No 838 “En mi opinión” Diciembre 31, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
This Republican Betrayed Conservatives. Now He Must Pay The Price
The Campaign To Dump John Boehner As Speaker Of The House Has Moved Into High Gear.
He stabbed you in the back. He essentially gave you the middle finger. Instead of keeping his promise to stop the radical Obama agenda, he marshaled all of his resources and pulled every procedural maneuver out of his bag a tricks to fund ObamaCare and Obama’s lawless Executive Amnesty Decree.
And now, the time is upon us to make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals. In about a week, the House of Representatives will choose the next Speaker of the House. It only takes 30 Republicans to deny John Boehner the post and that means that you can make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals right now.
It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold. The time is upon us to let our self-proclaimed Republican leaders know that dinner is served.
The Revolution To Dump John Boehner Is Already Moving At Full Steam.
Make no mistake, we intend to win this battle to snatch the reins of power from John Boehner’s cold and unfeeling hands but win, lose or draw, it is imperative that our elected officials get the message that patriotic Americans want John Boehner gone.
And if you want John Boehner gone, you’re not alone. Your Blast Faxes and phone calls are causing a firestorm in Washington and more and more conservatives are jumping on the Dump Boehner train with each passing day:
“Mr. Boehner has repeatedly shown he is not the man to lead the House. He cannot build a Republican coalition. He cannot lead, and he will not fight. The Republicans will have 247 members in the next Congress. If 30 of these members vote against Mr. Boehner, he will not have the majority he needs to be elected speaker. At that point, anything is possible, including Mr. Boehner stepping aside.” -Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation
“House conservatives must summon the courage to oppose Boehner’s nomination on the floor in January. It is a moral imperative. You cannot consistently complain about leadership’s many failures – and the treachery involved with a speaker fresh off a successful wave election conspiring with President Obama to fund amnesty and enjoy a celebratory phone call in the aftermath – and then vote for him to continue in this role. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, that is the definition of insanity, and it is enabled by a vote for Rep. John Boehner.” -Erick Erickson, RedState.com
“[Y]ou have the power, right and duty to stop [John Boehner]. But it won’t happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true.” -Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com
“It is time to stop thinking of John Boehner and the rest of the Republican congressional leadership as being cowardly and recognize them for what they are: part of The Ruling Class that believes it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live. The current GOP leadership has got to go; this has ceased to be an arguable point. We cannot count on these people to do what is right. Conservatives did not give them majorities in both chambers for them to keep playing the same game.” -Layne Hansen, AmericanThinker.com
Your cries have not gone unnoticed. The revolution is already underway. IJReview.com writes: “With 2015 approaching, Conservatives are once again calling for Boehner to be replaced as Speaker.”
But whether or not Boehner goes, is in your hands.
Can We Really Oust John Boehner And, If We Do, Could Nancy Pelosi Become The Next Speaker Of The House?
The answer to those questions respectively are “yes, we can oust Boehner” and“no, it is impossible for Nancy Pelosi (or any Democrat) to be elected as Speaker of the House.”
Memories are often short. Most people have already forgotten that John Boehner pulled the same shenanigans two years ago. When he railroaded an Obama-approved budget through the House of Representatives and actually dared to insult patriotic Americans for opposing him, we ran a campaign to oust Boehner as Speaker of the House and IT NEARLY SUCCEEDED.
Many people have forgotten that Mr. Boehner held on to the Speaker’s gavel two years ago by the skin of his teeth and, this time around, we’re going to finish the job.
In regards to Nancy Pelosi becoming the next Speaker of the House, it’s procedurally impossible. To be elected Speaker of the House, a candidate must secure the votes of a simply majority (50% plus one) of House Members. Absent a majority, the House continues to hold votes until a candidate secures an actual majority.
What that means is that Republicans, as the ballots play out, will eventually decide on a consensus candidate and that person would become the next Speaker of the House.
Put another way, for Nancy Pelosi to become the next Speaker of the House, over two dozen Republicans must vote for her… and that’s simply not going to happen.
One thing is clear. There will be no stopping ObamaCare… there will be no justice on Benghazi-gate… there will be no stopping Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Amnesty Decree… and there will be no stopping Barack Hussein Obama’s unconstitutional usurpations and abuses of power as long as John Boehner and his gang of Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only pretenders hold the reins of power.
Carta publica de los ciudadanos del Condado de Miami-Dade
Armando Lopez-Calleja email@example.com
Subject: Carta publica de los ciudadanos del Condado de Miami-Dade
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:26:03 -0500
Estamos enviando esta carta Publica a todos nuestros contactos, con el animo de que recojan las firmas de sus vecinos, tengan o no automoviles, y enviarla a la Prensa, y sobre todo a los gobernantes de sus municipios, ya que todos debemos solidarizarnos en denunciar el abuso de poder que parece tener la comision MDX=13 mimebros=”Voluntarios”-?,
Quines con el aumento de los nuevos “puntos de control” y el correspondiente aumento del peaje, en las autopistas 836 la 112, de se producirá un incremento en la ya alta recaudacion en un año de $2,232.0 millones de dolares, sumado por ejemplo a lo recaudado en el año 2013=$1,859’494,492, tendriamos un gran total de $4,091.5 millones de dolares y aplicando el mismo 26% de utilidades o ganancias de ese propio año, quedaran $1,063.7 millones de ganancia, todo esto, despues de descontar todos los supuestos gastos, los cuales nunca han sufrido una auditoria por el Poder Judicial, a pesar de la denuncia hecha en Agosto de este año, ya que todo ese dinero sale de los bolsillo de los usuarios de las autopistas. 836 y la 112.
Les recuerdo que con los “controles actuales” y los “precios del Peaje actuales”, la Recuadacion entre el 2008 y el 2013 aumentaron en el 42%, los gastos aumentaron solo el 34%, sin embaro las GANANCIAS aumentaron en un 72%, ya en esos años los aumento que impusieron como se ve, eran abusivos, imaginesen ustedes, cuanto será la ganancia, cuando comparemos el 2008 con el 2015. ya que los gastos para terminar las ampliaciones van tremendamente lento y no es facil incrementar o adelantar la terminacion de las obras, con el ritmo de ejecucion de los actuales constructores.
No sabemos si las obras fueron subastadas a presupuesto fijo, con fecha fija de terminacion o fueron contratadas contra gastos o sea por administracion.
Esperemos que esta justa informacion, no caiga en tanque vacio para la basura, o se la lleve el viento. NOSOTROS SOMOS PRENSA Y ESTAMOS AL LADO DEL PUEBLO, esto que he santenciado, no solo se aprende en las Univierisades o en las Escuelas de Periodismo, sino que se lleva dentro del Alma, en el Corazon y en el Cerebro, con una gran dosis de verguenza profesional, eso hace al Ser Humano un periodista honesto.
Ing. Armando Lopez-Calleja.-Miembro del CNP de Cuba en el Exilio y de la UCP
¿Puede realmente ser los liberales tan estúpidos? Al parecer, ellos si pueden
por David L. Goetsch
He crecido acostumbrado al hecho de que los liberales creen que pueden cambiar de alguna manera la naturaleza humana y crear un mundo utópico o, al menos, un mundo que se ajuste a la definición de la utopía. Aunque todavía me resulta inquietante, ya no resulta sorprendente que los liberales basan sus opiniones y acciones en el emocionalismo en vez de la lógica o la razón. Un firme negativa a dejar que los hechos se interpongan en el camino de sus presuposiciones parece estar en el ADN de los liberales, sin embargo, creo que son más brillante que cualquier otra persona. Por ejemplo, recuerdo cuando Jonathan Gruber, el académico hinchado del MIT, habló con condescendencia sobre la estupidez del público Latina. Francamente, si se hubiera limitado su denuncia a los liberales solo, podría haber acordado con él.
Antes de ir más lejos por este camino, una advertencia está en orden. Si se desaniman por mi uso de la palabra “estúpido” en el título de esta columna, entender que pasé una buena cantidad de tiempo tratando de llegar a un descriptor más suave. Por ejemplo, he intentado la palabra “ignorante”, pero no funcionó porque la ignorancia es sólo la falta de conocimiento que puede ser curada mediante la lectura, escuchando a los que están más informados sobre el tema en cuestión, discutir, debatir y mantenimiento una mente abierta. Desde liberales se opusieron firmemente a leer, escuchar, discutir y debatir con una mente abierta, “la ignorancia” no pasó la prueba de aplicabilidad. Así que hice “ilógico”, “irracional”, “aversión en los hechos,” y finalmente, me decidí por la palabra “estúpido” porque transmite sólo el derecho que significa “mal informado”.: Una determinación de seguir haciendo las cosas mal, incluso cuando usted saben que están equivocados, simplemente porque usted quisiera que fueran derecha. Ahora que es estúpido.
Todo esto es para decir que soy rara vez sorprendido o incluso sorprendido cuando un liberal prominente dice o hace algo que es simplemente estúpido. Al menos yo no debería estar sorprendido, pero luego los liberales tienen una manera de superar a sí mismos en el departamento de Dos tontos muy tontos. En consecuencia, a pesar de que estoy acostumbrado a la falta de lógica, la falta de la razón, y la aversión a los hechos que a menudo caracterizan el pensamiento liberal, todavía hay ocasiones en las que me encuentro preguntando, “¿Puede liberales realmente ser tan estúpido?”
El columnista conservador George Will se refiere a los desvaríos de determinación de los desafiado y fuera de Leftfield acciones de los liberales como “tonterías”, una menor confrontación descriptores, más refinado que mi mandato: “estúpido”. Sin embargo, a pesar de que admiro comentario de Will, él es-en este caso-liberales dejando descolgados con demasiada facilidad por bajar el tono de su retórica. En una columna reciente, el comentarista conservador compartió una larga lista de ejemplos de lo que él llamó “tonterías” liberal; ejemplos que podrían tener estupidez liberal etiquetada con mayor precisión. En esta columna, añado mis propios comentarios sobre algunos de los ejemplos Testamentos ofrecía a sus lectores.
En California, un director de escuela secundaria negó refuerzo permiso de la escuela del club para recaudar fondos mediante la venta de comidas donadas por Chick-fil-A debido a que la cadena de restaurantes apoya el matrimonio tradicional. El director fue apoyado en su decisión por el superintendente de la escuela quien afirmó “que valoramos la inclusión y la diversidad.” ¿En serio? Entonces, ¿qué acerca de la inclusión de la inmensa mayoría de su cuerpo y los fans que apoyan la posición de Chick-fil-A o al menos apoyan su Primera Enmienda derecho a ocupar una posición tal estudiante? Si estos dos políticamente correcto, tal vez debería decir -administrators “estúpidas” realmente valoran la diversidad, no prohibirían Chick-fil-A sobre la base de su punto de vista. Después de todo, aceptar la diversidad no significa simplemente tolerar una variedad de puntos de vista diferentes, pero que garantice la exposición a una variedad de puntos de vista; especialmente los que no está de acuerdo con.
Aquí fue una excelente oportunidad para que dos llamados educadores para convertir una situación en una lección de civismo en el verdadero significado de la diversidad y la inclusión, pero estos dos administradores son aparentemente tan inmerso en la corrección política que desperdiciaron la oportunidad. En lugar de enseñar a los estudiantes que la diversidad significa diferencias respetuosamente que abrazan, el director y superintendente en este caso les enseñó que la diversidad y la inclusión significan la prohibición de todo pero los puntos aprobados, políticamente correctos de vista. No mires ahora el Sr. Director y el Sr. Superintendente, pero eso es lo que hacen en las naciones comunistas y otros estados totalitarios. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Por ahora los lectores de mis columnas saben todo acerca de la pelea por el uso de los “pieles rojas” por el nombre del equipo de Washington, DC NFL. Los liberales dentro y fuera del gobierno están indignados de que el equipo sigue utilizando este nombre no sea un PC (aunque las encuestas muestran que los indios americanos no están molestos por ello). El gobierno de Obama incluso ha utilizado el poder del gobierno federal en un intento de coaccionar a la franquicia en descartar el nombre de “pieles rojas”. Entender que este es el mismo gobierno federal que gasta miles de millones de dólares contratantes misiles crucero Tomahawk y helicópteros Apache. Además, este es el Presidente quien aprobó el nombre de Gerónimo para la misión en la que Osama bin Laden fue finalmente llevado ante la justicia. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Uno de los mejores o tal vez debería decir peores ejemplos de la estupidez liberal viene del Partido de la Libertad Socialista (FSP), una organización que aboga por un $ 20 por hora salario mínimo. Según George Will, el FSP anunciado recientemente una oferta de trabajo para un desarrollador web. El salario inicial era de $ 13 por hora. Esto no fue sólo un error de lectura de pruebas. Al parecer, el FSP no ve la ironía en la defensa de que se exija a todas las demás organizaciones que pagar $ 20 por un salario mínimo hora mientras se paga bastante menos. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Como buena (o mala) un ejemplo como éste es, incluso el FSP no puede sostener una vela a vicepresidente Joe Biden a la hora de hacer comentarios vergonzosamente inane. Biden hace tantos patinazos los pies en la boca que son difíciles de seguir el ritmo, pero su referencia a África como una “nación” en lugar de un continente ocupa un lugar destacado en la lista de sus diez mejores comentarios más estúpidas. Cerrar detrás del comentario de “África” era reciente declaración de Biden sobre las víctimas del devastador tornado 2011 que azotaron a Joplin, Missouri. Según nuestra vicepresidenta hecho deficiente, 161.000 fueron asesinados. Obviamente hay comandante de matemáticas, el vicepresidente estaba fuera por apenas 160, 839 personas. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Un último ejemplo viene del gobernador de California, Jerry Brown. Al parecer, el gobernador compra la línea del partido liberal en el calentamiento global. Preocupada porque el calentamiento global va a causar un aumento de un metro en el Océano Pacífico, el gobernador Brown se preocupó de que el Aeropuerto Internacional de Los Angeles un día estaría bajo el agua. En realidad, el LAX es más de 120 pies sobre el nivel del mar. A pesar del calentamiento global, gobernador de matemáticas-desafió de California no tiene que preocuparse. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpidos? Aparentemente si pueden.
DISCRIMINATION? Detroit Targets Legally Armed Black Men
What say you?
Are black people who legally carry guns discriminated against? There is anecdotal evidence to indicate that it happens, particularly in crime-ridden urban centers. Students and retired police friends and acquaintances have told me that when guns were found in the possession of black men, in most urban centers, three or more decades ago, the guns were confiscated, legal or not.
That was before the concealed carry revolution, when only a few states issued concealed carry permits, and they were often issued only at the discretion of the police chief. Many of the gun control laws were designed specifically to disarm black men.
In 1967, the Black Panthers launched a bit of lawfare that brought about a ban on the open carry of loaded guns in California. It is hard to believe that the change in law was not what the Panthers intended, though they claimed to support the right to bear arms. Remember, the Panthers openly supported armed revolution in the United States. The day the gun control bill was before the legislature, the Panthers showed up at the capitol, carrying their guns in a threatening manner, unlike the open carry protests of today. The summer of 1967 was the year of race riots in much of the nation.
The panthers’ demonstrations resulted in the ban on the open carry of loaded guns that was signed by Ronald Reagan. This has been twisted by the left to claim that the Panthers initiated the gun rights movement in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. California had always been less than supportive of the second amendment. California does not have a right to keep and bear arms clause in its constitution, because the state government wanted to be able to disarm Mexicans and Chinese. California concealed carry law was originally passed in 1923, with the intention of making sure that minorities were disarmed.
We can never know for certain if the Panthers intended to have more gun control passed. More controls were certainly supported by the left, and the Panthers were strongly supported by the radical left, as noted in David Horowitz’ “Radical Son”:
While no one would publicly say so, it was the Panther’s violent image that provided their real attraction to the New Left. Blacks would seek liberation, Malcolm said, though the “ballot or the bullet,” but no radical believed that the System could be changed by peaceful means.”
Because leftist “revolutionaries” embrace deception as part of their tactics, the fact that some Panthers claimed to support the second amendment is inconclusive. The gun culture is intimately familiar with politicians who say “we support the second amendment” during elections. It is clear that the left supported restrictive gun legislation. It was only a year later that the United States Congress, at the urging of Lyndon Johnson, passed the most restrictive federal gun legislation up to that time, the federal gun control act of 1968.
More gun laws did provoke a backlash, but not against black people. The backlash was against the increasingly restrictive gun laws. The gun culture organized and developed means of communication outside of the dominant media. It fought back against the restrictions as the old media pushed for more and more. The gun culture fought for the right to bear arms for all citizens, regardless of color. Otis McDonald is a hero of the modern gun culture for his advocacy of the second amendment in McDonald v Chicago.
The Black tradition of Arms is covered extensively in a 379 page book that was published this year. It shows that black peoples’ use of arms, and the attempts to disarm them, have an extensive history. Read more at ammoland.com
Obama Claims Illegal Immigrants Don’t Burden Taxpayers
President Barack Obama claimed that illegal immigrants do not burden taxpayers and are not a drain on public resources.
In an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), Obama also slammed and dismissed those who are concerned about the negative impact that illegal immigration often has on American workers (U.S.-born and legal immigrants) as “nativists.”
“If you’re concerned that somehow illegal immigrants are a drain on resources and forcing, you know, Americans to pay for services for these folks, well, every study shows that’s just not the case,” Obama claimed. “Generally, these folks don’t use a lot of services, and my executive action specifically is crafted so that they’re not a drain on taxpayers; instead, they’re going to be paying taxes, and we can make sure that they are.”
A comprehensive 2012 Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report, though, found that that households headed by illegal immigrants were more likely to be on a welfare program than those headed by U.S.-born Americans or legal immigrants, which means that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants were more likely to be in poverty and dependent on government. In Texas, 58% of households headed by illegal immigrants on a welfare program. In California and Illinois, 55% were.” The report found that “nationally, illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 9.9 percent of all persons in poverty, compared to their 4.9 percent share of nation’s total population.”
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/12/obama-claims-illegal-immigrants-dont-burden-taxpayers/
Supremes asked: How long will you let Obama make it up?
Obama will just find some way to reword it and do what he wants even if they rule against him.
Check it out:
A team of constitutional-law experts filed a brief Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices if they are willing to allow President Obama to continue making up the law as he goes.
The brief by the American Center for Law and Justice asks the court to reject IRS regulations that illegally authorize tax subsidies for purchasers of health insurance on federal exchanges.
The case is one of several that could create a massive roadblock for Obamacare. The law is written so that only those who obtain insurance through state-established exchanges qualify for federal subsidies.
But the IRS, in violation of the plain language of the law, has allowed the granting of subsidies to people obtaining insurance through federal exchanges. A reversal could mean a loss of subsidies for participants in 36 states, where consumers would see immediate and massive rate hikes.
The brief charges IRS regulations “are part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to rewrite or suspend portions of [the law], in violation of the separation of powers.”
“This is another example of the executive overreach of the president,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “The IRS regulations in place are the most egregious example of the administration’s make-it-up-as-we-go approach to implementing Obamacare.”
The regulations, he said, “eviscerate Obamacare’s goal of encouraging state participation and promote the federalization of this nation’s health care in direct contravention of Congress’ intent.”
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/supremes-asked-long-will-let-obama-make/
26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other members of his diplomatic mission, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and U.S. embassy security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in the attack on Benghazi. (Photos: Wikimedia Commons)
It neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”
It specifically states that it is not the final word on Benghazi.
Yet national press outlets claimed all of the above about the House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi released on Nov. 21.
>>> This is a Daily Signal news analysis. See more of Sharyl Attkisson’s reporting.
Subscribe to updates and alerts
The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,” though many of the administration’s versions of events have been discredited or proven incorrect.
USA Today portrayed the report as a sweeping effort that “cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and the Associated Press claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials,” though it didn’t examine most aspects of the administration’s actions regarding Benghazi. For example, the committee did not attempt to dissect White House actions or decision-making. And it did not generally “assess State Department or Defense Department activities” (page 4).
What the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on a narrow slice of Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report largely defends the CIA.
It is nothing more or less than another in a series of compartmentalized investigations into the Benghazi debacle.
The House Armed Services Committee focused on actions of the Pentagon, largely serving to defend military interests. The Accountability Review Board focused on actions of the State Department, though it chose not to interview some key players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi late on Sept. 11, 2012. (Photo: Getty Images/Newscom)
Each investigation occurred over a different time period amid two years of evolving accounts by Obama administration officials as new information filled in blanks or contradicted previous, official accounts. In some instances, investigations produced findings that contradicted one another or documentary evidence.
And no single investigation on Benghazi to date has heard from all relevant witnesses or had full access to complete information.
So why did some in the news media adopt the spin of Democrats such as Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff, who claimed the report “completely vindicated” the White House?
Some media even used the charged language of the Obama administration, disparaging those investigating the many contradictions and unanswered questions as “conspiracy theorists.”
The Accountability Review Board focused on actions of the State Department, though it chose not to interview some key players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.(Photo: Olivier Douliery/Newscom)
The Huffington Post claimed the Intelligence Committee report “torched conspiracy theories.” AP and USA Today claimed it “debunked a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies.” Slate likewise stated that the committee had “debunked Benghazi conspiracies.”
The articles advance limited and sometimes inaccurate representations of the committee report. They fail to acknowledge the countless documented instances in which the Obama administration provided false or conflicting information about Benghazi, and hid information entirely from public view.
At times, the committee report—as it defends the intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
1) The committee concluded, “the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi.” Yet security was insufficient to prevent terrorists from overrunning the CIA Annex, killing two of the four Americans who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2012.
2) The committee found “no evidence” of a “stand down order.” But that is at direct odds with testimony from some eyewitnesses. Three security operators stated they were given a “stand down” order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
3) The committee appeared to focus on technical utterance of the words “stand down” and “order” rather than the spirit of the allegation: that willing responders were delayed or prevented from providing urgent help. For example, the committee acknowledged that CIA Annex team members “wanted urgently to depart the Annex” to “save their State Department colleagues” but that the chief of base in Benghazi “ordered the team to wait” to assess the situation (page 21). Also, the committee didn’t address the case of the Foreign Emergency Support Team in the United States, which began “packing its bags” to respond to Benghazi, only to have the State Department block its deployment.
National Intelligence Director James Clapper (Photo: Pete Marovich/Newscom)
4) The committee found “no evidence” of “denial of available air support” and stated that, “the CIA received all military support that was available” (page 24). But testimony provided earlier to the House Armed Services Committee acknowledged that the military could have launched an F-16 fighter jet and decided against it.
“The mentality of everybody was, [launching an F-16] doesn’t make sense. … Now, in hindsight, 20/20, we know that there was another attack at 5:15 in the morning,” U.S. Africa Command General Carter Ham previously testified.
In addition, the president’s principle military adviser, Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, previously acknowledged in testimony to another congressional committee that military aircraft could have buzzed the hostile Benghazi crowd to try to scatter it.
“So there is a potential you could have flown a show of force and made everyone aware that there was a fighter airborne,” Roberson conceded to the House Armed Services Committee.
Further, there were U.S. military assets in Djibouti that remained untapped. A former U.S. ambassador to East Africa stated, “The [Benghazi] compound was under siege for almost nine hours. The distance of 1,900 miles is within the range of the ‘combat ready’ F-15s, AC-130s and special forces.”
5) The committee found “no evidence of an intelligence failure.” Yet there was obviously an intelligence failure, since terrorists bearing heavy arms and rocket-propelled grenades preplanned and successfully executed multiple attacks on the Benghazi compound and Annex.
Another intelligence failure documented by the committee is the flawed analysis by a Washington, D.C.-based CIA officer who reportedly convinced Morell to advance the YouTube video narrative even though the CIA station chief on the ground in Libya had said that was not the case.
6) The committee accepted Morell’s claim that the talking points were not on the agenda of a Sept. 15, 2012, White House Deputies Committee meeting prior to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s advancing the incorrect spontaneous protest narrative on Sunday TV talk shows (page 29). However, internal emails show that Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes specifically convened the meeting to discuss various agencies’ disputes about the talking points.
Michael Morell, acting director of the CIA, arrives at a closed briefing Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2012, in Washington, D.C, concerning the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/Newscom)
7) The committee accepted Morell’s testimony that changes to the talking points were “in no way due to White House political influence” and were just “a reflection of how little we knew at the time” (page 30). However, documents show the State Department had voluminous information about terrorist links and had already notified Libya, in no uncertain terms, that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible for the attacks.
Though the Washington Post claimed the committee’s findings were “broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of events,” they differed in many substantive respects.
1) The Obama administration initially claimed no security requests were denied. But the committee confirmed the State Department repeatedly denied security requests (page 16).
2) The Obama administration initially claimed there was “a robust American security presence inside the compound, including a strong component of regional security officers.” But the committee found there was a handful of State Department diplomatic security agents who were apparently unarmed when attacked.
3) The Obama administration repeatedly blamed the attacks on a mob motivated by a YouTube video and initially claimed there was no meaningful evidence of terrorist involvement. But the committee stated that all of the Obama administration officials interviewed “knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts” (page 25).
4) The Obama administration initially claimed, in March 2013, that government press officials made no changes to the Benghazi talking points. But the committee found that CIA public affairs officials made three critical changes to the talking points (page 30).
President Barack Obama talks with Ben Rhodes. (Photo: Amanda Lucidon/The White House
5) Morell initially claimed he had no idea who changed the Benghazi talking points. But the committee confirmed that Morell was directly involved in making and overseeing key talking points changes to remove mention of terrorism and al Qaeda.
6) The Obama administration initially claimed the attacks were an outgrowth of protests. But the committee found “there was no protest” (page 2).
Although USA Today claimed the committee “cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing,” the actual report makes numerous references to administration officials doing things wrong.
1) The committee confirmed that the Obama administration’s public narrative blaming the attacks on a YouTube video was “not fully accurate.”
2) The committee stated that the process to develop the inaccurate talking points was “flawed” and “mistakes were made.”
3) The committee found that Morell wrongfully relied on his incorrect analyst in Washington, D.C., instead of his correct chief of station in Libya, who explicitly stated the attacks were “not spurred by local protests” (page 27).
Furthermore, the “Additional Views” appendix to the committee report, submitted by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and three other Republicans, found the following:
4) Morell “operated beyond his role as CIA deputy director and inserted himself into a policy-making and public-affairs role” when he removed references to terrorism from the talking points (Appendix 1, page 7).
5) Morell provided testimony that was “at times inconsistent and incomplete” (Appendix 1, page 7).
6) The Obama administration failed to exert “sufficient effort to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice” (Appendix 1, page 8).
7) The Obama administration’s response to the attacks was marred by “inadequate interagency coordination” and “devoted inadequate resources to this effort and lacked a sense of urgency” (Appendix 1, page 8).
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Newscom)
8) Senior State Department officials, including then-Secretary Clinton, placed U.S. personnel “at unnecessary risk” by dismissing “repeated threat warnings” and denying requests for additional security (page 2).
9) Senior U.S. officials perpetuated the “YouTube” narrative that “matched the administration’s misguided view that the United States was nearing a victory” over al-Qaeda.
10) The administration’s “failed policies continue to undermine the national security interests” of the United States.
11) There was a “failure of senior U.S. officials to provide for the defense of U.S. interests against a known and growing terrorist threat.”
12) The State Department “failed to provide sufficient security for its facility in Benghazi” (page 3).
13) The Obama administration perpetuated a “false view of the terrorist threat” that “did not comport with the facts” (page 4).
Missing the Mark
Even as some news reports stated that Republicans had in essence “exonerated” the Obama administration on all counts, Chairman Rogers attempted to correct the mischaracterizations.
In an op-ed published Dec. 10, Rogers stated, “Some have said the report exonerates the State Department and White House. It does not.”
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
He went on to state that his committee looked only at narrow questions as they pertain to the intelligence community. For that reason, he said, the committee did not interview key eyewitnesses from the Department of Defense and the State Department.
It remains unclear how so much news reporting could miss the mark as far as it did.
One news article claimed the Intelligence Committee report concluded Rice innocently relied on bad intelligence on Sept. 16 when she advanced the spontaneous protest. Yet the actual report clearly states that the committee has no idea what the White House communicated to Rice before she presented the talking points.
A news article unequivocally stated that “it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call” on the nature of the attacks. Yet the report is clear that it did not examine the role of political appointees or figures in the White House, State Department or Defense Department.
In reporting on the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi report, numerous news outlets headlined that there have been seven investigations on Benghazi and that an eighth is underway—the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. (second from right), chairs the first public hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The implication is that Benghazi has been more than thoroughly examined and those who support continued inquiry are beating a dead horse.
Indeed, eight investigations might be overkill if each had been comprehensive and duplicative, and had turned up no new information. But each has uncovered new facts or different versions of facts as Obama administration accounts have continue to evolve.
The necessity of further investigation isn’t a function of how many probes have been held, but of their depth and quality as well as the contradictions unearthed and the quantity of outstanding questions. In those respects, one could easily argue there haven’t yet been enough investigations into Benghazi.
Obama Will Shut Border Agency To Aid Illegals
President Barack Obama will block 2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security if Republicans includes spending curbs on the president’s executive amnesty, says a top aide.
Check it out:
That amnesty action includes the award of work permits, drivers’ licenses, Social Security cards and tax rebates to at least four million illegal immigrants, despite the wage-cutting surplus of American workers in Obama’s economy.
The adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, told a Huffington Post interviewer Dec. 29 that the president would “absolutely not” sign a 2015 spending bill that would include limits on amnesty spending.
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/35766/obama-will-shut-border-agency-aid-illegals-says-aide/
Can Liberals Really Be this Stupid? Apparently they Can by David L. Goetsch
I have grown accustomed to the fact that liberals believe they can somehow change human nature and create a utopian world or, at least, a world that fits their definition of utopia. Although I still find it disturbing, I no longer find it surprising that liberals base their opinions and actions on emotionalism rather than logic or reason. A steadfast refusal to let facts get in the way of their presuppositions seems to be in the DNA of liberals, yet they think they are brighter than anyone else. For example, recall when Jonathan Gruber, the puffed up academic from MIT, talked condescendingly about the stupidity of the America public. Frankly, if he had limited his denunciation to just liberals, I might have agreed with him.
Before going any farther down this road, a caveat is in order. If you are put off by my use of the word “stupid” in the title of this column, understand that I spent a good deal of time trying to come up with a softer descriptor. For example, I tried the word “ignorant,” but it did not work because ignorance is just a lack of knowledge that can be cured through reading, listening to those who are more informed on the subject in question, discussing, debating, and keeping an open mind. Since liberals are steadfastly opposed to reading, listening, discussing, and debating with an open mind, “ignorance” failed the test of applicability. So did “illogical,” “unreasonable,” “fact-averse,” and “uninformed.” Finally, I settled on the word “stupid” because it conveys just the right meaning: a determination to continue doing the wrong things even when you know they are wrong simply because you want them to be right. Now that is stupid.
All of this is to say I am rarely shocked or even surprised when a prominent liberal says or does something that is just plain stupid. At least I shouldn’t be surprised, but then liberals have a way of outdoing themselves in the dumb and dumber department. Consequently, even though I am inured to the illogic, lack of reason, and aversion to facts that so often characterize liberal thinking, there are still occasions when I find myself asking, “Can liberals really be this stupid?”
Conservative columnist George Will refers to the fact-challenged ravings and out-of-leftfield actions of liberals as “poppycock,” a less confrontational, more refined descriptor than my term: “stupid.” However, even though I admire Will’s commentary, he is—in this case—letting liberals off the hook too easily by toning down his rhetoric. In a recent column, the conservative commentator shared a long list of examples of what he called liberal “poppycock”; examples he might have more accurately labeled liberal stupidity. In this column, I add my own comments on a few of the examples Wills offered his readers.
In California, a high school principal denied the school’s booster club permission to raise money by selling meals donated by Chick-fil-A because the restaurant chain supports traditional marriage. The principal was supported in his decision by the school superintendent who claimed “we value inclusivity and diversity.” Oh really? Then what about including the overwhelming majority of your student body and fans who support Chick-fil-A’s position or at least support its First Amendment right to hold such a position? If these two politically correct—Perhaps I should say “stupid”—administrators really valued diversity, they would not ban Chick-fil-A on the basis of its point of view. After all, embracing diversity means not just tolerating a variety of different views, but ensuring exposure to a variety of views; especially those you disagree with.
Here was an excellent opportunity for two so-called educators to turn a situation into a civics lesson on the real meaning of diversity and inclusiveness, but these two administrators are apparently so steeped in political correctness that they squandered the opportunity. Rather than teaching students that diversity means respectfully embracing differences, the principal and superintendent in this case taught them that diversity and inclusiveness mean banning all but the approved, politically correct points of view. Don’t look now Mr. Principal and Mr. Superintendent, but that’s what they do in communist nations and other totalitarian states. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
By now readers of my columns know all about the fracas over the use of “Redskins” for the name of the Washington, D.C. NFL team. Liberals in and out of government are incensed that the team continues to use this non-PC name (although surveys show that American Indians are not bothered by it). The Obama administration has even used the power of the federal government in an attempt to coerce the franchise into discarding the name “Redskins.” Understand that this is the same federal government that spends billions of dollars procuring Tomahawk cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. Further, this is the President who approved the name Geronimo for the mission in which Osama bin Laden was finally brought to justice. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
One of the best or perhaps I should say worst examples of liberal stupidity comes from the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), an organization that advocates for a $20 per hour minimum wage. According to George Will, the FSP recently advertised a job opening for a Web developer. The starting wage was $13 per hour. This was not just a proof-reading error. Apparently the FSP sees no irony in advocating that every other organization be required to pay a $20 per hour minimum wage while it pays substantially less. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
As good (or bad) an example as this one is, even the FSP cannot hold a candle to Vice-President Joe Biden when it comes to making embarrassingly inane comments. Biden makes so many foot-in-mouth gaffes that they are hard to keep up with, but his referring to Africa as a “nation” rather than a continent ranks high on the list of his top-ten most stupid comments. Close behind the “Africa” comment was Biden’s recent statement about the victims of the devastating 2011 tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri. According to our fact-challenged vice-president, 161,000 were killed. Obviously no math major, the vice-president was off by a mere 160, 839 people. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
One final example comes from California Governor Jerry Brown. Apparently the governor buys the liberal party line on global warming. Concerned that global warming is going to cause a four-foot rise in the Pacific Ocean, Governor Brown fretted that the Los Angeles International Airport would one day be under water. Actually, LAX is more than 120 feet above sea level. Global warming notwithstanding, California’s math-challenged governor need not worry. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/can-liberals-really-stupid-apparently-can/
SCALLYWAGS: Here’s A List of Companies Who Fund Sharpton’s Race War
Posted on December 30, 2014
If you hate Sharpton’s non-sense then you might wanna hit these companies in the wallet… where it hurts.
Here is a list of some of the companies that support the Rev:
- General Motors
- Daimler Chrysler
- Johnson & Johnson
- American Honda
- Hawkins Food Group
ANTI-GUN RAHM EMANUEL’S YARD SIGN WARNS BURGLARS THAT HE HAS ARMED SECRET SERVICE. Patriot Outdoor news.
Do as I say not as I do syndrome.
Chicago Mayor and gun-control advocate Rahm Emanuel is protected in his home at all hours of the day and night by armed policemen, and a sign outside his house warns would-be burglars that armed Secret Service agents are standing guard.
After Emanuel’s son was robbed outside the mayor’s home last weekend, a Fox 32 news report stated that Emanuel, a member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has 24/7 protection from the Chicago Police Department.
A sign outside the Emanuel home also informs trespassers that the mayor has Secret Service protection. It appears that Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff, still has this sign up outside of his house, according to a screenshot (Note: mayors don’t get Secret Service):
Read more at http://patriotoutdoornews.com/12559/anti-gun-rahm-emanuels-yard-sign-warns-burglars-armed-secret-service
Krauthammer Hits Scalise ‘Double Standard’: Obama ‘Didn’t Just Wander Into’ Rev. Wright’s Church Once [VIDEO]
Chiming in on the recent issues ailing Rep. Steve Scalise Tuesday night, columnist Charles Krauthammer lashed out at the media’s “double standard,” saying Scalise’s association to David Duke and President Obama’s history with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “aren’t even comparable.”(RELATED: Steve Scalise Regrets Speech To David Duke Group: ‘It Was A Mistake I Regret’)
Krauthammer told “Special Report” guest host Ed Henry that “Obama became didn’t just wander into Jeremiah Wright’s church one time,” but rather that “he sat in it for 22 years as the man, who is a racist, raved about America and about 9/11 being chickens coming home.”
The conservative commentator added that while it’s “implausible” that Scalise didn’t know who Duke or his group were, there is no “shred of evidence” that anything resembling “racism, hostility, or “ill will” has happened in the 12 intervening years.
KRAUTHAMMER: ”It’s the worst timing, and if Scalise wanted to make it easy for the party, he would step down in leadership. Nobody is demanding that he leave Congress or that his career is over. It would probably be seen as a temporary step. It wouldn’t be a life sentence. I think he would be eligible to return to leadership, but he didn’t and the House Speaker now is behind him and he’s stuck with him. Look, this happened 12 years ago. It is possible, but implausible that he really didn’t know who these guys were. After all, the name of the organization is the Euro-American Unity and Rights Organization. Pretty clear.”
“The reason is that the time in between, Robert Byrd has acted indecently, he reached out, he obviously has changed his views. The key question here is not just that this happened 12 years ago, but as far as I can tell, there is not a shred of evidence that there is anything in the intervening 12 years which would indicate any evidence of racism, hostility or ill will or anything of this nature. Which means it is just a single event 12 years aho. Given the absence of anything else in the 12 years, I think it’s a pretty drastic thing to demand that he step down.”
“I think that Steve [Hayes] is right, that there is a double standard. Obama became didn’t just wander into Jeremiah Wright’s church one time 12 years ago. He sat in it for 22 years as the man who is a racist raved about America and about 9/11 being chickens coming home … These aren’t even comparable.”
“I do think as a political issue, Scalise might have just stepped aside. But given that he hasn’t, the Republicans are stuck with this, which is unfortunate. They’re going to get hit over this a few times, but I can’t see how they change their minds now.”
ALLEN WEST: Quite Possibly The Most Racist Article You Will Ever Read
Check it out. Is it or is it not the most racist article you ever read?
Every now and then you come across an article that folks just need to read. This one written by Michael Smith entitled, “Confessions of a Public Defender” and originally posted at American Renaissance on May 9, 2014 is one of those articles.
It is a profound and deeply disturbing piece, which, as we end 2014, we all need to comprehend as we move towards the 50th anniversary of the Great Society initiatives of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Smith articulates that which ails the black community — the real discussion we should be having on race, not that of victimhood and the further expansion of the welfare nanny-state.
He begins by saying, “I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.”
“I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.”
He presents his observations based on his personal experience with black defendants, and his words will no doubt inflame many:
My experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
It will take you only 5 minutes to read this article — and I would bet you’ll read it again. Then ask yourself, is this something you hear Al Sharpton addressing? Or President Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson or Jesse Jackson?
I’m quite sure the progressive socialist left will criticize me for sharing this article – that’s just who they are – they hate the truth. But if there is a war to be fought, it is for the soul of the inner city and the black community. The facts and observations in this are not shocking to me. They are quite well known, but the manner in which the writer so eloquently presents them is quite commendable. Read more at allenbwest.com
CNN CLOSES 2014 WITH ALL-TIMELOW RATING. by JOHN NOLTE
Playing “Twilight Zone” with a missing airliner and spreading lies to gin up riots in the predominantly black, working class city of Ferguson did absolutely nothing to stop CNN’s freefall in the ratings. Under Jeff Zucker, 2014 was nothing short of a catastrophe for the left-wing cable network.
2014 was the year of false narratives at CNN, and because no one likes to be lied to, viewers went elsewhere.
According to Deadline, during the all-important primetime hours, CNN’s total viewers hit an all-time low. With the even more-important news demo (viewers aged 25-54) in primetime, CNN hit its second-lowest level ever. In total day viewers, CNN again collapsed to an all-time low in the news demo.
Zucker’s unspoken but obvious decision to turn CNN into a hard-left network obsessedwith race-baiting, identity politics, and heartless, mean-girl Palin-bashing mixed with Christian-bashing has backfired spectacularly.
CNN just cut 8% of its total staff, allowing Zucker to claim that CNN is “in our best shape .. financially.” He can also boast that CNN is in second place to MSNBC, but MSNBC is imploding in its own very special way with a loss of 17% of news demo viewers, compared to CNN’s loss of 1%. Fox News increased its already considerable news demo viewership a full 3%.
Zucker claimed that CNN ended the year “solidly in second place,” which sounds pretty great until you look at the actual numbers. CNN’s barely ahead of MSNBC in 3 of 4 areas, and lost to MSNBC in total primetime viewers.
Meanwhile, without breaking a sweat and for the 13th year in a row, Fox News is dominating both of its left-wing competitors.
2014 total day viewers — total and news demo viewers, respectively:
Fox News: 1,052,000 – 214,000
CNN: 399,000 – 126,000
MSNBC: 347,000 – 108,000
2014 primetime viewers — total and news demo viewers, respectively:
Fox News: 1,756,000 – 301,000
CNN: 516,000 – 181,000
MSNBC: 590,000 – 169,000
Por la importancia del articulo Reprodicucimos el anterior reporte al Espanol:
La CNN Cerro el 2014 Con el mas bajo recors de su historia. by JOHN NOLTE
Reproducción de “Twilight Zone” con un avión de pasajeros desaparecidos y difundir mentiras a ginebra hasta disturbios en el predominantemente negro, trabajando ciudad de clase de Ferguson no hizo absolutamente nada para detener la caída libre de la CNN en las votaciones. Bajo Jeff Zucker, 2014 era nada menos que una catástrofe para la red de cable de izquierdas.
2014 fue el año de los falsos relatos en CNN, y porque a nadie le gusta que le mientan, los espectadores fueron a otra parte.
De acuerdo con Deadline, durante las horas de horario estelar de suma importancia, el total de televidentes de CNN alcanzaron un mínimo histórico. Con la demostración de noticias aún más importante (los espectadores 25-54 años de edad), en horario estelar, CNN llegó a su segundo nivel más bajo jamás. En el total de televidentes día, CNN se derrumbó de nuevo a su punto más bajo en la demo noticias.
Tácita pero obvia la decisión de Zucker para convertir a CNN en una obsessedwith red raza-hostigamiento de extrema izquierda, las políticas de identidad, y sin corazón, media-girl Palin-bashing mezclado con Cristiano-bashing ha fracasado espectacularmente.
CNN acaba de cortar el 8% de su plantilla total, permitiendo Zucker para afirmar que CNN está “en nuestra mejor forma .. financieramente”. También puede presumir de que CNN está en segundo lugar con MSNBC, pero MSNBC está haciendo implosión a su manera muy especial con una pérdida de 17% de los espectadores de noticias de demostración, en comparación con la pérdida de la CNN de 1%. Fox News aumentó su ya considerable demostración noticias teleaudiencia una completa 3%.
Zucker dijo que CNN ha cerrado el año “sólidamente en segundo lugar”, que suena bastante bien hasta que nos fijamos en los números reales. CNN es apenas supera a MSNBC en 3 de 4 zonas, y perdió a MSNBC en el total de espectadores en horario estelar.
Mientras tanto, sin romper a sudar y por el año 13 en una fila, Fox News está dominando tanto de sus competidores de izquierda.
2.014 espectadores totales días – el total de televidentes y noticias de demostración, respectivamente:
Fox News: 1052000 – 214 000
CNN: 399,000 – 126,000
MSNBC: 347000 – 108000
2.014 espectadores en horario estelar – el total de televidentes y noticias de demostración, respectivamente:
Fox News: 1756000 – 301 000
CNN: 516000 – 181000
MSNBC: 590000 – 169000
BOEHNER ALLY STEVE SCALICE ROCKED BY WHITE SUPREMACI SCANDAL.
A member of John Boehner’s inner circle is under fire even as the House Speaker is at his most vulnerable: Exactly one week before the House GOP’s top official will seek re-election to his post.
“Every member who votes for John Boehner is vulnerable because not only is he unpopular with the base after his lame duck deception, but now he’s exposing members to the results of his poor judgement,” a senior GOP aide told Breitbart News after news broke Monday from the Washington Post and local Louisiana sources that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise spoke at a conference of white supremacists back in 2002.
“Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white nationalist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers,” the Washington Post’s Robert Costawrote late Monday. “The 48-year-old Scalise, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post earlier this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. That organization, founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
Scalise is Boehner’s second lieutenant, serving right beneath House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. His scandal could put pressure on every Republican member who voted for him for whip. It also, that senior GOP aide said, shows Boehner and McCarthy are weak leaders because they either failed to properly vet Scalise or they withheld information about his past.
“Boehner’s cronies not only backed Scalise for whip but they also backed him for RSC chair,” the aide said, indicating that Boehner and McCarthy should have done their due diligence before supporting someone like Scalise for the whip job.
The irony is that several establishment Republicans, including National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brad Dayspring, pushed the idea this past electoral cycle that establishment Republicans are better vetted than Conservative types. He pointed to Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle from 2012 as examples.
Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz tells Breitbart News the Scalise story—coupled with the resignation from the House of Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) in New York following his guilty plea to a tax evasion charge—is proof that the GOP establishment narrative is baseless.
“It’s ironic that this latest scandal is brought to us by the same people who claim conservatives cannot win elections because they have not been properly vetted,” Horowitz said in an email. “Coupled with Michael Grimm, the establishment has created gratuitous vulnerabilities in the party at a time when the Democrats should be the ones on the ropes.”
O’Donnell, who won the 2010 GOP nomination in Delaware for U.S. Senate over then Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), infamously had to defend herself from allegations she practiced witchcraft—something her old television appearances fueled.
This year in Mississippi, though, it was establishment incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran who had a questionable background. During his primary against state Sen. Chris McDaniel, Cochran faced concerns over taxpayer-funded world travels with his longtime aide, problems with his short-term memory and questionable comments he made about farm animals. In the end, Cochran won the primary and swept to victory in deep-red Mississippi.
Nonetheless, all that talk from GOP establishment figures about vetting GOP candidates could come back to bite them in a big way as the repercussions for Scalise’s actions sort themselves out. This scandal gives conservatives a major weapon against the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party should that talking point come out again. “I am not a witch is nothing to compared to I am not a KKK member,” that first senior GOP aide joked to Breitbart News.
A second GOP congressional aide, when asked about Scalise’s performance in the leadership role, told Breitbart News: “Well he seemed like another Boehner stooge so far.”
“Scalise is clearly in the camp of the corporatist wing of the party that needs to be taken down,” that second GOP aide added.
At this point, there hasn’t been much of a serious effort to take down Boehner—at least not as there was at the beginning of the last Congress. But the Scalise news could change everything, a handful of connected House GOP aides told Breitbart News late Monday. That’s not to say there is definitely going to be another coup attempt, but small pockets of resistance to Boehner that formed over the past two years thanks to his immigration stances and especially thanks to his pushing through the cromnibus spending bill are now emboldened in the wake of this crippling news to this still-young GOP leadership team.
Scalise didn’t take over as GOP whip until the middle of 2014. He moved over from the chairmanship of the Republican Study Committee after then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was upset in a primary in June by now-Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). Cantor was replaced in the number two slot by McCarthy, and Scalise beat out Reps. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Peter Roskam (R-IL) for the whip position.
Scalise came under fire during the battle over the so-called “cromnibus,” a 1,774-page $1.1 trillion spending bill that Boehner forced through Congress with Obama’s help right after the midterm elections during the lame duck session of Congress. After Breitbart News reported that Scalise was in political trouble back home for his role in getting the cromnibus—which funds, in its entirety, President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty—passed through Congress by whipping votes for it, former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin highlighted his political woes on her Facebook page. She has more than four million followers.
“GOP leaders already going wobbly, hoping us peons won’t notice,” Palin wrote, providing a link to the Breitbart News story raising the possibility of a primary challenge against Scalise from retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness.
Maness was a U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana’s jungle primary, campaigning against both now Senator-elect Bill Cassidy and outgoing Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. Maness shocked the political world in Louisiana and nationally, garnering some 200,000 votes statewide with hardly any national help outside the endorsement of Palin. Maness could be even more emboldened to make a move at Scalise now, given the vulnerabilities he’s showing both in Washington and back home in Louisiana. The knives are out for Scalise behind the scenes, and Boehner and McCarthy are both not defending him publicly.
Maness, who would presumably be ready to fill Scalise’s congressional seat should this scandal force his regignation, lives in Scalise’s district. He just launched the hybrid Political Action Committee (PAC) Gator PAC after campaigning for Cassidy against Landrieu. In addition to newly-formed alliances with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter—the likely next governor of the state—Maness and Cassidy have since made amends.
During the campaign, Maness showed he’s willing to criticize fellow Republicans when he perceives them to be wrong on race. When Cassidy said that Harry Reid’s Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate was “like a plantation,” Maness ripped the term as “incredibly offensive to many Americans” and called on Cassidy to “immediately apologize.” Maness also made minority outreach in black communities across Louisiana a major plank of his campaign by publicly supporting the Redeem Act from Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), something that would help those caught up in the criminal justice system reintegrate into society.
To mark his enthusiastic support for the Paul-Booker bill, Maness toured Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary to learn more about rehabilitation of inmates post-incarceration.
“Angola has some of the most progressive rehabilitation programs in the nation for non-violent offenders,” the Times-Picayune’s Cole Avery wrote about Maness’ Angola prison tour. “Maness visited a class where a group of about 20 inmates learned about air conditioners so they can get jobs when their sentences are up. It’s a program near to Maness’ believes that anyone can succeed with hard work and personal responsibility.”
There’s also talk in Louisiana that Maness may fill Vitter’s Senate seat when he steps down after presumably winning the governor’s election later in 2015. But since Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), another hardcore conservative, is also definitely in the running for the Senate seat as well—and with Scalise’s woes—Maness may change course and go for Scalise’s House seat, something that would avoid an intra-conservative battle between Maness and Fleming.
Making matters murkier is the fact that calls for Scalise’s resignation are beginning, even though several major Republicans are, so far, publicly backing him up.
“Rep. Scalise should resign his leadership post,” Peter Wehner, an Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow and former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, Tweeted. “The party of Lincoln shouldn’t have as its #3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention.”
“If Scalise doesn’t resign, then @GOP members should be asked why they would continue to serve as members of his caucus. Seriously,” conservative strategist Jimmy LaSalviaadded.
“I don’t think Scalise should resign over this. He should resign over the lame duck betrayal over obama’s amnesty. And we should #FireBoehner,” the Conservative Review’s Horowitzadded via Twitter.
Two different spokespersons for Scalise have not responded to a request for comment from Breitbart News in response to the calls for Scalise’s resignation from leadership and from Congress. “A career-on-the-line test for Scalise in the coming days: does his base crack or can he hold on?” the Post’s Costa Tweeted, summarizing the calamity in leadership right now.
Even Scalise himself, however, seemed unsure if he would walk away from this scandal unscathed and job intact. “At the end of the day, you are judged by your character,” he saidwhen asked by the Times-Picayune on Monday night if he’s concerned this will affect his position in leadership. “And look, I’m proud of my record of working to help people throughout my years of public service. Whether they have the same political philosophy as me or not, I work hard to help all people.”
Some top Republicans, ranging from Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, defended Scalise.
“This is an absurdity,” Gingrich said in statement defending Scalise and attacking reporters for pursuing the story. “Twelve years ago Scalise made a mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget.”
“Scalise will remain whip and he will do a good job for all Americans,” Gingrich added.
Peter King said that Scalise has “no bias or bigotry,” and stood by him in an interview with the Post’s Costa. Steve King stood by Scalise, too, saying: “Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners… I know [Steve’s] heart.”
From the left, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) attacked Scalise, saying this episode “raises serious questions about the judgment of an elected official.”
But Castro’s fellow Democrat and Scalise’s fellow Louisianan, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)—a member of the Congressional Black Caucus—defended Scalise. “I don’t think he has a racist bone in his body,” Richmond said.
Richmond’s support for Scalise came without the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus, however, as CBC vice chairwoman Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) called on Boehner to investigate Scalise.
“It is my hope that Speaker Boehner will do a thorough investigation into the circumstances involved in Congressman Scalise’s participation with the organization and reassure all members that his leadership has not been compromised by an affiliation with such an organization,” Clark said.
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson laid into Scalise, too, saying via Twitter: “How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?” Erickson is guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio program on Tuesday, and hinted via Twitter that this storyline will be a major focus of the show. Nonetheless, the chaos in the political world over this—with unusual alliances forming on both sides of Scalise—does Boehner no favors heading into the all-important speakership vote next week.
Top aides to Boehner and McCarthy haven’t responded to a detailed set of questions from Breitbart News about whether they vetted Scalise before letting him into their inner circle in leadership, or what they knew and when they knew it about this incident. But according to Costa, all of GOP leadership—Scalise’s office, and Boehner’s and McCarthy’s teams—are terrified right now.
“Boehner, McCarthy mum. But people close to them both are nervous. This came out of left field. Privately, mounting concern,” Costa Tweeted.
“The scene inside House GOP right now, based on dozens of calls and e-mails tonight: wait and see,” Costa added in another Tweet.
“Boehner, McCarthy said to be monitoring press coverage of Scalise, but so far no comment, per GOP aides,” Costa said in yet another Tweet.
To make matters worse for GOP leadership, in addition to the several inconsistencies in Scalise’s story, the incident has propelled a conversation about race in GOP politics—rather than the direction of the country under President Obama—to the front of the political world heading into the first days of the new Congress. Perhaps even more shocking than that to Boehner and company is now thanks to these revelations, David Duke—a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan—is now elevated into the political narrative, a disastrous situation for a Republican Party looking to govern as it gains official control over all of Congress for the first time since before Obama took the oval office.
Duke actually did an interview with the Washington Post, in which he said about Scalise: “I’ve certainly met him. He’s a nice guy.”
“[Scalise] says he didn’t realize what the conference was. I don’t know if he did or did not,” Duke added in his interview with Costa.
Duke followed up with the Washington Post later in the evening as well, saying in a second interview with Costa that his campaign manager Kenny Knight and Scalise were personally close. “Scalise did communicate a lot with my campaign manager, Kenny Knight,” Duketold the Post, adding that was “why he was invited” to the white supremacist conference in 2002.
When Duke was asked what Scalise and his confidante Knight discussed regularly, he told the Post they talked about “Hollywood system, about war” and that Scalise “was just a state rep then.” Federal Election Commission (FEC) records indicate that Duke’s campaign manager donated at least $1,000 to Scalise’s campaign as recently as 2008, something Costa flagged late Monday night noting that Duke confirmed the address listed on the FEC records for a “Kenneth Knight” $1,000 donation to Scalise in 2008 was indeed that of his campaign manager’s.
Scalise spokeswoman Moira Bagley didn’t deny that her boss spoke to the white supremacist group run by David Duke in 2002, but simply said her boss was, in the words of Costa, “unaware at the time of the group’s ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists.”
“Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints,” Bagley said to the Washington Post. “In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families.”
“He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question,” Bagley added. “The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic.”
Costa cited other anonymous Scalise aides who he wrote “argued that Scalise was poorly staffed during the period, when he was busy touring the state promoting his efforts to curb state spending.”
“Scalise’s aides said due to the unavailability of Scalise’s schedule from that year, they did not have details to share about his appearance or remarks, but said he was a frequent speaker at a variety of events at that hotel—a hotspot for New Orleans-area conventions,” Costa wrote.
But, as Costa reported, local press clippings from the timeframe indicate that Scalise was either complete oblivious to what was going on in his community—or he’s being misleading about not knowing now.
“The Gambit Weekly, an alternative publication in New Orleans, wrote days before the conference that the hotel distanced itself from Duke’s group and expressed its discomfort,” Costa wrote, adding that: “The Iowa Cubs, a minor-league baseball team, also told the Gambit Weekly that they were concerned about housing their players, which included several African-Americans, at that hotel while traveling to Louisiana.”
In addition, Roll Call’s Niels Lesnewski discovered an old interview from 1999 in his publication—three years before the 2002 David Duke conference that Scalise is now facing fire for—in which Scalise admitted he knew who David Duke was, and seemed to support some of his policies. Duke was considering a run for the first congressional district U.S. House seat that Scalise now holds, and Scalise—and now Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)—were other potential candidates. Vitter, then an attorney in Metairie, Louisiana, is quoted first in the story disavowing Duke’s beliefs.
“I honestly think his 15 minutes of fame have come and gone,” Vitter is quoted in the 1999 Roll Call piece, which noted he was “seriously considering” a run for the House seat he eventually won before becoming a U.S. Senator years later, as saying of Duke. “When he’s competed in a field with real conservatives, real Republicans, Duke has not done well at all.”
Then Scalise is quoted as saying, according to Roll Call reporter John Mercurio, as someone who “embraces many of the same ‘conservative’ views as Duke” but painted himself as “far more viable.”
“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” Scalise said at the time. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”
Another defense Scalise used in an on-the-record interview he conducted with his hometown Times-Picayune on Monday evening was that he didn’t have “Google” back in 2002, when this event occurred, so he couldn’t vet the organization.
“There is a lot more vetting that goes into setting my appointments,” Scalise told the paper. “I have a scheduler. I didn’t have a scheduler back then. I was without the advantages of a tool like Google. It’s nice to have those. Those tools weren’t available back then.”
That’s not entirely true. The internet was in full swing by that point, and Google had technically been inn use for years by the time of this event in 2002. There were plenty of other search engines that Scalise could have used to vet the organizations he was speaking at. In addition, as the Roll Call article he had previously been quoted in showed, he knew full well who David Duke was in 1999, and in 2002.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No 838 Diciembre 31, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR