Audio: Today's 'Resurrection Day' Show

On Today's show..

Since being elected, Pope Francis has demonstrated a tremendous level of humility, to include washing the feet of twelve juvenile prisoners, two of which were Muslim.

He has called for increased "dialogue" with Islam.

An Islamic group, headed by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi has reached out to the Pope.

Depending on how the Pope handles this gesture, he could find himself face to face with two options - Courage or Submission.

Video: Planned Parenthood's Holocaust Apologist

Proof that Planned Parenthood is evil. In the abortion debate, you have those who believe that life begins at conception vs. those who believe life begins after the mother and child are separated at birth. The pro-death abortionists have officially run headlong into the buzz saw of a reality that they are committing crimes on par with - or worse than - those committed by the Nazis.

This video provides the proof.

Her name is Alisa LaPolt Snow and she is a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood in Florida. In this video, she is answering questions from Florida legislators who seek to determine what Planned Parenthood's position is on the murder of infants that takes place after babies are born alive, following a botched abortion. Using Planned Parenthood's own logic, once the baby is separated from the mother, it is a living, breathing human being. Here is where the entire pro-choice argument falls apart.

If LaPolt says the baby should not be murdered at that point, Planned Parenthood is on the hook for committing an untold number of murders. If she says the murder can proceed, the entire premise that life begins outside the womb is demonstrably false.

Watch as LaPolt defends the murder of the most innocent of people.

Via Weekly Standard:



After seeing that, check this out from a "former" abortion provider (h/t Mitch):

Ted Cruz gets very close to hitting Obama on Fast and Furious

With his March 28th press release, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) came closer than anyone in Congress, to rebuking Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook by pointing to Operation Fast and Furious. Though he didn't name it specifically or highlight the most relevant contrast, he gets very close (hits on the year it was at its height - 2010 - as well as criminals buying guns). In fact, if Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee, et. al. follow through on their filibuster threat and begin hammering on that contrast, it could be devastating for the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

First, Cruz's press release:

In any conversation about how to prevent future tragedies such as Sandy Hook, our focus should be on stopping criminals from obtaining guns. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority — in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is unacceptable.

It is saddening to see the President today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans. I am committed to working with Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Jim Inhofe--and I hope many other colleagues--to use any procedural means necessary to protect those fundamental rights.

In response to that press release in my inbox, I sent the following email to Cruz's press office:

Nice release.

Obama never did presser with the families of Fast and Furious victims (hundreds of Mexicans / Brian Terry) standing behind him.

Why? Because Fast and Furious was his administration's fault.

Would love to see this point hammered home during the upcoming filibuster.

Here is one of Obama's most shameless and despicable acts - exploiting Sandy Hook by pushing for gun control with the parents of shooting victims standing behind him. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. More power to you if you can make it to the end.

Did the New York Times expose Hillary Clinton?

At the time of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Benghazi a couple of months ago, I wrote that Hillary Clinton quite possibly committed perjury during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In a hearing that was disappointingly more about lobbing powder puff softballs at Clinton, Paul performed best, followed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Other than those two, Republicans failed to deliver - including Marco Rubio. Ranking member Bob Corker's performance was nauseating. Perhaps in a bit of foreshadowing, Corker said one day before the hearing that he didn't expect any "bombshells". Well, perhaps if he had done his homework and followed Paul's lead, Corker could have been responsible for dropping a few. His words before the hearing indicate he didn't want any during the hearing.

Based on what is being learned now, Corker appears to have been woefully wrong and should perhaps answer a few questions himself about why he didn't do his job at that hearing.

In fact, if the Republicans on that committee had done their jobs, the American people might be much closer to the truth about Benghazi today. Thanks to an unlikely source in the New York Times - coupled with Paul's questions - Hillary's testimony should take on renewed interest.

Via Aaron Klein at WND:

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries? 

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. 

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

The impetus for Klein's piece is the New York Times article, which should indeed raise questions about Clinton's forthrightness at that hearing:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.

The most maddening part may not be Hillary potentially getting away with perjury. Instead, it may be Republican Senators taking such an obvious dive when they could have made things very difficult for Clinton. Paul could have used some help. That he didn't get it from Rubio is particularly disappointing.

Here is that exchange.

"To Turkey?!"

Western Civilization is being led by "Cave" Men

Everywhere you look today, men who are entrusted with great political power, are caving. In 2006, President George W. Bush caved when CAIR pressured him to never again use the phrase 'Islamic fascists'. Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved when Barack Obama pressured him to apologize to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan for defending itself in the 2010 Gaza flotilla. There have been countless examples in between.

Before we get to some of them, consider what was taking place about this time nearly 2000 years ago. A man named Jesus was being arrested, thanks in large part, to elders and politicians, who on more than one occasion, attempted to get Jesus to cave. Had it not been for them, Pontius Pilate would have left Him alone. Even then, Jesus could have employed the desire for 'dialogue' with Pilate and the elders. He could have caved; he did not.

And he was even free of guilt and sin.

When it comes to Jesus' tortuous death, people reflect on His willingness to die for the salvation of all who believe in Him by rising again but there is another aspect to his death that is often overlooked. Consider the tremendous courage He had, standing there in front of Pontius Pilate, who was looking for a way to avoid what was coming. All Jesus had to do was cave and agree to the terms, which likely would have involved Pilate brokering a deal between Him and the Jewish elders and politicians.

Think of it. Pilate must have been beside himself. The Roman leader thought he had all the power! Human nature dictated that Jesus cave but Jesus transcended human nature because he was God in human form. Ultimately, it was Pilate who caved when he washed his hands.

This is not to say that the world's leaders today should be expected to have the same level of courage but if they're Christians, they are supposed to be as "Christ-like" as they can. These leaders are also not standing in front of Pontius Pilate, facing floggings and crucifixion if they stand their ground. If they can't be expected to have the same level of courage that Jesus exhibited then, shouldn't they at least be expected to follow the example of Joseph of Arimathea.

Via Catholic Encyclopedia:

He was a wealthy Israelite (Matthew 27:57), "a good and a just man" (Luke 23:50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John 2:23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark 14:64).

Before one points to Joseph of Arimathea's "fear", consider that he did NOT succumb to groupthink and paid great honor to the Truth in the Flesh. Read on...

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark 15:43-45).

While we're on the subject of the Catholic Church, let us consider the caving of its newly elected Pontiff, Pope Francis I, on two very significant fronts. First, in 2007, he signed a document which stated, in part, that elected politicians who are pro-abortion "cannot" receive holy communion. Yet, at his inaugural Papal mass in Rome, perhaps the two most prominent pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic - Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi - received communion. There are only two possible conclusions we can draw. Either Pope Francis did not mean what he said in 2007 or fear took charge in 2013.

A few days later, Pope Francis said that he wished to "intensify... dialogue with Islam". An important distinction must be made here. He didn't say that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Muslims so that they could be converted. This would be an example of what the role of the pope - any pope - is. No, he said that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Islam. In a word, he advocated caving. In essence, the pope appears to have succumbed to Chrislam.

Consider some other examples of what appears to be caving due to varying degrees of pressure...

House Speaker John Boehner: This is perhaps the most obvious example. Ever since taking control of the gavel in early 2011, Boehner has lost practically every showdown with his opposition. In several cases, he simply chose not to fight. Whether it involved not aggressively pursuing major scandals like Fast and Furious or Benghazi; expressing solidarity with Michele Bachmann over the latter's concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration; or choosing not to de-fund Obamacare.

Chief Justice John Roberts: When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Obamacare, Roberts twisted himself into knots by saying the law was unconstitutional but that it was constitutional under taxing provisions. Obama administration operatives did all it could to intimidate the court into ruling in its favor. There is no proof that Roberts was intimidated but his ruling was so bizarre that many believe he caved to relentless left-wing pressure.

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney: Those unwilling to admit what really happened will say that Mitt Romney simply had a flawed strategy but that's not what happened. Romney took a dive at the third and final debate. He never challenged Obama on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or on why the Obama administration labeled the Fort Hood jihad attack as 'workplace violence'. Romney refused to fight Obama. Simply looking at the third debate confirms the cave.

Secretary of the Army, Gen. George Casey: Three days after the Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 and injured 32, Case went on ABC This Week and told George Stephanoplous that the loss of "diversity" would be a "greater tragedy" than those 44 casualties. In short, Casey caved.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair, Michael McCaul: When the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced at the beginning of this year, Rep. McCaul (R-TX) had a duty to investigate it. He was sent a letter requesting that he convene hearings on this egregious act. He has chosen to ignore that letter and appears to be looking the other way, possibly because of a full-scale lobbying effort but then again, that's just another way of saying "cave".

For the most part, the Democratic Party has thrown in with wickedness; it is a party that went over the cliff years ago. At best, a controlling majority of the Republican Party has decided - consciously or otherwise - to follow the Democrats. At worst, that majority is an overwhelming majority. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are part of it.

Joseph of Arimathea is remembered today for choosing the right side at great personal risk. There are only a precious few who are willing to do so today. Unfortunately, none of them have enough power.

Michael Bloomberg: Traitor in a war U.S. Refuses to Identify

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to wage jihad on sodas, snacks, cigarettes, gun rights and other freedoms of American citizens. Conversely, he supported the Ground Zero mosque on Constitutional grounds, welcomed Siraj Wahhaj - an imam linked to the 1993 WTC bombing - to City Hall, and suggested that the Times Square bomber was likely a Tea Partier upset with Obamacare.

Here is Bloomberg on Meet the Press yesterday, talking about taking away your freedoms (implicit in this dhimmi diatribe is an UNwillingness to impinge on the freedoms of Jihadists).

Via Hot Air:



Bloomy makes the case FOR the Ground Zero mosque in 2010:



Times Square bomber likely an anti-Obamacare activist:

Ted Cruz on the 'defeatist attitude' of Republicans

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave some extremely interesting answers to Todd Gillman's questions. Perhaps the most insightful exchange came when Cruz gave his psychological assessment of Republicans inside the beltway.

Via DMN:

Q. You’re 10 weeks on the job. What have you learned? Has anything surprised you? Is there anything that you’ve needed to retool in your approach?

A. The biggest surprise has been the defeatist attitude of many Republicans in Washington. A lot of Republicans felt beaten down, and that there was nothing they could do to stop the erosion of liberty in this country. I have been encouraged that the last several weeks have demonstrated that there is a great deal we can do to turn things around. Indeed, if you look at the vote on sequester, the filibuster on drone strikes and the vote on defunding Obamacare, for three weeks in a row, Republicans have stood together for principle. And in doing so I believe we are winning the argument. We are doing what the American people expect us to be doing, which is standing for principle, defending liberty and defending the Constitution. I am hopeful the pattern of the last three weeks will prove a recurring pattern going forward. I believe that’s the direction Republicans need to go.

Q. This defeatism is among incumbent senators?

A. Yes. I’m referring to those who have been here a long time and have suffered some difficult election results and who I think were discouraged about being able to get anything done.

Q. So it sounds like you’ve been teaching them a few lessons. Is there anything that you’ve learned on the job yet?

A. What I think all of us have learned together is the power of leaders standing for principle. You asked what I learned. I can tell you the most inspirational moment since I’ve been here has been Rand Paul’s filibuster. When Rand Paul went to the floor at 11:47 am, many of his colleagues viewed what he was doing as curious if not quixotic, as an endeavor that was doomed to failure. … It captivated the attention of the American people as millions of Americans watched Rand Paul and others standing for principle and began engaging directly in the process, on Facebook and email and Twitter….. As a result of Sen. Rand Paul’s courage, the Obama administration was forced to concede in writing that it lacks the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

It is amazing that elected Republican officials felt beaten down because their conservative base felt beaten down by the unwillingness of those officials to fight for them.

Read it all.

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

Why in the world did Benjamin Netanyahu apologize to Turkey?

Interview with Boston University professor Richard Landes, who discovered Pallywood. Believe it or not, the Pallywood saga involving the staged death of Muhammad al-Dura just took a new twist.

Insulting Geraldo, who is now - among other things - a Yasser Arafat apologist.

About that CNN Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann...

First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.

In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.

At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.

This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.

The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.

Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.

The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?

The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?

At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:

"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."

Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).

As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.

A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.

The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.

If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.

Video: Joe Biden says Gabby Giffords suffered 'mortal wound'

In the immediate aftermath of the near fatal shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on January 8, 2011, there were news outlets that erroneously reported she had died. Now, more than two years later, Joe Biden has made the same mistake, saying that Giffords was "mortally wounded" on that day.

Here is the definition of a "mortal wound":

A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim.

Ladies and gentlemen, your vice president...

Via Right Pundit:

If you're not a social conservative, you need to read this

I am convinced now more than ever, that when people claim to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals who don't want to make abortion an issue, they're flat-out ignorant.  Everyone who thinks abortion shouldn't be an issue in electoral politics should be required to watch a few abortions or... perhaps they could just start following the trial of Kermit Gosnell.

Via CNS News:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder--he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive--apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.

On second thought, perhaps government largesse is a drop in the bucket compared to abortion.

The reason fiscal liberalism is wrong is the same reason that socially liberal positions like abortion is wrong. That reason can be summed up with one word.

Evil.

Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.

Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:

"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."

I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.

Must-see Videos: Rep. Trey Gowdy eviscerates ICE Director and DHS Under Secretary for releasing prisoners

When it was learned that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which reports to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released thousands of illegal alien prisoners and blamed sequestration, it was a source of outrage. That outrage was not lost on Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who, in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee absolutely spanked ICE Director John Morton and DHS Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras.

Gowdy is one of the few members of Congress who gives one hope that all is not lost. If only we had this kind of fire from Republican leaders in both Houses.

First up, John Morton...



Next, Rafael Borras...

Video: Did Barack Obama give Chuck Todd the Finger?

At a joint press conference in Jerusalem, Chuck Todd was playfully cajoled by Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after attempting to ask too many questions, one of which involved asking Obama why he "failed" to achieve Middle East peace. After the laughter died down, Todd asked Netanyahu why Obama hasn't been accepted by the Israelis as much as America's last two presidents (Bush and Clinton). Obama obviously didn't like that question and as he laughed while accusing Todd of being "incorrigible", Obama seemed to give Todd the middle finger.

Judge for yourself.

Via Weekly Standard:

Did Pope Francis Cave at his Inaugural Mass?

When the likes of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who consider themselves to be pro-choice pro-abortion Catholics, receive communion, it's about control. Every time they do it, they're challenging the Church not to give it to them.

First, take a look at an excerpt from a document Pope Francis signed in 2007:

“...we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated.  This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

Now, fast forward to Pope Francis's very first mass as Pope. Guess who was in attendance and received communion.

Via POLITICO:

Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both strong pro-choice advocates, took communion during the papal mass Tuesday in Rome, according to a pool report.

The move could potentially reignite a passionate debate about the propriety of participating in the ritual without fully abiding the Catholic Church's teachings.

Pope Francis has said he is clearly against the practice, particularly by pro-choice politicians.

It would seem the new Pope blew a chance to establish a new standard and did not meet the standard he himself set. This all happened at his very first Mass as Pope.

Disappointing.

Obama to Republicans on National Debt: Heads I win, Tails you lose

Every time we reach another national debt crisis fork in the road (debt ceiling, continuing resolution, fiscal cliff, etc.), Barack Obama flips a coin. Right before doing so, he sets the rules: heads I win, tails you lose. The problem is that his opponents accept the terms.

It's common knowledge that Obama is quite familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy. In fact, he's been implementing it since he was first inaugurated in 2009. That strategy is to so overwhelmingly burden entitlement programs that the system eventually collapses. The strategy was originally created in the 1960's and the Obama administration has applied it in a 21st Century world (Obama phones just one example).

As the debt climbs higher and higher, Obama banks on two theorems he might see as a win/win situation (heads and tails):

1. The collapse of the society Cloward-Piven strategists want, gets closer.
2. Arrest / reversal of the process becomes increasingly more difficult as collapse approaches.

Theorem number one is precisely why Obama doesn't just appear to be disinterested in solving the debt crisis; his actions and demeanor clearly demonstrate that he's interested in furthering it (heads I win). The lavish vacations and runaway spending that seems ridiculously outrageous to clear-thinking individuals will never embarrass him because it's all part of his plan. The longer his opponents attempt to embarrass him, the more he spends because he knows he either has those opponents snookered or neutered (Boehner saying he 'absolutely' trusts Obama is a case in point). The reason he's behaving like a man who wants to collapse the economy is because he does.

The more debt the country goes into, the closer we get to the endgame of the Cloward-Piven strategy - collapse.

Yet, for some reason, Obama's political opponents who have the power to confront this problem (House leadership), refuse to admit the truth and, subsequently allow Obama to further test and reinforce his first theorem. This can be seen perfectly in Speaker John Boehner's refusal to attach an Obamacare de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution, which means a monstrous steroid injection to both theorems. That Rep. Paul Ryan put forth a budget that de-funds Obamacare while also knowing it hadn't a chance of passing, demonstrates that Obama's opponents know what's right but refuse to do it.

The longer theorem number one can be tested before Republican leadership decides to arrest and reverse the process, the better it is for Obama because it will only strengthen theorem number two.

Sequestration gave us a look into what Obama would do if Speaker John Boehner, et. al. chose to test theorem number two on a more grandiose scale, like say, the upcoming CR (tails you lose).

Up until sequestration actually happened, the Republicans never really knew how Obama would handle things if the former never caved because... Republicans always seemed to cave. Whether it was the debt ceiling, CR's, or the fiscal cliff, in the end, Obama always got another blank check and the national debt has just continued rising. As such, the president has been able to further test both theorems.

When sequestration happened, we got our first glimpse at Obama's playbook if Boehner, et. al. ever made a serious attempt to reverse the country's self-destructive fiscal course. The cancellation of White House tours and the release of hardened criminals were indicators. In the first instance, American citizens were told to stay off their own property. It wasn't just unnecessary, political, petty, and punitive - it was also symbolic. More seriously, the decision to release thousands of hardened criminals was meant to threaten a much larger White House-sanctioned prison release if House leadership decided to finally deal with the debt crisis.

In essence, Obama was saying that if the opposition attempted to confront the real debt problem, he would hold America hostage. This communicates something else as well, namely, that Obama isn't as eager to test theorem number two as he is theorem number one. He's acting like a man who wants to reach the Cloward-Piven endgame by never having to win a game of chicken over theorem number two. The administration's handling of sequestration did more harm to Obama than it did to House Republican leadership, which is why the latter should ultimately force Obama's hand.

If this administration was so willing to use sequestration to so transparently harm Americans, what would it do if the government was shut down because House leadership decided not to pass that CR?

Perhaps Obama doesn't want us to find out because he knows his actions will finally be transparently his alone and that he will lose.

Video: Boehner says he 'absolutely' trusts Obama, says 'no issue there'

Just when you thought House Speaker John Boehner couldn't be more out of touch with conservatives, he lowers the bar on himself. During an interview on ABC This Week, in response to a question about whether he trusts Barack Obama, Boehner got immediately serious and did not hesitate to answer in the affirmative, saying, 'absolutely... there's no issue there' (2:30 mark).

Then, about one minute later, Boehner said, 'We do not have an immediate debt crisis.'

One question: Does he want to lose the majority in 2014?

If so, he's implementing the perfect strategy. It's safe to say that a vast majority of the Republican Party's most informed voters absolutely don't trust Obama.

Via RCP:

Audio: Today's Show

On today's show...

Why aren't the Benghazi survivors allowed to come forward? Why isn't John Boehner forming a Select Committee to get to the bottom of what happened?

Why did Boehner choose not to de-fund Obamacare?

Is it time to investigate John Boehner?

"We need a select committee (on Benghazi). Every member of Congress - if you want to get to the bottom of this - should support a select committee." - Rep. Frank Wolf, 3/12/13

"To our leadership in the House, you're gonna have to up your game on Benghazi. - Senator Lindsey Graham, 3/15/18

House Speaker John Boehner is not doing his job... on many fronts... and needs to be replaced. It's become obvious on the Obamacare front that when it comes to de-funding it, the buck stops with Boehner and he's refused to accept it by attaching a de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution. Instead, he's passed that buck again... to Barack Obama.

When it comes to investigating what happened in Benghazi, the buck is landing on Boehner's desk as well. It's beyond obvious at this point that there is a coverup taking place within the administration and if the House Speaker were truly interested in doing everything possible to blow a hole through the stonewall, he would form a Select Committee.

Like with Obamacare, Boehner is proving incapable of fighting.

Take note of the quote above from Rep. Frank Wolf, particularly this part:

"...if you want to get to the bottom of (Benghazi)..."

What followed from Wolf is something that only John Boehner can do - form a select committee. But that is something Boehner has refused to do.

If Wolf is right about a select committee being the way to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, and Boehner doesn't form one, we are left to conclude one thing - Boehner doesn't want to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

With increasing frequency, it is becoming apparent that Speaker John Boehner's actions (and inactions) are benefiting the Obama administration greatly.

Not only is it time that Boehner be replaced but perhaps it's time to investigate him.

Transforming Obamacare into Boehnercare

If there's one thing that's been learned about Barack Obama, it's that not only does he avoid accountability but he's actually the one personally responsible for that which he is not blamed. If there is to be an exception to that rule - known as the 'Limbaugh theorem' - it would most certainly be something with his name actually attached to it - like Obamacare.

If there is a way for Obama not to accept responsibility for Obamacare, House Speaker John Boehner seems to be doing his level best to find it. In fact, when everything goes south and Obamacare becomes the disaster anyone with a functioning mass of synapses knows it will become, Boehner will at least be partially to blame because when he had the opportunity to de-fund it, he said no.

The Kabuki dance between Boehner and Paul Ryan was ridiculously transparent. Ryan, who had no power, talked tough while Boehner, who had all the power, punted. There is no doubt that Boehner wanted to hide behind Ryan's un-passable bill to defund Obamacare as the former refused to exercise his power to de-fund by demanding such a mechanism be part of the Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next year.

Once again, in a game of chicken, Boehner always seems to blink first.

However, this time, as much as he'd like to, he can't duck it.

Note what he says in response to the question about including an Obamacare de-funding amendment into a Continuing Resolution that only serves to put the country into more debt. Boehner's reason for not doing so? Well, his goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government.

Uh, John, if the goal is to cut spending, wouldn't shutting down the government do just that better than anything else?

Via CNS News:

Must-See Video: Jeff Gordon punks Car Salesman

The legacy of Nascar's Jeff Gordon will definitely include what he did to this car salesman:



h/t The Blaze

Video: Mark Levin channels Leo Amery on Hannity

It's very important to intuit what took place in this interview. For starters, Sean Hannity rarely, if ever, criticizes elected Republican officials. Second, it is common knowledge that he is close friends with Mark Levin, another radio talk show host. Third, Levin has a history of being very overt in his criticism of elected Republicans if he thinks they deserve it.

Last night, Levin appeared as a guest on Hannity's television show and was asked about House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican Levin has skewered on the air many times over.

With that as a backdrop, one is left to conclude that Hannity's reticence to criticize Republicans is more strategic than it is based on ideological alignment. What we very well may be seeing here is Hannity allowing Levin on his television show to do what Hannity doesn't like to do - throw down the gauntlet with House Republican leadership.

After watching this interview, I couldn't help but think of the words of British MP Leo Amery in 1940. Amery enunciated, almost perfectly, the frustration felt by those who knew Neville Chamberlain was the wrong man to stand against Hitler. Here is what Amery said in the spring of 1940 about Chamberlain, via the Guardian:

Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this house found that its troops were being beaten by the dash and daring of Prince Rupert's cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: "I said to him, 'Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows'… You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still."

It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail. We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

It will be interesting to see if Levin's appearance and stance on Hannity last night is a leading indicator that Hannity himself may be a step closer to adopting Amery's view about Chamberlain and applying it to Boehner, which Levin has apparently already done.

Via Daily Caller:

The Ryan Boehner two-step on Obamacare?

It's a tried and true Republican establishment practice. When your side is not in power, talk tough. When your side is not in power, seek compromise and acquiesce. Now we're seeing that principle at work within the Republican Party itself.

The latest example comes courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). When it comes to de-funding Obamacare, Boehner has the power to actually either make it happen or oversee a government shutdown by allowing a vote on an amendment that would be added to the Continuing Resolution (CR), which would fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Why do we need a CR again? Oh yeah, because the Democrats haven't passed a budget.

That said, according to Byron York, when presented with the opportunity to tie passage of the CR to the de-funding of Obamacare, House Leadership (Boehner) not only refused to allow a vote on the amendment but that if he had, it would have passed. So, the man with the power to essentially de-fund Obamacare chose not to exercise that power.

Enter Ryan. In an obvious attempt to satiate overwhelming conservative opposition to Obamacare and make it appear that the House is doing all it can to de-fund it, Ryan introduced a budget which incorporates the de-funding ob Obamacare that he knows - as does Boehner - will not pass. To give House leadership the benefit of the doubt, it may be banking on a long-term strategy based on a self-evident truth that Obamacare will one day fail and Ryan's multiple budgets and predictions will be vindicated.

However, that's based on a flawed premise that liberals have the ability to admit when they're wrong. Moreover, the House Republicans are essentially doing nothing now in the hopes that they will be proven right when the country is in a shambles. Wouldn't a better idea be to do all you can now to prevent such a known outcome?

Here is Ryan talking tough when he can do so all day long without consequence because... his budget will not pass and Obamacare will not be de-funded.

Via CNS News:



Contrast that with Boehner last week, likely one day before the CR was passed without permitting a vote on the amendment to include Obamacare's de-funding. When asked if such an amendment would be part of the CR, Boehner not only didn't talk tough, he didn't even answer the question:

 

To demonstrate that Boehner knows how to talk tough when he's not in power, take a look at this from 2009, when he expressed OUTRAGE over the stimulus package, slamming the bill on the House Floor.

Why? Because it didn't matter and made for great theatrics:

Video: Freshman Congressman explains 'no vote' on John Boehner for Speaker

If you've read the excellent op-ed by Angelo Codevilla from last month, in which he talks about the 'ruling class' vs. the 'country class', the sentiment expressed by Freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) about why he didn't vote for John Boehner as Speaker this year, is a case in point. It has long been apparent to many conservatives that Boehner does not represent them; he represents the ruling class and always seems to be more interested in deal-making, compromise, and avoiding conflict than in fighting for what's right.

Increasingly, the 'country class' is getting tired of it. In this interview with Ginny Thomas, Bridenstine explains why he voted against another Boehner speakership earlier this year. The longer the Obama administration continues to get the better of Boehner, the more likely the mindset of Bridenstine will represent an effervescent and growing insistence that Boehner go.

Via Daily Caller:

Video: Rep. Frank Wolf still calling for Select Committee on Benghazi

In addition to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) continuing to call for a House Select Committee to investigate what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - calls which John Boehner continues to ignore - he revealed something else noteworthy in this clip. There are still survivors of the attacks at Walter Reed six months later and we still know nothing about them.

Via Free Beacon:

Report: Boehner responsible for no De-funding of Obamacare

At a press conference on March 6th, House Speaker John Boehner did his best Jay Carney / Robert Gibbs impression when asked if there would be any must-pass legislation that would include the de-funding of Obamacare. The most obvious way to do this would be to leverage the Continuing Resolution by adding an amendment that says to continue funding the government, Obamacare would have to be de-funded. Boehne did what all politicians do when they don't like a question; he answered one that wasn't asked.

Now we know why. He had no plans to de-fund Obamacare despite his base's adamant insistence that he do so, despite the fact that had the amendment been introduced, it probably would have gotten overwhelming support.

Via Byron York at the Washington Examiner:

As the House prepared to consider its own version of the continuing resolution last week — it ultimately passed 267 to 151 — more than two dozen conservative GOP lawmakers signed on to an amendment that would have defunded Obamacare.  They submitted the amendment and hoped it would receive a vote but were stymied when the House leadership declared that no amendments would be allowed.

“If that amendment had gone to the floor, far and above a majority of the conference would have voted for it,” said Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, one of the supporters, in an interview Saturday.  “I think everyone in the conference would have voted for it,” added Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis, another supporter.

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership did not allow the amendment to be considered.  And that, Salmon, DeSantis, and other conservative Republicans believe, is a measure of the leadership’s uneasiness with continuing the legislative fight against Obamacare.  Some Republicans — lawmakers who might have felt pressure to vote to defund Obamacare — believe privately that the fight is essentially over, and that the GOP should come to terms with the reality of national health care.

That lack of will to fight on the part of Republicans is what lost the 2012 election for them. Yet, they continue to double down on the behavior.

While many may be inclined to dismiss the allegations made about Boehner by former U.S. Congressman Bob Ney because the latter served jail time as a result of his relationship with Jack Abramoff, can you think of any better reason for Boehner's consistent unwillingness to fight?

Here's an interview with Ney on WND:

Cenk Uygur's Conundrum

It seems the former MSNBC host is in a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation.

Will Al Jazeera keep Muslim Apostate after Current TV sale?

Was Gabrielle Giffords' husband planning to be a 'Straw Purchaser'

Mark Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), has made quite a name for himself as an anti-gun advocate. Since his wife was shot in the head by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011 Kelly has lent his face and voice to the anti-second amendment crowd. He has aptly served the Obama gun-control agenda in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Several weeks ago, Kelly testified before Congress and seemed to single out semi-automatic rifles for ridicule for what they do to innocent human beings:



That doesn't seem to square with what Kelly did in following weeks, on March 5th; he purchased an AR-15. Thanks to a timeline, Breitbart's reporting seemed to indicate that once Kelly learned that his purchase of a semi-automatic rifle, along with high capacity magazines, began making the rounds, the husband of the former congresswoman changed his tune and posted the following on facebook:

I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.

Now, let's get on over to the issue of straw purchasing, which was a major component in Fast and Furious. Straw purchasing occurs when the person who buys the gun intends to give or sell said gun to a third party.

While the idea that Gabrielle Giffords' husband buying an AR-15 may represent irony and hypocrisy in spades, the straw purchasing charge may be a bit of a leap. Yes, Kelly signed a form that said he was purchasing the gun for himself and then later posted that he was going to turn it over to someone else but that "someone else" was the Tucson Police.

Far be it from me to speculate but here's my best guess at what went down.

Mark Kelly is taking the anti-gun positions not because he necessarily believes them but because he's become a political pawn and the pressure is overwhelming. On March 5th, he went to the store to purchase an AR-15 with the intent of arming himself. Once he realized that he'd been busted in a moment of palpable hypocrisy, he attempted to cover his tracks by justifying his purchase.

Sorry, Mark.

You've been busted and should start having as much courage on this as you did when you were launched into space.

Astronauts are not supposed to be cowards, political or otherwise.

h/t GWP

Video: Krauthammer mocks Rand Paul on Drones

It's time to count Charles Krauthammer among those who don't take Senator Rand Paul's filibuster seriously. Say what you will but this debate has created polarizations the likes of which we have never seen. On Rand Paul's side is the Tea Party, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and CAIR. Against him are establishment Republicans and now... Krauthammer.

Amazing.

Via MediaIte:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Video: Dianne Feinstein, Fast and Furious, and the PlAneT oF the Apes

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 'wacko bird' Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) literally attempted to make the argument that because high-capacity magazines are legal, so too is it "legal to hunt humans" because there are federal regulations that prohibit hunting ducks with 'more than three rounds'. This woman should seriously be institutionalized.

Once again, we have a gaping hole when it comes to the failure to introduce Operation Fast and Furious into the debate (shame on Republicans). If Feinstein's claim is that the sheer existence of high capacity magazines means it's legal to 'hunt humans', what does it mean that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) intentionally placed AK-47's and .50 Caliber rifles into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who 'hunt' and continue to 'hunt' humans with them.

For Feinstein's argument to make even a modicum of sense, she would have to apply it to the ATF and call for it to be disbanded because in reality, she's right and yet again, the Democrats communicate the truth best via projection.

When it came to the ATF, it WAS legal for them to 'hunt humans' by proxy (through the cartels). Evidence the fact that no one has paid any real consequence.

Anyway, here is Feinstein projecting the truth about the ATF onto the American people.

Via The Blaze:



All I can say is that if Feinstein lives in a world where it's 'legal to hunt humans', that world may just be the Planet of the Apes and in this metaphor, the corrupt, wicked Feds represent the apes:



Added irony is that the character who fought the apes was the future head of the NRA:

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

John Boehner's Inexplicable behavior continues

Since becoming Speaker of the House in 2011, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has racked up a list of inexplicable - and sometimes egregious - behaviors that make one truly question his bonafides when it comes to leading. The latest example comes courtesy of his March 7th press conference, in response to a question about whether the House will include any defunding of Obamacare.

Boehner simply would not answer the question and in light of his past statements, it shouldn't have been a difficult question to answer.

Via CNS News:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would not say on Wednesday whether the Republican House leadership has any plans to curtail or de-fund any aspect of Obamacare in any must-pass legislation in this Congress.

This is despite the fact that Boehner himself declared a year ago that an Obamacare regulation requiring health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs was an unconstitutional violation of the free exercise of religion and that Congress would not let it stand.

Check out the video. Boehner's obfuscation was Jay Carney-esque:

 

Talking tough when it's of little consequence and then acting weak when it's put up or shut up time is a common trait among many politicians but Boehner has gone out of his way to set a new standard in this regard. In this particular case, Boehner is on record as saying Obamacare - as established - is unconstitutional. Yet, when asked if he will live up to keep his word that he "would not let it stand", the Speaker equivocated.

Why?

Whether intentional or not, the Speaker's words, behaviors, and actions have served to protect the Obama administration over and over and over.

For example:

• It became painfully obvious during the Fast and Furious investigation, that Boehner wanted no part of it; he wanted it to go away. He said extremely little publicly about the investigation and did more to help the Obama administration stonewall than he did to help Rep. Darrell Issa and the Oversight Committee break through it. When Issa needed Boehner the most, Boehner wilted. In the vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, Boehner did not vote; he also scheduled the vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the same Obamacare he said was unconstitutional and would not let stand.
• Not long after that contempt vote, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen identified then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest adviser - Huma Abedin - as someone having extensive familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who found Bachmann's claims to be warranted pointed to a laundry lists of irrefutable facts. Those who defended Abedin completely ignored those facts and impugned Bachmann. Boehner was one who defended Abedin and chastised Bachmann while ignoring those facts.
• The attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12 continue to reveal more questions than answers. The administration has stonewalled the investigation in a way very similar to how it stonewalled Fast and Furious. The Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and are powerless when it comes to the formation of a Select Committee, made up of Senators from various committees. Boehner, on the other hand, has the power to form a House Select Committee but seems disinterested in doing so.
• On the day after the election, while still maintaining the majority in the House, Boehner publicly stated that the House he led would put 'revenues' (taxes) back on the table. This culminated in the 'fiscal cliff showdown' that involved closed-door meetings with Barack Obama.
• Not long after the 2012 election, Boehner booted conservative congressmen off of their committees. These congressmen represent the wing of the Republican Party that is most willing to take the fight to Barack Obama. Again, it was another move by Boehner that essentially helped the President.
• The subject of this post; his refusal to answer a simple question.

When it comes to budget showdowns, the perception always seems to be - save for sequestration - that Boehner has caved. It's quite possible that the reason he didn't cave on sequestration was that he knew there would be a bigger backlash than he was capable of absorbing, especially in light of the Continuing Resolution debate that looms on the horizon. Ironically, that CR is relevant when talking about defunding Obamacare, which Boehner seems reticent to do based on the March 7th press conference.

Speaking of sequestration...

Whether it's been TARP, Bailouts, raising the debt limit, CR's, or any other budget battle, conservatives always demand that Boehner and the Republicans not cave. Save for sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans always seem to do just that. In the case of sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans for once, didn't cave and look at what's happening.

Obama is losing the battle.

This is why the CR debate is so critical. Will Boehner learn from sequestration or will he revert back to doing things that serve to benefit the administration? If it's the latter, it will only add to his list of inexplicable behaviors.

Video: John McCain assumes role of Jay Carney on Senate Floor, rips Rand Paul's Filibuster

As Rand Paul was making a stand by filibustering the nomination of John Brennan, John McCain was having dinner with Obama. The day after Paul's filibuster, McCain attacked Paul.

Via GWP:

CITGO flies flags at half staff for Hugo Chavez

In the wake of Hugo Chavez's death, CITGO has decided to lower its flags to half staff at offices in Texas and Louisiana.

Via Fox News:

Out of respect for President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan-owned oil refinery Citgo flew its flags at half staff outside its Houston and Lake Charles, La., offices Wednesday, sparking outcry from drivers passing by.

In Houston, the flags at the refinery were lowered to half staff as late as this afternoon, and caused a number of people to look twice as they drove by. James Post, an assistant project manager at an engineering and construction firm in Harris County, told FoxNews.com the sight was "jarring" and "deeply disappointing."

U.S. protocol allows for flags to be lowered for foreign dignitaries and Post recognized Citgo's right to do so as a private company. However, he said upon seeing the American or Texas flag at half staff, he questioned the person being honored; and said his mind "immediately jumped to the last time we did this in the Houston-area and it was for Neil Armstrong, so, you wonder."

As much as the outcry from "drivers passing by" was warranted, there is simply still not enough outrage from Americans.

RINO Lindsey Graham 'honored' to have dinner with Obama while chiding Rand Paul's filibuster

On the same day that Republican Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, Barack Obama had dinner with 13 other Republican Senators. Perhaps there is not better allegory to illustrate the complete inability of Republicans to put forth a united front.

It didn't end there, however. The man who organized the dinner was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who spoke glowingly of the President while chiding Paul for filibustering.

This statement from Graham, from the Washington Post (via GWP) is outrageous:


If you think that was low, take a look at Graham the morning after, slamming Paul's filibuster after saying he was 'honored' to have dinner with Barack Obama:



At the end of the clip, Graham said 'the American people need to understand the threat we face'. Ironically, it is Graham who doesn't seem to understand the threat the Obama administration poses. Not only should Graham do some serious self-examination about praising the most radical Democratic President in the history of the United States while chiding a Republican counterpart who took a stand but he obviously doesn't understand the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in the United States.

**UPDATE** Here is the list of the 13 Senators who dined with Obama as Paul ate candy bars while speaking for 12 hours, via the White House Dossier:

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

This is not ok.

Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Video: O'Reilly loses it; calls Alan Colmes a 'liar' to his face... several times

If I had to sit and listen to Alan Colmes spin Democratic Party talking points every week, I'd have a similar type of meltdown here. The argument started with O'Reilly asking Colmes where Obama committed to cutting federal spending. The only thing Colmes could come up with was an empty promise Obama to cut medicare. When O'Reilly asked for specifics, Colmes couldn't deliver.

The only missed opportunity from O'Reilly was that Obamacare does the exact opposite with medicare. In fact, the Democrats double-counted to get the CBO to score the cost under $1 trillion.

Via WND:

Video: Powerful anti-Gun Control ad from Black American group

Perhaps there has been no greater deception in America than the whitewash of the Democratic Party's very racist history, to include the formation of the KKK in the 1800's. One of the actions of the KKK was to prevent any and all blacks from owning guns. Go figure. It's the Democratic Party of today that wants to usurp the second amendment.

Here is a very powerful ad by a group known as the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and its 'Never Again Campaign'.



Those who say the Democratic Party of old is the Republican Party of today (that the two parties essentially switched roles) are simply contributing to the whitewash. Woodrow Wilson had a close friend named Thomas Dixon, who wrote a stage play called The Clansman, which was very pro-KKK. It was later made into a movie that became the first film shown in the White House (Wilson invited Dixon to show it).

In addition to another presidential hero of the progressive movement - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - later giving Dixon a job in a U.S. Court as a clerk in 1938, the 32nd President also appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.



h/t GWP