislative Branch powers by legislating from the bench, how much longer such good will is going to exist will be determined by the patience of the People for this outrageous and unconstitutional conduct on the part of the courts at every level.

The homosexual marriage issue is moot. The court has spoken.

What is important is to realize that the courts can be reigned in, the abuse demonstrated by the Obama Administration ended, if the Congress has the will. That will can only be instilled by electing people to Congress who are Tea Party Conservatives, strong constitutionalists and Christians. God must be returned to the public purview and must be confirmed as the moral foundation of this Republic. Otherwise, the Second Amendment may provide the final solution for We the People with the respect to the abuse of government and the overreaching by the courts.

For more information:


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Home invasion . . . it happens anywhere, anytime, are you prepared?

On June 23, 2013 at approximately 10:30 am, a nanny cam video from a home surveillance system demonstrates just what happens when a robber decides to kick your door down . . . in broad daylight.

The community was Millburn, NJ. A liberal town in a liberal state with strict gun control laws that protect the criminal.

Video link:

A young woman with two small children was watching cartoons on TV in living room when a black male 5 ft 11 in, 210 lbs with a salt and pepper beard kicked in the front door and began beating her demanding to know where her valuables were. The video speaks for itself.

Liberal gun control advocates who believe that her beating was deserved, because she was white and middle class, probably applaud the fact that criminal was not harmed.

President Obama is probably pleased that the woman took the beating like a woman and survived. In 2005, as an Illinois state senator he voted to bar the use of a firearm for self defense, even in the case of the threat of death. Incredibly, in the face of this record of no sympathy for those women, men, and children who have been killed, maimed, injured and traumatized in criminal home invasions, over 80% of women 18-26 years of age voted for Obama’s reelection.
NJ is a liberal state with gun control laws that discourage the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings in Heller
and McDonald, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore.

What you see in the video could have been much, much worse.

America, you need to awaken and understand that the only person in that video who was not under threat of losing their life was the black male beating the woman in the presence of her child . . .
Note that the police did not make an appearance and save the day. They respond to a call, they do not magically appear, and they usually appear . . . after the fact. Worse is the reality of the law concerning police protection. You have no right to police protection. Hence, the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm.

Unfortunately, the May 25, 2013 home invasion in Mt. View in Anchorage showed that bad things happen to good people when they happen, without rhyme or reason. The elderly grandparents had been watching one of the grandchildren while the parents were at a movie with their four year old. The grandfather was killed, the grandmother mother was raped and killed, the great-grandmother who was there was raped, and the two year old child were raped by Jerry Andrew Active who had been released from jail that day. Active was unarmed.

Alaskans, we have solid gun laws that give us the right to self-protection. We do not need to live like a sheep, die like a sheep, as they do in liberal states. Your duty to your loved ones is to protect them, the cops come after the fact. Good locks and a handy firearm that you have trained to use to protect yourself and your family in your home is only common sense.
Americans were endowed with the right to self-protection with a firearm, not making use of the Second Amendment right is simply failing in one's responsibility to family and self.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Was the Benghazi attack a Machiavellian plot that went wrong?

With the 4 June, 2013 Washington Times article by Bill Gertz it was revealed that the Al Qaeda attack on Benghazi may have been more than an attempt to strike back at America for the killing of Al Qaeda’s commander in Libya by a drone strike while he was in Pakistan. The claim of Abdalluh Dhu al-Bajadin, an Al Qaeda weapons expert, was that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection during a botched attempt to kidnap him. The attack on the embassy being a cover for the real objective, the taking of Stevens prisoner. Al-Bajadin hinted at a high level prisoner exchange as being the motive.

This story supports and lends credibility to the allegations of ADM James Lyons (RET) made in his 7 March, 2013 op-ed piece in the Washington Times titled: "Lyons: Benghazi cover-up continues, nearly six months later". Lyons wrote then "Was Stevens targeted to be killed, or was he supposed to be taken hostage in exchange for the return of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman?" His surmising was prophetic . . . or, did Lyons have information from intelligence sources that gave rise to his question? Further, ADM Lyons confirmed the ability of the U.S. military to respond in a timely manner to the Benghazi attack.

ADM Lyons stated that there were two F16s on alert at the Aviano, AB in northern Italy that could have responded within 90 minutes of launch. With KC135 tanker support, the aircraft could have remained on station over the Mission at Benghazi all night, if necessary. ADM Lyons further confirmed the availability and existence of Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12, comprising 125-130 Force Recon Marines, at Sigonella NAS, Sicily. ADM Lyons further revealed the existence of a British security team at Tripoli that could have been called upon to aid the Tripoli security team led by LTC Gibson that was ordered to stand down before they could board a C130 to Benghazi. ADM Lyons further questioned the downgrading of security at the Benghazi Mission in the face of increasing intelligence and activity by even Libyan security personnel contracted for the Mission’s security.

Given the Obama Administration’s clear support of the Muslim Brotherhood’s destabilization of Northern and, now, western Africa, was there a Machiavellian plot to use Ambassador Stevens in a prisoner swap for the Blind Sheikh? Was this a "work around" to eliminate Congressional and public sentiment against the Blind Sheikh’s release from prison?

Given the Administration’s silence and obstruction over the Benghazi attack, including the sequestration and refusal to provide the location and availability of the Benghazi Mission survivors, the lack of transparency in the Administrations response to requests for records and testimony by Administration officials, the retribution against those State Department employees that did testify before Congress, the admission by Al Qaeda that the attack was cover for an attempt to kidnap the U.S. Ambassador for a high level prisoner exchange, and the allegations made on the part of ADM James Lyons (RET) predating the admission by Al Qaeda reported in the Washington Times on 4 June by 3 months lends an uncomfortable credibility to the allegations made by ADM Lyons. It certainly appears that there is a correlation between the diminished security at the Mission at Benghazi in the face of Ambassador Stevens requesting additional security in mid August, and the revelations of al-Bajadin on 4 June regarding the attack as a cover to kidnap Ambassador Stevens to effect a high level prisoner exchange.

Did President Barack Obama and SECSTATE Hillary Clinton conspire with the Muslim Brotherhood to deliver the Blind Sheikh to Al Qaeda by setting up an exchange resulting from a planned attack on the Mission at Benghazi to avoid Congressional and public scrutiny? By doing so, did our President and the Secretary of State violate their oath of office, conspire to aid and abet an enemy of the United States, cause the unnecessary deaths of 4 Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, and then lie to the American public and Congress as to the cause of the attack on the Mission at Benghazi? Was this all part of a cover up planned well ahead of time?

Note that the same day 9/11/2012 demonstrations at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt were allegedly protesting the same video. Who controls Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood. There are too many correlations between what Gertz reports of al-Bajadin’s revelations about a kidnap plot and prisoner exchange, and what ADM Lyons alleges.

ADM Lyons and Mr. Bill Gertz have illuminated the real reason behind the Benghazi attack.

Now, the American public has to hold Congress responsible for revealing the truth by appointing a special prosecutor with full investigative and subpoena powers to force the production and interview of the survivors of Benghazi, Libyan and Egyptian officials, State Department and CIA personnel, including GEN David Petraeus and SECSTATE Hillary Clinton, all documents relating to Benghazi and the Cairo demonstrations, and any contact with the Muslim Brotherhood. Four dead Americans, and to date there is nothing other than Hillary Clinton’s facetious, arrogant retort to Congress: SECSTATE Hillary Clinton in response to questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson, R WI: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

SECSTATE Clinton has yet to ask the families of those who were killed and injured that night "what difference does it make?"

To keep faith with the American people and one’s oath and to honor our fallen heroes of that attack, that’s what "difference" it makes.


For more information:

Part III Obama's Watergates: Benghazi, lies, deception, cover up--but why?

On September 11, 2012, something unprecedented in recent American foreign policy occurred. The United States Mission at Benghazi came under armed assault by jihadists of the Ansar Al-Sharia faction of the Libyan militias without any response on the part of the United States government or our military forces in the region. Not since the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran on 4 November, 1979 has the United States seemed so powerless to respond to an armed attack against what is considered U.S. territory.

At least 30 jihadis took part in the attack that started after 9 pm local time using AK47s, RPDs, RPGs and 82 mm mortars. The CIA annex about a block away also came under attack by the same group with the ensuing firefight lasting until after sunrise the next day. The jihadi militia personnel were ill-trained, but well armed with a decided superiority in numbers.

Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens was raped and killed by the jihadists. Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management, and CIA Global Response Staff members ex-Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were also killed. Doherty and Woods were killed by a mortar round while defending the CIA complex later that same night. Another 10 State Department employees were wounded or injured in the attack. What followed in the immediate aftermath was a surrealistic rejection of reality and an attempt by the Obama Administration to cover up the event as being a spontaneous protest against an unknown and heretofore unknown You Tube video allegedly insulting the prophet Mohammed.

There was no military or other government response that night to Ambassador Stevens notification made to Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya who was at Tripoli, that the U.S. Mission at Benghazi was under attack by armed jihadis: "Greg, we are under attack." Deputy Chief Hicks then contacted his superiors in Washington, D.C. and informed the State Department duty officer of the attack. Security camera feeds and the retasking of a British operated surveillance drone allowed real time visual transmission of the attack to the State Department, DOD, and the White House.

The attack happened very shortly after the 7:30 pm dinner with the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin. Post the notification by Ambassador Stevens to Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks, several requests for aid were made by the CIA personnel under attack at the CIA Annex just down the street from the Mission. The CIA personnel were repeatedly told to stand down by a still unidentified CIA superior and not to attempt rescue of the Mission personnel. Doherty and Woods disobeyed that order and rescued the State Department Mission personnel and the wounded and recovered Sean Smith’s body back to the CIA annex. Doherty and Woods were killed later that night while on the roof of the CIA annex returning fire and acting to spot the mortar emplacement that killed them.

It is alleged recently by some sources that the Turkish Consel was aware of the impending attack and failed to notify Ambassador Stevens demonstrating the Muslim Brotherhood has influence into NATO.

Very recently, Al Qaeda has claimed that the Ambassador Stevens was marked for death in retaliation for a drone strike against Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Libyan Al Qaeda leader in Libya. Al-Libi was killed by a drone strike on 4 June, 2012 in Waziristan, Pakistan. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Ladin’s successor, called for retaliation against the Americans for the death of al-Libi. The U.S. had placed a $1 million bounty on Al-Libi. An Al Qaeda website posting by Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, a known Al Qaeda weapons expert, conveyed that Ambassador Stevens had been killed by lethal injection. The rape of Ambassador Stevens has never been denied by the State Department or the Obama Administration.

A 12 man security military security team led by COL Andrew Wood provided security for State Department personnel in Tripoli and sent personnel to the Benghazi Mission as required from 12 February to 14 August, 2012. They were withdrawn at the end of their tour and not replaced. The decision to discontinue U.S. armed personnel as security was made by SECSTATE Hillary Clinton. COL Wood testified to Congress that he had 24/7 communications capability with Special Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA) and reported three times daily to SOCAFRICA superiors on his team’s activities in support of the State Department personnel. He further testified: "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there. The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse. Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US diplomatic security agent stationed there. The RSO struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

The Ansar al-Sharia militia included individuals who were employed at the time by the State Department as contract security for the facility, giving the jihadis insider knowledge of the layout, personnel numbers, and security systems. COL Andrew Wood had warned the State Department of the likelihood of an attack in the near future when his security detail was relieved at the end of July, 2012. Even in the face of intelligence from several sources, including the interim Libyan government that indicated that further attacks against U.S. and British personnel were likely, the security at the Mission in Benghazi was allowed to become the responsibility of hired Libyan jihadi militia personnel, many of whom were known to be associated with Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Sharia. U.S. security personnel were withdrawn.

The Administration’s Response

The Obama Administration’s response has been without credibility. The first response was by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the day after the attack on the U.S. Mission at Benghazi. SECSTATE Clinton claimed that the attack had been a protest that got out of hand over an unknown You Tube video of a parody on Islam by an unknown film maker in the U.S. For the next two weeks, this claim was repeated by the President and by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who was pressed into service to give Hillary’s incredible claim credibility. President Obama followed through and continued what became obvious as an outright lie. Even SECDEF Leon Panetta supported the outright lie being promoted by the Administration regarding the Benghazi attack. The CIA, in its initial press release claimed that the attack on the Benghazi Mission was a terrorist attack, but retracted its position to conform to the President’s, Clinton’s and Rice’s outright lies. In the face of four Americans in service to this country being killed, the Obama Administration, as it did in Fast and Furious, chose to lie and to cover up the attack. Since, the Administration has continued its obfuscation, lies and innuendo, choosing to attack those who have come forward to testify and to single them out for retribution for testifying to Congress.

Congressional Hearings have revealed that there were orders given at the highest levels to stand down any attempted U.S. military response to the attack at the time of the attack. The identity of those giving the orders has not been forthcoming. As with Fast and Furious, documents have not been forthcoming, and those that have been provided are so heavily redacted that there are unintelligible. This is the response from the "most transparent" Presidential Administration in history.

What were the military options available for any military response to the attack on the Mission at Benghazi?

How long would it have taken to get assistance there from the nearest U.S. military presence in the region?

Only the President of the United States can order American troops to cross the border from one country to another. Only the President. Given that authority, the order to stand down had to come from either the White House directly, or through SECDEF Leon Panetta.

Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks has testified that his pleas for assistance for Benghazi were met with silence on the part of the State Department, his plea to AFRICOM was met with an intent to respond, but someone ordered AFRICOM to stand down as well. Only orders from the President of United States can cause U.S. troops to be moved across the border of one country to another. Therefore, the order to stand down any military response had to come from the White House. Hicks testified before Congress that he requested a military response to the attack by a Special Operations team led by LTC Gibson, which was located in Tripoli at the time. Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA) ordered LTC Gibson to stand down and not to respond to the attack. It is reported that LTC Gibson was "furious" with the stand down order.

No member the United States military, no matter the branch or the MOS, would have refused a mission to go to the aid of those under attack in Benghazi.

Those who have served in any capacity in the military know that when push comes to shove, and the excrement hits the proverbial fan, all become infantry. That means, mechanics, cooks, typists, whatever, they grab a rifle and go to fill the gap in the line. Any Marine at NAS Sigonella would have been more than qualified to answer the attack on the Mission at Benghazi, no matter whether mechanic, cook or clerk typist. All Marines are infantry.

NAS Sigonella has Marine security and infantry elements assigned to AFRICOM. In October, 2011 Marines assigned to Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12 comprising 125 Marines tasked with training militaries in the Sahel, a region of northern Africa, deployed from Camp Lejune, NC to their new barracks at NAS Sigonella. SPMAGTF 12 is comprised of combat ready, infantry qualified Marines who would be deployed in their training role in platoon sized elements. How many of the 125 Marines were available to respond from NAS Sigonella, Sicily on the night of September 11, 2012 is unknown. NAS Sigonella is about 460 miles from Benghazi, or two hours by C130.

Aviano, AFB in central Italy is home to the 31st Security Squadron equipped with standard infantry weapons and trained in combat tactics. The personnel of the 31st should have been considered in the response, although, by C130, they would have taken the longest to land at Benghazi airport being over 1,000 miles from Benghazi, taking perhaps 6 hours by C130, including aircraft and personnel prep time.

The U.S. Army Italy has several bases with deployed units. At Vinceza in central Italy there is the 66th Military Intelligence Group and two Army transportation units between Vinceza and Livorno, not to mention the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of America(!) . (Nothing is more frightening than a bunch of Girl Scouts armed who have not made their cookie sale quota and who are armed with M4s.) All kidding aside, there are combat qualified personnel at either of these installations who could have been tapped for an emergency relief mission.

The U.S. had military tactical strike aircraft available. A squadron of F16s are stationed at Aviano, AFB, which could have been on station over the Benghazi Mission within 2 hours of launch. Marine or Navy F18 Hornet fighter/attack aircraft stationed at NAS Sigonella could have been on-station overhead in Benghazi within the hour from time of launch. On afterburners, even less time for both Aviano’s F16s and NAS Sigonella’s F18s.

Given the relatively undisciplined nature of the jihadist militias, two F16s or F18s making low altitude high speed passes may have been sufficient to cause the jihadis to retreat. Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified his belief that the presence of U.S. military aircraft overhead would have been effective in causing the militias to break off their attack.

Therefore, the claim that any response to the jihadi attack had to be made by SOF units that were allegedly unavailable is specious and a red herring designed to detract from the fact that there were several "regular" military assets actually available. The SOF team in Tripoli led by LTC Gibson, the USAF 31st Security Forces Squadron at Aviano, members of at least two Army transportation and logistics battalions at Livorno and Vinceza, and the SPMAGTF 12 Marines. Any of which could have been cobbled together as a relief force of platoon size (36 troops) with vehicles and moved by C130 to Benghazi before the battle for the Mission and the CIA Annex had petered out.

It has been alleged that LTG Carter Ham, then CO of AFRICOM, was summarily relieved of his command and placed under house arrest for his refusal to follow orders to stand down any attempt at relief of the Benghazi Mission and the CIA personnel under attack. It is known that LTG Ham was relieved of his command shortly thereafter and denied the command of NATO that he was to be his next assignment. LTG Ham retired after his return stateside. His testimony has yet to be heard by Congress.

It is known that the State Department in D.C. was watching the attack unfold from the beginning through security feeds throughout the Mission complex. There was a drone tasked to overwatch within the first hour of the attack. Drones were on station throughout the night. Were the visual feeds extended to the White House Situation Room? Is there any reason to believe that given the nature of the situation that the visual feeds were not extended to the White House?

What was the purpose of the U.S. Mission at Benghazi?

Although not admitted directly by the Administration, it was reported in the NY Times and by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS that the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was engaged in . . . gun running. The U.S. was supplying weapons paid for by Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to the Sunni militias in Libya and Syria. These weapons were also making their way into western Africa to Mali and further south. It is believed that the dinner meeting between Ambassador Stevens and the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin concerned weapons shipments. It is now known that amongst the weapons being provided to the various Sunni, Al Qaeda affliated militias were older model SA-7 Strella and more advanced SA-24 MANPADs, Russian man portable anti-aircraft missiles out of Libyan stores. The missiles were being infiltrated into Syria through the Turkish border.

The CIA personnel at Benghazi were involved in accounting for the Libyan MANPAD stores to prevent them from from falling into the militia’s hands wholesale. The CIA is trying to control the proliferation of MANPADs, and the State Department under SECSTATE Hillary Clinton and her successor John Kerry are proliferating use of the missiles to extreme Al Qaeda jihadist militias throughout northern and western Africa and the conflict in Syria.

Russian General Nikolai Makarov has been stirring the pot by alleging that the Obama Administration has been supplying Stingers to the Syrian Rebels.

In the mean time, the Chicago Tribune dutifully reports that the Obama Administration is not supplying U.S. made Stinger MANPADs to the Syrian rebels, quoting SECDEF Panetta and others of the Obama Administration who were careful not to say that they were supplying Russian made MANPADs from Libyan stores.

Does the right hand know what the left is doing in the Obama Administration?

What did the President know, and when did he know it?

 President Obama has feigned ignorance of what happened at Benghazi. Yet, he was one of the first to mouth the lies of the attack merely being a protest that evolved into something much worse. This President, who had to be fully informed, in this day and age it is simply not credible to believe that he was not immediately informed of and continually updated on the events unfolding at Benghazi, let American personnel . . . die.

There is no other way to put it. He is the Commander-in-Chief. You do not leave your people hanging. Yet, this President did exactly that and made excuses. He expects Americans to believe that he was not informed, that he did not know, that he went to bed early while Americans were under armed attack at a U.S. diplomatic mission in a foreign country. Yet, he makes the personal decision as to whom the drones target for killing and when the killing is to be done.

His position is simply without substance, logic, truth, merit, or basis in fact. He is the President. It is his job to "take charge", no matter the time of day or night.

Is it believable that SECSTATE Hillary Clinton or SECDEF Leon Panetta left the President out of the information loop on Benghazi?

No more so that his good friend Eric Holder left Obama out of the loop regarding Fast and Furious.

Between Fast and Furious, dead U.S. personnel now number 4 for Benghazi. The body count for Fast and Furious is 2 dead U.S. law enforcement personnel as a result of illegal gun running. This does not count the dozens of dead innocents in Mexico who have died from the illegal gun running and the violation of Mexico’s sovereignty with the illegal gun running. For Fast and Furious, the Mexican casualty count is still ongoing. This Administration is covered in blood.

Was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton responsible for Benghazi?

This Administration has pursued a policy of accommodation and non-confrontation with the Islamic states and movements. This Administration has ignored the slavery that is rampant in the ME under Islam. This Administration, like Bush, has ignored the fate of Christians who have become the targets of hate and violence all through the Middle East without one word of objection or concern expressed by the Obama Administration.

This Administration has sought accommodation with our enemies, has provided weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated militias in Libya, Syria and northern and western Africa.

This Administration’s policy of accommodation with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam and radical Islamic militias actively engaged in fighting U.S. forces or opposed to the U.S. and openly allied with Al Qaeda has resulted in destabilizing every country from Afghanistan West to Nigeria.

Who has been responsible for this policy? President Barack Obama. SECSTATE Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State who promotes the President’s foreign policy. This is not to state that she is not responsible, this is simply recognizing that President Obama is in charge and ultimately responsible for his policies.

SECSTATE Hillary Clinton in response to questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson, R WI: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

SECSTATE Clinton has yet to ask the families of those who were killed and injured that night "what difference does it make?"

Clinton could not even provide an accurate count of the personnel evacuated from the Mission at Benghazi in her testimony before Congress. Her answers demonstrated her arrogance and self assurance that she would be protected by the press and by Obama. Clinton holds herself unaccountable, as do the rest of the Obama Administration officials, above the law and unaccountable for their decisions and conduct. It was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton’s decision not to continue the armed security contingent that was commanded by COL Andrew Wood in the face of recommendations by former Libya Ambassador Cretz to the contrary and warnings by him of the potential for attacks against U.S. personnel in Benghazi.

This is the contempt that this Administration has for the rule of law, for its personnel in harm’s way, for our military, for our Constitution, and for us, the American People. This is an Administration that holds itself above the law, an Administration that aids and abets our enemies by giving them weapons and material aid, an Administration that ignores the sovereignty of our neighbors and causes the murder of Mexico’s citizens through its illegal acts.

This Administration is now up to its arm pits in blood. The blood of Americans it abandoned to die, and the blood of Americans and Mexicans who died as a result of illegal gun running into Mexico to the drug cartels with the full knowledge of the DOJ and BATF.

For more information:




Part II Obama's Watergates: Fast and Furious

What became Fast and Furious started out under the Bush Administration as Operation Wide Receiver in 2007. It was suspected that some firearms purchases were being made in the United States to the benefit of the Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was given the mission of trying to discover the identity of those in the cartels authorizing and paying for gun purchases in the United States for the drug cartels along with the ‘straw men’ doing the purchasing. The idea was to follow certain purchases of firearms by suspected straw purchasers to the border and then trace them to the drug cartel. After the the first couple of such purchases, it was quickly discovered that there was no way to trace the firearms once they crossed the border into Mexico. Operation Wide Receiver was then discontinued as a failure. No more than 2 weapons went south under Bush.
With the election of President Barak Hussein Obama and his appointment of AG Eric Holder, the Second Amendment immediately became a target for the new administration and its DOJ head. Both President Obama and AG Holder shared a goal of ending private firearms ownership in the United States. They considered private ownership unnecessary and unsafe, because government police forces were supposed to protect the citizen, not the citizen themselves. President Obama had known his AG appointee since 2005 while Holder was an attorney for the Clinton Administration. They became close, as they shared the same activist, far left political ideology, and the same gun control ideology: no firearms in private ownership.
As an attorney for the Clinton Administration, Eric Holder sought clemency and release for the FALN terrorists responsible for 130 bombings with 4 deaths and 80 wounded. The FALN was a Puerto Rican communist liberation movement. Holder was responsible for the commuting of their sentences and gaining their early release. Holder’s anti-gun and gun control record is extensive and far left. Holder and Janet Reno filed an amicus brief siding with the District of Columbia in the Heller case.
Upon learning of the existence of Operation Wide Receiver through administration appointees to ATF and the FBI, Obama appointee Dennis Burke, Asst. AG for Arizona, decided to reopen the operation under a new name: Operation Fast and Furious. The idea was the same as before. Further, Operation Fast and Furious was to require the forced cooperation against their will, in violation of the law, of legitimate gun dealers to sell firearms to known straw purchasers. All done at the behest and under the supervision of the Phoenix BATF office, which now had an Obama appointee as its head, Bill Newell.
With the new Obama Administration, Operation Fast and Furious included the cooperation and oversight of the new Obama appointed Dennis Burke federal Assistant AG for Arizona, and Obama appointees in the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA in Arizona placed in management position replacing many career agents who were former law enforcement
With the Obama Adminstration came a new breed of management at the BATF, FBI and DEA. Management without a law enforcement background and with an ideological imperative versus tried and true law enforcement practices. Loyal, leftist ideologues who believe that the Second Amendment should be stricken from the Constitution. People who had no compunction about violating the sovereignty of a neighboring nation and arming the enemy of both Mexico and the U.S. with deadly weapons. All done to suborn public opinion in the U.S. against the personal ownership of firearms and to undermine support for the Second Amendment. All men and women, legally trained, with a long record of leftist ideals who have diligently worked to undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Operation Fast and Furious was to be run by the ATF office in Phoenix that had been responsible for the failure of Operation Wide Receiver.
Orders setting Fast and Furious into operation were given with the knowledge and assent of the Assistant AG Dennis Burke to move forward. BATF agent Bill Newell was given the authority to conduct the operation. The coercing of legitimate firearms dealers began, many of whom openly protested the obviously illegal purchases that they were required to sign off on. Some even protested to the FBI.
From 2009-2010 over 2,000 heavy caliber semi-automatic firearms were illegally purchased through known straw purchasers and transported to Mexico to points unknown. All without the knowledge and cooperation of the government of Mexico, or even the BATF agents in Mexico as liaisons to the Mexican authorities.
In other words, the BATF, DOJ, acting under the authority of the President of the United States and the color of U.S. law violated the national sovereignty of a neighboring friendly nation by aiding and abetting the smuggling of illegally purchased firearms to the drug cartels, known to be hostile to the United States, all without the knowledge and consent of the lawful government of Mexico.
Holder et al are up to their armpits in blood.
The collateral damage caused by Fast and Furious is still accumulating today. On December 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in an ambush on the U.S. side of the border. At least two of the weapons used were Fast and Furious AK47s illegally smuggled into Mexico. On February 15, 2011, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was killed in Mexico. Two Americans died.
Dozens have been killed in Mexico, yet, the U.S. has not issued an apology to the Mexican government and to the Mexican people for the egregious violation of their sovereignty as a nation through Operation Fast and Furious.
After the death of BPO Brian Terry on December 14, 2010. Carlos Canino, a BATF liaison agent, contacted AG Morales and told her what he knew about fast and Furious. Marisela Morales, the Mexican Attorney General, called for the extradition of all responsible for the illegal gun running operation known as Fast and Furious.
On August 15, 2011, William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State, traveled to Mexico to meet with Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinoza. A $500 million law enforcement assistance program to Mexico was coming up for approval, but criticism of the Obama Administration had end. AG Marisela Morales call for extradition for those responsible for the murder of innocent Mexican civilians caused by the smuggling of illegal arms into Mexico was silenced. $500 million has that effect.
Is there a smoking gun leading to the White House? It is known that e-mails showing maps of the suspected routes the firearms had taken in Mexico were sent to the NSA Advisor’s office. Holder knew of Fast and Furious in 2010. Janet Napolitano had to know, it was her agents who were killed. Yet, all involved beg indifference, a lack of knowledge, and produce only blackened pages in response to Congressional subpoenas.
Given the ideological fanaticism and cronyism that is part and parcel of this White House, is it possible that President Obama did not know? Until he is subpoenaed we will not know. What needs to be asked by Rep. Darrell Issa is “what did you know, and when did you know it?”
What constitutes Fast and Furious is a violation of international law, murder, conspiracy to illegally smuggle arms into a friendly national without their knowledge, to knowingly violate the border of Mexico, and to aid and abet enemies of the United States and Mexico that are drug cartels, and to aid and to abet the murders of two U.S. law enforcement agents and the murder of an estimated 300 Mexican citizens.
President Obama's nominee to head the ATF was on the panel that created Fast and Furious. B. Todd Jones should be investigated, not awarded with a promotion.
President Obama should have his feet held to the fire over Fast and Furious until the entire sick story is revealed. Then, those responsible should be indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison in a prison with a very large Mexican population.
Watergate was nothing in comparison to the death and destruction caused by Fast and Furious. There is no comparison. There is no comparable degree of moral outrage, our mainstream media have abrogated their job of keeping government honest. Instead, they are complicit in murders resulting from Fast and Furious and the lack of justice for those killed.
Were it not for National Gun Rights Examiner Eric Codrea, Katie Pavlich and her book “Fast and Furious”, and CBS report Sharyl Attisson, Fast and Furious would never have seen the light of day.
We need to do our jobs as citizens and keep this story alive by contacting our Congressional delegations and demanding more hearings. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the AP phone records scandel, Sebelious and her improprieties, and the EPA used to get even with conservatives mark the Obama Administration as a dangerous example of corruption and abuse of power.
All of the above serve as notice to we the people that the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic are in peril by a tyrannical, cynical, self-serving President and his appointees.
If we let this continue, we have only ourselves to blame.
Call and write your congressional delegation, call the governor and have that office stand up to the President. Then, in 2014 and 2016, end this liberal tyranny and assault upon our Constitution by voting in conservatives who will honor and obey the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land.
For more information:
Rep. Daryl Issa: Heads should roll,0,3828090.storygallery

Part I Obama's Watergates: The President is not above the law

Watergate, June 17, 1972-August 8, 1974. Watergate was a simple matter. On June 17, 1972, y five men where were caught during an attempted break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. What brought down President Richard Nixon’s presidency was the attempted cover-up of the events. The purpose of the break-in was to wiretap the Democratic National Headquarters. Eleven advisors and aides to then President Richard Nixon were indicted by a Grand Jury on various charges including burglary, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

John Mitchell, a former Attorney General was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury and fined $42,000. He was imprisoned for 19 months.

H.R. Halderman, White House Chief of Staff, was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and fined $16,000. He was imprisoned for 18 months.

Charles Colson, former White House counsel, was convicted of obstruction of justice, he was fined $5,000 and was imprisoned for 7 months.

John Erlichman, Assistant to the President for political affairs, was convicted of perjury, and obstruction of justice and fined $40,000. He was imprisoned for 18 months.

Gordon Strachan, White House Aide to H. R. Halderman, had his charges dropped before trial. He had been facing up to 15 years in federal prison and $20,000 in fines.

Robert Mardian, aid to John Mitchell, was exonerated on appeal.

Kenneth Parkinson, counsel to the President’s reelection committee, faced 10 years in prison and $10,00 in fines, but was acquitted at trial.

Jeb Magruder, Deputy Director of the President’s reelection committee, was convicted of conspiracy and was imprisoned for 7 months.

Frederick LaRue, a Presidential Aide, was convicted of obstruction of justice and was imprisoned for four and half months.

Maurice Stans, finance chairman of the President’s reelection committee, was convicted of three counts of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act and two counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions. He was fined $5,000. Two earlier charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were dropped.

Egil Krogh, Jr., White House Advisor and counsel, was indicted for obstruction of justice and imprisoned for 4 months. He was part of the White House Plumbers unit under G. Gordon Liddy. Although he was convicted for a break-in regarding Daniel Ellsberg’s disclosures of the Pentagon Papers, his role was discovered as part of the Watergate investigation.

G. Gordon Liddy, counsel to President Nixon’s reelection campaign, a White House Aide, and a former FBI agent, served 52 months in federal prisons for burglary and refusing to testify before a Senate committee that was investigating Watergate.

Today, in some of America’s big cities, especially in high crime areas, the police would not even bother investigating the break-in. Yet, this non-violent act of breaking of the law destroyed a presidency.

On August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States. His presidency was brought to an end by the mere attempt at cover-up of an attempted break-in of the DNC to place wiretaps in those offices. The President lied, as did others in an attempt to cover-up the break-in. In many jurisdictions what was attempted that night in 1972 would have been a misdemeanor or class C felony at the worst. No Americans died, nor was anyone injured. No acts of illegal aiding and abetting an enemy were accomplished. Yet, a presidency was brought down, because of the attempted cover-up.

What was the lesson of Watergate? Don’t lie to the American people, and no one, including the President of the United States is above the law. No one.

Tomorrow: part II, Barack Hussein Obama’s Watergates.

The personnel at the Benghazi U.S. Mission were abandoned while under attack with military resources available and able to come to their aid in a timely manner, but left to die by this President for political reasons. At least one drone was overhead the entire time sending video to the DOD and State, and undoubtedly, with a feed to the WH Situation Room.

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi was running guns to Islamic jihadists, including Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Our President authorized arming our enemies. Americans were abandoned on the battlefield, American soil--that's what the Mission was--was violated by armed hostiles. President Barrack Hussein Obama, then SecState Hillary Clinton, and then SecDef Leon Panetta are all complicit in the failure to act to protect U.S. personnel under attack and complicit in their knowledge of aiding and abetting enemies of the United States, even going so far as to hire members of Ansar al-Sharia, a known Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist militia as . . . security personnel for the mission. A U.S. Ambassador was sodomized and killed in the attack, and another State Dept. employee was killed, along with two CIA ex-Navy Seals trying to defend against the attack.

Then, there is Fast and Furious, in which our government illegally ran guns into Mexico arming the drug cartels in a perverted attempt to undermine the Second Amendment through public backlash over the carnage these illegally smuggled weapons brought to the citizens of Mexico. A DEA agent was killed in Mexico and a Border Patrol officer was killed in the U.S. by these weapons. AG Eric Holder and President Barrack Hussein Obama are culpable for this intentional violation of Mexican national sovereignty and the arming of enemies of the United States and complicit in the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement officers as a result of their illegal acts.

Then, there is the IRS scandal which is incredible in of itself. Prior knowledge of the President, complicit in his allowing the supression of political opponents fund raising ability while fast tracking friendly organizations. This has never happened to this degree. 500 organizations were impacted negatively, with prejudicial delays openly admitted. All concerned at the IRS need to be fired. They all took an oath to serve. President Barrack Hussein Obama is complicit in his knowledge and his silence.

The AP scandal is another harbinger of things to come with the assault on the AP. Even if the press is hostile to the right, it should still be free to exercise its 1st Amendment rights. AG Eric Holder did not act without his President's approval. This was a politically motivated assault on the Fourth Estate.

All of the above serve as notice to we the people that the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic are in peril by a tyrannical, cynical, self-serving President and his appointees.

If we let this continue, we have only ourselves to blame.

Call and write your congressional delegation, call the governor and have that office stand up to the President. Then, in 2014 and 2016, end this liberal tyranny and assault upon our Constitution by voting for conservatives who will honor and obey the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land.