More Proof The National Republican Senatorial Committee Funded Racist, Anti-Tea Party, Anti-McDaniel Ads In Mississippi

More Proof The NRSC Funded Racist Anti-Tea Party Anti-McDaniel Ads In Mississippi – Gateway Pundit

Last week we learned this…

Former GOP Governor Haley Barbour Was Behind Racist Anti-Tea Party Pro-Cochran Ads In Mississippi

The former governor’s group paid for the racist radio ads.

.

.
FOX News reporter Ainsley Earhardt broke the news on Hannity that that the racist, anti-Tea Party pro-Cochran ads that played on black radio stations in Mississippi were paid for by former Republican governor Haley Barbour’s super-PAC.

Then we found out this…

The NRSC is linked to the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi.

.
………………….

.
And, now there’s more evidence the NRSC funded these racist anti-Tea Party ads…

Got.News has more proof that the NRSC funded the racist anti-Tea Party ads in Mississippi against conservative Chris McDaniel.

Gotnews.com has exclusively obtained another “All Citizens for Mississippi” radio ad from conservative media consultant Rick Shaftan, who stands by his allegation that these ads were paid for by media buyer Jon Ferrell at National Media of Alexandria, Virginia using funds provided by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

The newly-surfaced 90 second ad features Arthur L. Siggers, who identifies himself in the ad as pastor of the Mt. Olive Baptist Church and makes similar racially-charged accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel to the ad featuring Bishop Ronnie Crudup of New Horizon Church International that Gotnews.com reported on Monday.

.

.

.

Leftist Bigots In Florida ‘Whiteface’ Black Republican Congressional Candidate’s Campaign Sign

Black GOP Candidate’s Campaign Photograph Vandalized With Whiteface Paint – Weasel Zippers

.

.
If only she was a Democrat then MSNBC would have a week’s worth of programming.

Via NRO:

A Florida Republican congressional candidate’s campaign sign was vandalized with whiteface paint last week in a district with overwhelmingly Democratic voter registration. The attack follows a string of bias incidents against black Republicans.

Glo Smith, who reports that she has also had a number of signs stolen, tells National Review Online she became aware of the racist defacement of an eight-foot-by-four-foot sign Tuesday. The sign was situated on private property in view of Interstate 10 in Jacksonville. The vandal sprayed white paint over the face of Smith, who is African-American. The paint job appears to be carefully done and leaves the eyes untouched, creating a very creepy effect.

Keep reading

.

.

*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy: The Master Mash-Up


.

Speaker Boehner Names Republican Members Of Benghazi Select Committee

Boehner Names Members For Benghazi Select Committee – Weekly Standard

.

.
The office of the speaker of the House released this list of members chosen for the Benghazi Select Committee:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today named the seven Republican members of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. The Select Committee also provides for five Democratic members, and those names will be released when provided by the House Minority Leader. Boehner issued the following statement:

“This investigation is about getting answers for the families of the victims and for the American people. These members have each demonstrated a commitment to this goal, and I have confidence that they will lead a serious, fact-based inquiry. As I have expressed to each of them, I expect this committee to carry out an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi. I also urge my Democratic colleagues to treat this tragedy with the proper respect and appoint members so that we can finally, on a bipartisan basis, get answers, provide accountability, and help deliver justice. It is critical that this committee do its work in a focused, timely manner, so that the House can continue to make the economy and job creation its priorities.”

The Republican members of the Select Committee will be:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

President Obama Praises Racist Lyndon Johnson For Republican Civil Rights Act

President Obama Praises Lyndon Johnson For Civil Rights Act – In The Capital

.
….

.
In honor of President Lyndon Johnson and the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, President Barack Obama on Thursday honored Johnson, calling him a “master of politics and the legislative process” who paved the way for him to become the first African-American president.

“Because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody,” Obama said. “Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos; and Asians and Native Americans; and gay Americans and Americans with a disability. They swung open for you, and they swung open for me. And that’s why I’m standing here today – because of those efforts, because of that legacy.”

As the president faces a divided Congress and tries to recover from the rocky roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, Obama harkened back to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of significant pieces of legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.

“Passing laws was what LBJ knew how to do,” Obama said. “No one knew politics and no one loved legislating more than President Johnson. He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required. He could wear you down with logic and argument. He could horse trade, and he could flatter.”

“What President Johnson understood was that equality required more than the absence of oppression,” Obama continued. “It required the presence of economic opportunity. He wouldn’t be as eloquent as Dr. King would be in describing that linkage… but he understood that connection because he had lived it. A decent job, decent wages, health care – those, too, were civil rights worth fighting for.”

Using Johnson’s legislative success as a backdrop, Obama made the case that government has a role to play in addressing economic inequality. “In a time when cynicism is too often passed off as wisdom,” Obama said, “it’s perhaps easy to conclude that there are limits to change; that we are trapped by our own history; and politics is a fool’s errand, and we’d be better off if we roll back big chunks of LBJ’s legacy, or at least if we don’t put too much of our hope, invest too much of our hope in our government.”

“I reject such thinking,” Obama added, emphatically.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
The Party Of Civil Rights – Kevin D. Williamson

This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.

Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism – or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement – would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this – we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party – and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.

Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.

President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s – at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South – Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections – but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South – but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.

At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites – the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race – but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.

The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however – and here’s the surprise – even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.

There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.

Of course there were racists in the Republican party. There were racists in the Democratic party. The case of Johnson is well documented, while Nixon had his fantastical panoply of racial obsessions, touching blacks, Jews, Italians (“Don’t have their heads screwed on”), Irish (“They get mean when they drink”), and the Ivy League WASPs he hated so passionately (“Did one of those dirty bastards ever invite me to his f***ing men’s club or goddamn country club? Not once”). But the legislative record, the evolution of the electorate, the party platforms, the keynote speeches – none of them suggests a party-wide Republican about-face on civil rights.

Neither does the history of the black vote. While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North. This development was not lost on Lyndon Johnson, who crafted his Great Society with the goal of exploiting widespread dependency for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unlike the New Deal, a flawed program that at least had the excuse of relying upon ideas that were at the time largely untested and enacted in the face of a worldwide economic emergency, Johnson’s Great Society was pure politics. Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared at a time when poverty had been declining for decades, and the first Job Corps office opened when the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. Congressional Republicans had long supported a program to assist the indigent elderly, but the Democrats insisted that the program cover all of the elderly – even though they were, then as now, the most affluent demographic, with 85 percent of them in households of above-average wealth. Democrats such as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze argued that the Great Society would end “dependency” among the elderly and the poor, but the programs were transparently designed merely to transfer dependency from private and local sources of support to federal agencies created and overseen by Johnson and his political heirs. In the context of the rest of his program, Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them.

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South – but not that slow.

Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this – I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.

It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation – and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.

It was not the Civil War but the Cold War that shaped midcentury partisan politics. Eisenhower warned the country against the “military-industrial complex,” but in truth Ike’s ascent had represented the decisive victory of the interventionist, hawkish wing of the Republican party over what remained of the America First/Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft tendency. The Republican party had long been staunchly anti-Communist, but the post-war era saw that anti-Communism energized and looking for monsters to slay, both abroad – in the form of the Soviet Union and its satellites – and at home, in the form of the growing welfare state, the “creeping socialism” conservatives dreaded. By the middle 1960s, the semi-revolutionary Left was the liveliest current in U.S. politics, and Republicans’ unapologetic anti-Communism – especially conservatives’ rhetoric connecting international socialism abroad with the welfare state at home – left the Left with nowhere to go but the Democratic party. Vietnam was Johnson’s war, but by 1968 the Democratic party was not his alone.

The schizophrenic presidential election of that year set the stage for the subsequent transformation of southern politics: Segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running as an independent, made a last stand in the old Confederacy but carried only five states, while Republican Richard Nixon, who had helped shepherd the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress, counted a number of Confederate states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee) among the 32 he carried. Democrat Hubert Humphrey was reduced to a northern fringe plus Texas. Mindful of the long-term realignment already under way in the South, Johnson informed Democrats worried about losing it after the 1964 act that “those states may be lost anyway.” Subsequent presidential elections bore him out: Nixon won a 49-state sweep in 1972, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election of 1976, Republicans in the following presidential elections would more or less occupy the South like Sherman. Bill Clinton would pick up a handful of southern states in his two contests, and Barack Obama had some success in the post-southern South, notably Virginia and Florida.

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns – especially welfare and crime – are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Republican Wins Congressional Seat In Obama-Friendly Florida District Against Pro-Obamacare Democrat

Republican David Jolly Defeats Alex Sink To Win Florida Congressional Seat – Weasel Zippers

The Dems will try and dismiss this but the fact is Jolly was severely outspent by the Democrats and Obama won the district in 2012.

.

.
Via NBC News:

Republican David Jolly was declared the winner Tuesday of a closely watched Florida Congressional race both parties viewed as testing grounds to hone strategies for the 2014 midterm elections.

Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a tight race to fill the Tampa Bay-area seat of the late GOP Rep. Bill Young, according to the Associated Press.

The pricey campaign was waged heavily on President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Sink, who ran for governor of the Sunshine State in 2010, fought back a litany of attacks for her support of Obamacare in the first Congressional election since the law’s troubled rollout last fall. Jolly was portrayed as a former lobbyist beholden to special interests and whose calls for repeal of the health care law would move the country backward.

The implications of the race resulted in involvement from political heavyweights on both sides. Former President Bill Clinton recorded a phone call for Sink down the final stretch of the campaign, and former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan appeared on a conference call for Jolly.

Republicans have said a Jolly victory in the swing district would be a sign of good things to come in November midterms.

Obama narrowly won the district during his 2012 campaign and Sink carried it during her 2010 run in the state. But Young kept the seat in GOP hands during his more than four decades in Congress.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ted Cruz And Other Republican Senators Call FBI On Carpet Over D’Souza Charges

Senators Call FBI On Carpet Over D’Souza Charges – WorldNetDaily

.

.
An investigation into conservative author and “2016: Obama’s America” filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza that resulted in his indictment on campaign contribution charges is rebounding on the FBI, with demands from Congress now to know how the investigation was triggered – and other details.

Four members, including Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, all Republicans, have written to the FBI with a list of questions for the agency to answer.

The indictment was seen in many quarters as political payback for D’Souza’s film, which was harshly critical of Obama during the 2012 election season, and there has been launched by WND an online petition demanding that Congress halt what gives the appearance of political retaliation.

WND has reported that D’Souza has vowed to present a strong defense to the allegations.

The letter from the senators, addressed to FBI Director James Comey Jr., noted that based on what is known so far, the investigation into D’Souza came following a “routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC of various candidates after the 2012 election.”

The senators explain, “The articles, however, did not provide any details regarding the scope and methodology of these routine reviews. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz has said, ‘I can’t help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it… It smacks of selective prosecution.’ To dispel this sort of public perception that Mr. D’Souza may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticisms of the president, it is important for the FBI to be transparent regarding the precise origin of this investigation.”

The senators listed the questions that the FBI should answer, including “It appears from U.S. attorney’s office comment that the FBI conducts regular, perhaps random reviews of campaign filings. Is this correct? If so, what methodology does the FBI use to conduct these reviews?”

The senators also ask, “Please identify and describe all methods by which a review of campaign filings may be initiated,” and “Please identify all other government entities involved in the FBI’s review of campaign filings and describe their involvement.”

No. 4 is, “How and why was this particular review initiated?”

No. 5 is, “What criteria involved in this particular review led to the suspicion that warranted further inquiry?”

No. 6 is, “What are the guidelines under which the FBI conducts its reviews of Campaign filings?”

No. 7 is, “Please describe how the FBI’s reviews of campaign filings are conducted.”

No. 8 is, “How many campaign filings has the FBI reviewed in each year from 2008 to the present?”

No. 9 is, “On average, how long does it take to complete a review of a campaign filing?”

No. 10 is, “How many agents are assigned, per case, to review campaign filings?”

No. 11 is, “On average, how many man hours are spent reviewing campaign filings?”

No. 12 is, “When did the FBI begin routinely reviewing campaign filings.”

The letter to Comey continued, “During your confirmation hearing, you pledged that you would carry the values of transparency and try to spread them as far as you could within the FBI. To explain the details of these routine reviews and provide context to those who may be skeptical of the origins of this investigation, please provide answers…”

They all were critical of Obama, and suddenly were being contacted by the Internal Revenue Service, or others.

The petition addressed to Congress seeks “an immediate halt to the Obama administration’s reign of ‘payback’ and ‘punishment’ levied against its political opponents, which it regards as ‘enemies’; and a congressional investigation into the administration’s unmistakable and undeniable pattern of political use of the fearsome machinery of government to punish critics and opponents – which is not only grossly illegal and immoral, but profoundly destructive of everything that makes America exceptional and free.”

WND previously reported that Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, “2016: Obama’s America,” released in 2012, and the about-to-be-released “America,” had characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’” he said.

D’Souza told WND that Molen, too, was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

“I just think it’s interesting the searchlight fell on him so randomly, so to speak, and so quickly right after. Molen has been around for a long time. He’s made ‘Minority Report’ and ‘Jurassic Park’ and for all this time he escaped scrutiny from the IRS, but then suddenly in a sense, the moment he comes out of the closet as a conservative, boom – ‘Hello, this is your friendly IRS agent calling,’” he said.

D’Souza argued he was prosecuted because his first feature film offended Obama personally, not just because the film represented a political challenge to Obama’s presidential re-election hopes in 2012.

“When ’2016′ came out, I was carefully monitoring what kind of effect if any this would have on Obama, and I don’t just mean on the Obama campaign, I mean on the president himself,” he said. “And for a while, there was dead silence from the Obama campaign. They said nothing about the film. And, in fact, the major media networks followed and acted as if the film didn’t even exist, even though the film was in just about every major theater chain in America.”

.

.
In fact, it ranks as among the most popular documentaries ever.

Then D’Souza noticed “2016″ was attacked on the Obama campaign website, BarackObama.com.

“You can see it is a very intemperate and almost demented attack on the film. Some of the things that it charges about the film aren’t even in the film, although they do appear in my published works. You can see that the film ’2016′ did kind of unhinge Obama. And I think part of the reason for that is that the film wasn’t just a critique of his policies, it delved into his psyche. It kind of got in a way under his skin, I don’t mean by just annoying him, I mean by getting into what are the underlying traumatic factors that have driven him into becoming the kind of man that he is.”

D’Souza told WND the harassment from the Obama administration began when he was filming “2016″ in Africa.

“When we were down in Kenya and we were in the grandmother’s compound and we were observing the homestead and the grave, Obama’s sister got wind – she’s in Nairobi – and she got wind that we were there,” he said. “And she immediately called the cops and she called the local chieftains to basically run us out of town. And we had to literally grab our stuff and flee. And we were worried at that time that we would either be apprehended or equally significant that they would confiscate our film.”

D’Souza disclosed the film crew established emergency measures to make sure their film footage got out of Kenya should D’Souza and the film crew be detained in the country, or in case the Kenyan government made an attempt to otherwise confiscate the film footage.

“So my point is, it’s very clear with the Obama family that these people take this stuff very seriously and they try to run interception where they can,” he stressed. “Now, they did not succeed in blocking ’2016,’ and the film in fact made a big stir in 2012 after being released.”

D’Souza told WND his lawyers have a hearing with the federal court in New York to determine when his case will be tried, but he expects the case will go to trial with a 12-member jury, possibly beginning before the scheduled July 4 opening of “America” across the nation.

“Launching a defense in the federal criminal indictment has been every expensive,” D’Souza admitted.

“I won’t deny that it is traumatic. You have to take it seriously because they are looking to lock you up. So you can’t be frivolous about. At the same time, I want to be clear this is not something that has knocked me out for the count. I’m not someone to give in easily on this kind of a thing. I’m determined to continue to speak my mind and do my work.”

He explained that “America” was written in part to answer the question, “What is unique about America?”

Answering that question took D’Souza on a historical examination of America’s key conflicts, leading back to the challenges that faced our Founding Fathers.

He explained: “I think that the remarkable thing about our debate today is that the left and the right agree there is something unique about America, but the conservatives believe that America in some ways is uniquely good and the progressives led by Obama think that America is uniquely bad – in other words, that American history has been characterized by a unique set of crimes and offenses, that American capitalism is uniquely materialistic and selfish, that American foreign policy is uniquely devoted to plunder. So, we wanted to take on this argument head-on in the film and answer it at the root level.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama-Endorsed San Diego Mayoral Candidate Loses To Republican By Landslide

Republican Beats Obama-Endorsed San Diego Mayor Candidate In A Landslide – Right Scoop

.

.
Obama endorsed the Democrat a mere few days ago and polls showed it’s a tight race but here is how it worked out:

San Diego voters opted for a return to Republican leadership on Tuesday as they elected a city councilman backed by the downtown establishment to succeed ex-Mayor Bob Filner, a Democrat who resigned amid a torrent of sexual misconduct allegations.

Republican Kevin Faulconer garnered nearly 55 percent of the vote to defeat his City Council colleague, Democrat David Alvarez, who was vying to become San Diego’s first Hispanic mayor but finished the night with just over 45 percent.

Faulconer, 47, declaring victory at a downtown hotel, is expected to take the oath of office in early March to serve out the nearly three years that remained in Filner’s term as mayor of California’s second-most populous city.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Republican Lawmakers Propose Bill Nullifying Obamacare In Indiana

Indiana Considers Nullifying ObamaCare – Downtrend

The ObamaCare nullification train is starting to gain steam. It began in South Carolina in December. Also, Georgia and Tennessee have since boarded. Now, Indiana is considering getting onboard.

.

.
Republican State Representatives Ben Smaltz, Timothy Harman and Woody Burton have introduced a bill that would ban state agencies, employees and officers from assisting with the implementation of ObamaCare. Specific of the proposed law include:

* Contractors, employees, vendors or anyone else acting on behalf of the state are not permitted to conduct or participate in involuntary maternal, infant or early-childhood in-home visitations

* The state would be banned from establishing a healthcare exchange as well as participating in or purchasing health insurance from one operated by a nonprofit organization

* Taxpayers who pay the federal penalty would be entitled to a deduction of that amount

Within the text of the bill are a few jabs at the federal government. Citing the 10th and 14th Amendments, it claims that provisions of ObamaCare “grossly exceed the powers delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution.” It says these provisions “cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.”

This legislation appears to be the weakest of those discussed, but it could still put a dent in the healthcare law. Like the other mentioned states, the feds would be on their own when trying to force the “Affordable” Care Act onto Indianans, which could create a major problem for a federal government with limited resources, particularly if a lot of states do the same.

Importantly, this bill has been declared an “emergency.” It would also be retroactively effective as of January 1, 2014. It seems its authors take this matter very seriously, so it might not go away without a fight in the likely event it faces resistance from Democrats.

Stay tuned as more and more states take on the Constitutionality of the most controversial law thus far this century.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Republican Lawmaker Proposes Bill Nullifying Federal Gun Laws In Tennessee

Tennessee Considers Nullifying Federal Gun Laws – Downtrend

Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers (R – Mt. Juliet) is on a roll this week. Along with 10 co-sponsors, she introduced “The Health Care Freedom and Affordable Care Act Noncompliance Act” to effectively nullify ObamaCare in her state. Now, she’s taking aim at federal gun-control laws.

.

.
Beavers has introduced Senate Bill 1607 to effectively nullify federal gun laws in The Volunteer State. Under the proposed law:

* Any federal enactment or enforcement actions relating to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition would be void in the state

* Any federal enactment or enforcement action impacting or infringing upon the rights of an individual or entity relative to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition would be void

* Agents, employees and public officials in the state and its political subdivisions would be prohibited from carrying out federal gun laws

* Any attempt to enforce federal gun laws would be considered a misdemeanor and subsequent attempts would qualify as a felony

The law, if passed, is set to take effect on July 1. Thus, residents of The Volunteer State could see their Second Amendment rights significantly strengthened in less than six months.

Other states, including Missouri, Virginia and Wyoming, have recently considered similar legislation. And Alaska and Kansas have already signed their own Second Amendment protections into law. However, Tennessee’s proposed law appears to be among the strongest out there with the potential for violators to be charged with a felony.

It seems an increasing number of states are fed up with the Obama administration’s gun-grabbing policies. Will Tennessee be the next one to successfully tell the federal government to back off?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Confirmed: Articles Of Impeachment To Be Filed Against Eric Holder By Republican Congressmen

GOP Rep. Confirms Articles Of Impeachment Will Be Filed Against Eric Holder… Here Are The Lawmakers Who Are Supporting The Effort – The Blaze

A group of fed-up House Republicans, who say they are tired of being stonewalled by Attorney General Eric Holder, plan to formally introduce articles of impeachment on Thursday in a bid to remove the nation’s top law enforcement officer from office.

.

Several GOP congressmen have been drafting articles of impeachment over a number of controversies relating to the U.S. Department of Justice. The lawmakers’ grievances include Holder’s refusal to turn over documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, the DOJ’s habit of selectively enforcing federal laws, and the department’s refusal to prosecute IRS officials who allegedly accessed confidential taxpayer information, among other things.

The articles of impeachment also accuse Holder of providing false testimony to Congress, which is a “clear violation” of the law.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) told CQ Roll Call that he plans to formally introduce the charges on Thursday. Further, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) confirmed the impeachment effort to TheBlaze TV in an interview on “Wilkow!” Wednesday night.

In a statement provided to CQ Roll Call, Olson said Holder has displayed a “pattern of disregard for the rule of law” even after Congress voted to hold him in contempt in 2012. The Florida Republican also released a five-page white paper outlining the four articles of impeachment that will be filed against Holder:

Article I of the impeachment proceedings claims that Holder “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him” by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for documents related to “a legitimate congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally-purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.”

[…]

Article II of the proceedings charges that Holder violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce certain laws that the Obama administration, for various reasons, decided not to enforce, including the Defense of Marriage Act, which the administration deemed unconstitutional.

[…]

Article III also charges that Holder violated his oath of office, this time by “refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.”

[…]

Finally, Article IV claims Holder “provided false testimony to the House Judiciary Committee” regarding the potential prosecution of a member of the news media, Fox News correspondent James Rosen, using the Espionage Act.

Olson has reportedly gained the support of at least 10 other Republicans in co-sponsoring the articles of impeachment. They include: Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.); Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Tenn.); Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.); Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.); Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas); Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas); Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas); Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas); Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Matt Walsh has an intervention for Obamabots

BRILLIANT!

I’m not here to attack you. I’m here to reach out with a joyful message of hope. I’m also not here to tell you to become a Republican. I’m not a Republican; I’m proudly and aggressively unaffiliated with any political party. And I know your immediate, visceral, instinctual reaction, when someone challenges you or your Leader, is to shout, “BUT YOU DIDN’T SAY THIS WHEN BUSH DID [xyz]!” Well, I was a kid when Bush came into office, but for what it’s worth, I did criticize many of his actions and policies. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, for instance, I was vociferously opposed. And I let everyone at the lunch table know about it.

So, I’ve disarmed your only defense mechanisms. You can’t bring Republicans into this one, because I’m not a Republican. You can’t hit me with the “you didn’t say this when Bush did…” routine, because I did say it. I’ve taken your only shield, and now you stand before me; naked, exposed.

Wait. Stop. Don’t run. This, my friends, is an intervention. For over five years you’ve danced on the sidelines and cheered as the most dishonest, manipulative, destructive, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt, liberty-hating, anti-constitutional president in US history ran roughshod over the American people and the American way of life. For over five years, my fellow countrymen, you’ve waved your pompoms for a tyrant. Your Leader is not a good man. He can be redeemed, as we can all be redeemed, but his actions have been truly heinous. Remember: I don’t say that because I’m a Republican. I do not say it because I’m a Bush fan. I say it because it’s true; and it’s a truth that is entirely unavoidable.

Stop… No, stop right there. I can already hear you: “But.. but… but a lot of presidents have done bad things.” Yes, yes they have. But we’re talking about THIS president right now. And, it just so happens, THIS president has done things that no other president would have dreamed of doing.

If you do just one thing today, read this whole piece!

 

Republican Congressman Stockman Seeks Special Prosecutors For Various Obama Impeachable Offenses

Stockman Seeks Special Prosecutors For Obama – WorldNetDaily

Congress needs to assign special prosecutors to investigate Obama administration misbehavior, charges a congressman who has distributed to members of the U.S. House copies of the book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.”

.

“From Benghazi to Fast and Furious to crony deals for ‘green’ energy to Obamacare the lawless Obama administration must be reined in. I am calling on Congress to establishment Select Committees on these scandals with full subpoena power,” said Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, in a statement Thursday.

“We’ve seen how the Obama administration smears and defames their critics. Congress should investigate these scandals and turn the matters over to special prosecutors,” he said.

.

.
Impeachable Offenses” is authored by New York Times best-selling authors Aaron Klein, a senior WND writer, and Brenda J. Elliott.

The book argues that Obama already has committed many violations of the Constitution that could qualify him for impeachment, including his health care legislation, which the authors describe as taxation without representation.

“I hope this book helps convince my colleagues to hold Barack Obama legally responsible for his disregard for the law,” Stockman said. “When told of his offense, Obama sought to cover them up rather than accept responsibility and correct the mistakes.”

Stockman is the sponsor of H.Res. 306, which would force a vote on establishing a Select Committee with full subpoena power to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack.

“Impeachment should only be a rare and last resort, but the book provides important details on the Obama administration’s offenses against office,” said Stockman.

Sign the impeachment petition right away!

The books were donated by publisher WND Books.

Stockman previously has considered whether impeachment is appropriate.

In January, he considered pursuing impeachment if Obama implemented gun-control measures without congressional approval.

Stockman called such executive action by Obama “an existential threat to this nation.”

“Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court,” he argued.

After losing a fight in the Senate to expand background checks on gun purchases, Obama used his power of executive order to enact a series of relatively minor gun-control measures.

After Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis killed 12 people, Obama announced plans to implement more gun control.

Stockman said in response: “Impeachment is one of the many options, including lawsuits and other actions, we can take to defend the Constitution.”

While calling impeachment a last resort, he conceded that gun control isn’t the only matter Obama has handled in a questionable manner. He cited the president’s unilateral decisions to change the health care law without Congress, the use of the IRS for political purposes and targeting tea party organizations with the weight and authority of the federal government. The use of the U.S. military overseas also was a concern.

Stockman has told WND he believes the book contains information that every member of Congress should know, and he contends discussing impeachment should not be forbidden.

“Enforcing the Constitution and preserving limitations on executive authority aren’t just mainstream, they’re the law,” he said.

The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

* Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.

* Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.

* The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.

* The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.

* Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.

* From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.

* New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.

* The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.

* Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

A number of members of Congress already have discussed impeachment.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.

“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.

He said at some point a decision must be made.

“I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.

To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.

Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

WND previously reported Sen. Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.

Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”

“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.

A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”

Coburn said he agreed.

“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”

Days earlier, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”

He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”

Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.

“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.

He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”

But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.

The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.

In May, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show“: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this… is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.

“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.

One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Shutuppery works because Conservatives cave too easily

The Other McCain explains

A point I made Saturday at The American Spectator:

When so many cultural institutions, from the news media to Hollywood to your local university campus, are utterly dominated by liberal Democrats, there inevitably arises a stigma toward conservative ideas and Republican politics. When people are hammered day after day by the relentless partisanship of what the late Andrew Breitbart called the “Democrat-Media Complex,” when movies and TV sitcoms habitually mock or demonize Republicans, when conservative college students are afraid of their liberal professors and radical campus activists, who can blame anyone for thinking there is something wrong with being a Republican? Cast under this shadow of stigma and suspicion, many Republicans seem to internalize the negative stereotype of themselves, to become defensive and apologetic — “Please don’t hate me” — and generally to act as if they are guilty of doing something wrong. . . .

Please read the whole thing. Republicans who send out signals of weakness and fear are, in effect, inviting attacks. And because so many Republicans lack either the courage to fight back or the skill to fight back successfully, their enemies are emboldened.

Sad but true, we have to all develop stiffer spines, McCain explains

Organizations have images — reputations — and if a negative perception develops, that perception tends to become self-perpuating. The Republican Party is currently perceived as an organization of selfish, cowardly losers, and this makes it difficult for the GOP to attract support from people who admire generosity,  strength and success. The party is increasingly defined by its whining pathetic supporters.

From the perspective of the neurasthenic weaklings who now run Republican politics, anyone who wants to stand up and fight for principles is considered a troublemaker. Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Rand Paul? No, the GOP leadership doesn’t want to elect people like that. They want smooth-talking sellouts like Lindsey Graham and good ol’ boys like Mitch McConnell who understand that the job of Republicans is to “compromise” by giving Democrats everything they want.

Well, who in their right mind would fight on behalf of a such a party? Who would risk their reputation, their comfort, perhaps even their livelihood, to defend the Republican Party, when the party itself is run by wimps who only care about their own re-election?

Think about this: When Lady Liberty and Sister Toldjah came under fire by North Carolina Democrats, did anybody in the North Carolina GOP apparatus stand up for them? Hell, no.

You cannot win in political combat by continually retreating. If you ever hope to win, you must first determine to fight. And once you’re in the fight, you must never stop fighting until you win.

In short, they attack us because we, or too many of us bury our heads in the sand, or refuse to rally around those few that DO stand up. Another problem is that we, as a party, are too ready to throw the “wacko birds” under the bus to appease our “friends across the aisle. Newsflash, those folks across the aisle are not our friends. The see us not as friends, but as ENEMIES. And frankly, we have to face up to reality and grasp that anyone who considers us THEIR enemy, is, by definition OUR enemy!

 

 

Wondering Which Republicans In Congress Just Sold Out Their Constituents? Here Is The List

List: Republican House, Senate Votes On Debt, Shutdown Deal – Breitbart

.

Twenty-seven Republican senators voted for Wednesday’s bill passed by the upper chamber to fund the U.S. government in a continuing resolution and extend the nation’s debt limit. Eighteen voted against the measure, and one was not present.

YEA VOTES
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Kelly Ayotte (NH)
John Barrasso (WY)
Roy Blunt (MO)
John Boozman (AR)
Richard Burr (NC)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
Jeff Chiesa (NJ)
Dan Coats (IN)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Susan Collins (ME)
Bob Corker (TN)
Deb Fischer (NE)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
John Hoeven (ND)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Mike Johanns (NE)
Mark Kirk (IL)
John McCain (AZ)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Jerry Moran (KS)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Rob Portman (OH)
John Thune (SD)
Roger Wicker (MS)

NAY VOTES
Tom Coburn (OK)
John Cornyn (TX)
Mike Crapo (ID)
Ted Cruz (TX)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Chuck Grassley (IA)
Dean Heller (NV)
Ron Johnson (WI)
Mike Lee (UT)
Rand Paul (KY)
James Risch (ID)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Marco Rubio (FL)
Tim Scott (SC)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Richard Shelby (AL)
Pat Toomey (PA)
David Vitter (LA)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who is recovering in Oklahoma from quadruple bypass heart surgery, did not vote.

===========================================================

HOUSE ROLL CALL

Eighty-seven Republican Congressmen voted for the bill, and 144 voted against.

YEA VOTES
Bachus
Barletta
Benishek
Bilirakis
Boehner
Boustany
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Issa
Jenkins
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lance
Latham
LoBiondo
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Nunes
Paulsen
Pittenger
Reichert
Ribble
Rigell
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Runyan
Schock
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Valadao
Webster (FL)
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAY VOTES
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barr
Barton
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho

NOT VOTING
Young (FL)

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.

Kentucky Kickback: Senate Budget Deal Includes $3 Billion For Dam Project In McConnell’s Home State – Weasel Zippers

He sold us out for a friggen dam.

Via WFPL:

A proposal to end the government shutdown and avoid default orchestrated by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Leader Harry Reid includes a nearly $3 billion earmark for a Kentucky project.

Language in a draft of the McConnell-Reid deal (see page 13, section 123) provided to WFPL News shows a provision that increases funding for the massive Olmsted Dam Lock in Paducah, Ky., from $775 million to nearly $2.9 billion.

The dam is considered an important project for the state and region in regards to water traffic along the Ohio River.

As The Courier-Journal’s James Bruggers reported in 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said they needed about $2.1 billion for the locks due to “stop and go funding.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

If you think that President Obama does not want to end the shutdown……

You would be right! He wants to cause as much pain for the people, believing they will blame the GOP. This is all about one thing the 2014 mid-term elections, and Obama really digs using the word ransom apparently

This is getting so old. House Republicans came up with yet another proposal to fund the government and avoid hitting the debt ceiling. Guy Benson noted that the plan Harry Reid called “extreme” in a diatribe on the Senate floor, is very close to the Senate plan. But Democrats can’t agree to it, because then they couldn’t go out and accuse the Republicans of being partisan. The White House rejected the proposal before Nancy Pelosi could even get her face in front of a microphone.

An hour earlier rank-and-file Republicans came out of the meeting to say their leaders had proposed taking a plan being worked on in the Senate and attaching the two Obamacare changes, and were going to put that bill on the House floor later Tuesday.

But by 11 a.m., Mr. Boehner and his chief lieutenants sounded much less certain, and several Republicans said it would be a close vote if the bill were brought to the floor.

Democratic leaders said not to count on them for help in getting the bill through the House, and the White House also rejected the plan, saying it preferred the Senate’s negotiations.

That deal, still under construction, doesn’t make any major dents in the president’s health law.

The White House released a statement that includes the word “ransom,” of course.

Yes, of course!

 

Lying sack of dung with bad hair: Trying to repeal Obama Care nothing short of offensive!

Actually “Debbie Whats Her Name” offensive would be how Democrats, without ONE Republican vote, and AGAINST the expressed wishes of the American people, jammed Obama Care down our throats!

Drew –

Today, our government is shut down for one reason — because Republicans think this is their last chance to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

That is nothing short of offensive.

Thanks to Obamacare, cancer survivors like me and the 150 million other Americans with a pre-existing condition will no longer have to live in fear that our health insurance companies will drop us if we get sick.

So now is the moment to stand up for health care reform:

Show the GOP that the 47th vote to repeal or delay Obamacare won’t be any different than the 46 votes that came before.

The problem is that Republicans refuse to accept that their plan to repeal this law was rejected when they lost the last election.

Already, 47 million women have gained access to free birth control, 3 million young people have had a softer landing into the workforce by staying on their parent’s health insurance, and now millions of Americans are shopping for their own affordable health care in the exchanges.

And that’s the only reason why Republicans have shut down the government.

Thanks,

Debbie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Democratic National Committee

Tell you what else is offensive Debs. That millions of Americans are LOSING their health coverage BECAUSE of Obama Care. Also that many more, like me, are not sure if we can afford the HIGHER premiums for coverage we DO NOT WANT. And if we cannot afford it? Well Obama Care will fine us, how is THAT for offensive you loathsome Communist hag?

When Leftists tell the truth

Anyone who gets the Democratic Party understands that it is all about the end with them, the means are not important, it is the end goal. Did Democrats want this government shutdown? Yes Do they want to make it seem as as as possible to heap more blame on “mean” Republicans? Yes. Do they want this to roll on and on? Yes. Why? because they think they are winning the battle of public opinion, and this will lead to retaking the House in 2014. We all get all of  this. We all understand that the very last people Democrats give a rip about are the people. But, usually, they will never admit that fact. But every so often, one of these weasels allows the truth to slip out.

Although the government shutdown continues, it appears President Barack Obama and the White House are not getting any closer to negotiating with Republicans. A quotation from an unnamed senior administration official in today’s Wall Street Journal explains why.

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

With this view, it explains why President Obama won’t agree to any piecemeal legislation that would keep Veterans Affairs and NIH open during the shutdown. And it explains why President Obama would rather cancel his Asia trip than negotiate with Republicans. 

It’s because the White House (or, at least this unnamed official) believe it is “winning” by shutting down the government and blaming Republicans. And when one’s winning, he’s not likely to change course.

Ah yes, they are “winning”. But are they? I suspect they are over playing their hand, and that the fallout will land back on them.

 

The dumbest Tweet ever?

This might be. John Fugelsang certainly did some serious digging to get this nugget of idiocy out of The Pit of Eternal Leftist Inanity

This is the natural result of Liberals going to the same well over and again. Eventually, it dries up and you end up saying/writing/tweeting something so stupid that you make a complete mockery of yourself. Fugelsang illustrates this by trying to tie the Confederacy to a government shutdown. a shutdown I might point out is the result of Harry Reid and president Obama being unwilling to budge an inch on either delaying, defunding, or altering Obamacare in any way.Screen-shot-2013-09-30-at-4.33.20-PM

If I may, allow me to set something straight here. The Confederacy was formed when seven states decided that the Northern States were going to use force to unfairly tax them, trample their state sovereignty, yes, slavery being one among several issues at stake, but not, in my view the most crucial one and centralize power in Washington rather than in the States. What they were doing was what the 13 colonies had done before them. They declared their right to form a new government, and wanted only to be let alone. Upon Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to force these states back into a union they no longer wished to be in the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia seceded. Their leaving the union had nothing to do with slavery, a fact too many people, even many Conservatives overlook.

Another fact overlooked, or ignored by Republicans today is that at that time the Democratic party WAS the Conservative party. It was the party that believed the Constitution could only be changed by amending it. Many Republicans believed in higher law that superseded the Constitution. It was the disregard for the Constitution that scared the Southern States. The ideal of States being sovereign was dear to many Americans in that time, not only Southerners but Northerners as well. The issue of slavery has been used by Liberals, and many modern Conservatives to squelch any debate on the causes of the war, or on the worthiness of hailing Lincoln as a “great” president. But, that issue was more complex than many today are willing to accept. For instance, you hear people say that the South wanted to expand slavery to new territories. While this is true of some Southerners, consider 94% of Southerners owned no slaves, it is also true that Southerners held that territories were FEDERAL property, thus the sovereignty states held did not apply. These same Southerners, Jefferson Davis being a prime example, also held that when  a territory became a state, it then had every right to allow, or ban slavery. In other words, that was a States Rights issue.

Sadly too many folks today never study the real causes, positions, issues, etc of that day. The South was bad because, slavery. Lincoln was a saint because he “ended” slavery, and anything he did, like imprisoning thousands and shuttering newspapers for speaking out against his policies, is thus excused, again because, slavery!

One last thing about  the Democratic Party of that day. The Democratic Party was born out of the Democrat-Republicans, the  party of Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe among others. That party split into the Democratic Party and the National Republicans in the late 1820’s with the National Republicans fading away very quickly. Again, at that time the Democratic Party WAS the party more affiliated with the Founders than their political opponents the Whigs were. It was out of the Whig party that the Republican Party rose, yes, with a strong sentiment against slavery. Of course many Republicans of that time wanted slavery abolished, and the former slaves gone from the country. Yes Lincoln was one of those who supported that. Google “Liberia” if you have doubts.

Eventually the Republicans and Democrats switched roles, we all know who the Conservatives and Liberals are today. Of course, it ought to be remembered that after the War Between the States Republicans included Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and so did the Democrats with the likes of Woodrow Wilson. It was not always so easy to define a politician by his party affiliation.

I write these things because I tire of the ignorance I hear about the War of Northern aggression, and the bashing of the South and the Confederacy as some evil enterprise that sought to destroy self-government when in fact the Confederacy was the greatest stand against the centralization of governmental power. Yes, the war changed this nation, and yes the end of slavery was an overdue result, and a result that would have happened even without a war. But the destruction of State Sovereignty, and the rise of an all-powerful federal government was a drastic blow to this nation. If you do not believe me, look around. look at how much more powerful the federal started becoming after Appomattox. Look what disgraces like Teddy Roosevelt, who should be removed from Mt. Rushmore, and replaced by Madison, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama have done to America since the turn of the century. The change they brought to America was largely made possible by the destruction of state sovereignty.

Maybe these soldiers fought for a lot of the same principles?

American Revolutionary Soldiers 7 Confederate

This is why we call the GOP the Stupid Party

Via Vodka Pundit

Oh fer cryin’ out loud:

A proposed amendment to the state’s Republican Party bylaws would allow the removal of the Alabama College Republicans chairwoman, who spoke out in favor of same-sex marriage in June, from the party’s steering committee.

Following the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act in June, chairwoman and University of Alabama student Stephanie Petelos spoke to AL.com about the generational divide between party leadership and young conservatives on the issue.

She told Buzzfeed the comments reportedly infuriated party leaders, who began attempting then to remove her from the steering committee.

Good Grief! This is the kind of thing that always bugs me. we are not Liberals, we ought to be able to have a difference of opinion on such an issue. As Stephen Green points out this will not help get the youth vote

Sure, the state party can make its own rules and bylaws. That’s its job, after all. But to change those bylaws to target one person for making a personal statement which is pretty much the freakin’ norm for college kids?

BINGO!