I've written several posts on Benghazi here, here, here, here, here and here. Or you can merely search "Benghazi" in the site search box. Now we have another major scandal brewing out of the Regime in the White House.

Obama claims there is no war on terror but it could be said US citizens are fighting a war on terror against themselves. A majority of US citizens don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants, the government is fighting to offer that and much more. And now we find out private, non-profit organizations are being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on terms such as Tea Party, Patriots, Conservative and so on.

Nice, George Orwell's "1984" is alive and well while residing in the United States of America. The "Smoking Man" in the TV series "X-Files" had an inscription on his Zippo Lighter - "Trust No One" and it's so very true of the US government.

When the government want's a story to fly under the radar they dump the news on a Friday. However, when you say the IRS is SPYING on specific groups it's hard to keep it quiet for long. Some are saying this was done to divert all the Benghazi hearing discussion. I don't believe it worked.

On Friday IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner disclosed that the agency had flagged groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" to have their tax returns inspected, presumably with an eye on the legality of their tax exemption. Ms. Lerner called this "inappropriate," which it certainly was, and she said it wasn't done "out of any political bias." If you believe that last statement I have nice swamp land for sale in the Arizona desert. I'll give you a special, one time deal.

A very big problem with the admission is that IRS representatives previously denied that anything was murky before the 2012 election.

During a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing in March 2012, Commissioner Douglas Shulman insisted that "There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" if they want to get tax-exempt status.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a theory:

"There’s no doubt this was not a coincidence that they dumped this story today, a Friday dump day. This is when they put their negative stories out.

I was in that Benghazi hearing,” she told WND. “I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t. I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.”

“Conservatives can handle two shocking stories at the same time,” she said. “Both are equally unconstitutional and call into question the very president.”

Bachmann's theory is this would merely appear as one more dispute between Republicans and the White House.

At the Wall Street Journal it seems they're not buying the story and apology as an accident.

Ms. Lerner's apology on Friday was unexpected but we're doubtful that it came as a sudden bolt of conscience. The mea culpa lands ahead of an official report on the tax-fishing incidents by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. That report was requested by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa and Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan in June 2012, and the IG is expected to issue its findings soon.

The incident is particularly rich in light of recent efforts by campaign finance reformers to broaden the powers of the IRS and other non-expert agencies to regulate politics, especially nonprofits. The latest campaign finance disclosure bill sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), would force trade organizations and 527 and 501(c) groups to disclose their donors, institute real-time reporting requirements and impose draconian penalties for noncompliance.

The bill modifies the tax code to cover political nonprofits, so it also hands more power to regulate politics to the IRS. The bill is a terrible idea on its face, but after Ms. Lerner's disclosure it looks positively dangerous.

This so-called "apology" cannot be taken lightly. The IRS taxing power, when utilized for political purposes, infringes on the contract the American people have with government. It is an outright violation of that contract.

And what is that "contract?" It's the United States Constitution. Obama and his ilk have worked well beyond overtime to shred it at its core.

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has written a blockbuster and damaging article on the Benghazi talking points, how they were drafted and changed. The lies go all the way to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

Read the full story, share it, help it go viral. Call your Congressional Representative and Senator and demand all emails connected with the Benghazi, Libya consulate attacks are released.

The Benghazi Talking Points

And how they were changed to obscure the truth

I recently opined on how Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has turned on the Tea Party and grassroots voters who trusted him to be more Conservative than not.

Next, Ryan stated that he's in favor of an Internet Sales Tax which I went over in detail here before the Wisconsin representative chimed in himself.

Now I find some not so well advertised information that the House Budget Committee Chairman met with White House chief of staff Denis McDonoughat at Brasserie Beck, a Belgian restaurant that serves over 100 beers, on how they could find possible avenues to reaching a budget deal.

Remember when Speaker Boehner (R-OH) had secret meetings with Barack Obama, selling out the country and nearly his Speakershiip?

“He’s a Minnesota Irish Catholic guy, and I’m a Wisconsin Irish Catholic guy,” Ryan told Time magazine. “It quickly dawned on me that we can work together.”

One unnamed commenter at The Hill lamented:

“What difference at this point does it make?”

Right-Wing Conspiracy was a phrase coined by Hillary Clinton, former FLOTUS and Secretary of State who failed to report for duty when the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya came under terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. The initial "Right-Wing Conspiracy" came from Ms. Clinton when she accused Republicans of "targeting" her husband over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Bubba was impeached in the House but the cowards in the Senate took a pass while also giving one to the Liar-in-Chief.

In her own testimony before Congress in January before leaving office, Clinton was evasive, famously shouting at Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), "What difference does it make?"

After months GOP members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be holding new hearings and this time it is said they will be "explosive" with eyewitnesses to the attack will be testifying.

Once again the big question, still unanswered because of the Obama administration coverup will be, "Who knew what, and when did they know it.? The MSM is complicit in the coverup. The agenda this time is to protect Hillary Clinton at all costs.

The Benghazi attacks came close to the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and the investigation and hearings were on the heals of her departure. Her legacy is at stake but her future in politics could be permanently damaged. One could only hope.

One witness in particular, Mark I. Thompson, is expected to provide information that is highly damaging to Clinton. Thompson is a former Marine and the current deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counter terrorism bureau. A second official at State has corroborated Thompson's statements:

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night."

Thompson's attorney has stated:

"...his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress."

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State.

This coverup, known as changing talking points in some circles, does not stop at State or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is not off the hook, he and his administration are at the center of this mass undermining of National Security and the deaths of an Ambassador and other members of the diplomatic corps.

Well, well, do the numbers lie? Just in, the Government Accountability Office (GAI), considered bi-partisan, is claiming that Golfer-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama is on the links more than twice as much as he spends on the US economy. Imagine that!

BHO vacationing and golfing - 976 hours, BHO in meetings concerning the economy - 474.4 hours.

As a percentage of total hours Obama has put forth a measly 3.6% of his time towards economic matters. In 2009, Obama spent 187.2 hours in economic meetings; in 2010, 127.8 hours; in 2011, 73 hours; in 2012, 80.4 hours.

In their report, “Presidential Calendar: A Time-Based Analysis,” GAI used the official White House calendar. However, these figures may very well be understated.

Obama told CBS news that playing golf is “the only time that for six hours, I'm outside." GAI used four hours in their calculation. It's not surprising Obama would need extra time to golf, even with a motor cart, by looking at his swing. GAI used six hours when calculating a vacation day, but Obama tends to hit the links during his vacation time too.

GAI notes “Obama meets with Cabinet secretaries” and “Obama has lunch with four CEOs” counted as economic meetings.

Some things in Obama's life are consistent. GAI’s new report dovetails with its presidential calendar analysis last July that found Obama devotes little time to economic meetings.

GAI President Peter Schweizer said he would let the conclusions to the analysis up to others, GAI is merely the messenger.

“People understand that presidents have the most stressful job in the world and need a break from time to time,” said Schweizer. “There will be some who will be encouraged by the numbers and some who will wish the president spent more time in economic meetings. As a government watchdog group, we just tabulate the numbers and let others decide how to interpret them.”

I'm glad to oblige Mr. Schweizer. The economy is in the tank, I don't see a real recovery happening, legislation for gun control and immigration is a waste of time, goes against the 2nd Amendment and offers amnesty in that order and Obama is running around the country fund raising and campaigning instead of getting down to business. His budget missed the legal deadline by weeks and it won't pass Congress even with Democrats voting in the majority.

And while the country is suffering, food stamp usage is up, welfare is up, unemployment is up Obama is partying with Hollywood types and the press who should be requiring some accountability of Obama not sipping champagne with him.

This past week I wrote about four Tea Party and Conservative favorites Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio here. I got blasted on social media by not Republicans but pure Lefties. Why? Because the four Republicans decided to hang out with Democrats on issues of immigration reform and gun control.

Let's expand on Marco Rubio and his poor choice to join the "Gang of 8" and their massive 844-page bill loaded with "reform" providing amnesty and benefits to law breaking illegal immigrants. Rubio took his nonsense to talk radio and Sunday talk shows but he got caught in a lie concerning his "talks" and "inclusion" with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. it was all bunk.

Here is a video Rubio argues why he didn't include ICE officials in the immigration talks. Rubio tells viewers that he met with ICE people including ICE union president Chris Crane. Problem with that meeting with Mr. Crane it was only hours before the 3 a.m. release of the bill. Nothing said at that meeting would ever find it's way into the legislation. Emphasis LCs.

“We did get input from ICE. I actually met with a gentleman named Chris Crane, he’s the president of the union for the ICE agents. We met for about an hour, an hour and a half."

"[Crane] raises very legitimate points," Rubio continued. "They actually have not as much to do with the bill as they do with the current administration. His frustration, and the frustration of many ICE agents, is that they’re not being allowed to enforce the law."

"They are being put under all sorts of constricts and their hands are being tied behind their back," Rubio explained, "that they can’t do their job to the point where they’re actually afraid to arrest people, they say, and that they’re afraid to put them away because they could get sued or something bad could happen to them. These are valid points that we’ve heard.”

Rubio also said he thinks the immigration reform bill, if passed into law, “is going to make it easier for them to do their job.” He said the bill would “allow ICE agents to focus on the bad guys, on the really bad people who are the ones we should be focused on and deport them.”

“So I think this is going to help them in the long term,” Rubio predicted. “We have taken their input, we continue to seek their input. And I have nothing but the highest respect for the men and women who are on the front lines of trying to enforce our laws even though sometimes the politicians get in the way.”

Politicians always have such "high regard" for the people on the "front lines" and they always spin the words into one big fat lie.

Mr. Crane had plenty to say about his "meeting" with Sen. Rubio. In fact, Mr. Crane wrote to Rubio the morning following their meeting asking for a delay in rolling out the bill.

As you know, and speaking on behalf of our nation’s ICE agents and officers, I believe there are many crucial measures missing from this legislation that must be resolved before it is introduced, Crane wrote.

I hope that can be delayed so that our officers and experts can provide real legislative input on the areas we discussed last night: the lack of ICE resources, how current ICE enforcement practices leave the nation open to tactics used by the 9/11 terrorists, DHS directives that release dangerous criminal aliens back into our communities; the need for biometric exit/entry, the administration’s dangerous abuse of prosecutorial discretion, our inability to make street arrests, the breakdown of enforcement in our jails, the disciplining of officers for doing their jobs – these are only some of the many crucial interior enforcement issues not addressed in this legislation.

Crane added that he believed the bill “would further hamstring the ability of our officers to protect the public,” and the “things that simply must be in this bill to help us protect lives” were just not in the bill.

At a press conference with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Mr. Crane had more to say about the "Gang of 8" immigration reform bill.

"Almost one month ago, we asked for a meeting with the Gang of Eight to discuss law enforcement concerns,” Crane said at the press conference, organized by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). “They told us they weren’t taking meetings but they were meeting all along with special interests and pro-amnesty groups."

"Finally, after public pressure grew, I got a late Monday night meeting with Sen. Rubio the day before this almost 1,000-page bill was introduced," Crane vented. "I raised my many public safety concerns and pleaded with him not to drop the bill until these public safety concerns with law enforcement were addressed."

"They dropped it anyway. This bill will put the public safety at risk without doubt. It fails on interior enforcement. It’s amnesty first, enforcement perhaps never.”

Mr. Crane provides the detail on how Rubio is a hypocrite and liar but then he showed up at the "Gang of 8" presser where they would rollout their amnesty canard.

Crane asked Sen. Schumer (D-NY) three times if he would take questions from law enforcement. Instead of answering the questions Capitol Hill police removed Mr. Crane from the premises while the Senators, including Rubio, stood idly by and watched.

However, featured leaders of the broad coalition of business, libertarian, ethnic and progressive groups that are backing the immigration deal were welcomed. Yes Progressive groups, code for Marxists.

Rubio is disingenuous, he and his handlers are spinning the immigration bill to show cooperation and a so-called bi-partisan effort while Democrats salivate and Rubio runs around interviewing and backing the legislation and lying to the groups around the country who have supported him and got him elected to office.

Is Marco Rubio a possible candidate for President in 2016? He's more of a tragic action figure working against the forces who backed him.

Spewing hate, vitriol and his own personal sewage, Leftist garbage and other rants

I have plenty of social sites set up for this site and my commercial ones including Google+ and Facebook. The banter back and forth is generally friendly because in most cases like minded people follow or "like" each other.

In addition, I'm fairly active at commenting on the many news sites that I read, designated by Disqus as a "Top Commentator" from my days at the Wall Street Journal site before I canceled my subscription.

Comment sections can have plenty of vitriol and what are termed as "trolls" or people at a fairly Conservative leaning site such as Breitbart News who get relatively vicious in their commenting. These "trolls" attack with anything that will get them past the filters or become quite inventive and use symbols in spelling vulgar phrases.

I wrote a piece about four Republicans that was not too kind accusing them of turning on their so-called Conservative credentials and relationships with Tea Party organizations. I thought this to be hypocritical and as a Conservative felt it was important to discuss. My posts also get posted at Google +, Facebook and Twitter where people can comment or not. I have guidelines on this site therefore comments are moderated and people generally decide its too much trouble so move on and that's ok.

My "Tea Party" post set one Lefty off at Google + and if I kept commenting back it would have been an exercise in feeding the monster so after one reply I ended it. When I post at a social site I write a short blurb and provide a link back to my article. I also do this for news articles I wish to share.

My blurb went like this:

Dancing with the Devil in the pale moonlight so-called Conservatives are finding themselves joining forces with Leftists and going against the Constitution.

The headline to the post and summary was:

Tea Party Traitors – Ryan, Rubio, Toomey, Paul »

Your head may spin uncontrollably at spin and reversal of positions from so-called Conservatives who put their politics over principle.

And I linked to my article which also had a picture of a tea cup in red, white and blue. Keep in mind, I don't belong to any Tea Party organization. It seems however that Mr. Kershaw was set off by either the words "Tea Party", the picture, but he did point out one phrase I wrote.

Naive, inexperienced, unknowledgeable (sic) morons using absurd phrases like "going against the Constitution" without the spine, courage or data to back up such a statement. Like white trash, low income, low IQ, anti American, anti Freedom Tea Party sympathizers know anything about the Constitution to begin with.

At this point I don't believe Kershaw read the full article he merely got ugly. His profile claims he went to Princeton University and he lives in NY, NY. His Google + posts aren't much to write home about but he did have three recent ones of pictures of himself. I suppose he's a major narcissist quite in love with himself.

I responded to the first comment:

You've got plenty of rancid terms in your comment but you merely display your own ignorance of matters. If you even began to read the full article, which you still probably couldn't begin to understand, your bigoted treatment of grassroots individuals precedes you.

Instead of any real substance added to the conversation you decided to display your true self by using flaming instead of intelligent conversation.

I for one know more about the Constitution than you could imagine, having not only read it many times but thoroughly studied it by way of Hillsdale College.

Furthermore, I used politicians who were glad to use the tea party movement in my article. I personally don't belong to any tea party organization and have never donated to one. I view them only as frustrated individuals who want a voice beyond their vote in the political process.

It seems to me that you saw the Tea Party picture and went mentally ballistic. If you wish to see one of the problems with society simply peer into a mirror.

Kershaw responded:

The article is rubbish... its from a radical, extremist point of view, from a discredulous, questionable source. Its clearly pushing an agenda.

Sorry, it takes more than some childish, insecure claim of "I know more than you" to give you credibility... however, your earlier comments clearly show the exact opposite. Even with whatever 2nd tier, 3rd rate college you attended (like that's supposed to impress or intimidate me... LOL... with your absurdity and obvious fragile, hyper emotional ego, I dont take you very seriously... you would break out in a sweat and utterly lose composure just sitting in the reception area of a boardroom, forget any real environment of pressure or debate)...

keep revealing your lack of experience and naivete with your silly, little, angry, presumptuous  middle aged, never accomplished anything bitterness on the web routine.... you're a cliche.

He didn't elaborate how the article was "radical" or "extremist" but I was challenging Republicans and nothing indicates Kershaw is right leaning politically. His first comment would substantiate that.

I didn't respond back, let sleeping idiots wallow in their own personal sewage.