Sullivan, Treadwell Try to Hide Their 2010 Support for Murkowski

republican-democrat-battleIn an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, US Senate candidates Dan Sullivan and Mead Treadwell tried to deceive Alaskans about their support for one of the most liberal “Republicans” in the United States Senate during Alaska’s 2010 US Senate race.
 
According to the AP, “Sullivan, who was Alaska’s attorney general during the 2010 elections, told a reporter he didn’t publicly take sides in that race. He said he was neutral, as someone in his position at the time should be.”
 
Yet, just a few months back, Sullivan himself reportedly claimed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that, acting as Attorney General, he spearheaded the effort to assist the write-in candidate by arguing – in clear violation of State Administrative Code – that write-in candidates’ information would be allowed in polling places.
 
His double-speak becomes even more outrageous when one considers the fact that the move was unprecedented in Alaska and opposed by both the state Democrat and Republican Parties. Sullivan was obviously under no legal obligation to support Murkowski’s write-in candidacy and argue the case from the same side her campaign did.
 
According to District Court Judge Frank Pfiffner, Sullivan’s argument was “illogical” and in clear violation of at least four separate laws: the relevant Administrative Code, the Administrative Procedures Act, electioneering Statutes, and the Voter Rights Act which required pre-clearance from the Department of Justice.
 
While the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, it is noteworthy that they chose not to address Judge Pfiffner’s concerns. The High Court issued no written opinion offering the legal justification why Pfiffner’s lengthy decision and interpretation of the clear requirements of the law was in error. This has led many to believe the Supreme Court’s decision was a purely political, and has only fed popular discontent with its activist proclivities.
 
United Press International also reported that the non-statutory standards deployed during the 2010 vote-count in Juneau, in direct violation of Alaska Statute, came at the advice of then-Attorney General Dan Sullivan.
 
Sullivan’s breaking with historic precedent to circumvent the plain text of the law in order to provide an advantage to one candidate is anything but remaining neutral. There is little doubt, if the shoe were on the other foot and Senator Murkowski was the party nominee facing a write-in challenger, the law would have been interpreted as it always had been.
 
Treadwell’s claim of neutrality is equally troubling. Not only did Treadwell make public statements in 2010 meant to convey the message that he supported the write-in campaign, he was reportedly pressuring Governor Parnell behind the scenes to endorse Murkowski over Miller, a charge he has declined to challenge in private conversation.
 
Further, Treadwell presided over a white-washing of the 2010 election, refusing to allow an independent investigation, despite serious allegations of fraud levied by eye-witnesses in sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.
 
Treadwell now travels the state peddling his wares as a Constitutional Conservative. Yet somehow he wants to forget that Lisa Murkowski went back to Washington and offered Barack Obama bi-partisan legitimacy by voting for every piece of his 2010 “lame duck” agenda immediately following the election (which included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the new START Treaty, the DREAM Act, and a partial repeal of the Bush era tax cuts), fought for funding for Planned Parenthood, accused Republicans of a “war on women,” came out in support of Anchorage Prop. 5 (ENDA), voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, helped confirm numerous activist judges . . . and the list goes on.
 
How did Mead Treadwell respond to all this? When asked by Politico Magazine last spring, Treadwell said, “I voted for Lisa Murkowski in the primary and in the general, and I think Alaskans made the right decision.”
 
Since then, Murkowski has come out in support of gay marriage, and continued her trajectory as a big spending, big government politician. It was reported in Roll Call earlier this year that Senator Murkowski voted with Barack Obama over 72 percent of the time, making her the second most likely Republican Senator to do so, falling only slightly behind Susan Collins of Maine. Indeed her support for the President’s agenda is far closer to Democrat Mark Begich than to most of the Republican caucus. Pretty hard to run against a Democrat whose voting record is similar to your Republican mentor.

Perhaps Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Treadwell need a civics lesson. We have a representative form of government. The folks we send to Washington represent us. If you vote to send someone to Washington to represent you, you are responsible for what they do. In a very real sense, you did it.
 
Forgive the Editorial team at Restoring Liberty if we don’t buy the claims of neutrality and high sounding rhetoric about Party loyalty coming from folks who selectively choose when it applies. From where we sit, it sounds a lot like the same political double-speak we’re used to hearing from big government politicians.

Military Downsizing = National Security Danger

Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty

Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty

The Democrats and the Obama Administration have decided to fund their domestic programs at the expense of America’s national security. The U.S. Army will be shrunk to its smallest force since before World War II, and the Marines will be reduced by manpower of about 8% by 2016. The entire fleet of Air Force A-10 jets will be eliminated. The Navy’s eleven aircraft carriers will have to reduce its operating status and the USS George Washington will be retired in 2016. Experts interviewed believe these reductions will impose a greater risk for the armed forces and a greater risk for America’s national security.

The new philosophy of protecting the U.S. emphasizes technology replacing the human component. Medal of Honor recipient retired Colonel Jack Jacobs believes this outlook will cause major problems in the future and sees this administration not having the political will to use manpower. “There is irony here and I believe the White House would roll over if they read this. But it is true; they are the natural descendants of Donald Rumsfeld’s way of thinking. He knew we did not have the political will to commit the right number of soldiers to do the job in Iraq so he decided to use machines instead. We did take Baghdad easily, but could not control anything because there were not enough people. This administration and the current military establishment are the intellectual children and think exactly like Rumsfeld, which is to take the easy way out.”

Jacobs further warns the need to remember the cardinal axiom on fighting military wars, ‘no matter the size of the war it always takes more resources to hold on to the objective.’ The danger to U.S. national security might not be now but will become obvious in five to seven years, since the administration’s way of thinking reduces flexibility and options.

Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Debacle Defies Logic

Photo Credit: Raw Story

Photo Credit: Raw Story

By Ted Nugent.

…No sane soul could keep a straight face when listening to strange-looking bureaucrats raving how we need to spend even more money on education when that very unaccountable system continues to produce the dumbest, fattest kids on planet Earth per dollar spent.

Someone might someday show the real number on Obamacare for a nationwide pukesfest.

We could listen to a gun-running attorney general how more Chicago-like gun-free zones is a good idea, and still lie about Fast and Furious.

But in a genuine effort to not get too angry, let us stick with the horror story that is Benghazi.

Some people are honest enough to know what basic self-defense responsibilities are and what qualifies as basic security versus bureaucratic gobblygook.

Read more from this story HERE.

_____________________________________________________________

Gowdy: Citizens Can Handle the Truth About Benghazi If They Get Access To It

By Katie Pavlich.

Yesterday afternoon House Speaker John Boehner officially announced Rep. Trey Gowdy will lead a new Benghazi select committee. As a former prosecutor, Gowdy is a seasoned investigator who asks tough questions.

Last night, Gowdy made an appearance On the Record to discuss his new role and his plans to get to the bottom of what happened.

Read more from this story HERE.

Barack Obama’s Dysfunctional Washington

Photo Credit: Benjamin Krain

Photo Credit: Benjamin Krain

Barack Obama fell in love with the sound of his voice at an early age. It’s the love that dares shout its name, and will not die even when everybody else has quit listening.

The president traveled this week to Hollywood, the reliable refueling stop for Democratic candidates, and preached to show-biz friends who paid up to $65,000 each for supper and had to eat it in a tent in the backyard. Everybody who was anybody was there, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Tom Rothman, James Brolin. Barbra Streisand, no doubt hoping Bubba might drop by unexpectedly, was there, too.

The president didn’t have to pay for a plate of beans and cornbread, so he returned the gift with his voice. Washington, he said, isn’t working because it’s “dysfunctional” and despite everything he has done “there’s still disquiet around the country.” (Jimmy Carter called it “malaise.”)

Mr. Obama, like Mr. Jimmy, railed about disquiet and dysfunction on the Potomac, forgetting that he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, which is well within the District of Columbia and the fount of the bad stuff. The president is the very point of Washington. If Washington isn’t working, maybe it has something to do with what he brought to town.

But no, it’s not him. The disquiet, “an anxiety and a sense of frustration,” he said, “afflicts the body politic despite “a list of accomplishments.” It’s everybody else’s fault. It always is. He warned of a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in the midterm congressional elections, where “people who have the most at stake in a government that works, opt out of the system, and those who don’t believe government can do anything, are empowered. Gridlock reigns, and we’ve got this downward spiral of even more cynicism, and more dysfunction. And we have to break out of that cycle, and that’s what this election is all about.” So break out your checkbooks, and buy some more dysfunction.

Read more from this story HERE.

Can God Bless a Godless America?

Picture - Declaration_independenceThe White House is waging an all-out assault on religious liberty. Public schools are indoctrinating our children with the gospel of secularism. Hollywood is spewing toxins into our homes. The soundtrack of our lives is a pulsating mix of sex and violence and filth. The American family is in ruins. What was once wrong is now right and what was once right is now wrong.

Our nation stands on a precipice. Freedom hangs in the balance. We live in a postmodern and post-God nation. The perfect storm is brewing. Do not be deceived. There may be a war on religious liberty, but the true target is Christianity.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, penned an open letter to the American people last year. Hostility against religious liberty has reached an all-time high, they warned. The freedom of religion is being pushed out of public life, schools and even churches.

“Our Founding Fathers considered religious liberty our ‘first freedom,’ and the bedrock upon which all other freedoms rest,” the men wrote. “They understood that one’s right to worship God and follow his conscience according to the principles of his religious faith was foundational to civic tranquility. A man whose religious faith was repressed could never be a loyal citizen since the state was usurping his first allegiance and costing him his primary freedom. This is one of the most important distinctions that makes America an exceptional nation — if not the most important.”

Both groups document more than 600 recent examples of religious hostility. Six hundred. American stories. Our stories. Their documentation included many stories I have covered during my career at Fox News Channel.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Climate Change Debate Is Over, And Environmentalists Lost

Photo Credit: The Federalist

Photo Credit: The Federalist

The bloodcurdling National Climate Assessment is here and it portends catastrophe; floods, clouds and other assorted weather events are imminent! … but , says the report, “there is still time to act to limit the amount of climate change and the extent of damaging impacts.”

Have you noticed that we’re always at the cusp of a cataclysm, yet the deadline to act always moves to a politically convenient not-too-distant future? I guess when the time to act runs out – it will at some point, right? — we can begin thinking about defunding all these panels and reinvesting in something more productive: like figuring out how we can adapt to the future.

For now, though, the congressionally mandated report claims we’re no longer merely dealing with impending disaster. The United States, it asserts, has already incurred billions of dollars in damages from severe weather-related disruptions due to climate change. The political hope is that some of this ugly weather will generate more urgency to do something. President Obama will use the report to bolster his case for unilaterally enacting carbon dioxide regulations, neglecting, one imagines, to mention that while there is consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, there isn’t much agreement on whether severe weather has actually gotten worse over the past years, or, if it has, that climate change is the cause.

Nevertheless.

“We’re committed to moving forward with those rules,” John Podesta said in a bit of an anti-democratic rant the other day. “We’re committed to maintaining the authority and the president’s authority to ensure that the Clean Air Act is fully implemented.” Don’t worry, though. Podesta says this is “actionable science” so separation of powers and consent of the governed and other trifling concerns are no longer applicable.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Unleashes the Left

Photo Credit: Martin Kozlowski

Photo Credit: Martin Kozlowski

In the U.S., the politics of the left versus the right rolls on with the predictability of traffic jams at the George Washington Bridge. It’s a lot of honking. Until now. All of a sudden, the left has hit ramming speed across a broad swath of American life—in the universities, in politics and in government. People fingered as out of line with the far left’s increasingly bizarre claims are being hit and hit hard.

Commencement-speaker bans are obligatory. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew as Rutgers’s speaker after two months of protests over Iraq, the left’s long-sought replacement for the Vietnam War. Brandeis terminated its invitation to Somali writer Hirsi Ali, whose criticisms of radical Islam violated the school’s “core values.”

Azusa Pacific University “postponed” an April speech by political scientist Charles Murray to avoid “hurting our faculty and students of color.” Come again? It will “hurt” them? Oh yes. In a recent New Republic essay, Jennie Jarvie described the rise of “trigger warnings” that professors are expected to post with their courses to avoid “traumatizing” students.

Oberlin College earlier this year proposed that its teachers “be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.” The co-chair of Oberlin’s Sexual Offense Policy Task Force said last month that this part of the guide is now under revision.

I think it’s fair to say something has snapped.

Read more from this story HERE.

What Abortion Selfies Tell Us About American Community

Photo Credit: The Federalist

Photo Credit: The Federalist

You have by this point likely heard about the story of New Jersey abortion counselor Emily Letts’ decision to film her surgical abortion, which this week met with the kind of reaction you could expect from online communities. If you have not watched the video, I encourage you to do so, or to at least read her piece for Cosmopolitan explaining her decision and walking readers through the social media reaction to it. There’s a reason Letts wrote that “every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is. I think that there are just no positive abortion stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is.” The video is an intentional effort to create a “positive” story. She talks about how similar the experience was to birth (she has no children). “I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby,” she says. “I can make a life.” And she can destroy it, too.

For me, the striking thing about the video is how alone Letts is in nearly all of it. Her Cosmopolitan piece emphasizes the opposite – how she felt enveloped by support. But the depiction comes across as one running direct to camera reality show, with an abortion in the middle. In the video, clearly in pain and focused on her breathing, she grips the hand of a clinic attendant, who offers brief words of support. Letts describes herself as a struggling actress, and she has enough ability to manage a wan smile before she’s wheeled out – but it comes across less as triumph than as “Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.” She keeps the sonogram, smoothes her hair with automatic hand, and puts a record on the gramophone.

The concept of the abortion selfie is in some ways an inevitable consequence of an increasingly atomized culture. Consider instead the lure that would motivate one to seek to share this moment, and then to share in the reaction to this moment from social media, and then to share again in the reaction to that reaction in the pages of Cosmo. This is an individual seeking out the affirmation and attention of others – for good or ill, it is an attempt to find a community, a grasping for a sense of belonging.

Set aside Emily Letts for a moment, and consider these comments from someone on the other side of the culture wars: Rick Santorum, who is out once again in his green paisley van hunting for the ghosts of Reagan Democrats. Santorum’s latest book includes a call for Republicans to reject free trade, raise the minimum wage, and rediscover protectionism to defend traditional blue collar industries. As an economic message, Santorum is as disappointing as always (on the trade issue, for example, his longtime support for the protectionist status quo lines the pockets of well-connected cronies at the expense of everyone else). But on the issue of family and community, Santorum’s comments about individualism are worth noting:

“A blithe attitude about economic disruption and the decline of traditional industries goes along with what Santorum sees as a philosophical overemphasis on individualism. Conservatives, he argues, have neglected an important strand of political thought in which the family is the fundamental unit of the polis. “The basic unit of the society is the family,” he writes, not “the individual.” … Santorum explicitly blames libertarians for the rise of individualism, but it’s hard not to feel as if he’s taking issue with most of his party.”

Read more from this story HERE.

No to Political Primogeniture

murk_begichOn one level, it’s not fair to say that children of successful politicians shouldn’t enter politics themselves. In a just world, the sins of the father really should not be visited upon the sons; so too should the successes of fathers not prohibit their sons and daughters from seeking similar success.

But . . . but . . . but, insists something from the core of my being. There’s something deeply unsettling, in a nation founded with a hearty disdain for hereditary emoluments, about a national political class that consists of the same names for generation after generation. Aside from the Adamses and perhaps the Livingstons, America’s Founders did not establish anything approaching political dynasties. There’s something innately healthy about public office as a meritorious call to service rather than as a birthright.

Now, though, the Republican donor class seems increasingly likely to lure yet a third Bush in three decades into the presidential arena, with a prior Bush serving as U.S. senator a generation before. Furthermore, reports CBS’s Bob Schieffer, Mitt Romney may be inclined to make a third run for the White House (a fourth Romney run in 50 years, after his father’s 1968 effort) if an increasingly arrogant Jeb Bush somehow decides not to run. And on the donkey side of the fence, of course, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner to make hubby Bill the first former president to become First Gentl . . . , er, First Straying Husband.

Meanwhile, in 2014, Jimmy Carter’s grandson and Sam Nunn’s daughter are running statewide in Georgia, while a who’s-(father is)-who of second-generation politicos fight not just for election but for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Mark Udall, son of former presidential contender Mo, is in a tight race in Colorado; Mary Landrieu, daughter of former New Orleans mayor and HUD secretary Moon, is in one in Louisiana; Mark Begich, son of tragically killed former U.S. representative Nick, battles in Alaska; likewise in Arkansas with Mark Pryor, son of former senator and Arkansas governor David. Firmly ensconced in the Senate are, from Pennsylvania, gubernatorial son Bob Casey Jr., and, from Arizona, top admiral’s son John McCain.

Lisa Murkowski holds down her father’s seat in Alaska; Rand Paul rode his father’s name ID to a Senate perch from Kentucky; West Virginia’s retiring John Rockefeller is, well, a Rockefeller; and New Mexico’s Tom Udall is a cabinet secretary’s son and presidential candidate’s nephew. Back to Senate candidates: In Georgia, David Perdue is a gubernatorial cousin; in West Virginia, Shelley Moore Capito is a governor’s daughter.

Read more from this story HERE.

Rush Limbaugh: Why Media Ignores Benghazi

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

By Lucy Mccalmont.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Friday that the mainstream media is not covering Benghazi because it is an issue that he and Fox News are interested in.

“There are a lot of reporters who will discount Benghazi simply because of who is interested in it,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript of his radio program “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” “For example, Fox is interested in it and it automatically is nothing. If I’m interested in it it doesn’t rate any interest, because Fox and me, all we want is to get Obama.”

Slamming its coverage of the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic in Benghazi that left the ambassador and three others dead, Limbaugh said of the mainstream media, “They’re working with the regime to cover it up.”

Read more from this story HERE.

_____________________________________________________

Where was Obama? Question resurfaces of president’s whereabouts during Benghazi attack

By Fox News.

Republican senators on Friday put pressure on President Obama to confirm his whereabouts during the night of the Benghazi attack, after an ex-White House spokesman revived the debate by telling Fox News he was not in the Situation Room.

The detail about the president’s location the night of the attack is just one of many revelations that have, in a matter of days, kicked up the controversy to a level not seen since last year. After new emails were released raising questions about the White House response to the attack, a key panel on Friday subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry and House Speaker John Boehner announced a special investigative committee.

On Friday afternoon, three GOP senators wrote a letter to Obama asking about his whereabouts and spokesman Tommy Vietor’s comments to Fox News.

“Last night, the former Communications Director for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, stated that on the afternoon and night of September 11, 2012 — while the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was under attack — that you never visited the White House Situation Room to monitor events,” they wrote.

Claiming that Americans still do not have an “accounting of your activities during the attack,” the senators asked him to confirm Vietor’s account. The letter was signed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

Read more from this story HERE.