IRS Targeted Conservative Groups, Tea Party, Patriots & Non-Profit Groups that Criticized the Obama Government and Sought to Educate Americans About the U.S. Constitution

If it looks like an enemies list, walks like an enemies list and talks like an enemies list … guess what America, IT’S AN ENEMIES LIST.

How bad is the recent revelations that the IRS purposely and willfully targeted Conservative groups like the Tea Party and organizations with “tae party” or “patriot” in their name? Even the not so-conservative Washington Post is coming out swinging against the Internal Revenue Service and the Obama Administration. The IRS tried to preempt the damning news on Friday that the they were targeting conservative groups, in an effort to get ahead of the story that was going to be much, much worse. Thus, the so-called IRS apology that they had been doing this since 2012 was pretty much BS as it was only the tip of the iceberg. We then found out that high ranking IRS officials knew since 2011.  We are now finding out that the IRS targeted Conservative non-profits that dared used their First Amendment rights if an organization criticize the Obama government or dared sought to educate Americans on the United States Constitution. HUH? This is still America, isn’t it? Sorry, but even the liberals have an issue with this as it looks extremely “Nixonian”.

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials singled out for scrutiny not only groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names but also nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that “criticize how the country is being run” and those that were involved in educating Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

AMERICA … THE IRS WAS TARGETING THOSE THAT WOULD DARE EDUCATE OTHERS ON THE US CONSTITUTION!!! WHAT THE HELL HAS THIS COUNTRY BECOME UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA? HOW’S THAT FOR SOME HOPE AND CHANGE.

The IRS tried to preempt this PR nightmare with a half-hearted apology and stated, do not worry though, even though we only targeted Conservative organizations like the Tea Party, it was not motivated by politics or political bias. How can anyone say this with a straight face? The single most feared government agency acting like the “Gestapo” to intimidate those that are against the current administration and we are supposed to believe that it was not political. Really? Just curious, how many non-profits with “progressive” were targeted? Ah, nearly none.

Folks on the LEFT and the RIGHT are concerned over this situation with the IRS. As Susan Collins, the Republican Senator from Maine stated on CNN over the weekend, “This is truly outrageous. And it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government.” She also stated, ”And I think that it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out.” Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t care if you’re a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation.”

Just how bad is it when the WAPO says, You Betcha the IRS should be investigated?

It’s just a coincidence that all this started just after the 2010 midterm elections when the Tea Party became a major player and inflicted a “shellacking” on the Democrat party and Barack Obama. Coincidence indeed. Also, most TRANSPARENT presidency is history, eh? But there is nothing politically motivated about any of this.

Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”

BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …

Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”?  Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”

Video Hat Tip: The Gateway Pundit

Partial transcript from FOX News Sunday:

WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that information “could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.

FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.

WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?

KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.

WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.

The Audacity of the Obama White House … … Jay Carney Blames Mitt Romney for Benghazi Scandal

WHO POLITICIZED BENGHAZI AND THE DEATH OF FOUR AMERICANS?

The Audacity of Hope Barack Obama. The Obama Administration and their minions are some of the most vile that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever seen. After ABC News had exposed the Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times to the point where they did not even reflect the truth as to what happened … during their damage control, the Obama spin machine and chief Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney tried to blame  it all on Mitt Romney. How pathetic are these people? Who politicized Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods? It was the Obama administration who as even MSNBC and CNN are reporting edited the talking points for political purposes during a reelection campaign. MSNBC is even going as far as discussing impeachment as a result of the Obama administrations actions. This administration lied and scrubbed the Benghazi talking points to get reelected and they have the gall to say others politicized Benghazi? Families, friend and Americans want answers to what happened and the Obama administration continues to misrepresent the truth.

But with President Obama, the buck always stops with some one else.

CNN’s Gloria Borger Acknowldges Benghazi Talking Points “Were Edited to the Point of Inaccuracy” … Chris Cuomo: “Safe to Say this Goes Beyond Partisan Picking”

Add another Left-leaning main stream media outlet to those that are questioning the Barack Obama administration and the edited Benghazi terror attack talking points.

First MSNBC and now CNN is coming out against the Obama administration for editing the Benghazi talking points, in the aftermath of the terror attack that left four Americans dead, to the point where the events that took place were untrue. In a CNN interview between Chris Cuomo and  Chief political analyst Gloria Borger, neither had anything good to say about the 12 edited versions of the Benghazi talking points using such words as “cover-up” and “whitewash”. Gloria Borger said, the Obama Administration’s Benghazi talking points were “edited to the point of inaccuracy” and the question is “was it a cover-up or whitewash”. She would later say that the talking points were so edited that by the end, they did not even resemble the truth. The most amazing comment may have come from Chris Cuomo when he stated, “it’s safe  to say that this goes beyond partisan picking.” Did the LEFT just hear that? One of your own is saying that the GOP is not acting in a partisan manner. CNN is basically saying that the Obama administration played partisan politics for his reelection bid when four Americans died. Are you kidding, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed by terrorist and the Obama WH edited what occurred to the point it was a false narrative. We lost lives and needed to know what happened and Team Obama was more interested in talking points that fit his reelection. Cuomo called it unforgivable.

Maybe former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee was correct when he said during his radio show, President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

click on pic to listen to an unbelievable VIDEO from CNN discussing an Obama whitewash and editing the talking points to a point of inaccuracy

CNN Transcript:

GLORIA BORGER: What we see in this process is that these talking points were edited to the point of inaccuracy. The question is, is it a cover-up? Is it a whitewash? We don’t know the answer to that.

CHRIS CUOMO: I know. And you took my question. That’s exactly what I was going to ask you. Right? Because that’s what this gets to, 12. What’s the context? It sounds like a lot, but we have to know the nature and purpose of what those changes were.

GLORIA BORGER: So here’s the context. Over at the CIA they’re looking at some of these points, which include mention of Al Qaeda. And there’s a sense from some at the CIA, you know what, we don’t want to tip anybody that we’re investigating Al Qaeda on this, so let’s take out some of the references to Al Qaeda. What the CIA left in, apparently, was this sort of broader context of Al Qaeda in Benghazi in that part of the world. Those were eventually edited out. And there is an e-mail obtained by ABC news from someone at the State Department which asks, why should we leave that in because “it could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.” So clearly from a State Department official asking the question, why are we going to give members of Congress information, don’t forget in an election year, which they could turn around and beat us up with. And that’s how you see in evolving. Everybody’s got a different reason for editing it. And they edit it down to something that’s totally, turns out to be in fact untrue.

More from MSNBC … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”.

Bad Day for Obama & Hillary Clinton: MSNBC Guest from the Daily Beast Columnist Michael Tomasky Says … Invoked “That Word That Starts With ‘I’” … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”

You know its bad for Barack Obama when the LIBS at MSNBS MSLSD MSNBC start bringing up “Impeachment” as a result of their Benghazi cover-up and Benghazigate.

Even the LEFT is at a loss for words and defense when it comes to the way the Obama White House has handled Benghazi before, during and after the Benghazi consulate attacks. The news that Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times and scrubbed of all references of terrorism have left the LEFT in a quandary.  Just when you thought you had seen it all, even the ultra-liberal MSNBC folks appear to be using the “I” word when it comes to President Barack Obama and “impeachment” over the White House’s handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Playing politics games to win the 2012 presidential election, could come back to bite Obama. MSNBC, that has made a living off of defending, deflecting and just not covering Barack Obama’s disastrous presidency, both foreign and domestic, has now been forced to question the Obama presidency and even use such descriptive words as impeachment and compare his handling of Benghazi to ‘Watergate”. As Maggie’s Farm states, this is beginning to look much worse than “Watergate”. In fact, it is. No US ambassadors died during Watergate. Actually, no one died during Watergate, only political careers.

Unlike Watergate, an unremarkable political dirty trick with a dumb and unnecessary White House cover-up (if a handful of people had been fired it would have been a big nothing), in this case American public servants died seemingly because of State Dept and possibly White House incompetence or indifference, and both may have been complicit in an attempted cover-up a few weeks before a national election. Possibly the CIA too. People have been intimidated about speaking out, but maybe no longer.

It is not joust Barack Obama who is in trouble, but so is former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential nominee wannbe Hillary Clinton. She comes across looking terrible, possibly even worse than Obama. As Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson said, “I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian.” Yes she does. Hillary looks like all the worst parts of the Bill Clinton years, something that will not be lost by the GOP or Democrat primary challengers in 2016. The politicization of talking points when four Americans died is beyond disgustingly sick. Before, during and after, Clinton’s State Department failed miserably and looked to cover up … is that what the US needs as a president in 2016?

From Mediaite:

“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.

“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”

“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”

Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.

“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.

The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.

“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.

“I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian,” submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. “It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton.”

UNBELIEVABLE Obama Cronies Blaming George W. Bush for IRS Targeting Conservative Groups & Tea Party

THE BARACK OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS NO SHAME, THE BUCK ALWAYS STOPS WITH EVERYONE ELSE …

Obama White House spokesman Jay Carney said, said in response to a question about the I.R.S. targeting conservative groups, that the I.R.S. is run by a George W. Bush political appointee. Huh? So let’s get this straight, the Obama is blaming George W. Bush for the IRS targeting conservative groups like the Tea Party under their watch? Seriously? When will this gutless administration ever take responsibility for anything? Remember when Barack Obama promised “We the People” the most transparent White House evah?

VIDEO at the Weekly Standard.

“I.R.S. is an independent enforcement agency,” said Carney. “The — which I believe, as I understand it, contains only two political appointees within it. The individual who is running the I.R.S. at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration.”

The previous administration was George W. Bush’s administration.

WHAT A JOKE. Just how many scandals is it going to take for the American people to become completely disgusted with the Obama administration? We have had ‘Fast & Furious” the gun walking scandal that was responsible for the death of two US border guards, refusal to secure Bengazi consulate that resulted in four Americans were murdered including Ambassador Stevens, the cover-up of what happened in Benghazi, government loans to “green” energy companies who were campaign donors, the Obamacare lies and the government take over of health care,

The full list of Obama scandals can be read at Powerline and  HERE.

Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited

BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.

Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.”  The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST …  ABC News  has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration.  The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.

So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was  Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?

Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not  mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?

Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report  that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.

During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”

IRS Admits Trageting Conservatives for Extra Tax Scrutiny in 2012 Election … Claimed there was No Political Bias Behind the Alinsky Targeting Tactics

ADD ANOTHER SCANDAL TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIO … MORE CHICAGO STYLE, SAUL ALINSKY POLITICS … WHEN IS AMERICA GOING TO ADMIT THAT OBAMA IS NIXONESQUE?

The IRS apologizes for targeting Conservatives and Tea Party groups … apology not accepted! Should this be considered a “hate crime”? The IRS was obviously only targeting a certain element of society. Of course the IRS did not target Conservative groups to retaliate against Obama enemies list. That could never happen.

What a shock that the Obama IRS would act as his henchman to go after Conservatives and Tea Party groups. All the IRS has to offer is an apology?  This is simply unacceptable and all involved need to be fired, without pensions immediately! As reported at the WAPO, IRS officials claimed that there was no political bias behind the targeting of these conservative groups, but they failed to produce any examples of similar targeting of groups with non-conservative-sounding names. MY BUTT!!! What a joke this is, of course it was politically motivated. It was just a coincidence that it was only Conservative Tea Party orgs that were targeted. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Talk about abuse of power. This admissions from the IRS is exactly what Conservatives have been accusing them of years and now “We the People” know its true. How can anyone have faith in this “Gestapo” organization ever again?

1. IRS officials claimed that there was no political bias behind the targeting of these conservative groups, but they failed to produce any examples of similar targeting of groups with non-conservative-sounding names. Initially, they suggested that other non-conservative-sounding names might have been targeted. By the end of the call, though, Lerner acknowledged: “I only said that because I never like to say ‘absolutely not.’ I don’t have any information on that.”

2. Lerner wouldn’t say whether anyone is being disciplined, then appeared to say there was no disciplinary action, then went back to saying she wouldn’t comment. (more)

This is the tip of the iceberg and follows the “cockroach” principle … this is what they have admitted to, what else are they guilty of like who they audit, hmm? Obviously, the Obama administration used Alinsky tactics & IRS to ensure Tea Party would not be a factor in 2012.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.

The Gateway Pundit reminds us of the when in 2012, conservative groups complained that the IRS was targeting them for audits. IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.

UPDATE I: From the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform: Issa and Jordan: IRS Political Retaliation Tactics “Unconscionable”.

As Weasel Zippers stated, “heads should roll”. As we stated above, there is not one person who should be spared … ALL SHOULD GO, WITHOUT PENSIONS AND CRIMINAL CHARGES SHOULD BE MADE.

 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., requested the IG look into allegations of political retaliation last June. In response to the today’s disclosure and apology by IRS, Issa and Jordan issued the following statement:   “The fact that Americans were targeted by the IRS because of their political beliefs is unconscionable. The Committee will aggressively follow up on the IG report and hold responsible officials accountable for this political retaliation.”

UPDATE II: A Public Service Announcement to the American People via Legal Insurrection … As IRS admits it targeted Tea Party groups, remember IRS is Obamacare enforcer.

UPDATE II:  From The Weekly Standard - The Times & the IRS Story … It’s not front page news, apparently. Think the same would hold true under a GOP presidency?

Not front page material in the Grey Lady’s news judgment.  But good enough for page A-11.  With the third paragraph reassuring readers that an agency spokesperson had insisted

… that the move was not driven by politics, but she added, “We made some mistakes; some people didn’t use good judgment.”

But of course.  One does wonder, though, how the Times would have played the news if, a few years back, it had come to light that the IRS had been auditing Valerie Plame.

But … then, perhaps in the Times’s lofty judgment, the IRS was merely doing what it should do.  This, anyway, was how the Times editorial page saw it last year:

Mitt Romney Will Regret this for the Rest of his Life … The RNC Benghazi Ad that Never Ran “Benghazi 3 AM Phone Call” (VIDEO)

ABC News has reveled the RNC Benghazi ad that never ran during the 2012 Presidential election. According to accounts, RNC leadership approved the ad but it was spiked at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign. Brilliant move. They thought that it would distract from their message on the economy. HUH? What, the Romney campaign could not walk and chew gum at the same time? As stated at the American Spectator, so what if it distracted from the economic message, “Are you trying to win an election or not?” Of course hindsight is 20/20, but how can a candidate seeking election not go after a sitting president for such a debacle? Being president means handling domestic and foreign policy, not just the economy. When a president gets economic policy wrong, people lose their jobs, money and their homes. When a president gets foreign policy wrong, people lose their lives.

Watch VIDEO by clicking on above picture

It was the Benghazi attack ad the Republican National Committee created but never aired.

ABC News has obtained an ad the RNC made last fall and approved to air in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.  The ad begins with a replay of Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m. phone call” commercial from the 2008 campaign and then cuts to video of the burning U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya.

Over the images of the attack–in which four Americans were killed–words appear on the screen:

“The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.”  As the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”

Hot Air wonders whether this VIDEO will harm Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in 2016?

How bad of a call was this by the Romney Team? The ad could be run today and still have meaning. That is how much of a screw up this was. What were these people thinking?

Thomas Hicks, We Knew Benghazi was a Terrorist Attack “from the Get-Go” … Dem Rep. Lynch Admits that Benghazi Talking Points: ‘It Was Scrubbed … It Was False Information.”

BENGHAZI-GATE just got worse for President Barack Obama and future presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

The headline might as well be, CBS News reports … Bombshell tonight, ala Nancy Grace; however, in this case, it truly is a bombshell and the Obama Administration has much explanting to do. Bob Schieffer from CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ started out by saying its the story that just won’t go away. For those Republicans in the House that think they have no political juice, here are words that I never thought I would ever hear from CBS News … “there is new information raising questions about whether there was a cover-up by the State Department to deflect criticism that it had ignored requests for more security for its people in Libya.”

That is much to the displeasure this morning in the Obama White House, with former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and the among the MSM who have tried to bury what really happened at the  Benghzi consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012.  Just how bad is the government cover-up of Benghazi-gate when CBS News is forced to report the new information and use the “cover-up” word? As discussed at the PJ Tatler, Thomas Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya and the number-two diplomat in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission reportedly told a congressional committee that they knew that it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”  This is a far different story that we were told directly after the terror attack that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Also, a much different story than put out by the Obama WH and that individuals have testified to in front of Congress.

“Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.

The House hearings on Benghazi this week with “whistle-blowers” Mark Thompson, Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrum just got a lot more interesting and promises to be must see TV,  http://Oversight.House.Gov at 11:30  here

Also this weekend on ‘FOX News Sunday’ with Chris Wallace, Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said that Susan Rice used “scrubbed” talking points on Benghazi to deliver “false information” to the American people. Lynch went on to say that, “Absolutely, they were false, they were wrong,” after being asked about Steve Hayes’s report on “The Benghazi Talking Points.” Damning.  It is pathetic yet all too common for this Administration that the moment there was a tragedy, as stated at Michelle Malkin.com they looked for the political advantage rather than leadership and dealing with the issue at hand rather than leadership and dealing with four dead Americans. It was all about the “talking points” and how Obama could exploit this, not about the death’s of four brave Americans.

The Weekly Standard has the transcript of the key parts of the discussion:

Lynch: “They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But, absolutely, they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies- this was not that type of case. This was a concerted effort. ”

Wallace “How do you explain the fact that that Sunday, UN Ambassador Rice came on this show and 4 other Sunday shows- never mentioned Al Qaeda extremists which had been scrubbed from the talking points- but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points?”

Lynch: “Well it was scrubbed- it was totally inaccurate. You’re absolutely right. There was no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they tried to was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East. Which was totally wrong.”

Wallace: “And do you think part of that was- do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that didn’t fit into President’s narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run?”

Lynch: “Well I, yeah, I think it was a victory of ‘hope over reality’- to be honest with you. They were hoping this wasn’t the case.”

As they say, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. However, in this case because four Americans died, both are equally as bad. It is obvious this cover up took place to play a four corners offense and delay the truth so that the reelection of Barack Obama could take place first, rather than “The One” having to deal with a “Watergate” prior to the 2012 election. And the MSM was all too willing to oblige.

I would say to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it looks like Benghazi just got a bit more recent.