REVOLT


Thomas Jefferson on Tyranny

Intro to ‘Revolt’

Editor John R. Houk

January 20, 2014

 

Justin Smith writes an essay entitled “Revolt”. The premise is an understandable disgust with Barack Hussein Obama crossing the line from Presidential authority to Presidential tyrant. There is a time emerging in America in which citizens who choose to cherish the freedoms our Founding Fathers’ fought, died for and won may have to assert themselves AGAIN. As Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence:

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … (The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America; Congress, July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom, Archives.gov)

 

Justin wrote he wrote his last paragraph with Isaiah 5: 20 and 7: 15 in mind. I believe he should have begun his essay with these two verses. So I am including them here for you to think about as you read this entire essay:

 

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. (Isaiah 5: 20; 7: 15 NKJV)

 

 

JRH 1/20/14

Please Support NCCR

**************************

REVOLT

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/19/2014 11:21 AM

 

It is not an exaggeration to name Barack Obama “a tyrant” or to state that America has entered a phase of soft tyranny under the Obama administration. Many would counter this assertion with examples of people still free to go to work, the stores, the movies and the daily routine of living, but tyranny never begins as cruel and oppressive; it starts out merely illegitimate and benign, just as so many of Obama’s executive orders and actions by Senator Harry Reid and the U.S. Senate have been in advancing the Progressive Movement’s agenda and shredding the U.S. Constitution.

Obama and the Progressive Democrats hate America. There can be no other explanation for their desire to fundamentally transform America from the greatest nation on earth, a nation that has helped to free much of the world both economically and physically, into a socialist/authoritarian shadow of its former self, impoverished, with every single aspect of life ruled by legislation from a central governing body of so-called “elites.” When Obama speaks of “economic equality”, he is actually calling for an end to individuality and individual liberty: Remember, this is the President and First Lady who have bragged about “disrespecting the American flag” and attending “numerous flag burnings” in the past.

Central planning is not about rationality and reason or knowledge and experience. It is about illegitimately exercising power over others through the deceit of moral relativism and situationalism. It is coercive and requires non-stop social engineering, while it concedes no failures and tolerates no deviation from dogma. And this is why, even in the face of the utter and miserable failure of the ACA [i.e. Obamacare], the Progressives refuse to broach any serious discussion with Republicans that considers abandoning the ACA in part or whole, although they applaud Obama’s unilateral and unConstitutional seventeen changes to the ACA.

Whenever, the issue of Executive orders is raised, the Progressives are quick to point to other presidents who signed more orders than Obama. The issue isn’t how many Executive orders he has signed; the issue is the kind of orders he has signed and their associated bureaucratic orders, rules and regulations (80,000 annually) unleashed on America.

Obama’s Executive order 13575 circumvented Congress’s rejection of the UN’s Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”, and in 2009, it placed controls on government and private lands, resources and energy; his National Defense Resources Preparedness order basically grants the president and his cabinet members absolute authority and power over all the nation’s natural resources and private materials, services and facilities; signed December 31, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act allows the president to indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen on the mere suspicion that they might be a terrorist; and now the ACA , while not an executive order, is interfering in our individual choices and decisions to keep our own doctors and the health care plans we want and can afford.

During GM’s financial crisis and subsequent bailout, the Obama administration started its habit of targeting political enemies. Those GM dealers, who supported Obama’s election campaign, were allowed to stay in business, and those who did not support Obama were shut down.

Moreover, it is now evident that Obama has used his power through the IRS to target his political enemies, such as the Tea Party. Although he and his administration thoroughly deny this allegation, the circumstantial evidence is so heavy that any average American would already have been convicted and serving time on its weight alone.

Isn’t it surreal that the FBI ended its IRS investigation on the advice of Eric Holder’s appointee, Barbera Bosserman, who gave $6100 dollars to Obama’s campaign between 2008 and 2012? Whatever happened to independent counsels and select investigative committees?

Today, rather than target those who are most likely to commit terrorist atrocities, the islamofascists, Obama and the National Security Agency have placed the entire American population under a blanket warrant, for fear of being called “Islamophobic”. This sort of warrant was rejected by Americans, such as lawyer James Otis, in 1761, and the consequences of its implementation now are dangerous and authoritarian.

Do any of you remember Obama musing over the Chinese not having to contend with a “pesky Constitution”?

On January 14, 2014 many Americans may have finally been slapped awake by Obama’s statement, “I have a pen and a phone and I’ll act when Congress won’t”…to speak for “all the American people.” This is similar to his statement in December 2013, when he said, “If Congress refuses to act, I’ll do everything in my power to act without them.”

Our nation has been here before to a lesser degree under President Woodrow Wilson, who argued for obstructing and damaging constitutional primacy at every opportunity by corrupting the Constitution itself. He advocated for an all-powerful president, courts and judges willing to rewrite the U.S. Constitution (i.e. Chief Justice John Roberts) and controlling Congress in order to control state legislatures without limits, and in essence, expanding the federal government beyond Constitutional control: Obama has simply taken this plan to new, stunning and light speed levels of action.

During C-Span’s televised Congressional hearings in December of 2013, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Judiciary Committee Chairman, remarked that the president “doesn’t have a debate in the Oval Office about what he wants to do …He does what he wants to do, and then you no longer have a representative democracy.” The executive’s powers have overtaken the legislative power, and this is destructive to the center of our constitutional design.

America has a lawless administration that picks and chooses, which laws it will follow. Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to enforce U.S. law as it applies to immigration, the 1965 Voter Act and drugs, and he has used the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations as a weapon to destroy the coal industry.

Also in December 2013, Representative Trey Gowdy asked, “If Obama can ignore parts of Obamacare, could he ignore election laws too? If You can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?

There is no limiting principle that Obama and the Progressives are not willing to violate, due to the fact that they are ideologically driven, and they are out of control, as they place the Progressive agenda over any sense of duty or allegiance to the people of America. Obama actually had the temerity to declare the Senate out of session, when it was simply on a break. By concentrating power within the Executive Branch, Obama has become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.

After recent events, I have serious concerns over whether or not our traditional process will correct the course of our government’s trend towards authoritarian rule in time to save us. In past years, our differences were sorted out within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. What are we to do when one side decides to no longer be bound by the rules? The Progressives may have been born American citizens, but they are no longer American in their intentions for our nation. And, when the government, led by Obama and these Progressives, becomes lawless, it is not illegal or treason to finally take to the streets in protest/civil disobedience, at the very least, in the defense of the U.S. Constitution and America__to finally hold the criminals in the Obama administration accountable through armed revolt should it persist in its treason, since many of America’s veterans, past and present, took an oath to defend the U.S. against “enemies both foreign and domestic.”

Unlike the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a black liberation theologist and one of Obama’s mentors, who is a millionaire several times over because of the vast opportunity America offers everyone through its exceptional nature; and, who once said, “God damn America for as long as she acts like God and she is supreme”, I say, not taking the Lord’s name in vain but as my most fervent prayer, “No, no, no__God damn Obama and the Progressive Party for as long as they act like they are God and they are supreme__God damn them for the ruin they have wrought upon Our Beloved America. Amen, amen, amen.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Make Boehner Happy – True Conservative Leave the GOP


T-Party Believes In

John R. Houk

© December 24, 2013

 

About a week ago Speaker of the John Boehner (R) criticized Tea Party Conservatives for hampering the Democrat/GOP budget deal. Now I have mixed feelings on this budget deal. I feel with a neo-Marxist President the only kind of budget that will pass and be signed is a compromise budget. Hence a compromise was good.

 

However, Boehner’s personal attack strategy on Tea Party Conservatives is a demonstration of the Republican Establishment – mired with Left-Center and Crony Capitalist Conservatives – has decided to minimize true Conservatives possibly to the point of excising their existence from the GOP.

 

Boehner may consider himself a Conservative and this budget deal may be the best compromise for the U.S. government to move on; however he should of attacked what the GOP had to give up and begin ramping that up as a 2014 election issue. Instead Boehner attacked the Less-Government/Fair-Taxes element of the GOP know as Tea Party Conservatives.

 

It is my opinion that the Tea Party Movement will only have a significant influence on the Congressional Budget path if they withdraw from the Republican Party. This would mean the multitudinous separate and local Tea Parties would have to find some kind of unity through some kind of federation and/or centralization. Critics of this will tell you this is guaranteeing a Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and another Dem President in the probable likes of another Alinsky devotee in Hillary Clinton.

 

I say so what!

 

When the Republican Party broke into the national scene in America in 1856, it neither won Congress or the Presidency. Republicans were considered too radical by the political establishment of its day because they represented the Abolition Movement (i.e. the abolition of slavery and full citizenship for former slaves). The irony of those days the Democratic Party won the Congress and the Presidency in 1856 and it was the Democrats that favored slavery and the status quo on a national basis. Today the Dem Party strategy has switched from status quo Capitalism (including the Southern slave culture) to Socialist utopianism. Part of that power base is to convince America’s poor and minorities that the Dems have their interests at heart by creating a system which the government takes care of people. In essence the Dems have managed to make the poor and minorities dependent on government hand-outs as part of a survival mode. The irony is the Dems have created a pseudo-slave class which continued votes keep their masters in power. When Boehner criticizes the Tea Party instead of admitting temporary compromises he is upholding the Dem Party slave-class system to perpetuation.

 

America needs another Lincoln to STAND UP to discharge the status quo and render the Establishment Republicans and status quo Dems irrelevant now as Lincoln did to the Dems and to what was left of the Whig Party to win political power in 1860.

 

It is time to stop calling Establishment Republicans RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Let us call them Republicans and the Tea Party start another National Political Party that will eventually gain the hearts of American voters. A Tea Party paradigm might cause a bit of civil strife for a while as did the 1860 Dems in starting the Civil War, but good designs will always triumph over the evil designs of the Socialistic slave mentality.

 

If you are a Tea Party Conservative this Boehner speech should embolden you rather than to lay down to walked upon by the Republican Establishment and the Socialist/Marxist leaning Democratic Party:

 

VIDEO: Boehner Takes on the Tea Party

 

You should read this December 19 op-ed written by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots located of all places in the New York Times. Martin is more specific than I in itemizing the bad parts of the budget compromise and the Tea Party advocacy for less government which Obamacare for all its good intentions is a socialist paradigm destined to further enslave American dependence on government overreach.

 

JRH 12/24/13

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

John Boehner’s Betrayal

 

By Jenny Beth Martin

December 19, 2013

New York Times

The Opinion Page Op/Ed

 

WOODSTOCK, Ga. — THERE’S a political axiom that says if nobody is upset with what you’re doing, you’re not doing your job. We’ve seen this proved time and again in the liberal attacks on conservatives like Sarah Palin and Dr. Benjamin Carson, who provide principled examples to women and minorities and are savaged by the left for doing that job so well.

 

But cheap-shot politics isn’t relegated to Democrats. Last week the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, attacked conservative groups who criticized the budget deal, hashed out by Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, and Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, for failing to reduce spending and for raising taxes.

 

“They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said, calling the opposition “ridiculous.”

 

In one way, Mr. Boehner is correct. The goals of groups like ours are those that congressional Republicans once espoused: smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. Alas, those who demand such things today from their elected officials face unfounded attacks.

 

Make no mistake: The deal is a betrayal of the conservatives who fueled the Republicans’ 2010 midterm shellacking of Democrats.

 

It raises discretionary spending above $1 trillion for 2014 and 2015. It reneges on $63 billion of sequester cuts. Its $28 billion in deficit reduction over the next decade is a pittance compared with the $680 billion deficit piled up in 2013 alone. And it raises taxes, particularly on airplane passengers through new travel fees.

 

Perhaps most troubling is that the deal locks in spending for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, ensuring that the worst parts of Obamacare will continue unfolding to the shock of increasing numbers of Americans.

 

But the budget plan is about more than taxes and spending. It was a slick means by which Senate Republicans could appear to oppose the deal while in fact allowing it to sail through the chamber.

 

Take Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the minority leader, who opposed efforts to defund Obamacare earlier this year while claiming to do everything possible to stop it.

 

After attacking conservative groups for their efforts to prevent the funding of Obamacare, Mr. McConnell, who is facing a primary challenge in his 2014 re-election race, is now seeking to portray himself as a conservative darling, championing fiscal austerity by voicing opposition to the budget proposal. (My organization has not endorsed a candidate in that race.) Doing so gives him some nifty talking points that align with most conservative groups, but it is little more than parliamentary sleight of hand.

 

Consider how he handled the vote on the bill. To defeat a filibuster, its supporters needed 60 senators to win cloture and move to a final vote. Instead of rallying his troops against the vote, Mr. McConnell allowed a handful of Republicans in battleground states — who needed to be seen as supporting the bill — to vote for cloture, while he and the rest railed against it, casting themselves in the role of budget hawks.

 

With cloture accomplished, a dozen Republicans were then free to vote against final passage if they need wiggle room when they’re confronted on the campaign trail next fall by voters demanding action on government spending. Mr. McConnell and many Senate Republicans used the vote to manipulate the system, allowing them to cast themselves as deal makers or principled conservatives, depending on their audience.

 

This is not principled policy making; what we’re seeing is simple gamesmanship that raises legitimate questions about which values Republicans truly hold and which are merely interchangeable with those of Democrats.

 

The job of Tea Party groups and other conservatives is pretty simple: to inform Americans about the need for restraint in spending, tax relief, pro-growth economic policies and individual liberty — and to support the men and women who pledge to promote these positions. To the extent that the speaker of the House and Senate Republicans are attacking such groups, it looks as if we’re doing our job.

 

But after this budget vote, our job expands to include informing Americans about who keeps their word in Congress and who does not.

 

When establishment Republicans call spending increases spending cuts, deny that raising taxes is a hike, and champion deficit reduction that doesn’t scratch the surface of our nation’s debt, it suggests a detachment from the facts. But when those who voted for them criticize their elected officials for not keeping their promises, and are then attacked for doing so, it suggests that Kurt Vonnegut was right in observing, “A sane person to an insane society must appear insane.”

____________________________

Blog Editor: While I was typing this out I was amused by a Mark Levin criticism of Rep. John Boehner posted on Youtube from a Levin radio broadcast.

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin reax to John Boehner’s War on the Tea Party: “Oh, I’m sooo scared”

_________________________

Make Boehner Happy – True Conservative Leave the GOP

John R. Houk

© December 24, 2013

_________________________

John Boehner’s Betrayal

 

Jenny Beth Martin is a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 20, 2013, on page A33 of the New York edition with the headline: John Boehner’s Betrayal.

 

© 2013 The New York Times Company

Biden Hails the 23 Gun Control Steps Obama Took on His Own


Biden Quote on Constitutional Rights

Vice President Joe Biden brags about how President Barack Hussein Obama by-passed Congress with Executive Orders to implement the Leftist perception of limiting violence by controlling the use of guns by Americans contrary to the Second Amendment. Check it out.

 

JRH 12/4/13 (Hat Tip: MinutemenNews.com)

Please Support NCCR

************************************

Biden Hails the 23 Gun Control Steps Obama Took on His Own

 

By Susan Jones

December 3, 2013 – 10:33 AM

CNS News

 

(CNSNews.com) – On Monday, invoking the Dec. 14 “tragedy in Newtown,” Vice President Joe Biden told Americans, “You have my word that the President and I are doing everything we can to make sure no parent loses their child to gun violence.”

 

And he admitted that they’re doing it “on our own,” without Congress.

 

“And so even after a minority of senators blocked commonsense legislation to reduce gun violence this spring, we’re pushing forward,” he said.

 

“Now, it’s not enough to take these steps on our own — we still need Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce gun violence. We need expanded background checks, and we need to create serious penalties for gun trafficking. There is no question that these kinds of measures would protect our kids and keep our communities safer.”

 

Biden hailed the 23 “executive actions” President Obama laid out in January to reduce “gun violence.” Biden said the administration has either completed or made significant progress on all of them.

 

“No parent should ever face the horror of the scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Or a movie theater in Aurora. Or a temple in Oak Creek. Or the campus at Virginia Tech. We’ve seen too much gun violence as a country. And if there’s even one thing we can do to save a life, it is our most sacred duty to try. That’s where I stand,” said Biden, who may be contemplating a run for president in 2016.

 

The anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting is a week from Saturday, and Connecticut officials are expected to release recordings of the 911 calls on Wednesday.

 

Biden was in Asia when the White House released his tough-on-guns message, which was signed “Joe.”

 

The message links to a list of the “progress we’ve made” on the 23 executive actions. Here are a few of them:

 

— “Begun to address unnecessary legal barriers that prevent states from reporting information about those prohibited from having guns.”

 

— “Issued a presidential memorandum requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”

 

— “Took steps to maximize enforcement efforts.”

 

— “Helped law enforcement avoid returning guns to the wrong hands.”

 

— “Published data on lost and stolen guns.”

 

— “Reviewed categories of dangerous people prohibited from having guns.”

 

You can see the full list of executive actions here.

 

On Tuesday, coincidentally, the House Judiciary Committee was holding a hearing on the president’s “constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”

 

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Fox News on Tuesday that she and other members of Congress are “appalled at the president’s actions — they are clearly unconstitutional.” Bachmann said the Constitution limits the president’s power — “even though the president doesn’t act that way.”

 

Bachmann said Obama can’t “unilaterally make these decisions, Congress is a part of the government as well, you’re not a king, you’re not a dictator” — even though he sometimes acts that way.

 

The list of Republican complaints includes Obama’s unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act, which Bachmann called “political management”; and his use of “prosecutorial discretion” in determining which illegal aliens to deport.

 

______________________________

All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2013. Cybercast News Service.

 

About CNSNews.com

 

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception


abortion-is-murder-definition

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

 

I am a Pro-Life/ANTI-Abortion kind of guy. I don’t believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn baby’s life. The woman might carry the unborn life but that does not make the baby a portion of her body. The concept of Pro-Choice – i.e. a woman should be able to choose decisions about her own body – is a load of self-delusion by Leftist ideology more interested in controlling/managing the extent of the Earth’s population (See Also HERE) than the Civil Liberties of a person’s life (Personhood) that has not been born yet.

 

In early 1973 the Supreme Court exacted a piece of unconstitutional Judicial Activism by creating law rather than ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In essence the case of Roe v Wade the Justices decided by fiat and a 7-2 vote to allow women to kill their unborn babies on demand. The Heritage Foundation has a great summary of the Roe v Wade decision:

 

Summary

In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.  The Due Process Clause protects a broad right to privacy that is also found in the Ninth Amendment and the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.  This substantive due process right to privacy permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester.  Subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state may reasonably regulate abortions in ways related to maternal health.  After viability, the state may regulate or proscribe abortions, but it must permit them if found necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, an exception which was expanded in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

 

Analysis

This case is activist because the Supreme Court relies upon notions of living constitutionalism, invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to create a right that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution.  This doctrine, which was established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is the prime example of judges reading broad constitutional terms divorced from any textual or originalist moorings, thereby making them empty vessels into which they can pour any policy preferences they desire.  The Due Process Clause, which is now being used by judges as a judicial wildcard, was simply meant to protect the citizens from government abuse by ensuring that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by a fair process.  The fact that the Court has used the word substantive to describe a clause that is clearly about process creates an anachronism that defies language and logic.  The Court in Roe wields the Clause to support abortion rights without any reasoned justification: after citing previous Supreme Court cases that erroneously established a broad constitutional right to privacy, the Court blithely asserted that this right “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

 

The opinion, which received a wave of criticism from those on both sides of the abortion debate, is infamous not only for its foundationless assertions about the meaning of the Due Process Clause, but also for its flawed historical analysis.  In an attempt to evaluate societal opinions about abortion throughout history, Blackmun looks to ancient societies, such as the Persian Empire, as well as the views of modern American lobbying organizations, but completely skips over the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Conveniently so.  In 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion, stated Justice William Rehnquist in his dissent.

 

In his dissent, Justice Byron White accurately described this decision as “an exercise of raw judicial power.”  Under the guise of constitutional interpretation, the activist majority seized from the American people their ability to decide this controversial issue through the democratic process. (Roe v. Wade; Heritage Foundation)

 

There is an innovative Pro-Life plan to circumvent Leftists in Congress and in the Supreme Court. The plan is called the Life at Conception Movement (Personhood). Some Pro-Life Activists in individual States have been lobbying for such a law on a State basis. Senator Rand Paul has taken the Movement to the National level by introducing S. 583 in March 2013:

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

 

S. 583

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

March 14, 2013

 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

 

March 18, 2013

 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Life at Conception Act of 2013’.

 

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

 

In this Act:

 

(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

 

(2) STATE- The term ‘State’, and as used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 583

 

A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.


March 18, 2013

Read the second time and placed on the calendar (S. 583: A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the rightGovTrack.us)

 

Here is the Library of Congress summary of S. 583:

 

3/14/2013–Introduced.

 

Life at Conception Act of 2013 – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child. (S. 583 Library of Congress Summary; GovTrack.us)

 

The only drawback I see about S. 583 is that it is a Bill rather than an Amendment. A Bill is easy to repeal depending on the Political Party in power in Congress and/or POTUS. An Amendment centered around the Life at Conception Movement is difficult if not also impossible to get through Congress with America’s current political spectrum divide. On the other hand if Congress managed to pass such an Amendment I suspect a sufficient number of States would line up behind it. The most populous States may be bastions of Leftist deception; however more States are Conservative on the Pro-Life stand pertaining to abortion. Amendments are ratified by State Ratification rather than a direct popular vote.

 

If S. 583 passed with the slimmest of margins in both Houses of Congress I suspect the voters’ choice for President in 2008 and 2012 – our Marxist-in-Chief – would veto the legislation. However, a successful Congressional campaign to enact the Life at Conception Act can lead to an annual thorn in Obama’s side until a Conservative President is elected in 2016. With the Life at Conception Act in mind it should be a no-brainer that Conservatives must win both the Senate and the House in the November 2014 General Elections.

 

At any rate the standard form of pressure that can be placed on our Representatives and Senators is via the petition method. Obviously petitions have no impact on the law on a Federal basis; however Representatives and Senators due pay attention to the numbers of their constituents that sign a petition. The petition numbers give legislators an idea on how to operate their campaigns for reelection.

 

The National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA) has been at least one of the vehicles that Senator Rand Paul to educate voters on the Life at Conception Act and how such a bill would use the Supreme Court’s own guidelines to make abortion on demand as a birth control method to at least become limited. The NPLA is not only using petitions to influence Representatives and Senators but the organization is also using the petition method as a fundraiser. This a fantastic fundraiser to participate in particularly for Christians who still believe in Biblical Morality. The NPLA petition will lead you to a donation page that will offer choices of donations. Take note that if you are in my boat and have a tight budget and you desire to make sure you give to your Church you might feel a bit limited if you even can donate to the Life at Conception cause; nonetheless one of the options is “other”. So I say, “DO SOMETHING!’ even if it is just $1 buck.

 

JRH 10/25/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

By Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 10/24/2013 3:23 PM

Sent by National Pro-Life Alliance

 

Dear Concerned American,

For 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, in the coming year it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition today will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

 

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.
Please click here to sign your petition right away.

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2013 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act. The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

 

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade, along with a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

_______________________________

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

______________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

NPLA Legislative Agenda

 

The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life groups is research, publications or counseling.

These are all important and worthwhile activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception.

A wide array of legislative opportunities exists today upon which pro-life Americans must capitalize. Every year, National Pro-Life Alliance members are polled to set legislative and tactical priorities. Please click on the links below to learn more about the initiatives the National Pro-Life Alliance and its members rank as top priorities.

None of these battles will be easy. But they are all ultimately winnable. Pro-lifers owe the unborn nothing less. Thanks again for your interest in our program and your support for the unborn.

JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling


BHO - Yes we can flip-flop

james buchanan. by_titanicfan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intro to ‘JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE’

Intro by John R. Houk

Posted September 9, 2013

 

Who is James Buchanan? Buchanan was the 15th President of the USA elected as a Democrat (You know, the same political party as Barack Hussein Obama). Buchanan’s term of Office was from 1857 to January 11, 1861. Even though Buchanan was from Pennsylvania he supported the Slave States’ position on slavery. Buchanan mouthed his support of the U.S. Constitution and the Union of the United States of America; however as President he took no action to preserve America’s Union. Controversies of if a new State should be admitted as slave or free knocked loggerheads together politically. After Abraham Lincoln was elected as a Republican President in 1860, Southern State after Southern State seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America to preserve a slave economic culture in the South.

 

You have to understand Buchanan’s ineptitude to comprehend the title of John Bert’s essay castigating President Barack Hussein Obama Foreign Policy and specifically Obama’s desire to engage Syria militarily.

 

BTW – I believe I am at least one of the reasons that John Bert reposted this essay. You can tell this might be about a week or so dated; nevertheless the thoughts are still valid. I might point out I don’t completely agree with John Bert on the issue if engaging Bashar al-Assad is not to our National Interest. I believe it is to the USA’s interest (See Also HERE) but NOT the Obama is trying to convince people to engage Assad. The lone wolf path will make things worse before it is better.

 

JRH 9/9/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

I am re-posting this by request

JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)

 

By John Bert

Reposted September 9, 2013 2:27 pm

John Bert Facebook Post

 

I am re-posting this by request

JAMES BUCHANAN’S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)

Well…Folks GET READY…Obama has JUST CHECKMATED the Congress with the Syria issue. I am CERTAIN he did not make these decisions on his own…someone with an actual working brain made these calculations…not Obama.

Here is where we are:

1.) At this point there is NO Tactical advantage (or otherwise) for the type of military strike that the imbecile in chief, Obama, has been broadcasting to the enemy that we would be making.

2.) It is most assuredly NOT in our “National Interest” or in the “Security Interests” to proceed with limited military action of the sort the “president” has proposed. There is No pressing nor imminent danger. These horrible poison gas weapons are being used in theater only.

3.) Many months back Obama’s teleprompter (we have to blame it on anyone BUT him, right?) caused Obama to shoot off his mouth about “red lines”. The “red line” has been repeatedly crossed. Now, trapped by his own mouth, he had to put up or shut up. Shutting up makes him (and the country by default) look WEAK, which is no shock to anyone who has observed HIM for more than 5 minutes, as the Russians and Iranians surely have.

4.) So now, feeling the heat (and MOST importantly watching his poll numbers plummet) he had to try to find a “way out”. Now he (or actually one of his handlers) has done so. By “seeking the authority of congress” he has effectively REVERSED the tables. Now the BLAME will fall on Congress for whatever mess comes out of Obama’s desperate need to save face for his earlier case of diarrhea of the mouth about “red lines”. Maybe we should call this approaching debacle the “Vanity War”?

Here is what WILL HAPPEN NOW… The very people that you have heard repeatedly saying taking military action against Syria was a BAD IDEA with no goal and no plan and worse, it could cause the entire region to go up in flames, these very SAME PEOPLE will now (many of them) FLIP and say the Congress MUST authorize the President to do something that an hour ago they were vehemently AGAINST. Yep…you read that right. The reason will be that we MUST authorize the President to make an asinine mistake, because if we do not Iran and everyone in the world will see the USA as weak and not living up to our word (Well…not our word…but the imbecile’s). In other words by Obama seeking congressional authority he has abdicated his leadership and authority to act and will have it BOTH WAYS…

a.) If Congress denies him the authority he will point the finger at CONGRESS.

b.) If Congress grants him the authority whatever happens when he does launch his military action against Syria, now THEY–CONGRESS will stand right with him in assuming the blame for the consequences of military action with NO clear objective and no real benefit to the USA.

THIS IS PURE GENIUS!! Either way Congress is holding the bag!!

Just when you thought this Amateur could not screw things up worse he pulls a rabbit out of his hat and promptly drops it in the lap of Congress.

The price to pay for this one move will ripple forward in time with ramifications that are hard to fathom on sooo many fronts.

If it could not get worse…it will…Obama is getting ready to fly to RUSSIA for the G20 summit. This will be a circus. Do you remember the videos of Obama walking along a line of dignitaries in Russia and NO ONE SHAKING HIS HAND…Obama sticks his hand out and NO ONE takes it…reason?? Russians are proud people and would rather be shot dead than be seen with a WEAKLING and COWARD. They KNOW who and what Obama is and they will not shake the hand of a coward…it is as simple as that. So watch as the White House staff does their best to shepherd Obama clear of any opportunities for another round of videos of folks refusing to shake his hand.

The dire foreign policy issues will multiply from this decision. Israel now knows (if they had not before they SURE DO NOW) that they are on their own. Iran now knows beyond any illusions that Obama’s word is worthless…utterly. Russia already knew.

Remember Obama did NOT seek congressional approval for Libya did he? NO. It is being done here for Obama’s VANITY reasons, NOT for the benefit of the USA. It is a Parlor Trick to pull HIS ass out of the fire and stick Congress in his place. He knows historians will look on this as abdication of authority and he is desperate to find a scapegoat…he now has, IF the Congress is stupid enough to fall for this ploy.

This man is a travesty beyond comprehension. This little stunt will be paid for and I fear the price in American lives will be STEEP.

As a side note Obama has made a laughingstock out of his brand New Secretary of State. Kerry has gone out on a limb trying to assemble “partners” making a vocal and impassioned plea for military action NOW, while Obama just sawed off the limb Kerry was clinging to. Want to bet THAT picture will quickly emerge in the Political Cartoons?? I wish I could draw!

Brilliant, right? Destroy the country’s credibility. Weaken foreign policy. Throw your Sec of State under the bus….and on and on…trust me this will NOT be the last act. I could write a BOOK on what MIGHT happen from here….none of it will be good. This idiot just sealed his fate historically as probably the most inept President. Move over James Buchanan you have a new cellmate.

Postscript: I have already heard Ambassador Bolton and Charles Krauthammer, two men that have repeatedly said the Syria military intervention is a horrible idea, now start sounding like Obama’s cheerleader for authority to act based upon the premise I recite above…geez…it did not take long.

Friends and Countrymen IF we are to stop this madness we NEED to let our Senators and Congressmen KNOW that voting for military intervention of the type Obama has proposed in Syria is STILL a HORRIBLE IDEA, and does NOT serve any security interest of this Country, only now, if they grant him the authority, THEY will join him in the history books as the Village Idiots who got out foxed by an Rank Imbecile.

You have my permission to post this as you see fit.

___________________________

© John Bert

Edited by John R. Houk

A Vital U.S. Interest?


US Military Forces Around Syria map

Intro to: A Vital U.S. Interest?

My Brief Lone Wolf Opinion

Intro by John R. Houk

Posted 9/7/13

 

Justin Smith believes there is no benefit to American National Interests if President Barack Hussein Obama punishes Bashar al-Assad for the use of Chemical Weapons against Syria.

 

I know I am beginning to sound like a lone wolf among my fellow Conservatives, but I do think it is to the National Interests of the USA to remove Assad. And yes, I do realize Assad’s removal could lead to a Sunni version of Iran’s Shi’ite theocracy. That is exactly why I believe Assad’s removal is to America’s National Interests. Assad’s removal throws a monkey into Iranian hegemonic plans for the Middle East. If a Sunni regime stands between the Radical Islamic Shias of Iran and the Radical Islamic Shias of Hezbollah residing in Lebanon, the situation then highlights the violent divide between Sunnis and Shias. Sunni-Wahhabi support of Syrian rebels by Saudi Arabia is an illustration of Sunnis trying to prevent the power of emerging Nuclear WMD Iran from being a dominating Middle Eastern hegemon hating Israel. Keeping the divide between Sunnis and Shias is to Israel’s National Interests and thus to U.S. National Interests.  I realize that is increasingly my lone Conservative opinion, but there you go.

 

JRH 9/7/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

A Vital U.S. Interest?

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/2/2013 9:43 PM

 

The President of the United States has become an increasingly powerful branch of government over the past century, simply because Congress has not successfully checked the President whenever a power overreach occurred. So now, more from fear of being mocked than dismay over 1429 dead, including 400 children, Obama has placed himself in a politically precarious position and the U.S. in a dangerous military venture, over his “red line” comment and the use of weapons of mass destruction. He is poised to intervene in Syria through cruise missile strikes, with or without Congressional approval, since he has not let that stop him in the past in foreign or domestic policy.

The War Powers Act (WPA) is very clear on this matter. A U.S. President can only act in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and engage an enemy of our nation, when an attack has already occurred or is imminent against the U.S. or one of our allies or when a vital U.S. interest is under a heavy threat.

President Bill Clinton acted outside the WPA when he involved the U.S. in the Serbian conflict; when President Ronald Reagan sent the U.S. Marines to Grenada, he did so to protect U.S. citizens attending medical school on the island from a Cuban invasion force.

Obama is essentially damned if he commits to this limited surgical strike and damned if he doesn’t. Two weeks ago, it wasn’t a question of if, but a question of when President Obama was going to order a strike on Syria on his own authority; and now, after speaking with Denis McDonough, White House Chief of Staff, Obama seems quite reticent to act on his own and without Congressional approval, which led Syria’s state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, to call this “the start of the historic American retreat.”

I must ask once again, “What vital interest of the U.S. is at stake in Syria, and what risk of imminent attack exists?”

The answer for the moment is that the U.S. has never had any vital interests concerning Syria, except to closely scrutinize Syria as Iran’s ally and to keep Syria and Iran from going nuclear; however, Obama’s loose-lipped “red line” comment is driving him towards proceeding with an attack which will give Iran its excuse for a retaliatory attack on Israel, according to a senior mullah in Iran, not that Obama is too worried about Israel. So, whether he attacks or not, he is seen for the indecisive, weak, and timid U.S. President, who is guided by his own arrogant self-image and false pride, rather than any clear and concise foreign policy.

More asinine reasoning is readily viewed in statements from Obama, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, who have continually spoken of “regime change” and Assad’s ouster, although Obama now states that this is not the mission. All three were wrong in Libya…wrong in Egypt…and now that they are on the record they are wrong in stating that any U.S. military intervention should “deter and degrade” Assad’s government’s ability to launch chemical weapons and level the field for the “rebels.” And, to what end? So Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Nusra can more easily take Syria for their own and run terrorist operations out of Syria for the rest of the century?

It should trouble us all to see hundreds and thousands of little innocent Syrian children suffering, and trouble me greatly it does. But once more, this crisis of humanity gives me pause and offers up more questions than answers.

Where were those who advocate “intervention for human rights” crises, such as Susan Rice, NSA advisor and ex-Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, Obama advisor and current U.N. Ambassador and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…or for that matter Secretary of State John Kerry, when the freedom fighters of Tiananmen Square in China, the Greens of Iran or the people of Rwanda and the Congo were crying out for their assistance? Susan Rice, for one, was busy lining her pockets through her close business relationship with Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, which extended through her time at Intellibridge and her position as the State Department’s top African affairs expert, during the Clinton administration. John Kerry was probably cruising Boston Harbor on his yacht.

The harsh reality exists that the U.S. cannot be the world’s policeman. Simply put, we help when and where we can, without doing any harm. As much as we all wish to save all the hurt and suffering people of the world, the enormity of the task is simply too much for any one nation; but this has not stopped Prince Saud al-Faisal from begging the international community to “stop Assad’s aggression” against his people, while at the same time, the Arab League, Great Britain and the U.N., all three, have given Obama a vote of no confidence and refused to join him in any coalition for intervening in Syria, because Obama is not trusted as a world leader.

It mat bear reminding that more than humanitarian aid is at the forefront of Prince Faisal’s mind. This is the same family who teach the youth of Saudi Arabia that “jihad-is-the-road-to-paradise”, and because they viewed jihad, holy war, as a proper response through the Q’uran to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, they left their borders open with Iraq. The Faisal family tacitly supported the flow of non-Iraqi islamofascist insurgents into Iraq, in much the same manner that they now support the “rebels”/islamofascists in Syria!

The best of intentions all too often go awry, and no matter that Obama calls this a “limited surgical strike” or McCain’s refrain of “no boots on the ground” echoes through the halls of Congress, to date, the military proposal has not been properly limited in its scope or duration; many Democrats and Republicans alike already stand in opposition to this intervention with great logic: Senator Christopher Murphy (D) asks, “Will a U.S. attack make the situation better for the Syrian people or worse?” And, on ‘Meet the Press’ this past Sunday, Senator Rand Paul seemed to answer that very question, as he stated, “If we start a bombing campaign in Syria that expands the misery. Assad’s not an ally, but I’m not convinced that anyone on the rebel side will be an American ally.”

Nearly two million refugees have fled Syria. Little elementary school children have witnessed unspeakable horrors and the deaths of numerous friends and family members, and the head of the United Nations Human Rights Commission says that “we are looking at a lost generation of children traumatized by this war.” And there are no good answers to far too many questions, as the world rings its hands. Is this America’s problem? No, I tend to view this more as the entire Middle East’s problem due to its cultural aberrations; under no circumstance should the U.S. further involve itself in this mess, under a Commander-In-Chief I certainly could never have served. As harsh and unfeeling as this may sound, the world has all too often stood on the sidelines and allowed much worse to take place; if the attack on our consulate at Benghazi did not warrant a U.S. military response, how can Obama justify an intervention in Syria? …He can’t!

 

By Justin O Smith

____________________

© Justin O. Smith

Editor-Intro John R. Houk

What’s really behind the Benghazi cover-up?


Demand Benghazi Truth

Intro: What’s really behind the Benghazi cover-up?

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2013

 

I received an email from Liberty Counsel Action authored by Mat Staver asking that his readers demand greater scrutiny pertaining to the details of Benghazigate and who knew what about the before, during and after of the four deaths that occurred at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi Libya.

 

Staver points to the questions being asked by Frank Gaffney, Jr. of the Center for Security Policy (CSP). The questions are pointed and are simple to answer for a government that has nothing to hide.

 

There is more to this email than Staver providing the relevant questions that deserve an answer. Staver provides a link in which you can place your name to a Liberty Counsel Action fax which will cost you some bucks to send. Personally I don’t have the cash to do that but I would if I did so think about it.

 

If you are like me there is a petition you can participate in that is free at TheTeaParty.net. Without placing my name on there more than once like a Leftist would do I cannot remember if there is first a money option then a free option relating to the petition calling Congress to take action on Benghazigate. I do remember there is a free option though. To sign that petition can go this TheTeaParty.net petition link or you can click the banner I have at SlantRight 2.0.

 

Benghazigate Summary

 

In the mean time please take the time to read the Mat Staver email which I have below.

 

JRH 5/31/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

What’s really behind the Benghazi cover-up?

 

By Mathew Staver

Sent: May 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Sent from Liberty Counsel Action

 

From the Desk of:

Mat Staver

 

While Congress is in a “constituency work period” away from Washington, there is an uprising of organizations calling for our congressional leaders to start asking the right questions on Benghazi. 

 

Congress must create a Select Committee to FULLY investigate the Benghazi attacks – moving beyond the already obtained evidence that the Obama administration lied to the American people and sought to cover up the truth about the attack that killed four Americans and injured many more.

 

The truth about the events leading up to, during, and following the attacks must also be exposed. Please see my very important message below – Mat.

 

John,

 

What were President Obama and his administration hiding while attempting to deceive the American people about the attacks on Benghazi?

 

It is unrealistic to believe that the edited talking points were contrived solely to protect the political careers of the President, Hillary Clinton, General Petraeus, or State Department bureaucrats. 

 

Now, over 8 months later, there are still far more questions than answers. This is an epic foreign policy and national security failure – masked with an obvious cover-up and unbridled deception.

 

Yet even more disturbing is the fact that those lies may have been created to conceal something much larger and far more sinister. 

 

++One highly respected policy expert’s view on Benghazi.

 

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan and now President of the Center for Security Policy, is one of the foremost experts on foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

Frank Gaffney and his organization have been good friends of Liberty Counsel Action and have collaborated with us on several important issues over the last several years.  But we have never before been faced with anything in the troubling presidency of Barack Obama as massively significant as the Benghazi scandal.

 

Gaffney poses very disturbing questions about Benghazi-gate.  These questions could seem tainted by “conspiracy theory” thinking, but coming from a seasoned, credentialed defense expert of Frank Gaffney’s caliber, they add great credence to the probability that this is one of the most insidious cover-ups in American history.

 

Here are just a few of his questions and assessments…

 

o   “What role did the Obama administration’s assiduous cultivation of relations with Islamists play in the creation of the State Department’s so-called special mission facility in Benghazi?

 

o   What was the true purpose of that facility, and who was assigned to staff it, with what roles?

 

o   Why did it take so long for Benghazi survivors to be made available to congressional investigators of the Benghazi-gate affair?

 

o   What caused U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to consider it necessary to be at that facility, which he had formally complained was dangerously insecure, especially on September 11, a day that al Qaeda has long sought to make open-season on Americans?

 

o   Specifically, what was the urgency of Stevens’ last official act, an evening meeting with the Turkish consul general?

 

o   Were the special mission facility and the nearby CIA annex involved in a covert operation to collect small arms, surface-to-air missiles, or other weapons?

 

o   Were any of those weapons being secretly made available — directly or indirectly — to the Syrian opposition, a group known to include al Qaeda elements?

 

o   If weapons secured in Libya for this purpose were transferred to the so-called Syrian rebels, was there a presidential finding authorizing such activities? In that case, had any congressional leaders been duly notified?

 

o   The public record suggests that Mr. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were inexplicably disengaged from the time they learned of the attack until their joint appearance the next morning in the Rose Garden. Where were they during that period and what were they doing?

 

The Center for Security Policy, like liberty Counsel Action, is calling for a Select Committee to be established by Congress – as are 153 House Republicans, Members of the Senate, the families of the Americans murdered, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Special OPS OPSEC, an association of retired Special Operations officials, along with a number of other patriotic organizations.  

 

We are demanding action from congressional leadership! A Select Committee must be empowered to ask all of the right questions – the events leading up to the attack – the actions taken during – and the post-event deception of the American people.

 

Please join with me today in putting additional pressure on Congress to FULLY investigate the Libya massacre!

 

We are faxing our Senators, Representatives, and other key officials today demanding that Members of Congress empower a Select Committee – as proposed by Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) in H. Res 36 – and now endorsed by over 150 Members of the House.

 

I urge you to take a minute right now to further participate in this important campaign. Click here to send your immediate faxes to Congress:

 

www.lcaction.cc/1667/offer.asp

 

++This investigation must be consolidated, empowered, and formalized!

 

There are at least four House committees investigating the attacks – all operating within the scope of their limited authority. We are demanding a Select Committee with the needed authority!

 

I believe Benghazi-gate will blow wide open in spite of the Obama/Clinton wish that it would just go away – if Congress investigates it with the full empowerment of a Select Committee. 

 

Liberty Counsel Action’s Fax Barrage strategy has been extremely effective in “holding our elected leaders’ feet to the fire” and forcing Congress to see that the American people will not stand for an arrogant dismissal of public opinion!

 

Please, click here now to fax Congress and call for a complete bipartisan investigation into the Libya massacre and the cover-up crafted by the Obama administration:

 

www.lcaction.cc/1667/offer.asp

 

Even if you have already sent a round of faxes, we must relentlessly barrage our senators, representatives, and other key members of Congress demanding that they do the right thing – and ask the right questions.

 

Enemies of America’s best interests in these events must be exposed.  U.S. government officials, irrespective of the seniority of their positions, must be held accountable!

 

Please click here now to send your faxes to Congress:  

 

www.lcaction.cc/1667/offer.asp

 

Again, thank you for taking action with us on this critical issue!   

 

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Chairman

Liberty Counsel Action

 

P.S. I believe we are just beginning to see the extent to which our President and senior government officials have united in a massive cover-up of the events in Benghazi.  PLEASE fax Congress right away, even if you have already done so. Together, let’s hold anyone responsible fully accountable!

______________________

Intro: What’s really behind the Benghazi cover-up?

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2013

______________________

What’s really behind the Benghazi cover-up?

 

+ + Comments? Questions?

http://www.lcaction.cc/email.asp?ind=10

Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)4 organization. Gifts are not tax deductible. For full notice including notices for individual states, go here.

http://www.lcaction.cc/r.asp?U=266510&CID=667&RID=39285484

 

ABOUT Liberty Counsel

 

ABOUT Liberty Counsel Action

ALERT: Draft Allen West for Congress


I am a HUGE supporter of former Rep. Allen West (R-FL). I don’t live in Florida so you can understand that West lost a razor thin election under dubious circumstances in the 2012 election.

 

I am extremely gratified to learn via email that there is a draft West campaign for Congress to rerun in his Florida District because the Dem Patrick Murphy appears to be a weak candidate.

 

Drafting Allen West to rerun works for me. It is obvious West was the victim of Dem conspiracy fraud.

 

JRH 2/27/13

Please Support NCCR

***************************

ALERT: Draft Allen West for Congress

Allen West - Draft for Congress

                                                     

By Todd Cefaratti

Sent: 2/26/2013 7:01 PM

Sent by: Tea Party Leadership Fund

 

Dear Friend,

 

Months ago, we emailed you with news of our involvement in the razor-tight recount between Allen West and his opponent. Unfortunately, despite a herculean effort, Allen lost that battle, but recent developments have shown an impending opportunity to win the next one.

Please let me explain:

After November’s recount, Allen’s opponent, Patrick Murphy, has never been more vulnerable. In fact, just weeks ago, Larry Sabato (a respected political pollster at the University of Virginia) ranked Murphy as the single most vulnerable Democrat in Congress!

With such a weak alternative, conservatives across America have been calling for Allen to run again for his seat. But, as of the time I pressed send on this letter, Allen has not announced any firm intentions to run again.

That’s why, today, I’m launching a “Draft Allen West” petition to show him how united Tea Party conservatives are behind him and give him the support he needs to run again for his former seat.

Will you visit this link and sign the petition immediately?
Just remember what sort of leader Allen was when he was speaking for us in Washington:

 

– An unapologetic opponent of Barack Obama and his agenda, leading the opposition to Obamacare from the very beginning.

– A leader against amnesty before it became a hot issue.

– As a former military officer, a leader and an authority on second amendment issues, coining the phrase “An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.”

Your signature on our petition will mean more than just a name on the internet. Every single petition signature to get Allen West back in Congress will be hand delivered to him, so that he knows just how loud the call is by We the People to have his voice back in our service.

In the last election, Allen got knocked down by a smear-campaign of lies and untruths coupled with sketchy happenings at the ballot box. But, as an American hero, we know he has the capacity to get back up, and we want him to know that we’ll be behind him when he does.

So will you visit this link and add your signature to our Draft Allen West Petition?

After signing the petition, you’ll have the opportunity to make a contribution to ensure that, should Allen decide to run again, we would have the financial resources to back him 100% through direct donations, paid advertising, and on the ground support.

Please visit this link, sign our petition, and consider making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or any amount that you can afford towards supporting a future with Allen West in Congress.

Thank you for your continuous support.

Sincerely,

Todd Cefaratti
Freedom Organizer

__________________________

ABOUT THE TEA PARTY LEADERSHIP FUND


The Tea Party Leadership Fund is a leader in this freedom movement putting your nationwide support into local action.
Learn more.

 

Paid for by The Tea Party Leadership Fund PAC.

 

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions from foreign nationals or entities are prohibited. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.

 
www.TheTeaPartyLeadershipFund.com

Benghazigate and Impeachment


Impeach Obama - DC Capital Afire

John R. Houk

© February 23, 2013

 

TheTeaParty.net sent a paid advertisement from the Conservative Daily with the hook that Senator James Inhofe the Republican Senator from Oklahoma is calling for an impeachment investigation of President Barack Hussein Obama of Benghazigate because of a cover-up.

 

Since I believe BHO is the most crooked President since Slick Willie Clinton and Tricky Dick Nixon the word ‘impeachment’ caught my attention. Unfortunately a Google search did not turn up any articles or quotes in which Senator Inhofe intended to initiate or call for investigative hearings that could lead to impeachment of President BHO. However, I can see why the word ‘impeachment’ was used as a hook with Senator Inhofe’s name. Senator Inhofe did say Benghazigate had all the appearances of a nefarious cover-up on a scale that was worse on past Presidential scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra and so on:

 

One day after Senate Republicans held a press conference to question this week’s State Department’s report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said the scandal is bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra.

 

I have made a study of different cover-ups – the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran-Contra. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview Saturday night on Fox News. (Emphasis Mine – Inhofe: Benghazi cover-up bigger than Watergate, Iran-Contra; by David Eldridge; Washington Times; December 22, 2012)

 

When a Senator uses such strong words in reference to an Obama cover-up like, “I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the implication is definitely a probe leading to impeachment. We are in late February and as I write this I have not heard if Inhofe has pursued a Senate investigation that would be on the scale of the Watergate investigation that brought down President Nixon.

 

As far as Benghazigate goes I have written or cross posted about the potential conspiracies of Benghazigate was about the Obama Administration working a deal to send arms to al Qaeda Syria and of the angle that the Administration got cold feet on supporting al Qaeda influenced Syrian rebels and was about to allow those arms to sift through Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and into the hands of Hamas.

 

I had heard of other conspiracy angles as well but have not paid close attention to those angles until I tried to find if Senator Inhofe actually said he was going to pursue an impeachment investigation into Benghazigate and President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

This is what I discovered:

 

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

 

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

 

Some will say that Admiral Lyons’ accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that’s exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.

 

Moreover, we firmly believe the problem with Admiral Lyons’ assertion is that he is only scratching the surface the full and complete truth may be much, much worse.

 

… We are dealing with something much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… and the following questions, posed in an article in The New American, go to the heart of the matter: (READ IN ENTIRITY Is This The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down?; by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown; GOP USA; 1/11/13 6:53 am)

 

The conspiracy implication here is Admiral Lyons believes four Americans met their deaths because the Obama Administration made a deal with al Qaeda Libya to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens then use the kidnapping as the cover deal in a prisoner exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman who was convicted for brainstorming the first World Trade Center bombing.

 

I am guessing the Foreign Policy prerogative provided by the Constitution to the Office POTUS does not cover bogus deals to release convicted felons out of jail. The cover the backside of the deal would be not to outrage the public for giving up the Blind Sheik to a bunch of Islamic murdering terrorists; ergo create a situation that placates Obama’s Islamic pals and hides the deal from the public.

 

That indeed would be treasonous, right?

 

Adding to the Benghazigate prisoner exchange Conspiracy Theory is the mysterious relieving of command of military officers who either made the attempt to ignore orders to stand down or exposed those ‘stand down’ orders given when they felt they could rescue Ambassador Stevens who did ask for help:

 

 

I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3).  Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a rescue mission to Benghazi.  According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea.  The usual action is to replace them when they return to port.   Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by  “a video offensive to Islam”.   I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.

 

The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent.  General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack.   After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.

 

 

The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous.  There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed.  The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help.  One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound.  I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available. (READ IN ENTIRITY The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash; by Bob Russell; Conservative Daily News; 2/9/13)

 

The Obama Administration is definitely hiding something. A different state of existence is with Obama than there was with the Nixon Administration cover-up scandal; viz., the Press loves Obama and hated Nixon. Obama has gone through to major election victories in 2008 and 2012 and there was plenty of questionable issues the Mainstream Media could have asked the tough questions on issues Obama has not been forthcoming. The MSM did not ask in 2008 and 2012. I doubt they will ask post-2012.

 

As long as the Dems control the Senate I have grave doubts that anything to do with impeachment will come from that chamber. EVEN IF the House manages to get the correct percentage to impeach Obama it would only take 51 Senate votes to acquit President Obama of wrong doing. Clinton pulled off an impeachment acquittal in the Senate and the GOP was the majority Party at the time.

 

JRH 2/23/13

Please Support NCCR

**************************************

Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?

 

9-11 Benghazigate

 

By Tony Adkins

Sent: February 23, 2013 12:30 PM

Sent by TheTeaParty.net

Sent from: Conservative Daily

Original posting: February 13, 2013

 

Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 

First off, we want to thank our readers for applying pressure to Congress and demanding hearings regarding the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya.  You sent thousands of faxes and emails to Congress and those in power were forced to listen.  You demanded that Hillary Clinton and Leon Pannetta testify and after months of your voices demanding answers, they were forced to speak under oath, in front of the American people.

 

The families of those that lost their lives are surely thanking you for your actions.  But as you will see, the job is not done.  We must keep pushing Congress until we justice has been served on those in our government who refused to act and allowed our citizens to be murdered at the hands terrorist savages.

 

At Conservative-Daily, we have been keeping you abreast of the Benghazi massacre and the questions surrounding the White House’s response.  We were one of the first theorize that the Obama Administration was engaging in a cover up and we reported this cover up contemporaneously; while President Obama and his Cabinet were lying to the American public, we were one of the few media outlets raising the alarm.  Not because we wanted the scoop, but because we care about our fellow Americans abroad who sacrifice their safety on a daily basis to keep our families safe.  We owe them a debt of gratitude.  We owe them justice.

 

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

 

Last week, Secretary of Defense and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Pannetta testified on Capitol Hill.  His testimony was as shocking as it was heart breaking.  The night Americans were under attack, the night Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed and their dead bodies desecrated in the streets of Benghazi, on the night that our Embassy was under siege for more than seven hours by terrorists, President Obama was AWOL as Commander-in-Chief.

 

Let us be incredibly precise: according to Sec. Pannetta, on the night that four Americans were killed and our embassy was attacked, neither President Obama nor ANY White House staff contacted the Secretary of Defense nor any other person or organization that was monitoring the situation in Libya.

 

Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 

However, President Obama was in the White House and working that evening. He made an hour long politically motivated phone call.  Even as Americans were under attack and being killed, Obama was more concerned about his own ambitions.  He couldn’t be bothered to give the orders to send in Marines, who were only one hour away.

 

Let us say that again: it was a seven-hour siege and Marines were only one hour away.  President Obama refused to contact the Secretary of Defense; he knowingly and willingly let our people die proving that he is as much of a moral coward as he is a dictatorial presence in the White House.

 

In the days and weeks following Benghazi, there was clearly a cover up.  Senator Inhoffe (sic) (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated “as bad as everything that I’ve stated is, what I think is worse is the cover-up…It was obvious from the information we had on Sept. 11 that the second wave … of attacks on the annex was unequivocally a terrorist attack, and we knew it right at the time”.

 

For six months Americans have demanded to know what exactly transpired in Libya on September 11, 2012.  We demand to know why our countrymen died defenseless, sacrificing their lives for their country.  Of course the White House won’t comment.  What?  Did you expect Obama to tell the truth and relinquish power?   The cover up was a knee jerk response from an Administration for which such un-American activities have become commonplace.

 

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

 

Obama’s purposeful obfuscation is easy to understand: he had an election to steal.  He didn’t want the American people to know that the Embassy lacked armed security even though it resided in a nation known for harboring terrorists and has been historically antagonistic to the United States.  He didn’t want us to know that the Embassy had petitioned for added security and had been denied.  He didn’t want us to know that on the day of the attack, Ambassador Stevens had begged for more security, only to be denied and then killed by the very men he feared; betrayed by the country Ambassador Stevens swore to protect. Obama wanted so badly to win this election that he allowed Americans to be killed and created a cover up surrounding the attacks.

 

Effectively, he committed electoral fraud and stole the election; climbing on the backs of four dead American heroes.  Now, Obama the Coward sends in his Secretary’s to speak for him since he is too scared to do it himself.

 

Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 

Last month, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released a damning report on the Benghazi fiasco.  The report says it all; in discussing the security of the embassy and the danger in the country, the report states that Benghazi was “increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely”.  This information did not lead to increased security at the Benghazi consulate or closing the operation altogether. The report called both of these options “more than justified by the intelligence presented”.  In fact, the report stops just short of placing all the blame for the failed security on directly on President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

 

Don’t believe that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were at fault for the security failures in Benghazi?  The Senate Report goes on to state that “In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented.”

 

Let’s not forget, Libya is the same country where President Obama spiked the football after former Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi was deposed and later killed.  In typical Obama fashion, he took credit for the success of others.  Unfortunately, after the celebration, he didn’t bother to properly secure the American Embassy.  The US Ambassador killed in the attack, J. Christopher Stevens, wrote in his diary that he was on an Al-Qaeda kill list and feared an imminent terrorist attack.  Did the President or Secretary Clinton pay attention to the Ambassador’s concerns?  Nope. In fact, the week before the terrorist attack, Obama didn’t bother to attend a single intelligence briefing, despite actionable intelligence warning of a possible active terror cell in Libya ready to strike American interests.

 

Think that’s bad?  Since President Obama was first inaugurated he has skipped over 66% of his intelligence briefings.  Unbelievable!  In a post 9/11 world, it is unfathomable that a sitting President would care so little for the lives of the American people that he would put their safety on the backburner so that he might keep his job.

 

There are even reports saying that there was actionable intelligence more than a week before the tragic events transpired.  Yet Obama did NOTHING.  He allowed Americans to die so that he could save his job.  His Presidency will forever be marred with the blood of American martyrs.

 

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

 

Stand with us and demand a FULL Congressional investigation into the Benghazi cover up.  President Obama must answer for his actions even if that requires impeachment.  Lives have been lost, lies told, and injustice has been served.  It is time Congress reigns in the Obama Administration.  Barack Obama must not be allowed to use dead American patriots as cannon fodder. Demand CRIMINAL charges for any wrongdoing.  We hope that you will stand with us.  Our fallen patriots deserve better and we hope you will add your voice to ours so that their sacrifice won’t be made in vain.  Fax Congress today and demand a full investigation!

 

Click Here to Fax Congress Today!

 

And, Join the Conversation on Facebook

 

Sincerely,

 

Tony Adkins

Conservative-Daily

________________________

Benghazigate and Impeachment

John R. Houk

© February 23, 2013

____________________

Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?

 

Shuffling Madness Media, Parker, CO 80134
Copyright 2012 Shuffling Madness Media. All rights reserved.

 

About Us

We are Conservative

 

We believe in “We the People of the United States”.  Many areas in our government have gone awry.  But we the people can fix it.  We can exercise our rights to contact and influence our elected officials.  We can vote.  We can speak out; not with negative sound bites but with sincere love for our nation.  At Conservative Daily, we are dedicated to the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States of America.  We focus on the United States constitution and the Bill of Rights as our foundation.  We are dedicated to maintaining freedom and liberty for all Americans and READ THE REST

 

Copyright © 2012 – 2013 Conservative Daily. All rights reserved.

 

 

Hillary’s contempt of Congress


Hillary Contemptuous

Yesterday I fumed over the imperious and contemptible fashion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton skated through Senate questioning about the Benghazigate failings. Joseph Farah voices the same observations about Hillary yet with a more polished journalistic style than I.

 

JRH 1/25/13

Please Support NCCR