Truth Revolt -- A split between Senate and House Republicans may have given the Democrats the win they were looking for in the DHS funding fight.
Democrats have blocked passage of a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for weeks now because the bill also defunded President Obama’s executive actions on amnesty for illegal immigrants. Four times the bill was brought forward and four times Democrats in the Senate blocked it.
With a shutdown of DHS possible as soon as Friday, Senate Republicans blinked first and have agreed to separate votes on DHS funding and immigration. The move has the potential to divide the GOP and show divisions with grassroots groups opposed to amnesty but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in Washington all sides should back the move.
“I don’t know what’s not to like about this,” McConnell said. “This is an approach that respects both points of view.”
Congressman Steve King of Iowa is one Republican unhappy with the move. King sent out several tweets criticizing senators for allowing the split vote to happen.
“Senators arguing fund DHS but vote a separate bill to defund executive amnesty. Have you heard of Obama veto? Think we were born yesterday?” King tweeted.
If the split vote to fund DHS passes the Senate it is unclear what Republicans in the House will do.
House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Post via email that he still expects Senate Democrats to do the right thing and pass the House bill.
“The speaker has been clear: The House has acted, and now Senate Democrats need to stop hiding. Will they continue to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security or not?”
And block they may. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday that Democrats will not support splitting DHS funding from the immigration parts of the bill until there are assurances from House Republicans that they will accept the Senate deal.
House Republicans are meeting behind closed doors Wednesday to discuss their next moves.
Blog Author's Comments - Mitch McConnell should never have been elected as Senate Majority leader. I said after the Republicans big win in the midterm elections that McConnell should not be the majority leader; the man is not capable of handling the responsibility. The Senate Republicans essentially waved the white flag on amnesty. They have bowed to the Democrats again.
They will have little hope of capturing the White House and maintaining control of the Senate in 2016 with the loss of this bill. Obama and the Democrats detest our Constitution and values, and Republicans won't stand up to them. This is a major mistake for McConnell to give in on Obama's illegal amnesty actions. Republicans have a duty to hold the President accountable, but they are not doing the job for which they were elected.
The Blaze -- Amid the media flap over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker saying he doesn’t know if President Barack Obama loves America since he’s “never asked the president” about that subject, Walker was apparently grilled again regarding his position on Obama’s beliefs.
This time it was about the president’s religious faith.
Walker, a Republican and possible 2016 presidential candidate, said in an interview Saturday that he didn’t know if Obama is a Christian, the Washington Post reported.
The Post article did not quote the text of the apparent question Walker was asked regarding Obama’s faith, it did note that Walker was told during the interview that Obama has spoken publicly about his Christian faith.
“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, according to the Post. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added, the paper said. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”
Walker then offered a retort for the media.
“To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” Walker said, the Post reported. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”
More from the Post:
After the interview was completed, Walker spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster telephoned The Washington Post to say the governor was trying to make a point of principle by not answering such kinds of questions, not trying to cast doubt on Obama’s faith.
“Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian,” she said. “He thinks these kinds of gotcha questions distract from what he’s doing as governor of Wisconsin to make the state better and make life better for people in his state.”
Walker also said he’s being held to a different standard by the media.
“Was it (Teamsters president) Jimmy Hoffa that ripped on the tea party and called them unpatriotic, and the president was standing there and nobody asked him that?” Walker recalled, the Post said. “To me, it seems I’ve had multiple days of an incredible double standard. They don’t ask the president about people like Jimmy Hoffa, they don’t ask Hillary Clinton about others out there.”
Walker added that who believes what or who said what isn’t his focus; rather it’s “should I choose to get in this election, why I believe we need a fighter.”
Blog author's comments - First of all I definitely believe Scott Walker should be in the running for the GOP presidential nominee for 2016. At this point in time, he is what the country and the Republican Party needs. I know that there will be many Republicans vying for the nomination, but now that Walker has become one of the front runners the liberal mainstream media are digging to find something that will make him look bad and possibly remove him from contention.
Because of Obama's actions, what he has said and will not say about the Islamic terrorists, Obama really doesn’t act like a Christian; he leans towards Islam and says very little about Christianity. I am not so sure Obama is a Christian; he seems to me to be a Muslim first.
Truth Revolt -- Though it has reportedly found no cause for pursuing charges of civil rights violations against Officer Darren Wilson, the Justice Department is preparing to sue the Ferguson Police Department over what it claims is a pattern of “racially discriminatory” practices unless it agrees to implement the Justice Department’s new policies.
"Attorney General Eric Holder said this week he expects to announce the results of the department's investigation of the shooting death of Michael Brown and a broader probe of the Ferguson Police Department before he leaves office in the coming weeks."
Brown's shooting death at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson has thrust Ferguson into the center of a nationwide debate over police tactics and race relations. The Justice Department is expected to announce it won't charge Wilson for the shooting, but it's also expected to outline findings that allege a pattern of discriminatory tactics used by the Ferguson police.
As it has done with several police departments nationwide, the Justice Department is using the lawsuit as a pressure tactic for the implementation of its anti-racial discrimination policies. One of the issues the suit will focus on are allegations that the FPD has targeted low-income people for minor traffic infractions, “and then jailed them when they couldn't pay fines.”
"I think everybody will see when we announce our results that the process that we have engaged in is, as I said back at the time when I went to Ferguson, independent, thorough and based on all the facts," said Holder. "And I am confident that people will be satisfied with the results that will be announced."
Meanwhile, Ferguson Chief of Police Thomas Jackson said so far he’s received “nothing new,” and insisted that the department has “tried to comply” with everything that Holder and his Justice Department have demanded, which he said has been “reasonable” thus far.
Blog author's comments - Another example which shows that liberalism never learns, never changes. A thug died because of his own actions. If I were in charge of the Ferguson Police Department and didn't think they had racially discriminated against minorities, I would tell this to Holder and his DOJ. But they fear more problems unless they remain quiet. More government takeover, the city must allow Eric Holder to run its police department.
All this will accomplish is to make it even harder for cities like Ferguson to recruit and keep police officers. Obama has certainly discussed all of this with Holder, and Obama who doesn't see Islamic terrorists anywhere sure seems to see racism everywhere. Holder is just one of many within the Obama administration that a large number of people will be glad to see finally leave.
Breitbart -- Much of the Congressional Black Caucus has decided to ignore Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress about the impending Iranian nuclear threat, insisting that their insult is justified by what they call Netanyahu’s ”disrespect” of Barack Obama.
GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak without asking Obama for his approval, and black politicians are taking umbrage with what they perceive as a slight to Obama.
The push to embarrass Netanyahu was launched by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) last week, after which Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and others joined the chorus. Some members of the CBC are attempting to schedule a private meeting with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer or Netanyahu when the prime minister visits Washington.
Some of the choice quotes from CBC members included:
•Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): “It’s not just about disrespect for the president, it’s disrespect for the American people and our system of government for a foreign leader to insert himself into a issue that our policymakers are grappling with. It’s not simply about President Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader. It’s deeper than that.”
•Rep. Greg Meeks: “To me, it is somewhat of an insult to the president of the United States. Barack Obama is my president. He’s the nation’s president, and it is clear, therefore, that I’m not going to be there, as a result of that, not as a result of the good people of Israel.”
•CBC chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC): “CBC members are willing certainty to meet with any representative of Israel. We understand Israel’s plight, and we support the state of Israel. “ But he, too, said the matter was about “respect,” sniffing, “I don’t hold Netanyahu responsible. I hold Speaker Boehner responsible, but I would hope that Mr. Netanyahu would not want to get involved. I personally think it is disrespectful.”
•Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA): “It is very disrespectful to this president, and what concerns me more is that I think it’s a pattern that is starting to develop from this speaker that we’re getting more and more disrespectful of the office of the presidency. I think it’s silly and petty.”
•Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) responded to a query asking if black politicians saw the speech as an insult to Obama by answering, “I think they kind of think it is.”
Cory Fritz, a spokesman for Boehner, replied, “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s upcoming visit isn’t about Speaker Boehner, and it’s not about President Obama. At this critical moment it’s important that the American people hear from Israel about the grave threats posed by Iran and Islamic radicalism.”
Other CBC members who have decided not to attend the Prime Minister’s speech include: Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Charles Rangel (NY), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX). and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC).
CBC member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) co-wrote a letter to Boehner calling for the speech to be postponed.
Johnson was virulent in his denunciation of Dermer, calling him a “longtime, right-wing political hack,” and adding he would not even meet with either Dermer or Netanyahu. He snapped, “I don’t think I would be willing to come to such a meeting, Not at that time, and under this condition, no.”
Blog author's comments - Does the CBC realize that Prime Minster Netanyahu was invited to speak, he didn't invite himself? If the CBC had any intelligence at all they would attend the speech and they might learn something. But then again they are not interested in what happens to Israel and the Middle East. The CBC are only interested in what Obama has to say. Because Boehner went over Obama's head to invite Benjamin Netanyahu, which upset Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus had reason to not attend his speech. If John Boehner had invited Castro, Obama and the CBC would all be in attendance.
The White House by telling the Congressional Black Caucus Netanyahu’s speech is racism against Obama also helped them make up their small minds not to attend. The current White House manipulative narrative around the Benjamin Netanyahu speech is entirely the result of Team Obama’s pride, ego and anger about the way Netanyahu was received during his May 24th 2011 speech. And those of us who were able to watch Netanyahu’s speech realized what an effective, intelligent leader he is.
The fact is, there is an anti-Semite in the White House and Prime Minister Netanyahu living in Iran's neighborhood really doesn't want his hostile neighbor to have nukes. Netanyahu is speaking to the Congress, a separate branch of government. Obama has shown nothing but disrespect for Netanyahu. Obama is spending U.S. tax dollars to try to unseat Netanyahu from being the Prime Minister of Israel. The Israeli election is March 17.
Bizpac -- Every now and then, liberals let their masks slip off to reveal their true feelings and agendas.
That was the case Friday, when former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the stage at the Aspen Institute to discuss marijuana legalization, which he decried as stupid, according to the Aspen Times.
He also touted vocational education and, of course, his favorite topic, gun grabbing.
The latter point was glossed over by the Times but deserves a hard look.
Not only did Bloomberg call for taking away Americans’ right to arms, as he usually does, but this time, he suggested targeting a specific group: minority males between the ages of 15 to 25.
The former mayor claimed that the demographic is responsible for 95 percent of all murders.
“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” he said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”
Not only is the ex-mayor’s sweeping generalization the kind of statement that would get a Republican roasted as “racist,” it also highlights the basic problem with the liberal position. For a small slice of the population — minority males aged 15 to 25 — they want to restrict the Second Amendment rights of every one of nearly 320 million Americans?
Blog author's comments - First of all Bloomberg and Obama would prefer taking away Americans' right to bear arms. Bloomberg 'suggested targeting a specific group: minority males between the ages of 15 to 25.' The former mayor claimed that this demographic is responsible for 95 percent of all murders. In this instance the statement Bloomberg made is probably not racist. The majority of the crime and killings in the U.S. is done by minorities.
One problem with controlling it is that most of their guns are illegal. Those doing the crime and shootings don't care how many new gun-control laws are passed by the Obama regime. Most of the guns that are used in a crime are not purchased legally so there is no paper trail which Bloomberg and Obama want for everyone else who are legal gun owners following the law.
Bloomberg's statistics are probably correct. But just how does he think he is going to get their guns, and how long does he think it will take for them to attain new ones? The government isn't going to stop them and the police can't do it either. Bloomberg and Obama should concentrate on those doing the crimes. Deal with the real problem and leave the rest of the people who are law-abiding gun owners alone.
Truth Revolt -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said no one should use the term "boycott," Democrats simply might be too busy to attend Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress next month.
In her weekly press conference Thursday, the Democrat House leader claimed there'd be no official Democrat-organized "boycott," but suggested that Netanyahu should probably not expect a packed house on the left:
"I don't think anybody should use the word 'boycott,'" Pelosi told reporters. "When these heads of state come, people are here doing their work, they're trying to pass legislation, they're meeting with their constituents and the rest. It's not a high-priority item for them."
When Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced that he invited the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress in March about the threat posed by Iran, the Obama administration and Democrats were outraged, citing a break with protocol and perceiving the move as a deliberate attempt to undermine the president's negotiations with Iran. The pushback has led to some on the left publicly stating they will not attend the speech. The National Journal reports:
"At least two Democrats have now confirmed publicly that they won't attend. Reps. John Lewis and G.K. Butterfield both said Thursday they would skip the speech, according to the Associated Press. "I think it's an affront to the president and the State Department what the speaker did," Lewis told AP, while Butterfield said he was "very disappointed the speaker would cause such a ruckus" with the invite."Blog author's comments - Apparently the Democrats are going to put their fingers in their ears because they don't want to hear what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will be here to tell the entire Congress, the truth about the serious problems that are happening in the Middle East. They can wait for the factual story of what Netanyahu had to say from someone they can trust, Brian Williams of NBC.
John Boehner inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress apparently upset Obama so much that he may have told his members of Congress not to attend the speech. If so, too bad, they may learn something if they attend and listen to the Prime Minister. Many of them would probably be in attendance if Louis Farrakhan was speaking. If what Pelosi said happens and the Democrats in Congress do not attend the talk by Netanyahu, then the GOP members of Congress should not show up for Obama's next SOTU address which is usually worthless anyway.
Breitbart -- Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll defended the play call that turned a dramatic win into an even more dramatic loss on Sunday night.
“We had a terrific call but it didn’t work out,” Carroll told ESPN’s Ed Werder.
Malcolm Butler, a rookie whose tip of a Russell Wilson pass less than a minute earlier wildly fell back into Jermaine Kearse’s hands, sniffed a short slant and intercepted the Russell Wilson pass at the goal line with 20 seconds left that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. More than a hundred million people immediately wondered why Carroll hadn’t called running back Marshawn Lynch’s number.
“If we’d of run it on that down right there we would have had to use our timeout,” Carroll explained. He affirmed that he okayed his offensive coordinator’s choice of plays.
“We have a great match up,” Carroll reasoned. “We have an easy chance to throw a touchdown pass.”
Carroll compared the loss to his defeat at USC to Texas in the National Championship Game in 2006 when Vince Young ran into the end zone with 19 seconds left to put the Longhorns ahead.
The NFL Network’s Deion Sanders called the goal-line decision “the worst call” in the history of Super Bowls. “That’s got to be one of the dumbest calls offensively in Super Bowl history,” Patriots color commentator Scott Zolak reacted.
“It such an easy thing to second guess,” Seattle’s coach opined. “And that’s going to happen for a long time.”
Blog author's comments - Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll has already proven that he is a very good coach. He has been successful in the NFL and as a college coach. He and his offensive coordinator called the play they thought would give them another Super Bowl victory, but it did not work out. As a result the New England Patriots won their fourth Super Bowl title with Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady who was also named the MVP of the game. Their victory made me happy and also happy for the Patriots.