Obama About to Bring Down the Democrat Party – For Decades with Executive Immigration Reform

The President is set to announce his own immigration reform, without Congress, and according to Yahoo News service, this will irk Republicans (Yahoo).

Additional, the Washington Post suggests that ahead of the announcement the President will dine with select Democrats – no Republicans – most likely to rally what’s left of his base in the Chambers (Washington Post)

Add to the insistence by County Sheriffs that this will destroy democracy and leave gaping holes for terrorists(MRCTVP) or that the party was just beyond trounced in what was historic proportions in both House Chambers, the man is deluded into thinking he’s adding to a legacy or, perhaps, adding to the appeal of Democrats in his base. In any case, he is deluded - unless he is playing to big business which just loves illiterate and illegal immigrants that will work for pennies, and not complain.

So, it’s either delusion or greed, take your pick.

While it is true, one senior Republican suggested this move might cause anarchy in the nation (USA Today), it will most likely come from the majority of Democrats rather than the regular base.

Here is where it hurts the party. Those African American and working class solid Democrats are simply not on board with the President. They want those borders locked down – and a focus on job creation as a priority. This was never made plainer when they did go out and vote this past election. If they had not, the Senate would have held, along with State offices in multiple State’s, from the governor’s office to Dog catcher. This was true in Massachusetts, where Martha Coakley was trumped. It was truer in CT where Malloy almost lost his job, and in VA where a Senate race should never have been that close.

Those that did not vote, stayed home and grumbled. If they could not pull a lever for a Republican in the 2014 election, watch how fast they move to pull one in the 2016 general.

We are a nation of immigrants, yet, highly suspicious of illegal immigrants, and new immigrants, and it is historically a fact, especially when it comes to “blue states”. (See Gangs of New York for starters – rent on Netflix).

Therefore, the only problem the Republican’s have is to start working towards more party diversity and paint every single Democrat on Obama’s side, from now till Nov. 2016. It’s not difficult given they were exemplary at using his as well as the former Congressional Representatives and Senators who, try and they might to distance themselves, were shown as totally in bed with the President.

The very smart move would have been to wait until the next Session in January when the Republican Senate Bill that had been sitting on Harry Reids desk, could be brought to the floor and sent to the president to sign. A total of 218 immigration bills are now sitting in the Senate – and a similar number in the House www.congress.gov)

Therefore, he could take his pick, have Harry move one of those forward, and stop the B.S. and the destruction of my fathers’ party. The Republican’s won’t impeach him, (Joe Biden is often the answer as to why not), and letting him ride his own crazy train right into destruction station is the obvious plan.

Since it’s unlikely that the President would pick up a GOP Immigration Bill, and that the Republicans’ have their “groove” on – they can count on new and very fervent members of their Party for the General Election.

ISIS and the American Politician – As the World Dithers – the Times Lays Blame on – Republicans

ISIS, the rapid Islamic group that has established a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, killing anyone whom they please in the most barbaric manners, including children has taken front and center stage in the American Political area. The question of stopping ISIS in Iraq and Syria by the use of U.S. military intervention has come under some scrutiny by both major political parties. The President has taken his usual steps in being deliberative before he acts, something he has done since taking office. This often leads to missed opportunities and or a worsening of the situation; however, it is his style of being cautious before fully committing U.S. forces.

That cautious quality has the media and both parties in a quandary as politicians’ from both sides of the aisle see the threat of Isis on many levels, not only to the middle east, but to our homeland, as well as Europe and other parts of the world.

NBC News on Senator Feinstein’s remarks that Obama has been too cautious in this situation, suggests that the Democrat from California may be running out of patience, as the public is becoming increasing aware of the real danger that ISIS presents – California being a border state. (NBC News)

CBS News reporting the Presidents delay on strategy - notes that both Republicans’ and Democrats alike are in a quandary over the situation – agreeing with one another.

However, the New York Times, true to the party line, suggests that it is Republican’s only that are politicizing the crisis, and that there is “nothing to see here – move along – the President is in control.

Be that as it may, the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria may need a buffer via the Iraq and Kurdish forces who are in the thick of the fighting. It is, after all, their country, and other than support (air and weapons); ISIS may be dealt with fairly easily – with a little pushback.

The threats being made to the U.S, suggest that those in ISIS already here (See any Chicago newscast about threats being made in that City by said group), might come to pass, however, one has to wonder if those commanding ISIS forces, understand the psyche of the general American public – unlike any nation in the world, where, when invaded, lay down and take abuse, the U.S. fights back.

One might wonder what ISIS would encounter if, with boots on the ground, in say, a border state, say Texas, might meet once they moved to attack. One might not see Texan’s rolling over so easily, ISIS does not understand the basic independent streak inherent in most U.S. citizens. It is not so much that as a nation, relying on the government is primary, it is also not so much that as a nation, there is a political body in sync that makes all deliberations until it is too late. It is more likely that from Massachusetts, to San Francisco, and places in between, Urban-Suburban-and Rural militias would wipe ISIS out – or as one politician suggested – bomb them back to the Stone Age.

Therefore although we may have interests in the Middle East – it may behoove the U.S. to employ air strikes and tactical support there, and shore up protection in the U.S. – otherwise, the citizens of this nation would most likely do it for them. One would suggest that anytime that intelligence suggests that the U.S. is a target, those from both parties, would align, rather than take political opportunities – it is clearly not the way of the United States. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an issue that drives all U.S. Citizens or those hoping to become citizens. Furthermore, the New York Times piece is a bit disingenuous suggesting that this is a situation where Republican’s are politicizing an atrocious entity.

Major Political Parties, the Diversity Within, a Stranglehold on the Political Process – Purists vs. the Individualist

An article in the New York Times asking if the Libertarian moment finally arrived (worth the read), brought forward the question of the diversity within the political parties, and how purists is the two major parties, appear to be the undoing of the political process. For example, the GOP is multi-faceted, and as Libertarians (otherwise known as Jeffersonian Republicans) are more closely aligned, they tend to track Republican (or purists, not at all), Social Conservatives, also are part of that party, then the moderates, those GOP members who tend to vote more like a Democrat, rather than a Social or Fiscal conservative. It is those purists to stay home, and refuse to forgive one ‘infraction” of their “code” that splits the party and forces votes from time to time.

The Democrats are much the same, Progressive Socialists won’t budge, neither with the anarchists, or those 99%-ers who rally to the voice of anti-corporatism. There is the rank and file union/loyal Democrats who remain screamingly unaware that Progressive does not mean – Progress. The low-information voters trend Democrat – despite many a degree, advanced or otherwise.

It is this tunnel-vision coupled with an obstinate stance of purity that continues to stymie the system. Rather than moderate and forgive one issue, in order to obtain the brass ring, those who are pure in political ideology will kick a statesman to the curb – i.e. Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

It is the individual that will embrace facets of each, while tending to make peace with their Libertarian belief structure, which is valuable to the nation as a whole, specifically if that individual can bring varied factions of the GOP as well as members of the DNC together. That individual is dangerous to both parties, as that individual will enjoy support from those with Reason.

One such individual, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is such a one, and that is why he is demeaned by members of his own party, and now, according to an article in the Daily Beast – the #1 target of the Democrats. (Daily Beast) It is due to his ability to reason that all American’s should enjoy liberties, to see both sides of an issue, and although appearing inexperienced to some in the Beltway’s employee, he is genuine, perhaps that is the most dangerous facet of his political persona – it is quite appealing to those tired of the status quo. Would there be a 100 Rand Paul’s – perhaps we would finally see a cohesive government.

WSJ/NBC Poll – Obama Confidence Low - Approval Sinks – Nation Rejects Both Major Political Entities

Most American's having difficulty telling DC Democrats or Republicans apart - image toonrefugee.com

The latest WSJ poll is out and according to NBC News the nation is no longer divided on President Obama’s capabilities; they are disapproving by the widest margin to date. In the same poll analysis by NBC, they note that the Republicans in Congress are doing worse than the President – and nearing the end of the article, note that most voters would rather not see their incumbent in office any longer (NBC News).

That was made evident last week in the stunning (to D.C.) defeat of Eric Cantor to College Professor, David Brat. One might suggest that that scenario will play out in coming primaries, regardless of which Party flavor, in the ensuing months. When it comes to the general, one might predict 40-50% of the seats will changes hands, which is not, by any means a conservative figure, however, when one looks closely at the 2013 local elections (yes, this anti-incumbent fervor had a trickle-down effect) – the incumbent lost in large numbers, in cities small and large.

As the leadership of each major political party has been called into question as of late, the 2016 prospects of those Libertarian Leaning politicians is looking up.

In the past weekends IA GOP convention Rand Paul (K), spoke to a room that decidedly changed their minds regarding the Senator, having previously been committed to other potential candidates, they came away deciding that Paul was the better choice, or at the very least, someone they would vote for .(U.S. News)

At the Massachusetts Democrat Convention Martha Coakely and Steve Grossman will face off in primaries against two others who made the ballot, according to the Boston Globe , the winner of which will face Charlie Baker for the Bay State corner office. Normal Massachusetts politics generally has a solid candidate going into the general, with either little or no primary challengers.

One might see both major political party fractioning in the ensuing years, as well as shifts, the Democrats becoming decidedly Progressive Socialist while Republicans more Libertarian in nature. Voter angst against the status quo will undoubtedly ensure that this scenario plays out either in whole or in part.

San Diego Mayor’s Race – Not the Unusual Outcome Noted – This is part for the Course to date

From the San Diego Union Tribune The San Diego Mayor’s race was won by a decisive victory – the winner, Republican Kevin Faulcone.(UT San Diego). This was despite the best efforts of Democrats and Unions using their usual model of negative attack ads and oodles of cash thrown at a progressive candidate(National Review with statistics).

Apparently, no one was watching the 2013 local races across the nation, where smaller cities experienced a somewhat hostile rebuke of incumbents – and this was regardless of Party. This will be especially interesting going into the 2014 mid-terms. Generally lower turnout – and a real antipathy towards anyone remotely spending long-terms in Washington.

In a word, if it can happen in Massachusetts, and in California, it can happen anywhere. If the mood of the electorate remains the same, 2014 will bring an entirely new Senate and Congress. Should the Democrats no longer control the Senate – there is zero chance they would control the House, then Harry Reid is removed as Majority Leader and finally the log-jam of partisan bickering will be done – Those Republican’s who have played to the left of the party – (compromise is one thing, rolling over is another0, will most likely find themselves replaced by someone who is more – liberty minded.

Also of note – the RNC may find itself butting heads with the Christian Right Wing, as they are finally awake, and looking at candidates that will meet their standards. Therefore, the largest voter turnout that never took place in 2012 will be enforce in 2016 – regardless of the hype surrounding any candidate that is brought forth from the Democrat side of the aisle.

Historically it would be the rebuttal to Obama in 2016 as it was to George W. Bush in 2008.

Wendy Davis and Hillary Clinton – Matter Much? – Yes and No

Wendy Davis, Democrat from Texas who is seeking the Governor’s office, apparently has had a few problems in the past. She was the gunner for the pro-abortion lobby, and ensured that Texans had the “right to choose”, yet her past is catching up with her. The Washington Post suggests that although she may have problems with her resume (which is not, when right and left clash in print, the only problems), but she had to run for Governor and lose.. The aforementioned makes no sense at all – in the real world, instead of making excuses for Ms. Davis, ahead of a loss in Texas in 2014, why not vet her first, find a credible female Democrat to run in her stead (surely there is one that hold Progressive tenets and has no .. scandals or misdemeanors or jail time in their past?)

Hillary Clinton is being ballyhooed as the front runner for 2016 – Politico reports that she is cleaning Chris Christies clock in the polls – a veritable shoe in, a done deal. While other news reports suggest that perhaps Benghazi may come back to haunt her – are either a factor?

First Christie, not necessarily the candidate of choice for the Conservative does not have yet to declare, nor has anyone else for that matter, and polls taken only pit Christie against Clinton. The danger there is that the public is led to believe that she is infallible and Christie is the only one running. Secondly, Clinton has run and was, quite clearly, robbed of the nomination in 2008, but that was history – the two major political parties appear to play a game of “the loser get’s the second chance”. In other words, should one come in second, one will come in first the very next opportunity. Never mind that there may be baggage now that was not there in 2008, given her close association tot his administration, and the additional fact that the public is growing sick of the Washington elite.

Yet, depending upon who does run, Clinton may be the best choice – baggage and all. If another female with impeccable credentials, a Governor perhaps, who has held the seat for at the least one full term, would do.

Sadly, the public is weary, both sides of the aisle and their respective media outlets, have hammered the Republican versus Democrat battle to the point where one can’t even stand to read an article, listen to a newscast or even get the energy up to care a whit – which is good news if a candidate is not the darling of either media, or exclusively branded with a major political party. Yes, once again, America needs a shiny new toy, to hold up on a pedestal, but this time, the low information voter may not be so quick to choose, and may want more in the way of leadership than slogans.

Which begs the question for both sides of the aisle and both genders – is there anyone at all, without the baggage or the brand -who would risk the backlash and the cash to take on the nightmare that surely will be the next President’s inheritance?

If a woman does run, regardless of which one, for which race, one would hope that the criticisms of which there will be many would focus on their political acumen, their management skills, rather than their personal lives and/or their wardrobe.

The Changing of the Guard by the Quiet American – Historical Patterns Justify A Change in Political Ideology and Parties – The 42% Principle

Of Conservative Attack Ads against Incumbent Democrats to Susan Collins Explaining Benghazi – It is no wonder the is antipathy towards the Parties that Be?

One might think that the overall lack of enthusiasm by the general public as far as getting out the vote and standing by a particular political party brand is the result of gridlock in Washington, or perhaps the centuries old fight between the two major parties for power over one another has become tiring, however, it just may be that there is simply put, a desire for something different, something more stable in nature that is the driving force behind the growth of the “Independent” voter.

In January of this year, USA reports that Gallup polling revealed a 25 year high among individuals that identified themselves as “Independent of any political party” – the number now stands at 42% of the nations voters. Further 42% is a rather large percentage, leaving the both major parties, as well as minor parties, without enough of a base to carry a national, or for that matter, state election with any certainty.

This leads to the question, it is perhaps time for a new party, or new parties to replace the older parties, or reinvigorate an older party? The last shift in major party politics was in the lead up to the civil war, circa 1820-1854 – form the formation of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. The Democrat-Republicans from the south and west of the nation – became the Democrat Party, while the Free Soil party formed the Republican Party – (Read full article with party shifts (Whigs, Know Nothings, etc.) here at Scholastic.com) – it has been 150 years since two major parties were born and have controlled the government and its branches. The civil war brought about these phenomena, along with an interest in minor parties by U.S. citizens.

It’s time for another change.

The “Leadership” in both parties must now face the mid-term elections of 2014 – out of which, one might guess, will come a newer and stronger ideology – one that is focused more on personal liberty and the U.S. Constitution. That would be those much maligned Libertarian leaning Republican’s who the leadership refers to as “wacko birds”. There will also be challenges form more fiscally conservative Tea Party candidates also running as Republicans. There may not even be a change in name of the old party, rather a change in personnel.

This is the same scenario taking place in the Democrat Party, and has been since the Progressives began to successfully run and obtain seats from the older Democrats. If one were to go back in time 40 years, and stand a Democrat next to a Republican of today, to those of yesteryear, there would be no way to tell the difference! Thus the conundrum for voters as to who is more trustworthy, no matter which political party brand, and offers them the opportunity for growth in this nation.

If one looks at the statistics from local elections held in 2009, one finds that across the nation, incumbents lost local elections to a fairly large percentage. It did not matter if one were a Republican or a Democrat; the vote was for the challenger. Those political strategist who feel that there is nothing amiss with either party, should take a deeper look at challenges coming from political groups or PAC’s, going into the 2014 mid-terms. It has begun. One might also look to which party members are, in a word, either appearing to distance themselves from their current party and or prove to their constituents that they are just like the primary opposition they might face.

The New York Times wrote a recent piece on the proliferation of attack ads against incumbent Democrats over Obama Care (or the Affordable Health Care Act), which has Conservative Groups (not affiliated with the Republican Party) running ads which are effective, against these incumbent Democrats.

Meanwhile, those Republican’s seen as not Tea Party, and busy bulking up their Conservative Credentials. For example, Susan Collins (R) ME recent press release on Benghazi, shows she worked in a bi-partisan manner, and investigated who might have been responsible for calling a terrorist attack, a protest, when it occurred Report in PDF from 2011 the updated release follows below.

One might wonder why that may be necessary – Susan Collins is a solid Republican (Safe) to win re-election in 2014 –unless of course, a tea party candidate emerges, then, she would be – not safe (Public Policy Polling).

One might suggest to the Massachusetts Republican Party that they put up a challenger to every single political slot (given the great disparity between the two major parties in MA), and sit back and watch what happens. Of course, they may have to fight the Tea Party or the Libertarian Party at the same time (or Green Party for that matter). To do nothing in 2014, for any one remotely thinking about challenging an opponent, would be a wasted opportunity. Call it the 42% principle - which may now be a lot higher – those 42% are seeking someone who will lead, on all levels, and or for those low information voters, someone who is not currently holding office. The winds of political landscape change are blowing and it will be extremely interesting to see where it stands once the dust of 2014 settles.

The Release from Senator Susan Collins, Republican, Maine

SENATOR COLLINS' ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACKS

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate Intelligence Committee, of which Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is a member, today released a bipartisan report on the September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel at the Temporary Mission Facility and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In December 2012, while serving as Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senators Collins and Chairman Joe Lieberman released their own report, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," which determined there was a high risk of a "significant" terrorist attack on U.S. employees and facilities in Benghazi in the months before the September 11, 2012 assault on the Mission, and the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the Mission's vulnerability.

The Lieberman-Collins report found that, while there was an absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack, this "should not have prevented the Department of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi."

Following the release of today's report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Collins released this statement, which she also filed as Additional Views to the report:

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) "Review of Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, September 11-12, 2012," represents the most extensive review to date of the actions and analysis of the Intelligence Community (IC) leading up to, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi. I commend the SSCI leaders and staff for drafting a report that joins the only other Senate report on Benghazi, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," an analysis that Joseph Lieberman, the former Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), and I authored and issued in December 2012. Our Homeland Security Committee conducted the first bipartisan investigation of what took place during the terrorist attack that cost four Americans their lives. Although hampered by time constraints and insufficient cooperation by the Administration, our report is an indictment of the State Department's failure to adequately secure the Benghazi compound despite numerous indications of an extremely dangerous threat environment. "Like our report, the SSCI report joins an increasing number of analyses to reach the sobering verdict that the State Department could have and should have done much more to prepare for the terrorist attack in Benghazi. The critical findings of this and previous reports regarding the judgments, actions, and management processes at the Department of State beg for accountability, and yet, more than a year after the attack, no one has been held responsible for the critical management failures that contributed to the vulnerability of the American personnel and facilities in Benghazi.

"The SSCI report, while adding considerably to our knowledge, would have been strengthened if it had placed greater emphasis on the lack of accountability for the broader management failures at the State Department. It would have been premature for earlier reports published in the months immediately following the attack, such as the Accountability Review Board and the "Flashing Red" report, to reach final judgments with respect to the State Department's personnel actions because the contributing factors to the vulnerability of the facility were still being pieced together. This report could have more fully evaluated the accountability issues because sufficient time had elapsed for the State Department to demonstrate whether or not decision-makers would be held accountable for poor judgments, refusals to tighten security, and misinformation.

"For example, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year that the threat environment in Benghazi was "flashing red," yet our investigation found that Under Secretary Kennedy, and other State Department officials, failed to ensure that a facility he personally approved in December 2011 had the necessary security to match the heightened threat environment.

"The SSCI report describes many of the management deficiencies that contributed to the inadequate security posture: excessive confusion in the State Department's security decision-making process, uncertainty regarding the facility's future, and the absence of sufficient communication at State Department headquarters. As referenced in the report, the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) also found that the Department lacks a conceptual framework and process for risk management, and the Independent Best Practices panel found that security standards waivers for overseas facilities are commonplace. Of the 29 Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommendations, fully 26 relate to systemic management reforms in the Department according to the OIG.

"Furthermore, this report, as well as other reports examining Benghazi, has found that the State Department failed to act upon some of the lessons learned from previous attacks. The State Department OIG's September 2013 audit of the ARB process listed four pages of recommendations by the Benghazi ARB that mirror similar recommendations from the report of the ARBs following the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings nearly fourteen years earlier. The OIG blamed this outcome, in part, on the absence of sustained oversight among Department principals, who are defined as the Secretary, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries.

"A broken system overseen by senior leadership contributed to the vulnerability of U.S. diplomats and other American personnel in one of the most dangerous cities in the world. This is unacceptable, and yet the Secretary of State has not held anyone responsible for the system's failings. This leads to a perception that senior State Department officials are exempt from accountability because the Secretary of State has failed to hold anyone accountable for the systemic failures and management deficiencies that contributed to the grossly inadequate security for the Benghazi facility.

"To be clear, the responsibility for the attack lies with the attackers themselves. Unfortunately, the promises of the President and other senior Administration officials to bring any of the attackers to justice have ringed hollow thus far. The report finds that more than a year after the attack, the terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice.

"The report includes an important recommendation I requested, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, that the U.S. government must bring the attackers to justice in spite of the unwillingness or lack of capacity of the Libyan government to assist in this effort. Failure to do so would be to repeat one of the mistakes that contributed to the lethality of the attack, which was the excessive reliance on a local Libyan security force that lacked the capacity or willingness to defend the compound.

"The failure to follow through on this promise undermines the credibility of the United States, diminishes the commitments made to the families who lost loved ones that night, and ignores the fact that our adversaries pay very close attention to our response to terrorist attacks. In general, inaction has not made the United States any safer. The failure of the United States to respond meaningfully, in the view of our adversaries, to attacks prior to 9/11/01, such as the 1998 al Qaeda attack against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole bombing, served only to embolden the terrorists to plan and execute larger and more deadly attacks.

"Finally, the report does not go far enough to address the Administration's failure to correctly label the incident as a deliberate and organized terrorist attack in the days following the attack. As our "Flashing Red" report found, there was never any doubt among key officials, including officials in the IC and the Department of State, that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Yet, high-ranking Administration officials, including the President himself, repeatedly cast doubt on the nature of the attack, at times attributing it to the reaction to an anti-Islamic video and to a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

"The SSCI report accurately describes that the IC moved too slowly to correct errors about a protest that never happened, and describes eyewitness testimony that should have been made available or pursued by the intelligence community more aggressively. The report does not, however, describe all of the operational reporting that should have been available to the IC after the attack.

"The "Flashing Red" report identified two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, which characterized the attack as an "initial terrorism incident" and as a "terrorist event." In addition to the eyewitness testimony and the State Department reports, agencies and offices responsible for terrorism, including the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, and the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, were immediately involved with gathering information about the attack. Indeed, how could there have been any doubt in anyone's mind that, when a large number of armed men break into a U.S. diplomatic facility, set fire to its building, and fire mortars at Americans, that is by definition a terrorist attack?

"Despite the fact that the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi were recognized as terrorist attacks by the Intelligence Community and personnel at the Department of State from the beginning, Administration officials were inconsistent and at times misleading in their public statements and failed for days to make clear to the American people that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack. It took eight days before the Administration communicated clearly and unequivocally to the American people and to Congress regarding this fact through testimony by NCTC Director Matthew Olsen before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on September 19, 2012.

"Even after the Administration finally published the complete timeline of the changes made to the talking points, it is baffling how a fundamental, unclassified fact that was known to the IC from the beginning was only communicated clearly to the American people by the Administration after the issue had already been sufficiently muddled to result in confusion.

"While I support the SSCI report and appreciate its thorough analysis of much of what went wrong, I believe that more emphasis should have been placed on the three issues I have discussed: (1) the Administration's initial misleading of the American people about the terrorist nature of the attack, (2) the failure of the Administration to hold anyone at the State Department, particularly Under Secretary Kennedy, fully accountable for the security lapses, and (3) the unfulfilled promises of President Obama that he would bring the terrorists to justice."

Rand Paul on Economic Freedom and Blind Justice – In Detroit – Is it Acceptable for a “Republican” to Want to Help All Americans? Only If One is the Opposition Political Party.

Rand Paul is an interesting character in the grander scheme of politics – being a Libertarian in Republican’s clothing. Although there is a claim to kinship between the two political parties, it is the slimmest of such, given the ideology of the Libertarian is based on the individual freedoms of the people, rather than big government, while Republican’s, as they stand today, appear to be more interested in being “liked” or “moderate”. Rand Paul, like a very few others in the Senate and the House are polar opposites of the usual politician, as they tend to make remarks, or hold personal beliefs that may or may not resonate with their “base”, or their “peers” – more outcast, cowboy – or more Libertarian. That said, he and a few others, are doing their darndest to bring the Republican Party back to the roots of the 1860’s, when the Democrats where slaveholders and the Republicans’ were freedom fighters. It is not that a great deal has changed ideologically, it is the messaging that has changed, and the general dummying down of the public by a barrage of anti-Republican, pro-Democrat education and entertainment aimed 24/7 at the “masses” is a tough firewall to breach. They are taking on the task anyhow.

Therefore, when the Senator from Kentucky goes to Detroit to try to do something to haul that desolate and blighted city out of the muck and mire the Press and the opposition party (Democrats) tend to suggest he has motive, a lot of nerve, or is just “too Republican”(MLive). The problem with that reaction is that it appears to be saying to the people of Detroit and the Nation that anyone who has the “label” Republican, is now allowed to help or try to suggest options, as that particular piece of land and all the people living therein – belong to the Democrat Party. It doesn’t matter if one agrees or disagrees with the ideas of aforementioned Senator Paul; they are simply unacceptable out of the gate.

When the Senator suggested The justice system may not treat minorities in Detroit the same as the say the “rest of us”, - of course, it is with the Republican brand that he is cloaked in – regardless of the fact that he is looking at outreach on Democrat Holy turf, being a Republican, his ideas, and the Party in general should be given the opportunity and the respect due for even attempting to do something to life a city so desolate, out of the ashes. (Los Angeles Times)

Here is the question the people in Detroit should be asking – How can that Senator from Kentucky help us, when the Democrats have done nothing to improve our economic situation?

They could take it a step further and ask why the Democrats think they “own” them.

But that would bring up the whole messy, economic slavery, as opposed to physical slavery that the Party of the KKK has so deftly managed to continue through entitlement programs and a very large blind eye – as long as they get a return of votes, there is nothing to see.

What if that Senator from Kentucky really means what he says, both personally and politically – would not that be a shocker?

What if a life-long Democrat Voter, living in poverty, wanting something better, a helping hand upward, actually voted for that Kentucky Republican Senator, Rand Paul, in 2016? That’s the question that must concern those Democrats and their sycophants in the media, but only slightly. They need only look to the sheep in Massachusetts or Illinois, or any other state in decline, to understand the herd mentality of the Political Party slave. It’s a hard step to take to become an Independent voter – one who pulls the lever for the person they feel will actually do the right job, rather than the D or R because they feel….enslaved to the brand. One can only hope that the Senator, should he decide to run for President in 2016, succeed in his endeavors.

Fighting Factions within the Democrat Party – Recognized – The Progressive versus the Democrat – Warren Coy About 2016 Run

From Politico: