Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Out: Bergdahl deal was an Obama triumph. In: Um, Chuck Hagel did it

Out: Bergdahl deal was an Obama triumph. In: Um, Chuck Hagel did it

Out: Bergdahl deal was an Obama triumph. In: Um, Chuck Hagel did it
The ever-shifting maze of lies and evasions billowing out of the Obama Administration over the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange hits an astonishing new low, as Obama has apparently decided it’s time to hide under his desk and blame Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel for the whole thing.  Thus does a “triumph” become a disaster in the span of less than ten days.  By the end of the week, Obama will be claiming he didn’t learn about the Bergdahl swap until he saw people talking about it on a TV news show.
ABC News spots the white flag poking up from behind the Resolute Desk:
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel – not President Obama – executed the administration’s final call to proceed with the prisoner exchange of five ranking Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, administration officials told Congress today in a classified briefing today.
“They indicated [it was] Secretary Hagel [who made the final call],” House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, told reporters following the briefing Monday evening. “It was the president of the United States that came out [in the Rose Garden] with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there’s been a little pushback he’s moving away from it and it’s Secretary Hagel?”
According to the UK Daily Mail, Secretary Hagel will appear before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday to defend the newly re-christened Hagel Bergdahl Prisoner Swap, which Barack Obama had very little to do with.  He just held a Rose Garden ceremony to announce the deal when Hagel told him the time was right.
Last week’s desperate spin about how he needed to break the law and keep Congress in the dark, because the Taliban said they’d kill their hostage if news of the deal leaked out, was laid to rest in the same briefing:
Officials also told Congress that 80 to 90 people within the administration knew of its plans to go forward with the controversial swap, exacerbating tensions between the White House and members of Congress.
“They made it clear that there were 80 to 90 people who knew ahead of time about the Bergdahl release,” Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on  Intelligence, told reporters. “There was a sense of anger that members of Congress didn’t know about this. Obviously, if there is secure information — members of Congress knew about the capture of Osama bin Laden — and yet 80 to 90 staff in the White House knew about this.”
While Bachmann says administration officials insist no members of Congress were informed before the exchange, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly said he found out about impending plans from the White House the day before the exchange happened.
That’s 80 or 90 people in a fumbling, inept Administration noted for its propensity to leak sensitive information, to the point that a rather oppressive initiative to crack down on leakers was announced last year.  Although the whole “couldn’t tell Congress because they’d kill Bergdahl” fairy tale was already in tatters for a number of other reasons, not least of which was the Taliban talking to media about it.
It would be nice if these clowns could at least admit when they informed Harry Reid… or if Reid is hallucinating his day-before briefing, the White House should publicly recommend that he seek treatment from mental health professionals.  The argument between Team Obama – sorry, make that Team Hagel – and Harry Reid is one of the most bizarre sideshows of the whole Bergdahl circus.  It doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it’s amazing that they can’t get their stories straight, well into the second week of the scandal.
Also in the loop, according to the Weekly Standard: the prison population at Gitmo.
Sources with knowledge of the transfer tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that prisoners at Guantanamo understood in the days before the transfer that something significant was imminent and may well have known who was being transferred. The security profile at Guantanamo had been raised, these sources say, and the daily routines of several prisoners had been broken up.
Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York who has represented detainees, told the Associated Press that the coming transfer was hardly a secret among the prison population. Kassem told the AP that the guards explained the heightened security as cautionary measures taken in advance of a coming hurricane. “The prisoners saw right through that and knew something big was up,” Kassem said. “Within a day or two of the event, everyone knew.”
Well, everyone but Congress.
One of the reasons President Hagel is taking so much heat for this deal is that even Democrats in Congress are anywhere from miffed to furious that they were kept in the dark.  That does give them room to distance themselves from the Hagel Administration, which most of them are doing.  News reports claim Hagel still has staunch defenders in his caucus, but the only ones who ever seem to get quoted are Sen. Reid,  Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois (who’s still running White House talking points from last week, in which all criticism is partisan, and Republicans who criticize the deal are insufficiently concerned about Sgt. Bergdahl’s fate) and Rep. Louise Slaughter, who thinks keeping Congress out of the loop was okay because “I wouldn’t tell 435 people a secret either.”  Presumably she draws the line at 90.
But I get the sense that Democrats up for re-election in 2014 aren’t terribly happy about the distance they can get from the White House on this, because they know the President’s sinking popularity will drag them down no matter how far they run.  Backing away from the White House on this deal also puts them on the wrong side of the scorched-earth defense strategy Obama loyalists are still employing – if you don’t support this deal 100 percent with no reservations, you wanted Sgt. Bergdahl to die – and that’s going to hurt enthusiasm and turnout in key districts.  And it strengthens the public impression of a hapless, dishonest President leading a Democrat Party in turmoil, with endangered representatives jumping for the lifeboats as the S. S. Hope and Change goes down.
CBS News just released a poll that shows Americans disapprove of the Bergdahl deal, 45 to 37 percent – a remarkable level of opposition, given the splashy rollout, the public’s general comfort level with White House lawbreaking, its low opinion of Congress, and the immediate gain (Bergdahl released) versus the potential future drawbacks (more kidnappings, the Taliban Five get up to mischief.)  This thing blew up badly if it’s eight points in the public-opinion hole already.  Disapproval is notably higher among military veterans, who the White House evidently assumed would be most supportive of a deal that brought a prisoner home… but instead, 55 percent disapprove, and 65 percent through releasing those five Taliban big shots was too high of a price.
No wonder President Obama decided to make this Chuck Hagel’s deal.  Everything critics are complaining about, all of the seemingly incomprehensible moves the White House made before and after the deal was announced, were a result of Obama’s determination to take sole credit for bringing that prisoner home.  He didn’t want Congress to freak out over the lousy terms of the arrangement and interfere with the deal, but he also didn’t want them to unite too strongly behind it, and make it less of a Barack Obama Production.  And now the story ends with the Secretary of Defense stepping in front of his boss to take the heat.  What a disaster… and we still haven’t really begun paying the price for it, in everything from reduced international prestige, to increased risk to Americans abroad.
Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reminds us that Secretary Hagel has previously said he recommended the deal, but Obama made the final decision.  It’ll be fun to watch the White House stammer through its answer if they’re called on that discrepancy… but it’ll be even more fun to hear Hagel answer that question, if he gets asked first.  He says amazing things when he’s in the hot seat.

Obama to Republicans: There will be a ‘price to pay’ for defying America

Obama to Republicans: There will be a ‘price to pay’ for defying America


Is…is that a threat from the president? And notice the accompanying media silence from the left.
During a fundraiser over the weekend President Obama told attendees in Miami that the GOP will pay a price for going against the will of the American people. Which is funny, because Obama is really good at going against public opinion (see: approval rating).
White House reporter Keith Koffler initially broke the story, calling it “typical” Obama.
The only way we can continue to place pressure to get that bill done is by making sure that the other side — or at least that small faction on the other side — understands there’s a price to pay when you don’t act on the basis of the interests of the American people. And so that’s something that I hope we can still get done by the end of this year,” Obama said, centering on his failed immigration bill.
“Right now, it’s being held up. It’s being held up not because it’s not a good idea. The majority of the American people support it. It’s being held up because there’s a small faction in the other party that has decided we don’t want to do anything and our main goal is obstruction,” he said.
“And, by the way, if the Republicans decided to pass it — and nobody would be happier than me — even though it would be to their political advantage to do it, because ultimately I’ve run my last election,” Obama said.
No one ever accused President Obama of being modest, but this is borderline delusional. Obamacare currently polls with a 51% opposition rating, Republicans aren’t defying anyone! If anything they’re trying to honor the wishes of most Americans by repealing this destructive law and finding a better solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

House Republicans Vote to Deny Second Amendment Rights to Millions

House Republicans Vote to Deny Second Amendment Rights to Millions

House-of-Representatives-Chambers-In-US-CapitolBY DANA CRISWELL – June 4, 2014
Last week while the NRA was spending their time and our money supporting Thad Cochran and denigrating those of us who supported Chis McDaniel, many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were busy passing more gun-control legislation.
According to Dudley Brown of the National Association of Gun Rights one in three Republicans decided to vote against your rights by supporting Barack Obama’s agenda to label millions of American’s “mentally ill”.  The Obama administration has been successful in denying more over 175,000 of our nations veterans their Second Amendment rights in this manner and are attempting to expand this to every American.
The amendment provids $20 million additional dollars for the federal government to acquire as many private medical records as possible and dump them into a national database.  Once these records are obtained millions of citizens will be labeled mentally ill and denied their right to possess a firearm.
The mental illness threat is largely made up by those seeking to limit our rights and destroy the Second Amendment. In research published by The American Journal of Psychiatry, VOL. 163, No. 8, Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum found through his research that only 5% of those convicted of violent crimes were people who suffered from a mental disorder.
Following his research, Dr. Appelbaum came to two conclusions, First, the proportion of violence that they (people with mental disorders) account for is relatively small, suggesting that the well-documented public perception of the mentally ill as dangerous persons is substantially exaggerated. Secondly, that the disproportionate attention given to their acts of violence by the media and by our elected representatives is unwarranted.
The assault on our rights and the Second Amendment comes from many directions.   The Republicans who followed the lead of the Democrats and voted for this amendment are either allies with Obama in his attempt to destroy our rights or simply not smart enough to understand the real issue.  Either way, they need to be sent home.
Here is the list provided by the National Association of Gun Rights of the Republicans who voted for this amendment:
Alabama
Spencer Bachus III (202) 225-4921California
Darrell Issa (202) 225-3906
Edward Royce (202) 225-4111
Jeff Denham (202) 225-4540
David Valadao (202) 225-4695 Colorado
Mike Coffman (202) 225-7882
Florida 
Vern Buchanan (202) 225-5015
Ander Crenshaw (202) 225-2501
Mario Diaz-Balart (202) 225-4211
Dennis Ross (202) 225-1252
David Jolly (202) 225-5961
Georgia 
Rob Woodall (202) 225-4272

Illinois 

Peter Roskam (202) 225-4561
Aaron Schock (202) 225-6201
Adam Kinzinger (202) 225-3635
Rodney Davis (202) 225-2371
Indiana
Larry Bucshon (202) 225-4636
Todd Young (202) 225-5315
Susan Brooks (202) 225-2276
Iowa
Tom Latham (202) 225-5476
Kentucky
Harold Rogers (202) 225-4601
Ed Whitfield (202) 225-3115

Michigan 
Dave Camp (202) 225-3561
Mike Rogers (202) 225-4872
Fred Upton (202) 225-3761
Minnesota 
Erik Paulsen (202) 225-2871
Missouri
Blaine Luetkemeyer (202) 225-2956
Ann Wagner (202) 225-1621
Nevada 
Joseph Heck (202) 225-32521
Mark Amodei (202) 225-6155
New Jersey 
Rodney Frelinghuysen (202) 225-5034
Frank LoBiondo (202) 225-6572
Christopher Smith (202) 225-3765
Leonard Lance (202) 225-5361
Jon Runyan (202) 225-4765
New York 
Peter King (202) 225-7896
Tom Reed II (202) 225-3161
Michael Grimm (202) 225-3371
Christopher Gibson (202) 225-5614North Carolina 
Walter Jones Jr. (202) 225-3415 Ohio
Patrick Tiberi (202) 225-5355
Michael Turner (202) 225-6465
Steve Stivers (202) 225-2015
James Renacci (202) 225-3876
Bob Gibbs (202) 225-6265
David Joyce (202) 225-5731
Oregon
Greg Walden (202) 225-6730
Pennsylvania
Jim Gerlach (202) 225-4315
Tim Murphy (202) 225-2301
Joseph Pitts (202) 225-2411
Michael Fitzpatrick (202) 225-4276
Charles Dent (202) 225-6411
Glenn Thompson (202) 225-5121
Mike Kelly (202) 225-5406
Patrick Meehan (202) 225-2011
Tom Marino (202) 225-3731
Lou Barletta (202) 225-6511
Keith Rothfus (202) 225-2065
South Carolina 
Trey Gowdy (202) 225-6030
Mick Mulvaney (202) 225-5501
Tom Rice (202) 225-9895
South Dakota 
Kristi Noem (202) 225-2801
Virginia 
Eric Cantor (202) 225-2815
Bob Goodlatte (202) 225-5431
Frank Wolf (202) 225-5136
Scott Rigell (202) 225-4215
Robert Hurt (202) 225-4711
Washington 
Doc Hastings (202) 225-5816
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (202) 225-2006
David Reichert (202) 225-7761
Jaime Herrera Beutler (202) 225-3536
West Virginia 
David McKinley (202) 225-4172
Wisconsin
Paul Ryan (202) 225-3031
Jim Sensenbrenner (202) 225-5101
Sean Duffy (202) 225-3365
Reid Ribble (202) 225-5665
(Source = 2014 House Roll Call Vote #249)

Please take a moment to call the members from your area and give them an earful.

BREAKING: Ethics Charges Filed for Multiple Democrat Senators for Corruption

BREAKING: Ethics Charges Filed for Multiple Democrat Senators for Corruption

Thanks to some intrepid journalism and numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, we have learned a great deal about the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
One thing in particular that has been learned is that the IRS targeting occurred at the behest of several Democrat Senators, and that the IRS broke the law by providing tax information to these Senators and their allies in order to help the Democrat Party mitigate their losses in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
It all stems from President Obama and the Democrats frustration over the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for conservative and libertarian political groups to get more involved in the political process.
But the pressure that Democrats exerted on the IRS to go after and target conservative and Tea Party groups has now resulted in charges of corruption and ethics violations against several top Democrat Senators, according to The Blaze.
The Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes campaign finance restrictions and other limits on political speech, filed a complaint with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics against nine Democratic senators, most notably Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois and Carl Levin of Michigan, for repeated lobbying of the IRS to probe conservative groups.
It also specifically cites Charles Schumer of New York, who was the lead author of letters to the IRS signed by Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire; Tom Udall of New Mexico; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island; Al Franken of Minnesota; Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
David Keating, President of the organization, made note of the IRS abuses that occurred under President Nixon, and the laws passed after Watergate, by Democrats, that would purportedly prevent such abuse from occurring again, especially from the White House.
“If someone in the White House was connected it would make it a real criminal violation and a very sensational thing,” Keating told TheBlaze. “I doubt that happened. But there was huge heat coming from the Senate.”
“I don’t think it’s ever appropriate for Congress to ask a law enforcement agency to go investigate this group, go audit that group,” he added. “Congress is not the FBI. It is not the Justice Department.”
A staffer for the Senate Ethics Committee refused to confirm whether the matter would be investigated, but said that all charges are taken seriously.
The complaint says the senators interfered with executive branch agency proceeding, misused official resources for campaign purposes, gave at least the appearance of impropriety, and engaged in conduct that might reflect poorly on the Senate.
“All of these actions appear to have been undertaken for electoral, rather than official purposes – Sens. Durbin and Schumer, in particular, have openly stated as much,” the complaint says. “Additionally, Sen. Levin’s repeated requests for information, after being explicitly informed that the information could not lawfully be disclosed, violate Paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service. We request that the Committee, in accordance with its mandate, investigate each violation accordingly and impose appropriate sanctions.”
The complaint also notes that the targeting began almost immediately after Obama called out the Supreme Court and disparaged their Citizens United decision during one of his State of the Union addresses, inferring that all conservative groups were only posing as non-profits, and taking advantage of loopholes to conduct partisan political business.
“Within days, a member of the United States Senate abused his office to advance his political party’s midterm election campaign efforts by using official resources to pressure the Internal Revenue Service to investigate certain conservative organizations that Democrats had not been able to silence with legislation,” the complaint says, referring to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), who became the U.S. ambassador to China earlier this year.
Levin, the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, had 14 correspondence to and from IRS officials from March 2012 to March 2013, where he urged the IRS to probe the nonprofit groups. In one he called for the IRS to send “a message…to Section 501(c)(4) entities on an urgent basis.” He also asked the agency to provide tax information about the political activity of the groups, to which IRS officials told him they could not legally provide him.
The complaint says the action by the senators may have triggered audits, citing a May 12, 2011 article in the New York Times that reported the IRS is sent letters to donors of 501(c)(4) groups “informing [the donors] that their contributions may be subject to gift taxes depending on whether the donations exceeded limits under the tax laws.”
The Times said “[t]he timing of the agency’s moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way, is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the I.R.S. could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations.”
This could very well be the smoking gun behind the IRS attacks on conservative and Tea Party groups.  The IRS would likely not have gone after these groups the way that they did if they hadn’t been pressured to do so by Democrats in Congress.
The Citizens United decision, which leveled the playing field and allowed regular conservative citizens to compete in the political arena against the established leftist groups and unions, has proven to be a thorn in the side of Democrats.  They hate that decision because it lessened the advantage they had built up through the unions and Democrat machinery.
There is likely still more to be learned about the IRS targeting scandal, and it is now more apparent than ever that there must be special prosecutors appointed who can conduct outside investigations and determine the involvement of the numerous Senators implicated, along with the Justice Department and the White House.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are glad Democrats are getting hit with ethics charges for their role in the IRS scandal, and think they ought to lose their seats in Congress as well.

If you thought Judge Jeanine was mad at Obama before, buckle up!

If you thought Judge Jeanine was mad at Obama before, buckle up!

Judge Jeanine Pirro demanded President Obama’s impeachment for endangering national security in violation of his oath, Saturday.
In a six and a half minute tirade on her Fox News show, “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” Pirro vilified the president for breaking “the sacred trust” between himself and “the people he leads.”


The former New York prosecutor and judge accused Obama of endangering our very existence for releasing 5 mass murderers, scorned him for elevating an incompetent Susan Rice to National Security Adviser after her despicable Benghazi lies on the Sunday morning talk shows, and for respinning his excuse to swap Bowe Bergdahl from “ill health” to “death threat.”
“My sources tell me, Mr. President, that you knew Bergdahl’s location for months,” she said. “Why didn’t you send in Seal Team Six? Why didn’t you send in those drones? Could it be that he was your excuse to release those 5 men from Gitmo?”
Pirro ripped Obama’s acceptance of the Qatari word that the killers would do us no harm and scoffed at his belief that 12 years in Gitmo hadn’t hardened their resolve to kill Americans.
“Mr. President,” she exclaimed, “you didn’t just release them, you unleashed them! And you, and you alone, will be responsible for the hell that will be unleashed on us.”
Pirro called his characterization of the murderous detainees as “POWs” hogwash.
“The Taliban is not a country and they are not POWs,” she said. “They are enemy combatants…I don’t give a damn whether you try them in Gitmo, a military tribunal, or a federal court. United States Attorneys have prosecuted these dirtbags and convicted them time and time again.”
“Demand impeachment,” she concluded, noting that we impeached one president for lying about sex with an intern and that Obama’s actions were far more egregious.