Paging George Clooney... Brother of President you love is in bed with the Sudanese Government you hate

If there is one cause Hollywood actor George Clooney supports, it's ending the genocide in Sudan and putting a stop to President Omar al-Bashir. If there's one president Clooney supports, it's Barack Obama. In May of 2012, Clooney held a Hollywood fundraiser for the Obama campaign and raised $15 Million.



Approximately two months before that fundraiser, on March 16th, Clooney was arrested while protesting outside the Sudanese embassy. Prior to his arrest, he gave this short speech. Note what he says about the government of Sudan (Omar al-Bashir):



Here's where Mr. Clooney should be having a bout of cognitive dissonance. President Obama's half-brother Malik Obama is the Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da'wa Organization (IDO), which is an extension of the Sudanese government. Essentially, Malik works for the Sudanese government, led by Omar al-Bashir, to spread Wahhabist Islam in Africa. This is the same Sudanese government that Clooney has been very outspoken against.

Malik and Barack are very close, and have been for years. Malik was the best man at Barack's wedding in 1992:



Malik has also made several visits to the White House:



In a news report entitled, George Clooney's Sudan focus should be ours too, posted by CNN which covered Clooney's protest / arrest at the time, the Hollywood actor called for:

"get(ing) aid to them (Sudanese people)"

...and for...

"...the government in Khartoum to stop randomly killing its own innocent men, women and children. Stop raping them and stop starving them."

Here is the corresponding video:



Clooney isn't the only leftist who stood against Bashir and the government of Sudan that day.

Again, via CNN:

Those arrested included United to End Genocide President Tom Andrews; Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern, Al Green, Jim Moran and John Olver; Martin Luther King III; and NAACP President Ben Jealous.

Jealous directed a message to the Sudanese president: "This is what beginning of the end looks like."

"We are protesting to make sure the Sudanese government knows that the world is watching," McGovern said. "The United States Congress is watching. And we will be back again and again until they stop using food as a weapon; stop slaughtering innocent men, women and children; and stop spitting in the face of the world community."

This pits far-left wing congressmen, the head of the NAACP, and the son of Martin Luther King, Jr. squarely against Malik Obama, who is collaborating with a man who is both the head of a U.S. State Department-designated State Sponsor of Terror and wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

The Clooney clan understood this, via CNN:

The group stood calmly as they waited for the police to apply plastic handcuffs as the crowd of protesters chanted "al-Bashir to the ICC," referring to the International Criminal Court, where Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has been indicted.

Of al-Bashir and the Sudanese government, Clooney testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said the following, again, via CNN:

"They are proving themselves to be the greatest war criminals of this century by far."

A little more than a week earlier, a group known as Invisible Children released a video entitled Kony 2012 that went insanely viral, thanks to the Hollywood Celebrities' social network. The Invisible Children producer - Jason Russell - who narrated the video, can be heard saying that, Kony "is supported by no one".

This is a demonstrably false statement. Considering that the Obama administration expressed public support for this video as well as support for the effort to have Kony arrested by the ICC, it is curious that Russell would make this claim in a video endorsed en-masse by the Obama-adoring, Hollywood celebrity culture.

Kony is supported by Omar al-Bashir.



A day prior to Clooney's arrest on March 16, 2012, he met with President Obama to discuss Sudan on March 15th. Clooney seemed interested in capitalizing on the success of Kony 2012 to call more attention to Sudan. Based on Clooney's understanding of Bashir's atrocities, this likely had to be managed very carefully by the Obama administration. The administration had already demonstrated little interest in focusing on more than Kony, who is also wanted by the ICC but is a smaller cog in the al-Bashir genocidal machine.

Malik's involvement with al-Bashir is not something the administration would want out. Clooney's involvement in the matter raised the possibility of that reality. Soon after Clooney's arrest, Kony 2012 seemed to die down, as did concerns over Sudan.

Incidentally, on the same day that Clooney visited with Obama on March 15th, Russell had a meltdown and ran naked in the streets of San Diego in broad daylight. This is apparently what can happen when you crash after a meteoric rise:

Obama in 2013: 'There there'; Clinton in 1998: 'Is is'

When asked about Benghazi at today's press conference, Barack Obama said there is no "there there":



When asked about Lewinsky during his 1998 deposition, Bill Clinton said "is is":



h/t GWP

Must-See Video: Ted Cruz rips RINOs over Gun Control

There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.

There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.

Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.

Via NRO:

Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.

If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.

Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.

By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:

Pat Toomey and Bart Stupak now share something in common

In 2010, the Obamacare debacle was crammed down the throats of the American people but not before an alleged 'pro-life' Democratic congressman named Bart Stupack (D-MI) sold out. If you remember, the House version of the bill had a provisions in it that prohibited funding for abortion. That provision did not pass in the Senate's version.

The final vote was extremely contentious and arm-twisting was in no short supply. Even then, the Stupak dozen was the only thing that stood in the way of passage. Then, Stupak caved and settled for a meaningless Executive Order from Barack Obama that guaranteed no funding for abortion in the bill. In short, Stupak sold out to Obama.

Pro-life Democrats had been "Stupaked" and Obamacare became law.

In 2010, Stupak resigned; he did not seek reelection; The Tea Party helped get a Republican to replace him. Something else happened in 2010. The Tea Party got behind Pat Toomey to replace RINO Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. By all accounts, Toomey was a true conservative and had an "A" rating from the NRA. The Tea Party wave swept Toomey into office after Specter was so far behind in the polls that he switched over to the Democratic Party, where he thought he had a better chance of winning.

In 2012, Stupak expressed regret for what honest people would say was a betrayal.

Toomey apparently didn't learn the right lesson from Stupak because he has betrayed the gun rights crowd. Period.

Here in 2013, less than six months after the Sandy Hook shootings, several conservative Republican Senators had threatened to filibuster any bill that came to the floor. It would be Rand Paul times ten. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and others pledged to join in. For once, it appeared that Republicans were going to stand united and go to the mat with the Democrats on something important.

All they had to do was stick to their principles and stand united. In fact, during such a filibuster, one of the Senators would likely stumble upon the contrast between how the Obama administration handled operation Fast and Furious and how it is exploiting Sandy Hook. It would be a tremendous opportunity to expose the administration. Perhaps that is why a filibuster would be so undesired by the Obama.

This is where Toomey appears to have channeled Bart Stupak. He came to a deal with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a supposed pro-second amendment Democrat, on expanding background checks. A consequence of this deal is that the filibuster may be prevented. That Manchin caved to pressure is not surprising. That Toomey did very much is. He's not only a Republican. He was supposed to be a conservative Tea Party Republican who took a lot of money from the NRA in 2010 to get elected, in much the same way that Stupak accepted the support of pro-life Democrats

How do we know Toomey caved? Very simple.

Obama congratulated him and so did Michael Bloomberg.

The NRA is also not satisfied with the Toomey / Manchin bill.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director at Gun Owners of America (GOA) says Toomey has "betrayed" (Stupaked) his constituents. Pratt is now calling for Toomey to be primaried:



By the way, for those who don't see expanded background checks as a big step toward confiscation, check out this firsthand account about what happened in Canada:

Ted Cruz gets very close to hitting Obama on Fast and Furious

With his March 28th press release, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) came closer than anyone in Congress, to rebuking Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook by pointing to Operation Fast and Furious. Though he didn't name it specifically or highlight the most relevant contrast, he gets very close (hits on the year it was at its height - 2010 - as well as criminals buying guns). In fact, if Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee, et. al. follow through on their filibuster threat and begin hammering on that contrast, it could be devastating for the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

First, Cruz's press release:

In any conversation about how to prevent future tragedies such as Sandy Hook, our focus should be on stopping criminals from obtaining guns. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority — in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is unacceptable.

It is saddening to see the President today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans. I am committed to working with Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Jim Inhofe--and I hope many other colleagues--to use any procedural means necessary to protect those fundamental rights.

In response to that press release in my inbox, I sent the following email to Cruz's press office:

Nice release.

Obama never did presser with the families of Fast and Furious victims (hundreds of Mexicans / Brian Terry) standing behind him.

Why? Because Fast and Furious was his administration's fault.

Would love to see this point hammered home during the upcoming filibuster.

Here is one of Obama's most shameless and despicable acts - exploiting Sandy Hook by pushing for gun control with the parents of shooting victims standing behind him. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. More power to you if you can make it to the end.

Video: Did Barack Obama give Chuck Todd the Finger?

At a joint press conference in Jerusalem, Chuck Todd was playfully cajoled by Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after attempting to ask too many questions, one of which involved asking Obama why he "failed" to achieve Middle East peace. After the laughter died down, Todd asked Netanyahu why Obama hasn't been accepted by the Israelis as much as America's last two presidents (Bush and Clinton). Obama obviously didn't like that question and as he laughed while accusing Todd of being "incorrigible", Obama seemed to give Todd the middle finger.

Judge for yourself.

Via Weekly Standard:

Obama to Republicans on National Debt: Heads I win, Tails you lose

Every time we reach another national debt crisis fork in the road (debt ceiling, continuing resolution, fiscal cliff, etc.), Barack Obama flips a coin. Right before doing so, he sets the rules: heads I win, tails you lose. The problem is that his opponents accept the terms.

It's common knowledge that Obama is quite familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy. In fact, he's been implementing it since he was first inaugurated in 2009. That strategy is to so overwhelmingly burden entitlement programs that the system eventually collapses. The strategy was originally created in the 1960's and the Obama administration has applied it in a 21st Century world (Obama phones just one example).

As the debt climbs higher and higher, Obama banks on two theorems he might see as a win/win situation (heads and tails):

1. The collapse of the society Cloward-Piven strategists want, gets closer.
2. Arrest / reversal of the process becomes increasingly more difficult as collapse approaches.

Theorem number one is precisely why Obama doesn't just appear to be disinterested in solving the debt crisis; his actions and demeanor clearly demonstrate that he's interested in furthering it (heads I win). The lavish vacations and runaway spending that seems ridiculously outrageous to clear-thinking individuals will never embarrass him because it's all part of his plan. The longer his opponents attempt to embarrass him, the more he spends because he knows he either has those opponents snookered or neutered (Boehner saying he 'absolutely' trusts Obama is a case in point). The reason he's behaving like a man who wants to collapse the economy is because he does.

The more debt the country goes into, the closer we get to the endgame of the Cloward-Piven strategy - collapse.

Yet, for some reason, Obama's political opponents who have the power to confront this problem (House leadership), refuse to admit the truth and, subsequently allow Obama to further test and reinforce his first theorem. This can be seen perfectly in Speaker John Boehner's refusal to attach an Obamacare de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution, which means a monstrous steroid injection to both theorems. That Rep. Paul Ryan put forth a budget that de-funds Obamacare while also knowing it hadn't a chance of passing, demonstrates that Obama's opponents know what's right but refuse to do it.

The longer theorem number one can be tested before Republican leadership decides to arrest and reverse the process, the better it is for Obama because it will only strengthen theorem number two.

Sequestration gave us a look into what Obama would do if Speaker John Boehner, et. al. chose to test theorem number two on a more grandiose scale, like say, the upcoming CR (tails you lose).

Up until sequestration actually happened, the Republicans never really knew how Obama would handle things if the former never caved because... Republicans always seemed to cave. Whether it was the debt ceiling, CR's, or the fiscal cliff, in the end, Obama always got another blank check and the national debt has just continued rising. As such, the president has been able to further test both theorems.

When sequestration happened, we got our first glimpse at Obama's playbook if Boehner, et. al. ever made a serious attempt to reverse the country's self-destructive fiscal course. The cancellation of White House tours and the release of hardened criminals were indicators. In the first instance, American citizens were told to stay off their own property. It wasn't just unnecessary, political, petty, and punitive - it was also symbolic. More seriously, the decision to release thousands of hardened criminals was meant to threaten a much larger White House-sanctioned prison release if House leadership decided to finally deal with the debt crisis.

In essence, Obama was saying that if the opposition attempted to confront the real debt problem, he would hold America hostage. This communicates something else as well, namely, that Obama isn't as eager to test theorem number two as he is theorem number one. He's acting like a man who wants to reach the Cloward-Piven endgame by never having to win a game of chicken over theorem number two. The administration's handling of sequestration did more harm to Obama than it did to House Republican leadership, which is why the latter should ultimately force Obama's hand.

If this administration was so willing to use sequestration to so transparently harm Americans, what would it do if the government was shut down because House leadership decided not to pass that CR?

Perhaps Obama doesn't want us to find out because he knows his actions will finally be transparently his alone and that he will lose.

Video: Boehner says he 'absolutely' trusts Obama, says 'no issue there'

Just when you thought House Speaker John Boehner couldn't be more out of touch with conservatives, he lowers the bar on himself. During an interview on ABC This Week, in response to a question about whether he trusts Barack Obama, Boehner got immediately serious and did not hesitate to answer in the affirmative, saying, 'absolutely... there's no issue there' (2:30 mark).

Then, about one minute later, Boehner said, 'We do not have an immediate debt crisis.'

One question: Does he want to lose the majority in 2014?

If so, he's implementing the perfect strategy. It's safe to say that a vast majority of the Republican Party's most informed voters absolutely don't trust Obama.

Via RCP:

Transforming Obamacare into Boehnercare

If there's one thing that's been learned about Barack Obama, it's that not only does he avoid accountability but he's actually the one personally responsible for that which he is not blamed. If there is to be an exception to that rule - known as the 'Limbaugh theorem' - it would most certainly be something with his name actually attached to it - like Obamacare.

If there is a way for Obama not to accept responsibility for Obamacare, House Speaker John Boehner seems to be doing his level best to find it. In fact, when everything goes south and Obamacare becomes the disaster anyone with a functioning mass of synapses knows it will become, Boehner will at least be partially to blame because when he had the opportunity to de-fund it, he said no.

The Kabuki dance between Boehner and Paul Ryan was ridiculously transparent. Ryan, who had no power, talked tough while Boehner, who had all the power, punted. There is no doubt that Boehner wanted to hide behind Ryan's un-passable bill to defund Obamacare as the former refused to exercise his power to de-fund by demanding such a mechanism be part of the Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next year.

Once again, in a game of chicken, Boehner always seems to blink first.

However, this time, as much as he'd like to, he can't duck it.

Note what he says in response to the question about including an Obamacare de-funding amendment into a Continuing Resolution that only serves to put the country into more debt. Boehner's reason for not doing so? Well, his goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government.

Uh, John, if the goal is to cut spending, wouldn't shutting down the government do just that better than anything else?

Via CNS News:

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

John Boehner's Inexplicable behavior continues

Since becoming Speaker of the House in 2011, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has racked up a list of inexplicable - and sometimes egregious - behaviors that make one truly question his bonafides when it comes to leading. The latest example comes courtesy of his March 7th press conference, in response to a question about whether the House will include any defunding of Obamacare.

Boehner simply would not answer the question and in light of his past statements, it shouldn't have been a difficult question to answer.

Via CNS News:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would not say on Wednesday whether the Republican House leadership has any plans to curtail or de-fund any aspect of Obamacare in any must-pass legislation in this Congress.

This is despite the fact that Boehner himself declared a year ago that an Obamacare regulation requiring health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs was an unconstitutional violation of the free exercise of religion and that Congress would not let it stand.

Check out the video. Boehner's obfuscation was Jay Carney-esque:

 

Talking tough when it's of little consequence and then acting weak when it's put up or shut up time is a common trait among many politicians but Boehner has gone out of his way to set a new standard in this regard. In this particular case, Boehner is on record as saying Obamacare - as established - is unconstitutional. Yet, when asked if he will live up to keep his word that he "would not let it stand", the Speaker equivocated.

Why?

Whether intentional or not, the Speaker's words, behaviors, and actions have served to protect the Obama administration over and over and over.

For example:

• It became painfully obvious during the Fast and Furious investigation, that Boehner wanted no part of it; he wanted it to go away. He said extremely little publicly about the investigation and did more to help the Obama administration stonewall than he did to help Rep. Darrell Issa and the Oversight Committee break through it. When Issa needed Boehner the most, Boehner wilted. In the vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, Boehner did not vote; he also scheduled the vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the same Obamacare he said was unconstitutional and would not let stand.
• Not long after that contempt vote, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen identified then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest adviser - Huma Abedin - as someone having extensive familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who found Bachmann's claims to be warranted pointed to a laundry lists of irrefutable facts. Those who defended Abedin completely ignored those facts and impugned Bachmann. Boehner was one who defended Abedin and chastised Bachmann while ignoring those facts.
• The attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12 continue to reveal more questions than answers. The administration has stonewalled the investigation in a way very similar to how it stonewalled Fast and Furious. The Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and are powerless when it comes to the formation of a Select Committee, made up of Senators from various committees. Boehner, on the other hand, has the power to form a House Select Committee but seems disinterested in doing so.
• On the day after the election, while still maintaining the majority in the House, Boehner publicly stated that the House he led would put 'revenues' (taxes) back on the table. This culminated in the 'fiscal cliff showdown' that involved closed-door meetings with Barack Obama.
• Not long after the 2012 election, Boehner booted conservative congressmen off of their committees. These congressmen represent the wing of the Republican Party that is most willing to take the fight to Barack Obama. Again, it was another move by Boehner that essentially helped the President.
• The subject of this post; his refusal to answer a simple question.

When it comes to budget showdowns, the perception always seems to be - save for sequestration - that Boehner has caved. It's quite possible that the reason he didn't cave on sequestration was that he knew there would be a bigger backlash than he was capable of absorbing, especially in light of the Continuing Resolution debate that looms on the horizon. Ironically, that CR is relevant when talking about defunding Obamacare, which Boehner seems reticent to do based on the March 7th press conference.

Speaking of sequestration...

Whether it's been TARP, Bailouts, raising the debt limit, CR's, or any other budget battle, conservatives always demand that Boehner and the Republicans not cave. Save for sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans always seem to do just that. In the case of sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans for once, didn't cave and look at what's happening.

Obama is losing the battle.

This is why the CR debate is so critical. Will Boehner learn from sequestration or will he revert back to doing things that serve to benefit the administration? If it's the latter, it will only add to his list of inexplicable behaviors.

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: O'Reilly loses it; calls Alan Colmes a 'liar' to his face... several times

If I had to sit and listen to Alan Colmes spin Democratic Party talking points every week, I'd have a similar type of meltdown here. The argument started with O'Reilly asking Colmes where Obama committed to cutting federal spending. The only thing Colmes could come up with was an empty promise Obama to cut medicare. When O'Reilly asked for specifics, Colmes couldn't deliver.

The only missed opportunity from O'Reilly was that Obamacare does the exact opposite with medicare. In fact, the Democrats double-counted to get the CBO to score the cost under $1 trillion.

Via WND:

John Boehner Projection: Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows'?!

Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:

boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.

Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.

If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?

Uh, can't think of any.

When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.

1. Battles fought
2. Battles not fought

As for the battles fought...

• The debt ceiling
• The 2012 elections
• Fiscal cliff
• Tax cuts
• Spending cuts
• Sequestration
• Continuing Resolution
• Healthcare Debate
• Deficit / Debt Reduction

In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.

The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.

As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.

Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.

As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:

• Fast and Furious
• Benghazi Investigation

How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.

Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism which states:

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:

If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?

There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:



h/t WZ

Is John Boehner stonewalling... on Benghazi?

Stonewall: to block, stall, or resist intentionally

In the game of cricket, the term stonewall means to:

play a defensive game, as by persistently blocking the ball instead of batting it for distance and runs.

When it comes to getting the truth about the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration has lied - for two weeks, the administration blamed the attacks on a video - and it has stonewalled in the face of countless unanswered questions. In fact, when it became apparent that there were so many breakdowns on so many levels, Republicans from both Houses of Congress requested that select committees be formed.

In the Senate, Republicans are in the minority and Harry Reid has predictably stonewalled these requests because select committees that are formed to investigate scandals that could reach the president's office are much more effective than existent committees. Select committees would be made up of A-listers from various committees that would leverage their own individual areas of expertise. Reid is not going to put that kind of heat on a Democratic president.

Neither is Boehner; the Speaker of the House - a Republican - is stonewalling as well.

Check out what Boehner said last November, via Kerry Picket at Breitbart:

Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with other Democrats, rebuffed the idea of a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.

“At this point, I think that the standing committees of the House, whether they be the (State Department) oversight committee or the intelligence committee, are working diligently on these issues,” Boehner said shortly after his Senate colleagues floated the idea in November.

Some may see a bicameral committee (one that consists of both Representatives and Senators) as the best option, the absence of Senators does not preclude a select House committee from being formed. In fact, Rep. Frank Wolf wrote to Boehner in November and asked for that very thing. Boehner stonewalled the request then and is doing so now.

Writes Picket:

Speaker Boehner did not heed Wolf’s call for a select committee in the last Congress. In late January, Wolf refiled the resolution to establish a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Boehner has yet to comment or act upon the resolution.

Breitbart News sent an inquiry to Speaker Boehner's office on Thursday afternoon that has gone unanswered.

When it comes to the details about what happened or didn't happen in Benghazi, the administration is preventing the truth from coming out. That is stonewalling. In Boehner's case, he is preventing the assembly of the best team possible to help reveal the truth. That too is stonewalling.

Are these two forms of stonewalling apples and oranges or are they distinctions without differences?

The answer is the latter. As the Speaker of the House - regardless of Party affiliation - Boehner should be spearheading any attempt to get to the truth about what happened on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. He is doing the opposite; he is doing what Harry Reid is doing.

John Boehner is stonewalling an investigation into Benghazi and when it comes to Boehner, this type of behavior is very predictable; he did the best he could to minimize the impact of the Fast and Furious investigation as well. That it went as far as it did is a testament to the likes of House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They pushed in spite of Boehner, not with his assistance. That was very clear.

In fact, Boehner scheduled the House vote on whether to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not relinquishing documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, on the same day that the Supreme Court rendered its Obamacare decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, on the day of the contempt vote, Obama did what Nixon did in Watergate; he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the release of those documents.

Boehner protected the President. Period.

Some have suggested that the reason for doing so had to do with not wanting to harm Romney's chances in the 2012 election. Yeah? How'd that work out? The answer should be obvious. Romney lost the election and Republicans, in general, had their clocks cleaned because they chose not to fight. Fast and Furious is the quintessential example of something that warranted a high profile fight, if for no other reason than justice for the victims and their families, regardless of the election. Nonetheless, Boehner chose not to fight and his party lost big.

Benghazi is not all that dissimilar from Fast and Furious. Both involve guns (it's looking increasingly like Benghazi even involved gun running); both involved dead Americans; both involve an administration that is stonewalling the truth; and both apparently involve a House Speaker that prefers to sweep the carnage under the rug.

Imagine a House Select Committee that included members from the following Committees:

• Appropriations
• Armed Services
• Budget
• Foreign Affairs
• Homeland Security
• Judiciary
• Oversight
• Intelligence

Such a Committee would be formed to investigate the truth about Benghazi from every angle. It would include members who've demonstrated incredible political courage in the Fast and Furious investigation, chaired by the man who was at the tip of that spear:

Chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Members:

• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
• Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
• Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)
• Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
• Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
• Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
• Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
• Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
• Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
• Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
• Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
• Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

There may be other Republicans worthy of consideration but the aforementioned list consists of those who have proven their mettle. As for Democrats, who cares? They'll be Obama's pawns. They can have whomever they like.

The Benghazi attack / coverup along with Fast and Furious are the Obama administration's two biggest scandals. Both involve dead Americans; one also involves hundreds of dead Mexicans. House Speaker John Boehner fought House Republicans at every turn when they wanted to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. It was obvious to even the casual observer that Boehner wanted that story to go away.

The main objective of the Democratic Party is to win back the House in 2014. Benghazi is playing out in this election cycle in much the same way that Fast and Furious did in the last one. It could be argued that Republicans lost in 2012 - in large part - because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth in the gun-walking scandal. If the Democrats win the House in 2014, it could very well be because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth about Benghazi.

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.

Via the Washington Times:

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.

Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.

How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.

Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.

But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.

Via The Daily Mail:

Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.

The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.

Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.

The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?

Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.

Again, via the Daily Mail:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.

Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.

Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.

The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.

According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.

Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:

John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.

Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).

If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.

Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?

That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.

People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.

Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...

If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.

The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.

That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.

The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.

Video: Dr. Benjamin Carson makes Barack Obama VERY uncomfortable at National Prayer Breakfast

Is it me or did Dr. Benjamin Carson spend thirty minutes criticizing Barack Obama - who heard every word - without ever looking at him? Right out of the gate, Carson begins ripping political correctness, something Obama loves.

Great line at the 8:14 mark:

"If you don't accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving them and they start looking for solutions."

Ha! Was he telling Obama to stop blaming Bush?

Big quote moment begins at the 17:00 mark. As Carson was talking about great nations of the past, he made reference to Rome. Here's the quote, followed by a screenshot of the look on Obama's face after the comment:

I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful, nobody could even challenge them militarily. But what happened to them? They destroyed themselves from within. Moral decay, fiscal irresponsibility. They destroyed themselves.

Here is the screenshot from right after Carson uttered those words but be sure to watch the look on the face of Obama during the entire comment.

The look of a man who knows people are on to him?

God appeared to be somewhere in the room at this National Prayer Breakfast and Obama clearly didn't like it.

To get the most out of this speech, watch Obama's face while listening to Carson's voice.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:



h/t Barrackaid #2

Leftists just Refuse to Learn: Founder of Group that helped overthrow Mubarak face to face with reality

Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian who co-founded the April 6th Movement, a leftist group formed circa 2008 to fight for social justice and other left-wing causes in Egypt and elsewhere. Ultimately, Maher's movement was instrumental in the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in early 2011.

Now, two years later, an Irish news source is reporting that Maher has come to a realization. According to RTE News, Mather tweeted the following after brutal crackdowns on protesters by the Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Here is Maher's tweet:

"Mursi has been stripped bare and has lost his legitimacy. Done," tweeted Ahmed Maher, founder of the April 6 youth movement that helped launch the anti-Mubarak protests.

In the fall of 2011, several months after Mubarak's fall, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement went on an offensive. Van Jones, fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and former Obama administration Green Jobs czar, promoted OWS publicly on MSNBC. On 9/29/11, he called for "an American fall" (a not-so-subtle reference to 'Arab Spring'). About six weeks later - on CNN - Jones called for ratcheting up the protests.

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

Jones' CAP caught up with Maher, who had traveled to the U.S. and was at Occupy Washington, D.C. a few weeks after Jones called for that 'American fall' on MSNBC. Here is the video of that interview:



If you had difficulty understanding Maher, TP has the transcript.

This should be an extremely teachable moment not just for Maher but for all of the leftists in the U.S. Perhaps no one has enunciated this dynamic as well as Andrew McCarthy, who wrote in his book - The Grand Jihad:

Revolutionaries of Islam and the Left make fast friends when there is a common enemy to besiege. Leftists, however are essentially nihilists whose hazy vision prioritizes power over what is to be done with power. They are biddable. Islamists, who have very settled convictions about what is to be done with power, are much less so. Even their compromises keep their long-term goals in their sights. Thus do Leftists consistently overrate their ability to control Islamists. Factoring the common denominator, power, out of the equation, something always beats nothing.

While the left in America - to include the Obama administration - spends practically every waking moment plotting to defeat Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood egg them on while Obama's ventriloquist dummies run interference for Brotherhood groups in America through the media.

Unfortunately, it's not just the left in America that is furthering the cause of Islamists. It's also the John McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would stop shipment of Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. More Republicans voted to continue sending those tanks than those who sided with Paul.

What happened to Maher is another in a long line of examples that western leaders continue to refuse to learn from.

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

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.