The Gasoline Monopoly

John R. Houk

© January 28, 2013

Did you know your car runs on gasoline for a specific reason? That reason is a gasoline monopoly. Cars and trucks are required to be made to burn a petroleum based fuel. I am no scientist so the info I found out about alternative fuels is new to me. This is the info: Did you know that car engines can be made that burns a petroleum based gasoline, ethanol or methanol alternatively or simultaneously? AND according the information I read the car you currently drive can relatively easily rework your engine to burn ethanol and/or methanol?

Why are these questions important? Because if cars are manufactured with engines that operate on more than just petroleum gasoline, the economic power of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would sliced in which the Western World would no longer have an absolute dependence of foreign oil especially the kind of oil from nations that are taught to hate the USA, Jews and Christians.

The single largest entity impacting the world's oil supplies is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a consortium of 13 countries: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Together, these 13 nations are responsible for 40 percent of the world's oil production and hold the majority of the world's oil reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). [source: EIA]. When OPEC wants to raise the price of crude oil, it simply reduces production. This causes gasoline prices to jump because of the short supply, but also because of the possibility of future reductions. When oil production dips, gas companies get nervous. The mere threat of oil reductions can raise gas prices.

In April 2001, OPEC decided to reduce its collective production by one million barrels per day. This was at the same time that American consumers saw gas prices rise, hitting an average high of $1.71 per gallon on May 14, 2001. (READ THE REST - How Gas Prices Work)

The advocacy of ACT for America alerted me via email about this issue which you can read below.

JRH 1/28/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

****************************

Breaking the back of OPEC

A national security imperative

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: Jan 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM

If you follow our email alerts you know that last year we actively supported a bill called The Open Fuel Standard Act. Simply put, this bill would break up the liquid fuel monopoly that now exists. This monopoly guarantees that the only fuel you can buy for your car or truck is gasoline (or, at most, gasoline containing a small percentage of ethanol).

If we are to ever really break the back of the OPEC price-fixing cartel, we must break the gasoline monopoly. The first step is ensuring that cars can actually run on other fuels such as methanol, which can be made from natural gas, coal, even waste such as grass clippings.

Did you know that, with just a few minor alterations to your car, it’s possible to run it on methanol—at a significant savings over the cost of gas?

We encourage you to check out the article below and the Open Fuel Standard website.

 _________________________

Breaking Monopolies is One of Government's Most Important Responsibilities
http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2013/01/breaking-monopolies-is-one-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenFuelStandard+%282+-+Open+Fuel+Standard%29

Anne Korin and Gal Luft make a very persuasive argument in their new book, Petropoly, that the most influential free market advocates have always been in favor of one particular use of government: To prevent or break monopolies so free markets and competition could occur.

Many people are in favor of fuel competition but think the Open Fuel Standard is an overreach of government. Korin and Luft's arguments make it clear that nothing could be further from the truth.

Many people believe that the reason other fuels don't compete with gasoline is because they can't — they're too expensive. But this is not so. Ethanol and methanol can both be sold today for less money per mile than gasoline. The only reason people don't use them is because their cars are not warranted to burn them. The engines themselves could burn the fuel. But the cars are warranted to burn one fuel only, regardless of how easy and inexpensive it is to make them capable of burning all three. And that's the only reason fuels are not competing today.

What we have is a virtual monopoly. And since transportation underpins our economy, this monopoly rules our most economically important commodity. What would Nobel Laureate (in Economics) Friedrich August Hayek think should be done about this? He was, as Korin and Luft put it, "One of the greatest economists and political philosophers of the 20th century and the world's leading free market proponent...In 1945, Hayek published his triumphantly successful book The Road to Serfdom, a manifest in defense of markets and competition which made him the darling of conservative parties and leaders all over the world, including Margaret Thatcher."

Hayek said that you can't rigidly stick to rules with regard to free markets, and he named especially laissez-faire as one of those rules you should not be inflexible about. Hayek believed that the government should function as "a counterweight to monopolistic coercion" as Luft and Korin put it. That's exactly what we have in the transportation sector. "Cars that block competing fuels," they write, "are a barrier to the development of a free market in fuels."

Because we don't have any other attractive options for breaking OPEC's monopolistic coercion of our economy, Hayek would probably have wholeheartedly supported the Open Fuel Standard Act.

Another important and influential free market advocate was also a Nobel Laureate in Economics — Milton Friedman. He wrote that "the first and most urgent necessity in the area of government policy is the elimination of those measures which directly support monopoly."

What is something within our borders that directly supports the petroleum monopoly? The petroleum-only vehicle.

What could eliminate that monopoly? The Open Fuel Standard.

Many people are understandably angry at our government's constant interference and meddling in the free market. But freeing markets from a monopoly's dominance of an important commodity is one of the few good reasons our government should intervene. Let's hope this understanding reaches enough people in time.

____________________________

The Gasoline Monopoly

John R. Houk

© January 28, 2013

___________________________

Breaking the back of OPEC

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Christians be Bold in this 21st Century PC Age

John R. Houk

© January 27, 2013

As a Christian I am not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God. In that belief I feel obligated to speak up for my faith when confronted anti-Christ situations. The anti-Christ problem situations are admittedly projecting a ‘holier-than-thou’ image in the confrontation. Yes I realize it is not Christ-like to appear holier than thou. Even so, until I learn to develop that knack of projecting God’s Love while standing with the Savior I’ll err on the side of holier than thou rather than on the side of cowardly sheep afraid of offending someone.

One thing you should understand is that I am not perfect. Too often a lack of perfection is used by critics of Christians to cry hypocrite. And too often the critic is correct about the accusation of ‘hypocrite’. This is how I deal internally if I am a hypocrite or not.

The hypocrite is one who believes and tells another what is right while without contrition continues to personally do the opposite of what is right one’s self. The sense of contrition is the difference between a hypocrite and one who continues to seek the right even if a wrong turn is taken. Some are better than others at reading right and wrong turn signs. Or have learned the discipline not to be enticed to take wrong turns when there are signs that show the right way to go.

Two anti-Christ issues I deal with are to a lesser extent the immorality of the homosexual lifestyle and to a larger extent Islam. These days a critic of homosexuality and Islam is labeled with the epithet of homophobe or Islamophobe. In this post I am exalting Christ over Mohammed and the deity he called Allah.

Muslims – especially devout Muslims – are convinced Jesus is (as in the past tense ‘was’) only a man. Muslims are taught Jesus was one of a long line of prophets and the last prophet was Mohammed. In Islamic thinking Jesus is not the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the Living God who is ONE with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christians view the Trinity as One God and Muslims view the Trinity as three god polytheistic idolatry.

Muslims have no problem expressing their negative thoughts on the Divinity and Sonship of Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Quran and its companion commentaries that include the Hadith, Sira and Sunna including the Islamic Clerical commentaries that ends up being studied to formulate Sharia Law, have theological reasoning for aggression toward Jews, Christians and polytheists. Initially Islamic holy writings indicate Mohammed desired to woo Jews and Christians into Islam as People of the Book. Polytheists or other non-Muslim religions were simply offered a convert or die option.

Does the Bible speak of aggression against people? Only an idiot would say no. However there are some glaring differences between the agendas of the Bible and the Quran relating to aggression against people.

The Old Testament (Christian perspective) points to the genealogical line that was Promised from Adam’s Fall through to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob then through Judah, Jesse and David then through David’s lineage that lead to Mary who conceives Jesus by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. This Old Testament scarlet thread focuses on the descendants of Abraham through the child of Promise Isaac – NOT Ishmael the son of Abraham and the Egyptian slave Hagar. Isaac’s son Jacob was renamed Israel by God. The descendants of Jacob-Israel became the Hebrew nation of Israel. God commanded the nation Israel to clear out the land of Canaan of its inhabitants because those people had devolved into such heinous sin they were beyond redeeming. Converting the Canaanites to the ONE-God faith of the Hebrews was not part of Israel possessing the Land.

The rising and falling of the nation Israel mirrors the degree of faithfulness of Israeli leaders in guiding the people under the Law of Moses. Eventually Israel split into two Kingdoms. The Northern Kingdom became known as Israel and roughly represented ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Southern Kingdom became known as Judah and represented the two tribes Judah and smaller Benjamin. The Southern Kingdom maintained the line of King David which is part of that scarlet thread of the human side of Jesus through Mary.

Israel and Judah both had their Kingdoms emptied of the Hebrews. The Assyrian Empire removed the predominant elites of the Northern Kingdom. The Babylonian Empire removed the inhabitants of Judah save a few unlearned tied to the land. History essentially begins calling the Hebrew remnant as Jews after the last Hebrew Kingdom of Judah. The Persians (Ironically the present day Iranians) allowed the Jews to begin to return to their Homeland area shortly Babylon was conquered.

 I tried to abbreviate the Old Testament history of the Jews and I probably did a poor job; nonetheless the gist of my timeline is correct. At no time are the Jews commanded by God to force the world population into Judaism or die. The only people commanded to be exterminated were morally reprobate people on the level of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Mohammed’s sole dictum to his followers was to spread the creed of Islam by conquering the world by blood, lust and humiliation. The humiliation part was the plan to intimidate non-Muslims into eventually converting to Islam. The Islamic agenda was not a divine mission. Rather the Islamic agenda was a political-martial conquest that cemented the subjugation of the conquered by inculcating a new socio-theological paradigm into their conquered societies via demoralizing humiliation.

The Christian sole dictum is to go into all the world and share the Good News that Salvation is of the Jews and believing Jesus died on the Cross, was buried and on the third day was Resurrected from the grave by the power of the Father. Christ the Son of God in His glorified body fully human and fully Divine sits at the Right Hand of the Father ever interceding for the saints (Believing Christians).

Islam conquest of the world is coercive. Don’t believe junk that there is compulsion of religion in Islam. It is a deceptive statement. Sure the People of the Book can return their religion BUT ONLY if no open contradiction to Islam exists. Believe there is compulsion if Muslim indoctrinated people believe a religious minority is openly practicing their faith in a Muslim majority nation today.

Biblically Christian conquest in this world, until the Last Days, is purely a voluntary act of faith. The consequences for rejecting Christ are faced in the next life. Yes there have been Christian nations and empires that have imposed Christianity; however the imposition is contrary to the Word of God in the Bible. The Quranic aggression against non-Muslims is codified in the Quran, Hadith and Sira both in this life and the next life in Islamic theology.

I have to admit my ire over how Western political correctness was raised by an Andrew Bostom article with the theme that even when criticism is correctly directed toward a Muslim Cleric or Muslim terrorist that is a proponent of instituting the purist Islam of Mohammed, the critics tend to fail to note that Islam’s holiest book the Quran actually calls for the degradation of the non-Muslim.  In Bostom’s critic he notes that the Obama Administration is selling some weaponry of significant power to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt’s President Muhammad Morsi. That weaponry is some of America’s finest Fighter Jets.

In the past Egypt had developed into a pretty decent ally of U.S. under the now deposed Hosni Mubarak. Now Egypt is more like a fake ally putting the face of friendship while killing Coptic Christians and spewing the typical Quranic drivel that Jews and Israel should be exterminated. It is the ‘kill the Jews’ mentality that has gotten Bostom’s attention.

Evidently Sean Hannity has been criticizing the Obama Administration about selling weaponry to Jew-hating and American-hating Morsi. Bostom is ok with that portion of Hannity’s criticism. Bostom is befuddled on how Hannity and other good Conservative pundits like him are not pointing out that Morsi is merely repeating EXACTLY what the Quran, Hadith and Sira are saying about the way to treat Jews and Christians.

Here I am emphasizing that Christians should have no fear from Muslim Apologists that take glee in belittling Christianity and the Savior Jesus Christ. No one not even the President of the United States of America will denounce prominent Muslims for spewing anti-Christian hatred. AND YET the President and his Leftist minions will go out their way to denounce Biblically minded Christians as bigoted Islamophobes for pointing out the racism and über intolerance of Muslims and Islamic theo-political ideology.

YOU NEED TO READ ANDREW BOSTOM’S POST: Hey Hannity, Koran 5:60 Refers to Jews as 'Apes and Pigs'

JRH 1/27/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

The constitution doesn't work in some instances

Democrats only believe the Constitution works when it validates or protects a Leftist principle, otherwise the Constitution does not always work. Just ask Secretary of Defense Nominee John Kerry.

JRH 1/26/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

********************************

The constitution doesn't work in some instances

By Rand Paul

Sent: 1/25/2013 2:43 PM

Sent by RandPAC

"The Constitution doesn't work in some instances."

I'm sure you were floored when you read that.

I was too when John Kerry said those EXACT words to me yesterday during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of State.

As I told John Kerry, "the Constitution has no exception for when you’re having a tough time or when people disagree with you.”

But that’s not all I had to say.

My staff has pulled out my exchange with John Kerry for you to watch in the brief video below.

VIDEO: Rand Paul Questions John Kerry

Unfortunately, that’s the problem in Washington these days.

Too many politicians and bureaucrats flat-out ignore the Constitution, or they think they have the authority to obey it at will.

There's no accountability.

Hillary Clinton acted the same way during her hearing over the Benghazi terrorist attacks that left four Americans dead.

And to add insult to injury, whenever concerned Americans like you hold their feet to the fire and expect them to fulfill the duties their offices demand - they're outraged.

Rest assured, I'm going to hold their feet to the fire.

Whether they like it or not, whenever the Big Government crowd decides to cherry-pick the Constitution, I'm going to call them out on it.

That's because I'm dead serious about restoring constitutional government in America.

And I promise you I'm not backing down.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. Take a moment to watch the brief video of my exchange with John Kerry during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation Hearing yesterday.

And please consider chipping in a contribution of $10, $15 or $25 to help restore constitutional government in America.

-----------------------------------------------

© RandPAC, 2013. All Rights Reserved.

Paid for by RandPAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to RandPAC are not tax-deductible.
www.RandPAC.com

Hillary's contempt of Congress

Yesterday I fumed over the imperious and contemptible fashion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton skated through Senate questioning about the Benghazigate failings. Joseph Farah voices the same observations about Hillary yet with a more polished journalistic style than I.

JRH 1/25/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

 

****************************************

Hillary's contempt of Congress

Exclusive: Joseph Farah says Clinton should go to jail for deceit over Benghazi

By Joseph Farah

January 24, 2013

WND

Does anyone else see Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony before the Senate committee for what it is – contempt of Congress?

That’s what it is called when you lie, make excuses, obfuscate and basically tell members in sworn testimony that matters of national security and life and death are none of their business.

“What difference does it make?” has to go down as one of the classic lines of executive-branch contempt for the more powerful branch – what is supposed to be the people’s branch – of government.

Others have explained in plain language all the reasons the truth makes a difference:

§  Because lying to the people by government to cover up ineptitude and bad policy is serious stuff;

§  Because the needless and unavenged deaths of an ambassador and other Americans is intolerable;

§  Because if the executive branch is permitted to get away with such behavior it is likely to be repeated again and again;

§  Because the people have a right to know what actually happened and information is being purposely and arrogantly withheld;

§  And because her story makes no sense.

Let me address one of the craziest notions Clinton floated in her testimony Wednesday.

She actually tried to blame Congress for not providing the necessary money to beef up security at the Libyan mission.

Let me point out that Congress has provided about $3.5 trillion – some of it from taxpayers and the rest borrowed – for the administration to spend.

There has not been a budget for nearly four years, so that money is largely fungible – meaning it can be spent in many ways, without congressional approval. The State Department and Defense Department have wide latitude on how money is spent. The president has even conducted military action throughout his first term – rightly or wrongly – without congressional approval.

So how can Clinton sit there contemptuously and suggest action wasn’t taken to ward off the attack on the mission, to rescue Americans or to punish those responsible?

It would be laughable if this were not a matter of deadly seriousness.

For instance, the State Department spent some $525 million on a mosque in the Middle East. Did the executive branch seek permission or authorization from Congress to do that?

I don’t think so.

The State Department has all kinds of discretionary funds that are used for the most ridiculous ideas under the sun. Are we supposed to believe that it didn’t have funds to beef up security at the request of the ambassador?

It’s time for Congress to get tough with this administration and to stop taking this excuse-making lying down.

It needs to set clear budget priorities – that’s its job – so the Obama administration understands that protecting the lives and safety of Americans at home and abroad is the No. 1 objective of the federal government. Period. End of story.

In addition, liars like Hillary Clinton need to pay a price for their contempt, incompetence and deceit.

There is a remedy. Congress can and should throw her in prison for a while to see if that refreshes her failing memory and jogs her mind as to the facts the American people demand to know about Benghazi-gate.

I don’t care whether or not she is still secretary of state. It makes no difference. She was, like Barack Obama himself, responsible for the disaster in Libya. Even while making excuses at every opportunity, she claimed responsibility.

So why the lying? Why the long delay in releasing the facts? Why the double-talk? Why did the administration continue to blame a “spontaneous uprising” when it knew the truth? And why is Hillary Clinton still getting away with all of this?

As she was fond of asking as one of the young assistant prosecutors back in the Watergate days: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” And, “What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?”

_________________________

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Benghazi, Senate Hearings and Hillary Clinton

John R. Houk

© January 24, 2013

Have you had an opportunity to listen to the hypocritical drivel proceeding from the mouths Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Dem Party Senators at the Benghazi Hearings? Does Obama own the Republican Party now? When the tough questions began Hillary would give the gruff evil eye and the GOP would back down. The disgrace of the ineffective GOP Senators to hold Hillary accountable even if she popped a gasket is shameful. GOP fear of BHO and Hillary is another reason for Conservatives to consider abandoning the Republican Party and begin building a grassroots national base for an alternative political party to confront the Leftist vision of the Democrats.

Anyway after listening to this politburo representation in the Senate I discovered a lengthy and yet concise report on the Benghazi Massacre that the Obama Administration could have stopped. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) led by Soros servant and Islamist loving Thomas Pickering basically gave anyone in the higher levels of the Obama Administration a clear pass (cough – high level as in President Obama and Secretary Clinton?). Independent examination of Benghazi data that was available imply Pickering’s panel and report was deficient in assigning accountability.

With this in mind Determine The Networks has that lengthy yet concise report that will bring more clarity to Benghazigate than Secretary Clinton’s contrived testimony which was more a Dem farewell party than an investigation.

Below I am going to post a hint of the DTN report which has analysis and timelines. Then I strongly encourage you to read the rest on the DTN site.

JRH 1/24/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

********************************

BENGHAZI: THE TERRORIST ATTACK OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

Determine The Networks

Alert Sent: January 23, 2013 2:03 PM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report examines the most significant events that occurred before, during, and after the September 11, 2012 Islamic terrorist attacks against an American diplomatic mission (and a nearby CIA annex) in Benghazi, Libya. The compound that housed the diplomatic mission possessed none of the security features usually found in such a facility: e.g., bulletproof glass, reinforced ballistic doors, a “safe room,” and high concrete barriers surrounding the buildings. It also lacked an adequate supply of trained security personnel. According to Congressman Darrell Issa, the Obama administration intentionally withdrew security personnel and equipment from the mission in Benghazi for political reasons, so as to “conve[y] the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better [i.e., safer], not worse.”

In March 2011, American diplomat Christopher Stevens was stationed in Benghazi as the American liaison to Libya's “opposition” rebels—among whom were many al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists—who were fighting to topple the longstanding regime of President Muammar Qaddafi. Ambassador Stevens' task was to help coordinate covert U.S. assistance to these rebels. In short, the Obama administration elected to aid and abet individuals and groups that were allied ideologically and tactically with al Qaeda.

Following Qaddafi's fall from power in the summer of 2011, Ambassador Stevens was tasked with finding and securing the vast caches of powerful armaments which the Libyan dictator had amassed during his long reign. In turn, Stevens facilitated the transfer of these arms to the “opposition” rebels in Syria who were trying to topple yet another Arab dictator—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. As in Libya, the rebels in Syria were likewise known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups. So once again, the Obama administration was willfully helping the cause of al Qaeda and its affiliates. In addition to facilitating arms transfers, Stevens' duties also included the recruitment of Islamic jihadists from Libya and elsewhere in North Africa who were willing to personally go into combat against the Assad regime in Syria. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a headquarters from which all the aforementioned activities could be coordinated with officials and diplomats from such countries as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

As 2012 progressed, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, to say nothing of the explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, Ambassador Stevens and others at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Obama administration for increased security provisions during 2012, but these requests were invariably denied or ignored.

Then, on the night of September 11, 2012, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked by a large group of heavily armed terrorists. Over the ensuing 7 hours, Americans stationed at the diplomatic mission and at the nearby CIA annex issued 3 urgent requests for military back-up, all of which were denied by the Obama administration. By the time the violence was over, 4 Americans were dead: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who fought valiantly (but unsuccessfully) to drive away the attackers.

In the wake of the violence, the Obama administration immediately and persistently characterized what had occurred in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that just happened, coincidentally, to take place on the anniversary of 9/11. Moreover, the administration portrayed the attack as an event that had evolved from what began as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video that disparaged Muslims and their faith. In reality, however, by this time U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that the attack on the mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist incident, not a spontaneous act carried out in reaction to a video. Indeed, the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack.

Given these realities, it is likely that the Obama administration's post-September 11 actions were aimed at drawing public attention away from a number of highly important facts:

§  the U.S. mission in Benghazi had never adopted adequate security measures;

§  the administration had ignored dozens of warning signs about growing Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region over a period of more than 6 months;

§  the administration, for political reasons, had ignored or denied repeated requests for extra security by American diplomats stationed in Benghazi;

§  the administration had failed to beef up security even for the anniversary of 9/11, a date of obvious significance to terrorists;

§  the administration, fully cognizant of what was happening on the ground during the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, nonetheless denied multiple calls for help by Americans who were stationed there;

§  the administration had been lying when, throughout the presidential election season, it relentlessly advanced the notion that "al Qaeda is on the run" and Islamic terrorism was in decline thanks to President Obama's policies; and perhaps most significantly,

§  throughout 2011 and 2012 the administration had been lending its assistance to jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda, supposedly the organization that represented the prime focus of Obama's anti-terrorism efforts; moreover, some of those same jihadists had personally fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.        

This section of Discover The Networks explores the significance of the events in Benghazi and of the Obama administration's response to … READ THE REST

___________________________

Benghazi, Senate Hearings and Hillary Clinton

John R. Houk

© January 24, 2013

___________________________

BENGHAZI: THE TERRORIST ATTACK OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

Copyright 2003-2012: DiscoverTheNetworks.org

Help us expose the Networks!
Your generous contribution right now will help us expose the networks of the Left -- the connections that exist between thousands of key individuals, organizations, and funders spearheading the Left's infiltration of the media, politics, academia, the entertainment industry, and a host of activist crusades. We cannot continue this effort without your help!