Ouch: Dem. Senator Calls Obama “Irrelevant”

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 5.10.17 PM

By Robert Gehl
October 23, 2014

In the battle over which Democratic politician can further distance themselves from President Obama, we have a clear winner.

Speaking with the Washington Examiner, Alaska’s Senator Mark Begich was asked if he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. He responded:

“I did, but that’s irrelevant. The president’s not relevant. He’s gone in two years.”

Being a Democrat in über-conservative Alaska’s not easy, and Republican Challenger Dan Sullivan has posed an “existential threat.”

Sullivan has attacked his opponent for his ties to Barack Obama, as most GOP challengers have. But this takes “distancing” to a whole new level.

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 5.12.04 PM

“Where I disagree with Obama is many places,” Begich said. “Obama tried to take away our F-16s in Fairbanks. I disagreed with him. He wanted to fund the rebels in Syria. I disagreed with him. He wanted to do the gun control bill. I disagreed with him.”

In Alaska, Obama’s approval rating is in the toilet. Only one-third of Alaskans approve of his performance – and Begich knows it.

“I’ve disagreed plenty with Obama, but that’s not an issue to me,” Begich said. “It’s where we are today, it’s the next six years. He’s gone in two. Whoever’s the next U.S. senator will be dealing with a new president. That’s the bottom line.”

Your Tax Dollars at Work – Helping Wounded, Murderous ISIS Fighters Get Back on the Battlefield

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 4.56.36 PM

The humanitarian aid finding its way into ISIS’ clutches is not an accident and it is not being stolen. Barack Obama is knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy and he has meant to all along as he shares similar goals and religious sympathies with the rising Caliphate. As for the UN, they are heavily controlled by Islamic extremists. Once again, you see the Obama Administration claiming to help the victims of ISIS, all the while supporting their barbarous campaign of slaughter and conquest across the globe.

From IJReview:

As the U.S. is leading the coalition against the Islamic State, an alarming report has been released about how United States humanitarian aid meant for displaced refugees is strengthening ISIS terrorists.

Aid packages containing food and medical supplies are being sent to help displaced Syrian civilians. They are funded by the U.S., Europe and the United Nations. However, not all the supplies are reaching these intended recipients.

According to the Daily Beast:

Many aid workers are uncomfortable with what’s happening. “A few months ago we delivered a mobile clinic for a USAID-funded NGO [non-government organization],” says one, who declined to be named. “A few of us debated the rights and wrongs of this. The clinic was earmarked for the treatment of civilians, but we all know that wounded ISIS fighters could easily be treated as well.”

A senior State Department official with detailed knowledge of current aid programs confirmed to The Daily Beast that U.S. government funded relief is still going into Raqqa and Deir Ez-Zor. He declined to estimate the quantity. But an aid coordinator, when asked, responded: “A lot.”

Raqqa happens to be the stronghold city of the Islamic State. However, before an aid convoy can deliver its goods to a place like Raqaa, it must pay a fee to ISIS.

You can’t claim to want to defeat ISIS as an enemy in front of Americans and then turn around and give food, weapons and medicine to those same enemies without raising more than a few eyebrows. Obama has our military bombing empty buildings, after terrorists are warned to flee… bombing in the dead of night unused oil refineries… and now giving succor to the world’s most brutal terrorist regime. Smells like treason to me.

Circular firing squad: Democrats ready to dump on Obama if they lose the Senate

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 4.47.50 PM

POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON OCTOBER 23, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

While the race for control of the U.S. Senate is not over yet, and Democrats are aggressively defending embattled incumbents as well as supporting capable candidates in traditionally Republican states like Kentucky and Georgia, the situation is looking grim for the president’s party.

While the Senate is not yet in Republican hands, Democrats are engaging in the stages of grief right before our eyes as the last remaining bulwark propping up the nearly spent Obama presidency crumbles.

The nation bore witness to Democrats’ denial when the party’s committees began spending in states like South Dakota and Georgia. Yes, these races are close, and to suggest that they are going to end up Republican victories on November 4 would be a dangerous misreading of the polls. But Democrats’ chances in South Dakota are dependent on voters turning against a former GOP governor because he is being investigated for a corruption scandal – a hope that did not bear fruit for liberals who were convinced Wisconsin’s Scott Walker’s supposedly imminent indictment would turn off Badger State voters in 2012. In Georgia, the surging and capable Michelle Nunn needs to win a majority of the popular vote on election night – an unlikely prospect in a red state in a Republican year. If that race heads to a runoff, the Republican candidate remains favored to win.

“We’re expanding the map, and the Republicans’ map is constricting,” Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted in an interview on CNN on Wednesday, even as Democratic incumbents like Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) see their once indomitable polling leads shrink.

Then, we were treated to the second stage of the Elisabeth Kübler-Ross model: Anger. That stage was best exemplified by an incoherent New York Times editorial which alleged that Democratic candidates were supposedly guilty of a betrayal of Shakespearean proportions when they turned their collective backs on Barack Obama. Intimating racism on the part of the electorates to which vulnerable red state Democrats were appealing, The Times admonished 2014’s endangered Democratic incumbents for failing to vocally support either Obama or the policies he backs. The editorial board claimed that Obama is only broadly unpopular today because his own party has not defended him strongly enough.

In this claim, The Times previewed the next grieving stage, one with which Democrats are currently struggling: Bargaining. That is manifesting itself in a deluge of comments from frustrated Senate Democratic aides who are laying preemptive blame for their party’s losses at the feet of the president.

“The ineptitude of the White House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing,” an unnamed Democratic aide told National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar.

“Folks are beginning to scapegoat and second guess, but there are plenty of reasons to do that,” Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) former aide Jim Manley told Bloomberg reporters. “President Obama doesn’t like to get his hands dirty. He seemingly floats above it all.”

Bloomberg revealed that Democrats are privately fuming over the White House’s decision to insert the president into local races where Obama’s allies are desperately trying to craft positions for themselves which distance the unpopular leader of their party.
Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 4.49.49 PM

All this finger-pointing may prove to be premature. There is plenty of campaign left to go, and Democrats may yet rebound in states where the party’s candidates are in danger. Republicans, for their part, could implode, and GOP candidates in states like Georgia and Kentucky could make a fatal mistake that overcomes the advantages Republicans enjoy in a Democratic president’s sixth year midterm election.

It seems, however, that Democrats are steeling themselves for a bitter loss. The final stage before Democrats accept the functional end of the Obama presidency is depression. If they’re not feeling it yet, America’s most realistic liberals will soon.

Just 20% of 2014 voters favor Obama

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 4.36.46 PM

BY KELLY COHEN | OCTOBER 23, 2014 | 5:03 PM

Thirty-two percent of registered voters see the midterm elections as a vote against President…
President Obama isn’t on the ballot this fall, but voters say they’ll be turning out to oppose him.

Thirty-two percent of registered voters see the midterm elections as a vote against Obama, compared to just 20 percent in favor, with the midterm elections less than two weeks away.

Forty-five percent of voters do not consider the president a factor in their ballots, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

By comparison, 30 percent of registered voters in mid-October 2010 thought of their vote as “against” Obama, with 27 percent for the then-first term president.

But it’s also a less stark number than the 2006 midterms, when 66 percent said they were voting against President George W. Bush, compared to just 45 percent in favor.

Though more voters view the Democratic Party favorably (47 percent) than they do the Republican Party (39 percent), the GOP holds the edge on dealing with major issues such as terrorism, the budget deficit, the economy and immigration.

Democrats only have the upper hand over Republicans on healthcare.

Another number that should worry Democrats is that 68 percent of those voters who support a Republican candidate have given a lot of thought to the election, compared with 54 percent of their Democrat counterparts.

Both parties maintain high levels of anti-incumbent satisfaction. About two-thirds (68 percent) say do they not want current members of Congress re-elected.

The survey of 2,003 adults was conducted via telephone Oct. 15-20, with a margin of error of 2.5 points.

BREAKING: Illegal Immigrant Voters Discovered in Key State… Could Swing Next Election

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 4.29.22 PM

As the 2014 midterm election draws near, North Carolina’s embattled, but currently upheld, voter ID law could prove critical in ensuring the integrity of the state’s elections.

It was recently leaked that the NAACP, along with other liberal activist groups, are planning massive voter fraud in the state by deliberately misleading voters to cause chaos and confusion on election day, which will all be blamed on the voter ID law.

Now the state also needs to be concerned about ineligible illegal immigrants voting in the election, according to Breitbart.

North Carolina State Board of Elections officials have discovered at least 145 ineligible voters on their voter rolls after a sample cross-check with the state’s DMV looking for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) licenses.

The illegal immigrants who have had their deportations deferred by the Obama administration are allowed to obtain drivers licenses but remain ineligible to vote.

Further study and extrapolation of the numbers reveal that there could be about 600 similarly ineligible illegal immigrants who have somehow registered to vote, and that is just from a small pool of 10,000 known DACA recipients.

Officials have said that both the elections board and DMV are now cross-checking the entire list for ineligible voters.

“We want to know how such a large number of non-U.S. citizens were ever registered to vote in the first place,” Jay DeLancy, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, told Watchdog.org. “There is clearly a system failure here and we need the Board of Elections and the DMV to help the Legislature and the public understand where the problem lies.”

Sadly, this is nothing new, other than the use of DACA in particular to register ineligible illegal immigrants as voters. After the 2012 election, illegal immigrant voters were discovered in vital swing states like Florida and Ohio, among others.

Nor is illegal voting new to North Carolina. In fact, the state served as the foundation for a nationwide study after the 2012 election which revealed that voter fraud could have impacted more than 1,000,000 votes across the country.

But Americans aren’t completely stupid, and some of us see this. That is why more than three quarters of the country believe voters should have to prove their citizenship when registering to vote, something a federal judge has upheld as Constitutional.

With a guarantee that all registered voters are citizens, coupled with the requirement to present a valid ID before casting a vote, voter fraud could seriously be curtailed, if not nearly stamped out.