Marco Rubio's attempts to explain his Immigration stance sounding a bit convoluted

A common response from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh when it comes to the question about whether Barack Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country or is doing so because he doesn't know what he's doing is one of dismissal. In Limbaugh's view, it doesn't matter because the result is the same.

Conservatives - whether they want to admit it or not - are being faced with a similar reality when it comes to U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) - a Tea Party darling - and his involvement with the 'Gang of 8', which consists of Senators who simply cannot be trusted to do what's best for America, let alone what's right on immigration (Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, McCain, Graham, etc.). When it comes to Rubio, conservative talk show hosts scratch their heads and want to know why Rubio is doing this. Is he naive or does he have an agenda diametrically opposed to conservatives who put him in office?

To paraphrase Limbaugh, it doesn't matter because the result will be the same if immigration reform is passed without first securing the border.

When you listen to Rubio attempt to explain why he's part of the 'gang of eight' or why he's supporting such a monstrous bill, he says the issue is 'complicated'. It's really not. Conservatives see it as quite simple and have for years. They're willing to talk amnesty, citizenship, reform, blah, blah, blah after one thing - and one thing only - happens.

The. Border. Is. Secured.

What's complicated is trying to understand what Rubio is saying. When you're done listening to him attempt to explain his position, you just keep coming back to one very simple question:

Why can't we talk about this after the border is secured? Rubio doesn't seem capable of asking that question. Then again, these conservative talk show hosts don't want to press him too hard, apparently because of his Tea Party bonafides. In fact, listening to his interview with Mike Gallagher, the lead up to Gallagher's first question reminded me of all those Senators who burned up precious minutes during Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony, praising her for being such a great Secretary of State and for serving her country.

A noteworthy moment during Rubio's exchange with Gallagher comes around the 5:50 mark. Gallagher asks Rubio if he believes there are Democrats on the other side of the aisle who simply do not want border enforcement and want open borders. Rubio's answer was quite telling:

"There's no doubt there are people that feel that way but they're not a serious player in this conversation..."

Really Senator? If that is indeed true, then you should be able to pass one very simple, one-page bill that demands the border be secured. There is a reason that hasn't been done; 'serious players' are preventing it.

I would love to know how Rubio is defining 'serious player' because every single one of his fellow Senators is one in this conversation and certainly the rest of the 'gang of eight' is. Are we to believe that Schumer and Durbin want a secure border? Please. Rubio's counterparts in the House will be 'serious players' as well. Essentially, what Rubio is saying is that every member of his 'gang of eight' wants a secure border.

Again, we're back to either naivete, denial, or dishonesty. The fact that we DON'T have a secure border right now is proof positive that we already have 'serious players' who don't want it secured.



Here is a portion of Rubio's interview with Sean Hannity, via Daily Caller:

The benchmark for conservative politicians is former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who now heads the Heritage Foundation. He's obviously not happy with Rubio's stance or the 'gang of eight' which should most definitely reinforce the concerns conservatives have about what Rubio is doing. As if that's not enough, as you'll see at the beginning of this clip, Barack Obama is praising the efforts of Rubio's gang (so is Howard Dean).

Via Daily Caller: Rubio is so on the wrong side of this issue and it doesn't matter if he's doing so intentionally or because he doesn't know what he's doing - the result will be the same.

Audio: Mother of Benghazi victim says she is being told to 'shut up'

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith - one of the four killed at the Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 - said that she is being told to 'shut up'. However, when asked, she said she wasn't being told that by government employees.

Some might remember that Pat Smith spoke out in the weeks after the attack that killed her son.

This is a compelling interview.

Via MediaIte:

After saying both sides need to 'tone down the rhetoric', Ben Carson says white liberals 'racist' (welcome aboard, Dr. Carson)

Back on February 17th, Dr. Ben Carson appeared on ABC's This Week to talk about his speech at the National Prayer breakfast, during which he politely ripped Obama. During his appearance on This Week, Carson said that he thought "both sides" need to "tone down the rhetoric" and that such people are acting like children.

About six weeks later, after having to endure endless attacks on him from the left, Dr. Carson accused white liberals as being 'the most racist people' during an interview with Mark Levin.

Via Huffington Post:

Dr. Ben Carson, a black Johns Hopkins University neurosurgeon and conservative favorite after challenging President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, said Monday on "The Mark Levin Show" that white liberals are "racist."

"And you're attacked in many respects because of your race. You're not supposed to think like this, and supposed to talk like this. A lot of white liberals just don't like it, do they?" said Levin, host of the syndicated radio show.

"Well, they're the most racist people there are. You know, they put you in a little category, a little box -- you have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?" responded Carson.

While it would appear that Dr. Carson isn't following his own advice, we can cut him some slack because he's realizing that conservatives don't need to tone down the rhetoric at all. We need to ratchet it up because the left will only continue to smear and bully unless we do.

Welcome aboard, Dr. Carson!

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.

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.

Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.

Here are the words of Obama, via the New Republic:

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.

In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?

The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?

Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.

Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.

Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.

The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.

When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).

Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).

There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.

By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.

Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.

The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?

The Communist Party USA.

By compromising with the Democrats on gun control, Boehner would be giving communists some of what they want, which is always a battle lost.

Video: The Appeal and Absurdity of Alex Jones in under three minutes

I must admit, absent Alex Jones' accusation that Piers Morgan is a 'hatchet man for the New World Order', the former seemed to be winning the debate with the CNN host until about the 1:50 mark of this clip. If I had been watching this with a Frank Luntz dial device, you'd have seen my line take a plunge right about there (after dipping slightly during the Piers-is-a-NWO-apparatchik line).

It's easy to see how the overly emphatic indignation of Jones - Ron Paul's biggest media mouthpiece - gathers him a following. That said, the combination of his over-the-top choleric diatribes mixed with his belief that 9/11 was an inside job torpedoes his credibility.

Piers Morgan knew that, which likely goes a long way to explaining his calm demeanor during Jones' rant on the gun control debate. Just before the 2:00 mark, Piers changed the subject and asked Jones who was responsible for 9/11. Without missing a beat, after having carried on a mocking rendition of Morgan's dialect a bit too long, Jones went right into his belief that the Bush administration blew up Building 7.

Via GWP:



The video above was edited by a gun control nut and was intentionally made to look Jones look as kooky as possible. Here is the full, unedited version of Part one of the interview:



While Jones made excellent points, his delivery (and 9/11 Trutherism) made Morgan look reasonable, unlike the CNN host's interview with Larry Pratt last month, in which the opposite happened:

Louie Gohmert Audio: 'Facelift' the only difference between Boehner and Pelosi

If it was considered an open secret before, that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has little to no respect for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), it's not anymore.

Now, it's just flat-out in the open.

During an appearance on the Dennis Miller show, Gohmert essentially said there is only one difference between Boehner and Pelosi; the latter has had a 'facelift'.

The silver lining for John Boehner? Well, Gohmert didn't accuse him of having one.

Via MediaIte:



Gohmert is beyond frustrated with Boehner, and rightfully so. His level of frustration is reminiscent of the kind British MP Leo Amery had for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain shortly before Winston Churchill took over.

Via the Guardian, here is how Amery ended his speech on the subject in 1940:

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

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

Gohmert knows what too few do or are willing to admit. Boehner is the wrong guy for these very dangerous times. He has proven to be a very weak leader.

Audio: Interview with Michael Savage

On Friday, January 4th, I had the opportunity to appear on the Michael Savage show to talk about Al Jazeera's recent purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Recording of interview is below.

Fiscal Cliff: Time for John 'Renee' Boehner to walk away

As the fiscal cliff looms, talk of Republicans caving to Democrats is in abundance. It's not a question of whether they will cave but how much they will cave. Two days after the election, I wrote about holding Boehner's feet to the fire when he began talking of compromise. Since then, I've been coming to the conclusion that giving Obama everything he wants may be better in the long run than any concessions that may be negotiated. Obama doesn't want to own this economy because he knows it's doomed to fail. He wants to blame Republicans for it. Obama wants some form of compromise because it will give him something to pin on Republicans when this economy hits rock bottom.

Compromise with the Democrats will only benefit one side - the Democrats. When the stimulus package didn't work, liberals like Paul Krugman actually said the reason was that $800 Billion wasn't enough. Obama's budgets are voted down in the Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0 for one reason. He doesn't want to get everything he wants because he knows it will fail and he will have no one but himself to blame (that's why he voted 'present' for so long). He wants to be perceived as bi-partisan, someone who is willing to compromise with Republicans. When the same failures happen, the fault can then lie with what the Republicans demanded and Obama's fingerprints are off the destruction.

If there's one thing we know about liberals it's that in their minds, they're never responsible for anything bad. The way they perpetuate that perception is by blaming Republicans. They were blaming George W. Bush for the economy right up until Obama's reelection.

Before getting to Rush Limbaugh, I'd like to take a moment and throw this song out to John "Renee" Boehner.

Now, onto Limbaugh, who is 100% right here. The premise that says Obama doesn't want economic collapse because he doesn't want to destroy his legacy is a false one. The reason it's accepted is because the alternative is just too difficult for people to come to grips with. If you start with another premise, one that says a successful legacy in Obama's mind is one that includes the collapse of the United States on his watch, the fundamental transformation of this country, his actions make much more sense. He is a student of the Cloward-Piven strategy and he's executing that strategy perfectly. In essence, overwhelm the system with entitlements that the government will eventually not be able to pay and the economy collapses. It doesn't matter what Republicans get out of the fiscal cliff deal, when the Cloward-Piven strategy succeeds, Republicans will be blamed - and the same people who voted for Obama will believe it.

Liberalism always fails, which is why liberals always need scapegoats. Republicans have always been there for that. It's time for a new strategy and Limbaugh, as usual, perfectly enunciates it. Republicans should walk away from negotiations and give Obama whatever he claims he wants. When it fails - and it will - there will be an unmasked Obama for all to see and he will have no Republicans to blame. Only when this happens, will Americans - in much greater numbers - be able to see how destructive the president's ideas are.

Rush is advocating some tough, tough medicine here but let's face it. When Obama was re-elected, seeing him for what he truly is became the only viable option. He knows how to grant some concessions and then beat his opponents over the head with those concessions when he fails. Ironically, the line in the sand at this point is drawn with the intent of letting Obama cross it. We're headed for dark days and giving Obama what he wants is the only sensible way to go at this point because liberal lunacy will finally be left twisting in the wind and the thick-headed whack jobs who think it works will have no one to blame but themselves. At that point, there could be an awakening.

It's become our only hope for change.

Via the Right Scoop:



To Limbaugh's point about what Obama wants his legacy to be and what the latter would view as a successful one, let us not forget that if America survives Obama, he will have the worst legacy of any president in U.S. history. If, however, Obama destroys America, it will have been through fundamentally transforming it, which is exactly what he told us he would do.



Here's Krugman in 2011, saying that the $800 Billion stimulus package didn't work because it wasn't enough (the pointy-eared genius says so beginning at the 1:30 mark):

Rock Me, I'm Petraeus and the introduction of Bubba the Love Sponge into Benghazi-gate

Just when you thought the Benghazi-gate scandal couldn't get any more bizarre, a Tampa Bay shock jock named Bubba the Love Sponge makes an appearance. I'm not sure what's more surprising, that or the fact that CIA Director David Petraeus and General John Allen viewed him as enough of a threat to warrant reaching out to State Department socialite Jill Kelley to reach Tampa's mayor in order to prevent the Love Sponge from following through on a pledge to "deep fat fry" a Qur'an.

Via Tampa Bay Times:

Does Bubba the Love Sponge Clem have anything to say about the fact that Tampa's mayor called him a "complete moron" in an email to Tampa socialite Jill Kelley?

Does he ever.

"For Bob Buckhorn to call me a moron? I mean, are you kidding me? Let's talk about moron status," the shock jock told the Tampa Bay Times.

So why did Tampa's mayor call the Love Sponge a moron?

Kelley emailed Buckhorn earlier this year, saying then-CIA director David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen were emailing her about a plan Clem had to "deep fat fry" a copy of the Koran. She said Allen was worried that the radio stunt could put troops in harm's way and was going to call her from Afghanistan to discuss a next step.

In an email response to Kelley, Buckhorn wrote, "This Bubba the Love Sponge is a complete moron."

Clem said the people who got him to stop the Koran burning were his lawyer and the heads of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department. But he said Kelley "probably did get intel to have me stop it, and that's the problem itself."

A Bubba's Army truck circled the Bayshore Boulevard block of the Kelley home for about a half-hour Friday, pumping a parody to the tune of Falco's Rock Me Amadeus about Petraeus.

Ladies and gentlemen, Bubba the Love Sponge is now officially part of Benghazi-gate but the much larger issue is that four star Generals like Petraeus and Allen are more concerned with what a small town Gainesville pastor and a Tampa Bay radio personality do with Qur'ans than what radicals who follow the Qur'an plan to do to us.

Before checking out the video, have a look at the Love Sponge van as it circled Jill Kelley's home while blaring the Rock Me Amadeus parody:

(Love Sponge van circles Kelley residence)

(Bubba the Love Sponge)

Did CNN drop conservative talk show host Dana Loesch for comments about Huma Abdein?

Dana Loesch is a conservative radio talk show host based in St. Louis. Over the last year, she was seen quite a bit on CNN as a conservative counter-balance. Since August, Loesch has been absent from the CNN set. Matt Gertz, at the far left, George Soros-funded Media Matters thinks it has something to dow with Loesch's comments about Huma Abedin, not on CNN but on her own radio show.

Via Media Matters:

In mid-July, shortly before her most recent appearance on CNN, Loesch began using her radio show to promote conspiratorial claims that State Department official Huma Abedin has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, CNN co-workers Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper were dismissing such charges as "questionable," "outrageous," and "McCarthy-like." Blitzer said that Rep. Michele Bachmann, who had pressed the issue, "does owe Huma -- who I know well -- an apology."

An August 21 CNN.com article describes Loesch as a "conservative radio host," but does not mention her role as a CNN contributor. The same day, CNN's Piers Morgan referenced Loesch on his program without saying that she works for the network.

As has proven to be the case with virtually ever defender of Abedin, the issue is not even open for discussion. There's a very simple reason for that. Her defenders cannot defend the irrefutable facts about her distinct familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and an Al-Qaeda financier.

On another note, if CNN has let Loesch go for comments she made about Abedin on her own radio show, that might help explain why Blitzer and Cooper went out of their way to defend Abedin - job preservation appears to be a bit of concern relative to that issue. Perhaps it was better to go overboard defending Abedin than to say nothing.

Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather

Audio: Laura Ingraham destroys Romney strategy

For weeks, possibly months, I've been saying that Romney's campaign is pathetic and that he must be dragged to the right. He lacks inspiration and he has zero interest in attacking Obama where he is weakest.

I don't typically link to talk show hosts who work for networks who have a virtual monopoly on radio programming but this is a righteous rant that is spot-on.

"If the election were held today, Romney would lose."

Sorry folks, as much as you don't want me to rip Romney, he deserves it.

Via MediaIte:

Latest target of 9/11 Truther Alex Jones: Angelina Jolie

If you've ever wondered why talk show host Alex Jones is so effective, it's because his conspiracy theories often contain a significant amount of truth. The problem with Jones has been - and continues to be - his view that entities like the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are the real villains at the end of the thread we're all pulling. He does this while giving the Muslim Brotherhood a pass; that group is nothing more than a tool of the UN and CFR according to Jones.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the entire Middle East. Jones never seems interested in looking at the possibility that maybe - just maybe - some things are as they appear. If the UN and CFR are using the Brotherhood to achieve their goals, why are they ceding power to the group? Now, if Jones were to assert that the Brotherhood has infiltrated these groups and that's why they're pushing the Islamic agenda, he'd be onto something. But he doesn't; he simply gives the Brotherhood a pass as being nothing more than UN / CFR lackeys.

He is wrong.

That leads to this video of Jones ripping Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie. First, where Jones is right; he targets Jolie for supporting the NATO action in Libya and for her advocacy of the same thing in Syria. I don't know much about Jolie's positions, but if that's where she is, she's wrong and Jones is right to call her out on it.

That's where Jones goes on his conspiratorial tangent. As the Muslim Brotherhood acquires more power on a near daily basis, with the end goal of reestablishing the Ottoman Empire / Caliphate, Jones ignores that and goes after entities that are actually losing to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nice try, Alex. Maybe next time.

Via Gossip Cop:

James Sensenbrenner the latest Congressman to attack Bachmann

Count Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) as being among the most irresponsible Republicans in Congress when it comes to refusing to lend credence to Rep. Michele Bachmann's warnings about the background of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. The others include John McCain, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, and John Boehner.

Via JS Online:

In a town hall meeting Sunday, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) offered a vigorous defense of Hillary Clinton aide and Muslim Huma Abedin and the First Amendment after a constituent echoed U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's suspicions that Abedin has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Said Sensenbrenner: "The First Amendment prohibits the government from making a distinction between what is 'good religion' and what is 'bad religion.' That’s none of the government’s business. Religion is a personal issue to every one of the people who lives in the United States, whether you practice a faith, how you practice a faith, whether you don’t practice a faith, whether you say you’re a member of a faith but don’t practice it, it’s none of the government’s business."

Mr. Sensenbrenner's decision to invoke the First Amendment is either ignorant or disingenuous on his part. Islam is not just a religion; it is a political system, which is why matters relative to Islam do not apply to the First Amendment; they apply to Article VI, which states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

If Mr. Sensenbrenner were either educated or honest, he would admit publicly that Islam seeks to be the supreme law of the land in whatever land it's in.

Here is video of Sensenbrenner at the Town Hall:



Incidentally, I was interviewed by Mark Halvorson on WOGO in Chippewa Falls, WI yesterday about Sensenbrenner's position. This morning, Halvorson had Senator Ron Johnson on the program and played a portion of my interview to get Johnson's reaction. Halvorson played a clip of Johnson's response and let's just say that if one could personify the word "punt," he made it blush and tried to re-direct attention and focus to the economy exclusively without taking a real position.

Michele Bachmann has more guts than these men.

Smoking Guns: Why Rush Limbaugh was Right about Hillary and Huma

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack (Cross-posted at Shoebat)

Was Rush Limbaugh right when he discussed Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, criticizing the Secretary of State for her Deputy Chief of Staff's familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the close relationship between Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady? Think Progress refers to Limbaugh's claims as 'baseless'.

First, here is Rush's commentary on the subject on June 26th (via Think Progress):



The first sign that Rush's claim is not baseless is that Think Progress says it is.

Now that we've got that out of the way, Saleha and her now-deceased husband, Syed Z. Abedin, co-founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), established in both Great Britain and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It is a group that once had close ties with a Saudi group known as the Muslim World League (MWL) through that group's General Secretary, Omar Abdullah Naseef. In Contemporary Discussions on Religious Minorities in Iran, Jorgen S. Nielsen, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen, writes of the relationship between the Abedins and Naseef on p. 366:

“Trained in social science and being of Indian origin, Professor Abedin (Syed Z.) was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, an institution that had the quiet but active support of the then General Secretary of the Muslim World League, Dr. Umar Abdallah Nasif.”

Interestingly, IMMA was founded at the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Incidentally, the Obama administration's envoy to the OIC is Rashad Hussain, a man who found himself at the center of controversy when it was learned he spoke at a Muslim Students Association (MSA) event in 2004 and expressed support for convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian. MSA is also a Muslim Brotherhood group. Hussain was caught in a lie about the incident and was not fired.

Obama himself heaped praise on Hussain, saying he “has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo.”

Perhaps more foreboding are the connections Saleha Abedin has with the U.S. State Department. In addition to being a Vice Dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia, Saleha was also one of the institution's founders, along with Yaseen Abdullah Kadi – a designated terrorist by the U.S. – and members of the bin Laden family.

In 2010, Huma arranged for the Secretary of State to visit Dar El-Hekma where Clinton spoke alongside both Saleha and another Sisterhood member named, Suheir Qureshi, who like so many of her colleagues, holds a Ph.D. The photo on the left is Hillary and Saleha at that Dar El-Hekma meeting; the photo on the right is of Huma and Hillary.


Though the IMMA Editorial Board currently lists both Huma's mother and her brother as editors, it does not list her. However, it once did. Thanks to a screenshot from the Anti-Mullah blog, we have proof that she was once a member.

IMMA website today:



IMMA website in 2008:



Speaking of covering internet tracks...

Although the MWL's (Muslim World League) financial arm in the United States – Rabita Trust – was shut down for its terror ties, it still exists under the name Rabita al-Alam al-Islami; Saleha Abedin was once listed as a member of this organization, which makes her part of the MWL.

The Anti Defamation League says the following about the MWL:

“While the MWL has on several occasions condemned terrorism in general terms, it has a long history of providing financial support to terrorist groups or having organizational links to them, including to Hamas, Abu Sayyaf group, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Jemaat al Islamiyya, and Al Qaeda.”

Rabita Trust was started by former General Secretary of the MWL and notorious al-Qaeda godfather, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef plays an integral role in both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This reality makes Saleha Abedin and Abdullah Omar Naseef colleagues. Both are intimately involved with the MWL and, by extension, connected to al-Qaeda.

That's not Saleha's only al-Qaeda connection...

Her name currently appears on the main Al-Azhar University website (last name on the list) as a member of the High Council for Islamic Matters. Remember, the founder of al-Qaeda – Abdullah Azzam – is a graduate of Al-Azhar. Abedin is also a close colleague of Camellia Helmy, another Sisterhood leader. Helmy is the wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Siraj Al-Din Allboudi. Allboudi was imprisoned for his role in establishing the modern day Sisterhood or International Women's Organization (IWO).

As a prestigious member of Al-Azhar University who participated in the 12th session of the Islamic Conference for the Islamic Uprising, Saleha has essentially endorsed the mission of the conference, which included representing the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC). The IICWS stood for the decriminalization of rape within marriage. This would mean that Saleha would support the rape of her daughter (Huma) by her son-in-law, Anthony Weiner, who also happens to be Jewish. How's that for a contradiction? While Saleha is, no doubt, a proponent of Muruna, which allows Muslims to absolve themselves of all prohibitions to further the cause of Islam (to include marrying a Jew), she also must necessarily support the marital rape of her daughter at the hands of Weiner.

One has to wonder what Saleha thinks about the treatment received by the likes of Lara Logan at Tahrir Square last year.

Here is a screen shot from a website that once listed Saleha as a member of Rabita Trust and touted her work with the IICWC. A screen shot is the best we could do because this information is no longer posted. Relevant Arabic has been translated:



According to Al-Midina, the history of the Abedin name has a very real connection to Hitler, with only two degrees of separation through Haj Amin al-Husseini - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII - and and Hassan al-Banna - the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The former was a colleague of Muhammad Sabri Abedin and the latter's secretary was Abdul Hakim Abedin. Both are confirmed relatives of Sisterhood member, Saleha.

It doesn't end there as Saleha's son, Hassan Abedin, also serves as a fellow (his name was removed after our work last year) on the board of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with Naseef, who is the chairman of the Board of Trustees there. Also serving as a trustee there was the aforementioned, Hitler-loving Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Let us consider Saleha's relationship with IMMA Vice Chairman, Abu Bakr Bakader. (Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs). Our government needs to look into the two who are colleagues because Bakader is seen with Saleh Al-Ghamdia relative of three 9/11 hijackers, to include Saleh Al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, and Hamza Saleh Al-Ghamdi.

At this point it's safe to say that our State Department has been infiltrated by enemies of this nation and those responsible for letting them in – either actively or passively – may be guilty of treason.

Rush Limbaugh, as usual, is right and Think Progress, as usual, is left (and wrong).

Now, if Think Progress would like to challenge us further about the new first lady of Egypt being a close associate of Huma Abedin's mother, we recommend that they stop trying to catch our missiles with butterfly nets.

Walid Shoebat is the author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

Think Progress goes after Limbaugh over his comments on Hillary and Huma Abedin

On June 26th, Rush Limbaugh spent a couple of minutes reporting on the story we broke on June 24th, that further exposes the familial ties of Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - to the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, the point of interest for Rush is the news that Huma's mother and Egypt's new first lady are close colleagues as leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood. The Soros-backed Think Progress attempted to debunk Limbaugh's claims and linked to an article we wrote last year, labeling it one of those conservative "conspiracy theories".

Keep checking Shoebat.com because we have an explosive follow-up piece to this story coming that you will not want to miss.

Here is the relevant audio clip of Limbaugh from June 26th, via Think Progress:

Liberal talk show host Bill Press channels Meathead

Earlier this week, liberal talk show host Bill Press impugned the national anthem, saying it was "un-singable" and that it was a "major crusade" of his to "get rid of the Star Spangled Banner." After saying "there's so much wrong with it, I don't know where to start," Press proceeded to deride the fact that the lyrics glorified war. Have a listen before watching Meathead from 'All in the Family' echo very similar complaints.



Here is an exchange between Archie Bunker and his freeloading liberal son-in-law, Meathead from forty years ago. Archie - who was the one who actually worked while putting up his daughter's husband so Meathead could go to college and learn how to be a "subversive" - was trying to watch a football game when the national anthem comes on. Meathead, a disrespectful liberal punk, who had no respect for the fact that Archie was sustaining his very existence, insults the Star Spangled Banner after attempting to get Archie to sing it.

The best part? All in the Family was created by far left liberal whacko, Norman Lear and Archie (the embodiment of Lear's attempt to mock conservatives) actually stole the show.

Video: Alex Jones confronted outside Bilderberg meeting

The Alex Jones / Ron Paul / 9/11 Truther movements have long maintained that the Bilderberg globalists are a much greater threat to our Republic than are the Islamists. Whenever you bring up the Islamic threat to western civilization, it's all but ignored because the New World Order crowd is actually behind the Islamists' rise according to the Jones crew.

That's why it was nice to see the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein ask Jones one very simple question: If the Bilderbergs are so powerful, why do they put up with protesters like Jones and his posse? Jones' answer was something about the Republic still having freedoms available that prevent such protests from being shut down. This is important because protests outside mosques or in Islamic countries don't often take place without significant consequences. The Ground Zero mosque was a rare exception but Jones believes that Feisal Abdul Rauf is actually a globalist "stooge" because the imam is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It never seems to dawn on these people that perhaps it's Islamists like Rauf who are using western entities.

There is no way Alex Jones and the gang could protest like this inside a Muslim country like, say, Saudi Arabia.

Conversely, Islamists love Alex Jones. He runs interference for them by pushing 9/11 Conspiracy theories while publicly seeing them as a threat not worth dealing with because the NWO is actually using them for its own agenda. Shouldn't we begin considering the possibility that Jones is actively working toward that end instead of being a dupe?

That leads to another common refrain from the Alex Jones bunch; the elite power brokers that make up the NWO are not nearly as ignorant as they would have us believe. Should not the same apply to Jones? Is he ignorant of the Islamic threat to western civilization? If not, then he is actively fomenting anger among his followers and intentionally directing that anger away from where it should go. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media, did an excellent job exposing Jones as a likely Agent Provocateur back in 2010.

The real question should be: If the Bilderbergs are more powerful than the Islamists, why is it that you - Mr. Jones - protest the former without incident but don't dare protest the latter?

Via the Daily Caller:

Ron Paul Pot meet Conspiracy 'Addict' Kettle

Hypocrisy on a stick, anyone? When asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about claims that he has entered into an alliance with Mitt Romney that involves his son Rand possibly being chosen as Romney's running mate, Ron Pau, who has sown up the 9/11 Truther conspiracy vote, accuses Rick Santorum of being an 'addict on conspiracies.' If ever there was an example of projection, this is it. In fact, the conspiracy theory mindset among a significant contingent of Paul's supporters doesn't even know how to take anything at face value because everything is a conspiracy.

I have my own theory on why Paul is laying off of Romney.

And, of course, there is no bigger conspiracy theorist than radio talk show host Alex Jones. Ron Paul is a regular on Jones' program and has the full endorsement of Jones, who is a 9/11 Truther himself.

First, the exchange with Blitzer, via Weasel Zippers:



Of course, in this video, Ron Paul practically admits to being a 9/11 Truther. At minimum, he certainly helped to fuel the conspiracy with his answer. That answer also proves that Ron Paul is not willing to come forward with everything he believes because of what it would do to him politically (see above video with Wolf Blitzer).

After watching this, remember that it was Paul who called Santorum an "addict on conspiracies."