Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks. | AP Photo
AP Photo

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

1/3/15 7:42 PM EST

Updated 1/3/15 8:39 PM EST

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday night that he would be ending his Fox News talk show to gauge support for a possible presidential campaign.

“There has been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would run for President,” Huckabee told his followers on Facebook. “I won’t make a decision about running until late in the spring of 2015, but the continued chatter has put Fox News into a position that is not fair to them.”

Story Continued Below

“I feel compelled to ascertain if the support exists strongly enough for another Presidential run. So as we say in television, stay tuned!” he added.

Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and hosted his show for more than six and a half years, had drawn renewed attention by criticizing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton last month after she said “smart power” also means empathizing and showing respect for enemies.

“How can we empathize with terrorists who think nothing of beheading innocent men, women and children?” Huckabee asked in a blog post on his website last month.

The 2016 race is already well underway online.

Even before Huckabee had made his announcement, Rand Paul’s PAC was firing away on the digital front. Just as the Kentucky Republican’s political arm had done when Jeb Bush signaled last month he was weighing a White House campaign, Paul’s team bought prime real estate for any Google searches using the terms “Huckabee record”, “Huckabee announcement”, “Huckabee taxes” and “Huckabee common core.”

“Less Taxes Not More,” read one ad for RandPAC. “We need leaders who will cut taxes not raise them. Join us.”

RandPAC also targeted users tweeting about Huckabee or his announcement with ads.

Huckabee’s leadership PAC, Huck PAC, took in $2.2 million in the 2014 cycle, spending approximately $2 million, with about $500,000 on hand. Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee, also runs a super PAC called American Principles Fund. In the 2014 cycle, it raised $1.4 million, spent $1.3 million and had $60,000 on hand.

Huckabee came in a distant second to John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries. The former pastor turned Arkansas governor started strong, winning the Iowa GOP caucus by 9 percentage points over Mitt Romney.

Three-in-five Iowa caucusgoers in 2008 were evangelical or born-again Christians, but, a week later in New Hampshire, fewer than 25 percent of GOP primary voters were evangelicals. Huckabee finished third in the Granite State, with only 11 percent of the vote.

He then captured his home state of Arkansas, along with Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia. Despite these victories, McCain secured the necessary number of delegates by early March with a clean sweep of contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.

Even though Huckabee faded quickly in 2008, his win in the Iowa caucuses left a big mark on the electorate that votes in that contest, which is a more conservative and more evangelical group than even other segments of the GOP primary electorate elsewhere.

But his slow strip toward ultimately saying he wouldn’t run in 2012 has left many skeptical of his intentions for 2016. The former Arkansas governor appears to have profited financially from being in the national spotlight — raking in money from paid speeches, for instance, and making expansive use of chartered planes — and many believe he’s unlikely to leave aside a life of relative comfort for a long-shot campaign.

Sources say Huckabee still has paid speeches scheduled in the coming weeks. Huckabee also has a book coming out later this month, titled “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” and speculation about a presidential run could add to the hype as he promotes the book.

Any number of politicians have been paid contributors to Fox News, but the cable channel’s policy requires it to sever those ties if that person takes certain steps toward running for office. At times, it has ended the agreements even before the would-be candidate makes a final decision on whether to run.

Huckabee wrote on his Facebook page earlier that the announcement Saturday night would “make news for sure.”

It’s not the first time he has made an important decision public on his show, which debuted in September 2008. In May 2011, Huckabee teased a similar announcement ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” he told viewers.


NSA disguised itself as Google to spy, say reports

NSA disguised itself as Google to spy, say reports

If a recently leaked document is any indication, the US National Security Agency — or its UK counterpart — appears to have put on a Google suit to gather intelligence.

Edward Moyer

September 12, 2013 2:19 PM PDT

The flag of the NSA.

Here’s one of the latest tidbits on the NSA surveillance scandal (which seems to be generating nearly as many blog items as there are phone numbers in the spy agency’s data banks).

Earlier this week, Techdirt picked up on a passing mention in a Brazilian news story and a Slate article to point out that the US National Security Agency had apparently impersonated Google on at least one occasion to gather data on people. (Mother Jones subsequently pointed outTechdirt’s point-out.)

Brazilian site Fantastico obtained and published a document leaked by Edward Snowden, which diagrams how a “man in the middle attack” involving Google was apparently carried out.

A technique commonly used by hackers, a MITM attack involves using a fake security certificate to pose as a legitimate Web service, bypass browser security settings, and then intercept data that an unsuspecting person is sending to that service. Hackers could, for example, pose as a banking Web site and steal passwords.

The article by Brazil’s Fantastico mentions a hitherto unknown GCHQ spy program called “Flying Pig.” This prompted a Twitter quip from Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kurt Opsahl: “PRISM, Flying Pig. Someone in the surveillance state has a thing for Pink Floyd album covers.”(Credit: Pig: Musiclipse.com; prism: Harvest, Capitol.)

The technique is particularly sly because the hackers then use the password to log in to the real banking site and then serve as a “man in the middle,” receiving requests from the banking customer, passing them on to the bank site, and then returning requested info to the customer — all the while collecting data for themselves, with neither the customer nor the bank realizing what’s happening. Such attacks can be used against e-mail providers too.

It’s not clear if the supposed attack in the Fantastico document was handled by the NSA or by its UK counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article by the Brazilian news agency says, “In this case, data is rerouted to the NSA central, and then relayed to its destination, without either end noticing.”

“There have been rumors of the NSA and others using those kinds of MITM attacks,” Mike Masnick writes on Techdirt, “but to have it confirmed that they’re doing them against the likes of Google… is a big deal — and something I would imagine does not make [Google] particularly happy.”

Google provided a short statement to Mother Jones reporter Josh Harkinson in response to his questions on the matter: “As for recent reports that the US government has found ways to circumvent our security systems, we have no evidence of any such thing ever occurring. We provide our user data to governments only in accordance with the law.” (The company is also trying to win the right toprovide more transparency regarding government requests for data on Google users.)

CNET got a “no comment” from the NSA in response to our request for more information.

As TechDirt suggests, an MITM attack on the part of the NSA or GCHQ would hardly be a complete shock. The New York Times reported last week that the NSA has sidestepped common Net encryption methods in a number of ways, including hacking into the servers of private companies to steal encryption keys, collaborating with tech companies to build in back doors, and covertly introducing weaknesses into encryption standards.

It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to obtain a fake security certificate to foil the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) cryptographic protocol that’s designed to verify the authenticity of Web sites and ensure secure Net communications.

Indeed, such attacks have been aimed at Google before, including in 2011, when a hacker broke into the systems of DigiNotar — a Dutch company that issued Web security certificates — and created more than 500 SSL certificates used to authenticate Web sites.

In any case, the purported NSA/GCHG impersonation of Google inspired a rather clever graphic by Mother Jones, one that might even impress the rather clever Doodlers at Google:




Republican leaders in Washington, including SpeakerJohn Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Senators McCain (R-AZ)Graham (R-SC), and Corker (R-TN), are supporting President Obama’s call for an American attack on Syria, but Tea Party groups around the country are united in their opposition to such military action.

Tea Party activists appear to be virtually unanimous in their support for the position taken by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said on Tuesday the United States “should not serve as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force.”

Lynn Moss, co-organizer of the Mid-South Tea Party in Memphis, Tennessee, expressed a view held by many Tea Party activists around the country. Moss told Breitbart News on Thursday, “both sides of the conflict in Syria are enemies of the United States. It would be foolish,” she said, “and self-defeating to involve ourselves in this already volatile situation.”

Joanne Jones, vice chairman of the Charleston Tea Party in South Carolina, told Breitbart News Thursday that “conservatives of many stripes are opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria. Particularly in light of today’s account of al Qaeda-linked rebels murdering residents of a Christian village, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince us that the United States would indeed be helping the ‘right’ rebels.”

Bobby Alexander, chairman of the Central Kentucky Tea Party Patriots, told Mother Jones, “[c]onservatives in Kentucky do not want us involved in Syria.” John Kemper of the United Kentucky Tea Party added, “[t]he things I’m seeing and emails I’m getting from folks around the state, they’re not in favor of [an American attack on Syria.]”

Mark Kevin Lloyd, a Tea Party activist in Virginia, told Breitbart News that “the Obama administration and some in the Republican leadership seems overly concerned about the president’s credibility in the eyes of the world. Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner need to understand they each have the same credibility problems in the eyes of the American people.

“How can the president be so sure of the situation in Syria, and so clueless about Benghazi? Too many questions, not nearly enough answers.”

Bruce Carroll, chairman of Carolina Conservatives United, told Breitbart News, “we share the humanitarian concern for the Syrian people who have been killed and injured by conventional weapons and chemical weapons and the millions of refugees that are suffering due to that nation’s two-year civil war.

For Carroll, though, such concerns do not justify American intervention. “We strongly believe the situation in Syria will not improve, and could well deteriorate, due to American military involvement,” he said. “Additionally, we do not believe President Obama has adequately made the case that any national security interests are at stake, a minimum requirement for military actions abroad.”

Mark West, founder of the Chattanooga Tea Party in Tennessee told Breitbart News Thursday: “while Americans have come to expect flawed and disastrous foreign policy decisions from the Obama administration, what is alarming is the foolish part that Republicans are playing in embracing and facilitating Obama’s latest plan to attack Syria.”

According to West, “what should be painfully obvious to any alert American is that Obama’s plan (and now his Republican allies’) to launch “limited” attacks into a highly volatile war zone has the strong likelihood of escalating into a broader and protracted war. And if this occurs, Tennesseans will remember the fateful role that Senator Corker and other Republicans played in endorsing another one of Obama’s helter-skelter foreign policy initiatives.”

Though President Obama maintains he does not need Congressional authorization to conduct military action against Syria, he has nonetheless agreed to ask for Congressional support, without promising that he will be bound by votes taken in the House and Senate on the issue. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 to support President Obama’s call for an American air strike on Syria. Votes in the full Senate as well as in the House are expected to take place soon.

With those important votes looming, members of the Senate and the House are hearing from their constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose such action, according to recent polls. The virtually unanimous sentiment of Tea Party activists appears to be leading public opinion throughout the country in its opposition to American military attacks on Syria.




Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by BEN SHAPIRO 3 Sep 2013, 7:00 AM PDT 1248POST A COMMENT

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade was Islamaphobic because he said that Syrian opposition groups shouting “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!” as rockets hit government offices demonstrated Islamist influence among the opposition.

“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New

The image John Kerry WON’T want you to see: U.S. Secretary of State pictured dining with Assad and his wife at Damascus restaurant before war broke out in Syria

The image John Kerry WON’T want you to see: U.S. Secretary of State pictured dining with Assad and his wife at Damascus restaurant before war broke out in Syria

  • Kerry pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009
  • Assad and Kerry lean in towards each other, deep in conversation
  • Picture taken in February 2009 when Kerry led a delegation to Syria
  • Kerry yesterday compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein


PUBLISHED: 07:53 EST, 2 September 2013 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 2 September 2013

This astonishing photograph shows U.S Secretary of State John Kerry having a cosy and intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Kerry – who compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein yesterday – is pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009.

Assad and Kerry – who was then a senator for Massachusetts – lean in towards each other and appear deep in conversation as their wives look on.

A waiter is pictured at their side with a tray of green drinks – which are believed to be lemon and crushed mint.

Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009
Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009Relaxed: A waiter carries over a tray of drinks, which appear to look like cocktails

The picture is believed to have been taken in February 2009 in the Naranj restaurant in Damascus when Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss ideas and talk about the way forward for peace in the region.

Despite President Barack Obama taking a step back from his threat to launch an attack by putting  a vote in Congress, his Secretary of State has been outspoken about the dangers posed by the Syrian regime.

He said that Assad ‘has now joined the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein’ in deploying chemical weapons against his population.

He said on Sunday that the U.S. now has evidence that sarin nerve gas was used in Syria and that ‘the case gets stronger by the day’ for a military attack.

Speaking out: US Secretary of State John Kerry last week said the U.S. knows 'with high confidence' the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in an attack last weekSpeaking out: US Secretary of State John Kerry last week said the U.S. knows ‘with high confidence’ the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in an attack

Couple: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is pictured with his British-born wife Asma AssadCouple: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is pictured with his British-born wife Asma Assad
Under pressure: Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, is pictured in a meeting yesterday. Kerry has described him as a ¿thug and murderer¿ Under pressure: Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, is pictured in a meeting yesterday. Kerry has described him as a ‘thug and murderer’During a passionate speech in Washington last Friday, he also called Assad  a ‘thug and murderer’ and urged the world to act as he warned ‘history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’.The U.S. administration put the Syrian chemical weapons death toll on the outskirts of Damascus at 1,429 people – far more than previous estimates – including more than 400 children.


The head of the U.N. refugee agency in Syria says seven  million Syrians, or almost one-third of the population, have been displaced by the country’s civil war.

Tarik Kurdi said that five million of the displaced are still in Syria while about 2 million have fled to neighboring countries.

He says two million children are among those directly affected by the war.

Kurdi says U.N. assistance has been a ‘drop in the sea of humanitarian need’ and that the funding gap is ‘very, very wide.’ He says international donors have sent less than one-third of the money needed to help those displaced by the war.

More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed since an uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad erupted in 2011.

Kerry has  said he is confident that Congress will give Obama its backing for an attack against Syria, but the former Massachusetts senator also said the president has authority to act on his own if Congress doesn’t give its approval.

Speaking today, Senator John McCain said President Bashar Assad will be ‘euphoric’ about Obama’s decision to wait for Congress over Syria.

One of the loudest critics of the administration’s handling of Syria, McCain criticised Obama in an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Referring to Obama’s famous remark when he said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a red line, McCain said: ‘He didn’t say, “It’s a red line – and by the way I’m going to have to seek the approval of Congress.”

He said it was a red line, and that the United States of America would act.

‘And that’s a big difference, and that’s one of the reasons why this is so problematic.’

The Arizona Republican, who Obama beat for the presidency in 2008, said the President asked him to come to the White House specifically to discuss Syria.
Hundreds died in the alleged chemical attacks on Wednesday, including many women and children

Horrific: Hundreds died in the alleged chemical attacks, including many women and children

Awful: Secretary of State John Kerry said images like these contributed to the U.S. assessment that chemical weapons were used in Syria

Obama is hoping one of Congress’s most intractable foreign policy hawks will help sell the idea of a U.S. military intervention in Syria to a nation deeply scarred by more than a decade of war.

Having announced over the weekend that he will seek congressional approval for military strikes against the Assad regime, the Obama administration is now trying to rally support among Americans and their congressmen and senators.

Today’s meeting with McCain is meant to address concerns of those who feel Obama isn’t doing enough to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government for the chemical weapons attack.

On the other side of the spectrum, some Republican and Democratic lawmakers don’t want to see military action at all.

Obama’s turnabout on Syria sets the stage for the biggest foreign policy vote in Congress since the Iraq war.

Tension:Tension: President Bashar Assad will be ‘euphoric’ about Obama’s decision to wait for Congress over Syria, according to Sen. John McCain
Firm:Firm: Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said evidence of alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime presented to Moscow by the U.S. and its allies is ‘absolutely unconvincing’

Meanwhile Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says the information the U.S. showed Moscow trying to prove that the Syrian regime was behind an alleged chemical weapons attack is ‘absolutely unconvincing.’

Lavrov said today ‘there was nothing specific’ in the evidence presented by Washington: ‘no geographic coordinates, no names, no proof that the tests were carried out by the professionals.’ He did not say what tests he was referring to.

Lavrov say U.S. officials said they cannot share with them all the evidence because some of it is classified.

He did not describe the tests further.

Crisis talks: President Obama and Vice-President Biden meet with Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice to discuss Syria on SundayCrisis talks: President Obama and Vice-President Biden meet with Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice to discuss Syria on Sunday
Debate: The President meets national security advisers to discuss possible military actionDebate: The President meets national security advisers to discuss possible military action

Lavrov brushed aside Western evidence of an alleged Syrian regime role. Russia, along with China and Iran, has staunchly backed Assad throughout the conflict.

‘What our American, British and French partners showed us in the past and have showed just recently is absolutely unconvincing,’ Lavrov said at Russia’s top diplomatic school.

‘And when you ask for more detailed proof they say all of this is classified so we cannot show this to you.’

U.N. chemical inspectors toured the stricken areas last week, collecting biological and soil samples, but it is not clear when the will present their findings.

The Syria conflict erupted in March 2011 as an uprising against Assad that quickly transformed into a civil war.

More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the conflict.

Kerry describing Syria’s Assad as a thug and murderer

John McCain, Undecided 2016 VoterAn exclusive interview on Fox News, Tea Party nihilism, and Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul in 2016



John McCain, Undecided 2016 VoterAn exclusive interview on Fox News, Tea Party nihilism, and Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul in 2016


It has been difficult to follow politics over the past several months without sensing the presence of a new John McCain. (Again.) He was a crucial player in the passage ofimmigration reform through the Senate, he has helped Democrats carve out a dealallowing several of President Obama’s appointments to win confirmation, and he has even teamed up with Elizabeth Warren on a bill to regulate the banking industry. The politician who could once barely hide his disdain for the president has suddenly become one of his most valuable partners in Congress. (This makeover hasn’t extended to foreign policy, where he remains an outspoken hawk.)

McCain himself scorns theories into the psychology behind his ideological lurches, but they are invariably attributed to his voluble temper. It was widely assumed that his resentment of George W. Bush prompted him to work more closely with Democrats after 2000. After losing to Barack Obama in 2008, he cast his bipartisan persona aside and became one of the administration’s fiercest critics. By the 2010 midterms, he wasadvocating for “a dang fence” on the Mexican border and crusading against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Lately, his irritation has shifted to Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who have helped bring his beloved Senate to a near halt and whom McCain has dismissed as “wacko birds.”

During the course of our conversation in his Senate office, McCain spoke about decades-old skirmishes with real intensity, as if they were still fresh in his mind. We met on the day that Al Qaeda claimed credit for freeing possibly as many as 500 inmates from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and as we sat down to talk, McCain was waving around a printout of a news article about the breakout.

John McCain: What happened to your wrist?1

Isaac Chotiner: I hurt it playing basketball.

JM: Well, you gotta be careful. This thing that happened, in Abu Ghraib, where they freed all these terrorists. Most of those guys will end up in Syria.

IC: Is the Syrian war making the situation in Iraq worse?

JM: Oh yeah. But the fundamental mistake was when we did not keep a residual force behind in Iraq. The president basically campaigned saying that he’d get us out of Iraq, and I am very respectful of that position, but all along we knew that we had to leave a residual force behind for a number of missions.

IC: Do you see a situation where we would send troops back to Iraq?

JM: I don’t see how you do that. I just don’t. I think it’s too late. The whole tragedy of this is four thousand brave Americans [died], and I don’t know how many thousands lost limbs, and it’s all for nothing. And we had it won.

IC: You say you don’t blame the president for his campaign position, but if you feel like—

JM: I respect his position, but I heartily disagree with it. He was fulfilling his campaign promise—I don’t know how we got off on this.

IC: You were reading the article.

JM: That was it.

IC: We can go back to my basketball injuries.

Bloomberg via Getty Images
Hillary Clinton has “maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world,” says McCain.

JM: [laughs]

IC: You have called for a cut in military aid to Egypt.

JM: Here’s the conundrum: A law was written—whether it was a good law or a bad law—that specifically states a coup would require a cutoff or suspension of aid. Now, I am asking the Egyptians to abide by the law, and I am asking them to set up a constitution and a freely elected government, and the first thing I would do is say, Never mind our law? But our statement laid out very clearly that aid can be restored with a constitution, a free election, and inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was a tough call. So, I have had a relationship with their military for years. I met this guy [the new leader Abdel Fattah] el-Sisi, and as soon as I met him, I said, This guy is not his predecessor. And everyone said, Oh no, he’s [Mohamed] Morsi’s guy, and I said, Not this guy, he’s his own guy.

IC: Morsi may have thought he was Morsi’s guy.

JM: I was just about to say that. Created a monster [laughs].

IC: How do you think your old friends Chuck Hagel and John Kerry are doing?

JM: I hear good reports from friends in the military that Hagel is respectful. I think he is doing OK. And John Kerry I think is working extremely hard, frenetic. I met with him yesterday morning. But I am a little worried about whether John is trying to take on too many issues at once, and I think that is a shared concern amongst many of his friends. And I have expressed that to him. But I don’t think there is any doubt that, if you look at the world five years ago and today, we live in a far, far more dangerous world. There is a lack of American leadership. I hear that every place I go in the Middle East. This massacre in Syria is one of the most shameful chapters in American history. I have not been more worried about the world as we see it—ever. This is the greatest seismic event in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And we are bystanders.

IC: Given that you think things are out of control, what do you make of Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state?

JM: I think she did a fine job. She’s a rock star. She has, maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world. I do think it is interesting that the issues where John Kerry is engaging is where Hillary Clinton did not engage in, that those decisions were left to the White House and the National Security Council.

IC: I want to switch gears and talk about the Senate. Obviously you—

JM: Can we just talk a little about what happened at the hearing [on Syria]?2 Dempsey was asked a question by Carl Levin, which we ask of all nominees, “If asked for your personal views by this committee, will you give your personal views even if they are contradictory to administration policy?” No sooner does he say that than I asked if Syria was better or worse off by the fact that the U.S. has not been involved. He said he wouldn’t answer. He would talk to the president, blah-blah-blah. He had just said he’d give his personal view! It got really testy. And he didn’t answer. I went to see Carl Levin, and asked if we could send a letter with these questions. And we got the answers yesterday. In all the years I have been associated with the military, I have never read anything as bizarre as those answers. Basically, Dempsey said we would have to declare World War III in order to help the Syrians. One phrase was “hundreds and hundreds of planes and tanks and thousands of troops.” This affirms everything bad I have seen about military leadership in my time. It’s the worst I have ever seen.

IC: Don’t you think Iraq has colored the discussion about all these things?

JM: I know it has. I know it has. But I am also totally convinced that the option of doing nothing is the worst option. And I am also convinced that, unless we do something that changes the equation, the situation, there will be a stalemate.

IC: I want to talk about the Senate. It seems to me that the GOP leadership has been frozen by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

JM: I am not sure if it has been frozen, but certainly there is an element in the party that has been there prior to [World War II], the isolationist, America-Firsters. Prior to World War I, it was Western senators, and then Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, and then Taft versus Eisenhower. Even Reagan—Reagan’s presidency was perfect without ever a problem [said sarcastically]—there was an isolationist wing that fought against Reagan. And now the bad economy has exacerbated what has always been out there.

IC: Do you think this wing has changed the comity in the Senate? There were the attacks on Hagel. Do these things concern you?

JM: Oh yeah. It’s of concern. But it’s important for me to be respectful. After I called them wacko birds, I apologized. I try and be respectful but also go out there and debate them every chance I get. Small example: For four years, Harry Reid—and I beat him up regularly—wouldn’t bring a budget to the Senate. This year, we brought one, stayed up all night. We were so proud, we passed a budget resolution—most of it nonsense—but guess what? Now we have the same group3 who are blocking going to conference. The same group sometimes doesn’t want to take up a bill and at other times blocks a bill because they can’t get all the amendments they want.

IC: The GOP leadership—Mitch McConnell, Minority Whip John Cornyn—is from the same states as Cruz and Paul. Is that a particular problem?

JM: Sure, yeah.

IC: When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?

JM: It’s gonna be a tough choice [laughs].

IC: So—

JM: Let me just clarify that. I think that Rand Paul represents a segment of the GOP, just like his father. And I think he is trying to expand that, intelligently, to make it larger.

IC: Were you surprised that the GOP allowed sequestration?

JM: I think the way it was sold, that the Sword of Damocles would never fall, was a contradiction. You should never point a gun unless you were going to pull the trigger. The leadership said this would never happen. It is the worst vote I have cast in many years.

IC: Do you think Obama has grown in office since 2009?

JM: Oh yeah. No doubt.

IC: How so?

JM: He had just won a huge victory in 2009, had overwhelming majorities, he could pass whatever he wanted. That breeds a certain degree of confidence, if not—the word isn’t cocky, it isn’t arrogant—a certain self-assuredness that you don’t have to deal with the minority. I think the big mistake was doing Obamacare when he should have addressed the debt. He had the votes to do it then. That is for historians to decide. He was confident and had reason to be. Here is a young man who, six or seven years before, was a state legislator and had lost a primary for a House seat. I think he has grown to appreciate bipartisanship. He is looking at his legacy. I know that for a fact and it is entirely appropriate. One is, close Guantánamo. It is an unfulfilled commitment. Outreach to me and Lindsey. So yeah, I think he has learned a lot.

IC: Part of that legacy is immigration. Are you feeling frustrated with the way Marco Rubio has not been putting a lot of pressure on House Republicans?4

JM: I expressed a little frustration. But Marco Rubio has played a tremendously important role, he is very articulate, and he has been going out there on the talk shows. He has a bright future in the party. He is a valuable candidate for president. Some people say this will set him back, but remember, I got the nomination of the party after failing on immigration in 2007. Yes, he is new to the Senate, and yes, sometimes I would have liked for Marco to say, Hey John, I am going to say X, but that is minor stuff.

IC: So you don’t put him in the Mike Lee/Rand Paul/Ted Cruz category?

JM: Oh no. I do not. Not in any way.

IC: You have had conversations with people at Fox, The New Yorker reported, about immigration. There is a real divide in the party. What do Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch say about whether the party can come along on this issue?

JM: It is well known that Rupert Murdoch is a strong supporter of immigration reform. Roger Ailes is also a realist. He believes that immigration reform is vital to the country first, but also the GOP. Yet he does not dictate. [Sean] Hannity has come out against it and kept his job. I don’t think Roger Ailes is ham-fisted.

IC: But if you watch Fox, there are all these segments on immigrants and crime and so on, and people get riled up, and then they want reform. It’s a difficult dynamic in the party.

JM: I think that Fox News is a bit schizophrenic. I saw a guy on “Hannity,” maybe “Huckabee,” and the guy said, “You know, the Chinese are coming across our border, and they are going to commit cyber attacks.”

IC: They have to cross the border to do that?

JM: Honest to God! “They are going to commit cyber attacks.”

IC: I am sure you hate psychological questions, but people say you are driven by anger: that you were angry about Bush, so you worked with Democrats; and then you were angry with Obama, and so you swung right. And now there’s Ted Cruz and the rest, and you are working with Democrats again.

JM: If you use the word anger, then obviously it is a very detrimental trait. If you use the word passion, that is a valuable thing to have. Losing to George W. Bush didn’t change my behavior. I thought as a fiscal conservative it was wrong to have tax cuts that we didn’t pay for, to have a secretary of defense who was the steward of a failing strategy in Iraq. And so it wasn’t anger, but when I go to Walter Reed and see men with no legs, and have my own sons serving in the military, I feel passionate. If I didn’t feel passionate, I shouldn’t be in the business I am in.

Have I stepped on some toes? Yes. Have I angered some people that I probably could have avoided? I think so. But I would challenge you to talk—with rare exceptions—to my colleagues, and they would say I treat them with respect. It’s maybe interesting that, whenever there is a major issue to be addressed, somehow I am in the mix. You don’t get in the mix unless you have the respect of your colleagues. Maybe you can name me a major issue that has come up that I haven’t been in the mix about.

IC: [starts to talk]

JM: And that’s what I’m here for.

IC: I wanted to ask—

JM: Wait—I was never angry and bitter at George W. Bush. We reconciled and I campaigned for him. That’s just simply false. Now, you could argue about Obama—“the angry old man”—but the fact is, the first issue that came up in 2009 was Obamacare, and yes, I fought ferociously to stop it, but I am not embarrassed about it. I am proud of it, because I think it’s obvious Obamacare is becoming a failure.

IC: So are you saying you were more upset after 2008 than 2000?

JM: No. Look, the speech I gave on election night, I meant it.5 I wouldn’t have given it if I didn’t mean it. He won fair and square, and it was my job to work with him. In 2009, I was invited over to the White House, and I was maybe the only Republican there. They said they would get in touch with me [about immigration reform]. I never heard another word. Later, Obama had me over to the White House and said, “There’s [then–Chief of Staff] Bill Daley. We are gonna work with Senator McCain, blah-blah-blah.” I even called Bill Daley up, but never a word. Now, that has changed dramatically in the last six or eight months between me and the president.

IC: You also fought with Obama about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. You said people would have blood on their hands—

JM: On DADT, I asked for a study to assess the impact on military readiness. The commandant of the Marine Corps said he didn’t know the effects and he was opposed. So I said, “Let’s do a study.” My opposition was based on the fact that I wanted to know about readiness.

IC: OK, but has our readiness suffered over the past couple years?

JM: I think it has worked out. There are a number of issues that remain unresolved—who’s eligible for base housing, do we require the same physical standards to be a Navy SEAL for women as men? And obviously with this issue of sexual assaults, there are still some lingering issues, to say the least. Because a good portion of these aren’t necessarily men on women.

IC: Your wife said she hopes you change your position on gay marriage.

JM: Not to mention my daughter.

IC: When Justice [Anthony] Kennedy’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and allowing gay marriage in California was announced, what was your emotional reaction?

JM: I think it is our society evolving. It would be foolish not to observe that. But I think I am still entitled to my opinions and views and ideas.

IC: It seems like you want to keep your position—

JM: It’s not a position. It’s a fundamental belief.

IC: OK, your belief. But it seems like you are almost taking pride that our society is evolving.

JM: I just think it’s an obvious fact. It is neither pride nor condemning.

IC: What do you think your legacy is right now?

JM: One of them, McCain-Feingold,6 has obviously failed, because the Supreme Court, in its omniscience, has overturned it.

IC: How worried are you about the current campaign-funding environment?

JM: Oh, very. Just as we predicted. I can assure you, one hundred percent, that there will be scandals.

IC: This has been a long cause of friction between you and Mitch McConnell, I suppose. Something you will never see eye to eye on.

JM: No. We have agreed to disagree.

IC: So you aren’t going to go campaign for his opponent in Kentucky?

JM: [smiles] I can’t pretend to describe my own legacy. I have known people and done things that in my wildest dreams I never would have expected. I have had the best ride. That’s why I am sometimes puzzled by, McCain is angry and bitter. I am angry at injustice, but as long as that anger is channeled in the right way, it encourages me to be more involved, more effective, to know the issues as much as I possibly can. But when you say “angry” …

IC: I was quoting other people.

JM: OK, but when I see this London Whale thing,7 I get angry. People’s deposits are being used to waste six billion dollars. Maybe it’s the populist in me. I find these things—the word isn’t anger. It’s a sense that I need to do what I can.

IC: So it seems like you are saying you are happy, or lucky.

JM: Am I happy? I’d like to be president of the United States.

IC: You did get to be in Wedding Crashers.8

JM: That’s right. I’m happy in what I have been able to accomplish, but it’s not so much happy as fortunate. I was on an aircraft carrier that [one hundred thirty-four] soldiers died on. I am not angry or bitter. I am very happy.

IC: Does it bother you when people say choosing Sarah Palin is your legacy?

JM: No, because I think historians will decide that facts are stubborn things. We were four points down when I chose her and three points up afterwards. She held her own and, some people said, won a debate with the vice president. She did everything I ever wanted. She excited our base in a way I was unable to achieve. And then I watched the shredding and destruction to destroy a good and decent person by the liberal media, beginning with Katie Couric. Not only do I not regret it, but I have probably not seen anyone in American life savaged like she was, particularly by the liberal left.

IC: Do you draw any connection between her outlook and the group of congressional Republicans, Tea Partiers, that you have had trouble with?

JM: No, because I think she had a positive message. A message that we would have less government, lower taxes, less regulation. Many in this group didn’t come to power to get things done. They came to power to keep things from getting done.

IC: But she also accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” It wasn’t entirely positive.

JM: Well, if she attacked Obama and Biden, that is fairly standard.

IC: “Palling around with terrorists”?

JM: With all due respect, you never heard about when John Lewis said my campaign was worse than the Birmingham church bombing?9 That may have escaped your attention.

IC: It did. I agree, that is bad.

JM: OK, well, that is what he did, when they orchestrated this “racism” effort against me. Maybe Sarah Palin said “palling around with terrorists,” but the things that were said about me and her were far worse. I’ll never forgive John Lewis.

IC: Did you ever talk to Lewis?

JM: No. I would be glad to show you the press release. But we selectively take something Palin said, and the vice president’s job is to attack, and how many people know about John Lewis? I can show you many other comments. For me to complain about it is a waste of time.

IC: Who do you think is the best senator today?

JM: I loved Bob Dole. He was so good to me when I came to the Senate. On Bosnia, he took the right side of the debate even though it hurt him with the right wing of our party, and he gave a speech on intervention in Bosnia. He happened to mention my support and said, “I wore a bracelet with Senator McCain’s name on it during the entire Vietnam war.” He never told me that. I went over and asked, and he said, “Yeah, yeah.” I thought the world of him.

IC: What about current senators?

JM: Lindsey Graham is like a son to me.

IC: Is he that young?

JM: In his fifties. Kelly Ayotte, I am very close to. Chuck Schumer. Carl Levin and I are as close as two people can be. But I also understand how transient this is. Once you are gone, you’re gone.

The State Controlled News Media

This is a cover up that is far greater than Watergate.  The President of the United States refused 3 times to send help to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans including Navy Seals.  He literally sent them to their death rather than face the potential scandal of a failed rescue mission.

Most damning is the hideous WHY of his actions.  He did it because he wants to be reelected.   With all of my heart and all of my strength I am going to continue to speak out about this disgusting scandal until the day of the election.

President Obama, you are lying when you say that there is an ongoing investigation.   After you ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden, you could not wait to reveal the details of the mission.  You even released classified information that no responsible Commander in Chief would have released.  You leaked the identity of our informant, the very man who found Osama’s hideout, to the Pakistani government and sent him to prison.

How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

How can you say you need more time before telling us the truth?  You were watching the attack on a live feed from the situation room even as it was happening.  The attack went on for 7 hours.  We now know that you were made aware of the attack at 4PM on September 11th.    The attack continued until almost 11PM that night! How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

Your next two actions boggle the mind.  With 4 Americans dead and our embassy invaded you went to bed and then left for Las Vegas to a fundraiser.   For the next several weeks you ordered your administration to lie to the American public and blame the attack on a video instead of Al Qaeda.

STATE CONTROLLED NEWS MEDIA: In the face of such evil you would expect the same media that investigated Watergate to do even more with a scandal that is far and away a much graver misuse of power.   ABC, NBC, CBS, we look to you to tell us the truth instead; you are a firewall for the President in a way that would make Stalin and Mao envious.  

My friend we now have before us the most chilling reality that any Democracy can face.   We now have state controlled News Media.   In full lockstep with the President, they dispense talking points from the White House.   Now we know just how far they will go to reelect Obama…even to extreme of refusing to see the evil, hear the evil, or speak out of the evil of state sponsored murder and cover up.  

Why is this man still smiling? He has been caught lying at every turn.

Why is this man still smiling?   He has been caught lying at every turn.  He was completely destroyed by Romney in the debate.  He has failed at everything and I mean everything.  What he has done to healthcare is disastrous.  He promised an Arab Spring what he gave us is a nuclear winter of global Islamic jihad.   So why is he still smiling?

But wait!  Now  we have news of his most breathtaking irresponsibility.   He low balled his estimate for the deficit this year by half a trillion dollars!  To underscore how astounding this is the Washington Times said: 

“In May 2009, President Obama released his updated budget estimates, which projected that the federal deficit for fiscal year 2012 would be $557 billion. The Congressional Budget Office now says that the deficit for fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30) was about $1.1 trillion — or about twice what Obama said it would be. In other words, Obama’s estimate was off by more than half a trillion dollars.

To put this colossal error into perspective, at the time that Obama was elected, the United States had never once had a deficit as large as Obama’s error would prove to be. Our largest deficit as of November 4, 2008 (the day that Obama beat John McCain) had been $459 billion. Since 2008, we’ve now run up more than $1 trillion in deficit spending for four consecutive years, totaling more than $5 trillion.”

How can anyone bungle the economy that bad?  No one can point to a single benefit from his presidency.  Everyone will feel the damage of his arrogance for years to come.  Yet, there he is undeterred and unmoved.  Why?  Because he believes he is going to win no matter what he says or does.

He knows that he owns the vilest political confederacy ever inflicted on the United States.  His confederacy includes, corrupt unions, a compliant news media, Islamic leaders, foreign money and the most dangerous gang of all:  Americans addicted to government handouts.

 There are good signs however.   The debate broke the hedge around Obama.   According to John Nolte, “In 2008, President Barack Obama won the independent vote over John McCain by a margin of eight points, 52-44. This morning, a new Battleground Poll has Mitt Romney massacring Obama among indies by a whopping 16 points, 51-35.

Then he shows us the how the lap dog can media can still spin this in Obama’s favor. Polls:  “That’s a 24-point swing among independents since 2008, a group that makes up anywhere from a quarter to a third of voters, and yet Battleground still has Obama in the lead 49-48…?

But if I’m skeptical of those bottom-line numbers, our journalist overlords who have chosen to palace guard instead of question will declare me a “truther.”  The Battleground Poll also shows an 13 point enthusiasm gap in Romney’s favor. Only 73% of Obama’s supporters are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 86% of Romney’s supporters.

Obama owns the vilest political confederacy ever inflicted on the United States.  His confederacy includes, corrupt unions, a compliant news media, Hollywood, Islamic leaders, foreign money and the most dangerous gang of all:  Americans addicted to government handouts.

I am as giddy as you that Obama was finally exposed before 67 million people for the incompetent leader he is but we still need a miracle.   Our nation is not facing a takeover; she was taken over 4 years ago.  We are fighting to get our freedom back. This election can be stolen and manipulated.

It will take the most intense effort ever.  Let every preacher understand that your silence and inaction at this crucial time will be remembered.   Under normal circumstances we should not be political, but these are not normal circumstances.  Obama will drive the church underground and he will turn America into a wasteland that is controlled by global powers.

What do we need to do to stop him? 

  1. Pray for the spirit of deception over the nation to be obliterated in Jesus’ name.
  2. Vote and take someone to vote with you.  Do not be afraid to challenge believers about their vote.  If they are voting for Obama ask them how that is possible.
  3. Talk to your pastor. If he is still on the fence respectfully disagree.  Remember the quote from Bonhoeffer “Silence in the face of evil is evil.  God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act.”  Tell your pastor that you and many others will back him all the way.
  4. Understand that not voting is a vote for Obama.