Answers to a Small Arms Treaty Supporter: Don’t Leave People Defenseless

May 21, 2013
English: DONSKOI MONASTERY, MOSCOW. Alexander ...

English: DONSKOI MONASTERY, MOSCOW. Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s funeral. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On another forum, there’s a guy who says he’s a veteran, who is arguing in favor of gun control.  (I take such claims at face value absent contrary evidence). This page is for putting up my answers to his comments:

“My personal experience in war situations is that casual arming or civilians can only make the situation worse. They prove no match for trained soldier and it only leads to more humanitarian consequences. That was surely the case in Bosnia, a situation I am familiar with.”

That decision should be left to the Bosnians. Heavy-handed unarmed peacekeeping by the UN and heavily armed (tanks, missiles, you name it) intervention by the US, none of it has succeeded anywhere, at least in recent decades. Honoring the Bosnian demands to be allowed to defend themselves (did the UN/NATO alliance also deny them training in their use?), could it have turned out any worse than the mass “ethnic cleansing” that supposedly happened?

At least the Biafrans were able to punish the other Nigerian tribes severely for their efforts. Hitler’s Brownshirts and Stormtroopers had little to fear from return fire.

“More important is prompt international peace keeping intervention, which the Americans are often not good at. Outside the US you will get few supporters for you approach to this problem.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn is one very important voice from “outside the US” who is a strong advocate of this approach. WW2 Holocaust survivors have also lamented their lack of having any way to defend themselves. Armenian survivors of the genocide of circa 1905 point out they gave up their arms only to wish they had not.

One of the reasons that guns are such a strong tradition in the United States was the reaction to the Great British Gun Grab that had its climax in “The Shot Heard Around the World” at Lexington, where the Brits had come on orders of the government to confiscate the colonists’ weapons.

Control by occupying governments afraid of their victims is nothing new. When the Philistines oppressed the Hebrews, during the time they had no standing army at all (or government), they banned swords and swordsmiths altogether for their subjects. Time after time, a “judge” would come along that would organize an army and they would start making weapons to throw off the oppressing government. Civilian farmers all. In Gideon’s case led by a farmer, and in the case of Deborah, led by a woman of faith.

“At this time the UN and others are looking at way of reducing the presence of arms, especially in Africa, as a way of reducing violence.”

The worst thing that can happen to world, since the UN is only going to favor existing governments, which around the world are more oppressive every day. So dictators around the world of course are going along with this. We should feel safer for this? The only nations against it are the ones that the UN has already declared rogue.

Not that they are any fair judge of anything. In 2009 the entire UN unanimously voted to condemn Honduras for its constitutional and legal removal of a rogue president who became a dictator in office, and threatened to make himself president-for-life under cover of fraud. None of that mattered to the rogue dictator-friendly United Nations.

God save us from the United Nations, they are one of the biggest supervisors of violence on the planet. Their intervention and ban on arms shipments to Bosnia while arms poured in to the Serbs from the Russians only prolongued the war.

And now we have the United Nations declaring that Syria should give up the nation to al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood (mother of Hamas) and their allies? You know the guys who are yelling “Die Christian dog!” as they kill members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the world? The ones who were documented by a European journalist as using chemical weapons themselves?

Senator McCain and the United Nations are sounding the same war drums here. Look again. What is wrong with that picture.

“I am afraid the American happiness is a warm gun attitude will win few friends in Europe or Australasia. To suggest the ownership would have countered the growth of fascism is frankly absurd.”

Fair-weather friends who have disarmed their own people are no friends to anybody. Crime is up in England and Australia, who are bragging about their carefully filtered statistics while hiding the relevant ones under a desk somewhere.

Honduras recently has been one of the most violent countries in the world, having a big gang problem that started mostly as a deported export of Los Angeles Salvadoran and Honduran gangs. My wife is from Honduras. These gangs don’t need no stinkin’ permits, they make bazooka-style weapons from common materials found in the home. They steal weapons to get them.

When there is a ban on anything, there will be somebody eager to profit off the extra illegality markups.

Heck, the proof that governments are the most dangerous are right here in our own borders. Our own government ran protection for at least one large shipment of thousands of big bad guns sold to the most violent gang in the Americas across the border!

And that same government has punished the whistleblowers and promoted the criminals who did it! Meaning, somebody higher up than the guys that ran the regional office wanted it to happen.

And I’m supposed to feel safe with my neighbors giving up their right to self-defense, so we can expect protection from that same government?

No sir, bad guys having guns is bad. Banning good guys from having them is much worse.

As a footnote, anecdotes sometimes illustrate the principle. My wife saved her own son from a kidnapping by using her own concealed self-protection that she pulled out of her purse to stop it. God help anybody who tells her she should have had that equalizer with her. She is of short stature but what she had made it a more level playing field.

She was also a passenger once on a tour bus that was stopped on the road in Nicaragua where a gang intended to rob everything from everyone. One guy pulled out his self-protection and began making noise with it. The robbers had guys in the bushes. Everybody else started pulling out their own and shooting back. The bus driver just flew on ahead down the road.

Nothing panics a robber like somebody who is able to defend himself against them.

It’s outrageous and insulting to tell people that they have no right to defend themselves equally with an attacker.

But let’s understand the most important principle. Guns have provided a means of self-defense to many people in history, also. The independent militias were important to the American side in the Revolutionary War. The civilian paramilitary volunteers in the Vietnam border with China defended that nation against the bigger colossus to the north and drove them back. An ad-hoc civilian militia composed of WW2 veterans and other civilians together enforced the law and an honest election against a local cartel in a Tennessee county that ran the county like a plantation.

People with government power have no right to enforce anything that they don’t have. So far as I know, it’s been governments that have used weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and possibly even now biological weapons. They’re working hard on the last one. At least let the good guys across the land that want to, let them be prepared. You never know if the next Fast and Furious scandal will involve smuggling weapons to the worst gangs on this side of the border. Or the next gun control law might be rigged to stop blacks from owning them, like the first gun control laws passed in the States in the past.

With the recent scandals and illegal and unconstitutional seizure of information from AP, even the Obama sycophants at MSNBC are worried. The AP is almost a declared organ of UN and pro-government-control propaganda, and Obama praise.

 

“Christian Right” and “Christian Left”

May 21, 2013

Jesus said to heal the sick, comfort the broken-hearted, set the captives free. The “fundamentalist Christian Right” have been doing this for 2,000 years WITHOUT STEALING A SINGLE DIME BY THE FORCE OF THE GUN OF THE LAW. You do NOT get ANY moral credit for sending IRS agents out by the thousands to make sure you TAKE WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION all the stuff you use for “good” things. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Neo-cons and “Christian Zionists” –Pharisees of this generation– indeed have left off following the Two Greatest Commandments, following Israel into denying what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh to the Father but by me”. Jesus said this to the same Pharisee sect that today gets special privilege in Israel –founded by godless, SECULAR and socialist Zionists, by the way.

Neither the Christian Media Establishment of today, NOR the leftist Sojourner-type Establishment Christians, are following Christ’s teachings. One is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WARfare state, the other is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WELfare state, and the only true recipients of all this largess in the end is either the military-industrial complex on the one hand, or the government-media-corporate complex on the other.

While they give out crumbs to keep the poor happy (crumbs they steal from the middle class) and cry “Let them eat cake!” in the imperial capital of D.C., they swear allegiance to both the “safety net” and the Constitution. But there is no safety net except for the winners in the wheeling and dealing in our Imperial occupiers’ capital.

Along come people making off with the “Christian” label who obviously do not care to “search the Scriptures, to see if these things be so”.

These are the “Christians” who see the robbery victim on the side of the road and pass by. Instead of carrying the poor guy to the inn and promising “I” will repay like the Good Samaritan, they rob the next guy to come along to pay for the first guy. Good innovators with good ideas and good business ethics like Tucker are left in ruins because they expose the whole sordid fraud of “welfare”.

While the cold-hearted “religious right” pours out tithes and of their abundance to get there first after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Andrew and around the world to help the helpless, the oh-so-warm-hearted caring “liberals” are very liberal with their NEIGHBOR’s fruits of somebody Else’s labor, stealing as much as it takes to “help” rich politicians get richer off the backs of the poor man’s vote. They want even more –like Ron Paul said it– so they can “steal from the poor in rich countries to give to the rich in poor countries”, and call it “helping”.

And until Ron Paul, not many people paid attention to the money changers who are committing Grand Theft Inflation, robbing the resources right out from under the housewife’s grocery money to spend it on their own interests.

If you can only get your money by stealing it in taxes (taking without asking) or by printing money (exchanging your dollar’s value for a dollar of less value without having to bother getting shot back like the BURGLAR they are), then you are NOT obeying Christ, you are leaving the poor guy on the side of the road for a good Christian SAMARITAN like in the story Jesus told or David Livingston or Mother Theresa to help undo your damage to the poor.

Ron Paul's blimp

Ron Paul’s blimp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lauryn Hill Ordered by the Court to Undergo “Counseling” Due to her “Conspiracy Theories” – The Vigilant Citizen – The Vigilant Citizen

May 20, 2013
English: Red hammer and sicle on transparent b...

Communism: Money Changers Steal from Middle Class to Help the Rulers (Photo: Wikipedia)

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/lauryn-hill-ordered-by-the-court-to-undergo-counseling-due-t-her-conspiracy-theories/

She’s going to get “re-education”.

They used to do this to people in the old Stalinist regime that disagreed with the regime. Declare them mentally ill and then experiment with pacification drugs to “cure” them and rob them of their independent minds.

It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong

May 20, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/mxuhapo

(Pre-note: She never said “conspiracy” in the snippets I saw, and says clearly she’s talking about their pursuit of money…)

The name of Lauryn Hill’s breakout album was The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill but it now appears that the powers that be would like her to record a new album called The Re-Education of Lauryn Hill. After appearing in court for tax evasion, Hill was sentenced to three months in jail PLUS she must attend “counseling” due to her “conspiracy theories”.

According to the IBTimes, Hill told the court: “I am a child of former slaves who had a system imposed on them. I had an economic system imposed on me.” Furthermore, Hill also believes that artists are being oppressed by (what the article calls) “a plot involving the military and media”. Because of these statements, Hill was ordered to undergo “counseling”, which is a way of saying that she is mentally ill and that she needs some sort of re-programming session regain “sanity”.

Hah, call them “reprogramming” camps. That’s my name for what they used to call “deprogramming”, to redo the programming that so-called “cults” undid (“Cult”: any upstart new religious movement that no longer believed like they were supposed to as good little serfs)..

She’s “ill” and needs “counseling” because she says that there is big money in the big labels that like to produce mindless drivel and keep out deep and maverick thinking from the market….

Oh, and the military is involved in music things. Nah. Why? Just because Sargent Barry was played every hour on stations across the country, and the Okie from Muskogee hates anti-war demonstrators? Are you kidding? “Art and music”, she says. Oh right. There sure aren’t any adrenalin-pumping military action movies, are there? Why, “The Recruit” could have been made by Al Qaeda, it’s so neutral!

Zero Dark Thirty? Nah… Rolling Stones music would be real bad for military operations, after all, right? They would never let them play a concert on a battleship speeding toward the Falklands, would they?

She just doesn’t appreciate the fine upstanding “spread e’m ho’” music, that’s all. Why the stuff she calls “mindless drivel” gets invited to the best establishments in the nation, even the White House!!

Disclaimer: Some of the above is satire…

It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong:
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Right-When-Government-Wrong/dp/B00A16SG4U

“lfl”: Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.

May 19, 2013
8 weeks old baby

8 weeks old baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Christian Science Monitor:
http://tinyurl.com/bymvc99

Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.
Aggravated murder charges likely will be sought against Ariel Castro, a prosecutor said. Experts say it is unprecedented to sentence someone to death for killing a fetus in a case in which the mother survives.

Establishing legal personhood of those five babies would most importantly benefit the unborn children themselves.

Some of the liberty-minded have a problem thinking out whether the mother (or father) has an obligation to the child. I say there is no such quandary.

One bedrock principle for libertarians is demanding personal responsibility for one’s own actions. Leave me alone, don’t rob my neighbor to rescue me from the results of my decisions.

A baby is a result of a conscious action by two people, the father and the mother. The only exception is the case of a rape. But where two people have sex, even people with major brain limitations know that babies can “happen” from sex. If a new human life is conceived, you did it, it’s yours, you take care of it. Yes, you DO owe it to that baby. The baby had no say in the contract, it’s an “imposition” on the baby if it is an “imposition” on anybody. It’s an implicit contract made all the more “enforceable” under libertarian principles because of the fact that life is the first requirement for life, liberty, and ownership.

This Is No Ordinary Scandal – WSJ.com

May 19, 2013
IRS building on Constitution Avenue in Washing...

IRS building on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html

So besides the blatant abuse of the paperwork process to disobey the Supreme Court United Citizens decision by disregarding the First Amendment for political opposition to the “leader” in the White House, we have this:

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal’s Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who’d donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government’s attention. He told ABC News: “It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare.”

Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they’re afraid of saying they were audited.

All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.

It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.

Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of “frontline people” in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party’s foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.

Found at lewrockwell.com and elsewhere, news and commentary roundup

May 19, 2013

It should be no secret to the people that read this blog regularly, but http://lewrockwell.com is an almost daily stop for me, with new insights and revelations from behind the scenes about current events, from an independent liberty-minded thinker’s perspective:

I may or may not own a gun, but for those who do, or who are considering:

Mini/Pocket 9mm Pistols for Concealed Carry:
http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/mini-9mm-concealed-carry.html

Real Men Wear Red: Sportsmen Who Choose To Wear the Colour Are More Likely To Be Winners Because They Are ‘Dressing To Kill’:
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/real-men-wear-red.html

Evidence for Confiscation: 5 Examples That Show the Threat Is Real by S.H. Blannelberry:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/blannelberry11.1.html

There was a news conference by the targets of the IRS witch-hunt. Make no mistake that’s what it was. It’s not just the keyword searches for putting the applications behind the rest of them. There were some that were not from any “tea party” or “patriot” names, but “American Grizzlies”? And how about that keyword “constitution”? Are neutral officials –ahem, “neutral”– somehow allergic to the United States Constitution? How about the groups with the name “Christian” in them?

The story of Gary Johnston, a retired police officer from Kingston, Tenn., seemed to typify the abuse suffered by many rank-and-file tea party members at the hands of the IRS.

Johnston told WND he put together a small tea party group in 2009 and had no plans to file for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization. But the IRS told him he had to do it. So, he first filled out a 19 page questionnaire in March of 2010. In August, the IRS sent him another form with 22 more questions, and embedded within those were another 60 questions.

“A lot of the questions struck me as strange,” Johnston said.

“Intrusive, terrible questions. They wanted to know any and every email that’s ever come to us or sent by us, personal or private, that might be construed to be political. They wanted to know everybody that was coming to our meetings, if we charged money, who donated, what the donations were. They wanted to know everything about our personal lives and our families’ personal lives — anyone in our family that might be politically connected.”

What sort of personal information did the IRS want to know?

“They wanted to know who we were affiliated with, what we did, what we aspired to do, what positions we might run for politically. They were asking questions that you could not answer, but could trap you.”

Did they ask you anything about reading material?

“Oh, yes, they asked any and all literature that you’ve ever had disseminated or had sent to you; anything that’s ever been written about you; anything you’ve ever written on a blog or to a newspaper. They asked me for outlines of what I’ve been reading, you could call that a book report. They asked what we were really trying to accomplish. It went on and on and on.”

After 70 days of filling out all sorts of intrusive documents, Johnston finally consulted a CPA and tax attorney. He said the attorney took one look at the material and said, “What did you do to upset the IRS? You’ve made somebody angry. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. 80 percent of this is illegal. They can’t ask you this stuff.”

She advised Johnston not to respond to many of the questions and not provide the IRS with much of the material it had requested. The IRS then sent him a form with another 40 questions, including some of the same questions he had refused to answer earlier.

Then Johnston’s group started getting “a lot of calls from the IRS.”

“These IRS agents who were calling us were apologetic. They were saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry. … I’m with you guys, I have to do this. This is part of my job.’”

Johnston said their bosses, at the Cincinnati office, “were telling them they have to do this.”

The witch hunt was executed by the IRS against the targeted groups. Why did they think they could get away with this?

And that’s not all. Look at the way the IRS treated Dr. James Dobson‘s application for Family Talk:

“Ms. Medley did not call back until March 19. Family Talk Action’s attorney asked her when the IRS would issue its determination letter. Ms. Medley responded saying, I don’t think your Form 1024 (application for exemption) will be granted because Family Talk Action is ‘not educational’ because it does not present all views. She continued, saying that Family Talk Action sounded like a ‘partisan right-wing group’ because, according to Ms. Medley, it only presents conservative viewpoints. She then added, ‘you’re political’ because you ‘criticized President Obama, who was a candidate.’” [Ed: So WHAT
if it presented issues from their point of view? They all
do, and the IRS has routinely approved the left-wing
groups over the years with much worse bias!]

The organization said it had submitted sample radio programs after the IRS had demanded them, although none was aired during an election year.

“It was the opinion of Family Talk Action’s legal counsel that these samples were not only 501(c)(4) qualified but 501(c)(3) qualified,” the statement said.

“Family Talk Action’s legal counsel had never heard an IRS agent express biased statements like those he heard during the March 19 call. He also felt that the this agent did not understand the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities,” the report said.

Not educational because it “doesn’t present all views”? Oh yeah? How about all the multitude of 501c4 AND 501(c)(3) entities it routinely approves that only present leftist and anti-Christian views, like Media Matters and others?

Oh, and what did the Big “O” say he’s going to do about it? He’s going to put a stop to this because it’s important that Americans “understand and believe that the IRS” is fair. Oh yeah, except this episode shows it’s NOT fair. How about it’s important to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution?

So who is he going to put in jail over this for abuse of power? Anybody?

Look, does the Socialist Workers Party get the third degree grilling, send us all of your emails you ever got or sent? What an uproar that would be right? How about from the unions?

It’s not a “small cadre” of a couple of “rogue agents”. It looks like it was ALL the conservative groups that had any of those “suspicious” keywords in their names!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/lawmakers-demand-jailtime-for-irs-scandal/

According to Fox News, an internal timeline by the inspector general’s office revealed the IRS began looking at tea party and “patriot” groups as early as 2010, shortly after Obamacare was passed.

However, in 2011 the organizations scrutinized were expanded to include groups focused on government debt and spending, taxes and education on “ways to make America a better place to live” as well as those who criticized “how the country is being run.”

In early 2012, the IRS expanded the list even further to include groups that were educating people on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and involved in limiting/expanding government.

Gardner told WND that among the multiple conservative groups targeted by the IRS was at least one group from Colorado.

The group, which is asking that its name be kept private for now, applied for 501(c)(4) status and had its application illegally released to the public during the application process, which is a clear violation of federal law.

“The information on their application was confidential and the IRS was required by law to treat it as such, yet that information was leaked to ProPublica,” Gardner said. “Who’s to say the IRS didn’t give out confidential donor information either? This confirms people’s worst beliefs about government overbearance.”

They’re demanding health records from medical organizations, too:

Yeah, just apologize and that’s it? We put a muzzle on the voices of tens of thousands of Americans, and tilted the election to an administration that expands the Patriot Act, confiscates two months of emails and reports from a press organization (a leftist one even!) to catch a whistleblower supposedly, tells the man in charge in Tripoli second to the late Ambassador he’d better muzzle himself instead of testify to events, covers up the truth about events that left four people to die in an attack that could have been avoided. And refuses to give up the prerogative (it’s not a “right”) to kill any American the President fingers as a threat. And under whom even the Pentagon is now claiming the power to kill Americans and control them under certain conditions.

And nobody goes to jail? Watergate was a LOT less than all this, and people went to prison. Hello?

And Holder, after treating the Congress with such contempt and stonewalling on Fast and Furious, and to this day refusing to release relevant documents, and even bald-faced punishing the whistleblowers of Fast and Furious, he rebukes Congress for incivility and lack of respect?!
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/hot-tempered-holder-lashes-out-in-defiance/

And yet another one:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/irs-rejected-group-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/?cat_orig=politics

(BREITBART) The IRS scandal of targeting tea party or conservative organizations grew deeper Wednesday with the revelation that the agency denied tax-exempt status to a pro-life organization because of its hypothetical opposition of Planned Parenthood.

The Thomas Moore Society, a public interest law firm announced that one of their clients was told that their approval as a non-profit was conditioned on a commitment not to protest outside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

>>>>

Whattaya know, now they tell us there was a “suicide note” inside that boat in Boston? How convenient. All of a sudden they “found” an admissible “confession”? And how convenient that the “suspect”, umm, “shot himself” in the throat? Now he can’t yell something like “I’m a patsy!” like Lee Harvey Oswald did…

>>>>>

In another story, McClatchy newspapers are quoting ” two anonymous government officials”:

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

What American official in such a land would report in a “still secret memorandum” that he had security concerns, and then turn down military offers of more security? And then go to the city where other states had pulled completely out? Why would any official do that? This thing does NOT pass the “fishy smell” test:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZi_gIJnEZc

There is something else going on there. Presuming, just for the sake of argument, that it’s true, the big question is indeed WHY? The Embassy had just reported that they could NOT defend the compound in Benghazi, and they needed “additional security upgrades”.

Note, this is some anonymous somebody’s recollection of somebody else’s phone call. Stevens can no longer tell his side of that phone call, ey?

The next three paragraphs from the McClatchy report are interesting because they seem to be an example of “Does. Not. Compute.” Or maybe post-facto C. Y. A.:

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

But further on, this “report” seems to come back down to Earth:

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

Senator Lindsay Graham is not my favorite politician, being an advocate as he is for shredding the US Constitution. But note that the Embassy had made repeated security requests and were denied, not by the military brass, but by the State Department in Washington, D.C.

Maybe this is the military brass doing its own CYA “not my fault” public relations effort, true or not. I can believe it, of course. But there are more questions raised in this McClatchy report than answers.

(1) WHO GAVE THE ORDER to the military security team in Tripoli to stand down instead of moving to help defend the Americans under attack?

(2) WHO in the D.C. State Department hierarchy turned down the request for better security in Libya? How high did that decision go? How high does it usually go?

(3) AT THIS POINT, what difference does it make? (This has been answered but it’s good to keep it in mind).

(4) If the important thing is to make sure it doesn’t happen again, then why is the Administration trying to make sure the people they work for don’t even know what happened?

(5) It the important thing is to track down those responsible for this and administer appropriate measures on them, then why are those responsible –already even publicly identified– publicly walking around as free men, and the State Department knowing where they ar

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue S...

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

?

(6) The acting head of the diplomatic mission in Libya described the situation to the Secretary of State, we now know, finally from his own mouth to Congress. So WHY did Clinton, and Susan Rice (who reports to her), and don’t forget OBAMA himself, repeat so often that this was a spontaneous demonstration and blame a VIDEO?

(7) WHY IS SOMEBODY WHO MADE A VIDEO STILL IN PRISON? DID SOMEBODY SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION?

IRS Sued for Allegedly Seizing Medical Records of 60 Million Americans

May 18, 2013

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/17/Claim-IRS-Illegally-Seized-60-Million-Private-Medical-Records?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion5&utm_content=Claim-IRS-Illegally-Seized-60-Million-Private-Medical-Records&utm_campaign=foxnews

There they go again, and again, and again….

NYT: Obama Administration Aware of IRS Scandal 5 Months Before Election

May 18, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/aca8odz

They’re finally reporting what was obvious to a lot of Americans in 2012… Election rigging is an ancient art of those who have power in a republic…

In no uncertain terms and with no hedging, The New York Times reports that the Obama administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

We still don’t know for sure what the President knew or when he knew it, but this does confirm that the administration was aware of the fact that Obama’s political enemies were under fire by the IRS and covered that fact up during an election year.

Not Credible: Gallup Poll Says “Americans Want To Tax The Rich And Spread the Wealth”

May 18, 2013

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/04/19/americans-want-to-tax-rich-and-spread-wealth-gallop-poll-says/?intcmp=obnetwork

Okay, stop asking them if they want to spread the wealth by taxing the rich. Ask them to choose between (1) taxing their employer more, or (2) getting a pay raise.

See how fast you flip your stupid poll then.

I don’t trust polls anymore. Polls here, polls there, and it used to have a strong effect, they used to be credible. But we got their game, now, their gig is up, busted! Things like this. If people just wanted to spread the wealth, they would have flipped the House in 2008 and they DIDN’T.

I got a call for a poll once, for an upcoming vote on some homosexuals’ additional rights bill or something like that. What a bogus “poll”! They kept asking the same questions, then they’d do one like “Did you know so-and-so”, and they’d go back to the same question they asked before where they didn’t like my answer. Phhht!

Education in reality is the answer. There’s lots of it at http://www.mises.org and http://www.lewrockwell.com.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers