Videos: Bald-Headed John McCain outs himself as Bald-Faced LIAR

Today, lying Senator John McCain played the race card in defense of granting amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the U.S. (h/t GWP):



In 2008, he said 'Build the dang fence' when trying to get elected:

Video: Senate candidate from Massachusetts (and former Navy SEAL) calls Democrat Opponent 'Pond Scum'

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy SEAL who is running for Senate in 2014. His opponent is Rep. Ed Markey, a smarmy Democrat. In an ad, Markey's group juxtaposed an image of Gomez with an image of Osama bin Laden in an attempt to depict Gomez as going after Obama for killing bin Laden. Obviously, Gomez's problem was with the fanfare that came with bin Laden's killing. When a reporter asked Gomez about his problem with Markey's ad, the response included a reference to Markey being 'pond scum'.

For the record, in addition to being 'pond scum', Markey is also a registered socialist.

Via WFB:



Here is the ad that prompted Gomez to refer to Markey as 'pond scum'.



When it comes to Republicans in the Senate, we could use a lot more of these guys and a lot fewer McCains.

Video: Harry Reid calls Ted Cruz a 'Schoolyard Bully' (Scut Farkus alert)

If there is one thing Democrats have in their DNA, it's projection. Nearly every single criticism that Democrats levy at their opponents is nothing more than an act of projection. In this case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - the same guy who helped to ram Obamacare down the throat of the American people who didn't want it - calls Ted Cruz a 'schoolyard bully'. What's particularly interesting is that Reid is the most powerful bully in the Senate. Cruz, a freshman, should be the weakest.

In reality, Reid is like Scut Farkus calling Ralphie a 'schoolyard bully'.

Watch Cruz show his senior colleagues how it's done:

Oh, wait. When the schoolyard bully pushes his victims around for a little too long, this is what usually happens. Reid, the real bully, is behaving like Scut Farkus:

When you're a freshman GOP Senator who gets called a 'wacko-bird' by an establishment RINO Senator, it means you're ruffling feathers. It also means you're exhibiting leadership and showing your colleagues - all of whom have more experience and should already be leading - how to lead as well. When your Democratic colleagues - like Senate Majority leader Harry Reid - calls you a 'school-yard bully', it means you're making life difficult for those who have been running roughshod over the Constitution for far too long. Besides, whenever a Democrat calls you a name, it's usually projection.

The truth is that conservative voters have been screaming for backbone and leadership from their party for over four years now. To this point, no one at Cruz's level has met the challenge.

That he is a freshman should be an embarrassment to the rest of his caucus, who should lead, follow, or get out of the way (that includes McCain).

Via HillTube: 

Video: Interview with Jim DeMint (Best candidate for POTUS in 2016?)

When Jim DeMint, by far the most principled Senator in the U.S. Senate, announced that he was stepping down to lead the Heritage Foundation, most viewed it as a step down for conservatism - because DeMint was that good. As the dust has settled since that announcement, the seat held by DeMint has been filled by the very capable conservative Tim Scott (R-SC) and DeMint is prepared to impact the political landscape as a marketing tactician in a world rife with technological marketing tools.

The seat once held by DeMint is in good hands and effective April 4th, so is Heritage. On his first day as president of Heritage, DeMint sent out an open letter that explains what he's done during the transition and what he'd like to accomplish during his tenure. In many ways, he may just be more effective than if he'd stayed in the Senate.

In fact, if he does this right, DeMint may just become the obvious choice for president in 2016; he is certainly up to the task.

This morning, Ed Morrissey interviewed DeMint about his new role.

Via Hot Air:

Ted Cruz on the 'defeatist attitude' of Republicans

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

Via DMN:

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

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

Q. This defeatism is among incumbent senators?

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

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

Via GWP:

Video: Senator Ted Cruz Rips Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel

This is a must-see. Cruz lays in to Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense pretty darned good - and even throws a few clips from interviews Hagel did with Al Jazeera.

Two observations.

1.) It would have been nice to see Senators this tough with Hillary Clinton last week.
2.) It'd be nice to see Democrats this critical of their own (Hagel is a Republican)

Video: Ron Johnson provides one of few bright spots during Senate Committee hearing on Benghazi

In an otherwise sycophantic exercise between the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and Hillary Clinton, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was one of the few Senators who challenged the Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, short of Rand Paul, this kind of questioning was the exception, not the rule, today. Conversely, there was plenty of praise for Clinton.

Rubio v. Paul in 2016? Rand wins Round 1 BIG

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are both considered to be frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016. They are also both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such, both men had the opportunity to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton some tough questions today about the State Department's handling of the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Contrasting these two exchanges becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Assuming that reality comes to fruition, either Rubio or Paul could be the face of the Republican Party debating Clinton in four years. How did each Senator do while having the upper hand in today's Senate hearing?

Though Rubio asked relevant questions, he came across as rather dispassionate and gave Hillary plenty of room to give long, meandering answers. He did not stop her when she got off track. Rubio looked rather weak today. No presidential timber shown today.



How about Rand Paul? Arguably the best exchange of the day, though an argument could be made that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves that distinction. Two things stand out in Paul's exchange with Hillary.

1. Paul stated clearly that if he were president during the Benghazi attack, he would have fired his Secretary of State.
2. When Paul asked the Senator if the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for shipping weapons to Turkey "or any other country", Hillary told him to check with the CIA. Are we to believe that she didn't know the answer? Hardly. If the answer was no, there wouldn't be any harm in answering it. Not answering it at all only raises the legitimacy of the question.

If all of this was round 1 between Paul and Rubio, Paul won going away.

Tea Party victory in Texas; Cruz Cruises past Dewhurst

It was supposed to be Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst's 'turn' in the Senate. Backed by Rick Perry and the Republican establishment, Dewhurst won a plurality of the vote in the primary but Ted Cruz was able to force a runoff two months later. That runoff was yesterday and the establishment lost.

Via Texas Tribune:

Defying all early expectations and upending long-standing conventional wisdom in Texas Republican politics, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz handily won the Republican runoff for an open U.S. Senate seat Tuesday night.

He moves on to the general election against former state Rep. Paul Sadler, who defeated retired educator Grady Yarbrough in the Democratic runoff.

Cruz defeated Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst after a lengthy, contentious political battle in which Cruz painted a longtime statewide elected official backed by Gov. Rick Perry as a moderate.

“Tonight is a victory for the grass roots,” Cruz said Tuesday night. “It is a testament to Republican women, to Tea Party leaders and to grass-roots conservatives.”

In a short concession speech, Dewhurst said he was proud of the race he had run.

“We got beat up a little bit, but we never gave up,” Dewhurst said. “And we stand tall in knowing that we never compromised any of our values.”

Then, in a classic case of projection, Sadler actually attempted to charge that the Republican Party had been 'hijacked' and that he would seek to recruit Dewhurst supporters.

In a statement, Sadler made clear that he will fight for Dewhurst’s supporters ahead of the Nov. 6 general election.

“Tonight, I stand alone as the only nominee of a major political party in Texas because the Texas Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Party,” Sadler said in a statement.

Uh, not so much, Mr. Sadler. The Tea Party is desperately trying to bring the Republican Party back from the abyss and it is YOUR party that has been hijacked - by Communists.

Then again, commies lie.

Here's a montage of the campaign between Cruz and Dewhurst. Make no mistake. If Cruz defeats Sadler in November, he will be a MAJOR upgrade to Kay Bailey Hutchison. To be fair, Dewhurst would have been as well.

One last point. Many of Dewhurst's problems stemmed from the Kabuki theater that took place during last year's special legislative session. It was obvious that the establishment in both the State House and Senate, which Dewhurst led, didn't want to pass the tough Sanctuary Cities Bill or the TSA anti-groping bill (brought up by Cruz in the video below). House Speaker Joe Straus and Dewhurst attempted to point fingers at the other house.

Each should have been held solely responsible, not just equally responsible, for not getting those bills passed. Last night, Dewhurst was held accountable, in part, for his Special Session performance.

More Disgrace: Boehner sides with Huma's Al-Qaeda-connected family against Bachmann

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.

Via The Inquisitor:

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.

Disgrace: McCain rips Bachmann, defends Abedin family

He has defended the Libyan rebels, calling them his 'heroes'. He has called for the arming of the Syrian rebels. Now, he is coming to the defense of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin while ripping Rep. Michele Bachmann for raising legitimate questions about Abedin's familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is no evidence - other than a screen shot that shows Huma as an assistant editor of a group founded by her now deceased father - that Huma herself either is or embraces Muslim Brotherhood. Both of her parents - and her brother - are quite a different story.

The Institute on Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - the group founded by her now-deceased father - had the quiet support of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was also General Secretary of the MWL, a group that supported Al-Qaeda. Huma's mother, Saleha Abedin, is a confirmed member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Those facts make this statement by McCain on the Senate floor demonstrably false:

“Huma Abedin represents what is best about America,” said McCain. “The daughter of immigrants who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies.”

“I am proud to know her,” McCain continued. “And I am proud – even with some personal presumption – to call her my friend.”

Abedin's parents were not immigrants; they were infiltrators with confirmed - and very close - connections to an Al-Qaeda leader.

Via GMBDR:

Saleha Abedin, along with her late husband Syed Z. Abedin, were also founders of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a London organization that is known to have been close at one time to the Saudi Muslim World League.

John McCain is coming precariously close to a legacy similar to that of Henri-Philippe Petain, a French WWI hero who became a traitor in WWII when he conspired with the Nazis.

Yes, it's that serious. By ignoring the Brotherhood / Al-Qaeda connections of Huma's family, McCain is taking far too much on faith.

The connections of Huma's parents should have prevented her from passing a background check for the position she now holds. That's just a fact and McCain is egregiously wrong.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Holder grilled by Lindsey Graham at Senate Committee Hearing

There seems to be a very interesting dynamic developing among members of Congress. First, there appears to be more outrage over the national security leaks that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell says rather emphatically came from National Security Advisor Tom Donilon than over Fast and Furious. This is very likely because the leaks have some prominent Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) outraged where support for the Fast and Furious investigation is still largely partisan. Second, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, these leaks seem to have compounded what anger did exist over the botched gun walking program previously.

Senator John Cornyn provided one example of this at the June 12th Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, when he referenced both and concluded - to Holder's face - that the Attorney General should 'resign.'

Senator Lindsey Graham provided another example. While Graham referenced Fast and Furious, he did so in the scope of a larger argument about the leaks. In particular, what has the Senator from South Carolina's dander up here is who Holder appointed to investigate the leaks - two Justice Department Attorneys. Graham wants someone a bit more independent. He also makes very sound arguments while making reference to two scandals that took place under the Bush Administration - Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff.

Holder has literally no coherent response to the inconsistencies pointed out by Graham when it came to Democratic insistence that independent counsel be provided under the previous administration but not here, with national security leaks that potentially border on treason.



One of the arguments from those who have a big problem with these leaks is that people have died - and will continue to die - as a result. That does sound a bit like Fast and Furious, does it not? Hundreds of Mexicans have been killed already and more will, which Holder himself has admitted, as long as F&F guns are out there. Another similarity is Holder's insistence that the DOJ Inspector General conduct the investigation into Fast and Furious. That investigation coverup has been going on for well over a year and a half.

Videos: Eric Holder singing a different tune after Contempt Hearing announcement

Yesterday, it was learned that Darrell Issa had set a date for a hearing to determine if Attorney General Eric Holder is in Contempt of Congress. Today, while appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder told Ranking member Charles Grassley that he is:

"...offering to sit down, I myself, am offering to sit down with the Speaker, the Chairman, with you, whoever, to try to work our way through this in an attempt to avoid a Constitutional crisis."

That crack about a "constitutional crisis" notwithstanding, Holder sang a far different tune when in front of the House Oversight Committee during an exchange with Rep. Jason Chaffetz last week, before the June 20th Contempt hearing was announced yesterday.

First up, Holder's exchange with Grassley today, via Fox News:



Now, take a look at the first half of this exchange between Chaffetz and Holder on June 7th, keeping in mind that the contempt hearing had not yet been announced. Chaffetz makes several attempts to get Holder to agree to sit down with himself, Rep. Trey Gowdy, and a couple of lapdog Democrats to work through the wiretap applications that all parties have read and are in possession of. When Holder says that he isn't allowed to do so because the wiretaps are sealed under court order, Chaffetz concedes the point and then asks the AG if he would be willing to meet personally to discuss all of the other aspects of Fast and Furious.

Holder balks and points to all of the times he has been in front of various committees to answer questions saying (at the 3:30 mark):

"With all due respect, I give you four hours at a crack on eight separate occasions. I'm not sure I have an awful lot more to say."

Chaffetz was overly polite and Holder basically told him no but again, that was before the contempt hearing was announced.



Now, the Daily Caller is reporting that Issa and Boehner have rejected Holder's request for meetings until the requirements of the subpoena are met.

All I can say is that I hope Boehner and Issa don't go squishy. There is a reason Holder is using verbiage like "Constitutional crisis." It is a desperate attempt at intimidation to scare Issa and Boehner into a meeting.

There's also a reason why Holder is amenable to a meeting now and he wasn't last week. That reason is, I believe, that he is finally beginning to realize that he could be in big trouble.