Category Archives: McCain
Since losing the presidential election in 2008, Senator John McCain has labored long and hard to undermine conservatives. Now the tables are turning, and the Tea Party is after McCain’s Senate seat. McCain is all for amnesty, the radical homosexual centerpiece ENDA, destructive embryonic stem cell research, and his bad temper indicates he needs to be fired by the voters. We have previously stated that Congressman David Schweikert is well suited to take McCain’s seat, and now a Washington Times story suggests the same:
Sen. John McCain, 78, is starting to make moves that he’s interested in a sixth term — but tea party types are saying not so fast, that if he runs he can expect some stiff competition from the limited government crowd.
“I’m leaning toward it,” Mr. McCain said, when asked about his thoughts for a re-election, The Hill reported. That’s a notable switch from a month ago when he told The Wrap that he wasn’t sure about another Senate term — that he didn’t “want to be one of these old guys that should’ve shoved off.”
Nowadays, the Arizona senator says he’s “doing all the things necessary” for another political campaign, including raising money, attending meetings and “talking to a lot of people in the state,” The Hill reported.
But the tea party is mobilizing.
Rep. David Schweikert, backed by the tea party crowd, said he’s mulling a run against Mr. McCain. And a couple of different polls — one from the Citizens United Political Victory Fund and another from Public Policy Polling — taken in recent months show a less-than-satisfactory rating for Mr. McCain among Republican voters.
“Speaking for myself and every other Republican I know and every other tea party person I know, we’re sick to death of him and we will move,” Wes Harris, founder of the Original North Phoenix Tea Party, said in The Hill.
By Matthew Boyle, Breitbart
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his aides swear the Syrian “rebels” he was pictured last year with weren’t ISIS members or supporters, and the mainstream media is by and large buying the 2008 GOP presidential nominee’s story.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has endured brutal criticism—media fact checkers, reporters, and political figures have shredded him—for questioning just who McCain posed with.
But a closer look at the situation tells perhaps a different story than McCain’s office or the mainstream media have pushed.
The criticism of McCain centers around how the Arizona senator met with Syrian rebel leaders in May 2013 when he visited the country. McCain posed for photographs with those people, and since then rumors have sprouted up across the Internet that he met with ISIS or some other terrorist kidnappers or nefarious forces.
“The people in the pictures with Senator McCain in Syria included General Salim Idris, then-Chief of Staff of the Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Mouaz Moustafa, the Executive Director of the DC-based Syrian Emergency Task Force (which supports the moderate opposition and helped arrange some of the trip), and fighters and commanders from the Northern Storm Brigade, a FSA-aligned group,” McCain’s spokesman Brian Rogers told Breitbart News.
Rogers said that the senator and his team aren’t naming the “fighters and commanders from the Northern Storm Brigade, a FSA-aligned group,” because “ISIS actually threatened to kill them all, and we don’t want to put their lives at risk.” Rogers provided Breitbart News with a link to the ISIS threat to those fighters.
“ISIS targeted the Northern Storm because ISIS considers them apostates and because Northern Storm met with Sen. McCain,” Rogers said. “ISIS actually wrote out a statement that accused Northern Storm of treachery for reasons including: ‘Meeting with U.S. Senator John McCain in the hangar and making a contract with him against the Islamists.’ The statement goes on to demand that Northern Storm surrender and repent to ISIS or be killed.”
“ISIS actually killed many Northern Storm members, and we’re not going to put them at any further risk by naming them,” Rogers added.
But there’s just one problem with McCain’s office’s story. Now, McCain’s team says the senator didn’t meet with any bad figures but declines to name them, for what seems to be a legitimate reason—although those who are publicly leading combat against ISIS and against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime are probably publicly known figures there.
Just last year, however, McCain’s office had no clue who the senator met. When allegations surfaced that the senator may have met with terrorists who kidnapped someone, Rogers—McCain’s communications director—went on the record to multiple media outlets to say he didn’t know who he was meeting with, and if he did meet with kidnapper terrorists, that would be regrettable.
“None of the individuals the senator planned to meet with was named Mohamad Nour or Abu Ibrahim,” Rogers told CNN in late May 2013, right after the trip. “A number of other Syrian commanders joined the meeting, but none of them identified himself as Mohamad Nour or Abu Ibrahim.”
Rogers added later in his statement to CNN that he and the senator did not know who he was meeting with.
“A number of the Syrians who greeted Senator McCain upon his arrival in Syria asked to take pictures with him, and, as always, the senator complied,” Rogers said. “If the individual photographed with Senator McCain is in fact Mohamed Nour, that is regrettable. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the Senator in any way condones the kidnapping of Lebanese Shia pilgrims or has any communication with those responsible. Senator McCain condemns such heinous actions in the strongest possible terms.”
Of course it’s ludicrous to suggest that McCain would condone the act of kidnapping, and nobody serious is suggesting that. The point many critics of McCain’s policies—including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)—are making is that Americans have no way of knowing which team any one of these figures is on.
“Here’s the problem,” Paul said in an interview with The Daily Beast this week. “He [McCain] did meet with ISIS, and had his picture taken, and didn’t know it was happening at the time. That really shows you the quandary of determining who are the moderates and who aren’t. If you don’t speak Arabic, and you don’t understand that some people will lie to you—I really think that we don’t have a good handle on who are the moderates and who aren’t, and I think the objective evidence is that the ones doing most of the fighting and most of the battles among the rebels in Syria are the radical Islamists.”
Paul has been roundly criticized for the remarks, starting with the publication he made them to. The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi wrote that Paul’s statement means he “repeated a thoroughly debunked rumor.” The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave Paul “Four Pinocchios,” its highest rating of dishonesty, for the statement. Kessler wrote that this story is one where he regrets “we are limited to just Four Pinocchios,” because there is “zero evidence that any of the men that McCain met with in Syria are linked to the Islamic State.”
Despite this pile-on by the media and political establishment, Paul has a serious point here, though. McCain really didn’t know who he was meeting with, and even if they were the supposedly “moderate” Free Syrian Army, who’s to know that they aren’t elements of the Free Syrian Army working alongside ISIS?
Patrick Poole, an esteemed national security reporter and expert on radical Islam for PJ Media, has reported that the Free Syrian Army’s commanders have admitted in public to working alongside ISIS. “As President Obama laid out his ‘strategy’ last night for dealing with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and as bipartisan leadership in Congress pushes to approve as much as $4 billion to arm Syrian ‘rebels,’ it should be noted that the keystone to his anti-Assad policy — the ‘vetted moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA) — is now admitting that they, too, are working with the Islamic State,” Poole wrote on Sept. 10.
Poole cites the Lebanese newspaper Daily Star, which quotes a Free Syrian Army brigade commander as saying he is working with the “Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate — both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.”
Specifically, the quotes Poole pulls are:
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun,” said Bassel Idriss, the commander of an FSA-aligned rebel brigade.
“We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice,” confirmed Abu Khaled, another FSA commander who lives in Arsal.
“Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values,” he added.
In a lengthy floor speech on Thursday, Paul ripped the foreign policy establishment in Washington for assuming that FSA and ISIS are really distinct entities.
“According to a New York Times report, over a year ago, the CIA began training Syrian rebels in nearby Jordan, thousands of them, along with delivering arms and ammunition,” Paul said, according to a transcript of the speech provided to Breitbart News by his office. “New York Times reports also detailed the huge arms and financial transfers from Quatar to the Syrian rebels, beginning as early as 2011. No one really knows where that all ended up: Jane’s Terrorism Center noted, the transfer of Quatari arms to targeted groups has the same practical effect as shipping them to Al Nusra, a violent jihadist force. The New York Times further detailed that Sudan has provided anti-tank missiles and other arms.”
Shortly after those comments, Paul said that America can’t be sure—since supposedly “vetted moderates” are working alongside ISIS—who any of them are. He added that even if some might be loyal now, they could change their allegiances in a heartbeat—saying that some officials estimate that more than half of FSA forces have defected to ISIS.
“So the idea that these rebels haven’t been armed before is ludicrous on it’s face. It is also ludicrous to believe that we know where all of the money, arms and ammunition will end up, or who will end up benefiting from these shipments. Why? Because we don’t know for sure who the groups all are,” Paul said. “Even when we think we do, loyalties shift and groups become amorphous, with alleged moderates lining up with jihadists. And finally, moderate groups have often sold their weapons or had them seized by the jihadist elements led by ISIS.”
McCain’s office, however, fiercely defends the notion that FSA is not working alongside ISIS.
“Also, these reports of some kind of ‘truce’ between the FSA and ISIS have also been debunked,” Rogers, McCain’s spokesman, told Breitbart News—citing a piece from the Daily Beast to back up his claims. “While there have been brief cease-fires between the groups to collect bodies of those killed during fighting, as this Josh Rogin article makes clear, there’s no ‘truce’ between FSA and ISIS.”
And maybe there is no formal “truce” between FSA and ISIS, but the reports of mass defections and quotes from FSA leaders and brigade commanders on record saying they are working with ISIS makes this much more complicated than the clear cut-and-dry issue the mainstream media have made it so as to rip Paul. When McCain’s office won’t name who exactly he met with, who exactly he’s photographed with—after last year admitting in public they didn’t know who he greeted in Syria—are we supposed to just take his word for it that some of those FSA leaders aren’t now working with ISIS—or maybe have outright joined ISIS, like that other FSA commander Poole and the Daily Star quote?
By Matthew Boyle, Breitbart
The Maricopa County Republican Party in Arizona formally censured Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Saturday evening by an overwhelming 1150-351 vote, Breitbart News has learned.
Maricopa County is Arizona’s most populous county and includes Phoenix within its borders. The official GOP body’s rebuke undermines McCain’s reelection chances should he
decide to run for the Senate again in 2016.
“As leaders in the Republican Party, we are obligated to fully support our Party, platform, and its candidates,” the formal censure resolution reads. “Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our Party’s values on his own. That has not happened.”
The resolution continues by stating, with “sadness and humility,” the Republicans in the county “rise and declare” that McCain “has amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co- sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as Amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, assaults on the Constitution and 2nd Amendment, and has continued to support liberal nominees.”
That voting record from McCain, they say, “has been disastrous and harmful to Arizona and the United States.”
McCain was elected, the Republicans say in the censure resolution, by campaigning “as a conservative” and making promises during his various reelection campaigns “such as the needed and welcomed promise to secure our borders and finish the border fence, only to quickly flip-flop on those promises.”
The Republicans say that McCain “has abandoned our core values and has been eerily silent against Liberals, yet publicly reprimands Conservatives in his own Party.” Therefore, the Maricopa County GOP leadership “censures Senator McCain for his continued disservice to our State and Nation.”
The censure states that formally, “until he consistently champions our Party’s Platform and values, we, the Republican leadership in Arizona will no longer support, campaign for or endorse John McCain as our U.S. Senator.”
Maricopa County joins Apache County and Mohave County in voting to formally censure McCain via similar resolutions. There are 15 counties total in Arizona, which means that at this
point, 20 percent of Arizona’s county GOP bodies have officially censured McCain—three years out from his potential reelection campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2016.
McCain has not made a final decision yet on whether or not he will run for re-election.
Can the Republican Party continue to allow non-conservative people to lead the party without sacrificing the principles that make it the Republican Party? And as noted conservative commentator Bill Whittle has pointed out, can the GOP win major elections when Republican candidates are not willing to boldly articulate party positions on crucial issues?
The repercussions of allowing Republicans In Name Only – including John McCain, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, and many individuals at the grassroots level – to lead are taking a toll on the GOP. And creating a ripple effect evidenced here in Maricopa County once again this week. Here’s how it happened.
Former state lawmaker Russell Pearce, a solid conservative dedicated to the Republican Party’s published platform, submitted some resolutions to the legislative committee in Senator McCain’s home district (Legislative District 28). In recent years, McCain had gone to extraordinary lengths and spared no expense in wresting control of this district’s GOP leadership committee away from party base conservatives. The current chairman of LD28 is Scott O’Connor – a self described RINO and the son of now retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Scott O’Connor is a McCain man who, by his own actions, is not interested in the Republican Party platform or the democratic process. And he called a special meeting in LD28 to supposedly address Pearce’s proposed resolutions.
At that meeting, Scott O’Connor introduced the motions in a mocking manner. He also clashed with former LD28 chairman Rob Haney, a conservative who also previously chaired the Maricopa County Republican leadership committee, over the issue of prayer. Evidently a vocal minority of non-Christians had played the offended party card and O’Connor did the typical ACLU-type kneejerk reaction of disallowing meaningful prayer. Following the meeting, O’Connor contacted Haney by email and roundly criticized his behavior. Here’s that email message:
Rob,I appreciate your right to disagree, and I gave you plenty of opportunities to do so last night.However, your tendency to interrupt and play games with the chair and the agenda is a pattern that must end. If you do it again, you will be removed.Adding vocal God Bless and Amens during a moment of silence clearly vocalized your opposition to the suspension of formal prayer at the meeting, but not in a respectful way or time. Do it again and you will be removed.Personally, I don’t really care if we have the prayers or not, but the executive committee and I are respecting the wishes of those who are offended by the practice.I will respect you when start showing some respect. If you want to change a policy, request it formally and it will be considered, but do not disrupt the meeting again with your antics. Maybe you should attend the classes at the Center for Self Governance on how to be more effective in your engagement with political officials.Sincerely,
Then Haney penned a response and went public with it:
OPEN RESPONSE LETTER TO SCOTT O’CONNOR
I am taking the liberty of publishing our exchange of emails in an open forum because I view removal of the Invocation from our LD 28 meetings at the sole discretion of the executive board as a continuance of the attack on religion in our country. Other districts need to be made aware of how easily they can lose the rights they took for granted through the actions of a few anonymous complaints brought to a receptive executive board. To have a universally accepted, decades long practice within the Republican Party ended by fiat of the executive board without even debate or a vote of the body, is the height of arrogance and is reminiscent of Obama’s executive orders.
I would suggest to other LDs that they take preventative action possibly through a bylaw addition which states that the Invocation and Pledge cannot be remove from the opening proceedings of a district meeting without a vote of the LD precinct committeemen.
And, although it should not be necessary to tell you in advance of a motion to be offered in the next meeting to rescind the executive board’s edict to do away with the invocation, please add that motion to your agenda.
Now to your other points:
1) I find it disingenuous that after the meeting you took the time to compliment me on adding to the debate but now you are critical of my doing so.
2) You state that I have a tendency to interrupt and play games with the chair and the agenda and if I do so again, I will be removed. Responsible citizenship requires objections to unilateral dictates. Also, when you began the meeting with an uncalled for ad hominem attack on Russell Pearce, I felt it necessary to call you on it since you had called this unscheduled meeting to discuss the resolutions, not to attack the sponsors of the resolutions. This action was uncalled for and unprofessional. Inyour call letter you stated that we were going to discuss “no less than 11 resolutions put forth by Russell Pearce.” That statement alone was denigrating and you proceeded to expound upon it at the meeting. To those of us who admire and respect Russell Pearce for his long record of unselfish service to our state and country, the attack was a “red flag,” warranting immediate rebuttal.
3) You state that you do not care if we have the prayer or not but you and the executive committee were respecting the wishes of those who were offended by the practice. You appear to have been biased in favor of removal to begin with or you would have brought the matter before the body of PCs for pen discussion and a vote. My guess is that you have offended far more by removing the Invocation without a discussion than were offended by its inclusion.
4) The Preamble to the Republican Platform ends with the sentence, “May God continue to shed his grace on the United States of America.” Do you and the executive committee of LD 28 now place yourselves above the Republican Platform?
5) Your last attack paragraph is too immature to warrant a response.
What are we to conclude from the latest flare-up in this civil war within the Republican Party?
1) It will be harder and harder for Republicans to win crucial elections as long as this conflict continues. A house divided cannot stand. Nor can the party effectively compete against Democrats while it is occupied on another front against renegades in its own party.
2) Sooner or later, the GOP must honor its own written purpose statements articulated in the party platform. The GOP should take a lesson from the Constitution Party, which does not allow candidates for public office to represent it if they do not support the party platform.
3) Those who do not believe in the platform have no right to represent the organization. Party-base Republicans need to recognize them and defeat them. Conservatives need to recapture districts like LD28 and work for the nomination of true Republicans at every level, from city council to president.
4) There can be no compromise between people with diametrically opposed beliefs – especially on the social issues.
5) Party base conservatives must do a better job of articulating party platform principles and helping voters draw distinctions between candidates supporting Republican principles and those who are merely “Democrat lite” candidates. Expose those who are distorting the truth, i.e, nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt, who on nationally-syndicated radio program Thursday referred to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as “a good conservative.” Christie is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Neither are McCain, Senator Jeff Flake, or Arizona Senator Michele Reagan, among others.
Party-base conservatives must make better use of the GOP platform and champion it. The platform is the stated, published list of core beliefs of the GOP. While it collects dust, as an after-thought, conservatives and RINOs merely debate some of the same issues that divide Republicans and Democrats. RINOs should not be able to get away with attempts to legitimize Democrat talking points, not on abortion, not on marriage, not on ENDA, not on raising debt ceilings, or the size and reach of government. Rob Haney has dedicated his life to the principles of the party, principles which will lead to life, prosperity and real progress. We must all do the same.
Send the link for the GOP platform to the RINOs in your area today.
Senator John McCain — a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution? LOL! Joke of the century! If it was Reagan, it wasn’t President Ronald Reagan, late leader of the party of freedom. McCain’s a purebred freedom-robbing Progressive.
And Senator Jeff Flake — limited-government Libertarian? LOL! A self-described conservative reformer? Get outa town! ROFL!
These two imposters joined with 62 other Progressives in the Senate in an attempt to force businesses and ministries to hire cross dressers and drag queens. They voted for the homosexual dream bill, ENDA, Thursday. It’s the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — which will force employers and churches under threat of huge federal fines to hire people who perceive their gender isn’t the one they were born with. Try to dismiss one of them from your employ and you’ll have the full weight of the U.S. government on your back.
Flake pulled a bait-and-switch. He voted against ENDA on a procedural vote Monday, then turned coat and voted for it Thursday. The radical progressive bill passed the Senate 64-32.
But as we pointed out earlier in the week, House Speaker John Boehner will dropkick this horrible, freedom-stealing bill to the moon where it belongs. It won’t see the light of day in the House.
And as for the false self-portrayals of McCain and his shadow, Flake, they can tell it to the moon as well. They are not part of the solution in Washington. They are poster boys for all the problems in Washington, and our state delegation in the U.S. Senate is a lost cause. Let freedom ring. Let our elected officials fight Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, et al, not agree with them on hideous, radical extreme homeland make-overs.