Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Laura Ingraham’


Reported by DR. SUSAN BERRY | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/21/minnesota-sen-dr-scott-jensen-under-investigation-after-criticism-cdc-classification-virus-deaths/

 

Senator Scott Jensen / Facebook

Dr. Scott Jensen (R) tweeted on July 6 that his video message was the “most important” he has done.

The physician said the Board of Medical Practice wrote to him that he was under investigation because of allegations he has been “spreading misinformation in regards to the completion of death certificates on a news program,” and “providing reckless advice” in a comparison between COVID-19 and the flu.

In April, Jensen appeared on Fox News with host Laura Ingraham, who read guidelines developed by CDC for completing death certificates.

“In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed,’” Ingraham read from the guidelines, emphasizing they appeared to concede how the death certificates are completed is a “judgment call.”

Jensen responded the CDC guidance was “ridiculous.”

“The idea that we’re going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue,” he continued, “Because we’re gonna undermine the trust and, right now, as we see politicians doing things that aren’t necessarily motivated in fact and in science, the public’s … trust in politicians is already wearing thin.”

During the broadcast, Jensen also provided a hypothetical example of a patient who died due to influenza, with symptoms of cough and fever, but who would have the primary cause of death as “respiratory arrest.”

“I’ve never been encouraged to [notate ‘influenza’],” he said. “I would probably write ‘respiratory arrest’ to be the top line, and the underlying cause of this disease would be pneumonia … I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure, but I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death and yet that’s what we are being asked to do here.”

Jensen added that, under the CDC guidelines, a patient who died after a bus accident, but then tested positive for coronavirus, would still be counted as having presumed to have died from the virus.

“That doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

Ingraham also played a clip of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s response during a briefing to a question about the possibility of coronavirus deaths being “padded.” Fauci replied there are often “conspiracy theories” during “challenging” times in public health crises.

Jensen responded by observing that hospitals receive greater reimbursements for patients being treated for coronavirus. 

The senator said in his recent video that he believes he has been “targeted,” but that he intends to cooperate with the investigation.

He received a statement of support from Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka:

Of course I support Dr. Jensen and his medical expertise on COVID because he has proven to be right. USA Today fact-checked and verified Sen. Jensen’s claim that federal payments were greater if patients were confirmed to have COVID.

Gazelka added he is exploring “whether or not the board is compelled to investigate every complaint or if they are choosing to investigate Dr. Jensen.”

“It’s also concerning there are two separate complaints, raising questions about coordination,” the statement continued. “Legislators should not have to fear regulators based on their speech. If the bureaucratic state can silence speech through investigations, we have very dark times ahead for our democracy.”

I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It’: Lara Logan Doesn’t Understand Americans Defending Iran


Written by Virginia Kruta |  Associate Editor |

URL of the original posting site: https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/08/lara-logan-americans-defending-iran/

Fox Nation host Lara Logan admitted Tuesday evening that she doesn’t understand how Americans are essentially siding with Iran to attack President Donald Trump.

Logan, speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham and fellow guest Dinesh D’Souza, recounted some of her own experiences with the Iranian regime during her time in the Middle East.

Ingraham began the segment by asking Logan what she thought of the media outlets which, at times, appeared to be “carrying the water of the Iranian regime.” (RELATED: Lara Logan’s Response To Mueller Report Is An Indictment Of American Media)

“It is kind of depressing,” Logan replied. “I’ve been a journalist for more than 30 years and I’ve never seen anything like it. What about the voices of the Iraqi people? What about the voice of the Syrians and the Yemenis and all the people across the region who have been celebrating Soleimani’s death? You won’t see them on the streets of Tehran. You are not going to see this great display because they are afraid. They are so afraid of what the proxy forces, the revolutionary guards are capable of.”

Ingraham turned the question to D’Souza, who argued that if former President Barack Obama had been the one to order the strike against Soleimani the response would have been very different.

“If Obama had taken him out there would be celebrations, Obama is a genius,” D’Souza said. “But since it is Trump, they want to mobilize the Soleimani assassination against Trump. They are, in a way, willing to go to bed with the far enemy to defeat the near enemy, who is a greater threat to their agenda here at home.”

Logan went on to recount her experiences in the region with Iranian proxy forces, noting the extreme brutality of Soleimani and his proxies.

“That commander that was trained in Iran, loyal to Iran, run by Soleimani, he killed, according to the U.S. Embassy, two and a half thousand Sunnis,” Logan said. “His preferred method to kill them was to drill holes in their heads while they were alive. They would be meat hooks on the wall that the Iranian militias used to hang people there.”

“And I remember interviewing a young Iraqi boy, his father was taken in the night by an Iranian militia, and I will never forget him holding my hand and saying, when they took his father he had no shoes,” Logan continued, adding that the boy was turned away when he caught up to them. “He won’t need shoes where he’s going,” was what the militia member told the boy.

Logan concluded by saying that that boy’s father was one of many bodies that was eventually found in a dumpster after interacting with Iranian militias.

Ex-US Attorney: Obama CIA Chief Led Operation To Frame Trump


disclaimerReported By Ben Marquis | May 16, 2018 at 2:16pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/obama-cia-chief-led-frame-trump/

 

The Trump campaign/Russian collusion narrative — which led to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — has been steadily unraveling in recent weeks. Despite a year long investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, no credible evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign has been found, and the “evidence” and intelligence that has been offered up appears to be false and manufactured.

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova spoke about that and other recent developments during an appearance on Fox News with Laura Ingraham on Tuesday night, and cast the blame on the operation, which he viewed as a set up to frame President Donald Trump, on former Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan. 

“It was abundantly clear that there was no legitimate basis even for a counter intelligence investigation, let alone a criminal investigation,” DiGenova said.

“It is quite obvious that John Brennan was at the head of the group of people who were going to create a counter intelligence investigation against Trump by creating false information that was going to be fed through Carter Page, and fed through George Papadopoulos so that it would be picked up, reported back to Washington and provide the basis for a counter, a fake, counter intelligence investigation,” he continued.

“And it was all Brennan’s doing,” DiGenova stated emphatically. 

“And that is why the Justice Department is viciously fighting revealing everything they can about the source in London, who everybody knows the identity of.”

Ingraham asked the former U.S. attorney to further explain recent reports about an unnamed “source in London who allegedly provided information that was used as a basis for the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign.

“The source in London was another person who was feeding false information to George Papadopoulos and others about collusion which did not exist,” DiGenova replied.

Another guest on the program, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, spoke about another aspect of the creation of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative and the anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele on behalf of Democrat-funded political opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

She noted how the FBI had granted access to a handful of private contractors, likely to include Fusion GPS, to sift through raw intelligence gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This was then passed on to Steele and others and recycled back to the U.S. intelligence community with a false air of legitimacy to help form the narrative used as the basis for the investigation into Trump. 

DiGenova picked up on what Powell had mentioned and pointed out that there had been two opinions issued by the FISA court in opposition to that illegal practice of allowing private contractors access to the sensitive raw intelligence data.

“All of that was designed for the unmasking and the leaking of the names, and that was all done by private contractors,” DiGenova said. “The FISA court objected to it and it never stopped.”

The supposition that Brennan was the ringleader of an attempt to “frame” Trump is little more than DiGenova’s opinion, informed however well it might be by experience and information obtained through public and private sources.

That said, it increasingly appears as though the entire Trump/Russia collusion narrative was indeed created wholly out of false, manufactured or misconstrued information in order to provide justification for the investigation that was likely intended to prevent Trump from winning the election, or at least hamstring his agenda and lead to his impeachment once he took office. 

On top of that, Brennan has made it blatantly obvious that he loathes Trump, so it isn’t too much of a stretch to think he may have used the powerful intelligence tools at his disposal in order to “frame” an innocent man and destroy him politically. Hopefully we will find out the truth soon when the DOJ inspector general’s report is released.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Pence Vows Trump Is ‘Gonna Keep Delivering’ on Promises, Unfazed by Polls


Reported by Brendan Kirby | Updated 21 Dec 2017 at 11:16 AM

President Donald Trump will succeed by delivering on his 2016 campaign promises, not sweating the polls, Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday night on “The Ingraham Angle.”

Trump’s approval rating has been mired under 40 percent in most surveys. But the vice president reminded Fox News host Laura Ingraham that most polls also suggested Trump would lose the 2016 election — and said Trump will continue doing things like passing historic tax cuts.

“One of the enduring lessons for me of election 2016 was ‘Don’t believe the polls,’” Pence said. “I don’t remember a poll that had us anywhere close to winning, and President Trump won a historic victory … If the president was sitting here, what he’d say to you is, ‘We’re just going to keep delivering. They’re going to keep talking, they’re going to keep resisting; we’re gonna keep delivering.’”

It is not just Trump who faces grim poll numbers. Surveys indicate the tax plan itself is also unpopular with varying majorities of Americans. Pence said the administration has to sell the merits, but he added that doing so will be much easier when withholding levels begin to change in workers’ paychecks.

“When the American people start to see more in their paychecks in February, they’re going to start to realize that the president’s vision here, that this middle-class miracle that was passed today by the Congress, is an idea whose time has come,” said Pence. “And I really do believe that this is going to sell itself.”

Pence added that Trump believes lower taxes and more economic activity will lead to growth that exceeds projections.

The soon-to-be law;

  • slashes the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent,
  • cuts taxes for businesses that are not incorporated,
  • and reduces individual tax rates in all brackets.
  • It also doubles the child tax credit,
  • kills Obamacare’s individual mandate,
  • and opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to energy exploration and production.

Pence rejected criticism that the tax cuts will add more than $1 trillion to the debt. “The estimates of deficits here are all based on some pretty predictable, you know, growth estimates going forward,” he said. Pence added that Trump believes lower taxes and more economic activity will lead to growth that exceeds projections.

The vice president sidestepped questions about independent counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the 2016 campaign and did not take the bait when Ingraham invited him to criticize the former FBI director’s team. That team includes a number of lawyers who have made political contributions to Democrats and are linked in relationships that strongly suggest improper bias in decision-making.

“It’s just not been a focus of mine or of this president,” Pence said, adding that the White House will continue to cooperate with Mueller but will not obsess over the probe. “We’ll let the special counsel do their job and continue to focus on our job. I think that’s exactly what the American people want us to do.”

Pence made clear the administration will concentrate on policy. He said after tax cuts, Trump will move on to welfare reform and rebuilding America’s roads and bridges.

“It’s humbling for me to be a part of it, and we’re just getting started,” he said.

PoliZette senior political writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at brendan.kirby@lifezette.com. Follow him on Twitter here.

Ingraham: ‘It’s Time for a New Generation of Conservatives’ to Take Over Washington. LifeZette editor-in-chief blasts establishment politicians, saying the ‘Bush GOP is over’


by Kathryn Blackhurst | Updated 10 Oct 2017 at 1:41 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/ingraham-its-time-for-a-new-generation-of-conservatives-to-take-over-washington/?

LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham said on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday that the “Bush GOP is over” even if Establishment Republicans “might not know it yet.”

Ingraham, who was promoting her book “Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump,” said that the conservative populism trumpeted successfully by President Donald Trump is the “winning agenda” that touched “the heart of the working-class person in this country.” Noting that Trump has struggled against the Establishment members from both major political parties ever since he announced his presidential candidacy, Ingraham said, “It’s time for a new generation of conservatives” to take over Washington, D.C.

“We’ve tried the Establishment Republican things — it hasn’t won since 2004 nationally. So that — the Bush GOP — is over. I mean, they might not know it yet, but it’s over,” Ingraham said. “It doesn’t mean we can’t work with them on certain issues. We can. But that era is gone.”

“And I think Trump is much closer to Reagan in his philosophy on trade and American prosperity and the working class than he is to Bush, and than he ever would be to Bush and to most of these Republicans on Capitol Hill thwarting him,” she added. “And he’s smoking them all out.”

Ingraham noted that she wrote her book because she thought “it was important to explain to people” that Trump was elected “because conservative populism wins when properly articulated and passionately fought for.”

“And going back to the days when I worked for President Reagan, all the way up through the Mitt Romney attempt to win in 2012 and everything in between, the populist revolution is real. It’s happening,” she said. “The working class is like kind of tired of being kicked to the curb. So it was time to tell that story with a lot of personal anecdotes along the way — how I became sort of this believer.”

Noting that she ate dinner Monday night with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who also is a conservative populist, Ingraham said that Bannon, like Trump, “understands that to have a winning agenda you have to touch the heart of the working-class person in this country.”

“Reagan understood it, 1980. That’s why he got all those Reagan Democrats in the South, and the Midwest, the old Rust Belt, to turn out and switch parties. That sentiment is still there,” she said. “There was a populist strain through most Republican candidates, but Trump really embodied that.”

The GOP-led Congress hasn’t been fully on board with the president’s legislative agenda, leading to heightened levels of tension and frustration between Trump and his own party. After a series of failures to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare and exhibiting a glaring lack of willingness to tackle the president’s “America First” agenda, the GOP Congress has failed to fall in line with the wave of conservative populism that propelled Trump into office. 

As a result, Ingraham said, “It’s time that the GOP Establishment either get on board with the Trump agenda or move on.”

It’s time for a new generation of conservatives and thinkers to come forward who connect with the upset and the concern of the regular working person in the United States,” she said. “When you’re in Washington for decades, and your whole life is shuttling between a think tank and fundraiser and lobbyist event, you lose touch with the people. Sometimes you lose touch from where you came.”

“And I think it’s time for a lot of these people just to move on. They clearly don’t understand that you can’t campaign on repealing Obamacare and then 10 months later saying, ‘Oh no, that was just too hard,'” Ingraham added. “You can’t do that.”

Ingraham noted that she included the word “barricade” in her new book’s title because “Trump has to clear a lot in order to be successful.”

“He’s brash. But the public believes like, maybe it’s time we need kind of a wrecking ball to go in and kind of remake politics,” she said, noting that the new president has made championing “the American middle class that’s been hammered because of globalization” his key priority while refusing to “play the parlor games of Washington.”

But this strategy has “upset” Establishment Republicans and Democrats alike, whether it’s been exhibited through pushing for repealing and replacing Obamacare, enforcing immigration laws, or calling out political correctness and the politicization of sports.

Ingraham pointed to flagrantly anti-Trump ESPN host Jemele Hill, who was placed on a two-week suspension beginning Tuesday after she called for a boycott of Dallas Cowboys advertisers following the owner’s decision to fall in line with Trump on standing for the national anthem. During the past couple of weeks, Trump has repeatedly called out football players who choose to protest racial injustice in the U.S. by kneeling during the anthem. Hill supported those players and has also dubbed Trump to be a “white supremacist.”

“How is the NFL oppressing African-Americans? I think we’ve given great opportunity to really talented players, and to me that’s something to really celebrate,” she said, noting that Trump was unafraid to be politically incorrect in calling out players who refuse to honor the flag and the national anthem by standing.

“This is not politics. This is athletics. But the Left — all they have is the grievance culture. All they have is race, and they’re going to keep going back to that as long as they can,” Ingraham said. “So Jemele doesn’t seem to get that, but she just echoes what the Left is all about right now — it’s about … less speech for their critics and more speech for them. So she wants to keep the race thing going.”

‘Sheer insanity’: Iran-deal critics go nuclear on Obama


waving flagPosted By Garth Kant On 07/13/2015

Article reblogged from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/source-iran-deal-appears-imminent

Secretary of State John Kerry (far right) negotiates with Iranians
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (far right) negotiates with Iranians

muslim-obamaWASHINGTON – Criticism of President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran has been fast and furious. “I don’t trust Obama on this anymore than I trusted him on ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,’” talk-show host Laura Ingraham told WND. She added, “Elections have consequences—from our health-care system, to the definition of ‘marriage,’ to our military strength, to now our national security, Barack Obama has, indeed, ‘fundamentally transformed’ America.”

Sheer insanity

“This is sheer insanity,” Iran expert Clare Lopez told WND. “This agreement legitimizes Iran’s overt nuclear weapons program and provides both cover and funding for its clandestine nuclear weapons program, with extra financial bonuses for its global terrorist network,” said the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

In a dawn speech from the White House on Tuesday, Obama proclaimed, “[W]e have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,” but a parade of ferocious critics claimed just the opposite.DO NOT JACKASS

Iranian jackpot

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feared the worst, saying, “From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is an historic mistake for the world.” He predicted, “Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons.”  “Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world,” said the prime minister. “One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: ‘Death to America,’” Netanyahu concluded.

License to kill

By contrast, Obama said he hoped the deal would cause Iran to choose a “different path, one of tolerance, of peaceful resolution to conflict.” He also predicted a greater chance of war in the Mideast if Congress rejects the deal.More Evidence

Former Israeli military spokeswoman Miri Regev said, instead, it gave Iran a “license to kill.”

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely called it “a historic surrender by the West to the axis of evil headed by Iran.”

Alinsky affectHillary blames Bush

Hillary Clinton didn’t fully endorse the deal in public, but she reportedly did in private, during a meeting with congressional Democrats. During a brief press conference on Capitol Hill, the presidential candidate and former secretary of state merely called the deal “an important step,” one that “puts a lid on Iran’s nuclear programs.” But, behind closed doors, Clinton gave the deal a “full-throated” endorsement, according to Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.. Rep. Steve Israel, D- N.Y., said Clinton even blamed President George W. Bush for Iran’s nuclear proliferation.

According to the congressman, Clinton said it would hypocritical for Republicans to criticize Obama’s deal because, “[F]or eight years under George Bush, the Iranians built two nuclear facilities and they mastered the nuclear fuel cycle and enhanced the number of centrifuges spinning.”

Red lines become green lights

However, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, “The bottom line is: The deal doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program — it preserves it.”  “I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights; that Iran will be required only to limit rather than eliminate its nuclear program, while the international community will be required to lift the sanctions, and that it doesn’t provide for anytime-any-place inspections of suspected sites,” he said in a statement.

Catastrophic

Leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump summed up the deal as, “Iran gets everything and loses nothing.” He predicted, “The inspections will not be followed, and Iran will no longer have any sanctions.” Trump called the agreement very dangerous and ” a horrible and perhaps catastrophic event for Israel.”Why

The busniessman analyzed the deal harshly, stating, “[W]e should have kept the billions of dollars we have agreed to pay them. Any great dealmaker would know this is a perfect example of ‘tapping along’ and because they have been unchecked for so long throughout this extremely lengthy process, I guarantee they are much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than they were at the start of negotiations.”

Trump sized up the Obama administration as “incompetent leaders and even more incompetent negotiators.”

Death sentence for Israel

“A possible death sentence for the nation of Israel” that will “make everything worse” is how Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described the deal on MSNBC. ‘This is most dangerous, irresponsible step I’ve ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast,’ said the presidential candidate. “With this deal, you’ve ensured that the Arabs will go nuclear. You have put Israel in the worst possible box. This will be a death sentence over time for Israel if they don’t push back. You put our nation at risk….Barack Obama and John Kerry have been dangerously naive about the Mideast in general. They’ve taken it to a new level and any senator who votes for this is voting for a nuclear arms race in the Mideast,” he said in reference to the Corker bill, which requires a vote by two-thirds of Congress to reject the deal. Congress now has 60 days to review the deal and to try to stop it with legislation.

However, Obama, promised to veto any attempt by Congress to stop the deal, saying, “I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies.”Constancy

Betrayal 

Another presidential candidate, Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc., bluntly declared, “President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures.” Announcing his candidacy on Monday, Walker promised to “terminate” the deal on his first day in office.

Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called it a ” staggeringly bad deal” and a “mistake of historic proportion. It is a fundamental betrayal of the security of the United States and of our closest allies, first and foremost Israel.” Cruz added that it seemed “President Obama would concede almost anything to get any deal – even a terrible deal.”B2A_FvyCMAE14px

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina disputed Obama’s claim the deal will stop a Mideast nuclear arms race, noting, “Our Arab allies have said just the opposite, so has Israel, so there is reason for suspicion here that’s not partisan. Saudi Arabia and Israel, as we know, don’t agree on very much, but they do agree that this is a bad deal,” she said on CBS.

Shame on Obama

Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said, “Shame on the Obama administration for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and bring ‘death to America.’ John Kerry should have long ago gotten up on his crutches, walked out of the sham talks, and went straight to Jerusalem to stand next to Benjamin Netanyahu and declared that America will stand with Israel and the other sane governments of the Middle East instead of with the terrorist government of Iran,” he added.

Another presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Obama gave “concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed.”Iran Close to a Deal

He predicted Congress will reject the the deal because it “undermines our national security.”

Appeasement, not diplomacy

Another GOP presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, said, “This isn’t diplomacy – it is appeasement.” He labeled the agreement as “dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted,” and complained, “A comprehensive agreement should require Iran to verifiably abandon – not simply delay – its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”

Presidential contender Rick Santorum blasted the deal as “a catastrophic capitulation” that give Iran “legitimacy” in the international community.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another presidential candidate, said “While Secretary Clinton has been the architect of President Obama’s foreign policy, she can do the right thing and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and oppose this deal.”

Clinton’s rival for the presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., maintained, “This is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East.”Keys taken

Dangerous game

GOP presidential hopeful, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Obama was “playing a dangerous game with our national security. The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head,” Christie said. “I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to put aside politics and act in the national interest. Vote to disapprove this deal in numbers that will override the President’s threatened veto.”

Obama claimed, “This deal is not built on trust” because “it is built on verification,” but a chorus of critics strongly disputed that.If his mouth is open he must be lying

Worse deal than imagined possible

“It’s a deal worse than even we imagined possible,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. “It’s a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140 billion in return for … effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iran’s ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iran’s sponsorship of terror.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said the deal will secure Iran’s pathway to a bomb, and that, “This deal will guarantee Iran the capability to carry out its clear intent.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., added, “I don’t know what information the Obama administration possesses that indicates this deal will actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or will cause the mullahs to reduce their support for worldwide terrorism, but it sure isn’t the same intelligence we’re seeing in the Intelligence Committee.”

Threat to civilization

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas warned the deal was “disastrous for the future of the United States,” an “ultimate betrayal of Israel, Egypt and moderate Muslim nations,” and, “a devastating threat to civilization which must not be ratified” by Congress. The congressman observed the agreements reported provisions include “the lifting of the embargo on arms being sold to Iran; Iran will be allowed to keep its military sites off-limits ‘for a time;’ Iran can veto any nuclear inspections that were supposed to be allowed ‘anytime, anywhere;’ no nuclear facilities will actually be dismantled; and Iran will be ever closer to making good on its promise to try to wipe Israel off the map.” Gohmert concluded, “The Obama-Kerry deal agrees to the release of tens of billions of dollars to Iran that unquestionably will include money used to terrorize and kill Americans, Christians, Jews and moderate Muslims the world over.”

Paves path to Iranian nuke

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said, “This Iran deal gives (Iranian Supreme Leader) Ayatollah Khamenei exactly what he wants: billions of dollars in sanctions relief, validation of the Iranian nuclear program, and the ability to stymie inspections. It even lifts sanctions against Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers during the campaign in Iraq,” he added. “The deal will further destabilize the Middle East, allow Iran to foment more terrorism, and aid Iran’s rise as the dominant power in the region. By paving Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, the deal harms American national security and effectively stabs our close ally Israel, which Iran has threatened to wipe off the map, in the back. Congress needs to move swiftly to block this dangerous deal.”

“This act of appeasement by the Obama Administration now legitimizes both Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and the terrorist regime itself. It endangers the national security interests of the U.S., Israel, and allies across the word,” said former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. “Not only can Iran continue to pursue its 30-plus year objective of pursuing deliverable nuclear weapons, but the regime, the leading state sponsor of terror for over 35 years, is also free of global financial sanctions. Ultimately, we will see that Obama has capitulated to Iran’s demands, and this agreement is simply a pit stop between one set of negotiations and the other,” he added.

Historic victory for Iran

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C. said, “The nuclear agreement is a historic victory — for Iran. For the last 18 months the Obama Administration made concession after concession to the rogue regime in Tehran, while taking the most basic demands off the table to try to secure a deal. I warned when the framework agreement was released that it relied on blind faith in a notoriously dishonest regime.”Non-Negotiable-600-LI

He added, “The fact that the President came out today and threatened to veto any legislation that could potentially block the deal’s implementation is particularly concerning. If the deal is in fact strong, why is the President worried that Congress may reject it? Could it be the same reason why the Iranian regime is celebrating their victory? This historic deal requires strict scrutiny by Congress and I will not support any deal that puts the safety and security of the American people at risk.”

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, called it “worse than no deal at all” because it “removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime’s disarmament and compliance with its international obligations.”

“Sadly, the Administration just lit the fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. “We all know Iran’s neighbors will not sit idly as the world’s largest state-sponsor of terror becomes a nuclear-threshold state.”

Strengthens Iran’s ‘constructive’ role

Ordinary Iranians celebrated the deal in the streets and on twitter. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it a “win-win solution” that builds a “new chapter of hope.” In a nationwide televised address Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani claimed, “Iran has never sought to manufacture a nuclear weapon and will never seek to manufacture a nuclear weapon.”

Secretary of State John Kerry called it “the good deal that we sought.”

European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the deal was “a sign of hope for the entire world.”

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said the agreement “secures our fundamental aim — to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — and that will help to make our world a safer place.”

“We are certain that the world heaved a sigh of relief today,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Russia will do its utmost to make sure that the Vienna agreement is fully implemented, thus contributing to the international and regional security.”

A Vatican spokesman said the agreement “is viewed in a positive light” by Pope Francis.

A spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the deal would be “a catalyst for regional stability.”

Syria’s President Bashar Assad called it “a historic turning point” which will lead to “strengthening of the constructive role played by Iran in supporting the rights of nations.”

Iran took yes for an answer

The deal is supposed to delay the amount of time required for Iran to assemble a nuclear weapon from a few months to a year, which Western leaders hope would give them enough time to stop Iran from using such a device. But many fear the agreement will just give Iran the cover it needs to complete its work in secrecy, and that the U.S. conceded far too much to the Islamic Republic.

The problem for the Obama administration had been, “Iran won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer,” a Capitol Hill source told WND on Monday. Critics say the reason Iran had refused to take yes for an answer was that the Obama administration had conceded on virtually every key demand, so the Iranians just kept demanding more.

Follow Garth Kant@DCgarth


 freedom combo 2

Laura Ingraham Emerges As Top GOP Primary Warrior


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/05/The-Breitbart-Interview-Laura-Ingraham-on-Amnesty-Eric-Cantor-and-Jeb-Bush?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+6%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20140606_m120813336_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+6%2C+2014&utm_term=More

RICHMOND, Virginia—Her surprisingly activist support for the long-shot primary challenger to Eric Cantor is part of a larger plan to shape the GOP, conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview.

“I think Jeb Bush will be the nominee of the Republican Party [for President in 2016]. I would be stunned if he weren’t,” Ingraham told Breitbart News.

“I think it’s important to raise these issues about Jeb Bush now so people are not shocked that, oh my gosh, he’s for immigration amnesty. Oh my goodness, he’s for fast track trade authority. Wow, he’s for doing more deals with China,” she said.

“It’s important to talk about these things now before we end up getting into a situation where it’s a fast track to the nomination and it’s a done deal, it’s a fait accompli,” she said.

Ingraham spoke at a Dave Brat campaign rally in Glenn Allen, Virginia on Tuesday evening. Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College, is challenging House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in the June 10 Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District.

Brat’s criticisms of Cantor’s immigration positions have forced Cantor to suddenly discover his inner anti-amnesty warrior in the last two weeks of the campaign, at least as he’s described himself in his television ads and direct mailers.

Ingraham explained why she believes Cantor will pivot back to his pro-amnesty positions within days after the June 10 primary, if he is renominated.

“Here’s what we know,” she told Breitbart News.  Anyone who’s ever had any wiggle room or squishy language on the issue of immigration has always moved to the amnesty position eventually. If people say the following–well, you can’t deport 11 million people; we have to pull these people out of the shadows; the system is broken; we have de facto amnesty.”

“If they say all those things,” Ingraham continued, “those are just the cliches of the Republican and Democratic establishment and all of those statements are essentially meaningless. It’s kind of play-doh, you can turn it into anything you want, or silly putty, it doesn’t mean anything. So what, that’s not policy!”

“Eric Cantor could have taken immigration off the table. He chose not to,” she stated.

“He could have said we’re not talking about this, you people are untrustworthy.You’re allowing all these people into the country now. You’re busing people who are here illegally to destinations to live with other illegal aliens,” Ingraham said.

“He could have spoken out against all of this,” Ingraham concluded, but he did not.

Ingraham was highly critical of the job the mainstream media has done reporting on the primary. “The press corps,” she said, “has done an abysmal job covering the Brat-Cantor race.”

“There’s been one piece in the Washington Post that was somewhat fair introducing Dave Brat after all these months where he’s been running and challenging Cantor. Cantor won’t debate him,” she said.

“Now they’re allowing this ridiculous choreography of this Luis Gutierrez supposed animosity towards Eric Cantor on the issue of immigration that happened a couple of weeks ago when Gutierrez came down here. They cover it like it’s some real issue that they disagree on immigration when anyone who has been following this issue at all knows that Cantor and Gutierrez are working hand-in-glove on the timing of when immigration reform will pass and what form it will pass,” she continued.

Ingraham pointed out that Frank Roche, an anti-amnesty candidate she supported in May’s 2nd Congressional District Republican primary in North Carolina, did surprisingly well against Renee Ellmers, the pro-amnesty incumbent who had an epic immigration outburst on Ingraham’s radio show.

“It was $18,000 versus hundreds of thousands of dollars [and he got 41 percent],” Ingraham said.

Ingraham said she did not know why the national Tea Party and conservative groups are not coming to help David Brat.

“I think that in some cases people are worried about their access. I think people are making their bets on who’s going to win and who’s going to lose. It’s the same reason there are a lot of people out there who are reluctant to criticize Jeb Bush now.”

“There are a lot of people who are reluctant to get involved in primaries. If Dave Brat does not win people can say, ‘well, Laura Ingraham has no mojo.’ I don’t care what people say about me. It doesn’t matter to me at all,” Ingraham said.

“What matters to me is that I do whatever is in my power to try to  save this country in my own little way. I think right now our country is in real peril.”

Ingraham explained why she is so supportive of Dave Brat, who she has endorsed and supported throughout his campaign.

“I think Dave Brat is a great guy, so courageous, so earnest, so smart. If he went toe-to-toe with Eric Cantor in a debate he would have wiped the floor with him. It would have been like Nigel Farage versus David Cameron in Britain,” she said.

Ingraham was pessimistic about the Republican Party’s chances of winning back the White House in 2016, but her reasoning is based less on short term political punditry and more on a sense that a dramatic social and political realignment is in the works.

“I doubt the Republicans will put up someone who can beat Hillary,” she told Breitbart News.“I think there’s an interesting realignment going on,” she said.

“You can’t have a situation where the middle class stays down as long as they have today,” she explained.

“I think [that realignment is] what’s going to happen ultimately. It might not happen in this next Presidential election, but it will happen. Look out Republican and Democratic parties when that happens.”

“I think the Republicans better watch out,” Ingraham advised, “because there are a lot of conservatives looking for ways to work with the left on issues like shrinking government surveillance, pulling back from military intervention in unnecessary engagements, stopping fanatical trade deals that lower American wages.”

“The question is do you want to live in a country run by, essentially, 100 families or do you want to live in a country where the middle class has a real chance to have a better life and leave a better life for their kids,” she explained.

“Right now,” Ingraham said, “I think we are edging closer to that country where just the rich and powerful have a consistent say.They have an alliance with the far left groups that have their own agenda to bolster union membership and swell the ranks of the Democratic Party.”

“I think this will not end well for the capitalists. If they think this is going to be a good ride, it’s not going to end well. History is replete with examples of the perpetually impoverished rising up against the fat cats.”

“That will happen here. There are no gates that are strong enough or walls that are high enough when that eventually blows.”

Image source: Duane Berger

Resist AmnestyWE MUST NEVER FORGETThe Conservative

VOTE 02

 

Boehner Camp’s Threats Could Spark Battle


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/29/Boehners-Threats-Could-Spark-Battle

Speaker John Boehner’s friends are trying to design new, more effective punishments for the conservative members that might vote against him on the House floor come January, but the message from the right is, “don’t even try it.”

“Look, intimidation tactics and threats do not take the place of leadership,” Rep. Jeff Dunacn (R-SC) told Breitbart News.

“I feel like the embers are gathered on the fire pit, and there just needs to be a spark for the flames to go up,” a senior GOP aide said, predicting the move could backfire.

Boehner’s allies, as first reported by Politico, have been quietly plotting how to prevent a small group of conservatives from denying Boehner a victory in the speakership election next January, something that members on the right have been actively discussing.

Under House rules, an absolute majority of members voting for a person is required to be elected Speaker, making it possible for a small group to cause a deadlocked vote.

Top Boehner allies have considered releasing a letter – it doesn’t exist yet, but the idea was discussed – with a few dozen signatures vowing to only vote on the floor for the person elected by the GOP conference in a closed-door, secret ballot leadership election that precedes the floor vote, according to several GOP sources familiar with the talks.

They’re also talking about altering GOP conference rules to punish members who don’t vote on the floor in accordance with the secret ballot results, such as stripping committee assignments.

Republicans said Boehner didn’t initiate the talks, and a senior lawmaker said Boehner had since signaled to his friends he didn’t want them to pursue the plan.

But the issue is already prompting pushback on the right.

In a radio interview with Laura Ingraham, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), a key member among the Boehner dissidents on the right who recently participated in a bull session with a group of conservatives in Sen. Ted Cruz’s Capitol Hill office, said the threats are pervasive.

“There are [conservative House members] who think, ‘My God, should I speak up? Should I speak up in a Republican Conference meeting because they might cut off my money? They might kick me out of committee,’” Huelskamp said.

But Huelskamp, who was thrown off of the House Agriculture and Budget Committees in 2013, said he was undeterred. “I think we need new leadership,” he said. “Cantor, McCarthy and Boehner all come from blue states….We need some folks from red states that understand what most Americans are thinking, especially grassroots conservatives.”

“Don’t make threats of committee assignments or removals – convince me of how you will lead going forward, especially in the pivotal times of the last two years of an Obama Administration when we need clear action,” Duncan added.

Huelskamp, in particular, has long drawn the ire of Boehner’s circle. Republicans close to Boehner said their latest plans to demonstrate strength and raise the cost of opposing him in a high-stakes floor vote are intended to offset members like Huelskamp who will go to extraordinary lengths to exert their will.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW BELOW:

laura

The logic of the move, a former leadership aide with knowledge of the situation said, is to make the point that “I’m going to be as f***ing idiotic as Tim Huelskamp” and do whatever it takes, including a series of deadlocked speaker votes, to get him and others in his camp to back down.

The timing of the Politico story drew speculation, since it came as Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has been working to consolidate internal support of late, is locked in a high-profile primary battle with a long-shot opponent. However, Jake Sherman, the reporter who wrote the story, had been working on it for several weeks, sources said, putting its origin before Cantor’s primary race really got on the national media’s radar screen.

Interestingly, the criticism Cantor is facing from the right has prompted key conservative lawmakers to seriously consider whether Boehner might be preferable to Cantor, his heir apparent, Republicans said.

Their rationale: Boehner would be a lame-duck with a clear time horizon, while Cantor could consolidate support and serve for any number of years before the right got a chance to put one of their own in the speakership. During the end of Boehner’s reign in the next Congress, potential leaders on the right – Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) are the names most often mentioned – could continue to gain strength to take on Cantor when Boehner departed.

WE MUST NEVER FORGETVOTE 02

 

 

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: