Steve King: Boehner Threw A 'Tantrum' About DHS Vote, Kicked Foes Off 'Very Important Diplomatic Mission'

In an interview with Iowa-based radio host Simon Conway on Wednesday, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King revealed that House Speaker John Boehner kicked him and fellow anti-immigration Republicans off a “high-profile diplomatic mission” in “retribution” for their votes against a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Conway told King that he was surprised the speaker didn’t step down from his post after a revolt from Republican members handed him an embarrassing defeat, ultimately forcing him to pass a DHS spending bill with the support of just 75 members of his caucus in alliance with Democrats.

“In times gone past, other speakers would have said, ‘That is a vote of no confidence in my leadership from my own caucus, I have to step down,'” Conway said. “I know he’s not going to step down and I don’t think there’s an appetite to challenge him.”

“Well, that appetite is growing here in this conference,” King responded, “and you can tell it by just the dialogue and discussion that’s taking place.”

He added that the speaker is “currently throwing tantrums” and seeking “retribution” against members who bucked him on the DHS votes.

“In the last 30 minutes, I have learned that a very important diplomatic mission that I was scheduled to go on that had been signed off on, certified, authorized, everything all booked, the order came down from the speaker’s office, ‘that shall be rescinded.’ And the people who he most objects to for disagreeing with him are now grounded to the United States of America by order of the speaker,” King told Conway.

That on top of the ads being run against Republicans by the American Action Network, King said, “is retribution on the highest scale that I’ve ever heard of.”

Later in the interview, King complained that undocumented immigrants covered by President Obama’s executive actions would be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (despite the fact that the actions are projected to increase tax revenues) and that it provides a way for some immigrants to embark on a path to citizenship, which King said meant that “illegal aliens can go to vote and choose the next leader of the free world.”

“And when I say he eviscerated the Constitution, I think everyone who’s listening now understands what that means,” he concluded.

The president has waived the application of the law, he’s made up laws of his own, and now he as an administration that will be sending checks to illegals knowingly and willfully without even a breath of saying that want to try to reverse that. You know, a president who can make up law on his own, as he has done a number of times and gotten away with it, you would think he could also just simply issue an executive edict that they would not be issuing those kind of, writing checks to illegals who have filed under the Earned Income Tax Credit.

So, here’s your driver’s license mandated by the federal government, here’s your Earned Income Tax Credit, here’s your child tax credit that billions of dollars go out of the country every year for people who are living in the United States illegally, and now he’s created a path to citizenship so illegal aliens can go to vote and choose the next leader of the free world. Who would have thought, even three years ago, that this country would have been drug this far. And when I say he eviscerated the Constitution, I think everyone who’s listening now understands what that means.

GOP Rep: Republicans Have 'Stockholm Syndrome'

In an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” yesterday, Rep. John Fleming, R-La., berated the House GOP leadership for allowing a vote on a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which passed with the votes of every House Democrats and a minority of Republicans.

“Republican leadership, and really many Republicans in general, they — I don’t agree with them — are in sort of a Stockholm syndrome that whenever there is any discussion about a government shutdown, which is what’s going to happen when we cut funding and the president disagrees because the president feels like it gives him strength and the Democrats are on board, they stick together like glue, and so Republicans now have been conditioned,” Fleming told Perkins. “And the media is the first to jump out there, even the Republican pundits, to say, ‘Well look, you can do whatever you want to fight back against the president but you can’t shut government down.’”

“Once that narrative gets out there, it’s really all over,” Fleming said. “There just isn’t a pathway of success.”

He lamented that “many Americans say we should defund things but don’t shut down government, they don’t really understand that it’s one in the same.”

Frank Gaffney: Was Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Emailing Muslim Brotherhood Spies?

Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney, a right-wing activist notorious for his birther and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, is using the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system while she was at the State Department to resuscitate the Right’s absurd claims about Huma Abedin, a close aide to the former Secretary of State.

Gaffney believes that Abedin is a secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming in 2013 that “Ms. Abedin was brilliantly placed to run Islamist influence operations for sixteen years under the recently departed Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.” His bizarre conspiracy theory helped inspire an ugly campaign against Abedin and other Muslims working in public service led by then-Rep. Michele Bachmann.

He has made similarly bizarre allegations against New Jersey Gov. Chris ChristieCIA Director John Brennanformer Defense Secretary Chuck Hagelprominent conservative activist Grover Norquist, and of course, President Obama.

Gaffney today penned a brief, evidence-free op-ed for the Washington Times where he used the just asking the question style of journalism to claim that Abedin may have been using Clinton’s email system to contact Muslim Brotherhood agents as part of their effort to destroy Western civilization.

One other State Department official evidently violated [the department’s email] policy:Mrs. Clinton‘s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin.

Her emails are of particular interest insofar as Ms. Abedin has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s the Islamist organization whose self-declared mission is

The indispensable investigative group Judicial Watch has filed suit in federal court for access to these emails. It remains to be seen if they are provided and, if so, what they reveal about these ladies’ contacts with theMuslim Brotherhood – and their damage-control concerning revelations about Ms. Abedin’s connection to it.

Huckabee: Obama Has An 'Innate Desire To See America A Weaker Country'

Mike Huckabee stopped by Steve Deace’s radio program yesterday to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and the ongoing negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

Claiming that Obama doesn’t see how dangerous Iran is, Deace asked Huckabee: “Is it because he doesn’t love America? Is it because he has a worldview that blinds him to the realities of good vs. evil?”

“I believe he does not want America to be the superpower that we have been,” Huckabee responded. “It’s almost as if he’s afraid of that. He believes that America would be better off as ‘one of the boys’ instead of the big brother.”

Huckabee went on to blame House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for turning the American relationship with Israel into “a political and partisan issue, God help us all.”

When Deace claimed that the parties no longer agree that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Huckabee agreed: “What has changed is Barack Obama’s influence over foreign policy. What has changed is his innate desire to see America a weaker country rather than a stronger country. And some Democrats are more interested in protecting Obama than they are in protecting America, and that’s the real sad fact.”

Theodore Shoebat Says ISIS Is A Gay Cult And 'Fags' Want To Molest Children

Theodore Shoebat is the sort of viciously anti-gay activist who openly calls for gays to be put to death and who recently became something of a Religious Right hero for his unsuccessful effort to find a bakery that would make a cake for him featuring anti-gay messages.

Earlier this week, Shoebat posted a new article on his website titled "Islam is a homosexual cult, that wants to bring the world into a homosexual pagan empire," which featured a video in which he argued that ISIS is run by gays while asserting that a nondiscrimination ordinance recently defeated in Charlotte, North Carolina, was being pushed by "fags" who want to molest children.

"I love it when people tell me, 'I don't see gay people beheading others,'" Shoebat said, affecting a stereotypical gay voice. "'Why are you fighting against gay people? I don't see gays decapitating people.' Ummm, yeah, there are gay people beheading others. It's something called ISIS. ISIS consists of many homosexuals. Some of their top leaders are homosexual."

Shoebat eventually turned his attention to the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance in Charlotte, which he claimed was designed to allow gay men to gain access to women's restroom so they could molest young boys.

"According to this new bill that these fags want to pass, you will be allowed to go into the woman's bathroom," he said. "The homosexuals want to go into a woman's bathroom so they can molest little boys. That's what this is about. They want to molest children. They want to do so peeping tom stuff on women in the bathroom. They want to be perverts ... The bottom line is that this is nothing but another incremental step to bring the civilized world back to pederasty [and] institutionalized pedophilia."

Why Shoebat thinks that gay men would be seeking access the women's restroom in order to have access to young boys and spy on women is anybody's guess.

Fox News Pundit: Muslim Holidays Discriminate Against Christians

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes appeared on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” program yesterday to chat with Tony Perkins about what they perceive as growing anti-Christian persecution in America, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent announcement that city schools will now close for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Adha and al-Fitr.

The two right-wing commentators were outraged, claiming that New York City’s move somehow discriminates against Christians.

“But yet when it comes to Christmas and Easter, two very prominent Christian holidays, they’re not on the school calendar, they’re called ‘winter break’ and ‘spring break,’” Perkins said. Starnes concurred: “Oh yes. For the sake of tolerance and diversity, that normally means the Christians are going to be discriminated against or their holidays are going to be minimalized.”

Easter always falls on a Sunday, which would explain why it is not on a school vacation calendar, while Christmas does in fact appear on New York City’s list of school holidays [PDF]. The city’s schools are also closed for Good Friday, along with the Jewish holy days of Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Passover.

An anguished Perkins lamented that “when 85 percent of the population identifies as Christian but we can’t have a Christmas holiday because it’s religious but yet we can have Muslim holidays, something is not right there in New York City, ‘The Big Apple,’ something is rotten.”

Starnes responded by claiming that Islam is being elevated over Christianity, and it’s all Obama’s fault.

“You’re absolutely right Tony,” the Fox News pundit said. “How many times have we seen this, where the Islamic faith is being given accommodation and the Christian faith and other religious faiths are being marginalized, not just in the public workspace but also through the Obama administration.”

Perkins also managed to attack President Obama for de Blasio’s decision: “I think the Obama administration has created the environment for policies such as this.”

Joseph Farah Is 'Just Asking': Will Obama Actually Leave Office In January 2017?

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah personally believes that President Obama will leave office when his second term is up in January 2017, but senses that “there is great concern out there across the fruited plain” that the president will try to stay in office permanently, so he evidently considers it his journalistic duty to explore why this conspiracy theory may be true.

“[W]hy do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?” Farah asks in a column today. “I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.”

Farah then goes on to cite evidence of Obama’s possible power grab, including that the president that “respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power,” has said “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office,” and, of course, “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”

Question: Why are Americans so certain there will be a presidential election in 2016 and that Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017?

Answer: Because it’s the law and because it’s American tradition.

However, we currently have a man in the White House who respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power.


And then, of course, there’s the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office. In fact, if he’s telling the truth about his parentage and the “birth certificate” he produced after years of demands from the public is real, he could not possibly be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

So with all of this history – and much more, in fact – why do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?

I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why. And judging from the number of questions I’m getting along these lines from the public, I’d say there’s great concern out there across the fruited plain.

Maybe we assume he will respectfully leave office after two terms because he has publicly said he would. In 2013, Obama said he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office.

But that begs the question of whether Obama is truthful.

Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do.

But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/5/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 3/5/15

  • According to WND, the Benham brothers "were noticed by HGTV when they were part of a prayer rally in Charlotte." Given that this prayer rally was organized by the Benham brothers explicitly to repent for and denounce homosexuality, it seems that producers at HGTV should have know exactly what they were getting when they signed them up as hosts.
  • Jerry Newcombe insists that "without God, there would be no America and no American freedom."
  • Larry Ward of the Constitutional Rights PAC is outraged that an "unelected bureaucratic panel voted to take away one of the best inventions ever created in the United States" by protecting net neutrality.
  • Laurie Higgins says that "Obama ought to admit that he doesn’t study Scripture to inform his leadership. Rather he distorts and exploits Scripture to defend his political positions."
  • Finally, anti-choice activists are organizing a sit-in at John Boehner's office "in response to Republicans reneging on their promise to vote on 'The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act'" back in January.

Kobach Defends Latest Claim About Anti-White Obama Conspiracy

Back in November, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach took a call on his weekly radio program from a listener who was worried that if Latinos became a majority in the U.S., they would embark on an “ethnic cleansing” of whites. Rather than simply refute the caller’s suggestion, Kobach – a leading anti-immigrant voice in the GOP -- responded by saying that President Obama was eroding the rule of law so while he didn’t “think it’s going to happen in America” he did “wonder what could happen.”

After we reported on the exchange, Kobach claimed that his remarks had been “ripped out of context” and that he was simply trying to be “polite” as the caller presented his paranoid predictions about the consequences of changing demographics.

So we weren’t entirely surprised this week when Kobach was presented with another paranoid prediction of whites as the victims of a government run by people of color and decided to go along with it too. As we reported yesterday, Kobach took a call from a listener who suggested that the Obama administration might be on the verge of declaring an end to the criminal prosecution of African Americans “regardless of the crime.” Kobach responded that while he thought it was “unlikely,” “it’​s already happened more or less in the case of civil rights laws” and “I’ve learned to say with this president, never say never.”

Now, Kobach is being forced again to defend his comments, and this time is standing by them, citing the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop voter intimidation charges against the Fox News villains of the New Black Panther Party. Despite the claims of right-wing activists, there is no evidence to suggest that the Justice Department dropped the case against the small-time radical group because of the race of its members.

Kobach told the Wichita Eagle  that the New Black Panther Party case shows that the Obama administration has already fulfilled the caller’s nightmares “in one limited context":

Kobach dismissed criticism.
 
“My point was to bring attention to the Obama Justice Department’s position that some civil rights statutes can’t be enforced against people of color,” Kobach said. “For example, one of the Obama administration’s first actions it took in 2009 was to drop the slam-dunk charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation.”
 
Kobach said the Justice Department dropped the charges specifically because of race, a claim that has been disputed.
 
“The point is the Obama administration has already done what the caller suggests in the context of voting civil rights statutes,” Kobach said Thursday. “So it’s already happened in one limited context. No, I don’t think it will happen in other contexts. I made it clear I don’t think that’s likely to happen.”

Correction: This post originally misidentified the newspaper that Kobach gave his response to. It was the Wichita Eagle, not the Kansas City Star.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious