Tag Archives: Marco Rubio

Chris Christie secures title as Republican presidential frontrunner: poll

christie

NY Daily News: Republicans are closer than ever to having a frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rising to the top among the GOP contenders.

Christie shines through as the favorite with 24% support among Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents, according to a CNN/ORC International survey released Friday.

Support for the outspoken Republican, who was reelected in November to a second term as governor of the Garden State, jumped from 17% when the last CNN poll was released in September.

Whether or not he will run is the biggest question on the minds of Republicans hoping to take the White House in 2016, since the 51-year-old is touted as the closest thing to a savior the conservative movement will get.

Christie remains demure on his presidential ambitions, saying that only he hopes Washington is watching the success of his policies in New Jersey.

In the new CNN poll, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul came second with 13% support. His numbers were steady since the last survey result.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who was Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick in 2012, posted the third highest support at 11%. His popularity took a tumble from the September poll, when 16% named him as their favorite.

Texas Tea Party darling, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were also listed among the top five picks for the Republican presidential race.

Results reflect responses from a telephone survey of 843 American adults from November 18-20.

For the Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary “What difference does it make?” Clinton dominates as the preferred candidate, with an eye-popping 63% of Democrats saying they would vote Clinton.

hillary

Take our unscientific poll! Who would you prefer for the 2016 Republican candidate?

DCG

Take Action! Senate votes today on Amnesty bill that’ll create a national biometrics data base

Democrats coddle illegals

At about 2:15 pm today. the Senate will take its first votes on S. 744 — the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform amnesty bill for the estimated 11 million people who had illegally entered and living in the United States.

S 744 is objectionable on many grounds, one of which is its financial costs that America can ill afford, given our nearly $17 TRILLION federal government debt. Heritage Foundation has a study that shows S 744 will cost already beleaguered taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion over the lives of the illegal aliens given amnesty, should the bill becomes law.

Then there is S 744′s creation of a national biometric data base as the pathway to a National ID card.

Did you know that the Supreme Court just voted 5-4 in favor of a National DNA database, thereby allowing police to forcibly take DNA samples from individuals, without even issuing a search warrant?

So much for our 4th Amendment constitutional rights!

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) says S 744 only makes our current immigration problems “worse.” Sadly, he holds the minority opinion as he was one of only five Senate Judiciary Members who opposed S. 744′s exit from committee.

You should also know just what kind of heces Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) is made of.

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, stated unequivocally that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen BEFORE any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place.

In other words, amnesty before border security — the same illogical route taken by previous “immigration reform” efforts which resulted in even more illegals pouring into the United States across the unsecured borders.

To contact your senators, click here.

~Eowyn

John McCain is a POS

RINO Sen. John McCain was one of the sponsors of the National Defense Authorization Act that gives “authority” to the president and military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

So it really shouldn’t surprise us that he favors capitulation on raising our national debt ceiling — yet again — and is bawling about conservatives Republicans “pushing too far.”

McCainThe Associated Press reports, May 23, 2013:

Tactics for dealing with the government’s budget and debt became the latest quarrel In a string of them between McCain —sometimes joined by other traditionalist Republicans —and Tea Party champions such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida.

Those four won Senate seats by defying the party establishment, and are shaking up the tradition-bound Senate with no-compromise, no-apology stands on key issues like debt and deficits, government spending and the use of drones in the war on terrorism.

McCain himself has defied Republican orthodoxy at times. But he was the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, and he now is among those who say a minority party will accomplish little in the Senate if it can’t find ways to cut deals with the majority.

Cruz, who like Paul is weighing a 2016 presidential bid, renewed his taunts of the party establishment in a speech Thursday on the Senate floor. The more accommodating Republicans, he said, are in cahoots with Democrats to raise the government’s borrowing limit by disabling the GOP’s ability to mount a filibuster threat that could be used to extract spending cuts from Democrats and the White House

[...] Earlier in the day, Lee angered McCain with similar remarks. Lee said Republicans should block a House-Senate conference designed to resolve budget differences because it might ease the Democrats’ effort to raise the government’s borrowing limit. That rankled the sometimes cantankerous McCain, of Arizona. He said the Tea Partyers’ tactics could embolden Democrats who are threatening to change Senate rules that now allow the minority party — or even just one senator— to block various actions.

“That would be the most disastrous outcome that I could ever imagine,” McCain said.

For months, Democrats have complained about Republicans blocking or delaying confirmation of top White House nominees, including some federal judges. Democrats say the impasse over a budget conference is further evidence of a small group of senators in the minority abusing their powers to block actions that in the past would have gone forward after a few speeches.

Supporters of the Tea Party-backed lawmakers say the ongoing IRS and Benghazi controversies have vindicated their sharply partisan, uncompromising views. Republicans cite the controversies as examples of Democratic overreach and obfuscation.

This week’s budget quarrel follows a high-profile split between Tea Partyers and champions of a big defense program over drone attacks, and an intra-GOP disagreement over gun control tactics. It involves an obscure procedural battle and arcane rules governing the congressional budget process. Democrats want to set up an official House-Senate negotiating committee to iron out the gaping differences between the budget plans passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House.

Cruz, Lee and others say they fear House and Senate leaders will use the budget measure to engineer a scenario in which an increase in the government’s borrowing cap could pass the 100-member Senate by a simple majority instead of the 60 votes typically need to overpower the minority on an issue.

McCain and others, like Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., note that House Republicans can block any move by Democratic negotiators to engineer a filibuster-free debt limit increase.

“Isn’t it a little bizarre,” McCain said Wednesday. “Basically what we are saying here on this (Republican) side of the aisle is that we don’t trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who are in the majority, Republicans.”

“Let me be clear. I don’t trust the Republicans,” Cruz responded. “And I don’t trust the Democrats. I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans and the Democrats, because it is leadership in both parties that has gotten us in this mess.”

At a Tea Party rally last month in Texas, Cruz taunted fellow Republicans after the Senate rejected a call for background checks on virtually all prospective gun buyers.

Cruz and other Tea Partyers had threatened to filibuster the gun legislation and keep it from coming to the Senate floor for votes. Other Republicans said the smarter political move — which eventually prevailed — was to let the votes take place, and have a few Democrats join Republicans in rejecting the wider background checks. Cruz suggested that Republicans who favored proceeding with the votes were “a bunch of squishes.”

That earned Cruz a rebuke from the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page — gleefully retweeted by McCain. “Would it have been right for us to not even debate in light of the Newtown massacre?” McCain said.

[...] Democrats say the debt ceiling must be raised to pay for expenses already incurred by Congress. Failing to raise the ceiling, they say, would trigger a catastrophic default on U.S. obligations.

McCain scuffled with the tea party senators in March after Paul launched a filibuster to warn of the threat of unmanned drone attacks against U.S. citizens on American soil. McCain referred to newcomers like Paul and Cruz as “wacko birds” and said their fears of drone strikes against Americans were “ridiculous.”

“It has been suggested that we are ‘wacko birds,’” Cruz said Thursday. “I will suggest to my friend from Arizona there may be more wacko birds in the Senate than is suspected.”

The split between McCain, 76, and next-generation, 40-something potential 2016 candidates like Paul, Cruz and Rubio also illustrates the broader GOP drift toward the right. McCain has spent decades in the Senate, mixing a penchant for confrontation with a capacity for bipartisan relationships and legislation; the new generation is feistier and more wary of compromise.

H/t FOTM’s tina!

~Eowyn

Media Bias

media bias

H/t friend of FOTM, Miss May

A Tale of the Water-Sipper and the Nose-Picker

media bias2

~Eowyn

Independent review of Benghazi attack faults State Dept

At long last, more than three months after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of 9-11, an independent panel has issued its report. (You know, it’s that independent investigation to which Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s so opposed. Snark)

Four Americans were killed in the Benghazi attack: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two heroic ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The report finds “systematic security faults” and lays the blame squarely on the U.S. State Department.

chris-stevens1Clockwise from top left: Amb. Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods.

Here are the independent panel’s findings, as reported by Matthew Lee of The Associated Press, December 18, 2012:

  • Systematic management and leadership failures at the State Department led to “grossly” inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi.
  • The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs are singled out for criticism for their lack of cooperation and confusion over protection at the mission in Benghazi.
  • Despite those failures, the Accountability Review Board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action now. But it also said poor performance by senior managers should be grounds for disciplinary recommendations in the future.
  • Contrary to what the Obama regime claimed, linking the Benghazi attack to an anti-Islamic film, there was no protest outside the Benghazi consulate. Responsibility for the attack rests entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.
  • Although there was no specific warning of a potential attack on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, however there had been several worrisome incidents in the run-up to the attack that should have set off warning bells.
  • In addition to the State Department, the independent report also faults contract guards whom the U.S. consulate depended on for protection, as well as the local Libyan militia force who, once the attack began, “it became unclear whose side they were on.”
  • U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi “performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues in a near-impossible situation.” [Sob....] Those personnel include Diplomatic Security agents on the scene (including Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty) and CIA operatives at a nearby compound that later came under attack itself.
  • The U.S. military is absolved from any blame: “There was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”

The report made 29 recommendations to improve embassy security, particularly at high threat posts. Hillary Clinton said the State Department had already begun to implement some of the recommendations — increasing by several hundred the number of Marine guards stationed at diplomatic missions throughout the world; relying less on local security forces for protection at embassies, consulates and other offices; and increasing hiring and deployment of highly trained Diplomatic Security agents at at-risk posts. But Congress has denied some funding requests from the State Department for more security.

The Benghazi independent review was led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. The review studied thousands of pages of cables and other documents, hours of video and intelligence, and interviewed more than 100 people, including survivors. They will testify before the House and Senate foreign affairs committees behind closed doors today, Dec. 19, 2012.

None of this should come as a surprise to informed Americans because we’ve known for months now that Obama and the State Department had lied about Benghazi from the beginning.

Hillary BlofeldSeparated at birth: James Bond villain Ernst Blofeld & Hillary Clinton

As for Hillary, she is supposed to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Benghazi tomorrow. But lo and behold, two days ago we were told she got a BRAIN CONCUSSION (gasp!) when she fainted (gasp!) at home and hit her head (gasp!). The State Department says she fainted from dehydration after a “stomach virus”.

According to WebMD, brain concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury that is caused by a blow to the head or body, a fall, or another injury that jars or shakes the brain inside the skull. In rare cases concussions cause more serious problems.

Oddly, despite having a BRAIN CONCUSSION (gasp!), there are no reports that Hillary has sought medical care or gone to a hospital.

So much for her grand and noble and empty proclamation on Oct. 15, 2012, that “I take responsibility” for what happened in Benghazi.

See also:

~Eowyn

Obama purges U.S. military command (Part 1)

Several days ago, FOTM’s lowtechgrannie posted a video of a media rarity — a reporter who doesn’t toe the party line and isn’t afraid to speak the truth. He’s Fox19 Cincinnati news anchor and investigative reporter Ben Swann.

At the end of the video, Swann noted that in the space of less than one month after the 7-hour Islamic terrorist attack of September 22, 2012, on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four high-level U.S. military flag officers had been removed, for one ostensible reason or another. The four are Generals Petraeus, Allen, and Ham, and Admiral Gaouette. (In the U.S. military, flag officers are general officers in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard of such senior rank that they are entitled to fly their own flags to mark where the officer exercises command.)

Swann withheld speculating on what this quite unprecedented attrition of senior U.S. military officers means. But this attrition cries out for some effort at explanation, no matter how speculative.

We’ll begin with the facts that we’ve been told.

1. General David Petraeus

Gen. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell

Gen. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell

A highly-decorated four-star general who had served over 37 years in the U.S. Army, 60-year-old David Petraeus had been Commander of the International Security Assistance Force; Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan; 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command; and Commanding General of Multi-National Force – Iraq who oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq.

On September 6, 2011, Obama recruited Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. A week before, in anticipation of that appointment, Petraeus had retired from the U.S. Army.

Petraeus lasted 14 months as CIA director. On November 9, 2012, he resigned from the CIA, citing his extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a married woman who is the principal author of Petraeus’ biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Petraeus claims that the affair had begun in late 2011 when he was no longer an active duty military officer, and ended in the summer of 2012. The affair reportedly was discovered in the course of an FBI investigation into harassing emails that Broadwell had been sending to Jill Kelley, a Tampa socialite and a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses whom Broadwell perceived to be a romantic rival.

2. General John R. Allen

Gen. Allen (l); Jill Kelley (r)

Gen. Allen (l); Jill Kelley (r)

A four-star general of the U.S. Marine Corps, 58-year-old General John Allen had succeeded Petraeus as Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan on July 18, 2011. He was nominated to be NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, pending confirmation by the United States Senate.

As part of the fallout of the Petraeus-Broadwell affair, correspondence between Allen and Jill Kelley also came to light. The FBI reportedly uncovered 20,000 to 30,000 pages of correspondence — mostly email — between Allen and Kelley from 2010 to 2012.  Reportedly, their correspondence was “flirtatious” and “inappropriate” as Allen and Kelley are both married, but not to each other. (Good grief. How could a 4-star general even have so much free time as to write 20,000 to 30,000 emails in the space of two years to ANYONE?)

On November 13, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suspended Allen’s confirmation hearing, pending investigations into the general’s “inappropriate communication” with Kelley. Panetta also requested Congress to speed the confirmation of General Joseph Dunford to take over as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In effect, not only will Allen not be promoted, he has lost his present command post in Afghanistan.

3. General Carter F. Ham

U.S. Army General Carter Ham

A well-decorated U.S. Army general, 60-year-old Ham became Commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on March 8, 2011.

U.S. AFRICOM is one of nine Unified Combatant Commands of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). As one of six that are regionally focused, AFRICOM is devoted solely to Africa. James S. Robbins of The Washington Times writes that Gen. Ham “is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. ‘Kip’ Ward.”

On October 18, 2012, in a DoD news briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Gen. Ham was relieved fired: “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.”

According to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” But Gen. Ham had only been in the commander position at AFRICOM for a year and a half and the informal word was that he wasn’t scheduled to rotate out until March 2013.

Pat Dollard of BareNakedIslam claims that the scuttlebutt is that, on September 11, 2012, Gen. Ham had received the same e-mails the White House received — from our people in Benghazi, requesting help/support as the terrorist attack was taking place. Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had the unit ready. Dollard writes:

“General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”

Gen. Ham’s “second in command” is not named. The Pentagon’s official line is that Ham had retired.

4. Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette

The recipient of various personal decorations and unit awards, including the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership in 2003, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette was promoted to Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 (aka John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group) in April 2012.

Carrier Strike Group 3 is one of five U.S. Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the U.S. Pacific Fleet. U.S. Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles that involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is the strike group’s current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to Carrier Strike Group 3 include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay and USS Antietam; and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer, USS Dewey, USS Kidd, and USS Milius.

Carrier Group Three formed the core of the naval power during the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. “Operation Enduring Freedom” is the official name used by the U.S. government for the War in Afghanistan, together with a number of smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global “War on Terror”. On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that the scheduled deployment of Carrier Strike Group Ten was advanced by four months, with its anticipated area of operation shifting from the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea. On 27 August 2012, four months ahead of schedule, Carrier Strike Group Three departed for an eight-month deployment to the U.S. Fifth Fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette.

On October 27, 2012, the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral John W. Miller, ordered the temporary re-assignment of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette pending the results of an investigation by the Naval Inspector General. Gaouette’s chief of staff, Captain William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until the arrival of Rear Admiral Troy M. (“Mike”) Shoemaker, who will assume command of the strike group.

Tom Lombardo writes for the Navy Times, Oct. 27, 2012, that Adm. Gaouette was relieved, mid-deployment, and is accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment,” according to a Navy official familiar with the case. Gaouette was told to go home — to return to the Carrier Strike Group’s homeport in Bremerton, Washington, until the investigation is complete.

There you have it. Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

  • Gen. Ham, on October 18.
  • Adm. Gaouette, on October 27.
  • Gen. Petraeus, on November 9.
  • Gen. Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, calls it Obama’s “night of the long knives.”

The last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power was the purging of the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him, specifically the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment). The SA was run by Ernst Rohm. On June 30, 1934, the “Night of the Long Knives” was executed when Hitler had Rohm and the rest of the SA leaders killed. Hitler publicly explained that the purge was executed because of sexual perversion in the ranks of the SA who were “plotting” against him.

Barnhardt writes:

And now, the Obama putsch regime is purging them and anyone else they deem to be a threat. It won’t surprise me if Petraeus is indeed court martialed and stripped of his pension, because that is what the rest of the flag officer corps fears more than death. Make an example of Petraeus, and maybe Allen, and that will whip the rest of them into line.

This process of a totalitarian oligarchy constantly purging its own ranks in fits of paranoia and demands for total personal loyalty is as old as the hills. Lenin and Stalin eventually murdered almost every person that entered their inner-circles. Same with Mao. Same with Saddam Hussein. Same with the three Kims in North Korea. Beyond the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler was also having his own people killed continuously.

Just as the Night of the Long Knives in ’34 was just the beginning, so too is this situation in the former American republic just the beginning.

Writing for Veterans Today, Gordon Duff has an even more provocative take on the four military officers:

The decision [to fire Admiral Gaouette] was made based on a conversation with the Secretary of Defense who, at the end of the talk, believed Gaouette was part of a group of military officers who have been under suspicion for planning a “Seven Days in May” type overthrow of the US government if President Obama is re-elected.

This is not conjecture, dozens of key officers face firing, hundreds are under investigation, all with direct ties to extremist elements in the Republican Party and the Israeli lobby.

Reports received are sourced at the highest levels of the Pentagon and indicate that the administration has been aware of these plans for months.

Whatever the truth, one thing of which we can be sure is that the firings of three generals and an admiral have something (or everything) to do with the Benghazi attack. It’ll be interesting if the newly-elected 113th U.S. Congress will conduct serious investigations and hearings on Benghazi, although Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) is already on record as being opposed to an independent investigation.

I wouldn’t hold my breath….

Click here for Part 2 of “Obama purges U.S. military command”.

~Eowyn

Senate passes amendment to limit NDAA – Update

Yesterday, Nov. 29, 2012, at 10:05 p.m. (EST), the United States Senate passed an amendment to address the most repugnant part of the notorious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 — the authorization of the federal government to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

The purpose of Amendment No. 3018 to S. 3254 is “To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

Towards that purpose, a section is added at the end of subtitle D of title X of the NDAA law, to read:

Section 1032. Prohibition of the Indefinite Detention of Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents

Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended … by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

“(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without cause or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

“(b)(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

“(b)(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.”

[Source: Amendment No. 3018, in PDF]

The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif), and has 17 co-sponsors:

  • 9 Democrats: Chris Coons, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jon Tester, Tim Johnson, Sheldon Whitehouse, Max Baucus, Mark Begich, John D. Rockefeller.
  • 7 Republicans: Susan Collins, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Mark Kirk, Dean Heller, Jim DeMint, Jim Webb.
  • 1 Independent: Bernie Sanders.

The amendment passed 67-29 (4 not voting).

Can you believe that 29 senators (25 Republicans; 3 Democrats; 1 Independent) actually voted “no” on this amendment? That means these 29 senators actually are in favor of the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial!!!!

Here’s a list of the senators who voted “Nay” or “No,” followed by a list of those who voted “Yea” or “Yes”. Republicans are colored red; Democrats are colored blue. [Source: United States Senate]

Nay (25 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Independent):

  1. Ayotte (R-NH)
  2. Brown (R-MA)
  3. Burr (R-NC)
  4. Chambliss (R-GA)
  5. Coats (R-IN)
  6. Cochran (R-MS)
  7. Cornyn (R-TX)
  8. Grassley (R-IA)
  9. Hatch (R-UT)
  10. Hutchison (R-TX)
  11. Isakson (R-GA)
  12. Johanns (R-NE)
  13. Johnson (R-WI)
  14. Kyl (R-AZ)
  15. Lieberman (ID-CT)
  16. Lugar (R-IN)
  17. Manchin (D-WV)
  18. McConnell (R-KY)
  19. Nelson (D-NE)
  20. Portman (R-OH)
  21. Pryor (D-AR)
  22. Roberts (R-KS)
  23. Rubio (R-FL)
  24. Sessions (R-AL)
  25. Shelby (R-AL)
  26. Thune (R-SD)
  27. Toomey (R-PA)
  28. Vitter (R-LA)
  29. Wicker (R-MS)

Yeas (46 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 1 Independent):

  1. Akaka (D-HI)
  2. Alexander (R-TN)
  3. Barrasso (R-WY)
  4. Baucus (D-MT)
  5. Begich (D-AK)
  6. Bennet (D-CO)
  7. Bingaman (D-NM)
  8. Blumenthal (D-CT)
  9. Blunt (R-MO)
  10. Boozman (R-AR)
  11. Boxer (D-CA)
  12. Brown (D-OH)
  13. Cantwell (D-WA)
  14. Cardin (D-MD)
  15. Carper (D-DE)
  16. Casey (D-PA)
  17. Coburn (R-OK)
  18. Collins (R-ME)
  19. Conrad (D-ND)
  20. Coons (D-DE)
  21. Corker (R-TN)
  22. Crapo (R-ID)
  23. DeMint (R-SC)
  24. Durbin (D-IL)
  25. Enzi (R-WY)
  26. Feinstein (D-CA)
  27. Franken (D-MN)
  28. Gillibrand (D-NY)
  29. Graham (R-SC)
  30. Hagan (D-NC)
  31. Harkin (D-IA)
  32. Hoeven (R-ND)
  33. Inhofe (R-OK)
  34. Inouye (D-HI)
  35. Johnson (D-SD)
  36. Kerry (D-MA)
  37. Klobuchar (D-MN)
  38. Kohl (D-WI)
  39. Landrieu (D-LA)
  40. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  41. Leahy (D-VT)
  42. Lee (R-UT)
  43. Levin (D-MI)
  44. McCain (R-AZ)
  45. McCaskill (D-MO)
  46. Menendez (D-NJ)
  47. Merkley (D-OR)
  48. Mikulski (D-MD)
  49. Moran (R-KS)
  50. Murkowski (R-AK)
  51. Murray (D-WA)
  52. Nelson (D-FL)
  53. Rand Paul (R-KY)
  54. Reed (D-RI)
  55. Reid (D-NV)
  56. Risch (R-ID)
  57. Sanders (I-VT)
  58. Schumer (D-NY)
  59. Shaheen (D-NH)
  60. Snowe (R-ME)
  61. Stabenow (D-MI)
  62. Tester (D-MT)
  63. Udall (D-CO)
  64. Udall (D-NM)
  65. Warner (D-VA)
  66. Webb (D-VA)
  67. Whitehouse (D-RI)

Note that more Republican senators voted AGAINST than FOR the amendment (25 v. 20), whereas more Democrat senators voted FOR than AGAINST the amendment (46 v. 3).

The GOP truly is dead.

See also:

UPDATE (Dec. 1, 2012):

The Senate’s passage of this amendment is generating a lot of buzz on the Internet, with some being troubled by the qualifying phrase “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention” in what some call the amendment’s key sentence, (b)(1):

(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without cause or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

However, the amendment qualifies (b)(1) with (b)(3), which leaves out the phrase “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention”:

(b)(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.

This, however, begs the question of why have (b)(1) in the first place, if (b)(3) then qualifies it by leaving out the “unless an Act of Congress” phrase? Why not strike out (b)(1) altogether?

To further confuse matters, Michael Kelly of Business Insider contends that the amendment actually makes it EASIER for government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely.

H/t Sage_brush for the Business Insider tip.

~Eowyn

Rubio opposes independent investigation of Benghazi

Are they all corrupt and rotten?

The GOP’s shining prince, Marco Rubio of Florida, who was elected to the U.S. Senate only two years ago, says he opposes an independent investigation into the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which took the lives of four Americans, including that of Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Javier Manjarres reports for Florida’s The Shark Tank, Nov. 26, 2012, that Rubio was the headliner at a rally for Israel held at a South Florida Jewish Community School last weekend, where he reiterated his support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East and took a few questions from the media as he exited the event.

Rubio expressed his deep concerns about the lack of security measures that the U.S. government was responsible for at its consulate in Benghazi, Libya which led to the murder of four Americans. He said:

“My number one concern about the Benghazi situation is that knowing it was a very dangerous place that was growing even more dangerous, the United States did not supply sufficient security for that consulate in Benghazi, and as a result, four brave Americans lost their lives.  We need to make sure how that happened, so that it never happens again.”

When asked whether an independent investigation was warranted to get to the bottom of what really happened both in the run up to the attack on the consulate and its aftermath, Rubio maintained that an independent investigation was not necessary.

Rubio, who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is privy to intelligence briefings, insisted that Congress was more than capable of conducting an investigation into the matter:

“I don’t think it has to be independent (investigation) the bottom line is that, the Congress is fully capable, I am on the intelligence committee, I am on the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate, I think that those committees are fully capable of investigating why there was not sufficient security provided to the personnel in Benghazi, and how that could’ve been prevented.”

One thing you’ve got to admit is that Rubio sure is a fast learner. In two years, he has already learned to become a consummate member of the politics-as-usual old boys’ network.

H/t FOTM’s Tina.

~Eowyn

The U.S. senator whom Obama contemptuously calls “a boy”

At the Republican National Convention last night, son of humble Cuban immigrants Marco Rubio, 41, newly elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, was given the distinct honor of introducing former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the GOP’s 2012 nominee to the presidency of the United States of America.

Tears were streaming down my face as Rubio described and paid homage to his hardworking blue-collar parents and their belief that America held the promise of a better life for their children. I, too, am an immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen who came to this country with not a penny. I, too, worked in menial jobs to put myself through college — washing dishes, waitressing in a tenderloin restaurant, selling Avon door-to-door, working in the fast food A&W. I, too, with a Ph.D. and a Full Professorship (emerita), am a living testimony to the American dream.

If you didn’t watch Rubio’s speech, here’s your chance! As you watch and listen to Rubio, ask yourself this question:

Does Marco Rubio look and behave like “a boy” to you?

I’ll explain the question below the video.

So, did you watch Rubio’s speech?

Do you think this impressive, articulate, and intelligent man is “a boy”?

But that’s exactly what Barack Obama calls Marco Rubio.

Glenn Thrust writes for Politico, Aug. 20, 2012, that Obama’s Last Stand, an e-book published last Monday in a collaboration between Politico and Random House, reports that Obama has a trait that has never been revealed to the American people. The book is the culmination of a two-month reporting project that included interviews with two dozen current and former members of Obama’s team

In Thrust’s words, Obama has a “trash-talking competitiveness, a trait that has defined him since his days on the court as a basketball-obsessed teenager in Hawaii.”

According to the e-book, one night last February, Obama spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. This is what Obama, a sitting President of the United States, said to the woman:

“Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?”

The woman declined to answer.

Well,” Obama said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter:

“Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.”

Born in 1961, Obama is 51 years old. Marco Rubio was born in 1971 and at age 41 is 10 years younger — hardly “a boy”. If anyone were to call Obama “a boy,” the cries of “RAAAAACISM” would be deafening.

Now you know why I call him a Piece of Sh*t.

~Eowyn

The Dark Cloud That Hangs Over Our Country

Lately I have felt depressed, irritable and basically like a dark cloud has been hanging over me. When I was driving home the other day after work I realized it’s not just me and it didn’t just start recently, I believe there has been a dark cloud over the entire country since 9/11/2001. Not the type that blotted out the sun on that fateful day, but a feeling of evil that reared its ugly head and has been present ever since. 

There have been a few bright spots since then, the patriotism and selflessness immediately afterwards, but it wasn’t long before the nut jobs and their willing accomplices in the media were blaming everyone except the perpetrators of the attack. Most recently, liberals are trying to pitch the idea of embracing Islam; more mosques should be built, allow sharia law, turn our backs on Israel, etc.

How do we go from mourning the death of over 3000 of our citizens by radical muslims to embracing a cult that preaches death to America and death to non-believers. Evil has truly settled over our nation, and three years ago evil took up residency in the White House in the form of Barack Obama, a non-qualified radical socialist with ties to domestic terrorists, a racist hate spewing pastor and the corrupt criminal Chicago  political machine. And we can only guess at most of Obama’s background dating back to his college and university days since those records have been sealed.

Since his inauguration our country declined substantially on all fronts, everything he has done has been to the detriment of our nation. He is a criminal that has violated the constitution on several occasion, and what’s even more alarming is that congress is not holding him accountable, they are turning a blind eye to his crimes; Solyndra, Fast and Furious, recess appointments when congress is not in recess are just a few of the crimes and scandals this president and his administration are directly linked to.

With the election later this year I don’t really see a candidate on our side that is any better than McCain was in 2008, they are just saying what they think we want to hear and  backbiting each other instead of taking the fight to the real enemy, Barack Obama. I fear that even if one of them did win in November it would not be much different than if Obama won.

I guess I’m just really disappointed that the real conservatives like Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin would not run for one reason or another. If I could talk to them I would say that any reasons they have are not good enough, their country needs them, we are in a crisis that could mean the end of our Republic and could cause the loss of our freedom, liberty  and ultimately our very lives.

As long as Obama is in office or if a RINO like any of the current candidates are win in November, then this dark, evil cloud will never dissipate. Until we see the light and put our petty differences behind us as Consevative/Republicans and quit settling for mediocre candidates, things will never change.

~Tom in NC