LATEST E-MAIL OBTAINED ON BENGHAZI REVEALS COVER UP

We all were waiting for this moment. We knew there had to be more—that something was missing –finally it came into focus–there was a key part of the Benghazi puzzle we still didn’t have. This ongoing investigation has dumbfounded all of us including the Republicans on Capitol Hill responsible for uncovering the mystery of Benghazi attack on the U. S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including our U. S. ambassador.The families—at least some families of the victims have been frustrated and upset that there has been no definitive answer to exactly what took place and the answer to why our Consulate was left vulnerable on the anniversary of 9/11. We have surmised what happened that tragic night — not only have the lingering questions not been answered, but no one has been brought to justice from an attack that took place over twenty months ago. Patience and perseverance by the Republicans may have just uncovered the truth. And,contrary to what the White House would have us believe, plenty of people have been waiting for the truth for almost two years.

The presence of the newest evidence—an email was uncovered by Judicial Watch, through a Freedom of Information Act request. The memo was titled “Prep Call with Susan”. The email was written by top White House aid Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor in 2012.

The e-mail contains information that would be used for the strategy immediately following the Benghazi attack,and talking points for Susan Rice who went on five Sunday talk shows five days later on September 16. Susan Rice has said that she gave the talking points from the latest information she had received. It has really never been doubted that Susan Rice was used as a scape goat to lie to the nation about the nature of the attacks. The e-mail from Mr. Rhodes would be used for the strategy immediately following the Benghazi attack, and talking points for Susan Rice who went on five talk shows. Susan Rice has said that she gave the talking points from the latest information she had received. The e-mail is dated September 14, 2012, and is from Ben Rhodes to Susan Rice, then U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Let’s back up for just a moment. On Wednesday April 2, 2014, an ex-CIA official, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Morrell testified that Obama administration officials were alerted the day before they went on national television that a key component of their Benghazi storyline might not be accurate. They clung to this storyline even after U. S. Intelligence brought out that those talking points were false—that the attack was not, in fact, the result of a video.

In the latest e-mail, Mr. Rhodes’ key objective was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy.” Mr. Rhodes went on to say that “since we began to see protests in response to this Internet video, the President had directed the Administration to take a number of steps. His top priority has been the safety and security of all Americans serving abroad.

On Thursday, May 1, 2014, key Republicans in the House declared that the White House displayed criminal behavior by withholding, for months, a 7-page e-mail that contains key information. This e-mail offers important information that the Obama Administration built the storyline about the anti-Muslim video. The damning e-mail shows that the response given to the American people right after the attacks was fabricated to help President Obama in the last six weeks before the presidential election of 2012. The e-mail was withheld by the State Department and should have been included in the subpoena for all relevant documents. House Speaker John Boehner in a scathing statement demanded that John Kerry must testify before Congress about why his department held the email with key information rather than submit it with all of the documents. Well, it isn’t difficult to guess why that particular e-mail was withheld, and why now the State Department says it will refuse to release it citing executive privilege. And they think Republicans are just politicizing this tragedy—they’re conducting a witch hunt?

Now there is another potential delay since the State Department is showing signs of refusing to submit the e-mail to the select committee which will be conducting new hearings in light of the latest facts.

As Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post wrote in a May 1, 2014, article entitled: THE WORST EXCUSE EVER , “The White House’s belated release of the documents at the very least show it has been actively evading legitimate congressional requests for relevant information.

Speaker John B oehner (R-)OH—made this statement: “four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, and this White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to mislead, obstruct, and obscure what actually took place. I am appalled to learn that the administration concealed relevant documents after the House subpoenaed all emails related to the misleading talking points. When four Americans die at the hands of terrorists, the families of the victims—and the American people deserve the full unvarnished truth and nothing less. Instead, this White House has been callously dismissive of our efforts to get answers…the House has a constitutional obligation to carry out oversight of the administration, and the president has the obligation to cooperate. This evasiveness must end. Our investigation into the events of that September night is going to continue until this White House owns up to the truth—and until these terrorists are brought to justice.”

Rubin continues, “as for the content of the Rhodes email, in a raucous back and forth with ABC News’s Jonathan Karl, Jay Carney insisted that the instructions by Ben Rhodes issued on September 14, 2012 to prepare then Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice to go on multiple Sunday shows to stress the anti-Muslim video and to deny this represented a presidential lapse, didn’t refer to Benghazi.”

That was too much for a number of news people. Fox News’s Bret Baier remarked: “This was a surreal answer from Jay Carney. Now, this is a prep session with Susan Rice, getting ready for five Sunday talk shows. This is three days after the 9/11, 2012 attack. Everybody in the chain has said it’s a terrorist attack, everyone in the chain is saying there’s no protest. And yet this email, if we’re to believe Jay Carney at the White House, had nothing to do with Benghazi.”

Baier continues, “according to Carney, It was more about the broad scope of the region. Now, imagine that. What are they going to ask about on five Sunday talk shows when you have four Americans who were killed just days before? They’re not going to ask about the other protests that didn’t see any Americans killed. So then he said that the reason they didn’t put forward this email to the committee –they eventually got it to the committee redacted –was because it didn’t deal with Benghazi. Now that really strains credulity. I mean, it is really out there.”

Jake Tapper, Chief Washington Correspondent, CNN News, was similarly dubious observing, “The context of Rhodes’ email is, of course, that President Barak Obama was in the midst of a heated re-election campaign, where one of his talking points was that he had brought a steady hand in fighting terrorist, indeed that ‘al Qaeda is on the run.”

Nor were Republicans on Capitol Hill buying this. In a letter to the speaker, retiring Rep. Frank Wolfe(R-VA) stressed: “Mr. speaker, it is now abundantly clear that Senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video, which they knew from the CIA and others was demonstrably false. In short, the administration, specifically the White House lied about a matter with direct bearing on U. S. national security in order to influence an electoral outcome. In light of these new documents, it is more clear than ever that a House Select Committee is needed to conduct a comprehensive investigation unhindered by jurisdictional barriers, interview all key administration witnesses including the White House staff identified in these e-mails, and hold public hearings to explain to the American people, once and for all, just what happened that night, and in the days and weeks that followed.”

In addition to Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), as well as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) all argued that the Rhodes memo confirmed that the effort to push the video narrative for Libya came out of the White House.

It’s hard to believe that this is not a Benghazi-specific document. The White House was being bombarded by questions about the ambassador’s death. There was a ceremony broadcast live on September 14, where White House officials lined up to meet the incoming caskets of the murdered Americans. And we are to believe the Rhodes memo was about other demonstrations only? Strangely Carney does not say , “This refers to Egypt but not Libya.” To the contrary, Sen. Lindsay Graham (RSC) pointed out that “ the e-mail itself references the desire to get people who harmed Americans–the only Americans harmed—killed—were in Benghazi.”

Let’s recall the sequence of events. State Department, CIA officials and reporters have explained that within 24 hours, certainly 48 hours (Sept. 13) the State Department and CIA knew this was a planned terrorist attack. The FBI was already dispatched. A background briefing by the State Department on Sept. 12 reiterated that this was a coordinated attack. The CIA in whatever version of taking points it generated never referred to the video, yet Rhodes made that the entire focus of his narrative. (Rhodes is unlikely to be the author of a story like this. As deputy national security advisor he certainly would have either gotten the word from on high or conferred with superiors before sending Rice out with a bogus explanation for the deaths of four Americans.)”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a top official on the House Intelligence Committee came out on Sunday, May 4, 2014, and blasted his fellow Democrat colleague for suggesting that his fellow Democrats boycott the newly announced committee given the job of investigating the Benghazi attacks. Rep. Kling said that doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong”.

The call for a boycott was made by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) during an interview on “Fox News Sunday”.He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi. Schiff said that Democrats should not give the select committee “more credibility”, by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy just weeks before the 2012 presidential election.

“I think it is a colossal waste of time, said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.” King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a mistake for Democrats as it would show they cannot defend the administration. Yes, it’s curious why if they are so sure this is a witch hunt by Republicans they wouldn’t want to go before a committee to have a chance to defend themselves and their actions. “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide”, King said. But, Schiff called the select committee a “tremendous
red herring”.

This combined with the push-back by key Democrats on being a part of a bi-partisan committee, Republicans say will only confirm that they were right all along about a cover-up because the attacks came just prior to the 2012 presidential election. Democrats used the “winning the war on ‘al Qaeda” as their key campaign platform, in the absence of being able to run on other major accomplishments such as the economy and employment.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority leader Nancy Pelosi said she could “care less” about Benghazi, but then issued a demand that the committee be divided equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Of note is the fact that White House press secretary, Jay Carney called the e-mail in question “irrelevant” and downplayed its importance, declaring that the content of the e-mail was not about Benghazi, but instead about the protests taking place across the Middle East at the time. “This document, as I said, was explicitly not about Benghazi but about the general dynamic in the Arab, or in the Muslim world at the time.” He continued with “this was part of our effort to explain our views both as a matter of policy and as a matter of what was happening on the ground with regards to the protests that were underway around the region.” Digging himself deeper, he went on to say that the email from Mr. Rhodes” was not included with the documents was because it was not directly about the Benghazi attack.”

So now we have lies on top of lies on top of lies. Do we have to wonder why the administration doesn’t want the State Department to release this “smoking gun” e-mail or why Democrats don’t want Democrats to be a part of a select committee on hearings investigating Benghazi?

Senator John McCain said, in a Fox News interview, that Carney had destroyed his reputation—with the spin. Of course, for Carney to spin it the way that he did—when the fact that he was lying was really transparent—in front of a bunch of reporters who knew he was lying was a last desperate attempt to duck the truth. He surely must know that, when he was saying all of that, there was a chance that the committee would be able to obtain that e-mail with exactly what happened and the level of the President’s involvement. Sean Hannity labeled him, “Obama’s paid liar”. Carney surely knew that, in light of the past, and in light of new evidence, neither he nor the others can lie their way out of a jam. And—he is Obama’s paid liar if one wants to put it that bluntly since at that point it’s obvious that they are attempting to protect the President, even at a heavy cost to themselves. But, the American people aren’t buying it either. Polls show that 46% of Americans think Obama himself lies at least part of the time. And those polled included a large number of Democrats and Independents.

But back to McCain. What he said in the interview with Fox offers a bit of clarity. Carney was in a heated exchange with Jon Karl of ABC News during the latest press conference. Senator McCain was in disbelief when Carney decided to take Karl to task about the e-mail– all of the time knowing that Karl and the rest of the reporters there already knew the truth and that he was attempting to spin his way out of the corner he was in at the moment. McCain in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, said, “I have never seen anything like after 19 months the emails concerning their priorities and the President’s spokesperson saying it had nothing to do with Benghazi. Now that has reached a new point.” He went on to say to Greta, “…..he has destroyed his own reputation by that statement that what clearly was the talking points, ….saying that it had nothing to do with Benghazi…”

The pathetic thing is—it is one thing to try to cover for your boss when feasible—to be loyal–it is quite another thing when you know the truth is out—to then at a personal cost to your credibility to continue to spin a web of lies…..but does the President care, or the people in the State Department, or anyone else who is lying. What is his return for paying such a large public price— for being Obama’s number one stooge. Democratic strategist Doug Shoen said that “I am…hard-pressed to believe that what Jay Carney has said–day after day, week after week—is anything but the most obvious political spin.” Shoen goes on to say “I wouldn’t do it if I were him…[sic]”

As if it weren’t enough that he had already offered transparent blatant lies, when ABC reporter Jon Karl was slamming him during the press conference about why the important e-mail had not been released to Congress, Carney incredulously answered, “I can say it again and again, and I know you keep asking again and again. This document was not about Benghazi.”

This is one good reason for Republicans to go on with a select committee to get to the bottom of Benghazi, as Jay Carney is actively still lying about Benghazi and the cover-up, and damning Republicans—this is the only way for Republicans to settle the issue once and for all and to prove, for their own credibility, that they were right in the first place and that this is an administration has lied over and over to the American people. There are voters who voted for the President in the last election who preferred to look the other way. There are Democrats who will run for office in and have an effect on the next election. There is a liberal media that has covered and carried water for the Democrats over the years that has no credibility, that will be actively talking to the public during elections this year and in the future. So, in this case and in the cases of the other “phony scandals” it is important to get the truth out. It is not just a witch hunt when one side is guilty and covers their guilt by perpetuating lies.

Darryl Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee said, “it is disturbing and perhaps criminal that documents like these were hidden by the Obama Administration”. He went on to say that “the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. It is clear that they wanted to protect Obama.”

Democrat strategist and co-host of “The Five” on Fox, Bob Beckel, believes it was an election issue but thinks a select committee is bogus. He thinks it is a Republican ploy. What he doesn’t acknowledge—nor do the other Democrats who don’t want their side to get in a position where they have to acknowledge the truth, is that if it were a Republican President and other Republicans involved, they would certainly go for the committee. Remember Watergate—and no lives were lost in Watergate. Nixon lied and they went after him. Bill Clinton lied and they wanted to protect him. On Tuesday May 5, 2014 with Martha McCallum on America’s Newsroom, Beckel said “ what does it matter?” McCallum replied, “you sound like Hillary”. One can only guess that the reason he, as well as the other Democrats, even if they acknowledge wrong-doing (which they certainly can’t deny now unless they make themselves look like total idiots) don’t want the committee is because they don’t want the email out there for all to see. They still want to protect Mr. Obama, and the e-mail may point directly to him. As long as the email isn’t produced to read, there still can be—I say can be—some doubt as to whether the President was directly involved, lied to the American people— we know he did but if it isn’t there in black and white so to speak, they can still deny the involvement of the White House, and more precisely the President and Hillary Clinton. In that case neither the Republicans nor Fox News who have been covering the story since the attacks, nor the American people would be able to say for sure that the White House was directly involved. The White House and liberal press have been hanging onto that slightest bit of doubt that the White House was involved in a cover-up.

Democrat pollster and analyst Doug Shoen said “there are legitimate questions about Benghazi that remain unanswered.”

Democrat strategist Kirsten Powers believes, and she was about the only Democrat who right from the start agreed it was about the 2012 election and Susan Rice gave a false narrative. She submitted that she thinks they have lied. Kirsten is not one to look into the camera at the American people and tell or perpetuate a bold-faced lie. She has great moral clarity. On Monday, May 5, Democratic Strategist, Joe Trippi on with Martha McCallum also acknowledged that the Democrats aren’t in a good position and also acknowledged that the e-mail was a political ploy to keep the truth from the voters since it was in the middle of a heated election campaign. Trippi also, even though a Democrat, doesn’t cave into pandering just to cover for his party. He also always gives thoughtful and honest answers. Being a Democrat, he many times disagrees with certain talking points, but not when the facts tell the truth even if the truth goes against his party. He and Powers are two of the few who won’t sell their souls by carrying water just for the sake of their party.

In the case of Benghazi, it is clear, as Bill O’Reilly said after the discovery of the damaging e-mail, that the key members of the Administration were concerned with protecting the President. They also may be trying to protect Hillary Clinton, who will have the best chance of winning the Democrat primary and White House for the Democrats in 2016, as the Clintons are still beloved by the Democrats. As for Mr. Obama, well, it could possibly cause him some problems. There is still an outside chance of getting him on the stand to testify, but only if they can actually get that e-mail, or through a judge get parts of the e-mail released. There is also a big chance that Hillary Clinton will have to testify under oath.

Keep in mind that the select committee hearings are not just about the scrubbed talking points and outright lies in regard to the infamous video, but also to answer other questions the American people, and more importantly the families of the victims, want answered—why was the consulate and the ambassador left vulnerable and without adequate protection on such a date as the anniversary of 9/11? Why were repeated requests for adequate security denied in light of the fact that there had been other terrorist attacks in the region? And who specifically denied the requests. It was so dangerous that other embassies had pulled out, the United Kingdom had left and our people were the only ones there. There had been repeated warnings of an impending attack. Hillary Clinton at the time was the head of the State Department so the lingering questions which will shed light on the subject calls for testimony by her. The testimony by Mrs. Clinton and others can answer the question of whether or not there was, in fact, a failure of policy in regard to Benghazi. Also, there are questions as to why in the case of a violent attack that lasted some eight hours, why no one in the Administration were around that evening. Where was Clinton, Obama, Biden and National Security Advisor Tom Donalin ? Why did President Obama leave the very next morning to attend a campaign rally? He was in Las Vegas in the company of Jay-Z and Beyonce—just hours after the attack leaving our ambassador and four others dead.

The White House, the other Democrats on Capitol Hill and the liberal media are the only ones who don’t want a select committee—Everyone else does–especially the American people and the families of the victims? After all, the President called this scandal—this tragic scandal—a “phony” scandal (along with all of the other scandals whirling around Washington D.C.). When the Democrats are involved in one, they want to just move on. If it weren’t for Fox News, and Republicans, these scandals would have been dropped and no hope for the families affected or the American people to receive answers.

President Obama had a chance to prevent the issue of Benghazi from dragging on some days after the attack when it was confirmed that it was a terrorist attack when he appeared on “The View” and was asked point blank about it and chose to lie rather than to just say, “Oh, now we are sure it was a terrorist attack.” It was only because of the lies that it has dragged on and it is now 20 months later with no cooperation from the Administration. And– just this past February, in his Superbowl interview with Bill O’Reilly, the President once again had a chance to clear it up. Yet, some sixteen months later—in his O’Reilly interview, he was still lying about it—wouldn’t give a straight answer. But he, of course, claimed that Bill was unfair to him. Yet, this important e-mail was left out of the requested information that was turned over to Congress. It is his and their own fault that they leave glaring “hints of a cover-up” hanging for people to reconfirm their suspicions. They have made it into something that the rest of us don’t want to drop.

There were two lawyers on the news on May 8, saying that the Administration politicized Benghazi because it was in the middle of a heated presidential race. Then they, particularly one, added, “but that is just what Republicans are doing now.” Well, there are two different scenarios here and that is a lame statement. First of all, the Democrats—the White House orchestrated a cover up where four Americans were killed and put out lies to the American people—intentional, prepared statements, and the President even called it a “phony” scandal. And, because they were found out right away, they, the other Democrats on Capitol Hill, and the liberal press labeled it a “witch hunt”. The President and Hillary Clinton, even as they were receiving the caskets containing the bodies, were still calling it a vile attack because of a video. They were saying that the perpetrators were going to be brought to justice. Not only were they lying, they did not actively start looking for the perpetrators because they were in the middle of an election campaign and didn’t want the American people to know the truth.

Pat Smith, the mother of dead Navy Seal Shawn Smith, said, and it was shown on TV footage that Hillary Clinton whispered to her that “we are going to find the person who put out that video.” In more than one interview with Fox News Mrs. Smith expressed astonishment that, since they knew at the time it wasn’t the result of a video, that Hillary Clinton whispered in her ear in person as she was receiving the body of her dead son, that they would “ find the person who made that video.” And—and as of today, they still have not brought to justice, the people responsible—only the person who made the video who had nothing to do with the attack.

Republicans using the cover-up in a major scandal about an attack that left four Americans dead including our ambassador, making it a political issue during an election year is a bit different. And– why shouldn’t they?? Why shouldn’t they? It is a major transgression of the Democrats—and they were helped and protected by the liberal media. When the administration—any administration is blatantly lying to the American people, it is perfectly proper for it to be brought to the attention of the American voters. He lying in this regard about such a grave situation—if there is a difference in lies—is much more serious in terms of trust than Watergate actually was. Watergate didn’t really effect the lives of Americans in a personal way. You see, if there isn’t accountability, parties in power could do this day in and day out with no consequences.

The Democrats think Republicans are politicizing all of the scandals. The stonewalling tactics and the narrative the Democrats are trying to convey to the American people that Republicans just want to use the various scandals for political reasons —are tactics to try to shut down free speech—they want to keep important messages from reaching the voters so they are informed about their government officials and how the administration and lawmakers are running their government and making decisions which affect their daily lives. These tactics are intended to try to get to the source of information brought to the American people and try to shut it down so that they can control the message. In the case of Benghazi the Administration deliberately put out false information for the sole purpose of misleading the American people. If that very transgression isn’t reason enough to have a select committee to conduct a further investigation, I can’t imagine what else would be. If the Democrats did not want it to head in this direction they should have done the right thing in the first place—tell the truth and hand over all of the requested information. Their actions are what put out a red flag that the facts were being hidden from the people.

House Speaker Boehner has chosen Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a second-term Republican and former federal prosecutor to head the Benghazi Select Committee investigating the terrorist attack and the deaths of our Americans. Nancy Pelosi has chosen the four Democrats who will sit on the 12-member panel. Besides ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the other four members will be Adam Smith of Washington, Adam Schiff and Linda Sanchez, both of California, and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.

Mrs. Pelosi said it was the only way to insure that the latest congressional investigation (there have been others on this issue) “is not a one-sided review of what transpired.” Pelosi went on to say that “I think it is important for the American people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and as open and balanced way as possible. That simply is not possible leaving it to the Republicans.” Oh yes—and who has been lying all along? They thought that by stonewalling over the past 20 plus months the Republicans would just “drop it” and the whole thing would go away. They forget that most Americans aren’t stupid and if they had told the truth in the beginning, and hadn’t worked to cover up the facts and withhold vital information when all transmissions had been requested it would have possibly been settled and would have “gone away” long ago. They, including Mrs. Clinton and more importantly Mr. Obama himself have had numerous opportunities to deliver the truth to the American people and the suffering families of the victims. It is especially arrogant, self-serving, and reprehensible that the families of the victims have been lied to and strung along for the better part of two years without a resolution and much swifter delivery of the truth—and—the perpetrators brought to justice.

We have Susan Rice saying that she has no regrets about going on five Sunday talk shows, and blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video. Then we have the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saying in her upcoming memoir, “Hard Choices” that the GOP turned Benghazi into a political tool. Clinton also said that the incident is surrounded by a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media.” And—who orchestrated a cover-up as a political tool? I sure hope she’s talking about those in her own party. The people of America would have no information, at least no reliable information if not for Fox News staying on the story and details and information have unfolded. And they don’t report hearsay, misinformation, or lies. The liberal media has reported very little about any of the numerous scandals, and that is how the Democrats wish it had remained. The real rub for the Democrats and their level of hatred and bitterness has stemmed directly from the fact that they lied, the “scandal” has not gone away, the Republicans persevered with the goal of uncovering the truth—until finally the missing smoking-gun piece of evidence—the key email, it appears, has been uncovered. Now, the Dems are backed into a corner, and their main darling, Mrs. Clinton is watching her reputation and candidacy for the 2016 presidential election being tarnished if not damaged. It will remain to be seen—if whether or not her voting blocs are and will still be drinking the Kool-Aid. They have no right to be bitter. The fate of those who lie and try to keep up a false narrative is that the truth usually always comes out and they should have known that. If they had told the truth in the beginning and apologized to the American people for any possible policy failures, by now most of the wounds may have been healed. Of course they probably were rightly afraid that if they had done that, Mr. Obama would not still be sitting in the Oval Office. So, they considered it was worth taking a chance on ruining Hillary Clinton’s political future in the process. Of course, she was part of the process. They naively thought that putting Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows as their “front person” would work.

Mrs. Clinton in her new book also, to some extent, continues to push the false narrative—she writes, “There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives…it is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” Video? Who does she think she’s kidding—the Kool-Aid drinkers? So she continues to revisit that falsehood. In other words, now there were many attacks and some of them weren’t but…possibly some were the result of the video. So, what she is doing with her readers, who will certainly mostly be her voters—she is trying to keep them in la la land and believing that it might have been the video, when we know for sure that it was a terrorist attack and not the video. In other words, she thinks they’re stupid. She is still clinging to the narrative about the video rather than acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack on our embassy and on America!

The administration including Mrs. Pelosi and the other Democrats who take issue with the special committee to get the facts out in the open seem to conveniently forget that—in such cases as this and all of the other scandals, the Constitution calls for and provides for the continuous oversight of the federal Government to insure that the people of America don’t fall into the hands of a corrupt, overreaching and dictator style of government, and to guarantee the continuation of a government that is by the people and for the people.

The Liberal Left Demonizes The Koch Brothers

THE KOCHS vs. GEORGE SOROS
HARRY REID CALLS THEM “UN-AMERICAN”
We all know that for years the liberal zealots have demonized Conservatives—black Conservatives,conservative women,rich Conservatives—any Conservative/Republican that disagrees with liberals on any policy,topic or issue. Liberals on Capitol Hill,in the press,in the entertainment field, news contributors,talk show hosts,stand up comedians,strategists and analysts—liberals on all levels of the food chain from the President on down and many in between including the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have gotten their shots in on Conservatives. Especially in recent years it has been open season on Conservatives,crying racism at every turn. They aren’t choosey. It doesn’t matter what color or class a Republican is if they decide that he or she is attractive prey or a threat.

I will be writing about liberal rants and the liberal press in a separate article as the subject is far too expansive to cover here—where I specifically want to address the demonization of a pair of brothers who just happen to be extremely rich and very conservative. That description does it for them. They are prey of prime quality for the liberal Left—they are rich and conservative.

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch are brothers—well, two of the brothers,the brothers that we are concerned with here. They are the brothers that we know of as Chairman and CEO, and Executive Vice President, respectively of Koch Industries. Koch Industries is the second largest privately owned company in the United States. It is a family owned multi-national corporation based in Wichita, Kansas. It was started by their father, Fred C. Koch as an oil refinery business. Over decades they have diversified, and now the Kochs are involved in a multitude of business interests,companies and charitable causes. The Koch family is a family of industrialists/businessmen and philanthropists. Today Koch Industries is controlled by the two brothers we know of,and who make it in the news from time to time,Charles and David. That is particularly true lately. They actively maintain control and operation of the family fortune. Among their interests are their various charitable causes and foundations,as well as their political activities.

Their interest in conservative politics is what has given them wide publicity over the last few years. Their history,activities and foundations are far too extensive to cover here but I wanted to give a brief summary to familiarize readers and give a better understanding of the magnitude of what the Koch brothers represent in today’s political climate,and their impact on and their activities within the Republican party.

The brothers are really Libertarians. Their quiet,behind the scenes monetary political contributions to further the success of the Republican party and conservative causes has drawn a great deal of attention,interest and criticism– hatred and ire from many liberal zealots. Oh, but of course,if they were to hand the Democratic party millions,that would be just fine—you would then hear no argument from any Democrat or far left Liberal. But the Kochs are damned by the liberal and democratic machine for being on the side for liberty,freedom,free market capitalism and opportunity for all.

The Koch brothers have contributed large sums to conservative think tanks,candidates and campaigns including expensive advertising campaigns—television and radio ads and billboards across the nation. They have also advocated for conservative causes through lobbyists. They have backed political interests that contribute heavily through monetary support to further the conservative message and movement in America by supporting candidates who bring that message to every campaign in every state and ultimately to Washington D. C.

They have been major players in the lobby against The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) via large contributions to get out the word to every corner of America about the perils of the government’s effort to control health care and every aspect of our lives as free Americans–the expansion and over-reach of the federal government. That is one of the big things that irks liberals including Harry Reid who has been trying to hit them hard with his skewed and factually flawed attacks. Liberals don’t know of anything to attack—they just attack. They hate every rich Conservative who supports something they don’t like—or use their money to attack something on the Left’s liberal agenda.

Liberals want to paint the Koch brothers as a negative force in politics fueled by vast amounts of money. The evil rich and their money. But the liberals don’t at all mind radical Socialist George Soros or his fortune being an influence on liberal politics or the liberal press. No,of course not,because he is a liberal–a radical liberal, a Socialist, with some communist leanings. His money has greatly fueled and provided support for the slander and hatred by the liberal Left of everything conservative. Liberals think his money supports great causes. Much of the liberal press, if you read and listen, is hateful—nasty– toward Conservatives. No other way to explain it. The Liberals demonized George Bush, didn’t just disagree with his policies, but slandered him, lied about his policies and wished ill to fall upon him, and Vice President Cheney for that matter. The Koch brothers, although they support conservative causes, don’t advocate for evil, or slander. Listen to some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of the liberal press—MSNBC, Media Matters and the Daily Kos for starters. Soros is involved in and financially supports Media Matters—it is one of his babies. It is widely believed that he has a great influence on and dictates much of the talking points and content of mainstream liberal news—for instance that seen and heard on MSNBC, delivered by some of their liberal ideologues –the likes of Chris Matthews, Alex Wagner and others including numerous women like MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry and Andrea Mitchell. Andrea Mitchell is just a little classier and more lady-like than Melissa Harris-Perry but her reporting is not balanced. It is unmistakably liberal. Open bias should not be a part of hard news reporting.

As reported by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, over the course of the past 15 years, Soros has donated over $52 million to numerous media outlets. As Brent accurately said, “Soros has infiltrated America’s newsrooms with his radical socialist agenda.” Soros has called Conservatives and conservative-leaning news personalities racists and liars. The race card again!!! Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? In the first place he nor any other Liberal can give facts to back up any Fox News personality or any other conservative personality being a racist, using racial slurs, or lying about the facts. I’m not saying that in the general population there aren’t some. I’m talking about prominent Conservatives–republican personalities. We have no control over what the general population does. But those in the liberal media and other Liberals have used racial slurs against every black Conservative in recent times. And lying? Really? They have the nerve to go there? Harry Reid just a couple of weeks ago accused all of the unfortunate individuals who got “kicked off” their health care plan and those having to pay much higher premiums and deductibles of lying, including one woman who was in the middle of cancer treatments whom he admonished right on the Senate floor! All of those horror stories are lies, he declared! He, accusing someone else of lying?

In 2012 he said that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes in ten years—without a shred of evidence to back up his claim. The truth is that the Romney’s give more to charity and their church, and have paid more in taxes, than Harry Reid is worth, and he’s far from poor.

As Brent Bozel l also said recently, and a point I have been making here, there is no end to the Left’s hypocrisy. He goes on to say that “while the media gleefully join the Left’s shameless assault on private citizens who give to conservative causes they willfully overlook the vast influence of the left-wing billionaire, George Soros.” He adds that “he has woven a web of influential left-wing operations including Media Matters and Center for American Progress that advance his socialist ideology.”

Another of Soros’ babies is MoveOn.org. This is a web-based organization that supports democratic political candidates through fundraising, advertising and get-out-the-vote drives. But—-what the Koch brothers are doing is wrong?? I’m not saying that it’s wrong for Soros to back causes he chooses, but remember, Harry Reid said that the Koch brothers are “the most un-American people” he knows—they’re trying to buy America he proclaimed! Yes, for using their wealth to support conservative causes just like Soros uses his to support radical liberal and socialist causes. Some of the many radical liberal causes George Soros uses his influence and great wealth to back are not ethical or credible—and—many are very un-American. Just Google the list of organizations supported by George Soros and read through the list of nearly two hundred which are heavily funded and supported by him.

What is unmistakably un-American is to slander and besmirch—with damning language, anyone who defends the free-market capitalists system in America, and those who express his or her right to free speech. The belief system of George Soros, by its definition, really is un-American — his ideology, and his agenda of a New World Order is definitely un-American. If you look at the causes he supports, they are not only left-leaning, most are socialistic and many defend communism. Several support and defend terrorism and/or those who have participated in defending terrorists and terrorist acts. Many of the causes Soros supports and promotes would be considered un-American even by many Democrats. So, as long as Liberals have characters such as this influencing their politics and beliefs, they should shut up and quit besmirching and blaspheming others whose belief system and policy beliefs are different, and completely in agreement with the Constitution that defends those beliefs!

Comments like those of Harry Reid come from—not only hatred , the attempt to influence voters and discredit and turn Americans against the Kochs, but comes from pure arrogance. Liberals are extremely arrogant—this administration has displayed more arrogance than any in modern times— probably the history of the Presidency. As Charles Koch, the Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries,so aptly put it in an op-ed he wrote in the Wall Street Journal around the first of April, “the central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.”

That really says it all. The Kochs have been vilified by Democrats like Harry Reid for simply supporting what they believe in, including free speech and free-market capitalism. How bad can that possibly be? That’s what built America. That’s why Soros is where he is today. How can the public find fault with that? It certainly is not un-American and is aligned with what the Constitution lays out for Americans.

It irks Reid and other liberals that the brothers intend to back and lend monetary support to Republican candidates running for senate seats that are up for grabs in the midterm elections in November, as well as to help a conservative candidate try to win the White House in 2016. But, they don’t have a problem with George Soros and other millionaire and billionaire donors whose goals and objectives are exactly the same. They are bitter that the goal of the Kochs is to help get the Democrats out of power.

The real truth of the matter is that the—the Democrats are worried. As Ann Coulter would say, “downright terrified. And the more news that continues to trickle regarding the scandals adds to that.

To do what he can to help his friends on the liberal left, Daniel Schulman, Senior Editor of Mother Jones, a progressive liberal magazine, has a book out about the Koch brothers. Mother Jones Magazine bears the title of its namesake, Mary Harris Jones, who was a member of the Socialist Party of America. Mr. Schulman, attempts to color the Koch brothers with the blasphemous and scurrilous hate language used by progressive Liberals when they don’t know how else to defend their views since they lack the moral clarity and substance to be able to do so with honesty and facts. They resort to nasty tactics and vile language because they can’t defend their views in a way that is believable and credible. They hope uninformed voters will believe their baseless diatribes. They try to defend their positions with race-baiting and lying—or badly distorting the facts. Their personal opinions and narratives almost always come down to hate-filled spewing—which by now voters should be getting tired of hearing, and if at all informed should be doubtful of any truth connected to them.

In order to convince the American voters about the evilness of the Kochs’ motivations, Liberals will point out to American voters that the Koch brothers are trying to buy America—that rich donors who support conservative causes and candidates are un- American while, at the same time taking money from their very rich donors. And how do the Liberals and Mr. Schulman do that?

Not all Democrats fall into the demonizing and painting rich Conservatives bad for supporting causes and people they want to support category. Many Democrats are people of integrity, even if their ideology is different from ours. And– they have a right to speak out for their beliefs and verbalize them in various forums. I want to make it clear that I don’t believe, nor should you that all Democrats are unfair, just because we disagree with many of their positions. Nor do they all lie or are demonizing in their speech. This is a subject for another time, but one who comes to mind is Democratic Strategist Kirsten Powers who has always tried to be thoughtful and fair in her analysis. Her opinions and positions are worth listening to. And—there are several other good folks who are Democrats.

Liberals will do anything to defend their agenda, ethical or unethical, without feeling any moral obligation to the truth and fairness. They have an agenda to demonize all political money from ultra-rich sources—that is, except their own. We know liberals, in general, don’t have a single problem with big money liberal sources—like Soros, and big bucks from labor union backing, as well as other entities like MoveOn.org? Soros, in fact, and the Liberals have in the past, and no doubt still do, defend and backs those groups in America that display what Ann Coulter referred to—was the subject of one of her books—as mob behavior.

Even if groups display mob behavior, the opposite of that shown by Tea Party groups, (if you research the definition of “mob” behavior you will see the Tea Party does not display mob behavior),they are praised by those currently on Capitol Hill and other liberals, as well as those in the liberal media. We saw that back in late 2011, with the Occupy Wall Street groups. They were totally lawless, and, yes indeed, un-American, destructive and displayed dangerous and illegal behavior such as rape, urinating on police cars, defacing the American flag by urinating, defecating, and stomping on it, destroying valuable property and attacks on the police which sent some to the hospital. All because they were rebelling against capitalism and the 1% in America.

Members of the Tea Party don’t, nor do other Conservatives in general display mob behavior. It isn’t a conservative trait. Oh, but the Occupy Wall Street mobs were only “exercising their right to free speech”, said the Liberals. That isn’t what the left thought and thinks about the members of the Tea Party when they were and are exercising their right to free speech and peacefully demonstrate, or thinks about the rest of the Conservatives. That goes for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a host of others on the Left. The Tea Parties left places they used clean, they obeyed laws, and for the most part paid fees for the various venues they used for rallies. Liberals don’t think Conservatives have a right to free speech. They have tried to figure out how to shut down conservative voices in America.

As Brent Bozell explained so aptly, “Soros has funneled millions into journalism schools across the nation molding the media’s propaganda ministers of tomorrow”. Brent went on to say “no wonder the liberal media barely balked at the idea of the FCC invading America’s newsrooms as part of an effort to ascertain that Americans are receiving “critical information” from the media. Behind the insidious swipe at the First Amendment were two journalism schools with direct ties to Soros!” The Media Research Center was the first to report that it was Soros’ fingerprints on the FCC probe of a couple of months ago, and it has exposed his decade-long sway over the media. Scary? Besides the Koch brothers, thank heavens we have people like Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center and other influential conservative voices.

Harry Reid and numerous others—his fellow liberal water carriers– have the nerve to rant against the Koch, brothers for supporting causes and people they believe in but unlike Soros and other far left Liberals, the Kochs support them financially,they don’t dictate. To use the words of Mr. Reid, the Koch brothers have “exploited Americans suffering from cancer and have tried to “rig” the political process.” Really? They aren’t rigging—they are supporting. Is this the same Reid who took to the Senate floor and personally damned a woman suffering from Stage 4 cancer, calling her a liar—along with others who complained that they had been “kicked off their insurance and lost their doctors”? Exploiting? He used that poor woman as an example of those “lying about the horrors of Obamacare.” But, the only good that will possibly come out of that is that those victims vote—and of the millions who experienced those horrors of Obamacare all aren’t Republicans and many are in key districts where Democrats are up for re-election. We can’t be reminded too often, while Reid says the Koch brothers are trying to “rig the political process”, buy America, and are un-American, they have billionaire George Soros helping to fund all things ultra-liberal, all of which are socialist, many that are communist, and certainly many that are un-American. Is that, too, “rigging the political process”? The Democrats also have Warren Buffet and all of his vast riches. He will support Hillary Clinton if she runs. The Koch brothers aren’t doing anything different than what Soros does with his money or what any other wealthy Democrats/Liberals do with their money.

The Koch family made their money the same way most honest people who become rich almost always have made theirs—they earned it—the old-fashioned way, through free market enterprise and a lot of hard work, sound decisions, and “minding the store”. Even for the ones who inherited it—someone was doing some work, made smart decisions and planning somewhere along the line–way back when…But liberals hate anyone who is rich and conservative—and those who did it through capitalism—not unlike Warren Buffett and, yes, George Soros. Soros is a business man whose business interests and investments include insurance companies and upscale restaurants, a chain of exclusive restaurants in Arizona for instance that his investment firm acquired not too long ago. Liberals hate capitalism. But the disdain for capitalism obviously doesn’t include him—or other wealthy Liberals and Socialists. The progressive liberal Left love their own rich—and they don’t care how they made it. They adore many in the entertainment field like Beyonce and Jay Z, George Clooney, Oprah and others. Oprah is an example of the American dream. She was raised poor and made her fortune through lots of hard work, good decisions and smart investing. And, yes, through the free-market capitalist system. For anyone who has wealth, it came at some point through free market capitalism.

Liberals constantly demonize success and wealth. But only that of those on the right. Conservatives are the ones they hold up as the greedy 1%–even though all of their own wealthy is included in that number. They want to penalize success through the raising of taxes. Our corporate taxes, are the highest in the world. This administration has wanted to raise corporate taxes as well as other taxes on the rich from the moment they took power. High corporate taxes penalize the success of businesses—many which are small businesses. They are the back bone of this country and are responsible for keeping Americans off of the unemployment rolls as the largest job creators in America. It is because of the high corporate taxes that many jobs such as those in manufacturing, have been moved overseas. But almost all of the wealth in this country—the wealth of those both on the right and left was made possible by the system we have. The wealth of those who started out disadvantaged and poor but have been able to realize the American dream, was made possible by a system which is the envy of the world.

Harry Reid and Mr. Schulman, along with the liberal political machine, think it is fine that George Soros’ main agenda for which he works and spends millions and millions, billions really, is the same as this administration—a New World Order. Soros has always felt and has opined that free market capitalism in the U. S. is responsible for the failure to achieve the New World Order in America. Never mind that most Americans don’t want such a system. He and others like him want it because it would mean the federal government would have power over the American people. And he supposedly cares for the people of America? Such a scary scenario—would mean the ruin of the value of reward for hard work—self-reliance and planning for one’s future. It would end the possibility of anyone being able to reach his or her personal goals whatever they may be. All of that would be replaced by the system of working for the government. The citizens would no longer be a free people, and all of their holdings would be re-distributed among the masses. The government would still want people to work hard and achieve to keep money coming in to support their own goals for everyone being on an even playing field. The problem is then no one would have much money. It would all go to the government and they would dole out what they think each person should have. The successful people would be doing the work while those without success would be made equal. That’s what re-distribution is. No need to be ambitious.

What would they do with all of the ultra rich people in the entertainment field? This administration—the far-left radical progressive liberals—and certainly Mr. Soros really does aspire to such a goal. He makes no bones about it—it is how he believes. This is not made up. That belief system is in complete conflict with the U. S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and what has made this the greatest country on earth. The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights set forth a system by which anything is possible for any individual who lives here. This country has afforded Americans the freedoms and liberties to pursue their idea of happiness and success – it is the birthright of every American. In the system to which George Soros and radical liberals aspire, all of the ultra rich, including those who are Democrats would be working for the government. And the big guys would call the shots. The government would take the money and assets from everyone, just as those countries operating under communist rule of just a few decades ago did before the people of those countries gained freedom, and as the countries do which are still ruled by dictators today. Do most of the Democrats really want this? That’s the question.

Thank God we have people like the Koch brothers and others who can contribute heavily to help preserve the Constitution, our rights and the cause of freedom in America not only for us enjoying life in America now, but helping to preserve the rights and freedoms and an America and Constitution which will still be in tact for future generations. The Koch brothers don’t engage in vile smears, nor do they try to control the lives of Americans. That is totally unfounded . They for decades have rallied to support the free-market capitalist system. The fact is, the conservative agenda believes in defending the Constitution and our right to free speech. Of course the liberals believe that to—for themselves. If you have noticed they are incensed when Conservatives exercise free speech or when any media outlet speaks out against or gives information that is in conflict with their beliefs or policies and those of this administration, and opposes their agenda. Just look at and listen to Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi—who once called speech from Conservatives “dangerous rhetoric”. It is the liberal government that wishes to exercise control over the people of America. How many times have they—and the President—come out, for instance, against Fox News for the information and news it brings to the American people. They don’t like it one bit—but they think that MSNBC and Media Matters is real journalism. Those casts of characters don’t just exercise free speech—and the freedom of the press, they are in the tank for the Obama Administration and carrying water for the far left Liberals and the President. They want to keep their audiences drinking the Kool-Aid and believing the garbage they put out, hoping that they won’t get curious and check to see what another media outlet is reporting.

Americans are on the threshold of Liberals infringing on the rights of every American and moving closer to the chilling realization of Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America”. It is the agenda of radical Liberals and Socialists like George Soros to help make it happen. The threat of “A New World Order” is coming dangerously close to America. Just read about this topic in the United Nations papers. And when it comes to the very rights that they wish to exercise—and do every day—and to the things they hate about conservatives, they are the biggest hypocrites on earth. The Left wants to control every aspect of the lives of Americans—how they should live, what they should believe, and they would love to shut down the ability of Americans to get news and information that they don’t want them to have.

The Koch brothers represent the opposite of the liberal agenda to control the country through big government, re-distribution of wealth and control of the media and available information from which Americans can make informed decisions. The conservative philosophy is one that promotes the rights and liberties of all Americans and they believe the Constitution is a guide for governing, that should be followed by the president and lawmakers in Washington—not the other way around. Liberals think that if they don’t agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and it doesn’t fit in with their agenda—that they should just revise and amend it. But the system of governing was put in place by the Founding Fathers to control government overreach, power and tyranny—an Imperial presidency which is what we nearly have with this president is precisely what the Constitution was designed to guard against. The hatred for the Koch brothers, at least in part by Harry Reid is explained in Reid’s accusation that the Koch brothers want to end Obamacare, and their financing of many groups that back numerous anti-Obamacare ads across the country used in campaign ads for Republicans running for senate seats in key states. Mr. Reid has said that the Koch brothers are a “threat to our democracy”. Why? Because they stand for exactly the opposite of what George Soros stands for, which are socialistic policies? That is certainly a threat to our democracy! If that isn’t a threat to democracy, I don’t know what is! Harry Reid has also lately blamed the Kochs for global warming. That’s how far-fetched his thinking is—even a clear-thinking dunce wouldn’t—or shouldn’t believe the stuff he spews.

At the moment all Americans have the right to weigh in on the decisions in running America, by their right to express their views and be a part of the conversation through their voting rights. At the polls they can at least weigh in with their views and beliefs about how America should be governed.

Contrary to what Harry Reid expresses and what Mr. Schulman purportedly is trying to accomplish in his book about the Koch brothers, George Soros has tried to buy America—at least control it with his money and force his socialist/communist views on the nation against the rights of those who disagree. That’s where his focus is now and will be in the future. Americans need to wake up and dig a little deeper into what the Left is trying to do, and what they are trying to sell to the voters.This White House has done a fair job of that these past several years, But they can only be successful in their quest if Americans agree and let them do it. Remember,there is power in numbers—just as it is for them.

Philllip Ellender, President , Government and Public Affairs for Koch Companies said it very well when he responded to President Obama’s campaign Manager, Jim Messina in response to a letter sent out by the Obama Campaign, and Mr. Messina’s attempt to discredit the Koch brothers through the false representation of them with a letter that surely was seen by the millions of uninformed voters who are mostly Democrats and don’t look for other information. Mr. Messina attacked the Koch brothers by doing what Liberals do best– demonize anyone who opposes them and their policies, and misleading the American voters.

Mr. Ellender said, “it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy.” He went on to say that “the implication in that sort of attack is obvious: “Dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent.” Ellender pointed out earlier in his letter that their “opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principle” and that “Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market system for over 50 years…..regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican was president.” Mr. Ellender also reminded the Obama campaign that scurrilous charges, baseless accusations, name calling and lies were engaged to try to discredit and mislead the American public about the Koch brothers and their team –dirty politics in an attempt to turn Americans against them came at a time when the President himself was calling for a more civil conversation in the country. Oh yes. Remember when the President dating back to 2010 during his speech at the tribute for those killed and injured in the Tucson massacre called for more civil discourse and explained that people shouldn’t be derided by damaging rhetoric because “they disagree with us”, and he publicly called for more “civil discourse”, and lectured us on tone. But he certainly hasn’t done much monitoring of his own people since then. That evidently was not meant for them. And Nancy Pelosi talked about “dangerous rhetoric.”

Mr. Ellender went on to say in his letter that “it is understandable that the President and his campaign may be ‘tired of hearing’ that many Americans would rather not see the President re-elected. (and would rather not see Democrats re-elected to the senate).

One of the last disgraceful displays of hatred—and a strange one at that, was brought to light recently by an article in the New York Post by Kyle Smith on Wednesday, March 16, entitled “Loopy Liberals Freak over Koch brothers $100M Hospital Gift”. It was also reported in the Washington Beacon and in a piece in The Blaze by Beckett Adams on March 11, 2014.

Mr. Smith says that the Left is obsessed with the brothers despite their multi-million dollar donations. He went on to explain their gifts to good, non-partisan causes. He correctly points out that the brothers have donated millions over the past decades to the arts, medicine, and education. But their huge gift of $100M for the new wing of New York Presbyterian Hospital brought on protests from liberal activists groups including the NAACP, New York State Conference, the New York State Nurses’ Assn., as well as SEIU (Service Employees International Union) Local 1199. The donation was made by David Koch. One Liberal, as reported in the Washington Beacon, predicted that David Koch would go down in history as a famously evil person. Why? For donating millions to charity and other worthy philanthropic causes?

The donation to build the New York Presbyterian Hospital’s new wing is the largest donation in the hospital’s history. That in itself makes their reaction rather dumbfounding because the new wing will employ many additional health care professionals. But the hospital-employee union (SEIU) is protesting. Perplexing to say the least. The SEIU is a left-leaning liberal entity. But that shows that it is about politics rather than creating jobs for healthcare workers and saving lives.

The hospital wing is to be named after Koch. Oh, is that it? David and Charles, as brought up by Kyle Smith are counted among today’s great philanthropists. Their charitable contributions of the past includes a previous gift to New York Presbyterian’s Weill Cornell Medical Center of $15M, $30M to Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, $25M to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $15M to a dinosaur exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, The New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera. So, now it becomes clear. Petty politics—pure envy—that they would get credit for such generosity. Does that mean that they are trying to buy America? Harry Reid says they are un-American–David Koch is evil. So, Reid and his liberal would rather not have Americans benefit by such generosity in medicine, education, and the arts if Conservatives are to get the credit—especially these Conservatives. And– liberals are so generous and care so much about America and its people? That has many of us stumped.

As Beckett Adams pointed out in his piece in The Blaze, “anti-Koch and union activists are outraged that the hospital accepted Koch’s money.” So, again—with the far left progressive liberal machine, it is about politics. Never mind that these gifts will impact the lives of millions—of all political persuasions, in a positive way. The Liberals would rather the people not have comforts if someone like the Koch‘s receive the credit for making such gifts available for people to use and enjoy –if it means accepting money from and someone on the wrong side receiving publicity and accolades for their generosity. That shows just how much liberals hate the Koch brothers for no reason that makes sense.

What I liked best about Mr. Smith’s defense of the Koch brothers is that he points out that “no hospital receiving funding from George Soros has to worry about a picket line outside, even though he funded Lynn Stewart, the radical lawyer who served four years in prison for providing material support to Al Qaeda terrorism. Mr. Smith in a great line went on to comment that “Soros doesn’t really back terrorists—he only backs those who back terrorist.” You know—so his hands don’t get dirty—he wouldn’t want to embarrass the Liberals in the Democratic party by doing something sketchy.

George Soros and most of the ideologues on the far Left engage in dirty and underhanded politics. That’s how they fight—not by honestly trying to convince the American voters their plan is the best, but by trying to get America to hate the right. The Left doesn’t talk much about their policies. Instead, their strategy is to slander the competition in hopes their voting blocs will believe them—hoping they aren’t informed enough to know better and aren’t curious enough to find out. And, they will resort to racism. They have been using all of this strategy for the past five plus years. It has worked twice. One wonders just how long it will take for the American voters—many of the Democrats and certainly the Independents to wake up. And just like the lies (including Mr. Obama’s which was dubbed by the Washington Post as the ‘lie of the year’) they bought into about Obamacare when they re-elected the same pair at the top—the duo called Obama and Biden. And along with them—more of their famously corrupt water-carriers in the President’s cabinet. At least some of the voters did some housecleaning in the midterm elections of 2010, or God forbid what they would have done by now if they had been left to run wild with a majority in both the House and the Senate, putting them in charge of congress. That was Conservatives and others giving them payback for ramming Obamacare down the throats of Americans—by reminding them who really does run the country.

One person dubbed the Koch brothers’ money as the “Koch’s dark money machine”. Why? It’s perfectly democratic and American to give to causes one wishes to support. We have two political parties in this country—those who demonize the Kochs must remember—even if they back conservative causes in hopes of making a difference, the people still vote for what they want—the Kochs don’t and can’t buy anything—the voters have the last word. And what’s dark about it? Speaking of a “dark money machine”, Mr. Soros is probably the grand daddy of them all. Few people know the places he puts his fortune—working behind the scenes to accomplish his objectives. Then, there are the big labor unions. The unions and their power are as corrupt as they can be. They have spent vast sums backing Democrats and spent a huge sum backing this president.

Remember, George Soros would like for America to be controlled by an Imperial presidency. Obama is as close to being an Imperial president as we have ever had in America. And, watch out, George Soros’ goals haven’t changed. He will continue to work and spend toward that end.

Barak Obama: A Lawless President Who Does His Own Thing

As we have moved into the second term of President Obama’s administration, he has increasingly moved away from the notion that the Congress makes the laws of the land and he enforces them to his defiance in announcing that “I have a phone and a pen”, and making it clear to the lawmakers on Capitol Hill that if they try to make laws he does not like he will veto them; and, if they don’t pass the legislation he wants he will use his executive order powers and sign them into law without the blessing of Congress.

There have been hints since the first of the year that the new Congress may or should conduct an inquiry into whether or not President Obama has kept his oath of office and the pledge to faithfully “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” Many believe that he has waged an assault on our liberty and on the Constitution, but to prove that would be a difficult and costly proposition.

It is certainly evident that the Congress has time and again turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the President’s abuse of the Constitution. The concern for this has been expressed over and over in talking points by many news contributors, strategists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. But to prove that Mr. Obama has not faithfully kept his oath of office would take more than Congressmen and Congresswomen just expressing their fears that he has abused the powers of his office and has not defended the Constitution. The President is arrogant and he is cocky and it shows in his words and in the actions of executing the duties of his office—and respecting the responsibility of the Congress to execute theirs. There have been times when it seems perfectly clear that he has, in that regard, abused the power of the office of the President.

There are the scandals—the IRS targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups so they could not operate and be active before the 2012 presidential election and the 2014 midterm elections, which the White House is desperate to control while Mr. Obama still has another two years left in his term. He and his camp are single-minded about getting back control of Congress so that they and he can execute his agenda and accomplish the things he had set out to do in order to fundamentally transform America.

There is also Benghazi, and the corruption of the Holder Justice Department and their snooping into the phone and email records of people at Fox News in order to see where they are getting their stories—who their sources are so that the Obama White House can put a stop to information getting out to the American people before time for them to vote with the fear that it will affect their decisions at the polls.

There are instances of what clearly seems the suppression of free speech, other than what they have been doing with the IRS preying on numerous conservative groups. Of course there is the debacle of Obamacare. On this issue alone he has made changes too numerous to mention—I think the last count was thirty-eight, with his pen in violation of his Oath of Office and the Constitution. Remember, it is the job of Congress to make or change laws and the job of the President to execute them by signing them into law, or to veto them.

And what about, his State of the Union speech on January 28, when the President said: “But America does not stand still– and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I am going to do.” He earlier on January 14th during a cabinet meeting issued the warning that , “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone…..to sign executive orders and take executive action to move the ball forward…” And—yes he fully intended to do just that and has used those powers to make good on his threat. Of course we know his aim is to expand government and reshape America and get around Congress trying to control his appetite for spending in order to fund his pet projects. Those include immigration legislation, income inequality and climate change. He has gone beyond the pale in using executive order in making dozens of changes on The Affordable Care Act, his centerpiece legislation and that which most defines his presidency and will be his legacy. There have been so many changes to—without the approval of Congress, that it looks very little like the original legislation which was signed into law back in 2010. His main thrust and passion is to leave America in the control of the radical left with the entitlement state far broader than when he came into power. The entitlement state is key in his effort to keep the radical liberal left in control in a way that would be difficult to reverse or to overcome in future elections. Remember that old saying “…and they vote.” Amnesty and voting rights for the millions of illegals already in this country would greatly enhance that goal. Those people would register and vote as Democrats. Those voting rights would add to the millions cared for by government entitlements in addition to other Democrat voters across the nation. One of the prizes the liberals and certainly this White House have their eyes on is the possibility of a one-party voting system by increasing the numbers of democrat voters in their voting blocs to reach the goal of the radical left to make the Republican party basically extinct. A chilling thought indeed. Certain influential Republicans such as the Koch brothers and others are working toward preserving the Republican party and getting them back into power—in the White House and in Congress with majorities in both houses.

So what he was saying is that if the Congress won’t pass the legislation that he believes he needs on which he needs to act throughout the remainder of his term, he will take unilateral action. One of the things that in his mind is urgent—and what he was referring to in his threat to take unilateral action was the increase in the minimum wage, which he had been toiling over for months. There has been much heated debate over that issue. But, on the President’s promise to take unilateral action and make it happen all by his lonesome, even some Democrats weighed in. Take the words of Alaska Democrat Senator Mark Begich who told CNN, “You have to be very careful of how far you extend those executive powers.” He went on to say, “I would encourage the President to work with us, not just have a slew of executive orders because I think that’s going to upset the balance and create a lot of controversy not just from Republicans but from some of us who are much more moderate and view this careful balance that we have a role in here …if they go too far you’ll clearly hear push-back from me . There’s no question about it.” It very well should concern Democrats. What if it were a president not on their side. What could be the future consequences—unintended consequences? Mr. Begich said it very well. This kind of action can very well render Congress ineffective in carrying out their duties, and holds future promise—at least the possibility of a future president acting outside the law when he felt moved to do so. One never knows when the President at the time may be one they don’t agree with, or faces a very important piece of legislation. And the thought that he will just on his own sign it into law?? So if Democrats are dancing to this tune they had better think again. Total power in the hands of one individual, that enables him to act at his pleasure without checks and balances can at any time prove to be destructive— a disaster waiting to happen.

Of course there was a great deal of criticism from Republicans including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Steve King, Jason Chaffetz and others in regard to the President acting unilaterally by executive order to get around Congress—circumvent their authority in order to get his legislation through if he can’t get their co-operation. One has to wonder how long they can let this go on—for the good of the country and the office of the President, and the Constitution that is their guide to keeping the balance of power?

Ted Cruz (R)TX—called it the “Imperial Presidency of Barak Obama”, when speaking about the subject the last week of January 2014, a label taken from the book, “The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Obama’s view of himself and how he perceives the power of his office, and his boldness in executing those powers without caring one with to what the Congress thinks and about the Constitution is a very dangerous and scary precedent set by a President of the United States. His bold pattern of lawlessness, his defiant disregard for the written law of the land and his blatant willingness to rewrite laws as they affect policy and enforce them as he sees fit—with the stroke of his pen is mind-boggling. The fact that he has made good on his promise—and threat—with wild abandon has many lawmakers like Ted Cruz and many of his colleagues completely dumbfounded and at the very least, concerned as to the direction that this precedent will take the country in the time Mr. Obama has left. The question is how to stop him. Impeachment has been whispered from more than one concerned tongue—but that would take a majority in the senate, which Republicans don’t have at the moment. That could change come November. No President in history has been so blatant in his unwillingness to compromise and execute his duties within the boundaries of the law.

The first chill that lawmakers and America received was when the President unilaterally took action, to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contractors. That was only the beginning. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the rest of—well—at least informed America—wasn’t surprised. At least they shouldn’t have been. The Obama Administration gave a warning which suggested that the gist of his State of the Union address would be “do what he wants or else.” He was putting them on notice that the business of turning down his pleas to enforce his agenda was going to stop—with his pen. So, on his own, he has just expanded the federal government, which has grown bigger and bigger under his administration, even more. This is really dangerous. Where are the boundaries? How much further will he expand the government reaches which, of course, is growing further to the liberal left with each passing day, before he can and will be stopped? He has done this all on his own. And where does he plan to get the money for all of this expansion and growth of government?

So, Ted Cruz was right on the mark when he referred to Barak Obama as the “ Imperial President.” A socialist? Liberals don’t like that word but what other moniker would fit better??? What do they call it—all of the expansion and control in the hands of big government and one leader who makes up and signs laws at his pleasure?

Seriously, the President’s appetite for and the high he gets from circumventing Congress by unilaterally making change happen with the stroke of his pen and the resulting power of being able to effect change without the participation of the Congress should be a huge wake-up call to every American citizen, no matter what their politics are or what side they are on. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an issue of run-away power and defiance in the face of America and blatant disregard for the Constitution and the laws by which government is balanced.

So, when in his State of the Union speech he declared that he was ready to “take steps without legislation” “wherever and whenever I can” to get what he wants everyone had better pay attention. In other words he plans to go around Congress whenever he wants to get something, which means he plans to violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the law by which America is supposed to be governed—the law by which the U.S. President, the President’s Cabinet, and Congress, as well as other federal agencies are to run the Federal Government .

In other words, he plans to and probably already has broken his oath of office. He promised to defend the Constitution. It is easy to see the looming danger of a run-away leader—and even the rest of the world can see it as well which looks bad to other world leaders. Yes, the Democrat lawmakers and other Democrats should be scared as well. After all, they could have a republican president next. Maybe I’ve missed something, but I haven’t heard many liberal analysts and lawmakers complaining, other than Mark Begich. I’m sure there are some but they haven’t been verbal in their disapproval. Are Republicans—Conservatives the only people who are worried by this kind of defiant and wreckless leadership?

So, is it an impeachable offense? Yes, it seems to be. And—we may be able to find out after the midterm elections in November of this year.

IRS Scandal-The Targeting of Conservative Groups

When the issue of targeting conservative groups by the IRS was uncovered back in 2013, then IRSofficial,Lois Lerner, acknowledged that the IRS improperly scrutinized Tea Party and other conservative groups. It then became clear that many of these groups were the target of unfair and biased IRS scrutiny when applying for non-exempt tax status and their applications to operate denied as early as 2010. All because of their political position.

But then, Lois Lerner, when facing questioning in congressional hearings by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Committee Chairman, Darrel Issa (R)CA, pleaded the 5th. After she gave her own opening statements she then invoked her 5th Amendment rights to protect herself from answering questions and incriminating herself. Oversight Committee member, Trey Gowdy (R) UT, said she waived her right to the 5th Amendment when she gave opening statements in her own defense, stating that she had done nothing wrong. As Gowdy said, she talked long enough to say that she had done nothing wrong, but when it was time for her to answer questions she immediately took the 5th. That was in May, 2013.

She was back on the stand this past week, to supposedly answer key questions that Darrel Issa was prepared to ask her. But she again immediately invoked the 5th. She again said “on the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 5th Amendment right and decline to answer that question.” That was the answer to each question posed by Chairman Issa. He came prepared with seven questions to which answers are needed. But no answers were coming from her. So, can she now be held in contempt of Congress? Some say yes, but we will have to wait and see, which may be a long time.

An angry scene was on display by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) during the second set of hearings with Lerner on the stand. As Mr. Issa was shutting down the meeting, Cummings was screaming–upset because he wanted to have his say. “I am sick and tired of this—I am a member of the United States Congress”, he wailed”. He said that he wanted to ask a “procedural question.” “You cannot run a committee like this,” he shouted at Issa. Like how?

Mr. Cummings doesn’t like these hearings. He accused Republicans of running a one-sided investigation. Really? It isn’t just a matter of Republicans picking on one of the members of their liberal camp acolytes. Never mind that the questions asked of Ms. Lerner were perfectly legitimate in light of all of the facts. Chairman Issa came with a list of seven questions for Ms. Lerner to answer. She was there for the other side and she refused to answer the questions.

Their claims that it is a one-sided hearing is strange since presumably an innocent person would want to answer any questions to clear themselves and their department. They would, it would seem, welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. Mr. Cummings and the other liberals should certainly realize that she had a chance to give her side. Sooo, why did she invoke the 5th Amendment when it was her chance to clear things up—if in fact she was innocent?

Only the most ignorant and uninformed would believe that this government and the IRS—that is those at the top, would believe that the IRS is innocent. Ms. Lerner and those at the top of the IRS food chain threw the little people at the IRS—that is the peons in the Cincinnati office at least—under the bus. But the public didn’t buy that and at least one person in Cincinnati came forward—choosing to remain anonymous. He or she had had enough of having to carry the water for the big important guys, and those in the Cincinnati office being the sacrificial lambs. So, he or she decided to squeal on them, declaring that it certainly was not the Cincinnati office who deserved to bear the burden of the blame for wrong-doing. That individual said the orders came out of Washington D. C. What does Mr. Cummings think of that? We don’t know. And, the evidence bears out the fact that other IRS offices were involved as well. What does Lois Lerner and the rest of the Obama Camp think of it? Mr. Obama, remember, in his infamous Super Bowl day interview with Bill O’Reilly said there is not even a “smidgen” of corruption going on at the IRS—even after all of the facts that have been uncovered—and the lies.That is a different tune than he sang last year when he expressed his outrage at such actions by the IRS Declaring that of all the agencies and people feared and hated by the American people—the IRS. He said that their actions were “unacceptable” and promised to have it (the IRS) investigated. He was having it investigated alright. So, the President got Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the job. His Justice Department began doing just that—by appointing an Obama donor to lead the investigation.

Wait—that’s not all. Eric Holder said in a Senate Judiciary Hearing on January 29 that he didn’t know that Barbara Bosserman, the attorney leading the IRS investigation, was an Obama donor. Really? If that’s true, it means two things—one that the choice must have been influenced by the President. That would explain his smug comment of ‘not one smidgen of corruption’ with the confidence of one who knows something, and is confident that the choice of an investigator would be someone who would effect an outcome in the President’s favor—that Mr. Obama had a hand in controlling the outcome.

Second, if it is true that Holder did not know the history of Barbara Bosserman in relation To Mr. Obama—didn’t know she was an Obama donor, it means he is uninformed about things he shouldn’t be uninformed about regarding those in his Justice Department—or—he was lying.

Back in May, 2013, Eric Holder also expressed outrage at the IRS targeting groups. From all of that that to Mr. Obama’s words now of “there isn’t even a ‘smidgen’ of corruption at the IRS’.”

There is no question that Lerner played a key role in singling out Tea Party and other conservative groups who were applying for tax exempt status. It can’t be more clear.

Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the group True the Vote, talked with Fox News about the IRS and their application for 50(c)(3) status. The President and the rest of the chattering class of liberals don’t like it when Tea Party groups or other conservative groups come out and talk about liberals, and carry the conservative message to the public. They think that these groups pose a dangerous threat that must be stopped. They do not like what these groups represent. Oh, but the President and the rest of the liberals on Capitol Hill and in the mainstream liberal press don’t seem to mind when the NAACP and other liberal groups and the media say horrible things and tell lies about conservatives of every stripe, including conservative women and African Americans. It’s perfectly fine to defame women and African Americans if they are conservatives. The group True the Vote and its leader, Ms. Engelbrecht has received a half a dozen FBI audits, two personal IRS audits, two federal IRS audits, and an OSHA visit.

Most of the media ignored the IRS scandal. It has also been determined that the IRS was not only investigating new groups applying for non-exempt tax status but that they were also monitoring existing conservative groups that were already operating. And why haven’t the New York Times and other liberal media outlets been reporting on this hot-button topic? Because they have made it their job and priority to carry water and be the defenders of the Obama administration. They have been committed and are still committed to protecting their President, no matter how big this and other scandals are or how badly the American public wants answers.

Forty-one groups that are represented by Jay Sekelow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, have been audited. Catherine Engelbrecht accused Elijah Cummings of intimidation saying that he singled her out. Cleta Mitchell is the attorney for Engelbrecht’s group, True the Vote.

The Obama Administration doesn’t think that the American taxpayers should be kept informed about and receive news about the “phony” scandals and corruption running rampant through the veins of this Administration. The President and his top cheerleaders on Capitol Hill don’t think the American people are entitled to any knowledge of how government is attempting to run our lives. After all, we are the “little people” and they are running the show—they know what’s best for us. Their large central government is big brother and we don’t need to be a part of the conversation. They all forget that they work for us—we hired them, and if we see fit and if the American people quit drinking the Kool-Aid, we can remove them from office. We can’t fix corrupt or stupid but we can vote them out. But the krux of the matter is– they don’t want us to have access to the news—it interferes with the politics they are playing and the message they want us to receive and believe. They could have total control if only they could keep us from having access to information. You know, like dictators have done with their people over the centuries and still do. The American people should just go out and vote for the same characters. But– remember that transparency promise that Obama preached when he was a candidate? That was when he was trying to put people in a trance. He didn’t really mean it–and he since had hoped the voters would just stay with him and forget those promises— would remain in a trance. He somehow forgot that the honeymoon feeling, the first blush of new love usually wears off and gives way to reality. He also doesn’t realize that even though it has taken some years, he and his top dogs have helped the reality take hold. It had to be just a matter of time. Many times it is a good realization—our expectations are met. Other times once we get sober from drinking the Kool-Aid and we wake up to the reality, it is disappointing and we realize we have been deceived. And that’s how the American people feel on a number of fronts—deceived.

This Administration realizes that the Republicans and Fox News have interfered with and done damage to his its game plan. In other words the Obama camp thought the voters were stupid and would believe all their propaganda without waking up from their stupor–and they still think we’re stupid. They thought they could get away with the lies, the corruption and phony politics on a number of issues including Benghazi and Obamacare as well as the antics of the Holder Justice Department.

The polls say that 71% of the American people feel that Congress should continue to investigate the IRS. Someone should remind them, Mr.Obama and his minions, and Mr. Cummings of that fact. There is evidence—emails that suggest that Lois Lerner participated in “off-line” work on the IRS investigation of conservative groups. She was very involved, the facts state. She said that Tea Party groups are “dangerous”. There seems to be some evidence that people higher up than her were involved. Her memos to individual IRS agencies said they would be working “off-line”, which means “hidden from the public.”

After the last colorful scene that broke out between Mr. Cummings and Mr. Issa, the Chairwoman of the Black Congressional Caucus, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D) OH got in on the act. She wants to have Darrel Issa removed from the Committee. For guess what? For silencing Democrats. Yes, that’s right. Interfering with their right to free speech. Imagine that.

President Obama’s Interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly

On Super Bowl Sunday, February 2, 2014, President Obama sat down with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News for an exclusive interview before the big game. That interview is still being talked about, in a bigway—and I’m sure Mr. Obama now regrets doing it, although he has always been gracious about talking with Bill; and, if he is confident about what he says, he has a much broader audience with Fox News. And– he was seen by millions more just before the Super Bowl game. It is possible that this time he feels like he was “picked on” and wonders why he did it. This interview was in front of one of the largest television audiences ever. Tens of millions of viewers were getting ready to watch the Super Bowl, so it was seen by a captive audience and millions who don’t normally watch Fox News.

Some interesting stuff was gleaned from this interview–the interview dominated the news for the entire week following with at least parts of it playing over and over on all of the various news programs. I’m not sure Bill understood at the time that he set the stage for a new set of concerns and even more questions for the Republicans to work with between now and election time in November. They glared in the face of already nervous democrats as the American electorate were again reminded just what they got with another four years with this Administration—scar tissue that carried over from the President’s first term—at least where Obamacare and Benghazi are concerned. Of course they weren’t fully aware of what a nightmare the Affordable Care Act was going to be as the rollout didn’t take place until October 31, the week before the election, but they sure were aware—must have been aware that Benghazi had already turned into a big scandal—a massive cover-up with four dead Americans including our Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Even though we covered the Obamacare mess in my last article, many new concerns were raised as well as the realization that the scandals plaguing the administration were still unanswered as Bill tried to get the President to be forthcoming and, well, hmm–honest in telling us something we didn’t already know.

Of course that wasn’t the case. In order to cover the interview I am going to touch on the big items currently covered in the news and will be for the months leading up to the elections in November. I amonly going to highlight most of what was in the interview, as there is not space to cover them in depth in this article. We will,however, cover them in future articles as the conversation begs to be continued as congressional hearings and investigations are currently underway and they are still main topics in the news, and will continue to be.

Bill gave the President enough rope to hang himself—to allow Republicans to pick up where they left off and for the already nervous democrats to wonder where now to fit these new narratives into their already shaky game plan with no place to hide. The chattering class of Washington must be looking for some collective wisdom as they continue the daunting task of trying to tailor their already weak alibis into something believable to keep their beloved voters drinking the Kool-Aid.

Before we get started on the content, let me first begin with the charges leveled by Democrats–liberals such as Nancy Pelosi and Fox’s own Geraldo Rivera as well as the regular democrat voters like those on the streets interviewed by Fox’s Jesse Watters, as well as the liberal press that Bill O’Reilly treated the President with disrespect. Oh, yes, more of that. Where do we start on this one? OK, I’ll give it my best shot.

First of all, Bill was just Bill, conducting a great and informative interview while maintaining control of
the interview and the topics he planned to cover and that we, the audience, were waiting to hear. As he later explained for the umpteenth time to the pin heads who just can’t get it, he had a certain amount of time and a list of questions, like all journalists, to which the viewing audience want to hear answers. This is the case with any interview, but especially one like this. There is a short amount of time for the interviewer to get his questions in and he or she usually attempts to cover several points.
There is precious little time allotted for each question, so there is no time for bloviating as Bill calls it.
Bill O’Reilly is the biggest name in television news and has been for over twelve years. How does one think he got there? And—Barak Obama is the leader of the free world, so we, the audience, are hoping that he can shed some light on the topics presented and about which we, the voters, have questions.

A skilled interviewer keeps control of the interview, they don’t let the interviewee take control and monopolize the time allotted. It, as Fox’s Brit Hume, who has covered many presidents over the years, explained, is a very difficult balance—on one hand of posing the question and allowing the person to answer, but to keep the interview flowing on the other, and cover the questions in a
succinct manner, not let the interviewee filibuster –Mr. Obama is a master of this. Given the freedom to do so, he would take up the entire interview talking about what he wants to talk about. He would use the entire time allotted with himself talking and the interviewer and audience listening with him in control. The result would be that they would not cover all of the questions planned for the interview and the audience would be left hanging—a poor interview. They think that Bill should have allowed
this in a prime-time interview before the Super Bowl game with the largest viewing audience ever? Total nonsense!

A good and effective interview does not give the floor to the interviewee and allow him or her to take over until the time runs out. And, that goes for the President, too. It necessitates the interviewer respectfully interrupting and getting himself or herself back in charge of the interview and getting the interview back on track. Bill brought up later in discussions about the interview, that he did the same thing with President Bush 43 (the younger). Brit Hume said to Bill, “…you kept the tone civil, the questions were relevant and appropriate, you did what you had to do” but, he said, “to a partisan
audience of this President, your persistent questioning would come across as disrespectful.”The only thing the interviewer can do”, Hume suggested, “is to get to the next question”. The only choice sometimes is to interrupt. It is a very difficult situation to be in. There is a fine line, but the interviewer has to do his job. One can’t always get an answer—he has to move on. As Bill said, “I can’t make him answer if he refuses to do so, but I did my job.” Although Mr. Obama squirmed out of answering the questions with viable answers, Bill did get a lot of information that the audience would otherwise not have gotten from the President. Bill’s line of questioning is always tough. But, if one has good answers, is confident in the interview and glad to be there because it gives them exposure, exposure such as this and in general with Fox that they would not have gotten on other media whose audience is different and not nearly as large as the viewers Fox News enjoys, it then is to their advantage to get the tough questions. They want the audience to hear and see it. They likely would not get a collective
audience of millions like Fox viewers not in their voting blocs to hear their stance on issues the way they
would like them to. Hillary Clinton before the 2008 elections was on “The Factor” and she looked sharp.
She was good in the interview and her reward was that millions of us Fox and O’Reilly Factor viewers, voting Americans that don’t watch the liberal media saw her. She was smart to go on there in the first place. She knew it, she’s a savvy person. She planned it that way and good for her. Some voters who are Democrats, I’m sure, tuned in when they realized she would be on “The Factor”. She praised Bill for treating her fairly and said that Fox News is fair and balanced. She may have changed her tune since then. That was during the Democrat primaries. That interview set the stage and after that she went out on a roll and won the next two primaries. Mr. Obama then decided to go on the O’Reilly Factor. Fox News is overwhelmingly the number one cable news channel and if candidates and other politicians are smart they know it is a positive move to be a guest on “The Factor”.

This brings me to the comments by Geraldo Rivera when after the interview he was Bill’s guest on “The Factor.” They add a little insight into why the liberals feel that the President is always being treated disrespectfully by Fox, in this case by Bill O’Reilly, as well as by Conservatives in general. Bernie Goldberg, always with great words of wisdom, gave his take on what Geraldo said to Bill. As always,I believe he was “spot-on”. Geraldo said to Bill, “you stripped him of his majesty’. Majesty. As if he were a king. Geraldo reminded Bill that after all, “ President Obama is the nation’s first African
American president—to which Bill reminded Geraldo that, “it’s not my job to be a social scientist or to please you…..” My job is to get information. That’s my job. I got it. I asked him the tough questions that nobody else—no one—has asked him.” Bill continued, “I don’t think he has majesty, so to speak. He’s not a king.” Bill added that he respects the office of the Presidency, but presidents still need to be held accountable. Geraldo called the interview “unsettling”.

At one point Geraldo opined that he thought it was objectionable that Bill referred to the President as a
Community Organizer. It has been suggested that Bill used that as some kind of code that reflects that he’s really racist. Yes, that again—and that’s a bunch of crap. Anyone who knows Bill—has watched him over years knows that is hogwash—simply not true. What a cheap shot—only liberals can come up with such a thing. Barack Obama was a community organizer prior to becoming a Senator. And he was darned proud of it. In fact, that was his shining bit of experience (his only job experience) that he thought qualified him to be a Senator.

His thirty months as a Senator and before that a community organizer in Chicago (yes, Chicago—a great training ground for a Community Organizer—you know—like Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist of the Weather Underground (a domestic terrorist organization), along with his wife Bernadine Dorn) were his great qualifications to become President of the United States—yes, Commander in Chief and leader of the free world.

Geraldo said to Bill O’Reilly, “I don’t want to bring race into it…” And then not two seconds later brought race into it by reminding Bill that he is our first African American president, as if that should have anything to do with it. As if that should make a difference in how Bill handled the interview. That should have made a difference in why Bill should have treated him differently–shown him more respect than he did George W. Bush for example? That must be why the main stream media and others treat Mr. Obama with kid gloves, even though they were and have been very disrespectful of President Bush, the younger. Just as Bernie suggested, they really see him as someone special. He went on to say that you can’t grill him, you can’t question him, that he doesn’t get that from the very docile interviews he is used to getting from the liberal media and the shows on which he appears. The hosts of those shows, both news and entertainment shows open with a few words and just let him talk not offering viewers
any significant information. Most in the liberal media protect the President. As Goldberg told Bill, this
President is used to a very docile press corps. “l didn’t see a smidgen of disrespect, on your part”, Goldberg said. He added that, “yes, there were interruptions, but so what. Whatever that is, it was not disrespect.” There are interruptions in any tough interview. Then Bernie said, “I didn’t write (his best seller) “A Slobbering Love Affair” for nothing”.

Bill O’Reilly brought up in his Talking Points memo on the O’Reilly Factor the next week that the President knows he respects him, and he does. Bill always shows him respect when speaking about the President. But, he pointed out, it is not his job or anyone else’s to show him something special because he is black. And to make a further point, I nor most people don’t think the President expects
special treatment because his is African American. The liberal media and some of his acolytes are the ones who expect he should receive special treatment.

Mary Katharine Hamm, a Fox News contributor and Contributing Editor at Townhall Magazine, who was
a guest on the O’Reilly Factor on Monday, February 10, said it perfectly. “He (Mr. Obama) didn’t want to talk about all of the things you asked about, those things like Obamacare, etc., so if you are asking, you are being disrespectful. That’s the bottom line.” She’s right–he didn’t want to answer so when Bill kept asking those questions, in particular, he was being disrespectful. Bill, some thought—many thought— should not have put the President “on the spot”. Obama supporters consider that rude.

Bernie Goldberg brought up another point, this time about the IRS scandal, which is still under investigation for targeting conservative groups applying for 501c3 and 501c4 tax exempt status. He pointed out that there were tens of millions of Americans watching the interview just before the Super Bowl game (even though not all who would watch the Super Bowl had yet probably tuned in to the pre-
game show which is when the interview took place). He explained that “people who watch Fox News know that the President was less than candid. Liberal democrats believe every word he says so let’s eliminate the both of them from this discussion. The problem is that tens of millions of Americans who don’t follow politics– may not even closely follow the news, the so-called low information voters. They hear the President say –to use just one example—they hear the President say ‘there’s not a smidgeon of corruption’. Do they know who Lois Lerner is? Do they know that she’s in the center of the controversy? Do they know that she took the 5th against self-incrimination, do they know that there are on-going investigations that are not completed? No they don’t know any of that, so it wouldn’t even occur to them that maybe President Obama doesn’t know if there’s a smidgen or no smidgen—it wouldn’t occur to them. But that’s what troubles me”. Bill said that he did not do the interview for low information voters and he said to Bernie, –“I can guarantee you….that what he said on the record is
now going to be the focus of congressional hearings, so this interview is taking on way more than a populist play.” Bernie agreed and said, “that is why I am not concerned with the people who follow the news. My concern is that there were too many people out there on Super Bowl Sunday who don’t follow the news who are going to believe ……you have to worry about them, they vote. There are people out there who believe that he seemed believable even though he wasn’t.” Bill replied that, “this will be an ongoing thing, and you mark my words.”

During the interview Mr. Obama brought up that “these kinds of things keep surfacing, in part, because you and your station will promote them.” Oh right. The President implied that Bill prompts his audience to believe in certain White House scandals. Really? The scandals are real things that happened to real people on Mr. Obama’s watch. What does he mean by “phony scandals”? There is nothing phony about them. They are scandals on which investigations are still on-going. In other words he has blamed it all on Fox News. Yes, when nothing else works blame it on the Republicans, George W. Bush, or Fox
News. If Fox would just quit reporting on them all of the time they would go away and stay out of the news on a regular basis. The American public would not be hearing more about them. You know, do like the liberal stations that watch out for Barak Obama rather than the American people. If it weren’t for Fox getting in the way, they could control the information they want the voters to get. Republicans just keep screwing that up.

The truth is that new news keep coming up shedding more light on these scandals. So like the responsible media that it is, Fox is continually updating the news, bringing their viewers up-to-date. A responsible news outlet should not report on them? It’s their job to bring information to the American people. What about the helpless victims that have never gotten answers—the scandals have never been solved? The families of the victims in the case of Benghazi, and the victims of the other scandals would be left “hung out to dry” if the news didn’t keep the issues alive and report progress made, or
lack of progress, until they’re resolved with satisfactory answers, the guilty in all cases held accountable and brought to justice. Patricia Smith, the mother of dead Navy Seal Sean Smith, said her son’s death
wasn’t phony. She wondered she said on Fox News if it’s too much to ask for answers as to what happened to her son, who was her only child.

She has been on various news programs several times since the tragedy which happened eighteen months ago, begging for answers—she wants to know who is to blame for the tragic death of her son and the other victims–just how it was allowed to take place that fateful night and just what the Administration knew that night and days following. She would like to hear what Hillary has to say—and
Hillary, Obama’s defense secretary, Leon Panetta; and the President himself know the answers. But, No one will say and she feels strongly that she has been lied to by the Administration. This Administration wants this to die a slow death—not have this and the other scandals stay in the news. Did the President and Hillary Clinton know the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack, or even the next morning —before the phony story about the video causing the attack was fed to the American public? Bill O’Reilly asked the President in the interview if Leon Panetta told him that night that it was a terrorist attack. Mr. Obama wouldn’t answer. Of course not. But, Bill suggested to Jason Chaffetz (R)) UT, when Chaffetz appeared on his show in the days following the big interview that they should put Leon Panetta on the stand under oath and ask him that question. Panetta holds the key—he knows when the President and the Administration was informed that the attack was indeed a terrorist attack. Mr. Obama certainly does not want Mr. Panetta to be put on the stand under oath in the congressional hearings.

Especially in the case of this scandal, they want it to die a slow death never to be talked about again.
The Administration gave the answer, just after the attack, that they wanted Americans and the families
of the victims to have, but—well, Fox News messed that up didn’t they. And——if those statements were allowed to just be without the truth coming out—the families of those victims of Benghazi like this poor mother of Navy Seal Sean Smith, would still be thinking, erroneously, that her son died in a spontaneous attack in answer to a video. Pathetic? I’ll say. In the interview on Super Bowl Sunday, the President was clearly uncomfortable being asked about Benghazi.

That is why Fox News overwhelmingly has higher ratings. The American people know they can get truthful answers and up-to-date-news—that Fox is looking out for them. Bill O’Reilly’s commitment to look out for the American people has served him—and them—well. The mother of Sean Smith knows that Fox will not drop the subject of Benghazi until satisfactory and truthful answers have been found.
Fox News seems to be her only hope and the hope of the families of the other victims, as well as all of
America in their search for the truth.

Then there is the IRS—and it’s targeting of conservative groups. This, too, is still under investigation. What is curious is that Mr. Obama said to Bill O’Reilly that there is not a “smidgeon” of corruption involved. Ha! The IRS has systematically targeted conservative groups—many are Tea Party groups as well other conservative groups who were applying for 501c3 and 501c4 status—asking them
inappropriate questions like their policy beliefs, what they pray for, what they read and listen to and a myriad of other non-essential questions to try to intimidate them and shut them down—before the election in 2012—try to shut them down so they could not do business before the 2012 election. If they can stall long enough without giving these groups the status for which they have applied, they
might keep them from operating and being active before the midterm elections. And—Lois Lerner is the person responsible for giving IRS employees at various offices directives to do the targeting. But what is more disturbing is that an attorney who is a maxed-out political donor of Obama is leading the investigation—rather than a special prosecutor.

Many conservative advocacy groups were shut down from operating during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. DOJ trial attorney, Barbara Bosserman is the one heading up the investigations. Her role as a donor during the Obama election campaigns and her closeness to the Obama camp makes her role in the investigations problematic and a clear conflict of interest. She donated a combined $6,750 to Mr.Obama’s campaigns and to the Democratic National Committee since 2004 with the largest chuncks coming during the last two election cycles. Of all of the lawyers they could have picked, they chose her. When the President answered the question posed by Bill O’Reilly during their interview, of the possibility of corruption, Mr. Obama answered very definitively that “not even a smidgen” of
corruption was involved. He was very sure of his answer as if he already knows something, various news analysts believe. As one said, “it was as if he was sending a signal to Ms. Bosserman. As has been stated, she has an interest in how she wants the IRS thing to play out. It seemed that Mr. Obama answered Bill’s question with a smirk. And Barbara Bosserman has an interest in how this plays out. Appointing her was a move, some believe—to try to “hush up” free speech.

On the healthcare bill, Bill asked him about the horrific, botched-up rollout of the bill—the website that was not working after the Administration spent over half a billion tax-payer dollars—only to have someone else brought in to fix it. When Bill asked about the people responsible being held accountable, the President said people are being held accountable. Bill asked him about Kathleen Sebilius being held accountable. Mr. O’Reilly said, “I am paying her salary and she screwed up …. and she is still there”. Mr. Obama replied that everyone would be held accountable—again, choosing to evade the question. The President said the website has been fixed. He added that they have signed up 3 million people, 6 million on Medicaid so far, which is not true. As Megyn Kelly of the Kelly File on Fox
pointed out, these aren’t new people being signed up. They already were on Medicaid and are just being re-enrolled. The Washington Post gave the President three Pinocchios for that bit of fabrication.

President Obama brought up an interesting little view into how he thinks. At the end of the interview, Bill, as he usually does on an interview like this (he did with Hillary Clinton in 2008), asked the President if he was treated fairly. Mr. Obama answered “no”. Big surprise. Bill then tried to get him to tell him “how he wasn’t treated fairly”. Mr. Obama kept cutting in, not wanting to tell him—it’s more like he couldn’t think of “how” he wasn’t treated fairly. Bill explained to him that he wants to know if someone being interviewed thinks he was not treated fairly and why he or she thinks so. As, he
explained, it is not his intention to treat anyone unfairly, but to extract pertinent information. No
answer. Earlier when asked about the healthcare debacle the President mentioned that Bill had a whole list of mistakes he had made in his administration. No—they are all things to which the American people would like to have answers, and all are still unresolved to the satisfaction of the various victims and the American voters.

Well—it probably goes back to the thinking of the liberal media, the liberal public, and; yes, even the President, if Bill O’Reilly, as well as Conservatives in the news and in general treat him differently. Geraldo put it in the context that we hadn’t thought of before. We have attempted to strip him of hisroyalty—treated him differently—after all, he is our nation’s first African American President.

But, the fact is, he is not royalty and this is not a monarchy. The United States of America is a Republic,
and he is the President of all of us. Unlike royalty—unlike monarchs—kings and queens, our President is
elected—hired by The American people—the voters.

That makes him a public servant doesn’t it?

2014 Midterm Elections

February 17, 2014

 2014 MIDTERM ELECTIONS—A RETURN TO HOPE AND CHANGE?

In November, 2014, the midterm elections will take place for key seats in the U. S. Senate and the U. S. House of Representatives.  The liberal media is out in full force.  Not that they were ever “not out”.  But each day they sniff out all of the slightest tidbits that they can slant into the most ridiculous and damaging talking points to use against Conservatives.

 The Democrats in congress are nervous—downright terrified.  So much so that they don’t have the slightest bit of confidence in their party’s ability to get across the finish line on Election Day in November.  Well, they have no viable talking points—no meaningful accomplishments. As Megyn Kelly, host of the popular news program, The Kelly File on Fox News, recently said about the Democrats, “there is some serious hand-wringing going on.”

 The mainstream liberal media always engages in dirty politics on the most despicable level.  TheObama Administration has lied to the American people about every issue that has come up in the past year and a half, some before that, and what would be known as Obamacare datingback to the 2008 presidential election campaigns.  And the mainstream liberal media will be with them every step of the way giving them cover for their transgressions and painting a rosy picture for them to use as their backdrop. When it comes to Conservatives the left engages in name calling, race baiting, demonizing the evil rich—just the ones who are Conservatives, making Republicans out to be uncaring toward the middle class, haters of gays and African Americans (even though we have several African Americans in our party some in the media, those who are contributors, those who have been past conservative candidates, and some lawmakers, and we love them all)—but they make no bones that they hate African Americans who are Conservatives), and  accuse us of waging a war on women (they also hate women who are Conservatives).

 But, this is one time when they wish and hope that the voters have a short memory.  They are hoping that the American electorate will forget and forgive.  They want all of the issues of the past year and a half and before, and the empty promises to just fade away, including the botched and disastrous roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, and just disappear from the consciousness of the American voters.  Their best talking point was going to be Obamacare, the President’s signature piece of legislation and the one which will define his presidency and on which his legacy will be based, but the administration screwed that up.

 Only the most arrogant politician on one hand and the most naïve voter on the otherwould really believe that the federal government could actually run something as vast and complicated as the American healthcare system—something that impacts approximatelyone-sixth of the U. S. economy.  And the IRS no less.  Really?  Even though Obamacare was very unpopular with the majority of the electorate, there were still many Americans–Democrats, who actually believed the federal government and, well, the IRS could do it. They re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012 didn’t they? Even after all of the negative things–real issues regarding the healthcare bill were brought up over and over and over by Republicans—professionals, including, lawmakers, news contributors, healthcare experts and physicians from nearly every branch of medicine.  Even more dumbfounding is that there are actually some Americans who would trust the federal government and the IRS with such an important part of their lives and the lives of their families as their health and healthcare.  But, then again, they were high on the Kool-Aid.  So were the Democrats who voted for the bill.  But, Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Biden are the real experts, now, aren’t they.

 There are the other scandals that promise to haunt their re-election efforts.  There is Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Eric Holder-led campaign to snoop into the phone and e-mail records of high-profile people like those in key positions at FOX News and even James Rosen, FOX’s chief Washington correspondent. There is the economy (with its dismal job  numbers) entitlements and income inequality.  Do they want to talk about those issues? Heavens no.

 Healthcare is the only notable piece of key legislation on which the Obama administration has bragging rights to date.  Do the democrats want to engage in lengthy discussions about that debacle on the campaign trail?  Hardly.  It is still a hot topic dominating the news. The questions still keep coming with more bad news as recently as this week.  It was brought up, along with other issues like the Benghazi scandal and entitlements by Bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly Factor in his pre-game exclusive interview with the President before the Super Bowl game on Sunday, February 2.  Mr. Obama, as with the other topics of discussion, bristled when asked about the ill-fated rollout of the healthcare bill and the chief website overseer, who has come under fire for the screw-up, but has yet to be held accountable, Health and Human Services Secretary,  Kathleen Sebelius.

 So all of these issues are still hanging like a dark cloud over the administration. The fact that Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the administration and these issues, still being highlighted in the news as recently as this week is very telling.  Yes, they’re scared.

 The Democrats running in key races wish that the nightmare of all of the scandals (phony as Mr. Obama has referred to them) would go away in a hurry and the Affordable Care Act with its botched rollout and sign-up would magically smooth itself out and become the dream come true that they promised it would be.

 The Democrats on Capitol Hill and the American people who were affected by the monster known as Obamacare watched in horror as the lies began to come out last fall, and have just kept coming with lies on top of lies.  Mr. Obama even received four Pinocchios from the Washington Post—not exactly a conservative newspaper, and the honor of “lie of the year” for his campaign promise that “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period”. Even though it is clearly on tape and that clip played dozens of times—over and over and over on the news, he then lied about lying, as if the American people don’t watch or listen to the news (unfortunately many don’t). He insulted their intelligence by thinking they are ignorant.  It incensed the vulnerable people who lost their insurance and probably their doctor with it.  Oh, but then they then were told by many democrat talking heads that they could keep their insurance and their doctor if they wanted to pay for them. Yeah, only twice or three times as much—if they could get them back.

 As he was busy lying and trying to deny that he made those comments, those same Democrats who supported the bill without even a lone republican vote– as Nancy Pelosi proudly and arrogantly announced, as it was being voted on back in 2010, that they didn’t need votes or input from republican lawmakers—this  was their baby.  Yeah, and now most who voted on it wish it wasn’t, as it threatens to unravel their political careers.  It has become all too clear that Mr. Obama used them for his “front-men”, so that the bill would pass and he could use the bill as his shining achievement to get re-elected by his adoring voters in November 2012.  And he did.  But—that’s what they get for not reading the bill—and they were warned about that, too. They followed along behind their beloved President, Mrs. Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Bidento the edge of the cliff.

 They can’t talk intelligently and honestly to the American people and voters in their various voting blocs, so in order to rev up their base they just resort to trash talk and name calling, along with the liberal media, the NAACP, the Black Congressional Caucus, and a few other notables who are carrying their water. That’s easier and they don’t have to present any reinforcing facts.  Just lie.  Actually, with much of their voting bloc, all they need to do is start  talking and bloviating, as Bill O’Reilly calls it.  They don’t need facts, just engage in negative talk and bad mouthing and blaming FOX News and Republicans.  They just use charges of uncaring greed, racism and bigotry to get their voters to drink the Kool-Aid.  It would just complicate the lives of those individuals if they started giving facts and figures.  Large chunks of their Democrat voters don’t know what is true and what isn’t or even understand most of it and don’t really care.  Most aren’t that informed so they can get away with keeping the same game plan they have used all along.  Oh, and that includes their Hollywood groupies who are radical liberals. They’re just rich, not informed.  Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 Now, the intelligent voters in their party—that’s a different story.  No one knows why they drink the Kool-Aid, or don’t look for other outlets to watch, listen to or read to compare the madness, lies and downright ridiculous stuff they get on far left liberal outlets such as MSNBC, the New York Times, the Daily Kos, Media Matters and others.   But, of course they buy into all the garbage they watch and listen to in the mainstream liberal media, so their thinking is influenced by the information they digest—no matter how inaccurate.

 The fact is—this year is going to heat up as the midterm elections for important seats in Congress is just ten months away.  The Democrat party will be engaging in every strategy to hold on to the important seats that the republicans are looking to replace, and it promises to get nasty.  Some of the Senate Democrats are fighting for their seats to prevent becoming unemployed, and many hold seats in red states or red districts within blue states.

 Vulnerable Democrats and gain some much needed seats in the senate, and hold onto the seats they already occupy there. And they must keep the seats they currently hold in the House in order to give them a majority and gain control of Congress.  This is huge when it comes to voting on key issues.  Although Republicans currently enjoy a majority in the House they still must hang onto the seats they have, and, ideally, pick up a couple more.

 But the Senate Democrats are the ones really panicked now because if enough of them are defeated and replaced with Republicans, that would give Republicans control over both sides of the legislative branch. And—the Democrats would not be able to block legislation that Republicans bring up for a vote. At the moment, the Republicans control the House and the Democrats control the Senate—and—the two parties are so ideologically different that nothing really gets accomplished.  They are particularly opposed on issues such as the economy and the budget, and entitlements. The Democrats want to just keep on spending. Should the Republicans prevail in November the Obama presidency would become a lame duck administration for the remainder of his second term.  The President would serve out the rest of his administration without being able to get another major piece of legislation passed, unless he is willing to work with Republicans.  He is not like President Clinton, who, after the 1994 midterm elections was faced with a Republican controlled Congress , with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, he was willing to move to the center and work with Republicans, on the advice of Dick Morris, who at the time served as an advisor to Mr. Clinton.  President Clinton did take a more moderate position, and he did so very successfully. He re-invented himself, and it proved to be favorable for him.  He went on to win a second term with very favorable poll numbers.   President Obama is far different and will not budge one iota from his radical liberal ideology.  Bill Clinton was not a far-left liberal ideologue. Of course, Republicans haven’t won yet and they need to be very smart between now and Election Day next November.

 All of this—a nightmare for Democrats and new opportunities for Republicans was madepossible by the nightmare that is Obamacare.  If Republicans were to gain control of the entire Congress, large questions would arise in regards to the future of the Affordable Care Act. The hideous debacle with the roll-out last fall—the failure of the website which took a half billion dollars to build with disastrous results, coupled with millions of Americans—about six million to date, being kicked off their insurance.  That sad truth has affected  many for whom their insurance was critical—people with serious illnesses—without the bright prospect of replacing their insurance with policies as good as those they had and keeping their same doctors—without paying much higher premiums and deductibles.  It is still unclear just how many Americans lost their insurance as many policies were family policies that covered more than one individual.

 As the American people were beginning to realize they were lied to—by President Obama and his top acolytes, i.e. Mrs. Pelosi, Vice President Joe Biden, and Harry Reid, it dawned on House and Senate Democrats that they were also lied to.  But they supported and voted for the bill without reading it, and they kept singing the lie to their constituents in their districts and gave them a song and dance on a bill that they really knew nothing about.  They didn’t read the bill—didn’t read the bill—a bill that would affect not only a sixth of the American economy, but one which would impact  one of the most important areas of the lives of the American people—their health and health insurance.  This is a bill that affects every American in a very personal way—their ability to literally stay alive in some cases, and for all the ability to stay healthy and be pro-active about their health and that of their families–confident that they can  seek the best medical care available as more serious health issues arise as they age.  Many have long-term, intimate relationships built over time with their doctors who know them and their medical history.

 Of course when we talk about “reading the bill” one has to keep in mind that the bill isapproximately 2,400 pages long with about 700 pages of regulations.  Does anyone really think that all of those people voting on the bill would really read that many pages –would take the time, if they had the time, and even if they read it would remember or understand everything they read?  But the fact is the American people weren’t able to see it so someone should have been knowledgeable about what is in it.

 It is likely that insurance through the Affordable Care Act may limit treatments doctors cannow recommend to their patients and dictate when they can be performed as they once were able to do.  Treatments patients might be able to get may not be performed on a timely basis. They will probably entail a waiting period.  That can be devastating for some health issues.

 The shell-shocked Senate Democrats, about thirty-nine of them watched in disbelief as the roll-out began, and day after day the fallout and horror stories just kept coming as the days stretched into weeks, and now months with no answers. Democrat news contributors and talking heads as well as democrat lawmakers tried their own brand of damage control, making the ugly realities worse, and– the panic continues to grow.

 Those Democrats along with the suffering public realized that they had been used as political pawns by the Obama administration to meet their own political ends.  Those Democrats have realized that they have been made into the fools that they are.   The American people are livid and horrified. Anger hardly describes their feeling of being used and betrayed.  The insurance companies were made into scapegoats—it was their fault millions were left with no insurance.  And those policies didn’t meet the government standards, and Obamacare would be much better and cheaper.  Those people will be much better off.  The government knows best what we need. Never mind that the victims were perfectly happy with what they had at what they could afford.  Meanwhile those angry and betrayed victims were left on their own with the grim prospect of having to try to get other insurance, policies possibly with limitations, with much higher premiums and huge deductibles. 

 Many people have opined that if it is such great insurance why isn’t all of Congress required to have it.  One victim said on the news, “if I’m required to have this stuff, I think all of them (Congress) should have to get on it”.  And “if they want to furnish insurance for America, fine—then why not make it optional?  Why force it on everyone.”  Part of the answer to that is because they need to have all of the healthy, younger people help cover the cost for those who can’t afford it including those people who are sick and don’t currently have insurance.  You know—redistribution of wealth.  Social justice.

 The fact is those Democrats supported the bill rather than looking out for their constituents and a population of people who, in this case, were at their mercy.  With the inability to now solve the problem—those people can’t get back their same insurance and keep their doctors at thesame price—even if they could have it re-instated.  They feel betrayed by their representatives whose job it is to take care of them first—not put politics and their agenda and what’s good for them ahead of the well- being and desires of their constituents, who hired them in the first place—to represent them.

 But what they can do, is vote those Democrats out of office.  Remember, there is power in numbers.  The electorate in their districts can make them pay.  The voters can’t do a lot about the fate that has already befallen millions of Americans, but they can prevent those representatives from making another decision on their behalf, from holding that kind of power over Americans.  After all, the people were lied to, and had their lives and well-being and that of their families turned up-side-down. That is why they are all angry.  That is where it does not matter if they are Democrats or Republicans. 

 Now because of the healthcare debacle highlighted by all of the other scandals (phony scandals—as the President called them) coupled with Obama’s low approval ratings has Democrats panicked—Democrats like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who will face tough re-election racesin the midterm elections in November, attempting to do damage control and distance themselves from the White House as they start their campaigns.  

 In a recent campaign ad Mary Landrieu reminded her constituents that she has come out and said that Mr. Obama should honor his promise to the American people that they could keep their health insurance and their doctors. Even the darling of the Democrats, Bill Clinton tried to use his gift of persuasion by saying that the President “should honor the promise he made to those people”.   But all of those Democrats supported the bill in the beginning, even as Republicans were screaming that the bill  would create a nightmare for the American people and would not work–would not do what team Obama said it would do to make the lives of Americans wonderful—better health insurance at a much lower cost.  They supported the bill without question as team Obama kept giving them the Kool-Aid.

 Democrats have every reason to be concerned.  New numbers just came out on Tuesday of this week by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) an independent non-partisan agency, that Obamacare will be worse for the economy than was originally thought.  The latest CBO report projects that approximately 2.3 million jobs will be lost over ten years because of Obamacare.  The Affordable Care Act will cost about $1 trillion over the next decade.   It will add a trillion dollars to the debt.  Many employers will not hire new employees and many will convert full- time jobs to part-time jobs, and just hire part-time employees. And what is shocking is the CBO’s assessment that many of the people—low wage earners who are currently working full-time may just decide to go part-time and receive subsidies provided by the government and paid for by hard-working Americans.  It will, they said be a disincentive to work. Yes, in other words the American tax-payers footing the bill for people who are paid not to work. That, the                         experts say, would be potentially devastating to the economy—money the country cannot afford.  Government just keeps on spending, and spending, and spending and adding debt, and more debt, and more debt. With this latest news the administration and the Democrats experienced another big blow.

It is socialized medicine and the beginning of income redistribution.  It is the first step in Barak Obama’s campaign promise that he would fundamentally transform America.  It is another big step in the government’s attempt to control the lives of Americans—the opposite of the vision the Founding Fathers had for America, when they wrote the Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights with the intent to protect its people from government overreach, the unbridled attempt to gain power over the American people, diminish their choices, and its intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

 Remember what Nancy Pelosi said just as the bill was being passed in 2010—“we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”.  Scary?  That should have told the American people as well as all of those Democrats all they needed to know.