Tag: Congressional

Leftist Congressional Candidate Says It’s Not ‘Sporting’ To Use Semi-Automatic Weapons For Self-Defense

This Democrat Says It Is Not ‘Sporting’ To Use Semi-Automatic Weapons For Self-Defense – Downtrend

.

.
Dan Muroff is an anti-gun liberal nutcase who is running for Congress. He is hoping to unseat fellow anti-gun kook US Rep. Chaka Fattah for Pennsylvania’s 2nd Congressional District by being an even bigger anti-gun kook. In a positively illuminating interview, Muroff explains how he wants to ban semi-automatic firearms because it is not “sporting” for people to use them in self-defense.

While speaking with aldianews.com about his campaign, Muroff laid out his street cred on gun control with liberal gems like these:

“Guns in the street are easier to find than healthy produce. They unravel the fabric of not just an individual’s future, but with it their family’s future,” said Muroff.

Sounds like “the streets” have more of fresh produce problem than a gun problem. Also, there’s that whole thing about how the Constitution doesn’t guarantee our right to keep and bear carrots, which I’m sure Muroff is aware of.

“The number of deaths, the number of families that are devastated. When I say remediable, I don’t been fixable. But you can remedy in part, and mitigate in part, the gun violence in cities and elsewhere by passing reasonable legislation,” he continued.

I don’t been fixable? I’m not sure if that is a typo or if Muroff just has some mild brain damage but either way, this is a great new liberal take on the ineffectiveness of gun control. He’s saying, “Sure, gun control won’t actually fix the problem of crime and violence, but it will make lefties feel better about it.”

And speaking of liberal creativity with words:

“We can’t allow those who see this as a single issue stand in the way of what reasonable people know what needs to be done,” said Muroff.

According to him the people that want to take away a Constitutional right are the reasonable ones and by implication, those who would fight to preserve that right are the unreasonable ones.

After laying out his plan to ban weapons, hold gun owners accountable if their firearms are stolen and used in a crime, and closing non-existent loopholes, Muroff assures us: “I’m not talking about taking away second amendment rights, but responsible ownership and responsible sales.”

I don’t think he meant that the way it came out, but he did just say that he is talking about taking away “reasonable ownership and responsible sales.” Then again, maybe that’s exactly what he meant to say.

Finally, we get to the single dumbest thing he said in an insanely unintelligent interview:

“It’s not sporting to use a semi-automatic weapon to go hunting, or frankly, self-defense,” said Muroff.

WTF!?! It’s not sporting to defend yourself using a semi-automatic weapon against a dangerous criminal? Does he honestly feel like we need to give the scumbags a sporting chance when they are trying to rape and murder? I guess so. Maybe he thinks we should all have muzzle-loading black powder muskets just to give the bad guys a reasonable chance of succeeding in their evil deeds.

In hunting there is a train of thought that says using a semi-automatic rifle makes the sport less challenging. No such thing exists in self-defense. You meet force with equal or greater force. Period. There is no sportsmanship in matters of life and death.

And again, Muroff’s misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment shines through. There is nothing in the Constitution that ties gun ownership to hunting or even self-defense. We simply have the right to own guns and liberal douchebags like him don’t have a right to mess with that.

.

.

Congressional RINOs Help Leftists Pass Spending Bill That Funds Evil, Baby-Killing Scumbags

Find Out How Your Lawmakers Voted on Government Spending Bill That Averts Shutdown, Funds Planned Parenthood – Daily Signal

.

.
On the last day of the fiscal year, Congress approved a short-term spending measure that keeps the federal government operating through Dec. 11.

The bill passed easily in the Senate, 78-20:

.
…………….

.
The bill faced strong dissension in the House, where 151 Republicans voted against it because the bill does not cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood (vote roll call here).

President Barack Obama signed the spending bill late Wednesday.

The vote was notable in the House in that it provided a chance for candidates for upcoming leadership races to weigh in on a controversial issue in the caucus.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who is the leading candidate to replace Speaker John Boehner, voted for the measure.

His only opponent for speaker, Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., voted against the bill, as did Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who is one of two lawmakers running for majority leader.

The other majority leader contender, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., voted for the spending bill.

Some House members believed that the vote on the continuing resolution, as the funding measure is known, would be telling in how potential new leadership may handle future issues.

Conservatives argued that leadership candidates would be judged on if they stood up to Planned Parenthood in the face of a potential shutdown.

“It’s unfortunate that this thing passed,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But I think the most unfortunate thing is we should have back on July 14, when the first [Planned Parenthood] video came out, went full commitment to making this a national debate and really elevating it and going all in. We could have been in a position to win, but we didn’t, and this is the part that frustrates me.”

Jordan added:

“Our new leadership has to commit, whoever that happens to be, to the same effort on things that we’ve told the voters we were gonna do – like we all told them we were pro-life, right? – we have to have the same intensity in getting those things done that we did on, for example, trade promotion. We have to demonstrate we are actually fighting on the things we said and have that full debate. And that’s what we are not doing.”

Taking a different view, Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, told the The Daily Signal that conservatives were wrong to try to hold up the spending measure to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

“Leadership will look feckless and ineffective if they try to appease the rejectionist members of this conference,” Dent said.

“Going forward,” Dent remarked, “leadership will have to find a way to move forward on five or six measures that must be resolved, including a budget agreement, tax extenders, the debt ceiling, and a long-term transportation measure. All will require a level of compromise required to move beyond the warfare and get to a better place.”

The continuing resolution funds the government at a rate of $1.017 trillion annually for the next two and a half months. Senate leaders argued the deal gives Congress time to negotiate a budget deal with the president, though Obama has been pushing Congress to break the spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

The continuing resolution also provides $74.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations and reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration, E-verify program, and Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Senate Republican leaders introduced a government spending bill last week that included a one-year moratorium on funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation also directed the $235 million in savings derived from the government funding allocated for Planned Parenthood to be directed to community health centers.

That bill, however, was blocked in the upper chamber, after it failed to reach the 60 votes needed to advance.

.

.

A Brief Modern History On Congressional “Treason” (Ed Morrissey)

A Brief Modern History On Congressional “Treason” – Ed Morrissey

.

.
Over the last couple of days, media outlets and some Democrats have lost their minds over the letter signed by 47 Republican Senators, sent to Iran to warn them that President Obama does not have the authority to create a lasting agreement without the participation of Congress. The New York Daily News ran a headline calling them “traitors,” a charge that has been bandied about on social media without any sense of either its legal sense or the history of Congressional influence on foreign policy. A petition on the White House website to arrest the 47 Senators has gathered over 136,000 signatures, in an apparent attempt of the ignorant to publicly self-identify.

Obviously, this situation requires a little history and perspective, as well as a civics lesson on the nature of co-equal branches of government, and on how this latest “treason” stacks up. The US and the Soviet Union conducted a 44-year “cold war” that often turned hot in places like Korea and Vietnam, and yet as Noah pointed out yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy encouraged the Soviets to interfere in the 1984 election. Noah also mentions Nancy Pelosi’s trip to visit Bashar Assad in 2007 against the Bush administration’s express desires. But there are even more instances that speak more directly to Congressional interference with executive branch efforts on foreign policy.

Joe Scarborough pointed out one example this morning on Twitter from the Reagan era. The Reagan administration wanted to block Soviet influence in the Western hemisphere by backing rebellions against Communist dictators, especially in Nicaragua. Reagan supported the contras against Daniel Ortega, a policy which Democrats opposed and for which they later passed the controversial Boland Amendment in an attempt to restrict Reagan’s options in foreign policy (and which led to the Iran-Contra scandal.) Before Boland, though, 10 Democrats in the House – including Edward Boland (D-MA) – wrote a letter to Ortega called the “Dear Commandante” letter pledging their support to his government. See if this sounds familiar:

The 10 authors include Jim Wright of Texas, the majority leader; Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and other senior Democrats in the foreign policy field. The letter tells Mr. Ortega that it was written ”in a spirit of hopefulness and goodwill” and voices regret that relations between Nicaragua and Washington are not better.

The writers stress that they all oppose further money for rebel campaigns against the Sandinista Government. In a veiled reference to the Reagan Administration, the letter says that if the Sandinistas do hold genuine elections, those who are ”supporting violence” against the Nicaraguan leaders would have ”far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.”

In his retort, Representative Gingrich argues that the letter writers ”step across the boundary from opposition to a policy, to undercutting that policy.”

He also notes that the members of Congress offer to discuss these issues with Mr. Ortega and the junta. In Mr. Gingrich’s view, ”This clearly violates the executive branch’s exclusive prerogative of negotiating with a foreign government.”

Not convinced? Well, let’s look to more recent events. In September 2002, the Bush administration was preparing its case for war against Saddam Hussein, both with Congress and at the UN, for continuing violations of the cease-fire agreement that had ended war operations in 1991. Hussein’s forces repeatedly locked anti-aircraft radar on US and British fighters enforcing the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq. Hussein repeatedly and belligerently refused to fully comply with what would eventually be 17 UN Security Council resolutions aimed at settling the conflict. In the midst of that scenario, three House Democrats flew to Baghdad to meet with Iraqi officials and lecture George W. Bush on trusting Hussein and his regime:

IT’S A RARE POLITICAL MOMENT when Terry McAuliffe says no comment. Yet McAuliffe, the garrulous chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said just that last Wednesday at the Brookings Institution after a speech by Al Gore. Asked about the trip to Baghdad taken by three of his fellow partisans – Representatives David Bonior, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson – McAuliffe was nonplussed…

Problem is, the elected officials aren’t saying much either. Bonior was until recently the second-ranking Democrat in the House, and yet it’s nearly impossible to get Democrats to say anything about his and the others’ trip to Baghdad.

But if other Democrats aren’t talking about the Baghdad tour, Bonior and McDermott themselves won’t shut up. And the more they talk, the more scrutiny they invite.

The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC’s “This Week.” Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.”

Last I checked, no one had the three Democrats arrested for treason, even though they hadn’t just sent a letter to Saddam Hussein but cluelessly participated in his propaganda exercise for him. Why? Because it wasn’t treason, and it wasn’t even a violation of the Logan Act. It may have been ill-advised, but Congress and its members do a lot of ill-advised things, which is why we have regular elections to deal with them.

This letter may or may not be ill-advised, too. Jazz and Noah are split on that point, and I fall somewhere in between. The deal with Iran is just terrible on multiple levels, as is the attempt by the Obama administration to bypass Congress yet again instead of engaging the Senate to develop a stronger plan. It may have been politically wiser to put it in the form of an op-ed in the Washington Post rather than a letter to Ali Khameini, but the need to speak out comes from Obama’s mindless pursuit of a deal at all costs rather than allowing sanctions to force a capitulation – and to keep their support for terrorism bottled up as much as possible. But it’s not treason, and it’s idiotic to argue otherwise, especially with the long precedents set by Democrats and progressives in Congress over the last 30-plus years.

Yesterday I interviewed Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of the signatories, about his hearing today at Environment and Public Works on Obama’s Clean Power Plan. We also speak briefly about Iran and the letter toward the end of the interview.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Kissinger Slammed Kerry For Negotiating With Sandinistas In 1985 – Daily Caller

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger hammered John Kerry in 1985 for interfering in diplomatic negotiations with Nicaragua’s Marxist government as a Massachusetts senator.

Thirty years later, Kerry is skewering Senate Republicans for their open letter to the Iranian leadership warning that any nuclear deal with the United States without the advice and consent of the U.S. Congress would not last beyond President Obama’s term.

Kerry and then-Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin visited Nicaragua in 1985 to cut a deal with the Sandinista government, which was close to the former Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan, however, was already set on overthrowing the Marxist government in Nicaragua by sending aid to a group of Nicaraguan rebels – the contras.

“The Sandinista government would agree to a cease-fire and restore civil liberties if the US government ceased its support of the contras,” the Boston Globe reported.

“If the United States is serious about peace, this is a great opportunity,” Kerry said at the time.

Kissinger, though, hit back at Kerry on the CBS Sunday program “Face the Nation,” calling him a congressman rather than a senator.

“With all due respect to Rep. Kerry, he’s a congressman,” Kissinger said. “He’s not secretary of state, and if the Nicaraguans want to make an offer, they ought to make it in diplomatic channels. We can’t be negotiating with our own congressman and the Nicaraguans simultaneously. My own view is that what we want from the Nicaraguans is the removal of foreign military and intelligence advisers.”

According to the Globe, Kerry responded that he was only applying the lessons he learned in Vietnam to Reagan’s actions in Central America.

.

.
Kerry, now secretary of state, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday and was asked by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy how he reacted to the letter.

“My reaction to the letter was utter disbelief,” Kerry said. “During my 29 years here in the Senate I never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. If I had, I can tell you, no matter what the issue and no matter who was president, I would’ve certainly rejected it.”

“No one is questioning anybody’s right to dissent,” he continued. “Any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any of the questions that were raised. You write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation – particularly the leaders that they have criticized other people for even engaging with or writing to – to write then and suggest they were going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning. This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.”

.

.

National Intelligence Director Contradicts Traitor John Kerry Less Than 24 Hours After His Congressional Testimony

Figures. James Clapper Contradicts John Kerry Less Than 24 Hrs After His Testimony Before Congress – Gateway Pundit

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper completely contradicts John Kerry less than 24 hours after his testimony before Congress.

On Wednesday Obama Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress:

Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally – less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.

On Thursday Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress:

“When the final accounting is done. 2014 will be the most lethal year in global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. About half of all attacks including fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

.

.
Do these people have any idea what they’re doing?

.

.

*VIDEO* Thomas Sowell: Congressional Black Caucus Employing Joseph Goebbels Tactic In Ferguson Case


.
..

.

Benghazi Security Officers: Congressional Leftists Are Lying; “The Words Stand Down Were Given” (Video)

Navy SEAL & 3 Marines Challenge Lib Democrats On Benghazi: “Say It To My Face! The Words ‘Stand Down’ Were Given” – Gateway Pundit

“SAY IT TO MY FACE; YOU ARE CALLING A RANGER A SEAL AND THREE MARINES LIARS; THE WORDS STAND DOWN WERE GIVEN”

Kris Paronto and Mark Geist, two security officers who were in Benghazi on the night of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks, challenged liberal Democrats to come on television and tell them to their face that they were liars.

The two American heroes and whistle-blowers joined Sean Hannity last night to discuss their book and allegations by prominent Democrats that they were lying. Geist said,

“I would like to invite Mr. Schiff to a debate… We can talk about it… He wants to see and say that to my face. We can talk about it, and talk about everything.”

Via I’m 41:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Rep. Don Young Verbally Bitchslaps Obama’s EPA And Congressional Democrats Over Federal Overreach


.

.

Mailer Urges Democrats To Vote For RINO Collins In Georgia’s 10th Congressional District Runoff Election

Mailer Urges Democrats To Cross Over For Mike Collins In GA-10 – Atlanta Journal-Constitution

.

.
Could Georgia’s 10th Congressional District runoff take a page from the Mississippi U.S. Senate race?

Tim Bryant spoke on the radio the other day about a mailer he received urging Democrats to vote for trucking executive Mike Collins in the Republican runoff in the race to replace U.S. Rep. Paul Broun. Collins is running against minister Jody Hice, whose comments about Islam, women and gays have caused a stir.

A reader sent us the mailer itself, which we present above. It was attached to an absentee ballot application. The argument:

“Due to the gerrymandering of our Congressional district, it is nearly impossible for a Democrat to get elected… We, as citizens of the 10th Congressional District, cannot afford a Congressman like Jody Hice. Why you ask? Here are just a few reasons why Hice is too radical to represent us in Washington.”

The mailer does not say who paid for it – and the only reported outside spending on mailers in the race has been by a gun rights group for Hice – so we can’t say for sure it is the Democrats. Hice was willing to assume in a fundraising appeal:

“Democrats are trying to do in Georgia what they did in Mississippi. We must not allow liberals to decide another Republican election.”

He’s referring to the Thad Cochran-Chris McDaniel GOP runoff last month, in which crossover votes from black Democrats appeared to provide the incumbent senator’s slim margin of victory.

.

.

Leftist Bigots In Florida ‘Whiteface’ Black Republican Congressional Candidate’s Campaign Sign

Black GOP Candidate’s Campaign Photograph Vandalized With Whiteface Paint – Weasel Zippers

.

.
If only she was a Democrat then MSNBC would have a week’s worth of programming.

Via NRO:

A Florida Republican congressional candidate’s campaign sign was vandalized with whiteface paint last week in a district with overwhelmingly Democratic voter registration. The attack follows a string of bias incidents against black Republicans.

Glo Smith, who reports that she has also had a number of signs stolen, tells National Review Online she became aware of the racist defacement of an eight-foot-by-four-foot sign Tuesday. The sign was situated on private property in view of Interstate 10 in Jacksonville. The vandal sprayed white paint over the face of Smith, who is African-American. The paint job appears to be carefully done and leaves the eyes untouched, creating a very creepy effect.

Keep reading

.

.

The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based On The U.S. Constitution (New American)

The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based On The U.S. Constitution – New American

.

.
113TH CONGRESS

Alabama
Sen. Jefferson Sessions – 71%
Sen. Richard Shelby – 64%
Dist.2: Martha Roby – 61%
Dist.3: Mike Rogers – 54%
Dist.4: Robert Aderholt – 57%
Dist.5: Mo Brooks – 73%
Dist.6: Spencer Bachus – 53%
Dist.7: Terri Sewell – 15%

Alaska
Sen. Mark Begich – 15%
Sen. Lisa Murkowski – 50%
Dist.: Don Young – 56%

Arizona
Sen. Jeff Flake – 81%
Sen. John McCain – 63%
Dist.1: Ann Kirkpatrick – 23%
Dist.2: Ron Barber – 13%
Dist.3: Raul Grijalva – 29%
Dist.4: Paul Gosar – 75%
Dist.5: Matt Salmon – 73%
Dist.6: David Schweikert – 83%
Dist.7: Ed Pastor – 22%
Dist.8: Trent Franks – 75%
Dist.9: Kyrsten Sinema – 15%

Arkansas
Sen. John Boozman – 55%
Sen. Mark Pryor – 20%
Dist.1: Eric Crawford – 61%
Dist.2: Tim Griffin – 65%
Dist.3: Steve Womack – 58%
Dist.4: Tom Cotton – 60%

California
Sen. Dianne Feinstein – 13%
Sen. Barbara Boxer – 14%
Dist.1: Doug LaMalfa – 65%
Dist.2: Jared Huffman – 35%
Dist.3: John Garamendi – 14%
Dist.4: Tom McClintock – 93%
Dist.5: Mike Thompson – 20%
Dist.6: Doris Matsui – 20%
Dist.7: Ami Bera – 10%
Dist.8: Paul Cook – 55%
<Dist.9: Jerry McNerney – 15%
Dist.10: Jeff Denham – 60%
Dist.11: George Miller – 24%
Dist.12: Nancy Pelosi – 17%
Dist.13: Barbara Lee – 28%
Dist.14: Jackie Speier – 23%
Dist.15: Eric Swalwell – 35%
Dist.16: Jim Costa – 18%
Dist.17: Michael Honda – 23%
Dist.18: Anna Eshoo – 20%
Dist.19: Zoe Lofgren – 24%
Dist.20: Sam Farr – 22%
Dist.21: David Valadao – 40%
Dist.22: Devin Nunes – 55%
Dist.23: Kevin McCarthy – 68%
Dist.24: Lois Capps – 21%
Dist.25: Howard McKeon – 51%
Dist.26: Julia Brownley – 10%
Dist.27: Judy Chu – 21%
Dist.28: Adam Schiff – 18%
Dist.29: Tony Cardenas – 31%
Dist.30: Brad Sherman – 21%
Dist.31: Gary Miller – 60%
Dist.32: Grace Napolitano – 22%
Dist.33: Henry Waxman – 19%
Dist.34: Xavier Becerra – 20%
Dist.35: Gloria Negrete McLeod – 33%
Dist.36: Raul Ruiz – 15%
Dist.37: Karen Bass – 24%
Dist.38: Linda Sanchez – 24%
Dist.39: Edward Royce – 73%
Dist.40: Lucille Roybal-Allard – 21%
Dist.41: Mark Takano – 30%
Dist.42: Ken Calvert – 51%
Dist.43: Maxine Waters – 27%
Dist.44: Janice Hahn – 33%
Dist.45: John Campbell – 71%
Dist.46: Loretta Sanchez – 26%
Dist.47: Alan Lowenthal – 30%
Dist.48: Dana Rohrabacher – 76%
Dist.49: Darrell Issa – 52%
Dist.50: Duncan Hunter – 76%
Dist.51: Juan Vargas – 30%
Dist.52: Scott Peters – 15%
Dist.53: Susan Davis – 17%

Colorado
Sen. Michael Bennet – 10%
Sen. Mark Udall – 21%
Dist.1: Diana DeGette – 19%
Dist.2: Jared Polis – 25%
Dist.3: Scott Tipton – 76%
Dist.4: Cory Gardner – 72%
Dist.5: Doug Lamborn – 78%
Dist.6: Mike Coffman – 75%
Dist.7: Ed Perlmutter – 15%

Connecticut
Sen. Christopher Murphy – 15%
Sen. Richard Blumenthal – 10%
Dist.1: John Larson – 21%
Dist.2: Joe Courtney – 17%
Dist.3: Rosa DeLauro – 20%
Dist.4: James Himes – 11%
Dist.5: Elizabeth Esty – 25%

Delaware
Sen. Thomas Carper – 14%
Sen. Chris Coons – 11%
Dist.: John Carney – 11%

Florida
Sen. Marco Rubio – 78%
Sen. Bill Nelson – 14%
Dist.1: Jeff Miller – 69%
Dist.2: Steve Southerland – 73%
Dist.3: Ted Yoho – 85%
Dist.4: Ander Crenshaw – 52%
Dist.5: Corrine Brown – 20%
Dist.6: Ron DeSantis – 85%
Dist.7: John Mica – 57%
Dist.8: Bill Posey – 88%
Dist.9: Alan Grayson – 23%
Dist.10: Daniel Webster – 64%
Dist.11: Richard Nugent – 69%
Dist.12: Gus Bilirakis – 62%
Dist.14: Kathy Castor – 11%
Dist.15: Dennis Ross – 78%
Dist.16: Vern Buchanan – 58%
Dist.17: Thomas Rooney – 73%
Dist.18: Patrick Murphy – 20%
Dist.19: Trey Radel – 70%
Dist.20: Alcee Hastings – 23%
Dist.21: Theodore Deutch – 14%
Dist.22: Lois Frankel – 25%
Dist.23: Debbie Wasserman Schultz – 15%
Dist.24: Frederica Wilson – 21%
Dist.25: Mario Diaz-Balart – 46%
Dist.26: Joe Garcia – 15%
Dist.27: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – 42%

Georgia
Sen. John Isakson – 53%
Sen. Saxby Chambliss – 59%
Dist.1: Jack Kingston – 63%
Dist.2: Sanford Bishop – 28%
Dist.3: Lynn Westmoreland – 73%
Dist.4: Henry Johnson – 17%
Dist.5: John Lewis – 25%
Dist.6: Tom Price – 73%
Dist.7: Rob Woodall – 67%
Dist.8: Austin Scott – 73%
Dist.9: Doug Collins – 68%
Dist.10: Paul Broun – 90%
Dist.11: Phil Gingrey – 65%
Dist.12: John Barrow – 31%
Dist.13: David Scott – 20%
Dist.14: Tom Graves – 82%

Hawaii
Sen. Brian Schatz – 5%
Sen. Mazie Hirono – 12%
Dist.1: Colleen Hanabusa – 20%
Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard – 40%

Idaho
Sen. James Risch – 85%
Sen. Michael Crapo – 68%
Dist.1: Raul Labrador – 89%
Dist.2: Michael Simpson – 55%

Illinois
Sen. Mark Kirk – 34%
Sen. Richard Durbin – 11%
Dist.1: Bobby Rush – 23%
Dist.2: Robin Kelly – 26%
Dist.3: Daniel Lipinski – 20%
Dist.4: Luis Gutierrez – 21%
Dist.5: Mike Quigley – 16%
Dist.6: Peter Roskam – 69%
Dist.7: Danny Davis – 24%
Dist.8: Tammy Duckworth – 15%
Dist.9: Janice Schakowsky – 23%
Dist.10: Bradley Schneider – 15%
Dist.11: Bill Foster – 13%
Dist.12: William Enyart – 20%
Dist.13: Rodney Davis – 65%
Dist.14: Randy Hultgren – 73%
Dist.15: John Shimkus – 53%
Dist.16: Adam Kinzinger – 59%
Dist.17: Cheri Bustos – 17%
Dist.18: Aaron Schock – 67%

Indiana
Sen. Joe Donnelly – 23%
Sen. Daniel Coats – 71%
Dist.1: Peter Visclosky – 28%
Dist.2: Jackie Walorski – 55%
Dist.3: Marlin Stutzman – 80%
Dist.4: Todd Rokita – 71%
Dist.5: Susan Brooks – 55%
Dist.6: Luke Messer – 65%
Dist.7: André Carson – 16%
Dist.8: Larry Bucshon – 67%
Dist.9: Todd Young – 60%

Iowa
Sen. Thomas Harkin – 14%
Sen. Charles Grassley – 61%
Dist.1: Bruce Braley – 19%
Dist.2: David Loebsack – 17%
Dist.3: Tom Latham – 50%
Dist.4: Steve King – 66%

Kansas
Sen. Pat Roberts – 61%
Sen. Jerry Moran – 64%
Dist.1: Tim Huelskamp – 88%
Dist.2: Lynn Jenkins – 75%
Dist.3: Kevin Yoder – 70%
Dist.4: Mike Pompeo – 66%

Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul – 94%
Sen. Mitch McConnell – 62%
Dist.1: Ed Whitfield – 52%
Dist.2: Brett Guthrie – 68%
Dist.3: John Yarmuth – 19%
Dist.4: Thomas Massie – 100%
Dist.5: Harold Rogers – 52%
Dist.6: Garland Barr – 65%

Louisiana
Sen. David Vitter – 58%
Sen. Mary Landrieu – 20%
Dist.1: Steve Scalise – 74%
Dist.2: Cedric Richmond – 23%
Dist.3: Charles Boustany – 58%
Dist.4: John Fleming – 82%
Dist.6: Bill Cassidy – 68%

Maine
Sen. Angus King – 15%
Sen. Susan Collins – 40%
Dist.1: Chellie Pingree – 28%
Dist.2: Michael Michaud – 28%

Maryland
Sen. Benjamin Cardin – 17%
Sen. Barbara Mikulski – 13%
Dist.1: Andy Harris – 78%
Dist.2: C. Ruppersberger – 16%
Dist.3: John Sarbanes – 17%
Dist.4: Donna Edwards – 21%
Dist.5: Steny Hoyer – 16%
Dist.6: John Delaney – 21%
Dist.7: Elijah Cummings – 22%
Dist.8: Chris Van Hollen – 18%

Massachusetts
Sen. Elizabeth Warren – 0%
Sen. Edward Markey – 22%
Dist.1: Richard Neal – 20%
Dist.2: James McGovern – 24%
Dist.3: Niki Tsongas – 16%
Dist.4: Joseph Kennedy – 31%
Dist.6: John Tierney – 26%
Dist.7: Michael Capuano – 27%
Dist.8: Stephen Lynch – 25%
Dist.9: William Keating – 24%

Michigan
Sen. Debbie Stabenow – 18%
Sen. Carl Levin – 12%
Dist.1: Dan Benishek – 66%
Dist.2: Bill Huizenga – 75%
Dist.3: Justin Amash – 92%
Dist.4: Dave Camp – 52%
Dist.5: Daniel Kildee – 40%
Dist.6: Fred Upton – 48%
Dist.7: Tim Walberg – 69%
Dist.8: Mike Rogers – 51%
Dist.9: Sander Levin – 17%
Dist.10: Candice Miller – 51%
Dist.11: Kerry Bentivolio – 80%
Dist.12: John Dingell – 21%
Dist.13: John Conyers – 28%
Dist.14: Gary Peters – 17%

Minnesota
Sen. Al Franken – 7%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar – 7%
Dist.1: Timothy Walz – 17%
Dist.2: John Kline – 55%
Dist.3: Erik Paulsen – 69%
Dist.4: Betty McCollum – 21%
Dist.5: Keith Ellison – 23%
Dist.6: Michele Bachmann – 80%
Dist.7: Collin Peterson – 46%
Dist.8: Richard Nolan – 35%

Mississippi
Sen. Thad Cochran – 54%
Sen. Roger Wicker – 52%
Dist.1: Alan Nunnelee – 64%
Dist.2: Bennie Thompson – 26%
Dist.3: Gregg Harper – 67%
Dist.4: Steven Palazzo – 66%

Missouri
Sen. Roy Blunt – 55%
Sen. Claire McCaskill – 17%
Dist.1: Wm. Clay – 24%
Dist.2: Ann Wagner – 63%
Dist.3: Blaine Luetkemeyer – 70%
Dist.4: Vicky Hartzler – 63%
Dist.5: Emanuel Cleaver – 23%
Dist.6: Sam Graves – 56%
Dist.7: Billy Long – 62%
Dist.8: Jason Smith – 75%

Montana
Sen. Max Baucus – 19%
Sen. Jon Tester – 22%
Dist.: Steve Daines – 60%

Nebraska
Sen. Deb Fischer – 70%
Sen. Mike Johanns – 68%
Dist.1: Jeff Fortenberry – 55%
Dist.2: Lee Terry – 56%
Dist.3: Adrian Smith – 69%

Nevada
Sen. Harry Reid – 17%
Sen. Dean Heller – 73%
Dist.1: Dina Titus – 10%
Dist.2: Mark Amodei – 68%
Dist.3: Joseph Heck – 63%
Dist.4: Steven Horsford – 13%

New Hampshire
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen – 9%
Sen. Kelly Ayotte – 68%
Dist.1: Carol Shea-Porter – 18%
Dist.2: Ann Kuster – 20%

New Jersey
Sen. Robert Menendez – 19%
Dist.1: Robert Andrews – 19%
Dist.2: Frank LoBiondo – 45%
Dist.3: Jon Runyan – 50%
Dist.4: Christopher Smith – 45%
Dist.5: Scott Garrett – 72%
Dist.6: Frank Pallone – 24%
Dist.7: Leonard Lance – 60%
Dist.8: Albio Sires – 11%
Dist.9: Bill Pascrell – 24%
Dist.10: Donald Payne – 26%
Dist.11: Rodney Frelinghuysen – 40%
Dist.12: Rush Holt – 26%

New Mexico
Sen. Martin Heinrich – 11%
Sen. Tom Udall – 21%
Dist.1: Michelle Lujan Grisham – 25%
Dist.2: Stevan Pearce – 55%
Dist.3: Ben Lujan – 19%

New York
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – 10%
Sen. Charles Schumer – 14%
Dist.1: Timothy Bishop – 20%
Dist.2: Peter King – 44%
Dist.3: Steve Israel – 18%
Dist.4: Carolyn McCarthy – 19%
Dist.5: Gregory Meeks – 19%
Dist.6: Grace Meng – 15%
Dist.7: Nydia Velázquez – 25%
Dist.8: Hakeem Jeffries – 35%
Dist.9: Yvette Clarke – 23%
Dist.10: Jerrold Nadler – 23%
Dist.11: Michael Grimm – 51%
Dist.12: Carolyn Maloney – 21%
Dist.13: Charles Rangel – 18%
Dist.14: Joseph Crowley – 21%
Dist.15: José Serrano – 23%
Dist.16: Eliot Engel – 18%
Dist.17: Nita Lowey – 15%
Dist.18: Sean Maloney – 20%
Dist.19: Christopher Gibson – 71%
Dist.20: Paul Tonko – 20%
Dist.21: William Owens – 22%
Dist.22: Richard Hanna – 50%
Dist.23: Tom Reed – 65%
Dist.24: Daniel Maffei – 22%
Dist.25: Louise Slaughter – 20%
Dist.26: Brian Higgins – 16%
Dist.27: Chris Collins – 60%

North Carolina
Sen. Kay Hagan – 13%
Sen. Richard Burr – 57%
Dist.1: George Butterfield – 16%
Dist.2: Renee Ellmers – 63%
Dist.3: Walter Jones – 78%
Dist.4: David Price – 19%
Dist.5: Virginia Foxx – 71%
Dist.6: Howard Coble – 66%
Dist.7: Mike McIntyre – 45%
Dist.8: Richard Hudson – 70%
Dist.9: Robert Pittenger – 55%
Dist.10: Patrick McHenry – 72%
Dist.11: Mark Meadows – 75%
Dist.12: Melvin Watt – 23%
Dist.13: George Holding – 68%

North Dakota
Sen. John Hoeven – 56%
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp – 21%
Dist.: Kevin Cramer – 55%

Ohio
Sen. Sherrod Brown – 24%
Sen. Robert Portman – 50%
Dist.1: Steve Chabot – 63%
Dist.2: Brad Wenstrup – 60%
Dist.3: Joyce Beatty – 26%
Dist.4: Jim Jordan – 80%
Dist.5: Robert Latta – 72%
Dist.6: Bill Johnson – 66%
Dist.7: Bob Gibbs – 66%
Dist.8: John Boehner – 53%
Dist.9: Marcy Kaptur – 30%
Dist.10: Michael Turner – 47%
Dist.11: Marcia Fudge – 20%
Dist.12: Patrick Tiberi – 52%
Dist.13: Tim Ryan – 26%
Dist.14: David Joyce – 50%
Dist.15: Steve Stivers – 57%
Dist.16: James Renacci – 61%

Oklahoma
Sen. James Inhofe – 72%
Sen. Thomas Coburn – 82%
Dist.1: Jim Bridenstine – 90%
Dist.2: Markwayne Mullin – 70%
Dist.3: Frank Lucas – 59%
Dist.4: Tom Cole – 53%
Dist.5: James Lankford – 66%

Oregon
Sen. Ron Wyden – 17%
Sen. Jeff Merkley – 13%
Dist.1: Suzanne Bonamici – 29%
Dist.2: Greg Walden – 48%
Dist.3: Earl Blumenauer – 21%
Dist.4: Peter DeFazio – 32%
Dist.5: Kurt Schrader – 23%

Pennsylvania
Sen. Patrick Toomey – 67%
Sen. Robert Casey – 10%
Dist.1: Robert Brady – 21%
Dist.2: Chaka Fattah – 19%
Dist.3: Mike Kelly – 60%
Dist.4: Scott Perry – 70%
Dist.5: Glenn Thompson – 68%
Dist.6: Jim Gerlach – 40%
Dist.7: Patrick Meehan – 56%
Dist.8: Michael Fitzpatrick – 46%
Dist.9: Bill Shuster – 56%
Dist.10: Tom Marino – 57%
Dist.11: Lou Barletta – 60%
Dist.12: Keith Rothfus – 75%
Dist.13: Allyson Schwartz – 12%
Dist.14: Michael Doyle – 30%
Dist.15: Charles Dent – 45%
Dist.16: Joseph Pitts – 63%
Dist.17: Matthew Cartwright – 35%
Dist.18: Tim Murphy – 47%

Rhode Island
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – 11%
Sen. John Reed – 14%
Dist.1: David Cicilline – 27%
Dist.2: James Langevin – 20%

South Carolina
Sen. Tim Scott – 81%
Sen. Lindsey Graham – 63%
Dist.1: Marshall Sanford – 85%
Dist.2: Joe Wilson – 60%
Dist.3: Jeff Duncan – 85%
Dist.4: Trey Gowdy – 80%
Dist.5: Mick Mulvaney – 78%
Dist.6: James Clyburn – 20%
Dist.7: Tom Rice – 70%

South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson – 16%
Sen. John Thune – 57%
Dist.: Kristi Noem – 69%

Tennessee
Sen. Bob Corker – 66%
Sen. Lamar Alexander – 54%
Dist.1: David Roe – 74%
Dist.2: John Duncan – 81%
Dist.3: Charles Fleischmann – 69%
Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais – 78%
Dist.5: Jim Cooper – 23%
Dist.6: Diane Black – 66%
Dist.7: Marsha Blackburn – 63%
Dist.8: Stephen Fincher – 74%
Dist.9: Steve Cohen – 21%

Texas
Sen. John Cornyn – 69%
Sen. Ted Cruz – 95%
Dist.1: Louie Gohmert – 75%
Dist.2: Ted Poe – 71%
Dist.3: Sam Johnson – 65%
Dist.4: Ralph Hall – 60%
Dist.5: Jeb Hensarling – 66%
Dist.6: Joe Barton – 61%
Dist.7: John Culberson – 65%
Dist.8: Kevin Brady – 57%
Dist.9: Al Green – 24%
Dist.10: Michael McCaul – 61%
Dist.11: K. Conaway – 62%
Dist.12: Kay Granger – 51%
Dist.13: Mac Thornberry – 54%
Dist.14: Randy Weber – 70%
Dist.15: Ruben Hinojosa – 21%
Dist.16: Beto O’Rourke – 30%
Dist.17: Bill Flores – 68%
Dist.18: Sheila Jackson-Lee – 24%
Dist.19: Randy Neugebauer – 65%
Dist.20: Joaquin Castro – 25%
Dist.21: Lamar Smith – 54%
Dist.22: Pete Olson – 72%
Dist.23: Pete Gallego – 15%
Dist.24: Kenny Marchant – 68%
Dist.25: Roger Williams – 75%
Dist.26: Michael Burgess – 66%
Dist.27: Blake Farenthold – 71%
Dist.28: Henry Cuellar – 18%
Dist.29: Gene Green – 27%
Dist.30: Eddie Johnson – 19%
Dist.31: John Carter – 58%
Dist.32: Pete Sessions – 61%
Dist.33: Marc Veasey – 25%
Dist.34: Filemon Vela – 25%
Dist.35: Lloyd Doggett – 25%
Dist.36: Steve Stockman – 95%

Utah
Sen. Orrin Hatch – 58%
Sen. Mike Lee – 91%
Dist.1: Rob Bishop – 68%
Dist.2: Chris Stewart – 65%
Dist.3: Jason Chaffetz – 80%
Dist.4: Jim Matheson – 35%

Vermont
Sen. Patrick Leahy – 16%
Sen. Bernard Sanders – 27%
Dist.: Peter Welch – 24%

Virginia
Sen. Mark Warner – 13%
Sen. Timothy Kaine – 0%
Dist.1: Robert Wittman – 66%
Dist.2: E. Rigell – 68%
Dist.3: Robert Scott – 23%
Dist.4: J. Forbes – 57%
Dist.5: Robert Hurt – 71%
Dist.6: Bob Goodlatte – 61%
Dist.7: Eric Cantor – 56%
Dist.8: James Moran – 20%
Dist.9: H. Griffith – 80%
Dist.10: Frank Wolf – 49%
Dist.11: Gerald Connolly – 15%

Washington
Sen. Patty Murray – 11%
Sen. Maria Cantwell – 13%
Dist.1: Suzan DelBene – 30%
Dist.2: Rick Larsen – 18%
Dist.3: Jaime Herrera Beutler – 67%
Dist.4: Doc Hastings – 56%
Dist.5: Cathy McMorris Rodgers – 64%
Dist.6: Derek Kilmer – 25%
Dist.7: Jim McDermott – 25%
Dist.8: David Reichert – 39%
Dist.9: Adam Smith – 20%
Dist.10: Denny Heck – 20%

West Virginia
Sen. Joe Manchin – 35%
Sen. John Rockefeller – 13%
Dist.1: David McKinley – 63%
Dist.2: Shelley Capito – 46%
Dist.3: Nick Rahall – 34%

Wisconsin
Sen. Ron Johnson – 86%
Sen. Tammy Baldwin – 27%
Dist.1: Paul Ryan – 58%
Dist.2: Mark Pocan – 40%
Dist.3: Ron Kind – 23%
Dist.4: Gwen Moore – 24%
Dist.5: F. Sensenbrenner – 77%
Dist.6: Thomas Petri – 61%
Dist.7: Sean Duffy – 63%
Dist.8: Reid Ribble – 72%

Wyoming
Sen. John Barrasso – 80%
Sen. Michael Enzi – 71%
Dist.: Cynthia Lummis – 80%

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy Still Pissed About Congressional Inaction Over Benghazi Cover-Up


.

Republican Wins Congressional Seat In Obama-Friendly Florida District Against Pro-Obamacare Democrat

Republican David Jolly Defeats Alex Sink To Win Florida Congressional Seat – Weasel Zippers

The Dems will try and dismiss this but the fact is Jolly was severely outspent by the Democrats and Obama won the district in 2012.

.

.
Via NBC News:

Republican David Jolly was declared the winner Tuesday of a closely watched Florida Congressional race both parties viewed as testing grounds to hone strategies for the 2014 midterm elections.

Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a tight race to fill the Tampa Bay-area seat of the late GOP Rep. Bill Young, according to the Associated Press.

The pricey campaign was waged heavily on President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Sink, who ran for governor of the Sunshine State in 2010, fought back a litany of attacks for her support of Obamacare in the first Congressional election since the law’s troubled rollout last fall. Jolly was portrayed as a former lobbyist beholden to special interests and whose calls for repeal of the health care law would move the country backward.

The implications of the race resulted in involvement from political heavyweights on both sides. Former President Bill Clinton recorded a phone call for Sink down the final stretch of the campaign, and former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan appeared on a conference call for Jolly.

Republicans have said a Jolly victory in the swing district would be a sign of good things to come in November midterms.

Obama narrowly won the district during his 2012 campaign and Sink carried it during her 2010 run in the state. But Young kept the seat in GOP hands during his more than four decades in Congress.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Rep. Gowdy Discusses House Resolution Authorizing Congressional Lawsuits Against Obama Regime (Video)

Republican Congressman: Obama’s Disregard Of Law ‘Has Reached An Unprecedented Level’ (Video) – Gateway Pundit

On Thursday the Obama administration pushed back the deadline for consumers to make their first payment for coverage under the healthcare law. This was just the latest lawless suspension of one of the Obamacare regulations.

Today Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told FOX News the Obama administration’s flouting of the law had reached an “unprecedented level.”

.

.
The Daily Caller reported:

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said Sunday that the Obama administration’s deliberate flouting of congressional law “has reached an unprecedented level,” claiming the time is now ripe for Congress to take the White House to court over executive overreach.

Gowdy spoke with Fox News’ Shannon Bream about a House resolution authorizing a congressional lawsuit against the executive branch. Although individual lawmakers do not have standing to challenge the president, the provision would allow the institution of Congress itself to sue the Obama administration for ignoring laws passed by the legislative body.

“The case law that says members don’t have standing also allows for the institution itself – under a theory of vote nullification, that if the executive is just nullifying the votes of a co-equal branch of government – that we may have standing,” Gowdy said. “So an individual member – the case you referenced was Dennis Kucinich challenging the actions in Libya – he does not have standing. But the institution of Congress as a whole, if it relates to recess appointments or the Affordable Care Act or immigration, courts have signaled that they may say the institution itself has standing, and that’s what [South Carolina Republican Rep. Tom Rice] is trying to do with his resolution.”

Read the rest here.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Louie Gohmert: If Holder Ignores Another Congressional Subpoena, It’s Time To Defund The DOJ (Video)

Louie Gohmert: If Holder Ignores Another Congressional Subpoena, It’s Time To Defund The DOJ – Right Scoop

Congress hasn’t subpoenaed Holder yet, but Gohmert says if Holder refuses to come before Congress voluntarily and explain why he lied about investigating journalists, and then ignores a subpoena to do the same, then Gohmert says Congress should defund the DOJ until it gets justice. And by ‘justice’ he means a DOJ that cares as much about radical Islamic terrorists as they do about going after journalists like James Rosen.

Watch:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Mark Steyn On Eric Holder’s Congressional Perjury; IRS Corruption


.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin On Eric Holder’s Congressional Perjury


.

Congressional Republicans To Investigate EPA Freedom Of Information Requests Scandal

Lawmakers To Investigate EPA FOIA Scandal – Daily Caller

Republican lawmakers are launching an investigation into claims that the Environmental Protection Agency, while giving preferential treatment to environmental groups, made it harder for conservative groups to obtain government records.

.

“According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for environmental allies, effectively subsidizing them, while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups,” wrote Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Darrell Issa and Sens. David Vitter, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhofe in a letter to the EPA.

Citing a report by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Republicans are asking the EPA to hand over all Freedom of Information Act fee waiver requests, responses to requests, and FOIA officer training materials since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Lawmakers are also asking for all communications regarding FOIA fee waiver requests or appeals under the Obama administration.

The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained documents showing that since January 2012, the EPA granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 FOIA requests from major environmental groups and only denied seven of them, giving green groups a 92 percent success rate.

At the same time, the EPA rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from conservative groups.

“The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA’s actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency’s political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations,” the lawmakers wrote. “This is a clear abuse of discretion.”

Republicans are tying the EPA to the broader controversy over the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups.

“We know the Obama EPA has completely mismanaged FOIA, but granting fee waivers for their friends in the far-left environmental community, while simultaneously blocking conservative leaning groups from gaining access to information is really no different than the IRS disaster,” said Vitter.

Acting EPA administrator Bob Perciasepe announced Thursday that he was asking the inspector general to look into the matter.

“I am going to get an independent look at all that information so I can get a determination,” said Perciasepe, adding that the agency’s shift to an online system often means that groups are not charged any fees even if they are not formally waived.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Congressional Democrats: Climate Change Could Turn Women Into Hookers

Dem Resolution Warns Climate Change Could Push Women To ‘Transactional Sex’ – The Hill

Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.

.

The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.

“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.

Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.

The chances for regional conflict also increase with climate change, the resolution says, because changing weather patterns could lead to migration and refugee crises. It said these sorts of potential conflicts over land will have a disproportionate impact on “the most vulnerable populations including women.”

More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region.

In a statement to The Hill, Lee said women are critically underrepresented in the development of climate change policy.

“My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices,” she said. “This will help communities adapt to climate impacts, and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development.”

The resolution calls on Congress to recognize the effects on women, and to use “gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

It says Congress recognizes the need for “balanced participation of men and women” in climate change adaption efforts, and that Congress will support women who are vulnerable to climate change.

Finally, it encourages the president to “integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs” related to climate change, and to ensure these policies “support women globally to prepare for, build resilience for, and adapt to climate change.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security

Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security – Front Page

The response of Obama Inc. and its defenders to the Benghazi attack has generally been some variation of, “Who could have known?”, “We didn’t know” and “How could we have known.”

.

Their claim that they practiced due diligence only to fall victim to an unexpected set of events never held much water. Benghazi was a danger zone and everyone knew it. The issue wasn’t a movie trailer, but the aftermath of a botched war that left Islamist militias in control of entire cities.

Now the Congressional report on Benghazigate tears apart some of the biggest claims.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

• Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

• In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

• Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

This is, as noted, still preliminary but it finds enough deceptions to justify a more in depth investigation.

First the report makes a clear case that Hillary Clinton knew the situation in Benghazi and chose to weaken security while far larges sums of money were being wasted by the State Department elsewhere.

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

• The attacks were not the result of a failure by the Intelligence Community (IC) to recognize or communicate the threat. The IC collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.

And also notes

In addition, the April 2012 cable from Secretary Clinton recommended that the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the U.S. Mission in Libya conduct a “joint reassessment of the number of DS agents requested for Benghazi.” This prompted one frustrated Embassy Tripoli employee to remark to her colleagues that it “looks like no movement on the full complement of [five DS] personnel for Benghazi, but rather a reassessment to bring the numbers lower.”

Furthermore it points to a lack of preparation by the White House and its incompetent centralized national security framework.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense. Defense Department assets were correctly positioned for the general threat across the region, but the assets were not authorized at an alert posture to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense, and were provided no notice to defend diplomatic facilities.

The report addresses the fumbled cover-up and incompetent response in the aftermath of the attacks.

After the Attacks:

• The Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video. U.S. officials on the ground reported – and video evidence confirms – that demonstrations outside the Benghazi Mission did not occur and that the incident began with an armed attack on the facility. Senior Administration officials knowingly minimized the role played by al-Qa’ida-affiliated entities and other associated groups in the attacks, and decided to exclude from the discussion the previous attempts by extremists to attack U.S. persons or facilities in Libya.

• Administration officials crafted and continued to rely on incomplete and misleading talking points. Specifically, after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.

• Evidence rebuts Administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Email exchanges during the interagency process do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information. Additionally, the Bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.

• The Administration’s decision to respond to the Benghazi attacks with an FBI investigation, rather than military or other intelligence resources, contributed to the government’s lack of candor about the nature of the attack.

• Responding to the attacks with an FBI investigation significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner.

The report includes a timeline of events and of the administration’s narrative and slams Obama’s determination to treat the attacks as criminal attacks, rather than acts of war.

Without significant progress in finding and questioning suspects, it appears that the decision to proceed with an FBI investigation – presumably with the intention of obtaining a criminal indictment in U.S. courts – was ill-advised. For instance, the United States responded to the attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa in the 1990s and against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 with criminal investigations. On their own, those investigations failed to bring many of those responsible to justice and likely encouraged further terrorist activity. This approach is not the most effective method of responding to terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in foreign countries.

It was only after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the United States responded to terrorism with military force, that the government successfully brought some of the perpetrators of those attacks and the previous attacks to justice. The Department of Defense offered to provide a U.S. military security team to accompany the FBI team. This option was not pursued. Terrorists are not deterred by criminal investigations. Because members of terrorist organizations that attack U.S. interests around the world are conducting more than a crime, they must be responded to accordingly to be thwarted.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.