BENGHAZI COVER-UP DEEPENS

Last week's report on the probe into the Benghazi Massacre provided little new information and added to the cloud of suspicion over the events that took place during and immediately after the attack.  The leaders of the State Department probe acknowledged to Congress that their mission was limited in scope and faced questions as to why they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton an advance look at their findings. Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, vice chairman of the accountability review board, also acknowledged that he had warned Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff not to send a particular official to Congress because he thought “she would be a weak witness” who might have hurt the State Department’s stance. 

Two witnesses who testified to the probe committee have been prohibited from testifying to Congress by the Obama Administration.  

Why was the probe limited in scope?  Why was Clinton allowed to read the report before it was delivered to Congress?  Why is testimony of eye-witnesses being refused?  When are they going to get the skunk our of the woodpile? 

U.N. GUN TREATY: NO ONE CARES?

As you can tell, I'm more than upset that the United States actually went ahead and signed on to the United Nations Weapons Treaty.  This signing isn't even making FOX NEWS, let alone the main stream media.  Yet, it takes us one step closer to losing our Second Amendment rights.  

How can that be, you might ask.  No treaty can circumvent the Constitution, you've been told.  

If the Democratic Senate should happen to ratify the treaty, it becomes law.  Now, some U.S. citizen has to allege and prove that he has been injured by that law and sue in Federal Court.  If he wins, Obama would appeal to an Appeals Court.  Whoever loses will appeal to the Supreme Court.  This could take years and Obama could have the ability to start a massive gun control program in the interim.  All it takes is for one Conservative Judge on the Court to retire or resign; Obama will replace him or her with a left-wing liberal and the Supreme Court can then rule that the ratified treaty does, in fact, trump the Second Amendment.  

That's the danger.  I never thought ObamaCare could be rammed down our throats. 

And not a peep in the press or the media.  Why not?  Who's to blame for that?  

OBAMA HAS KERRY SIGN U.N. GUN BAN TREATY

WE COULD BE TO BLAME

If you're against the ObamaCare program, and you should be,  you need to call or email your Senator today and voice your opinion.  This is the day.  Don't be to blame. 

REID THE ROGUE

Harry Reid blames the Republicans, the Tea Party Members, the Conservatives, the Libertarians, the Chamber of Commerce, business, labor unions, etc. for wanting to scuttle ObamaCare.  He forgets that 70-75% of the country was against the Act, (as if in some kind of sex act), that he and Pelosi succeeded in shoving down America's throats in the middle of the night before anyone had a chance to read one page of it it away from the "fog of controversy." 

Now that he's forced the baby to eat the manure, he's ticked off that the baby wants to spit it back out.  This is dictatorship in its rawest and most simple form: "Shut up and do as I say."  

Various polls show 60% to 70% of Americans want ObamaCare trashed.  He has no right to blame us for wanting to end this un-American nightmare.  He's standing on a lectern of deceit and trickery.  His mean scowls don't scare me a bit.  He, Pelosi and Obama  are the scoundrels to blame for this mess and they owe it to the American public to clean it up. 

HERE WE GO WITH GUN CONTROL AGAIN

It was only a matter of time until Obama would seize upon the tragedy at the Washington Naval Yard to turn it to political gain.  Speaking over the weekend, Obama told Congress to get off their duffs and pass his gun control legislation.  

Isn't it ironic that the two cities with the worst violent crime rates in this country are Chicago and Washington, both with tight gun control and both residences of Obama?  We have law enforcement and even government agents who won't enforce the laws that are already on the books, and we want to add more laws?  All this is about is disenfranchising law-abiding gun owners from their legally owned guns. 

He calls those of us who own these guns insensitive and uncaring and blames us for wanting to see more children dead in schools.  He has no concept of the fact that cities and counties with the highest percentages of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates.  He chooses to ignore not only the law, being the Second Amendment, but also the facts because he has an agenda.  

Well, if you want to understand how great his agendas really are, you don't have to look any further than ObamaCare and Syria.  Let's put the blame where it squarely belongs and quit the bull. 

IS BENGHAZI STORY BURIED UNTIL 2016?

After a whole lot of name calling and finger waving at the recent Benghazi hearings on The Hill, two things are evident: They didn't learning anything new and they don't have the horsepower to get the answers.  In other words, they don't have the ability to get past the President's and the Administration's stonewalling.  

Once again, Obama proves he can do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, and to whom he wants and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.  He is above the law, because those we entrust with enforcing the law lack the courage, fortitude and skills to enforce it.  

We are the ones to blame here, because we're not raising hell and demanding a full and complete investigation and report to the American people.  How can we, as a nation, allow our Ambassador and three fine Americans to die, to watch our President and his minions lie about it and cover it up, and then turn our backs on it and walk away?  

How can we do that? 

MISFIRED ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE 2ND AMENDMENT

Those of us who own guns or support the Constitution should be aghast to discover that a new Texas schoolbook has redefined the Second Amendment to read: "the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."  This subtle redefinition implies that we Americans have no right to keep and bear arms unless we are in a state militia.  The Constitution provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

The work book used at Guyer High School in the city of Denton is "The United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination."  John J. Newman, the book's co-author, claims the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.  "There was no devious intention in the definition," he said.  

If you believe that, ask yourselves why the school was using the book in the first place and why whatever review board it has went ahead and selected this version. We all need to be on the lookout for these devious attempts to subvert our government.  Others may be to blame for trying, we will be to blame if we allow them to succeed. 

IS AARON ALEXIS REALLY TO BLAME?

Just 24 hours after the rampage of indiscriminate shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, facts are emerging about the lone perpetrator, Aaron Alexis.  As it turns out, Alexis has had mental issues for many years, mainly dealing with anger management.  He had several brushes with the law, received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy and even raised the concern of his father.  

We do not know at this point how many existing laws Alexis violated in this massacre.  Washington D.C. has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation; yet, Alexis had a concealed carry permit.  We are told that guns are not allowed at the Washington Navy Yard, yet there Alexis was in building 197, a secure facility, with several weapons; he got past the main gate and into that building with those weapons. 

Had any of the existing laws and security measures been enforced, it is entirely probable that this event would not have occurred.  I suppose, however, that the gun control freaks will once again claim that guns are to blame and that they will seek to come and get mine in order to placate their anger against Alexis.  

One thing is certain: if we are ever going to successfully address these gun crimes, we are going to have to inject some sane evaluation and reasonable thinking. 

HOUSE REPORT CARD

A House Committee report concludes that the original State Department investigation into the events at Benghazi was flawed.  It says that senior officials were let off the hook regarding the sad lack of security at the facility.  The report by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee alleges the board’s probe was not comprehensive, its interviews were not thorough, and the investigation itself may have been damaged by conflicts of interest.  

The report, as you can see, doesn't reveal anything that we didn't already know or suspect.  The report also did not ask the really important questions of the day:  Why weren't Marines sent in immediately to secure the facility and protect its assets?  Why did the President delay for almost a month before sending the F.B.I. in?  Why are survivors from the attack being kept in a veil of secrecy and why is the House being denied access to them for questioning?  Why are the so-called perpetrators still visible and on the loose?  

Now that we have this high-cost report, what is the House going to do about it?  

We certainly don't know all of the facts about the Benghazi Massacre, but we do know who to blame for the cover up, don't we Mr. President? 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERS?

It's been a year since the Benghazi Massacre and it's time to pause and ask ourselves, "What do we know about that event today that we did not know a year ago?"  Although few, there are some important facts that have emerged in that time.  

We didn't know a year ago that security in Benghazi was totally lacking.  We didn't know that help had been requested and denied.  We didn't learn for months after the attack that there were survivors or that they had been secreted away in some hospital and kept nameless so that no one could question them.  We didn't know that Congress would huff and puff for the whole year, presumably trying to get answers while presenting themselves as being in command of the situation.  

We know who to blame for the attack, and that's Libyan-Al Qaeda terrorists.  We don't know the reason for the elaborate cover-up, why Congress didn't ask the right questions when they had Hillary on the grill or why they have been so successfully stymied and buffaloed by the Obama Administration.  

I know in my gut that the answers simply must come out.  We cannot let this massacre slip through our fingers without those answers.  We owe at least that much to the souls of those who died there. 

TWISTING SLOWLY IN THE WIND

It seems to me that Barack Hussein Obama has acquired the Richard Milhous Nixon disease... twisting ever so slowly in the wind.  Things have started to turn against him as the country opens its eyes and starts to see him for what he really is.  

He managed to shuck and duck his way out of the Operation Fast & Furious mess.  A Federal Judge is due to rule soon as to whether Executive Privilege can be applied to the documents that the House wants.   Whoever wins, there will likely be an appeal.  The outcome of the appeal will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court and a final decision will probably not be rendered until after Obama leaves office.  

But, Benghazi is different.  It's not going away.  People want answers.  Then, of course, the endless parade of scandals put Obama to the test.  Stretched to his wit's end, it was not unlikely that he would fumble the Syrian ball, jumping wildly in several directions and stepping blindly into the poop each time.  Now he has entered another dimension... the ObamaCare chicken that's coming home to roost.  

Big business got some waivers.  Congressional workers got a special subsidy.  Several other groups got special deals.  Now, the unions are ticked off and yesterday, Obama told them he couldn't help them, (not that he won't in some other way soothe their wounds).  But the American public is on the precipice of finding out just how much it's going to cost them, and they're going to be madder than wet cats.  

One by one, all of those nasty deeds he has done are coming back to haunt him.  There's really no one to blame except himself, but I'm sure he'll try.  

 

THE OMNIPOTENT JACKASS

Word around the D.C. Corral is that Fast & Furious is finally coming back to center stage, where it belongs with the Benghazi Massacre, N.S.A., D.O.J., I.R.S., E.P.A. and ObamaCare fiascoes.  Obama is scampering about wondering how to salvage what image he has left after the Syrian debacle, hoping like hell that the other real news of the day stays buried.  As much as his image has suffered over the last week or so, any bad news forthcoming out of any of the above balls he is juggling could prove to cement his future as a truly lame duck President.

We all know how it is when the wheels of fortune turn against us.  Just about the time we think we've seen the last of adversity, another truck full of poop comes around the bend.  This is Obama's first real adversity since becoming President, so there are several more trucks surely waiting just down the street, any one of which could bury him.  Now, for the first time, when Obama gets ready to lay the blame, he has to look squarely in the mirror. 

It truly is a shame that the nation's first Black President has turned out to be such a jackass. He'll probably ruin it for any good ones that might come along for the next 75 years or so.    

UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES: ADMITTED LIE

The Labor Department has admitted the latest figures were. wrong.  They showed a dramatic decrease in the number of weekly unemployment claims for first-time benefits, down to 292,000 from 323,000.  The department claims that two states, not named, were updating their systems and did not fully process all new claims.  Gosh, the government is finally taking the blame for something. 

BENGHAZI'S ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY

And still no answers.  Congress still won't step up to the plate and get the damned answers and Obama is not volunteering.  I wonder if there will be another horrible debacle and yet another cover up before the day is over.  

OBAMA: THE EPITOME OF A BULL IN THE CHINA CLOSET

On the eve of addressing us about the Syrian situation and his need to be able to go in and bomb, Obama late today stepped into the bucket with his other foot.  Caught with his pants down on the "red line" issue, Obama has had his minions out in the hinterlands stumping for support for his "imminent" attack on Syria designed to impress Assad with the seriousness of the matter.  Assad has denied chemical weapons were used; Putin has backed Assad up saying they have proof that the weapons were deployed by rebels.  

Monday, Putin suggested that an international agreement might be reached where the Syrian chemical weapons would come under control of the United Nations.  That was followed by the revelation that the Iranians have been warning us for over a year that the Syrian rebels had acquired chemical weapons.  Obama, instead of denying all of this, has said he is agreeable to discussion of the U.N. idea and Reid promptly announced that a scheduled vote on the Senate floor to allow Obama authority to bomb Syria has been postponed. 

Are we dealing with another Benghazi scenario, where the initial story given to us was an outright lie?  Just who really is to blame for that chemical attack?  Is this really about changing the subject from the Benghazi Massacre, I.R.S., D.O.J., N.A.S. ad infinitum? 

OBAMA REALLY IS TO BLAME

I was brought up to believe in and support the President of the United States whether I voted for him or not.  I was taught that he is the elected leader of our country and we need to stand behind him.  But, I would not stand behind an Adolf Hitler as our President, for example.  The President must be a strong leader, but he must above all be a capable one and an outstanding American.  I'm indeed sorry to say this, but I would support Rush Limbaugh as President long before I will support Barack Obama. 

Obama is no outstanding American and he is no leader.  That's the long and short of it.  With respect to Syria, the time to act was well over two years ago, before Al Qaeda had a foothold.  Today, the rebels consist of a conglomerate of good guys, not so good guys, and downright nasty enemies.  They don't wear shirts or caps to identify themselves.  Any aid to them is likely to end up with the nasties.  

Assad is doing horrible things.  Obama has shucked and ducked that issue from day one, just as he is shucking and ducking the Iranian nuclear problem.  Having achieved office, this handsome and suave talker from wherever he's from has proven to be a chicken and a procrastinator; he doesn't make a single tough decision until someone lights a fire in his public hair.  

In trying to shuck and duck and dance his way around the Syrian-Assad situation, he flapped his gums off with a "However, if Assad uses chemical weapons, that will change our equation."  Of course, Assad is now inherently obligated to test the waters.  Well, you've heard all of the arguments about how we are going to respond... everything from shooting a spit-wad at him to a massive attack of missiles and bombs.  

Now that we've called Obama on his "red line" gaffe, he still refuses to acknowledge he made a mistake and tries to lie and spin his way out of it by suggesting that it's not his red line, it's everyone else's red line.   And we have his supporters running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that it's our duty to support our President.  Are we going to be like Nazi Germany in support of Adolf Hitler and blindly support anything this President does?  

I think we're  smarter than that.  We ask questions.  We don't like the situation our President put us in, we don't like the possible repercussions, and we want to sit this one out.  I'm sorry, Barry, but you got yourself into this mess.  You have blamed us, divided us, made us feel like pissants and now you want us to risk our country for the sole purpose of saving your face? 

You are to blame, Mr. President.  Stand up like a man, admit it and show some damned humility.  Start acting like a leader and an American.  Under those circumstances, we will follow you.  Otherwise, you're finished.  Done.  Zero.  

OBAMACARE AND SYRIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN

Seventy plus percent of the country was at that time against ObamaCare.  The Administration had its lackeys out in force, stumping the plan and claiming complete transparency while Pelosi, Reid and cohorts hid out behind closed doors and plotted.  The next thing we knew, in the middle of the night Congress passed the 2,700 page bill that no one had read.  

As you read this, the majority of the country is against taking military action at this time in Syria.  The Administration has its lackeys out in force, etc.  Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and Graham have been hiding out behind closed doors while the rest of Congress rushes back to make the decision on the 7th, when even Obama didn't ask for it until sometime during the week of the 9th. 

And I say, the set up is the same.  Sometime during the middle of the night of the 7th or 8th, Congress is going to give Obama authority to go pound something or other up Assad's fanny.  

If this action on the part of Congress in reaction to Obama's dumb moves and stupid demands in the face of public opposition goes forward, I for one sure as hell hope that the results are not the same as we got stuck with on ObamaCare.  Who is going to be to blame for this one? 

WE ARE TO BLAME

Contrary to the name of the blog, we ARE to blame for this; we elected them.  

John Boehner, Lindsay Graham and John McCain are all stumping for an Obama attack on Syria, presumably oblivious to the potential consequences.  As usual in times of national crisis, Obama is out-of-town. 

ASKING FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL; UNBELIEVABLY SMART

Obama had certainly painted himself into a dark corner by drawing his line and then shucking and ducking when the line was crossed.  Americans are not happy about his blunder and Congress was ticked off that he would strike Syria without their consultation and approval.  He had insisted he has the right to do so and that he intends to do so anyway... regardless of what Congress says.

Although he has really degraded whatever esteem he had left abroad, having Congressional approval gets him off the domestic hook.   He's still to blame for putting us in this position in the first place with his "red line" and by failing to develop a responsible strategy for dealing with Syria several years ago.  

I believe it would be unconscionable for us to proceed now; the time for punitive action has passed.  If we decide to go ahead anyway, I would be inclined to label it as an act of war on our part.  As for Obama himself, he seems to have successfully punted his problem to Congress, at least for the time being.