3 reasons why you must vote against every democratic candidate that supported Obama

 three reasons facebook

3 reasons why you must vote against every democratic candidate that supported Obama

Reason 1:  Obama and his policies is the Ebola virus to American liberty:  For America to survive, Obama’s policies must be utterly repudiated.   Like a killer frost, Obama has damaged everything he has touched.   He meant to hurt us.  His policies are designed to do keep doing damage long after he is gone.

With malice and forethought he shamed us abroad, divided us at home and, as no one before him, cast a shroud over the nation’s future.  The proof that his platform is wholly destructive is this fact: any city or state that has fully implemented his agenda has watched poverty, crime, and addiction skyrocket.

America will simply not survive the train wreck tomfoolery of this administration.  It all has to go.

Reason 2:   When they say they are not like Obama, they are being just like Obama.   When they say they are different than Obama it is another reason to oust them.   When they are lying, denying, deflecting and insulting our intelligence by asking for another chance they are being the quintessential Obama.

No one in the Democratic Party has apologized for their crimes against freedom, morality, and prosperity.  No one rose up and opposed the madness.  This means that they still don’t get it.  You simply cannot vote for anyone who had a hand in this devastation or is a threat to continue the devastation. 

obamaaloof

 

Reason 3:  This is probably your last chance to demonstrate your Christianity in an election:  Liberty is on the ropes.  Government has seized control of almost everything.  Operatives within the Democratic Party want to keep power no matter what they have to do to keep it.   Stop the tyranny now or they will think that they can do anything they want.

It is disgusting that Pastors voted and campaigned for Obama in two elections!  This is your chance to repent and do the right thing for the nation and your congregation.  It is likely your last chance.

For minority Christians that voted for Obama for cell phones, government assistance or to legalize relatives I have a simple question… what will you do when the money is gone, the law is useless and America is worse than the nation they escaped?

For the lukewarm Christian who would rather remain silent I have a question:   If you don’t have the courage to speak out now… how will you find the courage to live under persecution?

Never have the stakes been higher.  Never has the choice been clearer.  Silence is not an option.   Get mad, get informed and get going.  Vote them out.

Ex-CBS reporter reveals how liberal media protects Obama

 CBS THIS MORNING

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “God—-mit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”

That was when Sharyl was being nice.

Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.

‘Not until the stock split’

Calling herself “politically agnostic,” Attkisson, a five-time Emmy winner, says she simply follows the story, and the money, wherever it leads her.

In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.

Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).

OFTEN [NETWORK EXECUTIVES] DREAM UP STORIES BEFOREHAND AND TURN THE REPORTERS INTO “CASTING AGENTS”

Meanwhile, she notes, “CBS This Morning” is airing blatant advertorials such as a three-minute segment pushing TGI Fridays’ all-you-can-eat appetizer promotion or four minutes plugging a Doritos taco shell sold at Taco Bell.

Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’ ” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”

‘Let’s not pile on’

Attkisson mischievously cites what she calls the “Substitution Game”: She likes to imagine how a story about today’s administration would have been handled if it made Republicans look bad.

In green energy, for instance: “Imagine a parallel scenario in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally appeared at groundbreakings for, and used billions of tax dollars to support, multiple giant corporate ventures whose investors were sometimes major campaign bundlers, only to have one (or two, or three) go bankrupt . . . when they knew in advance the companies’ credit ratings were junk.”

Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.

ONE OF HER BOSSES HAD A RULE THAT CONSERVATIVE ANALYSTS MUST ALWAYS BE LABELED CONSERVATIVES, BUT LIBERAL ANALYSTS WERE SIMPLY “ANALYSTS.”

“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”

One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”

In mid-October 2012, with the presidential election coming up, Attkisson says CBS suddenly lost interest in airing her reporting on the Benghazi attacks. “The light switch turns off,” she writes. “Most of my Benghazi stories from that point on would be reported not on television, but on the Web.”

Two expressions that became especially popular with CBS News brass, she says, were “incremental” and “piling on.” These are code for “excuses for stories they really don’t want, even as we observe that developments on stories they like are aired in the tiniest of increments.”

Hey, kids, we found two more Americans who say they like their ObamaCare! Let’s do a lengthy segment.

Friends in high places

When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.

The administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned “Benghazi” into a word associated with nutters, like “Roswell” or “grassy knoll,” but Attkisson notes that “the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”

Similarly, though the major media can’t mention the Fast and Furious scandal without a world-weary eyeroll, Attkisson points out that the story led to the resignation of a US attorney and the head of the ATF and led President Obama to invoke for the first time “executive privilege” to stanch the flow of damaging information.

Attkisson, who received an Emmy and the Edward R. Murrow award for her trailblazing work on the story, says she made top CBS brass “incensed” when she appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show and mentioned that Obama administration officials called her up to literally scream at her while she was working the story.

One angry CBS exec called to tell Attkisson that Ingraham is “extremely, extremely far right” and that Attkisson shouldn’t appear on her show anymore. Attkisson was puzzled, noting that CBS reporters aren’t barred from appearing on lefty MSNBC shows.

She was turning up leads tying the Fast and Furious scandal (which involved so many guns that ATF officials initially worried that a firearm used in the Tucson shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords might have been one of them) to an ever-expanding network of cases when she got an e-mail from Katie Couric asking if it was OK for Couric to interview Eric Holder, whom Couric knew socially, about the scandal. Sure, replied Attkisson.

No interview with Holder aired but “after that weekend e-mail exchange, nothing is the same at work,” Attkisson writes. “The Evening News” began killing her stories on Fast and Furious, with one producer telling Attkisson, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”

Readers are left to wonder whether Holder told Couric to stand down on the story.

No investigations

Attkisson left CBS News in frustration earlier this year. In the book she cites the complete loss of interest in investigative stories at “CBS Evening News” under new host Scott Pelley and new executive producer Shevlin.

She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.

When Attkisson had an exclusive, on-camera interview lined up with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the YouTube filmmaker Hillary Clinton blamed for the Benghazi attacks, CBS News president Rhodes nixed the idea: “That’s kind of old news, isn’t it?” he said.

ATTKISSON IS A BORN WHISTLEBLOWER, BUT CBS LOST INTEREST IN THE NOISE SHE WAS MAKING.

Sensing the political waters had become too treacherous, Attkisson did what she thought was an easy sell on a school-lunch fraud story that “CBS This Morning” “enthusiastically accepted,” she says, and was racing to get on air, when suddenly “the light switch went off . . . we couldn’t figure out what they saw as a political angle to this story.”

The story had nothing to do with Michelle Obama, but Attkisson figures that the first lady’s association with school lunches, and/or her friendship with “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King, might have had something to do with execs now telling her the story “wasn’t interesting to their audience, after all.”

A story on waste at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, planned for the CBS Weekend News, was watered down and turned into a “bland non-story” before airing: An exec she doesn’t identify who was Shevlin’s “number two,” she says, “reacted as if the story had disparaged his best friend. As if his best friend were Mr. Federal Government. ‘Well, this is all the states’ fault!’ . . . he sputtered.”

Meanwhile, she says, though no one confronted her directly, a “whisper campaign” began; “If I offered a story on pretty much any legitimate controversy involving government, instead of being considered a good journalistic watchdog, I was anti-Obama.”

Yet it was Attkisson who broke the story that the Bush administration had once run a gun-walking program similar to Fast and Furious, called Wide Receiver. She did dozens of tough-minded stories on Bush’s FDA, the TARP program and contractors such as Halliburton. She once inspired a seven-minute segment on “The Rachel Maddow Show” with her reporting on the suspicious charity of a Republican congressman, Steve Buyer.

Attkisson is a born whistleblower, but CBS lost interest in the noise she was making.

‘They’ll sacrifice you’

Ignoring Attkisson proved damaging to CBS in other ways. When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”

Asked to do a followup story on the documents, she flatly refused, citing an ethics clause in her contract. “And if you make me, I’ll have to call my lawyer,” she said. “Nobody ever said another word” to her about reporting on the documents, which turned out to be unverifiable and probably fake.

After Pelley and Shevlin aired a report that wrongly tarnished reports by Attkisson (and Jonathan Karl of ABC News) on how the administration scrubbed its talking points of references to terrorism after Benghazi, and did so without mentioning that the author of some of the talking points, Ben Rhodes, was the brother of the president of CBS News, she says a colleague told her, “[CBS] is selling you down the river. They’ll gladly sacrifice your reputation to save their own. If you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody will.”

After reading the book, you won’t question whether CBS News or Attkisson is more trustworthy.

Benghazi: Our litmus test to see if we deserve to remain a free nation.

infamy copy

A few weeks ago Obama gave a graduation speech in which he told students that the idea that their government would be guilty of tyranny was absurd and that they had no reason to fear their government.   Now, he has given all us of the proof that we need that he acted with tyranny in sacrificing 4 Americans in Benghazi in order to protect his reelection.  The first question you must ask yourself is this…”what else is he willing to do to protect his power?”

He has vilified gun rights as we know them and has now become a poster child for why we need the Second Amendment.  He has shown us that in all prudence we must use our remaining rights to protect ourselves from him.

Jay Carney said that “Benghazi was a long time ago.”  Imagine how that sounded to the four families who lost loved ones in that embassy inferno?   He said that an independent council had reviewed the events in Benghazi and given them a clean bill of health.  The problem is they never spoke to the ranking diplomat in Benghazi who was most aware of all of the events.

Where was Obama during those eight hours of attack?  Why were rescuers told to stand down?  How could they blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video for two weeks after they had proof it had nothing to do with the terrorist attack?  How could they threaten and excoriate those brave leaders who tried to talk to congress?

CIA blog

Hillary Clinton is equally guilty of lying and covering up the truth.  She is not fit to lead this nation and has given us fair warning that her presidency would be more of the same cronyism, duplicity, arrogance and incompetence of the current administration.   

AIR FORCE GENERAL CRITICIZES LACK OF MILITARY RESPONSE TO BENGHAZI ATTACK

Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified today that the military should have done more to try to help the Americans who were under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. At the time of the attack, Lovell was the deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command.

Lovell told the House Oversight Committee:

Many with firsthand knowledge have recounted the heroism displayed by the brave Americans in Benghazi that night. They fought the way they trained. That is in the record.

Outside of Libya there were discussions that churned on about what we should do. These elements also fought the way they were trained. Specifically, the predisposition to interagency influence had the military structure—in the spirit of expeditionary government support—waiting for a request for assistance from the State Department.

There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference. Well, the discussion is not in the “could or could not” in relation to time, space and capability—the point is we should have tried. As another saying goes: “Always move to the sound of the guns.”

It is with a sense of duty as a retired General officer that I respectfully submit these thoughts and perspectives.

There seems, then, to be no getting around the fact that Hillary Clinton and/or President Obama failed to respond properly to a deadly attack in which four Americans were killed. Either they were grossly incompetent or criminally cynical. In the interest of accountability, we should find out which was the case.

happen

Your blood should be boiling over Benghazi.  If it is not, then you are probably the victim of the other heinous villain of Benghazi: The American Media.  Their breathtaking betrayal will also live in infamy.  How can the Washington Press Corps live with their cowardice and compromise?

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

How is it possible for them to lay claim to the noble profession that tediously and relentlessly tracked down the crimes of Watergate when they are acting like belching lap dogs for Obama.  They refuse to face facts; they refuse to ask the hard questions.  They will do whatever they have to do to insulate a man that has shown nothing but contempt for them!

What makes you want to pull your hair out is that we do not know why.  Why Obama is allowed a pass for these crimes?  Now is the time for a groundswell of outrage from the general public!

 

dietrich-bonhoffer


protesting evil

You and I can no longer say that we did not know what this president did with our rights.  We cannot say Obama kept it from us. Benghazi is our national litmus test to see if we deserve to remain a free nation.  If we fail to find the rage, the love of liberty and the clear sense of how wrong Benghazi is, then we declaring ourselves unworthy of freedom.

I am first and last a man of Faith who believes in a loving God who is all powerful.  It is in this faith that I make this declaration: God has His vessels out there and it is time for them to roar.

Why Rush Limbaugh Agrees That the GOP Establishment Wants the IRS to Go After the Tea Party

Why Rush Limbaugh Agrees That the GOP Establishment Wants the IRS to Go After the Tea Party

Feb. 17, 2014 7:45pm

Agreeing with a theory put forth by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Monday that the GOP establishment has failed to push for a higher-level investigation into the IRS because they want the tax agency to “go after the Tea Party.”

“When you have 71% who want an investigation, 64% who believe it is a sign of corruption including nearly a majority of Democrats, the reason is the establishment Republicans want the IRS to go after the Tea Party,” Limbaugh said.

The Tea Party represents an “outside threat to their power hold,” he explained.

Limbaugh went even further, theorizing that the GOP might even be willing to lose elections in order to get rid of the Tea Party.

“That’s why there hasn’t been any establishment Republican pushback on the IRS,” he added. “It’s almost safe to say the Republican establishment might be willing to lose a couple of elections if it meant getting rid of the Tea Party; because it’s clear, folks, they don’t want to win any elections the Tea Party can claim any credit for.”

Listen to the segment via the Daily Rushbo here: