Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Obama's UN Speech Supported the State Dept's Benghazi Lie

Slowly the facts are coming out about what happened during the Sept 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. This attacks were initially blamed on some video that muslims rioted over because they were told by their peers that the video insulted Mohammad.

In reality, proof is coming out that the Government knew from the start that the attack on the US Consulate was a terrorist attack and not some video protest that turned tragically violent. Take a look at the following timeline, keeping in mind that right from the start, they knew this was a terrorist attack (See the full timeline here which includes numerous other instances where the video was blamed):
  • 11 Sept
    • During the day - Protests in Egypt over the Mohammad video
    • In the evening - Attack on US Consultate - Ambassador killed
    • Later that evening - Attack on CIA Safe House - Two Americans killed
    •  Hilary Clinton blames video for violence
  • 16 Sept
    • Susan Rice Makes TV show rounds and blames the video
  • 25 Sept
    • Obama makes his speech at the UN
President Obama, surely knowing that this was a terrorist attack, still pushed the video lie in his speech to the United Nations.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. - Link
President Obama's entire UN speech reinforces the lie created by Hilary Clinton and his State Department, that the deaths of 3 Americans were the result of some video that nobody saw. His UN speech only mentions terrorists once, and that is in reference to Iran. Instead, he refers to the terrorist attack on the US Consulate as some mere violent religious outrage. The President was right in that there was no video that justified an attack on a US Embassy. However, terrorists do not have to justify their actions.

Now the President's UN speech might not matter just yet, but once Congress hears evidence from Administration officials who have direct knowledge of what actually happened, everything the President, Secretary of State Clinton and other Administration officials said about this attack will become an issue. Even more so if it turns out that lies were made to protect Obama's reelection. At the very least, Obama's speech was a full two weeks after the attack. All of the relevant Administration officials would have been aware of the facts or will have been told a lie agreed upon by others high up in the Government.

This growing scandal might even bring down the Obama Administration. Even better if it ends Hilary's 2016 run for the White House. As it stands, both persons were very likely fully knowledgeable of both the facts and the lies put forward.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Simply Put - A path to citizenship for Illegal Aliens is AMNESTY


Senator Marco Rubio was out on the Sunday talk shows stating that the draft Illegal alien immigration bill about to be dropped on the US Senate is not amnesty.

This is a lie if there is any path to citizenship in the bill for illegal aliens. You can legalize them, give them the right to work and this alone will solve the issue at hand of them being in the country already, illegally. 

There is no reason to put citizenship on the table. The illegal alien issue can be solved solely by providing a path to legal residency. It is fiction to say that those here will simply be put at the end of the line as many of them could not even get in line to come here if they had stayed in their own counter.

Personally I think they should all be deported, but as a realist, if this is not possible, then fine offer some path to legalization for those who have not committed crimes other than illegal entry and working without authorization. And for the others, show them the door. We have enough criminals here already.

Citizenship is a valuable reward for those who come here legally and agree to live by our rules. We should not give this reward away so cheaply.

As for Senator Rubio and any other Republican who backs this POS legislation, don't count on my vote for President. I'd just assume not vote at all.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Police Officer Poll Confirms that Anti-Gun Legislation in Congress Will Do Nothing to Prevent Gun Crime

The Police Officer Gun Control Survey posted at PoliceOne.com is an amazing confirmation that the Democrat-push gun control legislation will do little to no good in combating gun crime, starting with the Democrat demand of banning high capacity magazines.
Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.


The high capacity ban that the Democrats are pushing is stupid for a number of reasons.
  • There are literally millions of them in existence already.
  • It takes but a second to change out magazines
  • Banning high capacity magazines does nothing to prevent shootings. Are Democrats saying that it is not so bad if a shooter manages to shoot up to ten people as opposed to shooting more?
And let's not forget the idiotic and completely unenforceable law in New York State forbidding you to put more than 7 rounds in your magazine. Of course there is plenty of opportunity for police to catch law-abiding people breaking this law. They can also catch criminals breaking this law, but they will already have them for criminal use of a firearm. A crime they are likely to punish them lightly.

Of course, the cornerstone of current anti-gun legislation is the goal of banning 'assault weapons'. The police polled, logically noted that this is not very useful legislation. One reason of course is that rifles and handguns that are not classified as assault weapons function identically to the targetted weapons and are equally lethal.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.


The two issues above are the biggest gun control legislative goals of Congressional Democrats. As far as America's police are concerned, these measures are useless at best and worse potentially harmful.

--------------------

Monday, April 8, 2013

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry » All Your Kids Belong To Us (Video)

You know what the sad thing is about this, is that there are lots of inner-city kids and their parents that probably can gain from some sort of community support in raising their kids, especially single parents. But these are not the kids that Democrats are interested in inserting themselves into their lives. Nope, it is the kids of conservative parents.


Sorry, but this lady is dead wrong. For both good and bad, kids do belong to their parents. If I decide that my child is not going to do something or is too young to learn about something, that is between me and my wife just as when we decide to teach our child something that other parents, or meddling adults think I should not.

Again, my kids do not belong to 'the whole community'.  Really, what kind of sick twisted logic brings her to this conclusion? Anyway, just another socialist professor...