Labor Unions Sour On Bera’s Vague And Plagiarized Position On Trade

Category: AR PAC

Yesterday, Kay Hagan (D-NC) went on WNCT to denounce out-of-state super PACs as being run by people who “don’t know our values, they don’t know North Carolina.”

HAGAN: “The job I am doing is working on behalf of every North Carolinian with a focus on jobs and getting our economy to recover. Millions of dollars of ads are being run against me from outside special interest. These people are not North Carolinians, they don’t know our values, they don’t know North Carolina.”

Hagan seems to have forgotten that, just last month, an out-of-state super PAC aligned with Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority PAC, made a $750,000 ad buy on her behalf.

Not only does Senate Majority PAC have Harry Reid’s blessing, but, earlier this month, Politico reported that the PAC has received a $2.5 million contribution from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s donation to the PAC came from the close relationship he has with Reid “over the years working on issues of concern to New Yorkers.”

Bloomberg, one of the richest men in the world, made the donation to Senate Majority PAC, which is run by former aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Democrats. “It arose out of the close relationship the Mayor has developed with Leader Reid over the years working on issues of concern to New Yorkers like [Hurricane] Sandy relief and gun safety,” said Howard Wolfson, former deputy mayor and a close aide.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Hagan to denounce super PACs as not knowing North Carolina or its values, but then allow a super PAC, sponsored by Harry Reid and Michael Bloomberg’s liberal agenda, to make large ad buys on her behalf.

Instead of doing his job as a U.S. Senator, Mark Begich skipped out on votes earlier this week because he was in Hawaii giving a speech at a conference and raising some campaign cash at two fundraisers.

At first his staff said he couldn’t travel because of the “polar vortex” but then they had to come clean.

After-all, why vote on unemployment insurance when you can luau?

For more information on our emails sign up at ameririsingpac.staging.wpengine.com. Follow us on Twitter, @America_Rising. Like us on Facebook.

It was just a few weeks ago, when Hillary Clinton started the 2016 campaign with a not too subtle swipe at potential rival Vice President Joe Biden for opposing the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

Now, in the wake of a new book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a top aide to the Vice President is calling Clinton’s Libya policy a “glaring failure”:

The former top national security advisor to Vice President Joseph Biden Friday fired back at former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who charged Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy issue in 40 years, pointing out that Biden and Gates both opposed Obama’s 2011 decision to go to war in Libya. …

[B]oth Gates and Biden opposed to President Obama’s decision to intervene on behalf of Libyan rebels fighting against Muammar al Qaddaffi … Others in the administration like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton … advocated for the intervention.

“Gates and Biden, from what I can tell in interacting with both of them, they still feel justified in asking that question ‘and then what’ because that is the glaring failure of this operation,” said [former Biden National Security Advisor Julianne] Smith. “They were right to ask it and we were wrong not to answer it.”

In fact in October of 2011, seven months after the air campaign began, Clinton, who took credit for the U.S.-led air campaign, said:

“We set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region.”

As America Rising noted in our report last month, Hillary Clinton’s Libya policy has unraveled. The U.N. Security Council expressed “grave concern” with the country’s deteriorating security situation, none of the Benghazi attack suspects have been captured because of fears the country will further descend into chaos while earlier today, new extremist groups in-country were labeled terrorist organizations.

This week Bob Gates dropped a bombshell in his new book, writing that in a private conversation, Hillary Clinton told him that political interests and a desire to win the 2008 Iowa Caucuses drove her opposition to the troop surge in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton is a notoriously calculating politician, but the Gates book shows that this extends to matters as grave as war and national security. This was not the first time. America Rising has highlighted 5 instances where Hillary Clinton both as a candidate and as Secretary of State, put her political interests ahead of national security considerations.

Read the top 5 things you need to know about Clinton putting politics before national security here.

Clinton Politics First by America Rising PAC

Clinton Politics First

The Washington Free Beacon reported this morning that New York Democrat Rep. Brian Higgins said he would “review all relevant information relative to that situation most certainly” regarding 9/11 Truth claims that the terrorist attacks were an inside job. No, for real.

On the same day it was reported that former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg contributed $2.5 million to the Senate Majority PAC, the PAC released an attack ad on Scott Brown claiming “Brown delivered for Wall Street.”

We were stunned by the hypocrisy since “Bloomberg is Wall Street.”

Bloomberg started his career on Wall Street. And since becoming Mayor in 2002, has cemented his identity with The Big Banks and is on the record saying “I don’t think that just because you’re a banker you should be vilified,” but the Senate Majority PAC may beg to differ.

When it comes to Bloomberg, “few constituencies will miss him as much as Wall Street .” The CEO of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn S. Wylde noted to The New Yorker, about how Bloomberg “stood up for the financial-services industry” after Washington attacked Wall Street over the financial crisis.

The Senate Majority PAC will say and do anything to help their vulnerable Democrat colleagues… even if it means funding an anti-Wall Street attack ad with money from a Wall Street insider turned nanny-state Mayor.

CBS News reported that a survivor of the attack in Benghazi told three senators that the State Department renewed a one-year lease on the Benghazi facility in July 2012, just two months before the attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. [Read more…]

Complete Colorado released emails today that reveal Sen. Mark Udall’s (D-CO) office attempted to pressure state officials to change official statistics about health insurance policy cancellations as a result of ObamaCare.

Udall’s staff, evidently unhappy or worried about the political backlash resulting from the nearly 250,000 Coloradans receiving notices that their health insurance plan would be canceled, mounted an intense effort to have officials from the Colorado Division of Insurance (CDI) revise their numbers.

But CDI officials pushed back against the Udall staff’s attempts to “trash” their numbers. CDI official Jo Donlin’s email makes clear that the agency would not stand for Udall’s browbeating tactics.

“Sen. Udall says our numbers were wrong. They are not wrong. Cancellation notices affected 249,199 people. They want to trash our numbers. I’m holding strong while we get more details. Many have already done early renewals. Regardless, they received cancellation notices.”

Donlin’s response on standing by her agency’s numbers did not bode well with Udall’s office, resulting in a “very hostile phone call from Udall’s deputy chief of staff.”

“Following my e-mail, I received a very hostile phone call from Udall’s deputy chief of staff. [Insurance Commissioner] Marguerite [Salazar] is on the phone with [Udall’s] chief of staff right now. Happy Friday!”

Udall’s staff seemed very concerned about the political fallout from the news of insurance cancellations, as evident by this e-mail from a Udall staffer.

“We need to move on this ASAP – or we’ll be forced to challenge the 249K number ourselves. It is wildly off or at least very misleading and reporters keep repeating it.”

Udall and his staff should be worried about the political fallout of ObamaCare. After all, Udall promised Coloradoans that if they liked their plan, they could keep it. Apparently Udall is so worried about it for 2014 that he’s willing to have his staff badger state officials to change statistics.

Today, asked if she endorsed Harry Reid as Majority Leader, Alison Lundergan Grimes dodged the question and refused to answer.

WHAS’ 11’s JOE ARNOLD: “Do you endorse the way that Harry Reid has run the US Senate as Majority Leader, and would you endorse him as Majority Leader if you were elected?”

GRIMES: “Well, unlike Senator McConnell, I’m not running for a leadership position. Kentucky has been the one who has lost as a result of Senator McConnell literally playing Washington politics and pandering to the Washington insiders and lobbyists and special interests. My focus is putting the people of Kentucky first, and there is blame on both sides of the aisle for the use of the filibuster and the nuclear option and I think what the people of Kentucky want and need and deserve and what we are about is making sure that there are results happening in Washington D.C.”

ARNOLD: “But McConnell says a vote for Grimes is a vote for Nevada’s Reid as Senate Majority Leader – does that hurt Grimes’ campaign?”

GRIMES: “I will evaluate all decisions, whether they be choices in leadership, or legislation. As a United States Senator with this in mind, and that is, is it best for the people of Kentucky?”

However, according to Politico, Grimes traveled to Washington in May 2013 and had a private meeting with Reid where encouraged Grimes to run for the Senate. He even encouraged Grimes to run in a “follow-up phone conversation that she initiated.” Grimes has even gone as far as to hire Harry Reid’s pollster in her Senate campaign.

The question is, what did Grimes tell Reid privately that she won’t tell the people of Kentucky publicly?

David Brock and Media Matters jump on any opportunity to try to poke holes in news reports that show the Administration and State Department’s incompetence in Benghazi. They’ve gone so far as to call for the head of reporters they deem to have been incorrect in their reporting and have relied on highly misleading and shoddy “facts” of their own in an attempt to defend Hillary and whitewash her record on Benghazi.

The problem? You can’t be a credible fact checker when you ignore reporters who make mistakes that reinforce your desired narrative.

report out today from the Washington Post shows that U.S. Officials believe former Guantanamo detainee and al-Qaeda linked and trained militant Abu Sufian bin Qumu was involved in the attack on Benghazi. This directly contradicts a New York Times report claiming there was “no evidence that Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups had any role” in the attack.

The facts are that terrorist groups were involved. And Media Matters is silent because that’s an inconvenient truth for David Brock. So while he tries to sell a snake oil book called “The Benghazi Hoax” in order to provide cover to Hillary Clinton, the reality is the only one perpetrating a hoax is him.