The voices in Lois Lerner’s ear

Once again, we have to thank Tom Fitton for rooting this out. Like everything else the Obama administration tried to bury, the IRS targeting was no different. Go figure, the FBI and DOJ under Obama was involved with this, too.

Judicial Watch Obtains IRS Documents Revealing McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to Engage in “Financially Ruinous” Targeting

Judicial Watch | June 21, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released newly obtained internal IRS documents, including material revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

“Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.”

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/

Is there any scheme against conservatives or Republicans that McCain did not have his hands in? It seems like that was his whole purpose, especially to undermine the Right and disrupt their ability to organize. This one scandal was tailor made to fit his agenda.

And the IRS scandal is not over, as JW says it is still recovering documents. That is called a coverup, too. It is easier to cover up when you have the institutional resources cooperating. But this shows how far Obama’s administration went and who all was involved.

By the time you do get info, leftist Obamafiles then try to bury the exposure in subterfuge.

[screenshot via C-SPAN May 22, 2013]

My Dear John letter

I think a letter is in order to McCain. He McCan’t do anything that might help the GOP even though he had them all helping drag him across his last election.

Now, what GOP, what help? “I don’t need any stinking GOP.” No, he is happy basking in the glow of the left as a proud member of the Resistance.

I cannot in good conscience vote for Graham-Cassidy. A bill impacting so many lives deserves a bipartisan approach. https://t.co/2sDjhw6Era pic.twitter.com/30OWezQpLg

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 22, 2017

Last repeal he said was not in AZ’s state interest. This time the governor endorses it and McCain finds an excuse to oppose it on process. Well, John, process this!

You used your conscience for your excuse. Your conscience would not allow you to support it. Maybe you shouldn’t have used that excuse.That very convenient, expedient conscience of yours that most of us didn’t know you ever had.

Those chilling words, “I cannot in good conscience…” Funny how look at everything else his conscience allows him to support. How about the help for those other missing POWs? His conscience was fine with burying all that, and he used as much of “the process” as he could for the means to do it. In fact that is what the process was for, to bury inconvenient things. Process he created to obstruct and confuse the process. How about the process of Campaign Finance Reform, where he used the process to try to control free speech?

McCain was the willing dupe that the left used over and over again through the years. He was media’s go to darling to attack the GOP, since McCain never attacks the left but reserves all his animosity for his own party. (his own party is being generous)

Maverick McCain — nothing Maverick about selling out or trading out. The Maverick who referred to Evangelicals and the right as Agents of Intolerance. We always deserve broad brush names but liberals deserve his best compliments, like Chappaquiddick Ted.

That is another point, John constantly told us that he came in under the Reagan Revolution. Indeed, Reagan had already won and laid the groundwork. All McCain did was attach himself like a leach to the Reagan train. A foot soldier he calls himself. What did he fight for? What part of that Revolution was his? He promptly started a revolution within against the revolution that helped usher him in. And he’s a keeper?

Eventually he would hookup with his stepbrother, Ted Kennedy. Never realizing he was a useful mark for the left, always was. But his heart was in it. That is where his true loyalties lie, with the left. Democrats had him figured better than he did them. Then Republicans granted him wide berth because he called himself a Maverick. More like the 1970’s ford Maverick — cheap, dated, unwanted and obsolete. A Maverick, what’s he given us?

In the 80’s McCain and fellow Senators gave us the Keating five scandal on Lincoln Savings and Loan. That cost the taxpayers over 3 billion and many people lost their life savings. But McCain wasn’t gone. He was worried about himself, not investors or losses. He was one of two Senators who survived to run for reelection. But then he went right back to being the stab in the back Senator.

Then he’d go on to run for president. Kids, don’t try that. He jokes about having lost a few expensive aircraft in his Navy days. He’d go on to basically throw the election for Obama, whom he could not criticize. Sarah Palin could not make up for his compromised campaign.

Failure McCain goes on to deliver the dossier to the FBI in 2016. He flirted with not endorsing or voting for Trump. He came around to run on the same platform declaring he would lead the repeal and replace charge to Obamacare in the Senate. That saved his tough reelection. But afterwards, he promptly went back to opposing Republicans.

So on Obamacare repeal, he claims his conscience just wouldn’t allow him to vote for it. But then he knew his was the decisive vote to kill it. Even prior to taking that vote, McCain went over to huddle with Democrats telling them he was a “No.” That overjoyed Chris Coons, as just one in the group with Chuck Schumer. And he told Dems to take up the defense bill as soon after that vote as they could. He was already maneuvering and moving on after leaving American people in the lurch by his pompous vote. That conscience….

Not quite done wrecking our agenda, he now plans on upending the tax reform bill, if he can. And on and on for the foreseeable future, as long as he is there.

So it’s time, John McCain, to bid you farewell, good riddance. Your so-called conscience has put you way beyond remediation on anything else. A conscience I cannot recognize.

On Tuesday’s election, McCain tries to validate himself — using the left’s talking points:

(CNN)”I predicted this, OK? And unless we get our act together, we’re going to lose heavily,” said Sen. John McCain, …pointing to two recent speeches he’s given where he warned about the President’s divisive rhetoric and impact on the Republican Party going forward.

The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) November 9, 2017

Your conscience called and wants its excuse back… with interest. Maverick Maniac.

Right Ring | Bullright

McCain planning a hit job on tax cuts

John McCain Planning on Killing Tax Reform

Katrina Pierson | November 8, 2017

Here we go again. John McCain is apparently working hard on cementing his legacy as President Trump’s chief obstructionist.

It’s no wonder that McCain is now more popular with Democrats than Republicans.

As reported in the Hill, Forty-four percent of Republicans surveyed in the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Wednesday hold a negative view of McCain, while only 35 percent have a positive view of him.

Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats surveyed now see him in a positive light.

It’s official: The Republican tax reform bill is dead on arrival in the Senate now that John McCain has become the third Republican senator to confirm that he plans to vote against it.

What’s worse for the Trump administration, McCain reportedly wants the bill to receive input from both parties – a criticism that he cited as his reason for voting against the Trump administration’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

More: https://katrinapierson.com/john-mccain-planning-killing-tax-reform/

Now John McCain is the the head of the resistance. First he goes against people’s healthcare, then he opposes their tax cuts. Both for selfish, bureaucratic reasons. And all that in only a year after getting reelected on the pro-repeal, pro-tax cut agenda. But you knew what he was.

Change… what’s in your wallet?

Who says you can’t change? If you are a discredited politician, or stained American icon, there is still hope for you. Now times have changed. Research is clear.

Trump is the new penicillin. Well, no matter what you are ailing from, no matter how bad your reputation is, Trump is the cure. Just attack Trump and you can get praise gushing from from everywhere almost instantly.

That’s right players, the Trump Card is the new exemption card. Using it whisks away any past behavior hanging over your head like a dark cloud. It is a cult-market. Look what it did for Alec Baldwin. He won an Emmy mocking Trump, as a “conduit” for Trump pain.

Right now, even traitor Bowe Bergdahl is using it. They are trying to use it on Harvey Weinstein — if anything can save his reputation. Media started using it, too, as soon as Harvey’s scandal broke. And Jane Fonda used her Trump Card a couple times.

First, in September she said “Kudos, Bravos & Love to those brave athletes speaking truth to power.” Really? A big shout out to American dissent.

Then Fonda commented on Weinstein saying she just “found out about Harvey about a year ago. I’m ashamed that I didn’t say anything right then.” Oops. She had to know, it was common knowledge. This is a woman who found her way into North Vietnam in war time. Just found out last year? But maybe there is help.

In the same interview, she whipped out the Trump Card saying:

CNN [Trump’s election] “counteracts a lot of the good that we’re doing, because a lot of men say, ‘Well, our president does it, and he got elected even after people discovered that he was an abuser, so I’m just going to go ahead and do what I want to do.’ “

Last week, Jane pulled out her Trump Card again to cover her American shame.
Now she tells the BBC:

(Question) “Are you proud of America today?”
The actress was very quick to reply with a hard “no.”

“But, I’m proud of the resistance. I’m proud of the people who are turning out in unprecedented numbers and continue over and over and over again to protest what Trump is doing. I’m very proud of them, that core.”

No, she isn’t proud of America but even that can get swilled up in that Trump Card. (or should we call it the anti-Trump card?) I can see the ad now: ‘If it works for Jane Fonda, imagine what it can do for you?’ She’s proud of resistance or dissent though.

So it doesn’t only work once, you can just keep right on using it with the same results.

Hillary has had mixed results using her card because there is so much to cover. Still, it’s been effective in mitigating her damage. But she needs the super-plutonium version.

Bob Corker threw down his Trump Card, despite election problems, and no one mentioned his inside trading scandals or the investigation. The media turned him into a saint.

Mitt Romney used his a few times with positive effects. The left even ignored its phobia of his wealth. All that melted away. Plus, having a RINO card backs him up in emergencies.

McConnell tried using his but it got temporarily rejected. So there’s one outlier.

Maxine Waters uses her Trump Card constantly. Any of her hypocrisy is ignored. She’s Auntie Maxine, most quotable for “Impeach 45.” Florida Rep Wilson is also having lots of luck playing her Trump Card constantly. She now says she’s a rock star.

Look at George Bush. He was the most despised man for 16 years. Do I have to remind you how the left and media hated him? We were coerced into defending that Republican sore. He gave an anti-Trump speech this week and voila. His card worked like a charm.

Now media and people like liberal’s historian, Douglas Brinkley, say Bush’s speech will live in infamy, as a call to arms against Trumpism. (All the isms Bush used he didn’t mention that one.) Brinkley called it a warning on nationalism. His popularity on the left sored. They are praising Bush for bravery and courage. He didn’t vote for Trump and his father endorsed Hillary. This proves the left is gullible enough, the potential is enormous.

McCain took some heat for not voting for the repeal and replace. But he was praised by liberals for being an obstructionist. Now he attacks Trump again, and again they praise him. Playing political games is despised and yet McCain is celebrated. He also has had a gold RINO Card just for everyday use. Media widely accepts the RINO card, too.

There are still tests underway on the Trump Card but, as you can see, already there are exciting results. No one knows yet how far it can go, or any application limits? But so far it has rivaled its cousin, the Race Card. It already seems just as versatile except without all the extra baggage.

And like any new invention, people are finding that it is hard to imagine life without it.

Sort of reminds me of Rod Blagojevich: “I’ve got this thing and it’s f****ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***in’ nothing.” Gee, I wonder if the Trump Card can do anything for him? Or maybe OJ can try it?

Right Ring | Bullright

Thursday Trifecta of Politics

Politics hit the trifecta Thursday. The left thought they were in paradise. But the joke or lesson is really on them — with any analytical thought.

First the details: Chief of Staff General Kelly was compelled to come out to counter the “empty barrel” attack from Congresswoman Wilson(Fla); President Bush’s speech in NYC; and Obama found his angry voice, again, campaigning for progressives in NJ and VA.

That on the heels of McCain delivering his salty attack on Trump, in receiving the Liberty Medal honor. (McCain had to use his honorable moment to attack others)

Kelly’s remarks from the White House were weighted and directed perfectly. Just the fact that he would have to come out to address this issue that media blew into a firestorm is a sign of our times. He complained of the lack of sacred tradition and civility.

Well, home run. But it won’t stop the left in a spiral dive into the gutter. Obama would never be treated this way, under any circumstances. Nor will it stop RINOS.

So Kelley’s remarks were very sincere compared to her diatribe.
But he alluded to the moral decay.

Wilson had even phoned in to “The View” to scream her hatred for Trump, calling the Niger incident Trump’s Benghazi. If she didn’t politicize it before by listening in on a White House call, she went all out on a live TV rant — leaving Megyn McCain almost speechless. She said she told the widow to give her the phone so she could “curse him out.”

One person left the audience with the sincerity of moral high ground. General Kelly.

Bush speech

The health of the democratic spirit itself is at issue. And the renewal of that spirit is the urgent task at hand.

And we know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy.

Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.

They are further complicated by a trend in western countries away from global engagement and democratic confidence. Parts of Europe have developed an identity crisis. We have seen insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.

America is not immune from these trends. In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs. The American dream of upward mobility seems out of reach for some who feel left behind in a changing economy. Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.

We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places,….

Clearly directed at Trump, and not just him but the people who elected him. I love how these guys all do drive-bys on the electorate. — especially when they don’t agree with the results of the election.

Demonizing isolation, for a guy who ran against nation building. And yes, loudly he bashes the nationalism, as if it is corrupted somehow. But it was this very nationalism that helped get him elected, not once but twice. (even though many of us questioned his record) Oh nationalism was great when it voted for him. But it’s bad when we saw what direction he was taking us — that not so subtle handoff to globalism, the New World order.

Of course, again a huge swipe at conspiracies. Say nothing about the current conspiracy theories against Trump. No, we know the ‘conspiracies’ he meant were on the right.

Finally, oop there it is: “Our governing class”. Where the hell does that come from? The global elitism people are sickened of, which causes his bitterness at our nationalism.

Obama speech

“What we can’t have is the same old politics of division that we have seen so many times before that dates back centuries,” the former president said.

He implied that some people in power are embracing outdated mindsets when crafting policy.

“Some of the politics we see now, we thought we put that to bed,” Obama said. “That’s folks looking 50 years back. It’s the 21st century, not the 19th century.”

The master of illusion and straw men comes out to remind us everything wrong with him and the past 8 years. He’s like a sideshow magician at the fair doing cheap card tricks to lure your attention, just to be disappointed.

That’s supposed to be a fastball attack on Trump but Obama perfected the art of division. That’s what he ran on. I still remember the drop down lists for all his groupie identities. Then there was the class warfare, anti-Christian diatribes, anti-American crap, attacks on the rich, pitting one group against the other. It’s his specialty. Now he rails against the division he built.Ask Dems, they’ll tell you.

Right Ring | Bullright

Beyond reasonable sympathy

I’m going to link to this article even though it is pretty insulting to the American public, but then it is what the left does. Of course they are never responsible for the moral decay or lack of civility in society and culture today.

The person he is trying to channel, John McCain, is another source of irritation.

A op-ed by John Kirby appeared at CNN praising McCain’s speech. It has issues of its own.

“John Kirby: John McCain’s speech accepting the Liberty Medal was about leadership, more than it was a rebuke of Trumpism”

In what has been largely read as a denunciation of President Trump’s world view — the senator derided “half-baked, spurious nationalism” — McCain also reminded us who we are as a people and, perhaps more importantly, who we were.

We’re not just a nation divided. We’ve become a nation afraid. …equal parts paranoid and paralyzing.

There are real threats and challenges out there, to be sure. But shame on us for letting them rip us apart this way.

[turn lecture on] You can read McCain’s speech as a slap at Trump. And maybe it is. You could also read it as the musings of an old man near the end of a long, storied, heroic life — a man unburdened by the vagaries of electoral politics. And maybe it is that as well.

Although, to be fair, McCain has never been one to shy away from taking an independent stand.

I choose to believe he is appealing to who we know, deep down, we really are as Americans — even if we don’t want to admit it: Pioneers. Explorers. Innovators. Entrepreneurs.

Appealing to? No, what it was is a treatise aimed directly at Trump, his views or philosophy, though McCain is too timid to use his name. Trump. But that is also why it was praised the way Kirby and other MSM hacks did.

That makes his speech a full-throated example of the political hatchetry it attempts to rail against. Hypocrisy. No wonder the Left would embrace it the way they did. And note the parts they highlight — those explicit angry attacks at Trump. Loving it.

Of course I will take it as the Slap it was meant to be ( I should be used to these slaps by now, since circa 2000) because what good is a shot, after all, if it is totally lost or missed? And it fits true to McCain’s past vindictive at those he disagrees with. You can’t have it both ways: praise it as the hit it is and call it benign on the other hand.

I share the concerns of many about the President’s dangerous ignorance of the world, his diminishing — if not vacant — curiosity and his general disdain for any thoughtful, balanced approach to governance.

“If we hear the words of leaders like McCain as a reminder of who we are as a nation, rather than just as a rebuke of the divisions Trump has brought”….”we’ll come out of all this stronger and better than we were before.”

So Kirby tells us how we are supposed to read his speech, in some innocuous way, to see the divisions he calls out — which will make us stronger. Stronger to ignore someone directly attacking your motives that belong in a dustbin of history. Pay no attention to that. Meanwhile, the press and media will point out how incisively he attacked you and the president.

What schizophrenic alternate reality. Kirby you take the cake. So it’s okay for McCain to make a broadsided attack, but we are at fault for seeing it as one. Did anyone ever try that with Obama….and get away with it? Never.

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/opinions/john-mccain-speech-pay-heed-kirby-opinion/index.html

McCain back….to same old

Lavish on, for the first 5 minutes McCain lectured and praised the institution of the Senate. Lecturing on cooperation within the Senate and trusting each other again, he languished on about “serving the people who elected us,” into attacking outer-chamber voices:

“Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio, and television and the internet. To hell with them! [applause] They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood. Let’s trust each other… return to regular order.”

The hack is back …with his invincible straw man.

So he is back to criticizing those outside voices and those who try to hold Congress and the Senate accountable. Yes, the problem is those outside voices. Sorry, we are worried about the inside voices who do the real damage. That America is fed up with the kind of shit-sandwiches your body is trying to serve up, should be a clue how we feel about it. You are not interested in the will of the people. No, you are an elitist who only uses the words “servants of a great nation” as cover for your real agenda of arrogance. Arrogance that has no limits to wall off the will of the people. Any different than Hillary’s “Deplorables”?

After all, what are elites there for but to do what the people oppose — the corrupt comradery we resent — by scheming against us in every major action. Especially when they team up against us. But that is the bipartisanship McCain stands for. He’s back to branding us Agents of Intolerance. His only real fight is with any outsider opposing him.

So they want to shut us up or shut us down. Marginalize us. There is the resistance and then the resistance within, like John McCain. But if anyone is the opposition it is him.

At a later point, he said we Americans “don’t hide behind walls, we breach them.” A clear attack on Trump and the Americans who want to secure our border. Don’t lecture us about walls. We care about our nation’s security. Stop warring with the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Graham – McCain: touring tag team

James Woods fires off at Graham, McCain for doubling down with Dems

December 30, 2016 | Warner Todd Huston | BizPac Review

Actor James Woods, who recently rejoined Twitter with his conservative posts, slammed Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for joining Barack Obama in his desire to punish Russia with further sanctions over unproven allegations that Russian hackers interfered in the U.S. elections.

Referring to a story by The Hill newspaper, Woods criticized GOP Senators McCain and Graham for joining Obama and a list of Democrats who want even tougher sanctions on Russia.

Why don't these two spend the next eight years hanging with the Clintons on Soros' yacht? Let the adults handle this… https://t.co/mQbs7NYlXG

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) December 30, 2016

More http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/30/james-woods-fires-off-sens-graham-mccain-doubling-dems-429946/

Coming to the Sunday circuit near you. Hasn’t their 15 minutes expired? Good idea, they could be so happy in Demland. They can never criticize the Soros crew — that is taboo. Fexibility, cold war jokes and resets out, sanctions are in. Just trying to keep up.

Introducing the Graham campaign

It seems Graham has got himself a presidential campaign off the ground. No, not Billy or Franklin. Lindsey, ever heard of him? Not Lindsay Lohan. Sure we have, but for being the notorious sidekick to John Juan McCain. A micro-blip on a radar screen.

So he wastes no time going to the same rhetoric famous by another candidate. He’s been running now for a couple weeks and, almost in search of coverage, makes odd statements. Speaking to Chuck Todd, Graham says. See full video interview here.

At 8 minutes in, he goes deftly hypothetical, as if planned, supposing to write the Constitution today. He just happens to have it all thought out, and Todd has to ply Lindsey very little to develop his SNL caliber sketch. (who cares about Hannity & Maddow?)

Todd asks “why is the country [so] polarized?” (will they ask Hillary that question?)

Graham says, “money, and….okay write the Constitution today. I think it’d be a great SNL sketch. You got Philadelphia Hall, you got satellite trucks parked outside. You know Ben Franklin comes outside… (cluckling) I got Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity jump all over… “don’t give in, Ben.” Just think how hard it is in today’s 24/7 news cycle, talk radio, cable television, and money. There is a group telling you to say no to about everything …and to get into politics, look how many pledges people ask you to sign…

Todd: will you sign any?
Graham: nope, nah.
Todd: you’ve signed pledges before…
Graham: I have

Todd: do you regret it?
Graham: Not so much I regret it that I just don’t want to do it this time. You know if you’re not financially independent, you have to get somebody to help you financially. I think a combination of constant media, 24 hours news cycle with money has made it pretty hard to find common ground.

Todd: so that means were doomed?
Graham: No, I think…its a good question…are we? I don’t know.
Todd: I don’t know if media is going to reform. I always say its a two-way street. Politicians play to the media polarization.

Graham: You’re trying to beat each other and you report things maybe too quickly. Let’s look at it this way, I think there is a market for a better way. When I talk to that young guy there, I said “You’re going to have to work a little longer pal. If I’m president, I’m going to ask you to work a little longer. What do people do between 65 and 67? They work two years longer….

I’m making a bet here that you can talk about problem solving in the Republican primary and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that you can openly embrace working with Democrats and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that in a war weary republic you can rally them to keep the fight over there before it comes here. Now, if I lose those bets it doesn’t mean America’s lost, it means that I just fell short. To a young person in politics, listen to what I am doing here, see if it makes sense to you. There is a growing desire by the public at large to stop the BS. I feel it, I sense it and I’m running on the idea if you elect me I’ll do whatever is necessary to defend the nation. I’m running not as a candidate for a single party but for a great nation.

Todd: are you thinking about going third party?
Graham: no, not at all …See at the end of the day, you’re not going to get big thigs done with moderates. There is no hall of fame for moderates. Moderates are nice people but it takes real ideologically purer people, in many ways, to solve hard problems. Did anybody doubt Tip O’Neil’s credentials as a liberal? Did anybody doubt Ronald Reagan’s credentials as a conservative?

Cut/ enough

Bet much? Besides the moderate boilerplate “let’s work together” talk, there was an admission that you cannot get great big things from moderates. You don’t say. So why demonize and attack the same people for holding fast to their principles? I get it, it’s okay when he’s standing up against the Party base. But when they don’t cooperate with him, there’s a problem.

Todd: in 2000 he (John McCain) ran against the Party a little bit harder. [really?]
Graham: Yea but I think, you know, looking back that was sort of an immature campaign. We kind of got off in the ditch a little bit. You know if you want to be the nominee of a party, there’s only so much you can do to run your party down. I love the Republican Party. I believe the conservatism…

Todd: Some conservatives are going to hear what you’re saying and say YOU are trying to run down the Party right now.
Graham: I’m not. I’m actually trying to build it up. Here’s my bet: that Hispanics, if they get over the idea that we don’t like them because we suggest that we don’t, if we could actually get immigration behind us, the Hispanic community is much more aligned with our way of doing business than our Democratic colleagues. I firmly believe that.

Todd: you believe that Hispanics are justified in thinking that the Republican Party doesn’t care about them right now?
Graham: Yes, to some extent I do because just look at the rhetoric. Don’t judge us all by what a few people say. But you have to look at the results…/end

Video

Keep developing those thoughts strategies, Lindsey. You already gave MSM ammo for weeks. None of this is nuclear science but it does show the alignment to McCain, who also is always sucking wind for face time on air. Graham knows you can only beat that party horse so far, you can’t run it into the ground. Are you hiring the same geniuses?

Let’s go back in the time warp machine.

You only have to go back to 2000 in his presidential bid for president when McCain dropped this load of manure on the Republican base calling conservatives agents of intolerance. Now his dear friend Lind-see seems to have the same campaign formula. He makes it sound like he is talking about both sides fairly, but it is directed squarely at conservatives, the intolerant ones. After all, being intolerant on the left is a compliment to them. So the comparison doesn’t work.

February 2000, McCain took to the road and the air under the guise of bashing certain politics.

I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But public — but political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are… corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. [CNN transcript]

While he sounded to be swinging at both sides, the main target of opportunity was the conservative right, particularly evangelicals. Everyone knew it then, and now everyone will again with sidekick Graham on the bandstand. They don’t care that in the process they are offending their base, they think that is smart politics. They don’t care about marginalizing voters and any influence that does not align with them.

Though it is very amusing how Lindsey Graham refers to McCain’s campaign as immature and “in the ditch”, doing almost exactly what John was doing. So Lindsey is going to start in the gutter and work out from there. Enter mainstream media.

So now we have to live through a replay of that intolerant, divide and conquer, playing the media fiddle type of campaigning. Right on cue, it’s media chow time which is the point. It’s McCain 2000 3.0. Graham must think we are really dumb to expect us to play along.

Holy Graham crackers, Batman!

RightRing | Bullright

Justifiable Insurrection

In 2008, WaPo gave this glowing endorsement of Obama. Years later, it proves revealing and pretty laughable. It only reveals the larger agenda. This was their basic conclusion:

Abroad, the best evidence suggests that [Obama] would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

But remember that up until that point, Obama had no experience. So this and all other uber-confidence in him was just that, empty. Funny as well that a chief criticism of theirs against McCain was his choice as a running mate. Inexperienced and incompetent were the buzz words for Sarah Palin. Yet in a following paragraph of the endorsement, openly admit that their confidence in Obama was solely a matter of hope.

If this is how the left picks their candidates, is it any wonder why we end up with what we have? They stand in lockstep in a parade of hope, even as Rome is burning. In fact, the only hint of experience in foreign policy was his position on the NATO oversight committee, where he had not held a meeting before his campaign. Then scarcely had a year in national office before running for the oval office, with no experience in tow for any of it. The guy actually had to use his campaign for his résumé .

Yet this and other mainstream media geniuses went head over heel for him. But that wasn’t even the worst of it. They could try to explain their endorsement by such terms as hope, while at the same time applying a full-court opposition to Sarah Palin, running at the bottom of the Republican ticket. It was so obviously hypocritical and even in face of that, they continued to justify their support for empty-suit Obama.

It was a culmination of a 45 year insurrection by ’60s radicals. Most of us knew that, including media sycophants. Yet they did it anyway, unapologetically. This is just one text book example of it, and how far they were willing to go to condemn any opposition to a guy totally unqualified for the hope they bestowed on him. Almost as if they knew it was a complete charade. (if they didn’t they should have)

[Their charge was that Bush]… “has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.”

Political Wilderness? So a unique peek into their collective mind. They wanted a complete insurrection, not just a Leftist radical. They wanted a total insurgency of Government, from those who best understood the radical nature of insurrection, radicals. A reformer – as McCain billed himself — was not what they had in mind. If they had to put all their confidence in a blank resume from an empty suit, then so be it.

They wanted a total makeover, and America got totally screwed. Maybe the latter was the motivation for the former.

The best though, was how they opened their endorsement:

“Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.” (my emphasis)

That’s right, did you see that 180. It was so quick.  But you cannot miss that kind of contradiction.  From blaming their decision on Palin for not being ready for the presidency, to their “enormous hopes” in Obama . What is enormous hope, for what? Was their hope the same as Barry’s? I don’t know how many times I’ve said it since then: the irony was the secular left ran a “faith-based campaign” —  and they never even defined what hope was supposed to be. They were never forced to. It’s a nostalgic embarrassment and an insult to the foundation of America now, and matters nothing to the Left. Hope wins.

Obamacare is a perfect metaphor for Obama. Who cares if the thing is right, if it works, or if it does what they claimed it would? Once done, it’s done. The biggest defense of ObamaCare now is that it is “the law of the Land” and you cannot undo it — no mater how it got there. Sound familiar?

Then they elaborated on Obama:

At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation.

And there you have it, “we believe” — their faith-based campaign of “hope and change”…. “change you can believe in”.

Who cares what hope and change meant then? It’s an evolving, subjective term. It can mean something entirely different now than it did then. And they still ask people to just keep believing — many still do? To them, it was justifiable insurrection.

They were talking about McCain here:
“He hasn’t come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive.” — sounds very familiar. They later added: “IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship.”

And they finished it off this way. (oh the torture of it all)

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.”

But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; *preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

How about that for a closer? Creative. His temperament is okay, forget the lack of any formidable experience, or proven ability.

“Eloquent master of substance and detail”. You can’t even say that about his speeches, which was the only thing he ever had — “Words, just words?” Note, they even had to project, based on his book, what he might do.

“Eager to hear opposing points of view?” Where did that come from. He never was, and he got a lot better at it with more practice. Absurd. And their “faith-based campaign” endorsement was complete. Obama could have sported a Che Guevara tee-shirt with a scythe in his hand, and they still would have endorsed him.

Preternatural:
“The preternatural is that which appears outside or beside the natural. Preternatural phenomena are presumed to have natural explanations that are unknown.”

Say no more….

As bad as the campaign and gushing, incompetent voters were, it was only the setup for the next stage.

Reference http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html

RightRing | Bullright

Republicans, a bad moon is rising

Christie on the ropes

I have some criticism I need to get out. But before I do, anyone that wants to remind me of the 11th commandment,(thou shalt speak no ill of Republicans) can can their discontent. (1)It’s early, (2)there hasn’t been a primary or vetting, and yet (3)the establishment has already anointed their Jersey Shore candidate. And don’t tell me it was others. It was the establishment plutocrats who gave the nod to the Patriarch of Palisades. They were going to run with that as long/hard as they could.

Take a bow establishment GOP, this one is on you. It was a bridge too far, from the beginning, to project anyone but you anointed Christie. He’s all yours!

Since this establishment pick seemed to run into some headwinds lately, I thought it was a good opportunity to illustrate GOP issues. I know they won’t listen when things are running smooth for them.

One of Christie’s touted assets of is that he can work with people and get things done. He and his fans have also made the case that Republicans have to be more flexible and willing to work with other people. He used his photo op with Obama to drive the point home.

“I’ll work with anyone and everyone who is willing to work with me, consistent with my principles, and the principles that were just affirmed by 61 percent of the voters,”

… “you go there, you listen and you present your views and that’s the way you bring people into your movement.”

Of course, the problem is that they do not work with others themselves. Sure, they talk about it all the time. They reach out to Democrats or the Left, but they can’t or won’t even work with other members in their own party. In fact, they alienate and marginalize members of their own Party who disagree with them. But they will make all sorts of concessions with Democrats. (think John McCain and his gang of 14). Dems do not work with others either — unless they get their own way. So let’s dispel the notion that they are people “willing to work with everyone”. They aren’t.

In July, Christie called Constitutional concerns of conservatives and Libertarians “esoteric, intellectual debates” and a “very dangerous thought”:

“I love all these esoteric debates that people are getting in.”

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

The Palisades’ Patriarch should be more concerned with traffic direction in his own state.

The real problem is that they can’t work with their own members. For whatever reason, from power rivalries to ideology, they openly chastise those they don’t agree with. They make certain they do it in public to get brownie points with the media and the Left. They don’t even want to associate with conservatives if they can help it. John McCain called conservatives and the Christian Right “agents of intolerance” in 2000. Little has changed since, it’s actually gotten worse. More recently he labeled conservatives “wacko birds”.

Months later, the Daily Caller reported:

Sen. John McCain said Thursday that he’s worried about the Republican Party’s future and the infighting that is dividing it, calling efforts by conservatives to unseat incumbent Republican lawmakers “wrong.”

The famously wry McCain, R-Ariz., said he regretted calling the Tea Party wing of the Republican Senate conference “wacko birds” during budget negotiations, saying he’s learned to “never get personal” in political disputes…

“I do worry about the Republican Party,” he said at the Hero Summit hosted by The Daily Beast. “It’s the first time I have ever seen Republican senators running ads, raising money that is being used to attack incumbent Republican senators.”

Notice the pattern?

So if someone was buying the well-worn notion that we need Christie (or another) because they are moderate and work with others, find another dog that hunts. That one doesn’t. Is there any reason we have to start off with deception and misconceptions?

See my prior post that Christie vs. Clinton shows Christie cannot get Liberal support and he cannot get Conservative support. While Hillary reels in some Repubs and her base at the same time, so apparently she is a crossover candidate. Christie, you gotta know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em. But changing traffic patterns on the George Washington Bridge is not gonna get you to Pa. Ave., or conservative support.

RightRing | Bullright

A fast moving analogy

[barely satire]
My friend Gene and his wife are big NASCAR fans. (duh!) Recently, he was comparing politics to racing: ‘If drivers promise not to do certain things, to try to win, it would be ridiculous’, he said. To which I said ‘if they did, somebody would take advantage of it. Or, someone would lie.’

It dawned on me that technique could give the race to the worst guy. Everyone promises not to do this or that, and the one guy who does not live up to the bargain wins. But isn’t that how we got Obama?

McCain said “I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

And “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man…not an Arab,” McCain said. “We want to fight, and I will fight, but I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.” Then Romney took certain things off the table and wouldn’t talk about them. What happened?

In Illinois, team Obama successfully played the record chase. When Republicans tried that with Obama it was deemed out of bounds, off limits. “Records… you’re just birthers.” Republicans agreed. Then Obama used the worst tactics. That’s just politics, they said.

Republicans said, ‘we won’t play dirty politics, we’ll run a clean campaign.’ Obama ran the dirtiest campaign he could. He won. Then he said I won fair and square, “I won.”

Would they do that in NASCAR?

However, candidates and drivers would do well to remember, there are always plenty of diehard fans waiting for a 4-car pileup, and are disappointed when they don’t see one.

Update:
In Gene’s words — “I would never get in a race car if the crew said this car can’t win”.

Arab Spring has sprung, so has McCain

Arab Spring Egypt’s ‘Legal’ Persecution of Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT News
May 29, 2013

Post “Arab Spring” Egypt continues exposing its true nature, including now legal persecution of Christians. Earlier this month, according to Fox News, Dimyana Abdel-Nour a “pale, young Christian woman sat handcuffed in the courtroom, accused of insulting Islam while teaching history of religions to fourth-graders.” Her accusers are 10-year-old Muslim children who say she “showed disgust when she spoke of Islam in class.”

According to Islamic law, the word of inferior Christians cannot stand against that of superior Muslims—even if they are resentful or confused children.

Released on bail, Dimyana is unable to talk and “suffering a nervous breakdown.”

The report continues:

Criminalizing blasphemy was enshrined in the country’s Islamist-backed constitution that was adopted in December. Writers, activists and even a famous television comedian have been accused of blasphemy since then. But Christians seem to be the favorite target of Islamist prosecutors. Their fragile cases — the main basis of the case against Abdel-Nour’s case the testimony of children — are greeted with sympathy from courtroom judges with their own religious bias or who fear the wrath of Islamists, according to activists. The result is a growing number of Egyptians, including many Christians, who have been convicted and sent to prison for blasphemy…. Part of the Salafis’ antagonism toward Christians is rooted in the belief that they were a protected group under Mubarak’s regime while they, the Salafis, were persecuted. Now empowered, they may be out to exact revenge on the Christians….

Read more at IPT : http://www.investigativeproject.org/4034/arab-spring-egypt-legal-persecution-of-christians

My commentary: Lesson #1- speak no truth

Is it strange then that any slight criticism of Islam in this country brings charges of Islamaphobia? Is what Muslims do called Christophobia? No. But its far worse than that. They use a term in the US for criticism of certain people, they call it “hate speech”.(more political correctness) But wait, that does not apply to anti-Christian speech. They apply the term “hate speech” TO Christians, not to those attacking Christians.(then it’s called freedom of religion) See how this twisted process works? Christians can be the butt of criticism but they aren’t immune from personal attacks, or discrimination because of their faith or Christianity. In that case it is legitimate grounds for it.

Recently, John McCain went to Syria to meet with rebels. Then someone noticed the pictures of the people he was meeting with and behold, one of them was party to a kidnapping plot of Christians by Islamists. He was asked about it and he claimed he was unaware of it and if, big if, one of them was part of that he said it would be “regrettable”. Hmmm, regrettable?

Remember this is a man who proposes to arm rebels believing there is no problem in knowing who is who. In fact, the legislation they propose says they will arm and supply “vetted” rebels. McCain stood right there not knowing who he was talking to or dealing with. Great photo-op, John. The irony is lost on McMaverick McCain though. What we can be fairly certain about is their animosity and hatred toward the US and Christians in general. But McCain says its easy to pick out the good ones to arm. (must be a no-brainer)

Nothing new for John McCain, as I was reminded recently on another blog. Back in 2000 McCain called Christians agents of intolerance. He was making a case of an inability to work with the Christian right, calling them a corrosive and corrupting influence on the Party and politics. He accused Bush of pandering to “agents of intolerance”.

Now he wants to arm factions he claims are good guys, even if their first priority is hating Jews and Christians, as the irony in that photo shows. Maybe John ought to figure out, by now, who the real “agents of intolerance” are — or agents of hatred for that matter. But in his typical religion of politics, he will go out to attack Rand Paul or others for suggesting caution is warranted.

Star Search of the Right

There have been a few news dribbles about the convention.

Much has happened under the radar, at least behind the media’s back. One of Obama’s campaign co-chairs is getting a speaking slot at the RNC convention in Tampa. The now former Democrat, Artur Davis, is the big notable mention. This ought to shine a light on the sweeping disenchantment with the Hopenchange bandwagon from hell.

I’m not sure that giving a prominent spot is justifiable though. I mean especially from someone who actively worked so hard to ring in this inexperienced divider in chief and his class warfare brigade in 08. Sure its worth acknowledging. But other than being seen as just a turncoat now, I don’t know the larger purpose. Is it to say, “many of us have woken up” and give voice to the disenchanted former supporters? I’m just not sure how much good it will do.

But much like a few people have already said about the convention, it may be more informative to see who is not on the speaking roster than to judge it by those who are. That may be more the point. It doesn’t seem they will be enlisting Allen West for a much-celebrated slot.

Then there is McCain. Well, at the risk of being redundant, I’d much rather hear what Allen West has to say than endure another canned speech from McCain. (especially as some of his former advisors seem poised to sabotage this ticket) And who knows what McCain might say or do by election day? “Stay tuned…”

So the real story might be who is not on the RNC roster.

Hey, how about Robin Leach opening the convention? Seems they are doing everything else to try to choreograph the event with just the right ambience.

Ref:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meet-the-republican-national-convention-speakers/2012/08/14/36b1f242-e18c-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_gallery.html#photo=14
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/16/gop-convention-to-feature-former-obama-co-chair-artur-davis/