Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers: Weather Underground Nail Bombs No Comparison To The Boston Bombers’ Nail Bombs

On Saturday, noted “small c” communist, and close family friend of the president, Bill Ayers was the keynote speaker at the annual commemoration of the National Guard shootings at Kent State in 1970 that left four students dead. In response to a reporters’ question,  he told the audience of about 350,  that there was  “no relationship at all between what Weather Underground members did and the bombings that two brothers allegedly committed on April 15 in Massachusetts. No one died in the Weather Underground bombings.”

Via The Akron Beacon Journal: 

“How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers said. “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.”

Huhhhh? Did he just compare the bombings of the Weather Underground to target practice?

Ayers, a retired professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, co-founded the anti-Vietnam War Weather Underground group that bombed the U. S. Capitol, the Pentagon and other buildings in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s. The radical Weather Underground took its name from lyrics in a Bob Dylan song.

The United States is the most violent country that has ever been created, Ayers said.

He took a swipe at U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying, he committed daily war crimes in Vietnam “and I get asked about violence when what I did was some destruction of property to issue a scream and cry against an illegal war in which 6,000 people a week are being killed. Six thousand a week being killed and I destroyed some property. Show me the equivalence. You should ask John McCain that question … I’m against violence.”

“To conflate a group of fundamentalist people [in Boston] who are nihilistic in some way with a group of people who spent their lives trying to oppose the murder of 6,000 people a week … and still the killing went on. And still the killing went on. What would you have done?” Ayers said. “There’s no equivalence [with Boston]. Property damage. That’s what we did.”

Here’s where the Akron Beacon Journal Online story really shocked me…….

The reporter actually reported on some inconvenient questions that were asked of Bill Ayers afterward about the Weatherman bombings…causing  our “small c communist”  to feel a little discomfort, I’m afraid.

In his talk to the crowd, Ayers mentioned that in 1970, he lost three friends in the Weather Underground, including his lover, Diana Oughton. He did not explain in his talk how they died – they were killed when nail bombs they were making in a Greenwich Village townhouse blew up.

Telling the crowd the circumstances of those deaths would have been “inappropriate,” Ayers said afterward. “Everybody here knows,” he said.

Authorities said the bombs were intended to be used at a dance at the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

“No one knows for sure but I think they were. (He knew. He was the leader !)

And had they carried it out it would have been a catastrophe,” Ayers said. “But they didn’t and it didn’t happen. But what did happen is, on that same day John McCain murdered civilians. Do we have any responsibility for that? Should there be any reconciliation for that? Should he tell the truth about it?”

Why does he keep bringing up John McCain? John McCain didn’t target fellow Americans with nail bombs.

Shortly before noon on Friday, March 6, 1970, people in the townhouse were assembling nail bombs packed with dynamite and roofing nails. Former members of Weatherman later advanced differing claims as to the planned uses of the bombs. According to Mark Rudd, the plan was to set them off that evening at a dance for noncommissioned officers and their dates at the Fort Dix, New Jersey Army base, to “bring the [Vietnam] war home”.[2] Other reports say that some were destined for the Fort Dix dance and some were to destroy the main library at Columbia University.[3][4]

According to Cathy Wilkerson, who was a leader of the New York collective of the Weatherman, they were disappointed with the minimal effects of their earlier use of Molotov cocktails at the home of Judge Murtagh and other locations. At the suggestion of Terry Robbins, another of the leaders, they decided to use dynamite for newly planned actions.

They purchased a considerable quantity of dynamite and a number of electric fuses. The group investigated and designated three targets, including a dance at Fort Dix, an army base in nearby New Jersey.

But, but, but, Bill wasn’t there….

Ayers himself attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.” Notably, Ayers’ fingerprints were found at the bomb-making site, along with an assortment of anti-personnel weapons, stabbing implements, C-4 plastic explosive, and dozens of Marxist-Leninist publications.

After the death of his girlfriend, Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn spent the rest of the decade as fugitives running from the FBI.

And there is good reason to believe that the Weather Underground’s terrorist spree did more than property damage (and self-inflicted carnage):

The San Francisco police officer’s union has accused the Weather Underground as the bombers that killed a San Francisco police sergeant in an attack a month prior to accidental Greenwich Village explosion.Eleven years later two cops were killed–by gunshot wounds, not bombs–in a Brink’s truck robbery north of New York City. That crime was carried out by members of the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground.

The retired domestic terrorist was circumspect at the Kent State commemoration, on Saturday, though.

The Weather Underground never accomplished what it set out to do: to end the Vietnam War, to end the system that created war and to create a more-just society, he said.

Um….Thank God? Bill Ayers’ idea of a “more just society” isn’t what most people would think of as a “more just society”…

Zombie’s excellent 2008 expose on Bill Ayers’ book, Prairie Fire is a must-read for anyone who might be fooled by Ayers’ self-flattering history revisionism.

William Ayers is a communist. But don’t take my word for it. He said so himself:


And not some nicey-nice peace-and-love kind of communist. Through his group the Weather Underground, Ayers was planning to “seize power” in a violent communist takeover of the United States:


The text that William Ayers authored in Prairie Fire, and the additional documentary links provided below, prove that:

• Ayers was not simply protesting “against” the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn’t against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn’t against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links),Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings — their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in Ayers’ own words.

• Ayers and his co-authors freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts, and even provide a detailed list, most likely typed up by Ayers himself, of the crimes they had committed up to that point. Ayers’ list, scanned directly from Prairie Fire, is shown below. He may have escaped conviction due to a legal technicality (the prosecutors failed to get a warrant during some of their surveillance of the Weather Underground), but this in no way means that Ayers was factually innocent of the crimes. As has been widely reported, after the case against him was dropped, Ayers decribed himself as “guilty as hell, free as a bird.”

• Just because Ayers tries to appear respectable now doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a violent revolutionary in the past. In fact, as the text of Prairie Fire shows, Ayers was one of the most extreme extremists in American political history. And as the links given as the end of this essay will prove, Ayers is just as politically radical now as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers’ contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.

Bill Ayers’ vision of violent Communist revolution is one that was once shared by our president, coincidentally!

The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign.  When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive — which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. 

Via Discover the Networks:

The title Prairie Fire was an allusion to Mao Zedong‘s 1930 observation that “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” Ayers and his co-authors dedicated the book to a bevy of violent, America-hating revolutionaries — including Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin who had killed Robert F. Kennedy.

Ayers told the Kent State drones he still holds out hope for the creation of a peace culture and a peace movement in the nation.

Just remember that the “peace” communists like Bill Ayers yearn for comes at a huge cost to those who don’t share his communist totalitarian ideology.


Center For Security Policy Video: Reject Perez

The Center for Security Policy  has released a 20-minute video featuring comments by six prominent public policy experts urging the Senate to reject the nomination Thomas Perez,  Obama’s pick to become the next Secretary of Labor. This “virtual press conference” (VPC) offers a litany of extremely troubling behavior spanning the nominee’s career prior to and during his tenure in his current position as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, hosts the VPC and addresses Perez’s leading role in the Obama administration-wide effort to embrace, legitimate and empower the Muslim Brotherhood and its operatives.
Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch, describes Perez’s radical political philosophy and conduct before and during his time in the Justice Department.
Anita MonCrief, who once was a member of the hard-left group, ACORN, and is now a voting integrity activist with True the Vote, discusses Perez’s troubling proclivities with respect to immigration and labor law stemming in part from his past-presidency of Casa de Maryland, an organization that helps illegal aliens violate federal statutes.
Hans von Spakovsky, former counsel to one of Perez’s predecessors as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who decries the “toxic culture” and mismanagement inside that organization as a result of the incumbent’s leadership – and the prevarication he engaged in during the course of a highly critical examination of the Perez tenure by the Justice Department’s Inspector General.
Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, who questions whether the Senate can responsibly entrust the U.S. Labor Department to an individual who has worked to enable illegal aliens to take jobs from American workers.
J. Christian Adams, a former career attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Voting Section details various actions – some taken personally by Perez and others by his organization on his watch – that have subverted the principle of equal justice under the law.
On the occasion of the release of the Reject Perez video, Mr. Gaffney observed:
Tom Perez is perhaps the most controversial of President Obama’s nominees to Cabinet positions in his second administration – and that is saying something in light of the competition for that dubious distinction.  His past record and present mismanagement, if not actual malfeasance, at the Justice Department should disqualify him from serious consideration for not only the job of Secretary of Labor, but for any position of responsibility in the U.S. government.
His confirmation hearing is set for tomorrow.

Over 700 Special Ops Vets Demand Answers On Benghazi – Push For Congressional Cmte (Video)

More than seven hundred retired Military Special Operations professionals from “Special Operations Speaks” sent a letter to the House of Representatives urging members to support H.Res 36, which would create a House Select Committee to investigate the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans were killed in that attack, and two could have been saved if the Regime had acted quickly enough..

Kerry Picket of  Big Peace reported:

Signers of the letter believe the House Select Committee should look into a number of issues, including the lack of military response to the events in Benghazi, if any non-military assistance was provided during the attack; the number U.S. personnel who were injured in Benghazi; the current locations of survivors; the names of the individuals in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks and was a senior US military officer present.

“As veterans from all aspects of Special Operations, we have no doubt that there’s a lot more to what happened in Benghazi than President Obama and his Administration are letting on. From the very beginning, he has attempted to mislead and outright lied to the American people about why the attack on September 11th, 2012 happened, how it happened, and what our government did or did not do to save the lives of our patriots abroad,” former Navy SEAL Captain Larry Bailey wrote in a statement to Breitbart News.

The representatives from the retired military community want “a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012,” adding that the,  “American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.”

Retired Air Force Col. Dick Brauer, now a member of S.O.S. discussed his group’s push for information on Fox and Friends, this morning.

Here’s the full listing of the questions they are demanding answers to:

1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?

b. If so, were they alerted?

c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

5. Where are the survivors?

6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?

14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?

For some reason, House Speaker, John Boehner has not been predisposed to appoint a select committee to investigate the Benghazi debacle, but being a political animal, hopefully he will bow to public pressure if enough of his constituents push him in that direction.

Sadly,  it looks  like the Republican leadership decided to drop the issue after the election, lending credence to the charge that they were only pursuing it for political reasons. It’s almost like top Republicans knew something about a classified weapons running operation being run out of Benghazi, and now want to wash their hands of the whole stinking thing. “What difference does it make?!” as HillaryClinton famously asked.

But Special Op guys don’t like to see their own left behind, and they are not letting this thing go.

Former Navy SEAL Captain Larry Bailey said in a conference call, today, that SOS  thought they would get maybe a couple hundred signatures on their petition and were surprised by the overwhelming response – over 700 Special Op signatures,

now. He said that they expect there to be a committee established, and if it isn’t, he matter-of-factly offered that there would be political consequences.

Frank Gaffney made note of something Clinton  said repeatedly (so it was apparently an approved talking point) during her hearing. “We are confronting a global jihadist threat,”  she told the Senators. But the failure that was manifest on Sept 11,  was that the Regime didn’t recognize the global jihadist threat. Clinton failed to countenance the global jihadist threat until she was heading out the door.

Another thing Gaffney thought was kind of stunning was the absence  of any of the folks who survived the attack from the public domain. He called it a “witness suppression program.”

Their working theory as to what was going on: Ambassador Stevens was in one of the most dangerous places in the world on one of the most dangerous days of the year for a specific reason: an emergency meeting after the disclosure in the media of a shipment of arms from Libya through Turkey heading to Syria to arm the Islamist rebels in Syria.  Exposure of that pipeline serious might have had serious repercussions for Obama in the presidential election. Both parties might have known about the covert operations.


End the Benghazigate Cover-up

Video: Faith and Freedom’s Ralph Reed Calls on Obama To Condemn Easter Pastor’s “Cheap”, “Ahistorical”, “Political” Rant

Ralph Reed, the Founder and Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition was invited onto The Greta Van Susteren Show, last night  to comment on Obama’s Pastor’s obnoxious and inappropriate Easter sermon. Rev. Luis Leon used part of his sermon to go after Christian conservatives, saying:

“It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet, and for immigrants to be back on their side of the border.”

While Greta Van Sustern thought it was obvious that there was no collusion between the pastor and the president on the message,  Reed thought it seemed more than a little coincidental that the message so seamlessly meshed with the organized left’s PR message as issues like gay marriage, welfare reform are being discussed in the public sphere.

“It doesn’t seem coincidental to me that this happened the same week of the arguing of the marriage cases before the Supreme Court because it’s part of this drumbeat that we’re hearing…throughout our culture and especially among the opinion elites: If you support traditional marriage – you’re a bigot. If you believe in reforming welfare, you’re a racist. If you believe in the importance of the family as the most important department of health, education and and welfare ever conceived, then you want to put women back in the kitchen,” he said.

And it shows the left’s desperation, he continued, because they “can’t win based on facts in the argument so they engage in smearing, and cat-calling and drawing ugly caricatures.”

Noting that just last week, Don Young of Alaska was  immediately condemned by Speaker Boehner and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus for using a term that was derogatory toward Hispanics, he said, “today, the White House refused to distance the president from these remarks, so I call on the president tonight, not just through a spokesman, but through a statement issued over his name, to make it clear that not only does he not agree with them, but he finds them deeply offensive.”

Asked if he really thought the president should address the issue, Reed answered, “he’s being asked about it, and he’s going to continue to be asked about it… I think it’s entirely appropriate and I think it would be well within his responsibilities to say listen, I had nothing to do with this, I was just there worshiping with my family, and I don’t think most Americans agree with it.”

As for the Pastor, Reed thought he should apologize for using an Easter Sunday sermon as a platform to make cheap political attacks on other Americans.

I asked Reed on Twitter if he thought Obama would really issue a statement condemning the Pastor. He responded, “not holding my breath.”


Video: WH Refuses To Denounce Obama Pastor’s Rev. Wright Style Easter Rant

Video: WH Refuses To Denounce Obama Pastor’s Rev. Wright Style Easter Rant

Americans who pay attention to the news were unpleasantly reminded, this Easter, of the scandal that threatened to knock Obama out of contention in 2008. Taking a page from the odious Black liberation theology of Obama’s Pastor in Chicago, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of TUCC, Reverend Luis Leon turned the pulpit on Easter into a place for cheap political posturing, and incendiary racialist rhetoric, seemingly tailored to please the president.

In his Easter sermon today, Rev. Luis Leon said, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border.” Rev. Leon spewed this revisionist history in front of President Obama and his family.

The Washington Post reported the story with the headline: Obama attends Easter service; minister criticizes ‘captains of the religious right’

Other websites soon followed. Here’s the Memeorandum thread.

In the Spring of 2008, Obama did finally denounce Rev. Wright’s shocking rhetoric, and left TUCC  because the controversy had refused to die down and was threatening his candidacy..

But Obama isn’t running for anything, anymore.  So what does he care if his pastor insults half of America on Easter Sunday? He doesn’t.  No doubt it pleases him greatly.

White House spokesman, Jay Carney was asked if the White House would denounce Leon’s “false and filthy rant.”

Of course, Carney demurred.

What does it matter that Leon isn’t a politician, Senator, member of Congress or President? What does it matter that St. John’s Episcopal Church has been visited by many many presidents over the years? Why would Carney even bring up those irrelevant points? The President of the United States went to that service and sat through that grossly inappropriate sermon with his family on Easter Sunday.  Wouldn’t it be appropriate for him to assure conservative Christians across the nation that he doesn’t share those vile views?

That’s a rhetorical question, and we should all know by now, why Obama has not and will not throw Leon “under the bus.”

Everything we know about Obama points to the inescapable conclusion that he agrees with his radical pastors 100%.

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!

Obama Creating Panel to Form Election Guide for States


While specifics are scarce,  it’s a safe bet that the panel won’t be focused on stopping voter fraud, or making sure that members of the military aren’t disenfranchised. No. It’s focus will be about making voting easier. What can we do about long lines? Should we extend early voting even longer?

The Washington Times reported Thursday that Obama issued a new executive order aimed at cracking down on those types of election problems.

Read between the lines of the group’s mission statement, and it seems the group will be overseeing state election laws, to at least some degree.

Politico reports Mr. Obama’s order creates a new presidential commission on election body, co-chaired by two lawyers, Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsburg. Mr. Bauer served on the campaign of Mr. Obama in 2012; Mr. Ginsberg, on Mitt Romney’s campaign, Politico says.

The Daily Caller reported that nine-seat Presidential Commission will be tasked with recommending changes to states’ election laws by the end of September.

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles,” said Obama’s executive order, issued March 28.

State elections are conducted by states, usually under state laws. However, the federal Congress has the constitutional authority to “any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”

Let’s take a look at Robert Bauer, Obama’s lawyer, who will be co-chairing the panel with Ben Ginsburg.

* Served as general counsel for Obama for America.

* Unsuccessfully lobbied the Justice Department last fall to pursue a criminal probe of the American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad highlighting the Barack Obama and terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground connection.

* Sought prosecution with the Department of Justice against Harold Simmons for funding the ad.

* Used thug and scare tactics on television stations throughout the U.S. to compel them to pull the advertisement of Obama and Ayers.

Bauer is Mao fan, Anita Dunn’s husband. What could possibly go wrong?

According to WaPo, Benjamin Ginsberg is the GOP’s go-to guy for electoral recounts.


He is best known for his work on the 2000 Florida recount that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision, but he has represented the leadership and campaign political action committees of slews of senators, House members and governors.Ginsberg was the national counsel for Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign, advised his Free and Strong America PAC and continues to offer counsel for Romney’s 2012 efforts .

I wouldn’t mind a commission set up to  fix our broken election system, but one fears this panel wasn’t set up to do that. Any commission created by this ACORN friendly president has to be looked at with a healthy degree of suspicion.

Hat tip: Brian B.

A Few Months After Repubs Agree To Raise Taxes, White House Blasts Repubs For Refusing To Raise Taxes


How much respect does this White House have for  low info Americans? None.  They expect them to have already forgotten that the Republicans agreed to a massive tax hike on January 1.

Via Weasel Zippers;

White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest whacked Republican lawmakers for their refusal to consider passing more tax hikes, saying that remains the “chief impediment” to progress on a budget and deficit reduction deal.

“For some time now, the chief impediment to reaching a grand bargain has been the refusal of Republicans to ask the wealthiest and well-connected to pay even a dime more to help us deal with our deficit challenges. I’m sad to report that, even months later, that, that continues to be the case, that we are seeing a group of Republicans in the Congress who are refusing to compromise on this,” he said.

I’m even sadder to report that Republicans DID compromise months ago with the Fiscal Cliff tax hike:

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income — another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

  • A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
  • A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
  • A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
  • The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

More on the tax increases via The Heritage Foundation:

Ordinary Americans, as President Obama often refers to the majority of Americans, were by no means spared the tax increases allowed in the fiscal cliff deal. Americans’ disposable income is getting cut any way you look at it. The higher Social Security payroll tax is just one direct example. Higher taxes on investors and small businesses will trickle down to other Americans primarily in the form of lower wages and salaries and fewer opportunities for career advancement.

Americans dreaming of starting their own businesses will particularly be affected. Among the 13 tax increases for 2013, investors providing much of the capital for start-up firms to get off the ground took multiple hits. The rate on dividends and capital gains increased from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

Additionally, Obamacare imposed—for the first time ever—a surcharge on investment disguised as payroll tax. It raised a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles). This brings the top rate on capital gains and dividends to 23.8 percent. And this represents a second layer of tax on capital gains. Most capital gains in the U.S. are first taxed at the highest-in-the-world corporate income tax rate of 35 percent.

Someone tell Josh, the REAL impediment to reaching a “grand bargain” is Obama’s intransigence on spending.

By the way, you tea partiers out there: remember back in 2009 when liberals kept telling us that Obama was a big tax cutter? All us “tea-baggers” were crazy to be saying “taxed enough already” because Obama was the biggest tax cutter the country had ever seen, and  he wouldn’t raise taxes “one single dime.” Remember how we laughed and laughed because we knew that he was going  to raise taxes big time to pay for the already bloated government leviathan he was so hellbent on expanding?

Yeah. Me too.

Jim (Punch Back Twice as Hard) Messina in OFA Fund-Raising Email: “If We Do This Right, The Other Side Won’t Know What Hit ‘Em”

jim messina

Jim Messina, the Chair of Obama’s permanent campaign arm, Organizing for Action, wants potential donors to know that “interest groups” on “the other side” have “money to burn” unlike his totally independent “grassroots” group which is run by former advisors to the President, and promises special access to the White House for big donors.

These shadowy special interest groups are trying to throw a wrench into the Regime’s good works, Messina says, and we can be “damned sure this is not going to stop.”

Supporters are urged to donate just $5.00 or more to help them punch back twice as hard. “The other side won’t know what hit em,” Messina promises at the end of his letter.

Friend –

I want to make one thing absolutely clear:

We’re up against a whole lot more than just opposition in Congress.

We’re up against interest groups with money to burn — organizations willing to drop every last penny they have to stop President Obama’s agenda in its tracks. We’re already seeing it on gun violence, and immigration reform — they’re going to spend millions to throw a wrench in the works of progress.

You can be damned sure that this is not going to stop.

Organizing for Action is going to shift the balance of power in Washington back to real people. People like you have shown over and over again that no amount of spending can stop millions of Americans calling for change.

It’s going to take each of us rolling up our sleeves, getting to work, and chipping in what we can when we can.

We have our first fundraising deadline this weekend. Donate $5 or more right now to become a founding member of this organization:

This is going to be fun. If we do this right, the other side won’t know what hit ‘em.


Jim Messina
Organizing for Action

Hat tip: Tony Katz

“Non-Partisan” OFA “FACT” – Trolling GOP Using @BarackObama Twitter account

On multiple occasions,  Jay Carney has referred to Obama’s campaign arm, Organizing for Action as an “outside “, “non partisan”, “independent”, or “separate” group.

He said at a recent press briefing that OFA  “is this is a separate organization, as we’ve noted, the existence of which is perfectly appropriate and the White House will engage with it consistent in the way with it has engaged with a whole host of outside constituencies.”

It’s so “separate”, the President sent out email to his supporters on January 18, 2013, entreating them to join theorganization.

It’s so “independent”, it’s recruitment video was promoted by the First Lady from her White House office.

It’s so “non partisan” it’s tweeting under the name of @BarackObama.

Twitchy reported:

Hmm? Funny, that. As Twitchy reported, many are wondering why the @BarackObama Twitter feed is still verified now that it is being run by independent (wink, wink Nudge, nudge) Organizing for Action. We also want to know why a totally “non-partisan” and “independent” organization is using that feed to troll and blame the GOP. The Twitter feed is trolling once again today.

Meanwhile in a stunning reversal of the promised transparency, Organizing For Action has decided not to disclose its donors, (watchdogs mostly silent.)

Remember when Organizing for Action – the so-called non-partisan 501(c)4 group aimed at disseminating and lobbying for Obama’s agenda – would release the names of its donors, especially the ones who give big to the organization.  Well, they’ve decided to nix that, not that the liberal media care to note the reversal.The Washington Free Beacon reported today that:

President Barack Obama’s recently formed dark-money group Organizing for Action confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity Thursday that it would not release donor information such as employer and occupation despite collecting the data in its online donor application.

The Center for Public Integrity reports:

“Our voluntary disclosure will be posted on our website with the exact dollar donation, name and city and state of the donor,” Organizing for Action spokeswoman Katie Hogan told the Center for Public Integrity.

As a practical matter, a lack of employer and occupation information makes it more difficult for the public to determine the corporate, union or special interest ties donors may have.

It also complicates confirming their identities, particularly when they have common names. A similar issue arose when Obama’s inauguration committee released the names of its donors, but no other identifying information. …

Organizing for Action — the successor organization to Obama’s re-election campaign — is not compelled by law to release any of its donor information because it was established as a 501(c)(4) ”social welfare” nonprofit group and falls under the auspices of the Internal Revenue Service. It may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but electing politicians cannot be its primary purpose.

OFA has been accused by many of selling access to the president, which isn’t uncommon, but Obama campaigned against such business-as-usual politics when he ran in 2008.  However, given this administration’s penchant to keep various parts of its governing apparatus hidden from the public – and the fact that the co-founder of the liberal ethics watchdog CREW is now the White House’ ethics czar – the watchdog community in D.C. has remained silent since OFA’s inception.

Like I said — stunning.
I’m sure the MSM will soon be all over this.

Video: Jason Mattera Queries Jim Messina on Obama’s Fox News And Rush Limbaugh Attacks – Asks About Creepy Messages on His Hands

Via Big Journalism, comes a #winning video from Talk Radio Network chief investigative reporter Jason Mattera catching up to Obama’s 2012 campaign manager and director of Organizing for Action Jim Messina.

Mattera’s specialty is getting public figures to embarrass themselves on camera, and this video is no exception, as he managed to illicit a denial from Messina that Obama engages in attacks on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Hilarious, considering the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The video touches on only a few examples from the past few years.

The Regime’s ham-handed attempts to delegitimize Fox News in 2009 were so egregious, members of the MSM actually took Fox’s side, calling the Obama White House efforts “Nixonian.”

As Big Journalism noted:

The fun video highlights a more important point, however. Obama’s bullying focus on members of the media who do not parrot his administration’s talking points has created a climate of intimidation in media. Modus operandi at the White House has become cutting off all adverse media at the knees, ensuring that they do not gain access to the White House, and whipping up public pressure to silence those outlets.

After a San Francisco Chronicle reporter posted a video of protesters at an Obama fundraiser, the White House threatened to bar the paper from future events. The Boston Herald claimed the Obama campaign would not give it full access to a local fundraiser for the President because the paper featured an op-ed from Mitt Romney on its front page.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted Obama was “part of” a “secondary boycott” against Fox News, a concept credited to Breitbart News editor-at-large Ben Shapiro in response to the President’s remarks that “If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in a radio interview that White House staffers screamed and swore at her while discussing her coverage of the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” scandal. Attkisson claimed the Obama Administration said that more friendly media outlets were “reasonable,” implying she was abnormal.

Attkisson’s account matches veteran reporter Bob Woodward’s interaction with a White House official who reportedly yelled at him for a half hour before sending him an apology email which also said he would “regret” printing a story critical of Obama’s messaging during debate over sequestration cuts. That threat came to fruition as numerous left-wing journalists mocked and belittled Woodward.

As I’ve said so many times before: Obama is not a nice guy. He’s a malicious deceiver. In an article that could have been penned by me, Ron Ross of the American Spectator, noted that the country is in a state of denial about this:

Barack Obama is arrogant, intolerant, mean, dishonest, vengeful, and ruthless. He does not wish us well. He is considered by many of his supporters to be a savior. In fact, he’s a destroyer. Is that an unfair indictment? Consider the evidence.

The economy is operating far below its potential. Is he doing anything to discover why? Millions of people are unable to find jobs. Does he seem concerned? He has an abysmal ignorance of how a market economy actually works. He doesn’t show the slightest curiosity about the causes of our economic distress.

He doesn’t know what he’s doing and he doesn’t care that he doesn’t know. He’s so incredibility arrogant, he doesn’t think he even needs to know. The very fact that he thought he was qualified to fill the most important office in the world demonstrates his profound arrogance.

Obama sees no difference between his opinions and the truth. He assumes whatever he says is true simply by the act of saying it. He claims to have proposed $3.9 trillion in budget cuts but no one can explain what he’s referring to. He doesn’t seem to recognize that there is such a thing as the truth.

The reason he has to use a teleprompter is to keep himself from expressing what he really thinks. Honesty or sincerity would lead to his undoing.

Keep reading Ross is just getting started…

Under responsible stewardship, this country’s economy could be roaring back to economic health – not limping toward its now almost inevitable demise.

Oversight and Reform Video: “No Leadership, No Responsibility, No Tours”

Via the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, comes a new video: “No Leadership, No Responsibility, No Tours” highlighting the White House’s crass political gamesmanship.

Oversight and Reform wanted to highlight the White House’s decision to close its doors to school groups and visitors while responsible spending reforms, like those from non-partisan Inspectors General outlined in Oversight’s March 5 Committee report, have not been implemented.

“It’s telling that the President would rather cancel White House tours during the most popular tourist season than roll up his sleeves and get to work fixing our nation’s spending crisis.” Chairman Darrell Issa said.  “Just two weeks ago, my committee released a report chronicling $67 billion in unimplemented reforms recommended by the President’s own non-partisan Inspectors General.”


As outlined in the video, the Administration has offered differing accounts of who decided to cancel tours.  On March 13, 2013, President Obama said, “This was not a decision that went up to the White House.”  Then later that day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney contradicted the President admitting, “We had to cancel the tours.”

Video: Rep Darrell Issa on Oversight Investigation of Labor Nominee Perez Over Role in St. Paul Quid-Pro-Quo

Today, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa appeared on Fox News’ America Live with Megyn Kelly to discuss the Obama’s controversial nomination of Tom Perez to the Labor Department.

The Oversight Committee has been investigating Mr. Perez’s role in the dismissal of a Supreme Court case as highlighted in the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial today, “The Talented Mr. Perez, How Obama’s Labor nominee muscled a city to drop a Supreme Court case”.

President Obama nominated Thomas Perez on Monday to run the Labor Department, praising him as “a consensus-builder” who passed the nation’s “first statewide living-wage law” in Maryland. That isn’t his only talent. Consider how Mr. Perez worked behind the scenes to undermine two civil cases against the City of St. Paul in order to stop a Supreme Court case that might have repudiated his discrimination enforcement theories.

These columns first reported on the curious St. Paul episode in February 2012 (“Squeezed in St. Paul”), after the Minnesota city withdrew a case that it had spent almost a decade litigating and that the U.S. Supreme Court had already agreed to hear. We’ve since learned more about how it happened, and we’ve seen emails that illustrate the strong-arm role played by Mr. Perez in his current job as head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. It’s a story of how political muscle undermined the rule of law.

At the beginning of the segment, Issa  briefly also discussed the Benghazi witnesses, being hidden by the Obama administration, saying, “the fact is, every time we interview people who were there, we find that the stories that were told to us publicly, and the stories these individuals tell us privately are always different.”


Obama’s Priorities: Budgets or Brackets? (Video)

What’s more important to this President? Presenting a budget on time at a time when there is a growing urgency for Washington to put its fiscal house in order, or NCAA Brackets!1!!!

The House Republican Conference has the disturbing answer to that question.

With March Madness scheduled to start later today, let’s take a look back at the President’s history of submitting NCAA brackets:

2009 – On Time

2010 – On Time

2011 – On Time

2012 – On Time

Now let’s take a look at President Obama’s history of submitting budgets:

2009 – Late

2010 – On Time

2011 – Late

2012 – Late

2013 – Late

He always makes time for getting his brackets in on schedule, but his budget arrived on time only once.

Paul Ryan noted on the House Budget Committee website:

  • In just one term, President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President.
  • In the 90 years covering FY1923 through FY 2013, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline two years in a row.  He is the only President who has missed the deadline in three of the four years of a term.  And, he holds the record for the longest delay (at 98 days).
  • All Presidents from Harding through Reagan’s first term met the statutory budget submission deadline in every year. In five of these years, a change in the law was requested and passed to extend the deadline, and the President always met it.
  • Since the budget process moved the date of submission to the first Monday in February, the incoming President’s first budget submission has been delayed for practical reasons (the President’s inauguration is less than three weeks before the budget submission’s deadline). Yet President Obama’s first budget in his first year set a new record with a 98-day delay for his FY2010 budget.
  • Since the statutory deadline was extended to the first Monday in February, with the exception of the first budget for a new President, this deadline has only been missed three times: Clinton FY1998; Obama FY2012; and Obama FY 2013.


Big Government: Time for Presidential Accountability on the Budget:

he nation’s chief executive has at his disposal the Office of Management and the Budget, with a $90 million budget of its own, not to mention seasoned budget experts in every agency and department of government, yet he chose to defy the early February deadline once again.

It’s time to hold the President accountable the same way we’re now holding Congress accountable.  We need an executive branch corollary to the No Budget No Pay Act that will force the President to abide by the law.  If the President fails to do his job and flouts the Budget Act deadline, his pay gets docked – just like Congress.

Congressman Larry Buschon (R-IN) has proposed a bill to do just that, the aptly named SUBMIT Act.  Congress should fast-track Buschon’s bill – and maybe take it even further.  Many Presidents (including this one), have outside assets and income far beyond the $400,000 they earn from taxpayers each year.  A pay cut may not be sufficient motivation to obey the law.  So let’s also squeeze the entertainment and political travel budgets of any President who fails to do the people’s work.  Taxpayers have to put up with subsidizing presidential political travel: most of the actual costs of the airplanes, motorcades, security details, advance work and other extremely expensive logistics.  That comes with the job – but when the President isn’t doing the job, he or she shouldn’t get to bill the taxpayers for non-essential political activity.

The same goes for spending on lavish White House social events that aren’t open to the general public.  If President Obama feels that government can’t afford White House tours under the sequester, why should taxpayers have to fund  any costs associated with private concerts and dinners with movie stars when the President won’t even meet the basic statutory obligation to deliver a budget on time?

Obama Nominates DOJ Radical, Thomas E. Perez For Labor Dept. Secretary (Video)


In a move, Monday,  that signaled the end of his so-called “charm offensive” toward Republicans,  Obama nominated dishonest and odious radical, Thomas E. Perez,  to be the next Labor Department secretary.

Via The Washington Times:

Mr. Obama’s pick comes less than a week after a scathing audit of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which Mr. Perez runs as an assistant attorney general. The department’s inspector general said the Civil Rights division had become riven with factions, and questioned whether Mr. Perez was completely truthful in information he gave about the decision to dismiss a high-profile voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.

J Christian Adams reported at Election Law Center:

When the last Inspector General report came out about Civil Rights Division hiring, AAG Wan Kim promised to implement all of the suggestions.  His successor AAG Tom Perez is not as magnanimous and appears resistant to implementing changes described by the report as necessary.

Senators take note.

In particular, Perez seems opposed to implementing changes regarding hiring practices which has resulted in a 100 percent liberal or leftist bias in Voting Section lawyers.  Some inside the DOJ simply cannot understand that this is a problem, and for that blindness, a heavy price may be paid if Perez is nominated for Secretary of Labor.  (An aside: I spent the day on Capitol Hill and there is an emerging view that Perez will not be nominated.  Damaged goods.  I am not sure I agree with that assessment given the people nominating spend an inordinate amount of time justifying the correctness of their position, even if it is a corroded one.)

Perez  refused to take any action to fire or even reprimand Justice Dept employees who engaged in bad behavior.

Adams also reported:

Senator Charles Grassely is asking the same question posed by this blog: Why do the people who engaged in bad behavior as documented by the Inspector General’s report still have jobs?  The Washington Times:

“A senior Republican in Congress said Wednesday that he wants to know why Justice Department employees whose “hostile, racist and inappropriate behavior” was documented in a new report — including one who admitted lying to the department’s office of inspector general — are still employed.”

Some of the damage Perez has done at the DOJ, via Discover the Networks:

  • On April 23, 2012, Perez’s Justice Department sued the city of Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that its use of written tests to determine promotions in its fire department had “resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates,” who registered passing grades at significantly lower rates than their white counterparts. “This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices that have the effect of excluding qualified candidates on account of race will not be tolerated,” said Perez.
  • This was just one of numerous Perez/DOJ lawsuits designed to force various municipal fire (and police) departments to do away with written tests for membership. In a case against the New York Fire Department, Perez and DOJ argued in favor of what amounted to strict racial quotas favoring blacks, even if they scored as low as 30% on their qualifying exams.


Perez has emphasized CRD’s “critical work” of “monitoring federal, state, and local elections across the country to ensure that voting takes place free of unlawful intimidation.” But in June 2010, J. Christian Adams, a five-year DOJ veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ’s dismissal of a case involving two Philadelphia-based members of the New Black Panther Party who had intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence on Election Day, 2008. Adams cited Perez and Thomas Perrelli (the associate attorney general) as the two DOJ officials most responsible for dropping the case. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Perez and other Obama DOJ officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”

In September 2010, Christopher Coates—Voting Section Chief for the DOJ—testified to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and corroboated Adams’ assertion that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. For more than a year, Perez had denied the Commission’s requests to hear Coates’ testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But in September 2010, Coates finally chose to go public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws. For the full text of Coates’ testimony, click here.

Perez has played a key role in opening investigations of several large urban police departments for systematic civil-rights abuses such as harassment of racial minorities, false arrests, and excessive use of force. In 2011, for instance, Perez’s CRD initiated a high-profile push to reform the New Orleans Police Department; “pattern and practice” investigations of police departments in Newark and Seattle; and a preliminary investigation of the Denver Police Department. These actions were consistent with what Perez had stated in September 2010: “In case you haven’t heard, the Civil Rights Division is once again open for business. There were very few [pattern and practice] cases during the prior administration.” On another occasion (in April 2010), Perez had stated: “Criminal prosecutions alone, I have learned, are not enough to change the culture of a police department.” As of March 2013, Perez had initiated 17 probes of police and sheriff’s departments across the United States—more probes of that type than CRD had ever previously conducted under any individual’s leadership.

In 2011, Perez led a DOJ lawsuit against Alabama’s recently passed anti-illegal immigration law (HB-56), similar to Arizona’s 2010 law.

In July 2011, Perez addressed a luncheon meeting of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a pro-amnesty immigration group with which he has long had a close relationship. In his remarks, Perez praised NCLR’s work and expressed gratitude for its steadfast support of President Obama’s agendas. He also lauded the organization’s members as valuable “change agents” and “serial activists” who “will [help] move America forward.” And he characterized opponents of immigration reform as racists: “It’s undeniable that what else we see out there in America is an absolute headwind of intolerance, and it’s a headwind of intolerance that has been manifested in many different ways shapes and forms.”

In December 2011, the Justice Department blocked a new South Carolina law requiring voters to present valid identification at their polling places on election day. Claiming that the law discriminated against minority voters, Perez wrote: “Although the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence … the state’s submission did not include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter identification requirement.” Perez further contended that the law violated Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lacked photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.[1]

Perez also led a 2012 CRD lawsuit that succeeded in overturning Texas’s voter ID law.

In late May 2012, Perez and DOJ ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts—which were already underway—to verify the identity and eligibility of the people listed on its voter rolls. DOJ explained its actions by saying that it had not yet been able to verify that Florida’s efforts “neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” In a letter (dated June 11) to the Florida Secretary of State, Perez charged that Florida was violating the National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act. “Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct,” he wrote.

Florida was not compliant with DOJ, however. “We have an obligation to make sure the voter rolls are accurate and we are going to continue forward and do everything that we can legally do to make sure than ineligible voters cannot vote,” said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida secretary of state Ken Detzner. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot. We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.” Earlier that year, Florida election officials had identified some 53,000 still-registered voters who were deceased, and another 2,600 who were non-citizens. In fact, state officials estimated that the total number of non-citizens on Florida’s registered-voter rolls was as high as 182,000. Nevertheless, DOJ filed suit against Florida on June 12, 2012. “Because the State has indicated its unwillingness to comply with [DOJ's] requirements, I have authorized the initiation of an enforcement action against Florida in federal court,” said Perez.

In early August 2012, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona), a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, asked Perez: “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez refused to answer, four separate times. provided some context for this:

“Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)…. The leader of the Islamist [side] was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for: cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training; limits on the power of terrorism investigators; changes in agent training manuals; [and] a legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word ‘Muslim’ has become ‘racialized’ and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to ‘take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.’”

Perez raised no objection in response to Aziz. (For a video of Perez’s exchange with Rep. Franks, click here.)

In March 2013, the American Spectator reported that “Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicization of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division,” as evidenced by the fact that “every one” of the 113 people his CRD had hired for supposedly non-political civil-service positions were “demonstrably liberal activists.” Moreover, said the report, Perez had “insisted on personally approving each of these new hires.”

Also under Perez, the DOJ has repeatedly slow-walked efforts intended to help ensure that overseas military personnel (who tend to support Republican candidates by a wide margin) could exercise their voting rights. Meanwhile, Perez’s division has strived—without jurisdiction—to help felons (who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates) regain voting privileges in a number of states.

Megyn Kelly and Chris-stirewalt discussed the Thomas Perez nomination on America Live, Monday. Kelly asked a good question – is it less controversial for Perez to be moved to labor or stay at the Civil Rights division of the DOJ? In other words where will this malevolent a$$hole do the most damage?


Senator Jeff Sessions released this statement on the Perez nomination, Monday:

Sessions Comments On Nomination of Thomas Perez To Head Labor Department:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary committee, commented today on President Obama’s nomination of Thomas Perez to serve as the Secretary of Labor:
“This is an unfortunate and needlessly divisive nomination. The top priority of the Secretary of Labor should be to create jobs and higher wages for American workers. But Mr. Perez has aggressively sought ways to allow the hiring of more illegal workers. Mr. Perez has also had a controversial tenure at the Department of Justice where he has demonstrated a fundamentally political approach to the law.
His views on illegal immigration are far outside the mainstream. Mr. Perez previously served as the President of the Board of Casa de Maryland, a fringe advocacy group that has instructed illegal immigrants on how to escape detection, and also promoted illegal labor sites and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. As a councilman in 2003, Mr. Perez advocated for allowing illegal immigrants to be able to use foreign identification, known as matricula cards, in place of a valid U.S.-issued ID to work and receive public services. By nominating Mr. Perez to this important post, the President has placed his drive to promote his flawed immigration policies over the needs of the millions of unemployed Americans. We need a Secretary of Labor who fights to create jobs for American workers, not one that undermines legal work requirements. It is plain that if the policies of Mr. Perez were to be enacted, jobs for Americans would be harder to come by and wages lower. He is the wrong man for this job.”
Who saw that one coming?

Obama Regime Busted On More Lies: Jeanine Pirro Whips Out The Ruler (Video)

I don’t know why we make light of this. It really isn’t funny. The Regime lies to the American people every day, and hardly anyone gives a damn. There have been so many sequester lies, it’s hard to keep track of them all.

They were caught, last week  lying about who decided to cancel the White House tours. Carney admitted it was the White House while Obama tried to pass the buck to the Secret Service.

But the most egregious sequester lie had to do with the DHS illegal immigrant prisoner releases. The Regime said they were “low risk, non criminal detainees”. LIE. As Pirro established last week, they wouldn’t have even be detained if they didn’t pose some kind of risk to the general public – per ICE written policy.

The Regime also maintained that only “a few hundred detainees have been released (“as you know”,  Jay Carney likes to tell reporters.) No we don’t know, Skippy. It turns out the original reporting was correct. It was over 2,200.

Jay. Quit already. If you have an ounce of decency, dignity, self respect — if you have a soul – QUIT.  This has got to be eating you up – going out there and lying to everyone’s faces like that every single damn day. I don’t know how these people sleep at night. I really don’t.

There”s also the Fast and Furious lies, the Benghazi lies, and their lies about the debt crisis – (there is no crisis.)

Pirro had Congressman Randy Forbes (VA) to talk about the problem of this administration’s non stop lies.

Video via Massteaparty

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,463,116 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 461 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: