According to the article linked to above there are more whistleblowers looking to come forward once they procure the proper legal counsel and one of them is set to testify that the United States government supplied the Libyan rebels with weapons including Stinger missiles. Once it became clear these rebels were actually part of al-Qaeda (something many of us suspected all along but apparently the Obama regime did not do its due diligence before supporting the rebels) the Obama regime sent Chris Stevens to Libya to buy back the weapons.

  But that isn’t all because the whistleblower is reportedly going to testify that the CIA (General David Petraeus) was dead set against sending these weapons to the rebels so it was the State Department which authorized the transfer of weapons because Hillary Clinton thought it was a cheap way to dispose of Qaddafi.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

  Rumors have been circulating for some time about the United States being involved in arms trafficking to the Libyan rebels and we might be about to learn that is indeed the case, and if this is the case there is no way that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had no knowledge of what was going on in light of the claim that the CIA recused themselves from this activity.

  But the story does not end there because it is also being reported that General Ham–who had people in place to come to the rescue in Benghazi–was ordered by the WHITE HOUSE to stand down. This is in direct contrast to Barack Obama’s claim that he ordered the use of all available resources to the scene to rescue Chris Stevens before he disappeared for the night to prepare for his campaign stop in Nevada the next day.

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

General Ham was set to disobey a direct order and was threatened with disciplinary action from the White House, General ham was eventually relievd of duty after the attack anyway. I guess we now know why General Petraeus and General Ham had to go in the eyes of the White House–they knew too much.

  Now the question is, why did the White House order the stand down order once things went bad with the plot to buy back weapons it had provided to al-Qaeda? (Weapons which might actually have been used to carry out the attack.) Could it be that dead men tell no tales, or so Barack Obama thought….. 

The head of the National Treasury Employee Union (NTEU), which represents employees of the Internal Revenue Service, met with President Barack Obama in the White House one day before the manager of the IRS’s “Technical Unit” suggested establishing a “Sensitive Case Report” for the tax-exempt status applications of Tea Party groups, according to data from the official White House visitor log and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The White House visitor log shows that NTEU President Colleen Kelley met with Obama–“POTUS,” President of the United States–on March 31, 2010.

  Jay Carney and the White House are refusing to answer the question about whether Barack Obama discussed the Tea Party at this meeting:

As the White House press briefing was ending on Monday, CNSNews.com asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as he was leaving the podium, “Did the Treasury union chief talk about tea parties during her meeting with the president in March 2010?”

Carney did not respond.

Later on Monday afternoon, CNSNews.com again e-mailed the White House press office and Carney, with the same question sent earlier in the day. CNSNews.com also called the White House press office and confirmed that it had received the e-mailed question.

However, neither the press office nor Carney responded before this story was posted.

CNSNews.com also called the NTEU, twice, and was transferred to its press office voicemail; the same question was left on the voicemail but the union did not respond before this story was posted.

  Barack Obama is claiming that he did not learn about the IRS scandal until he saw it on the news, and Jay Carney is saying that even though White House counsel knew about the investigation they did not think it was an important enough issue to tell Barack Obama about, (you can bet your sweet ass that if it were liberal or minority groups which were targeted Barack Obama would have been on the telievision every day bemoaning the disenfranchisement of these groups), but damn what a remarkable coincidence this turn of events is. That is if you believe it was a coincidence and I for one do not.

  And now we can add Keith Olbermann to the list of liberals who are feeling disenchanted by the now exposed Barack Obama. This is what Keith Olbermann tweeted the other day:

My experience dealing with @jamesrosenfnc was unpleasant and contentious. And I fully support him against this unwarranted act by DOJ

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 20, 2013

  Of course it is true that Mr. Olbermann is currently unemployed but is in not fun to see these people who were such staunch supporters of Barack Obama finally come to the realization that we were right all along?

  It cannot be overstated that these people cannot be trusted for there is probably an ulterior motive, and political calculation, behind this trend and I happen to believe they are leaving Barack Obama in order to set up their support for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Barack Obama is toxic and is old news while Hillary Clinton represents the future of the party. If Hillary takes the fall for Benghazi she will never become president so with a choice to make between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton they are looking to the future.

  United States attorney Dennis Burke is the man guilty of inappropriately leaking this information:

The DOJ IG said it found “Burke’s conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney.”

“We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member,” the IG wrote

  This is  interesting in light of the fact that it was none other than Barack Obama who signed the Whistleblower Protection Act into law isn’t it? Suddenly he is not so interested in protecting whisleblowers.

  With all the scandals currently swirling around the Obama regime we have already learned that Nancy Pelosi failed to drain the swamp of the culture of corruption in Washington as she promised to do, but now we are learning there is a culture of intimidation running rampant within the Obama regime. This is Chicago style thuggery at its best, oppose the president at your own peril…..

  To his credit Chris Wallace tried to get an answer to that question from White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer on ‘Fox News Sunday’ but all he got from Mr. Pfeiffer was what basically amounts to his own what difference does it make moment:

Wallace pressed him further: “With due respect, you didn’t answer my question: what did the president do that night?” Pfeiffer said that Obama was in touch with his national security team, but as Wallace pointed out, he didn’t talk to the Secretary of State except for one time after the attack was over, didn’t talk to the Secretary of Defense, didn’t talk with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as it developed.

 Finally, Wallace asked whether Obama was in the Situation Room. “I don’t remember what room the President was in on that night,” shot back Pfeiffer, “and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

  Dan Pfeiffer was sent out there this morning to defend Barack Obama and even he cannot tell us where Barack Obama was during the attack and we are supposed to believe it really does not matter where he was because Barack Obama was in contact with someone even though he cannot tell us who he was in contact with? Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, he is the one charged with doing all he can to protect those in harms way, and nobody can tell us where he was even eight months after the attack, this is not irrelevant!

    With rumors circulating about Barack Obama going to bed in the midst of the attack so he could be well rested before a fundraiser in Las Vegas on September 12th I think it is highly relevant for us to know where Barack Obama was during the attack. Did Barack Obama put his reelection ahead of the lives of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods? It certainly seems to be the case to me.

  But then Dan Pfeiffer did what the Obama regime is quickly becoming famous for: He tried to turn the tables on those who are seeking answers by claiming it was “offensive” to question Barack Obama on this issue.

  This was the same tactic employed by Barack Obama himself last week when he tried to turn the tables on those who question him by calling the inquiry into the Benghazi attack a “sideshow” and a “political circus.” He went on to basically state that if you question him you are dishonoring anyone who has ever decided to serve the United States:

We’ve got a whole bunch of people in the State Department who consistently say, ‘You know what, I’m willing to step up, I’m willing to put myself in harm’s way because I think that this mission is important in terms of serving the United States and advancing our interests around the globe.’ And so we dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus,”

  No sir, you do not dishonor these people when you question incompetence in the highest levels of government, you dishonor them when you are the Commander-in-Chief and you fail to have their backs after they have committed their lives to serving their country. 

  The Obama regime is trying to discredit all of those who question his inaction during the attack when he is the one whose credibility is now being questioned. This is a typical attempt at shifting the blame while at the same time trying to intimidate those who question him by shaming them into silence and it is not going to work this time.

  As always you can follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking on the links to the right or you can sign up for email updates and never miss a post again.

  If you are sick and tired of both the Democrats and the Republicans please check out the New Federalist Party. Myself and several others have been working hard behind the scenes for several months to create a viable option to both parties and if you like what you see please make a donation–no matter how small-to help the cause. All donations will be appreciated more than you will ever know. A small $5 donation will help to get this party off the ground, and what do you have to lose other than the Republic if you fail to act?

  This has been quite a week hasn’t it? We are finally seeing the Obama regime called on the carpet for various scandals and the American people are finally starting to realize the warnings we have been giving all along are actually more than just conspiracy theories.

  This was never more evident than when Eric Holder appeared before the Congress and claimed approximately 1,592 times that he had no idea what the hell was going on with the rank and file he supposedly oversees, so I thought it to be quite appropriate to include Sam Cooke’s ‘Don’t Know Much” as this week’s musical selection. Okay, the song is technically called ‘Wonderful World’ but what the hell, don’t know much is much more fitting, and the Obama regime would never let such a small fact get in the way of his agenda, so why should I?

  Enjoy:

“I have no proof of it being a political audit,” Hendershott said. “Only the curious circumstance surrounding it. My husband and I have been married for 39 years and never have been audited before. It was odd that [the agent] only wanted to talk with me–although he said I could bring our tax accountant… All of the questions focused on who was paying me for the articles.”

“He kept asking me who was paying me: ‘Who paid you to write this one?’ and ‘What did you get paid for that?’” she claimed.

  She admits she has no proof her audit was politically motivated but in light of the recent IRS revelations it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this was indeed the case.

  She was so intimidated by the IRS audit that she stopped writing articles which she felt led to the audit in the first place:

Hendershott said she felt so intimidated by the IRS agent that she stopped writing on some topics she believed may have triggered the call from the agency in order to avoid placing her family in a difficult position

  So while she had no idea what the IRS was up to at the time she knew instinctively that something was wrong and she changed what she was doing in order to avoid future audits. Mind you that she did not feel she had to change anything related to taxes to avoid future audits by the IRS, but rather her political writings.

  There is no doubt in my mind at this point that the IRS and the Obama regime accomplished what it set out to do in this case, stifle the opposition, chalk another one up to the Obama regime before the 2012 election…..

Continuing our exclusive coverage of the IRS scandal, FOX19 has obtained documents of a fifth Cincinnati IRS agent who reportedly came after a pro-life group in 2009.

The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.

According to documents obtained by FOX19, the group in question is  ‘Coalition for Life’, a group based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Coalition for Life stated it was ‘organized for charitable, religious and educational activities’, all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.

Over 150 pages of back-and-forth took place in 2009, prior to the dates given by the IRS for when so called ‘rogue’ agents began targeting conservative groups.

  The IRS targeting scandal now appears to have begun shortly after Barack Obama was sworn is as president and the question that I have is this: Is this simply an unbelievable and remarkable coincidence or is it part of a more nefarious plot by the higher ups in the Obama regime?

  Those who oppose universal background checks for the purchase of firearms (of which I am one) oppose it on the grounds that it will create what amounts to a national firearms registry. Once this defacto registry is created we are supposed to trust that the federal government will not abuse the information gathered while performing these background checks.

  Many of us do not trust the federal government with this information and now that we have learned about the IRS targeting political opponents and the Injustice Department secretly peaking at the phone records of the Associated Press our fears have been justified–the federal government cannot be trusted with this information.

  These scandals are so egregious (especially the IRS scandal) that even two major gun control advocates in the mainstream media–Joe Scarborough and Piers Morgan–who supported the universal background checks are admitting that gun owners had a legitimate concern about not trusting the federal government all along.

  Here is what Joe Scarborough had to say on ‘Morning Joe’:

Scarborough said that because of the IRS scandal, “My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals.” He added: “People say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’”

Mika agreed completely: “That is a really, really good point.” Even the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein agreed.

  Even the Huffpo’s representative on the show had to agree with Joe Scarborough.

  But Joe Scarborough was not done:

Scarborough added that, when it comes to both background checks and immigration reform, the IRS scandal is “devastating,” because both of those pieces of legislation ask us to trust the kind of government that would seize the media’s phone records and use the IRS to target a president’s political foes.

  And this is what Piers Morgan had to say in a recent interview in the wake of the Obama scandals:

Though I was appalled by the media’s relentless and shameless push last month to pass the Toomey-Manchin bill that would have tightened background checks, I did support its passage, and said so many times while criticizing the media for their disgusting behavior. But this chilling reminder of how corrupt the federal government is has changed my mind completely.

  The proposed gun control legislation and the background checks contained within the legislation targeted law abiding American citizens and did nothing which would have prevented criminal from obtaining weapons illegally.

  Now that these scandals have come to light Joe Scarborough and Piers Morgan have been forced to admit that law abiding, gun owning American citizens are more trustworthy than a corrupt, politically motivated federal government, which is the point we have been trying to make all along.

  I guess we cannot expect Piers Morgan to self-deport any time soon…..

“What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn’t like dealing with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t particularly like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,” Matthews said.

“So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere,” Matthews continued. “But what part does he like? He doesn’t like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn’t like selling to the press. He doesn’t like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn’t seem to like being an executive.”

  Chris Matthews has finally come to realize what many of us on the right have known for quite some time: Barack Obama loves campaigning and he loves giving speeches, but he is is much less enamored with the prospect of actually doing his job and even less enamored with working with the Congress.

   Better late than never I suppose, but there is more to it than that.

  The left and Barack Obama’s apologists have been backed into a corner and they have a choice to make:  They can either choose to continue to make excuses for a president who cannot run for reelection, and who is quickly losing the trust of the American people, or they can choose to abandon their savior and look to 2016.

 In other words they have to choose between a lame duck president who represents what is quickly becoming the past in the Democrat party or they can look toward the future of the party–Hillary Clinton.

  If they do indeed decide to finally turn on Barack Obama it will be because they are protecting Hillary Clinton’s expected 2016 presidential run. They may be abandoning Barack Obama but they are not abandoning the cause, in fact they feel as if they are protecting the cause.

  Personally I feel as if this is being orchestrated behind the scenes by Hillary Clinton because she feels as if Barack Obama may make her the scapegoat in the  Benghazi scandal and if he is successful it would end her presidential viability so she is looking to get ahead of the scandal by getting the all too willing mainstream media on her side. We can trust the mainstream media no more than we can trust the IRS at this point, there is always an ulterior motive behind their reporting.

  If the mainstream media does in fact turn on Barack Obama it will not be because they are doing what they feel is best for the country but rather what they feel is best for the party.