Republicans & Democrats: A Choice Between Two Evils! By Leigh Bravo

Both the Congress and the Senate passed a 2015 spending bill, in record time, that has been labeled a “Cromnibus.“ But where was the fight? Where were our representatives who swore they would not fund amnesty, Obamacare, taxpayer-funded abortion, and more irresponsible spending? No where to be seen!

About Obama’s illegal amnesty, John Boehner said:

“We are going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path. This is the wrong way to govern. This is exactly what the American people said on Election Day they didn’t want.”

About the passage of Obamacare, Boehner said:

“And look at how this bill was written.”

“Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell, no, you can’t.”

“When we came here, we each swore an oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution as representatives of the people.”

“But the process here is broken. The institution is broken. And as a result, this bill is not what the American people need nor what our constituents want.”

These are the exact words John Boehner spoke as recently as November, 2014, in reply to President Obama’s announcement to offer amnesty to millions of illegals inside the United States and the passage of Obamacare, both bills, openly rejected by the American people.

So how did the Republican leader decide to fight President Obama on amnesty, Obamacare, abortion and spending? By giving the Department of Health and Human Services’s unaccompanied children’s program an $80 million increase. He also offered up an additional $14 million to school districts struggling with the influx of illegal students. Add insult to injury, he has also agreed to give an additional $260 million to the Central American countries from where the illegals are coming. Obamacare was, once again, fully funded, along with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of taxpayer-funded abortions, and the House signed off on increasing the amount wealthy donors can throw into the political arena, increasing the current cap of $32,400 to $777,600 per person per year. Frank Dodd regulations have been rolled back allowing banks to participate in the same derivatives trading which exacerbated the financial crisis in 2008, and the real clincher? The bill calls for more spending then what the government anticipates bringing in, resulting in yet another year of increased debt, which has now surpassed the $18 trillion mark, representing a 70% increase in our national debt since Obama took office

Read more at Patriot Post

Sen. Feinstein lives up to Rolling Stone’s standards By Marc A. Thiessen

Rolling Stone magazine has faced nearly unanimous condemnation for publishing serious accusations without bothering to interview those it accused to check the facts and get their side of the story.

So why is it wrong for Rolling Stone to do this, but okay for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)?

Feinstein and Senate intelligence committee Democrats just spent six years and $40 million investigating the CIA’s rendition and interrogation program. Surely they took the time to sit down with the CIA officials who ran the program, present the committee’s findings and ask officials to explain their version of events, right?


Feinstein and her staff did not interview a single CIA official involved in the interrogation program. Not one. As the senator’s Web page notes: “The committee could not conduct its own interviews because of a simultaneous DOJ investigation into the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.”

That is “nonsense,” say former CIA directors Michael Hayden, George Tenet and Porter Goss, who published a response with former deputy directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes in the Wall Street Journal last week. They point out that Justice Department investigations were completed two years ago and “never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study.”

No one on the committee spoke to John Rizzo, former chief legal officer at the CIA, or to Jose Rodriguez, who ran the interrogation program. Not only were they not under investigation, both have also written memoirs discussing the program.

The fact that Feinstein is misleading reporters about this should be a major red flag for the media. If she can’t even tell the truth about why she failed to interview any CIA officials for their report, how can anyone trust the honesty of the report itself?

The reason Feinstein and her staff did not interview Hayden, Tenet, Goss, Rizzo, Rodriguez or any other CIA officials is the same reason Rolling Stone did not talk to those it was accusing — because they did not want to hear inconvenient facts that might undermine their predetermined narrative. As a result, Senate Democrats made numerous serious errors that call into question the credibility of their entire report. Just one example: The report claims that President George W. Bush did not know about enhanced interrogations until 2006: “According to CIA records, no CIA officer, up to and including CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss, briefed the president on the specific CIA enhanced interrogation techniques before April 2006. By that time, 38 of the 39 detainees identified as having been subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques had already been subjected to the techniques.”

If they had bothered to ask CIA officials about this, they would have learned, as Michael Hayden told Politico magazine this week, “The president personally approved the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah [in 2002]. It’s in his book!” Further, Bush received regular updates from the CIA on the intelligence that detainees were providing during his Presidential Daily Brief. As former vice president Dick Cheney put it Sunday on “Meet the Press”: “He authorized it, he approved it. A statement by the Senate Democrats for partisan purposes that the president didn’t know what was going on is just a flat-out lie.”

The Feinstein report is rife with similar, avoidable errors, many of which are documented in the rebuttals prepared by the CIA as well as Senate intelligence committee Republicans (who present multiple examples of “faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact”). As Bob Kerrey — a former Democratic member of the Senate intelligence committee who decried “the partisan nature of this report” — explained, serious investigators interested in the truth always conduct interviews because “isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them.”

Leveling serious charges without getting the other side of the story is unethical — at least that is what the press has been saying when Rolling Stone did it. As Post media critic Erik Wemple put it, publishing such accusations “requires every possible step to reach out and interview [the accused], including e-mails, phone calls, certified letters, FedEx letters, UPS letters and, if all of that fails, a knock on the door. No effort short of all that qualifies as journalism.” Politico columnist Roger Simon said of the Rolling Stone story, “The reporters and editors didn’t ask too many questions. Because they had too good a story,” adding “I don’t know what that is called, but it sure isn’t reporting.” Susan Miller, copy desk chief of USA Today, wrote, “A mesmerizing narrative should not supplant balance and fairness, standards editors should demand of anything they publish.”

Feinstein was so mesmerized by her narrative that she abandoned any acceptable standards of balance or fairness. She started with her conclusion, and then spent six years cherry-picking evidence to back up her claims.

That may be an acceptable standard at Rolling Stone, but it should not be for the U.S. Senate.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

ObamaCare incentivizing hiring of illegals?

Quote of the Day 12/20/14

What gives the new despotism its peculiar effectiveness is indeed its liaison with humanitarianism, but beyond this fact its capacity for entering into the smallest details of human life.” — Robert Nisbet (1913-1996) American sociologist, author


Fire Boehner

Mr. Speaker,

Here we are again. Maybe you remember me. I am the Conservative Talk Show Host Josh Bernstein who over the summer due to your weakness and ineptitude instructed listeners and followers of my top rated show to send you some balls. I am sad to say that apparently you did not receive enough of them. I thought over the summer that Barack Obama was the main obstacle to getting America back on track, however I was wrong. Barack Obama is certainly a big part of the problem, but unfortunately for Republicans so are you. I and many frustrated Americans now can clearly see that not only does the President need to go but so do you as well.

Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago millions of Americans rose up and voted to put the checks and balances that have sorely been missing back in Washington. They gave House Republicans a historic margin of victory in the November Mid Term Elections and elected nine new Republicans to give our party back control of the Senate. Americans we tired of the scandals, tired of the lies, and overwhelmingly repudiated the President’s policies.

Mr. Speaker, what you have done in the last few days was reprehensible and unforgivable. Your actions will have a negative effect on all Americans for years to come. Once again, The President, has broken the law by passing illegal Executive Amnesty and you have done nothing to stop him. Article one, Section eight, Clause four of the United States Constitution clearly states that all matters of Naturalization are to be originated in the Congress. Barack Obama has used the Executive Branch to pass a law that illegally changes Naturalization and he did so without Congress. This is clearly an impeachable offense.

Mr. Speaker, we know that you don’t possess the testicular fortitude to impeach the President as I have made that point abundantly clear over the summer however I did not think you would stand idly by and allow the President to usurp the rule of law and incredibly not even try to stop him. You and the so called House leadership promised to not fund the President’s Amnesty program however you broke that promise, among numerous others. You and the House leadership have the ability to block the Executive Amnesty program simply by inserting language into any bill that forbids The Department of Homeland Security from appropriating any monies or fees to be used for any type of Amnesty program. You recently made a comment that the American people do not trust the President. That may be true, however I think it is fair to say that the American people do not trust you either.

Mr. Speaker, by passing this trillion dollar spending bill you have broken numerous promises to those voters that helped keep you in power. You have also weakened the position of the new incoming Congress by taking away some of their power, leverage, and maneuverability by funding the government till September of 2015.

Mr. Speaker, why would you squander this enormous amount of political capital? What did you have to gain by passing a trillion dollar spending bill? Why didn’t you just do a continuing resolution to fund the government up until the new Congress takes over in January? Don’t you understand that you were elected to stop the President’s agenda not to go along with it? Your actions could also suppress future Republican turnout in 2016 as millions of voters will feel as though their vote truly does not count.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is a government shutdown would have been much less damaging than passing yet another irresponsible spending bill that future generations will have to pay for. You bought the left’s lie that a government shutdown will hurt Republicans. Well, take a good look at the results of this November’s mid term? Do you think it really hurt us? Not only did you pass this bill but once again did so without reading it? The left must be just as shocked at your actions as most of us on the right are. I hope you are dressing up as Santa Claus at the White House Christmas Party because you have been very generous handing out tax payer funded gifts to the Democrats while stuffing Conservatives stockings with coal.

Mr. Speaker, I can not sit back and allow you to govern this way anymore. If you fought the Democrats with the same tenacity and vigor that you fight the Conservatives in your own party, the President would not have done half the things he has done so far. The President understands that there are no consequences for his actions which is the reason he has been as brazen as he has. I do not blame the President for his actions as much as I blame you and your leadership or lack thereof, for providing the environment for which this President has been able to operate in. If you had the conviction of your character and you truly believed in the rule of law and the Constitution you would have held the President accountable a long time ago for his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on millions of fed up Americans to contact their representatives and ask them not to vote for you as Speaker and to instead remove you from leadership. My hope is that this letter goes viral and one of the 67 House Conservatives steps up and challenges you for your Speakership. I am convinced that if you are to remain the leader of the House Republicans that this historical election victory will have been wasted.

For those that are reading this please click on this link for further instructions on how to remove the Speaker:

Mr. Speaker, I really wish I did not have to write this type of letter to you again but you leave me no choice. I love this country way too much and can not watch in good conscience as you aid and abet this President in our destruction.


Josh Bernstein

Host of The Josh Bernstein Show

SideBear: From the internet rumor mill:

There is a buzz going around that Obama has something on Boner, whether it is true or not we may never know. It could be the Speaker has been caught in some hanky panky or some ill gotten money deal, but it sure fits the narrative as to why Boner surrendered to Obama.