Consider the Nerve Struck: Democratic Congressman, registered socialist, and Congressional Black Caucus member Elijah Cummings wants Benghazi report rescinded

On Tuesday, April 23rd, a House Republican conference released a report that was quite damning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not only did it seem to have the goods on Hillary relative to a decision to withdraw security in Benghazi in the form of her signature but it also seemed to imply that she committed perjury back in January.

Now we know that at least one Democratic congressman - Elijah Cummings - who happens to be someone who registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and is currently a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), just couldn't remain silent. This is almost always a sign that a nerve has been struck.

Via the AP:

A senior House Democrat called on House Speaker John Boehner Thursday to retract a report blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for security deficiencies at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya before last September's deadly attack.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in a letter to Boehner that the report, written by the Republican chairmen of five committees, misrepresents an important document and suggests that Clinton lied to Congress. In addition to pulling the report, Cummings said, Boehner also should apologize to Clinton on behalf of the report's authors.

Here is what is alleged in the report:

April 19, 2012, the response cable from the Department of State to Embassy Tripoli, bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.

Now, let's go back to the AP story:

...Cummings said his staff reviewed the cable, and it does not bear Clinton's signature. The cable includes only her typed name at the bottom of the page next to the word "signature," just as thousands of other cables sent each year from the State Department do.

This question that needs to be asked of Mr. Cummings is as follows:

Do you, sir, have any intellectual curiosity at all when it comes to who is specifically responsible for withdrawing security?

It would seem that if Hillary's name is next to the word "signature" and that the document does not bear her signature, someone treated a typed version of her name as authorization to act on something OTHER THAN her signature. Instead of going after the conference, shouldn't Cummings be going after whomever made that decision?

Better yet, why didn't Hillary?

Then again...

Report: McConnell's alleged 'bugger' visited the White House days earlier

It would appear that Watergate 2.0 may be more aptly named for the bugging of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters than was previously thought. The leader of the accused group met with White House officials days before the bugging.

Via Buzzfeed:

The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs.

White House logs and the Twitter feed of Shawn Reilly, one of two men at the heart of the McConnell wiretapping scandal, show he met with White House officials on Dec. 5, just days before his organization Progress Kentucky began a messaging blitzkrieg against the Republican leader.

Reilly and Curtis Morrison are currently under investigation by the FBI for illicitly taping a campaign conversation between McConnell and a handful of his advisors. During the conversation McConnell and his aides discussed the potential candidacy of actress Ashley Judd — including using her mental health problems against her.

Unlike Watergate, the potential for complicit actors to incriminate themselves is greater in today's social media age. Such appears to be the case with Reilly, who appears to have tweeted all about his meetings at the White House and with none other than George Soros' Center for American Progress (CAP) as well as a photo of what he claimed was the White House meeting.

This too is interesting, in light of the fact that the mainstream media has attempted to focus on McConnell's guys laughing at Ashley Judd's mental problems instead of on the act that isn't the least bit dissimilar from what happened in Watergate - save for confirmation of who ultimately was behind it or supported it.

On Dec. 13, eight days after Reilly's meeting with the White House, Progress Kentucky tweeted: "The single most important thing we want to achieve: Electing a new US Senator to represent Kentucky," which started a daily barrage of often more than a dozen tweets and retweets directly aimed at McConnell.

Over the next several months the pace of their Twitter attacks, and the vitriol, escalated. The organization hammered McConnell over his positions on fiscal issues, questioned his personal wealth before moving into more personal territory — at one point, Progress Kentucky sent a series of tweets accusing him of favoring China because of her ethnicity and claiming McConnell is a closeted gay man.

Yes, we are talking about public figures here but that would be called libel and slander, something that McConnell's people did not do to Judd. They didn't publicly mock her, nor did they accuse her of something libelous or slanderous publicly.

Moreover, the visitor log signed by Reilly was also signed by a Valerie Jarrett assistant named Victoria McCullough. Don't worry, though. The White House has an explanation:

Although the White House declined to comment, a source familiar with the situation said Reilly was one of 83 other people from Kentucky and Tennessee who attended the event. An administration official addressed the attendees, discussing the then-looming fiscal cliff fight and other items on the White House's upcoming agenda.

Neither Reilly nor any of the other people in attendance had "intimate" one on one meetings with Jarrett or other senior White House officials, according to this source.

Still, Republicans pointed to the evidence of the visitors logs to argue that Reilly is far more connected to the Democratic establishment than leaders would have the public believe.

The differences between Watergate and Watergate 2.0 appear to be increasingly fewer. To this point though, there are at least two. First, the mainstream media opposed the criminals Watergate while they are running interference for the alleged criminals in Watergate 2.0. Another difference is that Republicans don't seem to be raising their game on this issue. They will have to in order to overcome the media bias.

h/t WZ

Video: Why Registration leads to Confiscation

The gun control advocates in the U.S. are seeking what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calls the 'sweet spot' in the entire debate - a national gun registry database. On the surface, that may seem like an innocuous compromise but it's not at all. It would be a major leap for the gun control crowd. Canada went through it.

Check out this news report as it explains exactly what happens when a national gun registration process is implemented. Just like when Obama said Obamacare would not prevent people from keeping their own insurance is proving to be a lie, so is it a lie to say that registration will not lead to confiscation.

It will.

Via Sun News Network:



h/t Elizabeth

Video: Paul Krugman and his audience eerily similar to Jim Jones and HIS audience

This is just plain creepy. It's definitely a softer version of what Jim Jones got the more than 900 people who followed him to commit suicide but it's very similar in two respects. The leader - in this case Krugman - espouses "death panels and higher taxes". The reaction he got was one of laughing approval. Who in their right mind cheers for death and taxes?

No one, which is more than enough evidence that these people are not in their right minds.

It's extremely bizarre to see and hear people cheer or laugh at something that will lead to either their own premature deaths or the premature deaths of their loved ones. It's a macabre form of groupthink and it's exactly what happened when New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman told an audience at an historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week exactly that.

Listen not to what Krugman says at about the 2:15 mark but also to how the crowd reacts.

h/t Breitbart:



Here is video of Rep. Leo Ryan (D) in Jonestown the night before more than 900 followers of Jim Jones ended their lives. Note how loudly the crowd cheers when Ryan states people in the cult think it's the "best thing that ever happened to them in their whole life".

One day later, Ryan was shot dead by Jones' thugs and all of the people who cheered, took their own lives. Is that something to cheer about?



Think it's a stretch? Do you remember the reaction Robert Reich got when, in 2007, he advocated death panels and higher health care costs while speaking at Berkeley?  In fact, the laughter Reich elicited was even more pronounced than what Krugman got. The students cheered the premature deaths of their parents as well as a future in which they would live fewer years as well.



Three weeks before Rep. Ryan showed up in Guyana in 1978, the people held a vote - led by Jones - in which they unanimously voted to commit suicide. How is what Krugman and Reich have advocated any different?

Oh, and another similarity... Jones ingratiated himself with Democrats.

Relevant portion starts at the 4:40 mark

**CONTENT WARNING**

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

Video: Harry Reid in 2005 vs. Harry Reid in 2012

Why don't these dirtbags just admit they're liars?

For one thing, it would mean telling the truth.



h/t WZ

Slavery is coming back... to Egypt

During the presidential campaign, Democratic Vice President Joe Biden infamously told an audience that the Republican nominee Mitt Romney wanted, "to put you all back in chains". On the day after the election, ABC News reported that Obama had the support of more than 96% of Black Americans.

The history of slavery in America is always there and will always be there. Unfortunately, it's a grossly distorted view of history that wins the day. That view is that the Republican Party is the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, racism, etc. etc. etc. The reality is just the opposite. All of those things - all of them - can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. Yet, despite all of this, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat election after election.

As for slavery, Barack Obama's Middle East policy has facilitated the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who has been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi. Now Egypt is voting on a draft of its constitution and, guess what? It looks like slavery is coming back.

Via the AP:

An Islamist-dominated panel is voting on Egypt's draft constitution, the country's first charter after the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak. The draft largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.

Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.

As the GWP rightly points out, the Obama administration doesn't seem nearly prepared to go after Morsi the way it went after Romney when it comes to the issue of slavery, which neither Romney nor his Party had anything to do with.

Via the AP:

The Obama administration is declining to criticize Egypt's draft constitution despite spirited internal debate over whether the document adequately protects women, religious minorities and dissenting voices.

This time, the Democratic Party, which allegedly fights to prevent slavery from coming back at the hands of the Republican Party (according to Joe Biden), will be complicit - once again - in ushering in an age of slavery. The difference, of course, is that this time it will be slavery in Egypt.

Yet, 96% of blacks support Obama.

Video: Most intellectually vacant Congressman wants Constitutional Amendment to control Freedom of Speech

In 2010, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed a concern that if the island of Guam became overly populated that it might 'capsize' and 'tip over'. In 2012, he's now on record as making the charge that the private sector is taking over the government and that the private sector is "privatizing every aspect of our lives, as we know it."

Johnson's solution? A constitutional amendment that puts controls on the First amendment.

Note, too, how Johnson bemoans the racial division that exists in this country four years after Barack Obama was elected (such irony is apparently lost on people who think islands float).

Whack. Freakin'. Job.

Via MRC:



Remember this? Imagine that in Johnson's world, expressing fear that an island might capsize would be protected speech while expressing other positions would be subjected to restrictions. If ANY speech did meet the test of being right for suppression, it would be this absurdity enunciated by Johnson. Luckily, we'd like him to keep talking.



Question for Mr. Johnson: If the people on Guam have less freedom of speech rights, does that increase or decrease the chances of that island tipping over?

Video: President Perjury accuses Romney of lying

While campaigning in Philadelphia, Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying, accused Mitt Romney of being a... liar. The cherry on top?

Bubba wagged his finger as he made the charge.

Priceless.

Via Daily Caller:

Washington Post's Colbert King compares Romney to Impeached Democratic President

If you'd like to see how out of phase with reality the left is when it comes to its fixation on race, check out this recent column by black liberal writer, Colbert King. The title alone says it all - Mitt Romney could be the next Andrew Johnson. After opening his piece with a reference to Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which I'll get to later), Colbert introduces his comparison:

What would be the consequences for race of a Mitt Romney victory?

A Romney takeover of the White House might well rival Andrew Johnson’s ascendancy to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.

Colbert neglects to mention a very relevant fact; Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. So how did a Democrat take Lincoln's seat after the latter's assassination? It can be chalked up as the quintessential example of why Republicans should avoid "reaching across the aisle". Here is an excerpt from Unsung Davids about why Lincoln selected Johnson as his running mate:

Abraham Lincoln selected a Democrat as his vice presidential running mate for his second term. Hannibal Hamlin, a radical Republican who vehemently opposed slavery, was the Vice President during Lincoln's first term. In a political move, Lincoln and his Party thought it best to appeal to a broader contingency of voters by putting Andrew Johnson on the ticket (p. 160).

Of course, Special Field Order #15 - which mandated that all black families were to be given 40 acres and a mule - was issued by Lincoln's General William Sherman. It was Andrew Johnson who rescinded this order after becoming president. Nonetheless, Colbert compares Romney to Johnson the Democrat without identifying Johnson's party affiliation and champions Obama as a modern day Lincoln without pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican

Then, a little later in the column...

A Romney win would be worrisome, however, because of his strong embrace of states rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared.

And we know what that Johnson did once in office.

His sympathy for Confederacy holdouts, and his distaste for Washington, led him to retreat from Reconstruction and avert his gaze as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, many of which lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

There is nothing in Romney’s record to suggest that he would be any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the blandishments of his most extreme supporters, especially regarding federal enforcement.

Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted “black codes,” which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting.

That is an insane argument. Colbert begins with a premise that says states rights is a racist principle and that a distrust of federal government is a bad thing. Hey Colbert, have you looked around lately? The federal government is infested with corruption. It's an apples and oranges argument to say that states rights = racism but here is where Colbert really goes off the deep end, comparing voter ID with Jim Crow laws:

Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Apparently, voter fraud is the lesser of two evils because it is a natural consequence of people not being required to prove they are who they say they are. Then again, perhaps King has another agenda in mind. Does he know that voter fraud benefits the Democrats (ACORN ring a bell, Colbert?).

Now, as for Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Righst Act. He had a problem with both Title II and Title VII, not based on race but based on the notion that morality can't be legislated and granting too much power to the federal government (gee, that's not a problem today, is it?). Conspicuously absent from Colbert's piece is the identification of Al Gore, Sr., KKK Grand Klegal Robert Byrd, and Clinton mentor William Fulbright as Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Colbert compares Romney to Andrew Johnson without identifying Johnson's party; he compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln without identifying Lincoln's party; he points to Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act without identifying its opposition by Gore, Byrd, and Fulbright; Then he compares attempts to suppress voter fraud with racism.

Video: Biden so loved Michelle Obama's speech that he didn't know it was 48 hours earlier

As I've written before, Joe Biden's gaffes are increasingly sharing one thing in common; he always seems to be lost somewhere in time. The latest example comes during his speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night (that part is relevant). During that speech, he alluded to Michelle Obama's speech 'last night' (that would have been Wednesday). He then corrected himself and said, 'Monday night'.

The problem? Michelle's speech was Tuesday night. Biden had three choices and the two that he picked were both wrong.

See if you can read Michelle's mind after this latest Biden gaffe. If you look closely, she is saying to herself, That @!#%$#@'n A*&%$$%.

Via GWP:

Video Proof: Half of Democrats Godless and anti-Israel

It's more than safe to say that well more than one-third of Democratic Party delegates are both godless and reject Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. The video below will clearly demonstrate that.

First, this all started when it was learned that the Democrats took out of the Party platform any reference to 'God' or to 'Jerusalem' being the capital of Israel. This caused such a backlash that Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ultimately presided over a voice vote on two amendments introduced by former Ohio Democrat Governor, Ted Strickland, to have those two words placed back into the platform.

For Strickland's motions to be passed a two-thirds 'Aye' voice vote from the floor was required. As you will clearly see, Democratic leadership had an agenda to put those two words back into the platform for only one possible reason - political expediency. Two-thirds should be quite easy to discern for Mayor Villaraigosa. Yet, he had such a difficult time doing so that he called for three voice votes before coming to the conclusion that the 'ayes' had it.

The very fact that Villaraigosa had to do so should have given it to the 'no's'. It was as if he was trying to discern a 50/50 vote.

As you will both see and hear, the notion that two-thirds of the delegates wanted 'God' and 'Jerusalem' back in the platform is absurd. It's obvious that at least half did not, which, once again reinforces the views of most conservatives; it's the Democratic Party that is the party of godlessness and is anti-Israel. One very plausible reason for the anti-Israel sentiment could include a rise in the number of Muslim delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Newsmax reports that the number has climbed to 100 in 2012 from 43 in 2008.

Via C-Span:



DNC Chairman and the Democratic Party's most blatant and perpetual liar - Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - essentially proved that the removal of Jerusalem from the platform in the first place was not a technical oversight. Why? Well, because she said that it was. Some people lie so often that it's a much safer bet to believe the opposite of what they say. Wasserman-Schultz is such an individual.

Note also what Wasserman-Schultz says about Obama himself believing that Jerusalem "is and always will be the capital of Israel". If that's true, Debbie, then why did at least two people who are essentially mouthpieces for the Obama administration - Secretary of State spokesman Victoria Nuland and White House press secretary Jay Carney - intentionally avoid identifying Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

Here is Nuland in May of this year:



Here is Carney in July of this year:



If Obama's position is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why did both of those individuals refuse to express that view?

That brings us back to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being a liar.

Did I mention it's best to believe the opposite of everything she says?

'Duh' Video of the day: Bart Stupak wakes up over two years too late

Further proof that former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) - a supposed 'pro-life' Democrat - knew he was wrong when he caved to Obama by accepting an Executive Order that was supposed to prevent abortions being covered by Obamacare. Every clear-thinking American knew that Stupak chose to save face over standing on principle.

Now, thanks to Red State, Stupak is captured on video at the Democratic National Convention, essentially conceding that the Executive Order is useless. While he doesn't go so far as saying so, it's clearly the consequence of his actions when the 'Stupak 12' agreed to vote yes on Obamacare as a direct result of that Executive Order, which Stupak says now that Obama isn't honoring.

Well, duh! That WAS the common refrain from the Tea Party at the time.

More than two years later, Stupak is no longer in Congress and he's a step closer to admitting he was wrong. Once he goes all the way, maybe he'll switch parties but don't hold your breath.

Via Red State:



For more background on what Stupak did to get Obamacare over the hump, go here, here, and here.

This is for you, Mr. Stupak:

Video: Dick Durbin channels Nathan Thurm at Democratic Convention

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Bret Baier at the Democratic National Convention, Senator Dick Durbin was asked to explain why all references to 'God' or 'Jerusalem' were removed from the 2012 Democratic platform. Instead of answering the question, Durbin accused Baier of having an agenda that involved concluding that the Democratic Party is 'Godless' and doesn't support Israel. If you ever want to see a case study in defensiveness, this is it.

Durbin knows his position is indefensible so he does what any despicable Democrat does; he attempts to impugn the questioner as having a political agenda. Aside from the fact that Baier is as an objective reporter as there is today, Durbin's performance here would make Nathan Thurm blush. In fact, Durbin appears to be sitting on a defective whoopi cushion (see Nathan Thurm vide at bottom).

Via RCP:



Compare Dick with Nathan:

Report: Maxine Waters expresses support for Sharia Law, Muslim Brotherhood

She is  a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and now, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is apparently on record as expressing support for sharia law. She did so while attending a town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which is led by a man who used to be president of a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the United States.

Via One News Now:

A town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County earlier this year declared there is no conflict between sharia law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Several lawmakers and officials in The Golden State -- including Democratic U.S. Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez; Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing; and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca -- urged support for sharia law. In several recently released videos from the event, officials said that sharia is not a threat to the United States.

In case you're wondering if there's any connection between the ISOC and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the short answer is, yes. The Religious Director of ISOC is a man named Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, who was the president of ISNA at the time of 9/11.

Here is his bio from the ISOC website:

Dr. Siddiqi worked with many Islamic organizations in Switzerland, England and the United States. He was Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association in US and Canada. Siddiqi also served as Director of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. He served two terms (1997-2001) as President of the Islamic Society of North America with Headquarters in Indiana. Since 1981, he is serving as the Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove, California. He also served as the Chairman of the Shura Council of Southern California, an organization representing the Islamic centers, masajid and organizations in Southern California. He is the Chairman of the Fiqh (Islamic Law) Council of North America. He is a founding member of the Council of Mosques in US and Canada.

As the president of the ISNA, Siddiqi led a group that has pledged the destruction of the United States from within - through people like Waters and Sanchez. Here is the relevant excerpt from a document known as "An Explanatory Memorandum" that was introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Logically, "their hands" refers to people like Waters and Sanchez and the "hands of the believers" refers to people like Siddiqi, who led one of 29 like-minded groups (ISNA) identified in that Explanatory Memorandum, which was penned in 1991. Five leaders of HLF were convicted on all counts in 2008, related to funding Hamas.

Yet, Waters and Sanchez are standing shoulder to shoulder with a man who led the ISNA; they continue to get reelected; ISNA continues to gain access to power; and very few seem all that interested  in calling these congresswomen out.

Democrats are not the only ones to have had these head-scratching encounters. Here is George W. Bush with Siddiqi just 15 days after 9/11:

Ok, some might say, it's unfair to point this out based on the gift of hindsight, that Bush didn't know. Simply not possible. Ask yourselves how much access to intelligence the Bush administration had after 9/11. It was an all-hands-on-deck time. Are we to believe his administration did not know about Siddiqi's background?

Not buying it.

Another reason given by some for Bush's coziness with then ISNA president is the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" credo. Even if we give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on that, it begs one very simple question:

How's that working out?

Video: RNC Chair calls Harry Reid a 'Dirty Liar'

Defending the Republican establishment is not something I do often but in this case, Rence Priebus gets a big hat tip.

Harry Reid IS a 'dirty liar'. Perhaps Romney would do better than he is if he spoke the cold hard truth when it's warranted like Priebus does here.

h/t WZ

Romney brings up Fast and Furious; DNC Chair engages in Blatant Projection

The good news is that in this 7:13 clip from Mitt Romney's appearance on Fox and Friends, he brought up Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege with Fast and Furious in response to questions about the efforts of the president's campaign to paint Romney as "secretive" and less than transparent while implying that he may be a "felon." The bad news is that it doesn't come until the 6:40 mark and almost appears to strike Romney as an afterthought.

That said, Romney does deserve credit for bringing it up.

Here's the entire quote, via Breitbart:

“If we want to talk about transparency, the real issue is, why has this president used his presidential power and executive privilege to keep the information about the Fast and Furious program from being explained to the American people?” asked Governor Romney. “This is not some personal matter. This is the action of his administration.”

It's good to see Romney go here but he really should do it right out of the gate, especially after you see what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said just a few hours later on MSNBC. In an election that is supposed to be all about contrasts, there isn't a starker one when it comes to releasing tax returns vs. releasing documents that could implicate high ranking administration officials in a mass murder scheme.



About four hours after Romney's appearance on Fox, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actually doubled down on the Bain attacks so far, she actually teetered on the edge of an abyss, which could quite possibly mean there's little to no concern about Romney continuing down the Fast and Furious road.

From MSNBC, via WaPo, DWS engaged in the most palpable, smack-you-upside-the-head form of Projection that I just had to decode it. Romney should take Wasserman-Schultz's words, make the following changes and then issue a press release:

"All of these questions could be cleared up if he (Romney) [Obama] released multiple years of returns [the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents] but obviously, there's something he's trying to hide. There's obviously something in those returns [documents Eric Holder was found in contempt for withholding] that he doesn't want the American people to see... Mitt Romney [Barack Obama] is obviously wanting to keep something under wraps and we're going to continue to hold him accountable for that... The little glimpse that we have gotten, from the one year he (Romney) [7600 of 140,000 pages of Fast and Furious documents Eric Holder] has released, he (Romney) [the Department of Justice] has a Swiss Bank Account lied to Congress... If it's not to avoid paying taxes in America [producing evidence that proves a coverup in a deadly operation approved at the highest levels of Justice], then the rest of the story - if he released those returns [subpoenaed documents] - would show us. He won't answer the questions. He's asking us just to take his word for it and, I'm sorry, you've got to come clean and show us when you're running for [you are the] President of the United States."

Here is the definition of projection:

Projection is a type of defense mechanism. In projection, a person experiences an emotion or thought that they aren't able to cope with. So, instead, they perceive the thought or feeling as if it had come from someone else. One example of this mechanism is the person who is angry at a friend, but does not feel comfortable with feelings of anger in himself. He may instead deny these feelings and imagine that his friend is the angry one.

Folks, I don't know who's advising Romney but if he's not bludgeoning the Obama campaign with this, he's not ready to be President.

Projection like this can usually only be found in psych wards.

The relevant portion begins at the 4:30 mark:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Former White House Press Secretary: Romney needs to release tax returns; Romney silent on Obama not releasing Fast and Furious Documents

If this post seems similar to the last one, it is. This should be getting incredibly easy for Romney. The Obama campaign is practically begging him to counter by demanding that Obama lift Executive Privilege on the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents. No, I mean, seriously. Team Obama has painted a big, fat Fast and Furious bullseye on its chest.

The latest example comes courtesy of Robert Gibbs, via CNN (h/t WZ):

President Barack Obama's campaign adviser Robert Gibbs continued to hammer Mitt Romney on Sunday over questions about the candidate's overseas financial accounts.

Gibbs, however, stopped short of saying whether Romney was in violation of any tax evasion laws, saying "nobody knows."

"The best way to figure out if he is complying with American tax law is to have him release more of the tax returns," the former White House press secretary said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Let's see, how should Romney respond.... How about with something like, "And the best way to figure out if Eric Holder had nothing to do with Fast and Furious is for the President to rescind his Executive Privilege assertion."

But alas, Romney apparently loves being on defense:

Obama's campaign has also been forcefully pushing a Washington Post report that calls Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital, a "pioneer" in outsourcing jobs overseas. The campaign has made the report a focal point of its ads against Romney, and the president frequently mentions it in his stump speeches.

Romney's campaign, however, has said there is no evidence that Bain advised its companies to outsource while Romney was still in charge of the firm, which he left in 1999.

The campaign cites a detailed report by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that said the Obama ads carried some claims that were untrue, and other assertions that only had thin supporting evidence.

Here is video of Gibbs' appearance on CNN's State of the Union. His instantly classic response - in light of the Fast and Furious documents - about whether or not Romney has done anything illegal is: "We don't know!... Nobody knows..."

Hey Mitt! Demand Obama lift Executive Privilege!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Romney should release more Tax records; Romney silent on Obama not releasing Fast and Furious Documents

Earlier this week, David Axelrod compared Mitt Romney to Richard Nixon over Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz today piled on, demanding that Romney release information about his 'secretive investments'.

Via POLITICO:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Sunday demanded that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney release more than one year of tax records, citing “secretive investments” and a “Swiss bank account.”

"I’d really like to see Mitt Romney release more than one year of tax records because there’s been disturbing reports recently that he’s got a ... secretive Bermuda corporation that no one knows anything about, investment in the Caymans ... he’s got a  Swiss bank account,” the Democratic National Committee chairwoman said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Americans need to ask themselves: why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?” the Florida congresswoman said.

The logical response from the Romney campaign would be to demand Barack Obama lift Executive Privilege on the Fast and Furious documents that Congress found Eric Holder in contempt over. Then again, Romney is apparently unwilling to fight.

In this movie metaphor, Scut Farkus represents the Obama campaign; Ralphie represents what Mitt Romney should be but, to this point, has proven incapable of being; the happy onlookers represent conservative voters.

Unfortunately, this metaphor being 100% applicable requires Romney to actually fight back, which he seems averse to doing when the mud really starts flying.



Romney is becoming increasingly more difficult to root for because it's become increasingly more difficult to respect him. As things stand now, Romney's behavior is akin to Ralphie running home crying after getting hit with the snowball, instead of whooping Scut Farkus' butt.

James Carville: Romney's Religion is his Biggest Problem

Former Clinton campaign strategist and prominent Democrat, James Carville, may have just given the green light to the left, to go after Mitt Romney over Mormonism. While appearing on WWL in New Orleans, Carville said the following during a discussion about Romney:

“One of the problems that Romney has honestly is — the thing against him the most is his religion,” Carville said. “And he doesn’t understand the reasons. He doesn’t talk about that. He was a bishop in his church. And he doesn’t talk about the one public office that he held much and that was being the governor of Massachusetts. So, he talks about Bain, but that’s become sort of a big issue in the campaign. He’s got to, you know — if you look at the numbers, Romney should win this campaign.”

Until the Obamacare ruling, Romney was making incremental progress on a weekly basis. He was winning with jabs against Obama, landing more punches by far but nothing with the force of a haymaker. Even after the Obamacare ruling, Romney was poised to capitalize on it because the last of the anti-establishment candidate fence-sitters seemed to be getting on his side.

Then the Romney campaign delivered a haymaker to its own jaw when it couldn't adequately draw a significant contrast between Obamacare and Romneycare.

There is a reason Carville is attacking Romney on Mormonism the same week that Romney muddled his Romneycare message; he smells blood in the water. This attack by Carville was definitely strategic.

Here is the audio of the exchange, via Daily Caller: