A Pyrrhic Victory on Benghazi

Republicans in Congress need to ensure they do not win the battle at the cost of the overall good of their party. Let’s look at things realistically; most Americans, and almost all the media, don’t care about the semantics and the deceit that the Administration put forth in the days and months after the September 11^th 2012 attacks in Benghazi.  Outside of the conservative echo chamber, very few people care, it is sad but true. People that I have discussions with believe that the President and his administration tried to hide the true nature of the attacks in order to keep the President looking strong on terrorism for the November election. Most are willing to forgive and forget as long as security has been raised and these mistakes don’t happen again.

Thanks in a large part to the whistleblowers and Sharyl Attkisson, @sharylattkisson, we have learned the Administration did indeed try to convince the American people that the attacks were not based on Islamic extremists’ intentions to destroy the US but to pass it off as a spontaneous reaction to an internet based movie trailer. Attkisson published a story earlier that detailed the changes made to the talking points to soften the blow of four dead Americans. This is a huge story but unfortunately the narrative has already been written on this point, and the truth has lost out. It’s time to move on.

It’s only time to move on because there are bigger and more important issues that have come to light in the last few days. The IRS story keeps getting bigger and bigger every day. What were initially reports of a few low level employees in Cincinnati has now turned to higher level players in Washington. Conservative groups, Jewish groups and several others have come forward to state that they have been harassed by the IRS. Now even a liberal group,  ProPublica, has come forward saying that the IRS gave them unapproved applications which are not legally available until they have been approved for tax-exempt status. This is the story that has legs and which could potentially bring the most discredit to the Obama Administration.

Yes the facts must come out of Benghazi and they will in time but the IRS and possible the AP scandals are where the Republicans in Congress must center their efforts if they wish to win this war. The American people will forgive someone who was trying to mislead them but they are not willing to allow elected members of government to use their positions and the powers of their offices to torment their political opponents. Just ask Nixon.

Will it be this man that turns the Media against his boss?

Fun Times Friday, IRS Drops a Bombshell.

WOW is all that I can say.

An enforcement branch of the United States government, admitting that it was persecuting citizens and organizations based solely on their political beliefs. This is very unsettling news that just so happened to come out on a Friday, anyone out there think that was an accident? The IRS admits it was targeting conservative groups who had used the names of “tea party” or “patriot” in their applicants for tax-exempt status.

This does not come as a shock to me, and I would assume that it wouldn’t to anyone else either. I would imagine that the IRS would use its abilities to find out dirt on people and give that information then to the ruling party. Oh wait that should never happen in a free country. The federal government is listening to your phone calls, reading your emails (don’t mention Jihad, Muslim, terrorist, Christian, God, tea party or patriot, Benghazi cover-up, NRA, or that you may be a combat veteran), but now the government actually admitted to applying undue pressure to groups who are opposed to the sitting Administration. WOW

However, what should anger everyone is the response that we received today (Friday). The head of the IRS branch that deals with tax exempt status-Really we couldn’t bring someone with a little more prestige out in front of the media like the HEAD of the IRS??- tells everyone that it was an isolated incident from the Cincinnati IRS branch office. Low level career officials were the ones who made the decisions to use the terms “tea party” and “patriot” to request more information on applications that contained those terms. How can a few low level employees have that much power? And here is the kicker, the use of those two terms was not considered to have a political motive.  I understand that “high level” officials don’t have a whole lot of respect for the American people, or apparently the Constitution, and laws of the land, but how dumb do they think we are, this was 100% percent politically motivated.  Cause a few less ads, to come out against your political views and you may stop a few votes here or there. Was this enough to change the outcome of the election; probably not but there is no way of proving either side of that argument. This is a story you would think you would see come out of China or the former Soviet Union the not United States. I can’t wait to see what comes out of this during the congressional investigations. Do these emails and communications fall under executive privilege, like the ones from Fast and Furious? There should be some lengthy prison time in the future for someone.

Also in an organization as large as the IRS isn’t the head of the Tax Exempt Branch considered a low level employee? Just saying.

The head of the IRS Tax Exempt Branch??

Confiscation Coming to a California City Near You.

-->

California governor Jerry Brown signed a new law yesterday that “aims” to help protect the people of California. According to LA Times writer Patrick McGreevy, SB 140 is designed to help the state remove guns from the homes of people who have committed felonies, have been deemed mentally unstable, and/or some one who has a restraining order issued against them. The weapons in question are not weapons that the person may have obtained illegally but are weapons that were purchased and properly registered before the crime was committed, or the person was deemed to be a harm to himself or others.

On the surface I really don’t have any problems with this law, the state is taking a proactive stance on removing weapons from people who are not legally allowed to own them. The Supreme Court has in the past confirmed the rights of the state to prevent the mentally ill person or the felon from purchasing or owning firearms. So California exercising this right seems perfectly reasonably.

I do have several problems with this bill however, first is how the bill is to be funded. 24 million dollars will be taken from the background check fees of people who are purchasing a new weapon. The attorney general has been authorized to raise the background check fee by 10% to help raise the money required to fund this bill. In short, law abiding gun owners will carry the sole burden of funding SB 140.  This small portion of the population is now responsible to protect all of California. In my opinion this is just one more tax on the purchase of firearms. The funding of SB 140 should have been from the General Fund that all taxpayers pay into. If we add 10% here and 10% there to the background fee or five cents here and there on ammo then gun ownership will eventually get to a point of being cost prohibitive. 

My second concern is the mental illness restriction, currently the mental illness section only covers persons who have been institutionalized or have been found not guilty by reason of insanity to a crime, not to mention there is also a section that allows a person to get his gun owning rights back by petitioning the courts. Even the most pro gun person would certainly have to agree that this is not too unreasonable.  Where my concern comes to play is what happens when the mental health section is changed, will PTSD, ADHD, ADD, and the myriad of anti-social disorders be included in the “harm to self or others” category.

Again, while I agree with most of the bill, I have a hard time believing that this is not the first in a series of laws making gun ownership more and more difficult. We are raising the overall cost of guns. What happens when the word household is added to the mental illness restriction, now you are denied owning a gun because someone else may have been mentally ill?

A little about me

-->

     I hope some people have been reading my thoughts about current events and hopefully enjoying my commentary.  While there are many things that I could talk about today, I would like to take a few minutes and tell and bit about myself. Hopefully, this will give everyone an idea where I am coming from with some of my opinions and interpretations of the daily news.

     Most importantly I am the father of two teenage daughters and the husband of my wife and best friend. We have been married just shy of 17 years (this Friday is our anniversary) it is amazing how fast time can go by when you are not paying attention.

     I grew up in small town Ohio and was exposed to the hectic family and small town politics that comes along with living in a small town. I think I turned out pretty good in spite of that. Also being from Ohio means I am a big Ohio State fan Go Bucks!!!!!!

     I am also a 16 year Veteran of the US Marine Corps. I have served overseas several times over the years and have held many different hats while serving, it has been a pleasure (for the most part) to serve this great country.

     Now for the political stuff, growing up in the farmland I believe that I have very common conservative beliefs. I believe in limited government interference in my life, the free market will determine who are winners and losers just fine without government intervention, I am pro-life by choice but also believe that people do have a right to make their own decision, I am not a republican or a democrat, I believe there are good politicians from both parties and politicians who are looking out for themselves in both parties as well (I reserve the right to criticize anyone from either party if it is warranted).

  

     As for my qualifications to comment on political topics other than being a concerned citizen and it is my right and duty as an American citizen to do so. I have a BA in Political Science and I am currently working on my master’s degree in Political Science and Criminal justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, so I hold the proper education to make some informed and insightful observations.

The Thick Red Line

On August 20^th 2012, the President of the United States stood up and gave the following stern warning to the Syrian regime: "A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Now let’s fast-forward eight months and six days to today. The Obama administration now says that there is proof that Syria has used the chemical weapon sarin on its own people. British and American officials have confirmed that there were at least two incidents of civilians being gassed.  Although the SECDEF minimized the use of the weapons by the use of the following statement: "The Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin." The use of the words “on a small scale” is carefully crafted to not only minimize the deaths of many, but it allows the Administration to drag their feet on any type of military response. The official response so far, is that there are varying degrees of confidence on whether or not there were weapons used and if they were, who used those weapons.  Therefore the “red line” has not been crossed.

The administration is using the miscalculation of GWB and the WMDs to invade Iraq as an excuse not to take some sort of action against Syria. On Thursday the US said that we would not take our allies reports and that we must do our own. Then less than a day later, Hagel states that we have evidence of the weapons being used, as well as Israel, France, and Great Britain have all concluded the same via there own investigations. So, how is it that four allies have all conducted their own investigations and have come to the same conclusion but we are still not sure whether or not these weapons have been used? So I ask, what does it take to cross the “red line?”

The President of the United States made a promise to the people of Syria that if the Syrian government were to attack the rebels or civilians with chemical weapons, then the United States must take some sort of action. Now that is has been confirmed that the same weapons have been used, the US is now backtracking on promises made.

Keep in mind, I do not advocate for an invasion of Syria, but there are other options that could be used to ensure that more chemical weapons are not used. Put up a no fly zone over the areas where the weapons could be launched. Place an aircraft carrier group or two in the area and ensure Syria knows that there are several thousand US Marines ready at a moments notice to stop any further use of chemical weapons. Or even make a public statement about the use of Chemical Weapons (as of this writing Obama has made no such statement instead he is speaking at a Planned Parenthood event. I guess abortion rights are more important than people being gassed in their own homes).

No action by Obama is just more proof that Obama has yet again weakened the world’s view of the United States.  

For Further reading:

http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons-syria-obamas-high-bar-proof-could-232636199.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315102/Syrian-government-using-chemical-weapons-people-crosses-red-line-Britain-David-Cameron-warns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57581556/white-house-obamas-red-line-not-crossed-on-syria-chemical-weapons/

Honoring the Iron Lady

This was my guest post that originally posted yesterday on Tripping Over My Tongue:

 

With two major incidents recently occurring in the news, the Boston marathon bombing and the ricin letters, we may have forgotten that the world lost a pioneer for women’s rights and conservatism on April 8^th, 2013. Margaret Thatcher’s death was a blow to many who grew up in the 1980s. Whether you agree with her politics or not, you must admire the way she went about her business with the same tenaciousness as any man. She was so effective as a politician; she held the office of Prime Minister for 11 years, the longest of anyone, and to a generation of Americans, she was the ally that could be counted on as the United States and the UK fought against the “evil Empire”, USSR.  I will always remember her as the “Iron Lady” and the strong ally of the United States that she was.

Instead of treating the death of a significant leader of our biggest ally in the world with the respect due her, the Obama Administration decided that they were too busy with other affairs to send someone from their administration to pay the respects of a nation. Instead, Obama opted to leave it up to the former presidents and the civil servants who had worked with Thatcher.

I can understand if the President doesn’t want to take time away from his arm twisting and plotting the demise of the 2^nd amendment of the Constitution to go himself, but what was VP Biden up to, or even better yet, where was the Secretary of State? This falls directly under the responsibility of the SOS, so what was Secretary Kerry doing on Wednesday that he couldn’t travel to UK to attend the funeral? He was testifying on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks on 9/11. This could easily have been moved to another day so that Kerry could have made a showing at the funeral.

The White House said they were too busy to attend but I believe that they did not want to attend the funeral of one of the longest serving conservative leaders in the world. The left does not like Thatcher for her standing up to the labor unions in England and helping England come out of the financial crisis they were in when she took office. Not to mention the close relationship between Thatcher and Ronald Regan, whom in the eyes of the left, does the younger President Bush only match in his evilness.

Politics is why America did not have an elected official or a high ranking member of the Administration at the funeral. I, as an American, am embarrassed by the blatant disrespect this president shows to all conservatives.

Repercussions of the Boston Marathon Bombings

This was posted on Tuesday on Tripping Over my Tongue, a specail thanks to Trishaj for allowing me to use her site :)

 Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Formally Charged

 

                  In the week (and a day) since the Boston Marathon bombing, the country has gone from extreme lows to a euphoric high by the time Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured late Friday (4/19/13) night. Not since shortly after 9/11 have I seen a community come together and support its first responders with such reverence. It was an amazing sight to see when people were cheering on the local police and other agencies as they were leaving the scene for hours.

                  However, now that several days have passed and it looks like the bomber is going to survive the injuries sustained during his shoot out with the police, we now have to get down to the business of prosecuting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the crimes he and his brother (allegedly) committed.  The first couple of acts have been put in place. To begin with, the White House has decreed that the United States will not treat this guy as an enemy combatant and will prosecute him instead in US Civil Court. Usually I would be up in arms with this ruling. Any Muslim that comes to the US and causes the death of three people and wounds a hundred or more should have a one-way ticket to Gitmo. However, these guys came here over ten years ago and used the system. They applied for and received political asylum and from what I can see, did everything that they were supposed to do. The Tasrnaev’s received their green cards and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a naturalized citizen on September 11, 2012, ironically enough.  My entire reasoning is that once you are a US citizen, the government should not be able to try you in a military court for any reason. James Homes is not being tried in a military court, nor are the Sandy Hook shooters and they killed many more people than did the Tsarnaev brothers.

                  There is one big difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the other mass shooters of the last few years; they are not natural born US citizens and they are subject to lose their citizenship status. As I mentioned earlier, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a US citizen seven short months before he (allegedly) took part in this bombing plot. I have a very hard time believing that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 100 percent truthful in his interviews and applications during the naturalization process and he certainly was not honest about the oath of citizenship when he raised his hand and swore his allegiance to the United States. It is not believable that he went from wanting to be a citizen to wanting to kill Americans en mass in just seven months. With the level of fraud and deception that he had to use to become a citizen, the State Department should ensure that his citizenship is revoked. Once it is revoked, then he should be immediately re-categorized as a terrorist and be moved to a military court.

                  I am not an advocate of trying Americans in military court nor am I an advocate for revoking a natural born/naturalized citizen’s citizenship, that is unless he takes arms up against the United States for a militaristic purpose, which is what I believe happened in this case.