Video Flashback: Rep. Eric Cantor asked about Obama being 'Domestic Enemy'

May 3, 2010:

A concerned American at the Heritage Foundation a little more than one year after Obama was inaugurated, asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) - then Minority Whip - what more Obama would have to do in order to garner 'domestic enemy' status. Take note of the audience's reaction to both the man's question as well as to Cantor's response (they supported the questioner).

Video: Fort Hood shooting victims speak out

Must-see video. Survivors of Jihad at Fort Hood speak out against attempt to label it 'workplace violence'.

Courtesy of Fort Hood Heroes:



h/t Jawa

Video: Spring Break president

Devastatingly accurate:



h/t Fox Nation

Video: American Crossroads nails Obama administration over Benghazi

One of the unintended consequences of CNN moderator Candy Crowley running interference for Barack Obama at the second debate is that because her bias was on full display, the issue over which that bias revealed itself - Benghazi - is becoming a central point of focus. In attempting to diminish the scandal, Crowley appears to have called more attention to it.

Check out this latest ad from American Crossroads:



h/t GWP

Does Obama have an anti-Osama film problem?

In the days after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration pointed to the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims as the cause. They also repeated another mantra, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with the making of the video (a puzzling assertion).

The administration is still waffling on whether or not the anti-Muhammad film had a hand in the attack on the Benghazi consulate. They're already on record as having referred to the video as 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible', regardless of whether they settle on the video's ability to incite riots and murderous attacks. Therefore, regardless of whether Barack, Hillary, et. al. finally and conclusively decide that the attack was planned and coordinated, they still must believe that a movie could theoretically cause such an attack. Here we are more than a month later and they're still not sure.

Enter National Geographic, which is apparently being inundated with threats because of a film being distributed by major Obama supporter Harvey Weinstein, that is set to air on that channel two days before the election.

Via New York Post:

The National Geographic Channel has beefed up security at its Washington headquarters after being “bombarded” by threats over its upcoming film, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden,” a source said yesterday.

The movie has prompted enough threats from what one source called “Muslim extremist groups” that the network felt it had to take the action.

“They have been bombarded with phone calls and blog posts, saying that anyone airing a film like this is asking for trouble,” the source added.

“Enough threats have come in that the network is on higher security alert. They have a huge public building, with a museum and 1,600 people working.”

The network was already receiving sharp criticism for its decision to debut the feature-length TV movie Nov. 4, two days before the presidential election. Critics charged the timing was calculated to boost President Obama’s campaign.

This is quite the conundrum for the administration. If violence follows the airing of the Osama movie, will said movie also be 'reprehensible' and 'disgusting'? Will the onus then be placed squarely on the rioters? If yes, then such an onus should be placed squarely on the attackers in Benghazi and the administration should stop waffling.

The Daily Mail adds this:

A spokesperson for National Geographic told the Post that the channel will air the film 'no matter what,' adding, 'we are big believers in the First Amendment.'

The movie will be available on Netflix streaming 24 hours after its TV premiere.

So, the cable channel that is airing the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film two days before the election, which is being distributed a huge Obama donor, is citing its first amendment right to air the movie, regardless of whom it offends. Presumably, so is Weinstein. In this case, threats are preceding the airing of the movie. If we are to believe the Obama administration when it comes to Benghazi, either it didn't know about any such threats to attack over Innocence of Muslims or it ignored them.

Nat Geo CEO David Lyle insists that the timing of the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film has nothing to do with politics, despite Weinstein's status as a huge Obama donor.

Yeah, right.

Concerns on the right are not about whether Weinstein or Nat Geo has the first amendment right to distribute / air the film. They do. The concerns are about politicizing an event that could have national security implications. SEAL Team Six prefers needs to operate under the radar for a reason.

Responsibility for any riots or violence that takes place will fall solely on the perpetrators but for the Obama administration to be consistent, it will have to waffle on such a conclusion.

That said, any attempt by the administration to assert that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with this film will be a much tougher sell given the content, the timing, and relationship of the distributor to the President.

How much does the Republican establishment hate Todd Akin?

The three most prominent faces of resistance to Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate race with Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are Karl Rove, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We already know that Rove's feelings of disgust for Akin reach the level of joking about the congressman's murder to a bunch of wealthy donors. Since Priebus and Cornyn appear to be following Rove's lead when it comes to withholding financial support for Akin, is it worth asking how much influence the former Bush senior adviser has over them?

When Akin made a bizarre comment during an interview in August about 'legitimate rape', the establishment suddenly had an excuse to withdraw its support while also calling for Akin to step down.

Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid produced a source who charged that one of the reasons Rove so detests Akin is that the latter simply would not vote the establishment line during the Bush administration, to include "No Child left Behind". Which is the bigger mistake, Akin's comment this past August or that woeful piece of legislation? Akin's comment or Rove's joke about murdering him for staying in the race despite pressure to drop out?

Rove, et. al. also had a plausible excuse for denying financial support because Akin fell so far back in the polls, it would have been money wasted.

There's a problem. Akin has been scratching back into the race and still is getting no support from the establishment.

Now, the Akin campaign is outright claiming that Rove, et. al. would rather have McCaskill win than see Todd Akin take her seat.

Via Daily Caller:

Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s campaign is accusing influential GOP-affiliated organizations that refuse to spend money to help the Republican senate candidate of genuinely wanting Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to win the hotly contested senate contest in Missouri.

Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin, told The Daily Caller this week that Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s National Republican Senatorial Committee are trying to undermine Akin.

“I believed at one time they did want Akin to win, even though they didn’t want to admit it,” Tyler told TheDC. “I’m convinced now they don’t want Akin to win.”

In August, Akin told a news station that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” if a “legitimate rape” occurs, prompting outrage and condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.

The race might even determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year. But both Crossroads GPS and the NRSC, which are spending millions to help Republican Senate candidates across the country, vowed not to support Akin in any way after they determined his rape comment threatened to hurt other Republican candidates across the country, according to Tyler.

“It is incomprehensible to me how Rove and Crossroads GPS and the NRSC could possibly stay out of this race” unless they want Akin to lose in November, Tyler told TheDC in a phone interview.

The establishment is choosing to put itself into a box here. If Akin wins, the fire within the conservative wing of the Republican party will be given a huge dose of oxygen because a conservative candidate will have triumphed over prominent liberal incumbent without the help of the establishment. If Akin loses, especially if by a narrow margin, it will have meant establishment pride triumphed over conservatism at best, and that extreme liberals are preferred over conservative Republicans at worst.

Another dynamic is at work here is the establishment's double standard. Mitt Romney was their guy; he won. Conservative voters were not happy with the selection. The establishment asked conservative voters to get behind their guy whether they liked him or not. Conservative voters did just that. In fact, in the wake of Romney's first two debate performances, conservative support for him has reached an energized high.

The natural inverse would be that if a conservative candidate is going against a liberal incumbent, the establishment should do the same.

In the case of Rove, Priebus, and Cornyn, hypocrisy appears to be on full display.

St. Louis Fox Television affiliate KTVI has a news report on tonight's debate between Akin and McCaskill:



Read entire DC piece.