This was sent to me by somebody who knew that I would mourn the loss of this tried and true old friend! We have watched much of his demise at the hands of those who just didn’t know what he was all about. It is strange that his wisdom was so little understood by so many. May his soul rest in peace and may God bless him!!

Obituary printed in the London Times

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No on knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain;

Why the early bird gets the worm;

Life isn’t alway fair;

And maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Report of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death,

by his parents, Truth and Trust,

by his wife, Discretion,

by his daughter, Responsibility,

and by his son, Reason

He  is survived by his 5 stepbrothers;

I Know My Rights,

I Want It Now,

Someone Else Is To Blame

I’m A Victim

Pay Me For Doing Nothing

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on.

If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Let the facts speak for themselves. They are damning enough. Let Gregory Hicks, the honorable, apolitical second-in-command that night in Libya, movingly and grippingly demolish the president’s Benghazi mantra that “what I have always tried to do is just get all the facts” and “every piece of information that we got, as we got it, we laid it out for the American people.”

On the contrary. Far from assiduously gathering and releasing information, the administration was assiduously trying to control and suppress it.

Just hours into the Benghazi assault, Hicks reports, by phone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself, on the attack with absolutely no mention of any demonstration or video, later to become the essence of the Susan Rice talking points that left him “stunned” and “embarrassed.” “My jaw dropped,” he testified last week to Congress.

But Hicks is then ordered not to meet with an investigative congressional delegation — the first time in his 22-year career he had been so ordered. And when he speaks with them nonetheless, he gets a furious call from Clinton’s top aide for not having a State Department lawyer (and informant) present. His questions about the Rice TV statements are met with a stone-cold response, sending the message — don’t go there. He then finds himself demoted.

Get the facts and get them out? It wasn’t just Hicks. Within 24 hours, the CIA station chief in Libya cabled that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous mob. On Day Two, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East wrote an e-mail saying the attack was carried out by an al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia.

What were the American people fed? Four days and 12 drafts later, a fiction about a demonstration that never was, provoked by a video that no one saw (Hicks: “a non-event in Libya”), about a movie that was never made.

The original CIA draft included four paragraphs on the involvement of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists and on the dangerous security situation in Benghazi. These paragraphs were stricken after strenuous State Department objections mediated by the White House. All that was left was the fable of the spontaneous demonstration.

That’s not an accretion of truth. That’s a subtraction of truth.

And why? Let the deputy national security adviser’s e-mail to the parties explain: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities” — fancy bureaucratese for “interests of the government agencies involved.” (He then added — “particularly the investigation.” But the FBI, which was conducting the investigation, had no significant objections. That excuse was simply bogus.)

Note that he didn’t say the talking points should reflect the truth — only the political interests, the required political cover, of all involved. And the overriding political interest was the need to protect the president’s campaign claim, his main foreign policy plank, that al-Qaeda was vanquished and the tide of war receding.

But then things got worse — the coverup needed its own coverup. On Nov. 28, press secretary Jay Carney told the media that State and the White House edited nothing but a single trivial word. When the e-mail trail later revealed this to be false, Carney doubled down. Last Friday, he repeated that the CIA itself made the edits after the normal input from various agencies.

That was a bridge too far for even the heretofore supine mainstream media. The CIA may have typed the final edits. But the orders came from on high. You cannot tell a room full of journalists that when your editor tells you to strike four paragraphs from your text — and you do — there were no edits because you are the one who turned in the final copy.

The Clintonian wordplay doesn’t stop with Benghazi. Four days after the IRS announced that it discriminated against conservative organizations, Carney said repeatedly in his daily briefing that, if true, the president would be outraged.

If? By then, the IRS had not only admitted the grievous misconduct but apologized for it — and the president was speaking in the conditional.

This could be the first case in presidential history of subjunctive outrage. (It turned into ostensibly real outrage upon later release of the Inspector General report.) Add that to the conditional truths — ever changing, ever fading — of Benghazi, and you have a major credibility crisis.

Note to the White House: Try the truth. It’s easier to memorize.

Take your time and view the videos below and then make your decision. When I look at them I just can’t make up my mind!! When I view them I swear that one of the speakers in one of the videos is drunk or on drugs but I may be wrong about this because the statements could be based solely on ignorance!!! You be the judge!!!

“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but40 years ago this week — May 17, 1973 — the Senate Watergate hearings began exploring the nature of Richard Nixon’s administration. Now the nature of Barack Obama’s administration is being clarified as revelations about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi mendacities.

This administration aggressively hawked the fiction that the Benghazi attack was just an excessively boisterous movie review. Now we are told that a few wayward souls in Cincinnati, with nary a trace of political purpose, targeted for harassment political groups with “tea party” and “patriot” in their titles. The Post reported Monday that the IRS also targeted groups that “criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.” Credit the IRS’s operatives with understanding who and what threatens the current regime.

Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS’s behavior “inappropriate.” No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.

It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses of some executive-branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains. Meanwhile, file this under “What a tangled web we weave”:

The IRS official in charge of the division that makes politically sensitive allocations of tax-exempt status said Friday that she learned from news reports of the targeting of conservatives. But a draft report by the IRS inspector general says this official was briefed on the matter two years ago.

An emerging liberal narrative is that this tempest is all the Supreme Court’s fault: The Citizens United decision — that corporations, particularly nonprofit advocacy groups, have First Amendment rights — so burdened the IRS with making determinations about who deserves tax-exempt status that some political innocents in Cincinnati inexplicably decided to begin by rummaging through the affairs of conservatives. Ere long, presumably, they would have gotten around to groups with “progressive” in their titles.

Remember, all campaign “reform” proposals regulate political speech. And all involve the IRS in allocating speech rights.

Liberals, whose unvarying agenda is enlargement of government, suggest, with no sense of cognitive dissonance, that this IRS scandal is nothing more sinister than typical government incompetence. Five days before the IRS story broke, Obama, sermonizing 109 miles northeast of Cincinnati, warned Ohio State graduates about “creeping cynicism” and “voices” that “warn that tyranny is . . . around the corner.” Well. He stigmatizes as the vice of cynicism what actually is the virtue of skepticism about the myth that the tentacles of the regulatory state are administered by disinterested operatives. And the voices that annoy him are those of the Founders.

Time was, progressives like the president 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson, had the virtue of candor: He explicitly rejected the Founders’ fears of government. Modern enlightenment, he said, made it safe to concentrate power in Washington, and especially in disinterested executive-branch agencies run by autonomous, high-minded experts. Today, however, progressivism’s insinuation is that Americans must be minutely regulated because they are so dimwitted they will swallow nonsense. Such as: There was no political motive in the IRS targeting political conservatives.

Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the meretricious. The day after the IRS story broke, The Post led the paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate, published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New York Times consigned the story to page 10 (its front-page lead was the umpteenth story about the end of the world being nigh because of global warming). Through Monday, the Times had expressed no editorial thoughts about the IRS. The Times’s Monday headline on the matter was: “IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On.” So that is the danger.

If Republicans had controlled both houses of Congress in 1973, Nixon would have completed his term. If Democrats controlled both today, the Obama administration’s lawlessness would go uninvestigated. Not even divided government is safe government, but it beats the alternative.

What difference does it make?? Can you believe that the wicked witch from the east actually said this to the

It is hard to imagine that none on that committee could have thought to explain to her that it certainly makes a difference to the good Americans who gave their lives in Benghazi. And it would also make a difference with the families of those who died to find out what happened? It would also make a hell of a lot of difference to any American interested in why the strongest nation in the world couldn’t protect the people sent to Benghazi and who gave their lives there.

President Blah Blah Oblahma was spreading the BS about Benghazi during the last election especially during one of the debates he had with Romney. When you watch this next video you should catch all of the lies he made about what he said during his Rose garden speech. In addition he and Hillary told the families of the dead that they were going to find out exactly what happened and would get back to them. To date neither of them has gotten back to these families.

The cover up of events in Benghazi is one of the worst scandals by a president and his administration that I have ever seen and is far worse for America than even the Watergate scandal. Benghazi should not be allowed to just drift away without some very serious repercussions including the possibility of impeachment and prison sentences. The government of the United States of America should not be allowed to continue lying to “We The People.”

This video is where he had the audacity to scold Romney while he was piling on his BS statements! The Republican party and the Romney campaign should have pressed this Benghazi story very hard and if they had done so they might actually have won the election.

There is very little doubt that Hillary Clinton, the wicked witch from the east is planning on making a run for the presidency in 2014. So I would like to help her formulate a political slogan for her to use while trying to get the Democratic nomination!

Can’t you just see this crazy progressive in the Whitehouse of We The People. She didn’t even care that her husband was not honoring his wedding vows!!! Well here is some help with suggestions for her political slogan for use in her presidential campaign!!!

Hillary Clinton’s presidential slogan could be “Who cares that the poor decisions I made cost 4 Great Americans their lives”??? When I am president nobody will remember Benghazi because it is in the past and nobody cares!!!

Or she could decide on an even simpler slogan such as;

“Sure I made some poor decisions that cost 4 Great Americans their lives, but who cares”? Remember I am Hillary Clinton and I am running for President of the United States and Benghazi is just water over the dam!

The video shown below shows clearly what Bill Whittle thinks about Hillary’s statement,” What difference does it make”?

Reblogged from We the People:

Reblogged from We the People:

• 
• 
• 

Tom Fritton

Judicial Watch

If you are a regular reader of the Weekly Update, you know that Judicial Watch has been the leading force in uncovering the unethical and dangerous connections between the Obama administration and a wide swath of radical left-wing special interest groups.

These groups are helping to create and to advance  secret illicit government policies ranging from stealth amnesty to reverse discrimination to attacks on election integrity.

Read more… 703 more words

Reblogged from Two Heads are Better Than One:

Reblogged from We the People of the United States:

© Miri WTPOTUS May 6, 2013

Back in 1974, Hillary Rodham Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee, which was writing articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon. Clinton, however, was fired from that job.

Read more… 737 more words