Video: Ted Cruz Rips John McCain from Senate floor; does so without saying his name while also using the term 'Wacko Birds'

Another awesome Ted Cruz Senate floor speech. He packs a whole bunch of deliciousness into this one it's difficult to chronicle. First, the root argument. Essentially, at the heart of Cruz's argument is that a super majority threshold should be required to raise the debt ceiling.

Everything else includes the following:

1. Outing his Republican colleagues for engaging in a Kabuki dance.
2. Ripping John McCain more politely than anyone could have possibly done.
3. Getting even more mileage out of McCain's 'wacko birds' comment a few months ago in response to Rand Paul's filibuster.

Though you don't McCain in this video, he was obviously in the room and was likely quite red.

h/t Hot Air

Video: John McCain sidles up to Chuck Schumer on Gun Control

There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.

Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.

At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.

McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.

Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.



As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:



h/t Hot Air

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

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.

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:

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

Panetta: Arming Syrian Rebels a good idea

The appearances of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn't just reveal that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found during the attacks. Panetta also revealed that he supported arming the Syrian rebels, which immediately made Clinton's interaction with Rand Paul at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month more relevant.

First, what Panetta told McCain, via the BBC:

In testimony to Congress, Leon Panetta said he still supported the supply of weapons to rebels fighting forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The plan was proposed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, then director of the CIA, but reportedly rebuffed by the White House.

The US has so far offered only diplomatic backing to Syria's rebels.

Later in the day, McCain was interviewed by Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Here is a relevant portion of the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: And the reason that I ask you about the question what was the CIA doing is because one of the other issues that came up is arming of the Syrian rebels, a question that came up, and there had been a long controversy whether or not the United States was going to arm the Syrian rebels or not and who was on board and who wasn't on board. And there has been some suggestion that through that consulate that weapons were being sent through Turkey to the Syrians. And I'm curious whether or not that consulate was used to channel weapons to the Syrian rebels for one. And number two, what do you think about the response from General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta about weapons to Syrian rebels?

MCCAIN: Well, there were published reports that some of the arms were coming from Libya that were arriving for the resistance in Syria. But that information that we had was not through the United States government, but through other sources, but I'm not clear on that.

Of course, the way to arm the Syrian rebels was ostensibly through Turkey, which leads to Paul's interaction with Hillary Clinton during sworn testimony. When he asked Clinton about the CIA Annex being used to ship weapons from Libya to Turkey, which would then be sent to Syria.

Clinton committed perjury if she knew the answer to Paul's question because she said she didn't know anything about such shipments. Here is an exchange between Paul and Fox News Channel's Martha McCallum before the hearings yesterday.

Hats off to Paul for pressing on this issue.

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.

Video: Morning Joe panel laughs over joke about Lindsey Graham being homosexual

A little over two years ago, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) made news at a Tea Party when he demanded that Senator Lindsey Graham 'come out of the log cabin closet', a not-so-subtle charge that the senior Senator from South Carolina is a homosexual. Feeding that rumor has likely been Graham's status as an older, unmarried man.

Enter the Morning Joe crew. This morning, during their 6am airing of the show, guest John Heilemann referred to the 'three amigos' (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte) as being made up of two women, an obvious jab at Graham over the rumors.

Consider...

1. MSNBC is a known ventriloquist dummy for the White House; that is much more well known than what Graham's sexual preference is.
2. Indications are that the three Senators were expected to play nice in their meeting with Susan Rice less than twenty-four hours before Heilemann's comment. It didn't. In fact, Graham said he's more troubled now than he was before the meeting.
3. Whether the rumors about Graham are true or not, the White House could conceivably benefit from someone like Heilemann joking about it. If there's truth to the rumor, the joke could be seen as a shot across the bow. If there's no truth to it, people are talking about it anyway (instead of Rice's credibility).

On the other hand, the 8am re-airing of the program edited this part out.

h/t WZ

Video: Republican Senators not happy after meeting with Susan Rice

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is definitely on the rise. As the junior senator from New Hampshire (elected in 2010), she's wading in the deeper waters quite early in her tenure. When it comes to attempts to get answers about Benghazi, she's been out in front and has teamed up with two senior senators (McCain and Graham) who are constantly fighting the moderate label but who are right to demand answers on the Benghazi attack.

In any event, there was a meeting between U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the three aforementioned senators. Many believed it was going to be smooth-over session but all three senators said afterward that they're more disappointed after the meeting with Rice than they were before the meeting.

Again, the issue is that Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th and blamed the attack on our Benghazi consulate that killed four Americans five days earlier, on a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. That charge has proven to be demonstrably false and it's obvious Rice either knew it was false or should have known it was false at the time.

Here is video of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte answering reporters' questions after they had met with Rice.

Via MediaIte:

Documents on Libya show Sean Hannity was right, John McCain was wrong

Back on September 13th, Senator John McCain appeared on Hannity, the television program of the popular conservative talk show host, to discuss the recent 9/11 attacks. When the topic turned to Libya, the Senator from Arizona was quick to accuse Sean of having been wrong about Islamists taking control of Libya. Hannity appeared to be slightly taken aback as McCain did everything but stick his tongue out at those (Hannity included) who had expressed concern that Libya had fallen into the hands of the Islamists, saying, "You were wrong about Libya... I know you were... you were wrong."

Documents recently obtained and translated by Walid seem to demonstrate that McCain is the one who is wrong and Sean Hannity was the one who was right.

A common complaint of westerners who try to read about the Middle East is the sheer volume of Arabic names they must sift through to reach a modicum of understanding; they lose track and often move on. There's one name that such westerners should grok and it is Abdel Hakim Belhaj. As we previously reported, Belhaj was officially put in charge of Tripoli from August 30, 2011 thru at least May of 2012. He is radical and has been identified as a 'brother' of al-Qaeda by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In Walid's most recent report, the evidence against Belhaj is even more damning:

Several documents officially tie Belhaj to the leadership in Libya, to the support of him by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to his funding of the rebels in Syria, and more. As we reported previously, Belhaj is a known terrorist who was also in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. The Obama administration allowed him into Libya during the war to oust Gaddafi. Obama seemed to have no objection to Belhaj’s leadership position after the revolution. The classified documents reveal that Belhaj actually controls most of the Libyan government, which are puppets under the control of the Islamists. The Obama administration is knowingly supporting Al-Qaeda control in Libya and North Africa.

When the Libyan elections took place last July, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate was a woman who aroused suspicion among the populous, according to the Boston Herald, via the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:

Nijad Sharfeddin was the face of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya’s historic parliamentary elections. Featured prominently on campaign posters in her hijab and glasses, sans makeup, she was the image of both modernity in Arab politics and conservative Islamic values. But voters suspicious of the Brotherhood, which has no real history in Libya, often asked her to name a Libyan on her ticket whom they would have heard of. She couldn’t. Those suspicions and a lack of an identity in the Libyan street were some of the many factors that led to the Brotherhood slate’s distant second-place finish in Saturday’s vote, experts and everyday Libyans said.

So, the Muslim Brotherhood, which eschews the idea of placing women in power (unless in a support role such as the Muslim Sisterhood), decided to make a woman its face in Libya?!

As candidates like Sharfeddin were going down in flames, Islamists like Belhaj were rising from the ashes.

McCain remains indignantly ignorant.

The September 13th exchange between Hannity and McCain is below. If it seems that McCain had a 'thou doth protest too much' moment, it's because he did.

Via MediaIte:

Is John McCain throwing stones from a glass house when he criticizes Obama over Benghazi comments?

One of the loudest voices in Congress to go after Barack Obama for saying, "if four Americans get killed, it's not optimal" has been Senator John McCain. While McCain is right in this instance, his positions up to this point leave him very little high ground from which to speak.

Via POLITICO:

“Even from someone like the president, who has never known what these kinds of tragedies are about and the service and sacrifice that people make, it’s still just — I can’t even get angry,” Sen. John McCain, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Thursday night on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

“It’s just so inappropriate,” McCain continued. “And I’m sure that the families of those brave Americans are not amused.”

A problem for McCain is that he supported Obama's policy in Libya, the same policy that has allowed al-Qaeda to flourish in places like Benghazi.

Remember when McCain referred to the Libyan rebels as "my heroes" during his visit to Benghazi in April of 2011, when many of us knew better then (pay attention at the 1:05 mark)?



Also during that visit, McCain walked right by a Benghazi courthouse that only weeks earlier had been the site of a black man being beheaded by rebels. Here is video of McCain walking past the scene of that atrocity. None other than Christopher Stevens can be seen walking behind him.



Here is a photo of McCain with Stevens taken during their walk past the Benghazi courthouse, captured in the video above:

Here is a photo of McCain with Stevens in Tripoli:

McCain is taking the right position when it comes to arguing that the Benghazi consulate should have been more secure. Unfortunately, the position he took in 2011 was absolutely the wrong position. As bad as Gadhafi was, al-Qaeda was kept at bay and if he had remained in power, it's a safe bet that Stevens would still be alive. McCain advocated for the rebels and took a position then that put Americans in greater danger.

The Senator from Arizona also sits on some powerful Senate Committees. He is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and serves on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. McCain was wrong about Libya then and he's wrong about Syria now; he continues to be among the loudest voices in support of rebels there as well.

It's important to note as well, that McCain has been one of Huma Abedin's most powerful and vocal supporters. Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton (someone else who has tough questions to answer over the Benghazi attack), has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which overtly supported the Libyan rebels.

McCain is on the wrong side of practically every debate over the Middle East and although he's right about calling Obama out on the lack of security in Libya, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to backing policies that got us here.

Until McCain has a mea culpa about his position on Libya in 2011, the Arab Spring generally, and individuals like Huma Abedin in particular, he'll be throwing stones from a glass house.

Are John McCain's chickens coming home to roost?

When it comes to the Arab Spring, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has been on the wrong side far more often than not. Last year, he referred to the Libyan rebels as his 'heroes'. He continues to support arming the rebels in Syria despite mounting evidence that they make up a contingent that is far worse than Bashar al-Assad.

Earlier this summer, he not only defended Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin when legitimate questions were raised about her background but he smeared the woman who raised those questions - Michele Bachmann - from the Senate floor. Now, he's pointing to State Department culpability in the attack / mishandling of the aftermath in Benghazi.

Last month, during an interview with Sean Hannity, McCain attempted to have an 'I told you so' moment with the Fox News host when he all but stuck his tongue out at Hannity while saying he was right about Libya. He pointed to what he said was the election of a moderate government there.

Now, according to Bill Gertz, al-Qaeda appears to be plotting an overthrow of that government.

Via Washington Free Beacon:

Pakistan-based al Qaeda is secretly setting up sleeper cells and a clandestine network of jihadists to destabilize and take over Libya while hiding under a new cover name to prevent exposure and attacks, according to an internal Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Al Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al Qaeda name,” according to the report produced jointly by the Library of Congress and the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program, a unit under the assistant defense secretary for special operations.

The report concludes that al Qaeda poses “a significant threat to the state-building process in Libya.”

The 54-page unclassified report describes al Qaeda—which President Barack Obama recently declared to be in decline—as “seeking to create an al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel”—the Sahara desert region stretching across northern Africa.

Read it all.

Here is the exchange between McCain and Hannity in the days after the attack on Benghazi.

Video: John McIrony - Senator who blindly defended Huma Abedin accuses State Department of 'Abysmal Ignorance'

During an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, Senator John McCain was brought on to talk about the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attack. During the exchange, McCain (see 2:00 mark) rightfully asserted that the State Department's public stance five days after the attack was the result of either 'abysmal ignorance' or 'willful deception'.

To his credit, McCain is on the right side of this issue. To his discredit, when Rep. Michele Bachmann raised questions about Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin and the latter's familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, McCain did what he is now accusing the State Department of doing. Yes, Abedin has a high position of influence inside the same State Department that has left McCain apoplectic.

Here is what Bachmann's letter to the State Department's Deputy Inspector General said about Abedin:

...the Department's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members - her late father, her mother and her brother - connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.

In what was probably the most vehement defense of Abedin from a Republican member of Congress, McCain chastised Bachmann from the floor of the Senate. In so doing, he exhibited either 'abysmal ignorance' or 'willful deception'.

Here is McCain's October 8th appearance on O'Reilly.

Here is McCain defending Huma Abedin earlier this summer:

Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and John McCain allies together Syria

Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) used his speech at the Republican convention to give voice to a common refrain of his - that the United States should arm the Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad (video at bottom of this post). Almost simultaneously, Muslim Brotherhood leader / President of Egypt Mohamad Mursi was calling for the end of Assad's 'oppressive' regime. Mursi likely nodded and applauded when McCain expressed his views on Syria.

Via Reuters:

Egypt called on Thursday for intervention to halt bloodshed in Syria, telling a meeting of 120 nations it was their duty to stand against the "oppressive regime" of Bashar al-Assad, prompting a Syrian walkout.

President Mohamed Mursi, elected two months ago after a popular uprising toppled Egypt's long-standing leader Hosni Mubarak, said Assad had lost legitimacy in his fight to crush a 17-month-old revolt in which 20,000 people have been killed.

Mursi's scathing speech to a summit of non-aligned leaders, hosted by Assad's Shi'ite ally Iran, prompted Syria's foreign minister to accuse the moderate Sunni Islamist leader of inciting further bloodshed in Syria.

The political broadside against the Syrian president came as rebels said they shot down a fighter plane in northern Syria, where his air force has been bombarding opposition-held towns in a fierce counter-offensive against insurgents.

Has anyone been able to figure out why the likes of McCain are seemingly so passionately sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood's cause in Syria?

Let's back up a bit. Who is Mursi's wife? The answer is Najla Ali Mahmoud; she is one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood and serves alongside the mother of a woman McCain vehemently defended on the Senate floor last month when questions were raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. The name of the woman McCain defended while smearing Bachmann is Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's closest advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff.

Saleha Abedin is another one of those 63 leaders and is a close colleague of Mahmoud in that regard. Saleha Abedin is Huma's mother. The effusive and near blind praise McCain heaped upon Saleha's daughter was almost surreal. He admitted to being taken by her charm. Has he also taken up the cause of her mother as a result of that charm?

Here is an excerpt from McCain's floor speech last month, during which he adamantly defended Huma:

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

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

These are precisely the reasons why the details behind Huma Abedin being granted a security clearance must be understood and why charges of 'guilt by association' are unwarranted when denying security clearances because of those associations. Huma hasn't denounced her mother nor the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, she is in a position where she could have a conflict of interest. If she were sympathetic to the Brotherhood's cause (which is the cause of her mother), would she not attempt to influence a U.S. Senator who already thinks highly of her?

By the way, Saleha must have been pleased with this part of the speech too:



Perhaps if Mr. McCain were as taken with a Coptic Christian woman as he apparently is with Huma Abedin, he would care more about real persecution in Egypt (right now under Mursi) instead of wanting to arm vicious Muslim Brotherhood rebels in Syria.



Here is another video that shows Coptic persecution in Egypt:

Video: Romney asked about Chick-fil-A and Huma Abedin; punts on both

While in Reno, NV Mitt Romney was asked to respond to both the Chick-fil-A and Huma Abedin controversies. One had to deal with a rebuke of Chicago-stye fascism and the American people standing up against it; the other has to do with some increasingly alarming connections to the Muslim Brotherhood at our State Department.

The good news is that Romney didn't take the position John McCain did and attack Michele Bachmann when asked about Huma Abedin. The not so good news is that he didn't take a position at all. If you were looking for anecdotal evidence for why the Tea Party isn't warming up to Mitt Romney, this is it.

While it can be understood that Romney made a political calculation here, imagine what the response of a Newt Gingrich or a Sarah Palin would be in the same circumstance. You can guarantee it would consist of red meat. The more I think about this response, the more I disagree with it. More than anything else, it very well could foreshadow a very moderate presidency.

h/t Hot Air:

John McCain and John Boehner: Ignorant or Complicit?

It's an age old tradition. Politicians will always choose looking ignorant or stupid over revealing a cold hard truth they don't want to deal with. In politics, being perceived as foolish is preferable to being perceived as cowardly. That's where Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner come in. Frankly, it's simply not possible for them to be as ignorant about why Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland have raised questions about Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and others.

And if they are as ignorant as they'd like you to believe, they're grossly unqualified to be in the jobs they're in.

John Guandolo over at Breitbart, gives them the benefit of the doubt, concluding that they're just ignorant and foolish when it comes to their defense of Huma Abedin in response to a request by those five Congressmen, for an investigation:

Speaker Boehner said in defense of Abedin, “From everything that I do know of her, she has a sterling character. Accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.” What is actually dangerous is that the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives remains so grossly ignorant about a threat inside our nation nearly eleven years after 9/11.

For his part, Senator McCain came to Abedin’s aide by saying that the comments made about her “rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma's family." This necessarily means that Mr. McCain did no study at all of the facts of the matter, because they clearly and specifically reveal the organizations in which her parents and family are involved and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Guandolo is being too kind. Sometimes the preponderance of evidence lampoons political pleas of plausible deniability. When it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood's presence in American politics, this is one such instance.

If McCain and Boehner are this ignorant, they're beyond incompetent. Therefore, assuming that they're not ignorant, why are they acting this way? Could it be that they're too invested in flawed policies that have, for years, involved welcoming Muslims with ties to nefarious groups (like the ISNA, MSA, CAIR, etc.) into the halls of power? Could it be that they feel duped and are too ashamed to 'fess up?

McCain was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986; Boehner was first elected to the U.S. House in 1990. The welcoming of Muslim’s with questionable affiliations into the halls of U.S. power really started in earnest a few yeas later during the Clinton Administration. Abdurahman Alamoudi was actually a State Department employee and served as the Clinton administration's Islamic affairs advisor for years. Alamoudi was arrested in 2003 and sentenced in 2004 for funding terrorism. All of this happened while Boehner and McCain were in Congress.

How about Sami al-Arian? He began to buy influence during the Clinton administration and even had access to the Bush administration. He was later convicted on charges related to funding terrorism.

If they didn't know who he was then, they certainly knew who he was in 2003, when he made major news. Did McCain and Boehner begin looking around and notice that there were potentially a lot of other Sami al-Arians roaming around the Capital? Did they feel partially responsible as members of one branch of our government?

Muslim Brotherhood groups and individuals got access to the Bush administration too. That would be the same Bush administration that belongs to the same Republican Party to which McCain and Boehner belong.

Consider Muzzammil Siddiqi, the former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood group; that would be the same Muslim Brotherhood to which Huma Abedin's mother belongs. Siddiqi had access to George W. Bush AFTER 9/11. Ditto for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director, Nihad Awad.

How about the man who inspired Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan? His name is now infamous; Anwar al-Awlaki; he was given a plush luncheon in 2002 by the D.O.D. Later, he would teach at a University headed by one of Osama bin Laden's buddies, Sheikh Abdel Majeed Zindani.

On whose watch in Congress did all this happen? Uh, yes, McCain's and Boehner's. This is not to say that such things were their fault but if they knew about such things and chose the path of silence and least resistance, their culpability goes up, which could help to explain their inexplicable ignorance today.

As I wrote about here, Alamoudi had access to George W. Bush and Karl Rove both before and after 9/11. At one meeting, believed to be about a year before 9/11, Rove can be seen holding a book authored by the founder of two other Muslim Brotherhood groups. Despite red flags about the individuals Bush and Rove met with, the background of the author of that book - who was killed in 1986 -  apparently wasn't studied thoroughly enough. The two Brotherhood groups he co-founded are:

• The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)
• The Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS)

Given all that we know about the Muslim Brotherhood today, are we to believe that McCain and Boehner didn't learn about a lot of this shortly after 9/11, a heinous attack that occurred on their watch? One thing we have come to learn about politicians is that they all know a lot more than they'd like you to think they know. In this case, the American people are supposed to believe that they know more about the Brotherhood / Huma Abedin's background than do McCain and Boehner?!

They're either lying or have descended to a level of incompetence that requires major therapy.

I don't buy their ignorance. It's just not plausible.

Consider the Penn State football program. The more that time passed without Jerry Sandusky being turned into police for raping young boys, the more the inaction of those who knew he was doing it implicated them. It also made them more ardent defenders against the truth about Sandusky being revealed.

In that case, not coming clean led to disaster for a college university.

If Boehner and McCain know the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood in America, their attempt at ignorance could lead to disaster for their country.

Despite the efforts of McCain and Boehner to have you think they're ignorant, they're just choosing to be perceived as fools because the alternative is worse. Believing otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. The fact that they've remained silent in the face of all the facts now available only underscores that conclusion.

Take a look at when the five congressmen who want answers about Huma Abedin's access to the State Department were first elected to Congress:

• Trent Franks - 2002
• Louie Gohmert - 2004
• Michele Bachmann - 2006
• Lynn Westmoreland - 2006
• Tom Rooney - 2008

Gee, that would mean they weren't around when all these people connected to the Muslim Brotherhood began getting access to the halls of power, to include both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. How is it that they know more about the Muslim Brotherhood's access to those halls than McCain and Boehner, two men who were roaming them at the time?

Instead of calling McCain and Boehner ignorant, perhaps it's time to demand they come clean because it's really getting difficult to tell the difference between them and Nathan Thurm:

Video: Sarah Palin hits back at Dick Cheney

Why is Sarah Palin still scaring the Republican establishment? She's not running for anything. Why do members of that establishment feel the need to continue to go after her? The answers to those questions are that she still wields power (see Ted Cruz vs. David Dewhurst). It smacks of a case of 'thou doth protest too much.' Dick Cheney was the latest to do so, this Sunday, calling McCain's decision to select her as his running mate in 2008 a 'mistake.'

In reality, if 2008 taught us anything, it was that McCain was the mistake and the best thing he did was select Palin.

While appearing on Greta, Sarah Palin hit back at Cheney.

Via Daily Caller:

“Well, seeing as how Dick — excuse me, Vice President Cheney never misfires, then evidently, he’s quite convinced that what he had evidently read about me by the lamestream media having been written what I believe is a false narrative over the last four years, evidently, Dick Cheney believed that stuff, and that’s a shame,” Palin said. “So he characterized me as being a mistake.”

But Palin argued that the mistake wasn’t her selection. It would have been if she declined the nomination and pointed to her high numbers at the time of the 2008 presidential race that made her an attractive candidate.

“Here’s where the mistake would have been, Greta, I believe. It’s had I not answered the call — I was honored to get to run for vice president of the United States alongside Senator John McCain. I was honored to accept the nomination from the GOP. And I think that the mistake would have been me just deciding that, ‘Hey, I love my 86-87 percent approval rating up there in Alaska as the governor, moving and shaking and watching corrupt politicians and businessmen go to prison for crony capitalism, working on 16 to 20 percent of domestic energy supplies being able to be increased via Alaska’s resource development, ethics reform legislation that I was working on — that led to that 86 percent approval rating.”

People often forget that Palin did what the Republican establishment, which refers to her as things like a 'mistake' or unqualified, consistently prove incapable of doing - holding themselves and others accountable. In that regard, Palin was more qualified than McCain - in 2008. At minimum, she almost dragged McCain across the finish line despite his apparent unwillingness to cross it.


There are several reasons why the establishment resents the Tea Party. The former has a few secrets it doesn't want the latter to have access to. Sarah Palin - along with the candidates she continues to endorse and help win - represents forces that are demanding accountability from an establishment that doesn't like those forces and individuals on its heels.

Huma Abedin's IMMA Membership and John McCain's shameful speech

The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) was led by Huma Abedin's parents, both of whom had the active support of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef, according to Jorgen S. Nielsen, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen. We already know that Huma's mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood and Huma's brother served as a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with Naseef (Chairman) for at least five years (2004-2008) and probably more.

Yet, Senator John McCain said the following on the floor of the Senate just this week:

"The letter in the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department or as a member of then Senator Clinton's staff, that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government."                     - Senator John McCain - July 18, 2012

Perhaps if Senator McCain were a bit more intellectually curious, he would seek to inquire about Huma Abedin's time and "public position" as an Assistant Editor with the IMMA as recently as 2008, alongside two of her family members, who have confirmed ties with Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals.

Then again, he would apparently rather impugn Michele Bachmann's character.

Moreover, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) may want to re-think speaking out in defense of Abedin until they examine all the facts as well. After all, their legacies are at stake.

John McCain defending family connected to Al-Qaeda

Imagine a scenario in 1943 in which both parents and sibling of the closest adviser to the Secretary of State had extensive and direct relationships with the godfather of the Nazi Party. That is essentially what we have in 2012 if one equates Al-Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood with Nazis, which is actually an extremely apt comparison.

Now imagine that a Representative in the U.S. Congress in 1943 sent a letter to the State Department demanding to know how someone with such familial connections to a declared enemy of the United States got the job. A Senator who once ran for President of the United States objects to the inquiry and goes to the Senate floor to denounce the Congressman for smearing the State Department employee as someone whose family is connected to Nazis.

Wouldn't this cause the American public to question the loyalty of such a Senator? That is exactly what should be done relative to Senator John McCain in 2012, after he defended the family of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - Huma Abedin - when he said the following about a letter sent from Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other Congressmen to the Inspector General of the State Department:

“The letter (from Bachmann and four other Congressmen) alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations…’ These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family”.

Simply put, McCain is defending the family of Huma Abedin by asserting something that is demonstrably false. Huma's brother - Hassan Abedin - served on a board chaired by none other than Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef. Both of her parents founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) with Naseef's support. Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - is a confirmed leader of the Muslim Sisterhood and is a close colleague of Najla Mahmoud, the wife of Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Mursi.

What conclusion are we left with other than one that says McCain is running interference for a family connected to America's enemies?

Why would he do this?

If one is able to accept the premise that Al-Qaeda and the Nazis share much in common - to include a desire to rule the world after ridding it of Jews - McCain is defending the indefensible and he is on dangerous, on-the-Senate-record, territory.

Once considered a war hero, John McCain is working toward a legacy that could overshadow that history.

In WWI, France had a war hero. He was a General named Philippe Pétain. In 1940, he was essentially brought out of retirement to help fight the Nazi army. Pétain became a Nazi collaborator, likely because he was successfully intimidated and / or subjugated.

Via BBC:

In May 1940, with France under attack from Germany, Pétain was appointed vice premier. In June he asked for an armistice, upon which he was appointed 'chief of state', enjoying almost absolute powers. The armistice gave the Germans control over the north and west of France, including Paris, but left the remainder as a separate regime under Pétain, with its capital at Vichy. Officially neutral, in practice the regime collaborated closely with Germany, and brought in its own anti-Semitic legislation.

This is the legacy that McCain will be working toward if he is not careful. Huma Abedin's family has an undisputed history of collaborating with an Al-Qaeda Godfather and McCain is saying that isn't true in order to protect the Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton.