According to Bachmann, because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s congressional testimony contradicted her own Benghazi conspiracy theory, Morell must be lying and working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. “[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” she said. “That’s what this is all about.”
Yesterday, Bachmann took to The Janet Mefferd Show to claim that the reason Morell's testimony didn’t support her conspiracy theory was because his testimony was “bought and paid for” by Hillary Clinton and her allies.
Barack Obama’s failed national foreign policy and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy led directly to the debacle at Benghazi. They need to answer for their failed foreign policy, they couldn’t afford to do that six weeks out from a presidential re-election and so they had to concoct a preposterous story. Hillary Clinton can’t get out of it, but it appears that she has bought Michael Morell’s false narrative and her consulting group or at least sympathizers to her in that consulting group have bought and paid for Mike Morell’s testimony. And what the American people saw again is a preview of what the story will be to help out Hillary Clinton in her quest to be the next president, but it’s not going to work.
The GOP’s brazen attempts to politicize the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi are getting even more pathetic, if that’s possible. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s recent congressional testimony didn’t support her discredited Benghazi conspiracy theories, he must be “taking the fall” for Hillary Clinton and “preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected.”
“[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” Bachmann told the fringe conspiracy website. “That’s what this is all about.”
She suggested that Clinton will in turn appoint Morell to lead the CIA, explaining that is the only reason why Morell didn’t corroborate her conspiracy theory: “The cover story matches the Obama story.”
In an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell could be repaid for his efforts by being named head of the CIA if Clinton is elected president.
Bachmann said Morell’s testimony Wednesday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the narrative that will be pushed to protect Clinton from any future Benghazi political fallout.
“She couldn’t have a better person to take the fall for her because Morell was involved in rewriting the talking points and was the No. 2 at CIA. So, he can come in authoritatively say, ‘No, that’s not the story. The story is the fake story we tried to push.’”
Bachmann explained to WND that Morell is taking the fall by pointing at underlings and saying he relied on analysts. That way, “he can preserve his status, so, if Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA. That’s what this is all about.”
“They don’t care about Obama now,” she said. “The more important thing is making sure it preserves the way for Hillary, because Democrats can’t afford to be exposed for what they are: failures on foreign policy, defense and intelligence. We have never had a bigger failure than under the Obama administration in any of those areas.”
“So, they’re essentially buying out Morell,” Bachmann said. “The cover story matches the Obama story. And all Morell has to do is point to the wrong view of the underlings and say, ‘Well, I was relying on what they told me. The president was relying on his analysts. Hillary Clinton relied on the analysts.’”
“Now, its [sic] about preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected. And the only way they can do that is absolve her from any responsibility. And so Morell, who is now in Hillary’s think tank, probably being paid very well, is in cold storage for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to take the fall for Hillary Clinton and clean up any dirt from Obama.”
For the last few years, an event has taken place in Statuary Hall inside the US Capitol called "Washington: A Man of Prayer" at which members of Congress and Religious Right leaders gather to celebrate the anniversary of George Washington's inauguration and thank God for the blessings He has poured out upon this nation.
At last year's event, Rep. Michele Bachmann declared that 9/11 and Benghazi were God's judgment upon this nation so, logically, she will be serving as host of the event when it is held again this year, with Mike Huckabee serving as the event's emcee as folks like Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Louie Gohmert come together with Religious Right activists like Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, Phyllis Schlafly, Rafael Cruz, Jim Garlow, and others in what organizers hope will be a "spiritual turning point for the nation as Americans witness members of Congress reaching out to God in penitent prayers from inside the nation’s Capitol."
In an effort to promote the event, Bachmann filmed a nearly ten minute video for Birther-website WorldNetDaily in which she explained that America has been blessed because the Founding Fathers knew that "the promises of God that were given to the children of Israel in the Old Testament were also promises that we ourselves could appropriate to ourselves as a nation."
And by following the laws and values set out by God in the Book of Deuteronomy, America has prospered, Bachmann explained, warning that prosperity depends upon the nation's willingness to continue embracing and promoting these values.
"We choose life or we choose death," she said. "We choose it by whether or not we choose to live and walk out the precepts that have been set out; the precepts for life, the precepts for blessing. Or do we choose cursing and do we choose death?"
Republican leaders seem to be accepting — albeit not openly — the pleas of right-wing pundits for the party to embrace ultraconservative views and veer away from outreach to young voters and people of color. These activists have called for the GOP to become a party focused on appealing exclusively to white voters with a mixture of Tea Party populism, Nativism and social conservatism.
This tension within the party has played out the most clearly in the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, in which reform advocates found themselves facing a wall of opposition from vocal activists. Many of these activists used the immigration debate to outline their vision for the party’s future, urging the party abandon immigration reform and instead work to increase its share of the white vote.
“The people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes,” Schlafly said, arguing that Latinos are more likely to vote for Democrats over Republicans because they haven’t been sufficiently “Americanized.”
Pat Buchanan, true to form, was upfront about the strategy to stop immigration reform and expand the Republican share of the white vote. Buchanan wrote that just as the GOP used the Southern Strategy of racial polarization to win an overwhelming share of the Southern white vote, Republicans should adopt a new strategy “to increase the enthusiasm and turnout among [white voters] for the GOP” by “demand[ing] the sealing of America’s borders against any and all intruders.”
While Republican leaders say that the will accept openly gay Republican candidates for Congress, they have not budged on any items important to the LGBT community, blocking even the consideration of legislation to prevent job discrimination or inequality in the immigration system. Republican lawmakers have also pushed bills designed to roll back LGBT rights, such as the State Marriage Defense Act and the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, and have challenged the Justice Department’s treatment of marriage equality laws.
It seems that the GOP has only committed itself to changing semantics and appearances, but is still committed to the same right-wing agenda that was soundly defeated in 2012.
Still reeling from the demise of Arizona’s “right-to-discriminate” bill, Michele Bachmann said last week that she is tired of gay people “bullying” her and the American people.
The Minnesota congresswoman told talk show host Lars Larson in an interview at CPAC that the gay community distorted the Arizona bill by making it about gay rights — even though the bill’s sponsor himself said it was about same-sex marriage.
“There’s nothing about gays in there, but the gay community decided to make this their measure,” Bachmann said. “And the thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere. Well, not with the Constitution you don’t.”
She added that gay people and “activist judges” are trying to take away her freedom: “If you want take away my religious liberties, you can advocate for that but you do it through the constitutional process and you don’t intimidate and no politician should give away my religious liberties or yours.”
Michele Bachmann says she thanks God for the Koch Brothers, the billionaire duo who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to conservative causes. During an interview at the Koch-sponsored Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, Bachmann defended the pro-GOP mega-donors against recent criticism from Senate majority leader Harry Reid.
The Minnesota congresswoman claimed that more wealthy donors would give to conservative causes if progressives weren’t “intimidating people from giving money to our cause” and suggested that people who criticize conservative donors be tried under the anti-organized crime RICO Act.
Bachmann told conservative talk show host Lars Larson that she thanks God for the Kochs and their giving:
I just thank God that there’s a billionaire or two on our side. All the billionaires seem to be on the radical left, so I’m glad that we have a couple on ours. I hope we get a few more that are willing that come out but realize also this is an intimidation movement, I’m sure that the donors on our side don’t like to have their names vilified and that’s what this is about, intimidating people from giving money to our cause, that’s it. There’s something called the RICO statute, the racketeering law, that should be applied against them for doing this.
Michele Bachmann denounced immigration reform in her speech at CPAC today, warning that "Wall Street and big business" are "clamoring for amnesty" in order to turn the US into "a country of dependency and the welfare state."
Channeling John McCain, the Minnesota congresswoman told CPAC attendees that government officials shouldn't tackle immigration reform until they "build the danged fence!"
Speaking with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann warned that President Obama is “threatening Israel,” and by doing so is fulfilling biblical prophecies and bringing about the End Times. The Minnesota congresswoman told Perkins that Obama is pressuring Israel to “give up its land to terrorists” allied with Al Qaeda, which will lead to a “final war, destroying and reducing to rubble Israel.”
“That’s in the natural, I just believe that as believers in Jesus Christ who see the authority of scripture, I believe that the Lord and his strong right arm will have Israel’s back and will be her protector,” Bachmann said. “The question is, will we as the United States cooperate in standing with Israel and blessing Israel, or will we join those nations that come against her? We are definitely on the wrong side. It is jaw dropping, it is stunning, it’s breathtaking.”
The congresswoman was echoing an End Times belief that holds that a massive battle will take place in Israel, triggering the Last Days.
Bachmann also skewered the Jewish community in the US for its wide support for Obama. She said that Obama “was helped enormously by the Jewish community,” who she says care more about supporting Obama than Israel:
The Jewish community gave him their votes, their support, their financial support and as recently as last week, forty-eight Jewish donors who are big contributors to the president wrote a letter to the Democrat [sic] senators in the US Senate to tell them to not advance sanctions against Iran. This is clearly against Israel’s best interest. What has been shocking has been seeing and observing Jewish organizations who it appears have made it their priority to support the political priority and the political ambitions of the president over the best interests of Israel. They sold out Israel.
Bachmann further alleged that “President Obama has allowed Israel to realize its worst nightmare” by “threatening Israel.”
She agreed with Perkins’ claim that Obama is forcing Israel to “surrender,” and said that Israel “couldn’t stand” under a two-state solution.
She said that the Bible predicted Obama’s actions: “The nations of the world will come against Israel and the scripture very specifically says all nations, now for the United States we don’t have that experience until recently under President Obama with the United States not standing with Israel.”
In a previous interview with Perkins, she said that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are “calling for actual war and economic war against Israel, or at least suggesting it as such.”
The Treasury Department warned in the midst of last year’s government shutdown [PDF]: “A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse…. Because the debt ceiling impasse contributed to the financial market disruptions, reduced confidence and increased uncertainty, the economic expansion was no doubt weaker than it otherwise would have been.”
One problem might be that Tea Party leaders seem to have no clue what they are talking about.
Tea Party politicians dismissed concerns about failing to raise the debt limit — with one Tea Party-aligned congressman arguing that such a move would help the economy — and didn’t seem to grasp the fact that “raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time” and isn’t a “license to spend more.”
Similarly, a Bloomberg News poll found that 93 percent of Tea Party Republicans believe the federal budget deficit is growing, even while it is rapidly shrinking.
Myth #2: Tea Party Wants Entitlement Cuts
We keep hearing about how the Tea Party will lead a push to cut entitlement programs, but Tea Party members are disproportionately entitlement program benefactors. A New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party members are more likely than others to claim that they or a family member receives Social Security benefits or is covered by Medicaid, and 62 percent believe “the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare [are] worth the costs of those programs.”
According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, 76 percent of Tea Party supporters oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts while 70 percent said they were against cuts to Medicaid.
“[W]hat many of the Tea Party candidates have found is that when push comes to shove, their backers want to protect their entitlements as much as the next guy,” writes Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation. “In fact, much of the fury of the Tea Partiers against government stimulus and bailouts might have less to do with any principled belief in the limits of government and more to do with fear of what this will do to their own entitlements.”
As Alex Seitz-Wald reported: “We know that in fact the IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones; that the only organizations whose tax-exempt statuses were actually denied were progressive ones; that many of the targeted conservative groups legitimately crossed the line; that the IG’s report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans’ request; and that the White House was in no way involved in the targeting and didn’t even know about it until shortly before the public did. In short, the entire scandal narrative was a fiction.”
Many Tea Party leaders -- including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint and Glenn Beck -- are also favorites of the Religious Right. The GOP victories in the 2010 midterm election brought about what the Daily Beast called “one of the most religiously conservative [House of Representatives] in recent history” and Republican politicians in Congress and state legislatures immediately pursued a crackdown on abortion rights.
Pew found that just as “the Tea Party is much more Republican and conservative than the public as a whole… Tea Party supporters also tend to take socially conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage.” Tea Party activists oppose marriage equality and abortion rights at rates nearly identical to Republicans at large, and are just as likely to cite religion as the driving force on their stances on such issues.
A 2013 American Values survey observed that the majority of Tea Party activists “identify with the Christian Right,” and a study by political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell found Tea Party members to be “disproportionately social conservatives” with a penchant for the “overt use of religious language and imagery.” “It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity,” they added.
Myth #5: Tea Party Has Wide Popularity
Tea Party politicians like to fashion themselves as champions of a broadly popular movement that has supporters across partisan lines. Bachmann thinks the Tea Party represents “virtually 90 percent of America” and a poll of Tea Party supporters found that 84 percent agree that “the views of the people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans.” Beck even believes that most Americans are in the Tea Party and to the right of the GOP.
“Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise,” Keyes writes. “Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration.”
Let's assume, for instance, that Bachmann and her colleagues succeed in passing the legislation they seek. (All right, it's unlikely given the fact that the Democrats presently control the U.S. Senate. But "for the sake of the argument," as they say, let's ignore that difficulty.) Let's further assume that their case gets to the Supreme Court, which issues an opinion supporting their view that the President's actions are unconstitutional.
What happens next? Perhaps Obama rolls over, bows to the Supreme Court, and retracts his executive orders. That might happen, or it might not. Let's say it doesn't happen. Instead, Obama rejects the Court's view. To support his stand, he argues that his actions are necessary in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare of the country.
Let's say he further argues that, by failing to pass laws essential for achieving those ends, Congress has endangered the nation, exacerbating a serious situation which, without his timely preventive measures, threatens to plunge the country into a dire state of national emergency.
The problem is that the whole sequence of events would set a precedent for successful dictatorship that Obama (and the elitist faction he serves) would abuse for the remainder of his occupation of the White House. It would also directly confirm, for better or worse, the ultimate impotence of the judicial branch (especially when dealing with disputes between the other branches), which Hamilton's lucid thinking foreshadows.
Bachmann and her colleagues need to think this through. They need to ask themselves the key strategic question: If we succeed in getting a favorable opinion from the Supreme Court (which is no foregone conclusion) what do we do if Obama simply refuses, on constitutional grounds, to enforce it?
When you think it through, building these impeachment/removal majorities is the only constitutional way to "force" the executive to respect the Constitution. The Courts can't do it. And even the people can't do it, constitutionally, except at election time.
This is precisely the thinking that led me to propose the impeachment/removal strategy for the 2014 election. Instead of spinning their wheels in an ineffectual appeal to a judicial branch that is ultimately powerless to enforce its opinions, Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise. [emphasis his]
Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration. Instead of risking a precedent for ambitious, lawless dictatorship, it would set a precedent that restores government of, by, and for the people, through elected officials honestly pledged to represent them. Given the gravity of the present crisis, this would be nothing short of saving America's liberty, for us and our posterity. Will Bachmann and her colleagues rise to the occasion?
Last year, Rep. Michele Bachmann told James Dobson that "God is going to answer our prayers" and bring about the repeal of Obamacare ... and it looks like she is maintaining her faith, asserting that if Christians will pray, God will deliver the Senate to Republicans in the midterm election so that the party can finally repeal Obamacare.
Speaking with the American Family Association's Sandy Rios, Bachmann declared that "God listens to his people and I think if believers humble themselves, confess their sins, and pray, I think God hears from us, hears our hearts and He moves, He moves in miraculous ways."
As such, Bachmann expects to "see a very strong election result this fall, both in terms of winning over the Senate and holding on to the House" and, most importantly, stopping Hillary Clinton from winning the White House in 2016.
But, Bachmann warned, "it isn't a guarantee; we've got to do a lot of work between now and then, particularly on our knees in prayer":
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) continues to impress with her incredible ability to make egregiouslyfalsestatements, this time arguing that Secretary of State John Kerry is supporting war against Israel. Kerry recently suggested that if Mideast peace talks collapse, Israel could face increasing economic boycotts or possibly a third Palestinian uprising. Kerry wasn’t advocating such actions but simply said that such events could occur if negotiations fail.
Israel’s own Justice Minister said that Kerry’s statement “does not constitute a threat to the State of Israel, but rather defines reality as it is,” and its finance minister offered a similar warning of growing boycotts if the peace process falters.
But in an interview with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on Washington Watch on Friday, Bachmann argued that Kerry was actually calling for boycotts and violence against Israel.
“President Obama and John Kerry have preferred Iran” over Israel, Bachmann told Perkins. “At the same time while the United States is giving a free pass to Iran, our Secretary of State is rattling a saber and effectively calling for an economic war against our greatest ally Israel. It doesn’t make any sense.”
“They can’t have it both ways, they can’t say that they are pro-Israel and stand with Israel while calling for actual war and economic war against Israel, or at least suggesting it as such.”
Conservative leaders are continuing to rally around Dinesh D’Souza, who has been charged with making illegal “straw donations” to the campaign of a Republican Senate candidate, by claiming — citing zero evidence — that the prosecution is due to D’Souza’s right-wing activism.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah posted a story today featuring congressmen Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve Stockman (R-TX) denigrating the prosecution as political maneuvering by the Obama administration.
But the most incendiary rhetoric came from Ben Carson, who compared the Obama administration to the Gestapo and said that President Obama will not “be happy unless Fox News were shut down and there was no more criticism of his actions.”
Dr. Ben Carson, the brain surgeon turned popular political analyst, told WND Obama administration officials are “acting like the Gestapo” with the Justice Department indictment of Dinesh D’Souza coupled with the Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting of the administration’s critics.
“I believe we are dealing with an extremely corrupt administration,” he said.
Dr. Carson himself became the subject of an IRS audit after criticizing Barack Obama’s policies at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last year.
“What he said was that his administration was not guilty of any wrongdoing with regard to the IRS and he blamed Fox News for reporting it,” Dr. Carson said. “I don’t think he would be happy unless Fox News were shut down and there was no more criticism of his actions.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called the D’Souza indictment “100 percent” political.
“Of course it is,” she said. “It is payback from the DOJ. Plus, it sends a signal to anyone else for 2016 who may be thinking of producing a movie. It is up to the candidate to return the money. This should have been found when the FEC filing occurred. I don’t know the details, but this could cost Dinesh literally millions in legal defense fees, plus destroying his name and making him toxic to conservatives and Republicans. These are the goals of the political destruction machine at the DOJ.”
Likewise, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND, “Yes, I think it is political. It fits a pattern of abuse of power. As someone else said, President Obama is the president Nixon wanted to be.”
Gary Bauer is not happy that AT&T had
condemned Russia anti-gay crackdown: "[W]hen I worked in the Reagan White House, I don't recall AT&T or other
major corporations condemning the Soviet Union while Jews and political dissenters rotted in Siberian gulags. Sadly, while Ronald
Reagan worked to rebuild pride in America and America's standing in the world, many corporate elites were eager to trade and
"coexist" with the Soviets. And today most big corporations don't feel a need to condemn Christian persecution and
human rights violations. Why does concern for homosexual rights trump all other issues? I smell a double standard."
Michele Bachmann will speak at an Eagle Forum
luncheon next month.
Beware! The Girl Scouts have been infiltrated by liberal groups “specifically so they can first corrupt them, and then coerce them to
put their agenda forward on the unsuspecting people that they serve.”
FRC prays against the IRS: "May God intervene to awaken the people and end what must be seen as plans to empower the IRS
to permanently tyrannize the American people!"
Liberty Counsel has taken its battle on behalf of "ex-gay" therapy to the
Finally, some times you just have to shake your head at the things that David Barton
says on his radio show, such as this: "This is one of
the things that liberals have done to us in recent years is make us think that everybody is inherently good and therefore if an
accident happens with guns, it can't be the individual's fault who walked into the theater and shot everybody, it's got
to be the gun's fault because people are inherently good."
While the vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, back a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a pathway to citizenship, the Nativist movement is still trying to scare voters and elected officials into thinking that attempts to fix America’s broken system will actually destroy the country…and all of civilization.
Here’s a look at some of 2013’s worst xenophobic leaders, including our choice for “Nativist of the Year”:
8. William Gheen
Americans For Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) leader William Gheen hasn’t changed his tune about usingviolence to stop immigration reform, warning that his group may soon stop using “nonviolent political means.” According to Gheen, politicians are trying “to demonize whites, Christians, and males” and turn over power to immigrants who are “gang raping, molesting kids, drinking, driving, killing, and joining gangs that try to feed our children cocaine and methamphetamine at the earliest age they can.”
As the leader of the Texas chapter of Eagle Forum and a former chairman of the Texas GOP, Adams has been pleading with her fellow Republicans not to aid immigration reform efforts. Why? She believes that such reform measures are tools of Satan that will lead to the enactment of Sharia law and usher in the End Times.
6. Ann Coulter
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter is angry that America no longer has racist immigration quotas, worrying that America will soon “turn itself into Mexico” and undermine its delicate “ethnic composition.” “The country is over,” she said, if the immigration reform passes. Coulter also seems to be creating figures about the undocumented population out of thin air, suggesting that there are 30 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
5. Phyllis Schlafly
The immigration debate in Congress opened the door for some conservative activists to not only oppose reform efforts but also to fight any political outreach to non-white voters. Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly took the lead, urging the GOP to abandon any outreach to people of color and Latinos in particular. She claims Latinos don’t understand the Bill of Rights or American values... because if they did, they would be voting Republican like real Americans do. Instead, explained Schlafly, Republicans should simply try to increase white turnout.
4. Mark Krikorian
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies seems to think that Nativists are the real victims in the immigration debate and is attempting to use a “play the victim” mentality to attack supporters of immigrant rights. He says that Nativists are waging a heroic struggle against “ethnic chauvinist groups” and their allies in “Big Business…Big Labor, all the big donors, Big Government Big Education, Big Media, Big Philanthropy [and] Big Religion.” Krikorian hopes that the GOP stops trying to attract Latino voters, warning that “the future of the republic rests” on whether Speaker Boehner allows immigration reform to come to a vote in the House.
3. Michele Bachmann
Speaking of which, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) andherfriends in the Tea Party Caucus are desperately trying to defeat immigration reform by making sure that such legislation doesn’t even come up for a vote. Bachmann believes that immigration reform will literally destroy the future of the country and that Obama won re-election in part because he gave some undocumented immigrants the right to vote (he didn’t). She thinks that Republicans should give Obama a spanking until he hands over his magic wand that unilaterally gives the vote to all undocumented immigrants:
2. Jason Richwine
The Heritage Foundation’s study on the supposedly devastating impacts of immigration reform might have had more credibility if its principal author, Jason Richwine, weren’t a proponent of racist pseudo-science with links to white nationalists. His report was so erroneous and misleading that even many of Richwine’s fellowconservatives didn’t find it credible, but that hasn’tstopped GOP politicians from using the salacious report to justify their anti-immigrant rhetoric.