In 2004, then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) endorsed incumbent Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. It was a contributing factor to Santorum's loss to Bob Casey in 2006. In 2010, the showdown between Toomey and Specter began anew. With Tea Party support, Toomey won.
Last month, during Rand Paul's now famous filibuster, Toomey was one of several Republican Senators who dined with Barack Obama as Paul ate candy bars.
Now, in what appears to be an effort to prevent a filibuster on gun control, Toomey and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) have come together on a compromise bill. As news begins to trickle out, what initially seemed like an inexplicably bone-headed decision by Toomey to reach across the aisle is now no less boneheaded but a little less inexplicable.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group announced Wednesday that it will stop running a negative television ad targeting Sen. Pat Toomey now that the Pennsylvania Republican has signed on to a proposal to expand background checks to gun show and online firearms purchases.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns had been hammering Toomey, a junior senator with an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, with negative ads in Keystone State. But his latest proposal, which he is co-sponsoring with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, has Bloomberg and company singing a different tune.
The coalition’s initial negative ad featured an urgent-voiced narrator who said, “Tell Senator Toomey, don’t protect criminals…Demand action now,” and displayed Toomey’s office phone number. Now the coalition is running a positive ad praising Toomey.
At first blush, it would seem that Toomey could be selling out the second amendment in the interest of getting re-elected.
Republicans are blowing a huge opportunity relative to what far left-wing wacko bird David Corn of Mother Jones did when he bugged Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters. No, this scandal isn't nearly as big as Benghazi or Fast and Furious. It's not even as big as Solyndra, which have all been said to be bigger than Watergate.
McConnell-gate ain't bigger than Watergate and it ain't smaller than Watergate.
It's exactly the same. Yet, there is no outrage from the left. In fact, they're pointing to what was said on the recordings as being the big infraction.
Meanwhile, Republicans are playing defense on Immigration and gun control, instead of showing a united front on this issue.
The words coming out of McConnell's mouth here are not the problem; his lack of passion is. In fact, he comes across as being so dispassionate that he doesn't even come across as having been violated.
Lack of fire on the Republican side of the aisle is their biggest problem.
There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.
Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.
At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.
McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.
Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.
As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:
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.
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.
This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.
When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.
Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.
That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.
Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.
“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”
That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”
It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.
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.
Much is being made of Mitt Romney's speech at a private fundraiser during which he said that he will never convince the 47% of people who pay no federal income tax to vote for him because they are going to vote for Obama. You can argue all you want about whether that figure is accurate or whether there are segments of it that pay no income tax because they're living on social security.
Fine. That's not my problem with it. My problem is what Romney says at the end of this clip and what he necessarily implies without saying.
Here's the quote that gets my dander up:
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."
Implicit in that statement is that Romney believes the 43% - 48% of voters to the right of those independents don't have to be sold; they're already all-in; they've drunk the kool-aid. In my mind, it's this mentality on Romney's part that is preventing him from pulling away. By not fighting for that 43% - 48%, he's losing more than he thinks he's gaining by going after those fickle independents who might just jump on board if Romney exhibited some passion and showed a little fight. That kind of thing is contagious anyway.
Maybe if conservatives stopped drinking the Romney-aid, he'd actually have to fight for their votes by moving to the right. The independents can come along if they want to and they just might if they see a candidate with conviction instead of one beset on all sides by the political contrivances of campaign strategists.
Let's face it, Mitt Romney does not inspire people and he does not energize them. That is obviously the result of both his personality and his campaign strategy.
In any case, both are flaws at a time like this.
To illustrate my point, here is a Jerry Maguire metaphor. Cuba Gooding, Jr. represents the conservative base that Tom Cruise wants to just get off the phone because he thinks Gooding's character is a player he has in the bag and can get to later. All of those incoming calls represent the independents that ultimately didn't make Maguire successful.
Do you remember who did? Yes, the guy he had on the phone.
Newt invoked the name Gabriele Giffords on Meet the Press while ripping Rove over the latter joking about the murder of Senatorial candidate Todd Akin. Conservative pundits who excuse Rove should ask themselves what their reaction would be if it were the leader of a Democratic Super PAC who joked about the murder of a sitting Republican congressman. Any attempt to excuse Rove's comments is very hypocritical and would be an example of a double standard the right often complains exists on the left.
Much better video of Newt via Daily Caller. Pay particularly close attention to how he literally stuns the other panelists, leaving them completely silent. At one point, he calls out Thomas Friedman, who offered an incredibly lame response after being called out. No one chews up liberals and spits them out as thoroughly as Gingrich does.
Folks, Newt should have been the Republican nominee. Period.
The common refrain from the Republican establishment - as well as from conservatives who think it's best to get fully behind Mitt Romney despite his lack of appeal to them - has been that this election is too important and the nation cannot afford more of Obama. While that last part is true, the establishment insisted on Romney. One of the reasons I (and others) thought Romney was nowhere near the best choice was what we believed the liberal media and other Democratic apparatchiks would at some point do - go after his religion.
It was never a matter of if, only when.
NBC's Brian Williams, with his typical pseudo-objective, liberal nuance, delivered a one hour hit piece on Mormonism.
Opening an hour-long special on the Mormon Church for Thursday's NBC Rock Center, anchor Brian Williams proclaimed to viewers: "Most Americans say they know next to nothing about the Mormon Church. Tonight, a rare look inside the lives of modern Mormon families....A church still dealing with the issue of polygamy....And other issues of inequality."
Teasing a report on the history of the Church, Williams promised to answer the question of "why so many Americans still today are suspicious of the religion." Introducing that portion of the broadcast, Williams touted pop culture mocking the faith, starting with a clip of Fox's Family Guy in which lead character Peter Griffin declares: "I'm going to be a Mormon....Come on, nailing a different wife every night. That's a no-brainer."
Williams announced: "Comedy now takes liberties with Mormons, say nothing of the polygamy-based dramas and then there's Broadway." Footage appeared on screen of Comedy Central's South Park and the HBO series Big Love, followed by a clip of The Book of Mormon musical produced by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
After briefly describing the founding of the religion, Williams quickly focused on negative perceptions of Mormonism: "Part of the history of the Church that they can't shake is polygamy....even though polygamy was officially banned a century go, it's something the Church still has to deal with....Critics in other religions have openly called them a cult."
For more insight into the Church, Williams turned to Abby Huntsman, daughter of former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who left the Mormon faith after meeting her future husband, a non-Mormon. She lamented: "It's very black and white still, there's no gray area. You either are in or you're out. And you live by the Mormon doctrine or you do not."
Picking up on that theme, Williams explained: "In this modern world, some old-school rules still govern the Mormon Church, and that means no non-Mormons allowed inside their temples." He then suspiciously asked Huntsman: "I can't get into the Mormon temple. Will that ever change?...What goes on in there?"
Huntsman regretfully replied: "I hope it does. But I don't think that it will....[It] causes a lot of people to feel maybe not good enough, 'Why am I not allowed in there?' So this idea of – maybe being more accepting and moving with the times a little bit is much needed in the Church today."
Williams then turned to those "issues of inequality" that he hyped at the top of the program: "There is another part of Mormonism in the recent past that was late to change, and that's racism. African-Americans were not allowed to become full members until 1978."
Those who think Romney will fight back against these attacks by going after Rev. Jeremiah Wright offer no indication from the Romney campaign that he will do so. Where Obama is perhaps weakest - like Operation Fast and Furious - Romney has avoided.
The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) was led by Huma Abedin's parents, both of whom had the active support of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef, according to Jorgen S. Nielsen, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen. We already know that Huma's mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood and Huma's brother served as a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with Naseef (Chairman) for at least five years (2004-2008) and probably more.
Yet, Senator John McCain said the following on the floor of the Senate just this week:
"The letter in the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department or as a member of then Senator Clinton's staff, that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government." - Senator John McCain - July 18, 2012
Perhaps if Senator McCain were a bit more intellectually curious, he would seek to inquire about Huma Abedin's time and "public position" as an Assistant Editor with the IMMA as recently as 2008, alongside two of her family members, who have confirmed ties with Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals.
Then again, he would apparently rather impugn Michele Bachmann's character.
Moreover, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) may want to re-think speaking out in defense of Abedin until they examine all the facts as well. After all, their legacies are at stake.
The Republican establishment appears to be lining up with Huma Abedin against Michele Bachmann. Yesterday, it was John McCain and Bachmann's former campaign Chief Edward Rollins throwing her under the bus. Today, it's none other than Speaker John Boehner, who is coincidentally still trying in vain to find a spine over Operation Fast and Furious.
House Speaker John Boehner has also rushed to the defense of Abedin, warning lawmakers against making serious reputation-tarnishing allegations without hard evidence to back them up, reports the Huffington Post. “From everything that I do know of [Abedin], she has a sterling character and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous,” he said.
Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have also decided to line up against Bachmann. These politicians are etching their names in a book that will disgrace their legacies, whether they know it or not.
**UPDATE** Here's the video of Boehner defending Huma and chiding Bachmann. Note that he doesn't even know how to pronounce Abedin's first name. That could be a clue that Boehner is clueless about the facts but maybe that's just me.
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.
“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.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress, has taken great offense at a series of letters sent to the Inspectors General of various Departments and Agencies demanding answers about Muslim Brotherhood influence in the halls of U.S. power.
Ellison has now sent a letter of his own to Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Thomas Rooney (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). The letter demands that Bachmann and her fellow congressmen reveal their sources and the evidence of their claims. One of those claims is that Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
You can read more about the case against Huma Abedin and Hillary here but it's also important to focus on the strategy Ellison is employing in his attack against Bachmann; he cites Republican Party officials who have been identified as being problematic in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism.
As evidence for these allegations, you reference MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com, a Web site created by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP).
Mr. Gaffney has a long history of making unsubstantiated anti-Muslim allegations, including:
• Accusing then-ISAF Commander General David Petraeus of “submission” to Islamic law because he condemned Florida pastor Terry Jones’ burning of a Quran;
• Accusing presidential candidate Herman Cain after meeting with ISNA of meeting with “the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States” (language that appears verbatim in your letters);
• Accusing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie of “corruption” and “treason” for appointing a Muslim lawyer to be a judge;
• Accusing anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist of “enabling and empowering Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against our movement and our country”;
• Accusing former Bush Administration official Suhail Khan of conducting a “Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operation” against the American Conservative Union (ACU), the host of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and
• Accusing Republican Virginia House of Delegates member David Ramadan of waging “stealth jihad” by seeking elected office.
The sad truth is that Ellison is right about Gaffney's claims, which is an indictment of the people whom Gaffney identifies. Starting at the beginning... In a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document penned by Mohamed Akram, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization.
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.
Ok, so instead of Ellison pointing to Herman Cain's visit with the head of the ISNA - Mohamed Magid - in 2011 as a refutation of Bachmann's concerns, Americans should be questioning Cain's decision to do so.
Of course, let's not forget Chris Christie's bombastic response to a legitimate question about why he appointed a Muslim with questionable ties to a county judgeship. His defense of Sohail Mohammed is definitely suspect.
Then, of course, there is the Grover Norquist / Suhail Khan dynamic. Here is video courtesy of Jay Mark Campbell from CPAC 2011. Note the absurd claim by Khan, whose father was an early founder of both ISNA and another Muslim Brotherhood group - the Muslim Students Association (MSA), that there is "no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States." Take note at the 2:45 mark, where Khan doesn't just lie but he pretends that the lifework of his father doesn't exist.
Isn't that a bit disrespectful?
Khan and Grover Norquist go way back. Conservatives who tend to blindly support the Republican Party as the best of two options should be extremely wary. In much the same way that the Democratic Party was infiltrated, there are forces at work that seek to do the same with the Republican Party, whether wittingly or unwittingly. By using the argument that he does, Ellison seems to be banking on those who blindly support the Republican Party.
Senate Republicans have decided to swing at the slow, high-hanging softball that Barack Obama and the New York Times gave them yesterday. It's laughably obvious that when Obama said he found it "offensive" to suggest that his White House leaked national security secrets to the New York Times, someone was lying because the Times article referred to "three dozen" former and current White House employees who provided them the information.
President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House. "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive," President Obama said.
But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.
"It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.
For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.
"If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process 'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."
Perhaps the biggest indicator that it is Obama who is lying is that the Managing Editor for the New York Times actually threw his own paper under the bus to a competitor - POLITICO:
“I can’t believe anybody who says these are leaks,” Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet told POLITICO. “Read those stories. They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting.”
Obama appeared to point to those comments Friday when he stated: “The writers of these articles have all stated unequivocally that [the information] didn’t come from this White House.”
Isn't it obvious what's going on? The New York Times told the truth then, in the article about where it got its information; Obama is lying about the White House not being a source; and the New York Times is lying now to run interference for Obama.
So to answer the Senate Republican Policy Committee's question about who's lying, the answer is "both."
The wooden Mitt Romney is benefiting from both good campaign strategists / response team and Obama campaign gaffes but he's still not inspiring enthusiasm.
Mike Allen at POLITICO writes about what Romney must do to inspire Republican voters. Conspicuously absent from Allen's piece, in which he says Republican strategists think Romney should "go big," is any mention of Fast and Furious. Interestingly, Romney's handlers seem to be very concerned about his ability to connect with Hispanic voters.
On the more practical side, Republicans worry about everything from his failure to connect at all with Hispanic voters to an unexpected drain in conservative enthusiasm if the Supreme Court kills the Obama health care plan. “Obamacare is the one permanent and potentially irreversible [effect] that Obama will have on the country, and if it is overturned, it makes the election, by default, less important,” said a conservative operative intimately involved in the campaign who has reviewed extensive polling and focus group research on the topic. “If the court overturns it, 10 million conservative activists suddenly breathe a great sigh of relief, and may not be quite as intensely active.”
On the Hispanic question, the numbers for Romney are bleak: An NBC/WSJ/Telemundo poll, released on May 23, showed Obama with a 2-to-1 lead among Hispanic voters, Obama, 61, Romney, 27.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) took his advice straight to Romney during a recent fundraising swing in New York. Cantor laid out the raw numbers: 60 percent of key independents are women, and a disproportionate number of independents are minorities. Republicans “have to be able to connect” with women and minorities, Cantor said.
Tell me again, how many Hispanics are dead today as a direct result of Fast and Furious?
Just last month, Sipsey Street's Mike Vanderboegh seemed to indicate that Speaker John Boehner may be preventing Darrell Issa from issuing the contempt citation to Eric Holder over Fast and Furious out of fear that the black Attorney General could play the race card.
Whether or not that's true remains to be seen but what IS true is that there seems to be a tepid appetite for going after Holder over an operation that is responsible for hundreds of dead Mexicans (Hispanics).
If Romney is seeking to connect with Hispanic voters, why is he not pointing to the rising number of Hispanics murdered with guns that were placed into the hands of bad guys by the Obama administration, in the name of gun control? If he were to do so, Romney would be way ahead of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), which has yet to see one member demand accountability from Holder. In fact, by doing so himself, Romney could point to the CHC while asking Hispanic voters one simple question:
"Where are the leaders of the Congressional Caucus that claims to put your agenda first?"
In fact, if Romney DOESN'T go after Holder over Fast and Furious, he risks being labeled as even more insensitive to Hispanics than initially thought. It will have meant that he is more interested in playing politics than in doing the right thing and actually benefiting from it politically. If the Republicans are not going after Holder over fear of the race card, it's the quintessential example of a 'glass is half empty' mentality. Hispanics should be playing the race card on Romney for NOT going after Holder on Fast and Furious.
So which is it, Mitt? Are you going to prove Eric Holder right or are you going to do the right thing?
It's a bit too early to get worked up about this but the mere fact that a pro-choice, tax-hiking Governor is even being remotely considered as Romney's running mate is disturbing. If team Romney does select someone like Nevada's Brian Sandoval, it will communicate a 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude on steroids.
There's a children's story about a dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the water. Thinking it's another dog with another bone, he tries to get it. In attempting to do so, he loses the one in his mouth. Romney very well could be that dog if he were to choose a 'mini-Mitt.' It will mean that he's an ideologue who thinks he can have whatever he wants and conservatives will still vote for him because the anti-Obama sentiment is so strong.
Along with being relatively new and unvetted, he (Sandoval) is pro-choice; and he has raised taxes twice during his short time as governor. Those are deal breakers, according to several Republican strategists.
“I just don’t see with his rumored pro-choice stance how he fits into the equation,” Republican strategist Chuck Warren told The Daily Caller. “Great governor, superb future, but I think that one policy position makes him untenable for [the Republican] evangelical base.”
“The pluses of Sandoval: he’s in a key state, he’s a governor, and he’s Hispanic, three huge considerations of the Romney team,” added Republican strategist Phillip Stutts. “The downside is he recently had to raise taxes,” something the conservative electorate would not like.
Trey Hardin, another Republican strategist, said Sandoval would be a poor choice for Romney.
Again, reading that, you're left with the impression that Sandoval is an unlikely choice but that he's even being looked at when the base is already disillusioned with Romney only validates the concerns of conservatives. The opening two stanzas of the Caller's piece seem to indicate that a door to this possibility is open, at least to some degree:
Conventional wisdom among Mitt Romney VP-watchers is that the presumptive GOP nominee should pick a running mate who is experienced and rather boring, someone who would neither embarrass him nor outshine him.
Just two years into his first term as Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval doesn’t exactly fit that bill. But a source familiar with the proceedings said not to count Sandoval out.
We're already staring at an election that is far too close for one simple reason: Romney is a liberal Republican who doesn't energize the base. That was McCain's problem and it all changed when he picked Sarah Palin. In fact, he wouldn't go anywhere without her on the campaign trail because he knew that by himself, his crowds would be miniscule. With her, they were enormous.
To be fair, Romney has an advantage McCain didn't have. Obama-mania has dried up but his chances go up, not down, if he were to pick an energizing conservative like Palin.
If Romney doesn't balance the ticket with a strong conservative, his chances of beating Obama will decrease, regardless of how strong the anti-Obama sentiment is.
This really is despicable and I hope it hurts Romney more than it helps him. In 2008, when he was not running for president, Rick Santorum appeared on the Laura Ingraham show and endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy over John McCain. In perhaps the sleeziest tactic yet, Romney's Super PAC sent out robo-calls in Michigan that featured Santorum's endorsement from that interview.
Some Michiganders — this reporter included — got what may have been a surprising call over the weekend: Romney’s chief rival Rick Santorum endorsing Mitt Romney.
The endorsement was in 2008, when Romney was running for president (and Santorum wasn’t). In an interview about the endorsement at the time, Santorum said he hesitated about who to endorse but decided on Romney as the best alternative to John McCain. The robocall was presumably paid for by either the campaign or the Super PAC supporting Romney.
After a short introduction in the automated call to Michigan voters, Santorum says: “If you’re a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you’re a Republican, if you’re a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
That's so pathetic, I'll bet even Obama cringed when he heard about it. It also shows how desperate Romney's campaign is to win Michigan. If he loses there, he's toast. It'd be nice to see this despicable attempt to save his candidacy actually sink it.
As I wrote about here, the liberal media will absolutely, positively attempt to destroy Romney based on his Mormonism if he is the nominee. However, being the cagey deceivers that they are, it will be done under the guise of being informative. Make absolutely NO mistake; the left wing media will use subtle means to utterly destroy Mitt Romney's candidacy.
UPDATED with video:
CNN provides the latest case in point, posting an article entitled, "Explainer: How and why do Mormons baptize the dead?
"The recent disclosure that Mormons baptized the dead parents of Jewish Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal by proxy has sparked outrage in the Jewish world. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has apologized for the baptism, which it says resulted from the actions of a church member acting in violation of church policy. The LDS church vowed to stop baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims in 1995.
But proxy baptism for the dead is a proud Mormon tradition. Here are the basics about how it works and why Mormons do it.
The article then gives the reader a brief lesson on the subject...
For Mormons, baptizing the dead solves a big theological problem: How do billions of people who never had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ – including those who lived before Jesus walked the earth – receive salvation? By baptizing the dead, a practice known as posthumous proxy baptism, Mormons believe they are giving every person who ever lived the chance at everlasting life. That includes Muslims, Hindus, atheists, pagans, whoever.
“Mormons believe that there is a place the dead go where they are in ‘spirit prison’ and where they have the chance to accept the Christian baptism,” says Richard Bushman, a Mormon scholar at Columbia University. “But it’s a duty to actually perform Christian ordinance of baptism, so Mormons seek out every last person who ever lived and baptize them.”
Many Mormons are proud of the fact that they attempt to make their faith universal through baptizing the dead. “Historically, Christians have been exclusive,” says Terryl Givens, an expert on Mormonism at the University of Richmond. “Catholics have taught that only Catholics are saved, and evangelicals say only if you confess according to their tradition. Mormons say, ‘No, salvation is open to all people.’”
“In that sense Mormonism is the most nonexclusive religion in the Christian world,” Givens says.
The liberal media can pump this stuff out and say it's just providing a service because one of the Republican candidates for president is a Mormon. That's not the reason at all; it's to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of non-Mormons who think something like Baptizing the dead is creepy. In essence, the liberal media can be religiously bigoted while not being seen as such.
Romney is not the candidate with the best chance to beat Obama. His religion is a primary reason because the left will subtly bludgeon him with it.
This is not new for CNN either. John King called Romney "Governor Mormon" and didn't skip a beat. We must assume that either there was no correction relayed in his ear piece or, if there was one, he ignored it.
A little late posting this but worth a look if you haven't seen it yet. The strategy of the Romney campaign has been the politics of personal destruction ever since it proved effective in Iowa when it was used to derail Gingrich's momentum. After Santorum's performance in Iowa, Romney's PAC went after him. When Gingrich won in South Carolina, team Romney turned its sights back on to Gingrich in Florida.
In short, Romney's money has his opponents out-gunned at every turn, which makes this ad from Santorum's campaign one of the more effective because it's both humorous and a very accurate allegory for what Romney is doing.
Former Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel became known as Rahmbo. The Santorum campaign now has introduced Rombo:
