The Dark Art of Political Intimidation

We're living the @BarackObama administration's galling history of politicizing government agencies over, and over... #GroundhogDay
👉https://t.co/Cl6HzQYzrk pic.twitter.com/l8fRczECmh

— PragerU (@prageru) February 2, 2018

LOOK:

Example of Twitter botnet pushing anti-Trump, pro-McCain stories today. pic.twitter.com/Yi6jiqudu3

— Julian Assange ⌛ (@JulianAssange) February 2, 2018

Democrats plan to target half of California’s 14 Republican members of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections

California Democrats focus on normally safe GOP House seats https://t.co/rBL0UqLlvp

— BMH Law (@Political_Law) April 17, 2017

...California’s seven GOP targets represent nearly a third of the 24 seats Democrats need to take control of the House and return San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi to the speakership. Nationwide, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified 59 Republican-held districts they believe can be flipped.

There are some familiar names on the Democratic hit list. Jeff Denham of Turlock (Stanislaus County), David Valadao of Hanford (Kings County) and Steve Knight of Lancaster (Los Angeles County) were all targets in 2016, and Darrell Issa of Vista (San Diego County) barely held on to his seat.

New additions to the Democratic list are a trio of Orange County Republicans, Ed Royce of Fullerton, Mimi Walters of Irvine and Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa.

BOOM! Trump Files With FEC To Run in 2020; NonProfits Can't Campaign Against Him Until Then!

BOOM! Trump Files With FEC To Run in 2020; NonProfits Can't Campaign Against Him Until Then! https://t.co/1YpM7pRSs5

— 🎙Wayne Dupree (@WayneDupreeShow) February 1, 2017

I am laughing too much right now to even think straight. Trump outfoxed the Washington, DC foxes but beating them in their own game. According to the article via Zero Hedge, NonProfit organizations can’t engage in political speech without the possibility of them losing their status. That’s huge!

Tell me Trump doesn’t have his stuff together. This could hurt George Soros as he would have ramped up his efforts to go after Trump as it states in the article.

Trump Files Early With FEC For 2020 Candidacy, Outmaneuvers Nonprofits https://t.co/WKGto6mAzb

— Ƭαвιтнα Ɓℓιѕѕ ❤ (@BlissTabitha) January 31, 2017

A document from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.

Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.

More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen.

Disarray: Democrats are demanding change from a national committee they say has focused too heavily on the White House.

Great read@Fingersflying @PubliusNV @vinniekniffen

For Democrats, 2017 Will Be The Year of Living Stupidly https://t.co/WcqwIMTWZf …

— MaryfromMarin (@MaryfromMarin) January 3, 2017

Democrats are demanding change from a national committee they say has focused too heavily on the White House. https://t.co/hbU56lJAFt

— The Sacramento Bee (@sacbee_news) January 2, 2017

Retirement rumors are swirling, and the decisions could roil the 2018 Senate midterm election https://t.co/eQ0RvBfQTh pic.twitter.com/Fvwmb7TUlf

— POLITICO (@politico) January 3, 2017

Hillary sure spent a lot of money to lose

@CaptYonah @BretBaier She was trying to turn red to blue, thinking she was safely ahead in the other states, big mistake.

— WR Jones (@Nostrabillis) December 27, 2016

DERP Hillary! Bret Baier’s retweet about Clinton campaign spending in MI and WI is eye-openinghttps://t.co/Ot7wNlx13M

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 30, 2016

Not-So-Senseless Violence

◼ What if the Islamic State group wants the United States to get more involved? What if it wants the United States to send more ground troops? - A. Trevor Thrall/CATO Institute

"President Barack Obama declared the latest beheading by the Islamic State group — this one of American aid worker and former Army Ranger Peter Kassig — an act of 'pure evil.' But as ugly as the act was, it was also an action taken with a strategic end in mind. The question we should be asking is: To what end? Why has the Islamic State group pursued a strategy of beheading Westerners, and specifically Americans?"

Tax credit fight gives the GOP an opportunity for populism

◼ Republicans, instead of listening to their K Street friends, ought to see the debate over expiring tax provisions as a chance for minor tax reform — and even for some populism of their own. - Timothy P. Carney/Washington Examiner @TPCarney

...In truth, Obama is playing political chess. He’s trying to outflank the GOP on the populist side. Back in 2012, he could get away with fighting for corporate loopholes in 2012. Now that opposing these breaks wins him populist points, he goes on the attack.

“The president would veto the proposed deal,” the White House said, “because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families.”

Obama’s attack resonated among left-leaning journalists: New York Times writer Eric Owles wrote on Twitter: “2014 Election Results: major tax breaks for corporations & race horse owners, but not for the working poor.”

Republicans could curse Obama's hypocrisy and dishonesty. Or they could be smart, and call his bluff — and then out-populist Obama.

It’s standard behavior for Republicans, but it needn’t be. The opposite approach is arguably more conservative, and certainly more of a political winner.

Instead of making permanent corporate tax credits, Republicans could scrap the tax credits altogether. This would be a tax hike, sure, but it would also make the tax code more neutral, which conservatives understand is good for the economy. And the revenue generated by closing the loopholes can be used as an offset for other tax cuts: reducing the corporate tax rate, or providing tax relief for regular people still suffering from the recession. Propose this and force Obama to defend his beloved tax credit for General Electric's windmills.

While Obama’s favored family tax relief involves more targeted tax credits, and picking winners and losers, a conservative tax cut for working families could be simpler: Cut payroll taxes for everyone. Republicans could slightly lower the payroll tax rate, or create a small personal exemption, so the working poor get to keep their first few thousand dollars before being forced to contribute to Warren Buffett's Social Security.

The final figures are not in, but the Hispanic vote in Nevada this year dropped precipitously after growing each of the previous three cycles, reaching 18 percent in 2012.

◼ Why Obama Went to Vegas - Politico

Hint: It’s not just about immigration.

“We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election,”

◼ Aides knew of possible White House link to Cartagena, Colombia, prostitution scandal - Washington Post

Nieland added that his superiors told him “to withhold and alter certain information in the report of investigation because it was potentially embarrassing to the administration.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Wednesday that President Obama and his advisers did not interfere with the inspector general’s investigation. “As was reported more than two years ago, the White House conducted an internal review that did not identify any inappropriate behavior on the part of the White House advance team,” Schultz said. He cited a Senate report on the inspector general’s office from this April that said an inquiry was unable to verify Nieland’s contention that he was ordered to change the IG report over political concerns.

Who Are ‘Texans for Public Justice,’ and Why Does Their Role in the Perry Case Matter?

◼ The current case against Perry was brought through a complaint filed by Texans for Public Justice. Media inside Texas are occasionally mentioning TPJ’s role, but they are not detailing what TPJ actually is. - Bryan Preston/PJMedia

Even a cursory glance at their website is revealing. TPJ claims to be a public integrity watchdog, but their quest for integrity is entirely one-sided. They never take on Democrats. TPJ exists to attack Republicans, and they have been doing nothing but that for years. TPJ is even trying to get Delay’s convictions re-instated.

There is more to TPJ than mere partisanship masquerading as “public integrity.”

According to its own 2013 annual report, Texans for Public Justice is funded by the hard left....

The Open Society Foundations and the Sunlight Foundation are both funded by leftwing billionaire and convicted felon George Soros. Why is a group that sells itself as a public integrity watchdog accepting funds from a man who was convicted of insider trading? Why is no one in the Texas media asking TPJ that very question?

Texans for Public Justice is part of a larger network of money and operatives that the Texas Democrats in exile set up with one goal — to recapture power that the voters took away from them. They set themselves a deadline of electing a Democrat speaker of the Texas House of Representatives by 2010. They failed in that goal. The Texas Republicans expanded their hold on the House that year.

But the network, run by out-of-state leftwing operative Matt Angle, never went away. It won’t as long as money keeps rolling in....learn MORE, at the link.

◼ Networks Ignore that Group Behind Perry’s Indictment Got $500K from Soros - Mike Ciandella/Newsbusters

...In what appeared to have been a slip of the tongue, Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald told CNN “the governor again, in his defense yesterday, said this is merely a partisan, political witch hunt. Nothing could be closer to the truth.”

◼ The weirdest part of the Rick Perry indictment - Philip Klein/Washington Examiner @philipklein

t didn't take long for it to become widely accepted — and not just among conservatives — that Friday's indictment of Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, rests on a razor-thin legal premise. MSNBC host Ari Melber called the case "very weak" while Jonathan Chait of New York magazine declared the indictment "unbelievably ridiculous." Even former senior advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod, wrote on Twitter that the indictment seemed "pretty sketchy." But perhaps the weirdest part about the indictment isn't just that it's without merit, but that the underlying dispute it highlights actually makes Perry look good.

◼ Politics as Combat - Andrew C. McCarthy/National Review

It has come to this after six years of Barack Obama’s Chicago-style community-organizer governance: The hard Left no longer believes it necessary to pretend that the rule of law matters. It is politics as combat....

Under Texas law, Perry has incontestable constitutional authority to veto legislation — he doesn’t need a reason. But in this instance, he had abundant reason. Quite apart from the pernicious, politicized law enforcement for which the Travis County district attorney’s office is notorious, Rosemary Lehmberg, the district attorney, was arrested last year for drunken driving. Though she is hardly fit to run a public corruption unit, Democrats in the Texas state legislature nevertheless pushed through a $7.5 million appropriation. Perry responded with an ultimatum: Either Lehmberg would tender her resignation, or he would veto the funds.

Mind you, if Perry had said nothing and simply vetoed the measure, no one would have a plausible objection. Instead, he reasonably explained his position and indicated that Austin could have the money if the compromised district attorney stepped down. But somehow, in the telling of Austin’s partisan prosecutors, such a veto is no longer a political exercise; it’s felony extortion for which Perry could be sentenced to decades in prison.

The Founders gave us a republican democracy which, at the federal and state levels, divides authority among the political branches and assumes — indeed, demands — that the branches flex the muscles they’ve been given to check each other’s excesses. The competition plays out at the ballot box, not in the courts — much less the criminal courts. Perry’s veto, to block funding for a prosecutor’s office with a checkered record and an unfit leader, is plainly what the founders contemplated: an exercise of legitimate political authority to rein in the excesses of a competing branch. Yet, the politicized Austin prosecutors depict it not as normal political give and take; they frame Perry as if he were a mafia don.

Now, as the world comes crashing down upon him, along with his poll numbers and the increasingly disastrous prospects for his party in the November midterms, Mrs. Clinton has laid a bet.

◼ Hammering Obama: Hillary has only begun - John Podhoretz/New York Post

Memo to President Obama: You should have made Hillary your vice president back in 2008.
She was the obvious choice. But you believed you were strong enough without her, and worried that Bill would be impossible to control.

Big mistake.

If Hillary were veep, she’d be inside the tent even now, biting her lip. Instead, she took her leave, wrote her book and is now taking aim — at you.

Hillary Clinton was and is your enemy. She says she’s your friend, but that’s what Iago told Othello.

In 2008, with blithe self-assurance, you took away from her the thing she most wanted — and as you did so, you allowed as how she was “likable enough.”

If she doesn’t still hate you for saying that in front of tens of millions of people on national TV, she’d be a better person than 95 percent of the people on Earth.

And she’s not....

She is betting she has two years to set herself up not as Obama’s natural successor but as his sadder-but-wiser replacement — the one who saw it go wrong, the one who watched as the mistakes were being made, the one who sought to mitigate or reverse those blunders to no effect, the one best able to take inspiration from a more successful, more centrist Democratic presidency....

But she has made her choice. If Obama stumbles, she’ll be there — with her ankle turned out, to trip him up still further and then, with a sad smile, claim credit for having known that the obstacle had been there in his path all along.

Hillary called Obama yesterday to assure him nothing in the interview was meant to be critical of him. Well said, Iago.

Democrats plan on making Hobby Lobby their midterm message

The latest Dem 2014 strategy centers on fomenting outrage over SCOTUS's Hobby Lobby ruling. http://t.co/E8Ymu9EwBK via @EdMorrissey

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 10, 2014

◼ So says Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn, but color me skeptical. Not of Haberkorn’s reporting on the subject, which accurately takes the temperature of the rhetoric from the Left, but of the bravado coming from Capitol Hill Democrats in the dog days of July. - Ed Morrissey/HotAir

Democrats claim they want to make a midterm fight over a relatively narrow Supreme Court decision that doesn’t restrict access to contraception in any way as a means to fire up their “war on women” rhetoric and turn out their base in what looks like a dismal election cycle... Good luck with that strategy, red-state Democrats.

◼ Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs - John McCormack/Weekly Standard

IRS Targeting and 2014: Democrats are working hard to make sure conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.

◼ President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They've been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms. - Kimberley Strassel/Wall St. Journal

That's the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place....

So that puts a spotlight on newly sworn-in IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who vowed during his confirmation hearing to restore public trust in the agency, and now must decide whether to aid in a new and blatantly political abuse of IRS powers. The White House is using the agency to win an election this fall. They gave the proof this week.

Read This If You Believe Your Candidate Lost Due to Third-Party Voters

◼ So it turns out Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli were able to draw away enough votes to keep Robert Sarvis from winning Virginia’s governor’s race. I hope the folks who put those guys on the ballot are happy. - Scott Shackford/Reason.com

...here are some tips from a typical third-party voter to major party movers and shakers who are trying to figure out how to approach us....

We don’t like your candidate.
You need to make an actual case for your candidate.
Don’t presume to tell us what we believe.
No really, don’t pull this blue versus red crap on us.
Respect that voters determine their own political priorities.

....I have read a number of folks lamenting that voters turned against Cuccinelli on these “social issues.” The outcome of such a complaint is giving the voter the impression that you don’t care about or don’t respect their personal priorities when choosing a candidate. If that’s the case, how can you ever expect them to vote for yours?

◼ ‘F*cking clown car’: Comedian Stephen Kruiser destroys ‘GOP moderati’ in brutal rant - Twitchy (warning: strong language)

◼ Establishment GOP vs Grassroots: Civil War or Growing Pains? - Stephen Kruiser/Freedom Works

...I will concede that, yes, the establishment dinosaurs do have a knack for winning elections. However, the gaps in between those victories tend not to be filled with much to crow about unless you're a fan of things like the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare expansion or being part of a team that's only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in twenty five years.

A school of thought is emerging amongst us extremists that it might be rather refreshing if they applied some of that ability to battle and prevail over Democrats in elections to the legislative process.

So a schism is erupting that sees one side yelling, "Hey, we win elections and stuff!" and the other side responding, "Yeah, but you're kind of hosing us once you do!" ...

They knew! Obama aides debated 'you can keep your plan' lie

◼ Obama Administration Debated Whether President Should Lie About Obamacare - Yid With Lid

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Presidents, "you can keep your healthcare, period" promise was not an error it was a conscious political decision by the president and his political advisers made in 2009.

◼ Behind the Scenes, White House Officials Worried About Insurance Pledge - By Colleen McCain Nelson, Peter Nicholas, Carol E. Lee/Wall St. Journal
◼ In a bombshell report, the Wall Street Journal has gotten Obama advisers -- some on the record, others anonymous -- talking about the internal debate over the president's false guarantee that Americans could keep their insurance plan if they liked it, under Obamacare. In the end, politics trumped the truth. - Thomas Lifson/American Thinker

Throughout the discussion as reported by the Journal, aides relied on the notion that the only people who would potentially lose their health plans were those who bought them as individuals - about 15 million in number. (Note, this is half the number of claimed uninsured who were potentially to benefit. That number initially given was 30 million.) But of course, there were internal reports that 93 million Americans could lose their health insurance plans, as reported by Avik Roy in Forbes.

Now we know that for political reasons, the president's advisers told him to go out and lie. The excuses they offer for the lie are those of a con man. They sound like a bunch of used car salesmen who neglected to mention that the vehicle was involved in a serious accident and has an oil leak, because that would confuse the buyer dazzled by the chrome on the grille.

They knew that if the president told the truth, there would be Democrat senators and representatives who would vote against it. Those members of Congress who voted for Obamacare and now face the wrath of voters in 2014 have a stark choice to make. Either they turn on the president for lying to them, or they support the president. If they turn on him, they will retaliation, no doubt. Turning on the president could include supporting legislation to modify or repeal the ACA legislation.

◼ Revealed: Obama, aides debated whether to tell the truth about people keeping their plans - HotAir
◼ Report: Obama aides debated “you can keep your plan” promise - Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion
◼ lConfirmed: Obama Aides Debated the “You Can Keep Your Insurance” Line Before Deciding to Lie to American Publicnk - Jim Hoft/Gateway Pundit

More than two million Americans have already lost their health care coverage due to Obamacare.
__________________And he lied. Knowingly.
What else is he lying about?

◼ 407 430 Sourced Examples Of Obama’s Lies, Deceptions, Distortions, Etc. - Robert Gehl/Downtrend

An independent journalist has released – into the public domain – a list of 407 430 examples of President Obama’s lies, deceptions, distortions, stupidity, cronyism and so on.

“Dan from Squirrel Hill” ◼ has a blog at WordPress where he regularly writes on conservative issues. His list is complete, authoritative and well-sourced.

Former State Dept Adviser -Obama a 'Dithering, Controlling, Risk-Averse' President

◼ Yikes Vali Nasr, a university professor Vali Nasr, an academic who worked for Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in Mr. Obama’s first term does not have nice things to say about President Obama and his administration. - Yid With Lid

In his book ◼ “The Dispensable Nation,” published next month. Mr. Nasr describes the White House’s handling of foreign policy as overly cautious, sometimes disengaged and at times politicized something he asserts has led to a general waning of American influence abroad.

"The president had a truly disturbing habit of funnelling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics..."

Not surprising based on the naivete displayed in many of the president's foreign policy decisions.

The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, appointed with great fanfare in 2009, was systematically cut out of decision making as both he and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, tried to argue the merits of engaging with the Taliban and the dangers caused by the overuse of drones.

"The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much," Prof Nasr writes, "The goal was to spare the president the risks that necessarily come with playing the leadership role that America claims to play in this region."

As the week progressed, a developing bombshell story got buried under President Obama’s gay marriage announcement. Not only is the supposed CIA asset not a CIA asset at all, but the entire operation was exposed prematurely and the double-agent’s life was immediately threatened by an intelligence leak that very well may have come out of the White House for political gain.

◼ BOMBSHELL: Al-Qaeda Infiltrator was Working for Brits not CIA, Cover Blown for Election Year Politics - Patrick Poole/PJM

Barone: GOP must show young it's party of options

◼ The reason three of the four Republicans haven’t paid much attention to young voters is that the under 30 folks have been turning out in the Republican contests in miniscule numbers. - Michael Barone/Washington Examiner

According to entrance and exit polls, voters under 30 accounted for 15 percent of participants in Iowa, 12 percent in New Hampshire, 9 percent in South Carolina, 6 percent in Florida and 8 percent in Nevada.

By way of comparison, voters that age were 18 percent of the electorate in November 2008.
And, in that election, they voted 66 to 32 percent for Barack Obama over John McCain. Voters above that age favored Obama by only 50 to 49 percent. McCain would have won if the voting age were 35.

In this year’s Republican contests, the big winner among young voters has been Ron Paul. His libertarian message — on monetary policy, marijuana policy and foreign policy — has brought out the under-30 voters, though many and perhaps most don’t identify themselves as Republicans at all....

The Obama policies are redolent of mid-20th century welfare state planning. From Obamacare’s unaccountable boards determining the care patients get to his affection for high-speed rail that will forever run on the same tracks, choice is limited or eliminated. Central planners determine your future.

It’s as if every iPod had an identical play list and every Facebook page were the same.
Romney and the other Republicans can claim that their policies, by providing choices and opening markets to spur innovation that no central authority can plan, will enable young people to choose their futures.

Obama likes to emphasize the Obamacare provision that lets “children” up to age 26 stay on their parents’ health insurance. Apparently that polls well with Millennials.

Republicans should counter that they want young people to choose their own health plan, from firms competing for their business. An economy liberated from Obamas’ tax and regulations can provide more choices and opportunities.

Romney and the others haven’t been speaking to young voters directly yet. They need to get started.

Romney to Skip Key Poll in Iowa

◼ Romney to Skip Key Poll in Iowa - Wall St. Journal

Mr. Romney's decision sends the clearest signal yet that he doesn't want to wade deeply into the social issues that carry particular weight with Iowa Republicans and instead intends to present himself to voters nationally as a successful businessman who can improve the economy.... Mr. Romney is building a public image based on his background as a successful private-equity investor focused on job creation. That image could be complicated if he were to try to gain favor among the conservative activists who play a large role in the straw poll.

◼ Wow: Romney to skip Iowa straw poll; Update: Iowa GOP chief not pleased - HotAir
◼ Mitt Romney won't participate in Fla, IA, or MI straw polls

The Republican presidential frontrunner's campaign said Friday night it will not be participating in the Florida GOP's "Presidency 5" straw poll in September - or any other heavily hyped non-binding election this year. It's a sharp departure from four years ago when Romney spent millions on early grass roots organizing and efforts to boost his momentum in Florida and other key states.

“Our campaign has made the decision to not participate in any straw polls, whether it’s in Florida, Iowa, Michigan or someplace else,'' said Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades. "We respect the straw poll process. In the last presidential campaign we were both strengthened as an organization and learned some important lessons by participating in them. This time we will focus our energies and resources on winning primaries and caucuses. We look forward to bringing Mitt Romney’s strong pro-jobs message to every part of the country.”

Worth repeating, no matter who runs: