Right Wing Round-Up - 11/21/13

  • RWW Petition: Tell YouTube to reinstate Right Wing Watch's account and take steps to stop abusers of its takedown policy. 
  • PFAW: After Rules Change, It's Time To Get The Senate Working Again. 

Right Wing Leftovers - 11/21/13

  • Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver slammed [PDF] the Senate rule change on judicial nominees as a dangerous threat to freedom… but in 2005 demanded the Senate “end the judicial filibusters at the earliest possible moment.” 
  • Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appears to be deliberately excluding same-sex couples from a resolution honoring National Adoption Month. 
  • Indiana Republicans reaffirmed their plan to advance a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 
  • After leading a one-man protest against the signing of the Illinois marriage equality law, Peter LaBarbera thinks Gov. Pat Quinn “owes Abraham Lincoln an apology.” 

Beyond the D.C. Circuit: The GOP's Ten Most Outrageous Filibusters of Obama's Nominees

What finally brought Senate Democrats to a breaking point today – forcing them to change Senate rules to allow a simple majority to break a filibuster of most federal judicial nominees – was Senate Republicans’ blockade of President Obama’s three nominees to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Republicans admitted that they blocked these nominees not because of objections to the nominees themselves but because they didn’t want to allow President Obama to fill the seats at all .

This was an extreme abuse of the filibuster, especially coming from senators who had previously claimed that blocking judicial nominees for any reason was unconstitutional and un-American.

But the D.C. Circuit showdown was just the latest, most public, example of the Senate GOP’s abuse of the filibuster under President Obama. We look back at some ten of President Obama’s nominees who found themselves caught up in the Senate GOP’s shameless obstruction.

1. Goodwin Liu – Ninth Circuit

Goodwin Liu was a brilliant Berkeley law professor on the fast track to a Supreme Court short-list. So naturally Republicans tried to stop him in his tracks. Liu had plenty of support from conservative legal leaders – Bush administration attorney Richard Painter called him “exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream” – but that didn’t stop Republicans from trying to paint him as an extremist. Republicans filibustered Liu's nomination for more than a year before he withdrew his name from consideration in 2011, citing his family and the fact that the seat he had been nominated to was a designated “judicial emergency” and needed to be filled. But there was a happy ending for Liu, and for California: Later that year, he was confirmed to the California Supreme Court.

2. Dawn Johnsen – Office of Legal Counsel

Dawn Johnsen was President Obama’s first nominee to lead the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen, a professor at Indiana University’s law school, had support from across the ideological spectrum, including from representatives of every presidential administration since Gerald Ford’s.

But Senate Republicans didn’t like that Johnsen had criticized the OLC’s handling of torture cases during the Bush administration and so accused her of being weak on terrorism. Johnsen was forced to withdraw her nomination after she was denied a Senate vote for more than a year.

3. John McConnell – District of Rhode Island

A public interest attorney, McConnell had led lawsuits against tobacco companies and lead paint manufacturers. So, when President Obama nominated him to Rhode Island’s district court, he quickly gained a very powerful enemy: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The behemoth lobbying group had never before campaigned against a trial court nominee, but made an exception for McConnell. The Senate was forced to hold a cloture vote to end a Republican filibuster of McConnell – only the third time in history that a cloture vote had been held on a district court nominee. The filibuster ultimately failed and McConnell was confirmed.

4. Mel Watt – Federal Housing Finance Agency

The Republican filibuster of North Carolina Rep. Mel Watt’s nomination to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency – which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – went hand-in-hand with their blockade of the D.C. Circuit three, but it was special in its very own way. Watt became the first sitting member of Congress to be blocked from an administrative position since before the Civil War – at least, that anyone digging through congressional archives has been able to find.

Republicans said that Watt, who in his 20 years in Congress has served on the House Financial Services committee and been immersed in housing finance issues, was unqualified for the job. But the more likely explanation is that they wanted the agency’s Wall Street-friendly acting director to hold on to the post.

5. Caitlin Halligan – D.C. Circuit

Before there was Pattie Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins , there was Caitlin Halligan. Republicans filibustered Halligan, President Obama’s first nominee to the D.C. Circuit, for two years, defeating two attempts to invoke cloture on her nomination. Halligan’s main opposition came from the National Rifle Association, which attacked her for a case she had argued on behalf of the state of New York when she was its solicitor general – in other words, a position she took as an attorney on behalf of a client.

The White House was forced to withdraw Halligan’s nomination, and her filibuster achieved its intended purpose: Obama became the first president since Woodrow Wilson not to have a single nominee confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in his first full term in office.

6. Robert Bacharach – Tenth Circuit

Senate Republicans under President Obama haven’t just thought up flimsy excuses to filibuster nominees for being too liberal; they’ve also filibustered plenty of nominees to whom they’ve had absolutely no objection.

One example of this is Oklahoma’s Robert Bacharach, whom President Obama nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals with the resounding endorsements of both of Oklahoma’s very conservative senators. Making up a “rule” that presidents cannot be allowed to fill circuit court seats even with consensus nominees before an election, Senate Republicans blocked Bacharach's nomination – with the help of “present” votes from Coburn and Inhofe – forcing President Obama to renominate him. Finally, after making him wait nine months for a yes-or-no vote, the Senate confirmed Bacharach unanimously.

7. Richard Cordray – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Republicans’ filibuster of Richard Corday’s nomination was perhaps the perfect expression of their new method of governing in the age of Obama. As with many of the president’s judicial nominees, Senate Republicans couldn’t point out anything wrong with Cordray himself. But they really didn’t want anyone to fill the position to which he had been nominated, head of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

President Obama skipped over now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren to nominate Cordray to head the consumer protection agency that was Warren’s brainchild, in what turned out to be a futile effort to ease the confirmation process. Instead, 45 Senate Republicans sent a letter to Obama informing him that although they had no problem with Cordray himself they would not allow a vote on his nomination until the president severely weakened the CFPB’s oversight power. In the meantime, without a permanent director, the CFPB was legally unable to exercise its full authority.

After denying CFPB a director for two years, Republicans finally allowed Cordray’s nomination to go through as part of a larger executive nominations deal this summer, which meant that the agency could finally start doing the full job it was meant to do.

8. Adalberto Jordan – Fourth Circuit

Adalberto Jordan of Florida is another nominee to whom the GOP had no stated objection yet chose to filibuster anyway. President Obama nominated Jordan to the Eleventh Circuit, where he would become the court’s first-ever Cuban-American judge, a big deal for the circuit that includes Florida. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved him without objection. Yet Republicans blocked a vote on his nomination for four months before finally allowing him to be confirmed in a 94-5 vote … but not before Sen. Rand Paul postponed his confirmation vote for an extra two days to make an unrelated point about foreign aid to Egypt .

Then there are the “silent filibusters” – ones where Republicans abuse the rules to stymie nominations but not in ways that necessarily lead to cloture petitions. These silent filibusters have slowed down numerous Obama nominees – leading to enormous wait times for Senate votes. Here are just two examples:

9. Louis Butler – Western District of Wisconsin

Louis Butler, the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, lost a retention election in 2008 after big business groups poured money into a campaign opposing him.

President Obama nominated Butler four separate times to the Wisconsin District Court. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee. But Republicans kept blocking him, so his nomination was repeatedly returned without a vote. Butler’s nomination isn’t counted in tallies of filibusters because a cloture petition was never filed on his nomination. In 2009 and 2010, Sen. McConnell refused to consent to a floor vote. President Obama renominated Butler in 2011, but by that time Democratic Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold had been replaced by Republican Ron Johnson, who took advantage of the currently generous “blue slip” policy (see below) to prevent the Judiciary Committee from even voting on Butler. We count his nomination here because it is an example of the diverse ways Republicans have used to block votes on a nominees.

10. Edward Chen – Northern District of California

Another day, another science lesson from the GOP: In Edward Chen’s hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions accused the ninth circuit nominee of being afflicted with the “ACLU chromosome.” This condition had caused Chen to work for several years at the ACLU, where he specialized in fighting language discrimination cases, before becoming the first Asian American to sit on the federal district court based in San Francisco.

Chen’s work to fight discrimination proved to be just too much for Senate Republicans, who made him wait two full years for a confirmation vote. Finally, a few days after Republicans failed to defeat the cloture vote on Rhode Island’s John McConnell, they agreed to allow a confirmation vote for Chen without forcing a cloture vote.

Blue Slip Bonus

A number of President Obama’s judicial nominees haven’t even gotten the chance to be filibustered. That’s because there’s a way Republicans can hold up nominees before they even get a committee hearing. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, won’t proceed with a hearing on a nominee until he receives “blue slips” from both of the nominee’s home-state senators signaling their go-ahead for the nomination process. In this way, a senator can hold up a home-state nominee before he or she even gets a public hearing.

Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn refused to return his blue slip on the nomination of Arvo Mikkanen to an Oklahoma district court,  not because he had anything bad to say about the nominee, but because he was upset that President Obama supposedly hadn’t consulted him before making the nomination. Mikkanen, who would have become the third-ever Native American on the federal bench, never received a hearing.

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller blocked the nomination of Elissa Cadish to the Nevada district court under pressure from the NRA because Cadish had once on a questionnaire correctly described the state of Second Amendment law before it was changed by the Supreme Court. Cadish never got a chance to defend herself in a public hearing, and withdrew her nomination after a year of delay.

Georgia’s Jill Pryor was first nominated to the Eleventh Circuit a year and a half ago, but still hasn’t gotten a hearing because her home-state senators would prefer that she be on a different court. Neither has raised questions about her qualificiations.

The Obama-Soros Conspiracy To Nuke America And Kill 300 Million People Exposed!

Did President Obama and George Soros plot to murder 300 million Americans by dropping nuclear bombs? Yes! That is, according to right-wing activist Jim Garrow, who now claims to be a former intelligence officer. Erik Rush kicked off his radio show on Tuesday by reading from a Garrow article about how Obama planned to detonate nuclear weapons throughout the US until three heroes in the military stopped him:

You may remember that Rush thought Obama would nuke DC to justify an operation to bomb Syria…and that the president then orchestrated the Navy Yard shooting to stop the Navy from arresting him.

Now, Rush and Garrow say that Obama had plans to nuke Charleston, South Carolina, and other cities throughout the US.

But why?

To distract from Benghazi?

No! To let George Soros get even richer by betting against the US dollar:

Garrow also claims that “Bath House Barry” — after attempting to destroy the United States— will blackmail every politician, military leader and police officer in America to get himself a third term.

After 90 percent of the population has been eliminated, the only people left in the country will be the elites, including Obama and Valerie Jarrett, who will live in luxury bunkers.

David Vitter Once Backed Rule He Now Calls 'Dictatorial'

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) today claimed that changing Senate rules to allow a simple majority of the US Senate to vote on judicial nominees appointed by the President is a shameful act that is “scary and dictatorial for our country.”

As Steve Benen noted, the supposedly dictatorial rule brings things back to “the way the Senate worked for about 200 years, largely without incident.”

In fact, Vitter supported the same rules change back in 2005, saying yes-or-no votes on judicial nominees fulfill “our constitutional duty to give advice and consent when a president nominates individuals to the bench.”

North Carolina Republican Senate Candidate Worked For Neo-Confederate Group

Mississippi’s Chris McDaniel isn’t the only Republican candidate for U.S. Senate who has allied with neo-Confederate activists. Warren Throckmorton reports today that Bill Flynn, a radio talk show host seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Democrat Kay Hagan in North Carolina, is a close partner of the Institute on the Constitution’s David Whitney and has taught courses through the Institute. Whitney wrote on the group’s website last week:

Our Institute On The Constituion [sic] Host Bill Flynn in Triad region of North Carolina announced his candidacy for the United States Senate race this past Sunday. Bill hosts a morning radio show on WEGO (980 AM). Bill has not only taught our U.S. Constitution course he was my co-host on the Constitutional Cruise, All Aboard America this past March. Bill is a good friend and patriot.

Whitney is the chaplain of the Maryland chapter of the League of the South, a neo-confederate hate group that promotes white nationalism.

Whitney’s bio notes that he also serves as “the Chaplain of the Southern National Congress where he is also the Chairman of the Maryland State Delegation to the Congress.” The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Southern National Congress as “a neo-Confederate group focused exclusively on advancing a new secession through political means.” Two GOP lawmakers in Tennessee were recently slated to appear at a Southern National Congress event.

The head of the Institute On The Constitution is Michael Peroutka, aLeague of the South board member. Peroutka has denounced the Union victory in the Civil War, attacked civil rights laws, demanded the prosecution of women who have abortions and warned that nondiscrimination legislation would force people to be gay.

“You may also tell them that I am proud to be a member of League of the South,” Peroutka said during his campaign for president in 2004. “I look forward to receiving the support not only from guys with Confederate flags in their trucks, but also those with the Southern Cross in their heart.”

The Institute on the Constitution regularly attacks Abraham Lincoln as a “murderous tyrant” who should be “on trial for war crimes.”

But don’t think this GOP candidate’s close relationship with the Institute On The Constitution will trouble all of his fellow Republicans, as McDaniels in Mississippi continued to win support from right-wing groups after his own neo-Confederate links became public.

RWW YouTube Account Offline Again After Klingenschmitt Files More Bogus Claims

Even though Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt has lost every single claim of copyright violation he has filed against our YouTube page, due to YouTube’s processing system he is able to take the account offline by repeatedly making bogus copyright claims.

Just one day after YouTube rejected Klingenschmitt’s earlier complaints and restored our account, the Republican candidate for Colorado State House and anti-gay activist filed additional and equally specious copyright complaints that once again terminated the account.

We expect our account to be restored again as our videos are protected speech and call on YouTube to more proactively protect users against copyright claim abusers.

If you would like to help, please consider signing our petition asking YouTube to reinstate Right Wing Watch's account and take steps to stop abusers of its takedown policy.

YouTube, Legal Division:

Your current copyright takedown policy is too vulnerable to abuse via false complaints.

The YouTube account of Right Wing Watch recently fell victim to one serial abuser's exploitation of your policy, though the videos in question were all protected by the Fair Use doctrine. Please remedy the situation by reinstating Right Wing Watch's video account ASAP and publicly modifying your takedown policy or employing mechanisms to flag serial abusers and prevent this type of abuse and censorship.

You can also tweet @YouTube and urge them to expedite the review process, as YouTube must know by now that Klingenschmitt has a clear record of filing unfounded complaints.

Erik Rush: Obama Is Just Like Damien From The Omen

WND columnist and occasional Fox News commentator Erik Rush thinks President Obama is basically Damien from “The Omen.” On his radio show Tuesday, Rush argued that just like Damien Thorn, who is the Antichrist in “The Omen” series, Obama has a mysterious background and participates in “actual demonic or Satanic activity.”

Rush cites a Moral Matters blog post: “Demonic Obama: America’s Omen Child.”

Some of you (who are older) may remember the past popular movie, “The Omen” Its subject focus was an adopted boy born under mysterious circumstances. Eventually, (over a series of maddening events) the adoptive father is finally persuaded that “Damien” is demonic and evil. He attempts to rid the world of this demonic personage scourge, but is shot and killed in the process. The boy ends up being adopted (again) by the US Ambassador to Great Britain. The final shot of the movie concludes with “Damien slowly turning to give the camera a diabolical smile.”

Although no analogy is perfect, America’s (aka) “Obama” can be somewhat compared to “The Omen’s,” Damien. Obama’s birth background is shrouded in secrecy. Everything about Obama smacks of a negative (devilish) nature. He, like Damien, is an evil scourge of deceit and death to American lives who surround him. The most recent evidence of that scourge, is the Obamacare debacle, which involves multiple millions of American lives.



Aka, Obama, is an American (socialist / communist) Muslim / Marxist patsy. No one person since the 1900′s has achieved as much success altering this country’s political landscape as aka, Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, Supreme Court decisions such as Roe V. Wade and forced busing did its political correctness damage. Also, uprooting First Amendment religious expression from the public school system and neutering local school boards, have been part and parcel of dismantling traditional, patriotic and Constitutional America, in favor of introducing the false gods of political correctness, secularism and multiculturalism.

It is no surprise (those) who surrounds Obama, to carry out his criminally evil destruction of traditional, patriotic and Constitutional America.



Those of you reading the aforementioned, may think that this author proposes, a far stretch. That, position has been the propagandist online “conspiracy theorist” assertion of the online ridiculing, Obamabots. Their deceptive argument, is that aka Obama appeared on the American scene, because he was a fresh face in the political arena. Up until the present, they had been successful in touting aka, Obama, as a well-spoken, family man and “Christian,” who was privileged to be America’s first black president. Of course, those informed, well know that this Obama public packaging, is riddled with propaganda lies, as well as Obama’s ID fraud documents. Reality has it, that aka, Obama was the best shot fired by the socialist mindset to destroy America. What could not be achieved by individuals such as Elizabeth Duke, and her Weather Underground comrades, had to be accomplished by their noxious radical political offspring.

There is no way that aka, Obama could have been elected the first time around as US president, had he and his cabal (support) marketed him for what he is now truly revealed to the American people. It was imperative that aka, Obama, lie through his teeth with his deceptive “hope and change” promises. He was the “perfect” candidate for the communist cabal. Anyone who opposed him was (then) labelled a racist. His lifestyle lies duped Americans, who, only desired for themselves and their posterity the best material success possible. Their craving for material success blinded them to the spiritual reality of aka Obama’s depraved human nature. Hence, Obama was first (reportedly) elected by a majority of the “Christian” vote who conveniently overlooked Obama’s Illinois senator support for Infanticide. Such fools they were; and, some still are.

WorldNetDaily Continues To Defend George Zimmerman Amid Abuse Allegations

WorldNetDaily’s Jack Cashill believes that the allegations of domestic violence against George Zimmerman are part of a big liberal media conspiracy, even though one of the claims occurred before the Trayvon Martin trial. In another WND story defending Zimmerman in the face of new accusations of abuse, Cashill claimed Zimmerman’s estranged wife and “his latest ‘victim,’ girlfriend Samantha Scheibe,” concocted their claims to garner media attention and “betrayed” Zimmerman by going to the police after he threatened them.

While Cashill thinks this is all the media’s fault, the Associated Press notes in 2005 “Zimmerman’s former fiancee filed for a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence,” and in the same year “Zimmerman was arrested and accused of resisting an officer with violence.”

But maybe the media went back in time as part of the anti-Zimmerman conspiracy!

Between April 2012 and July 2013, Zimmerman’s life fell apart. He showed up at the trial dead-eyed, grossly overweight, and financially and emotionally bankrupt.

The local NAACP, with which he had worked on a civil rights case a year earlier, had betrayed him. The state of Florida had sacrificed him to the mob.

His president denied him. The media had rendered the mid-Florida ether so poisonous he could scarcely leave the house. His wife no longer loved him and was eager to tell the world about it.

Zimmerman’s acquittal settled nothing. The death threats amplified. The attorney general continued to hound him despite full clearance by the FBI more than a year prior. And the media cried “Injustice!”

“I still see sadness in his eyes,” said his brother Robert soon after the acquittal. “He was definitely not the same person I had seen a few days before the incident.”

In the last two years, Zimmerman has experienced more betrayal on more levels than most of us will in a lifetime.

Now, it appears that his latest “victim,” girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, was soliciting national media interviews weeks before their well-publicized dust-up.

Regardless of the circumstances, each misstep Zimmerman has made post-trial has left the media giddy. They seem to think it vindicates their utterly subversive rush to judgment.

The fact is that the Zimmerman they now happily trash is the Zimmerman they helped create. Whatever happens going forward, the blood is on their hands.

Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters

After waging an unprecedented campaign of obstructionism against President Obama’s nominees, Republicans are now crying crocodile tears over a rules change that would end the filibuster on certain judicial nominees.

NBC News points out that Republicans are not blocking judicial nominees over “concerns about ideology or qualifications, but over the president’s ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies.” This unprecedented blockade leaves Democrats with few options, as dozens of nominees are left unable to receive a simple confirmation vote.

It’s even harder to be sympathetic to Senate Republicans when you remember that just a few years ago, many of the very same Republicans who are today filibustering President Obama’s nominees willy-nilly were vowing that they would never, ever filibuster judicial nominees. Some even declared that judicial filibusters were unconstitutional and un-American.

But that was before there was a Democrat in the White House.

We take a look back at some of the Senate’s most strident opponents of filibustering judicial nominees, turned master obstructers.

1. Mitch McConnell (KY)

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).

“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).

2. John Cornyn (TX)

“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).

“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).

3. Lamar Alexander (TN)

“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).

“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).

4. John McCain (AZ)

“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).

5. Chuck Grassley (IA)

It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).

“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).

6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)

“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).

7. Lindsey Graham (SC)

“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).

8. Johnny Isakson (GA)

I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).

9. James Inhofe (OK)

“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).

10. Mike Crapo (ID)

“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).

11 . Richard Shelby (AL)

“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).

12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*

Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

*Hatch claims he still opposes filibusters of judicial nominees and often votes “present” instead of “no” on cloture votes. But as Drew noted: “Because ending a filibuster requires 60 ‘yes’ votes, voting ‘present’ is identical to voting ‘no.’ Hatch’s decision to vote ‘present’ is an affirmative decision to continue the filibuster.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious