Feds label liberty lovers ‘terrorists’ … again!

www.wnd.com - July 2, 11:36 PM

Kuffar News

DHS has proven over and over again to be farce so farfetched one must stretch the bounds of sanity to even pretend those people we are paying to keep us safe understand the first thing about this country, our freedoms, the real enemies of America, or how to defend us from modern day threats.  The brain dead lunatics don't possess the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between a Muslim terrorist and an American who values his/her God given freedoms to the point of being willing to die in defense of them. 

Muslims are patriots. Patriots are terrorists. That's the official narrative espoused by US national security and every electedknow-nothing from sea to shining sea. 

Our government is clearly totally insane and completelycompromised. Just consider as evidence the Muslim Brotherhood. Our government could not open their proverbial arms any wider waiting for the Jihadists' embrace.  And the Brotherhood has called for the destuction of Israel andAmerica for decades.  Further proof  of subversion and psychosis can be found in the administration's refusal to list a genocidal group of allah-addicted Muslims (Boko Haram) as a terrorist organization. The MB and Boko Haram are not terrorists?  They do not pose a national security threat? The "real terrorists" are freedom-addicted patriots dedicated to the defense of America and the preservation of our individual liberties?____________________________________________


(WND) - The government is once again promoting the idea of “those who are reverent of individual liberty” being terrorists with a new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security.

The study and related data were recently produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland. START was launched with a $12 million grant from DHS and is recognized by the organization as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December, DHS announced it was renewing START’s funding with another $3.6 million.
 

START recently released a study titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008.”

The report noted that nearly one-third of all terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2008 occurred in five metropolitan counties run by Democrats. The counties were Manhattan, New York, Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, San Francisco County and Washington, D.C. The report went on to list groups by ideology such as right-wing, left-wing, religious and single issue.

Interestingly, the report appears to have key data missing when it comes to Islamic terrorism.

On Page 22, Table 4 lists “hot spots” for religious terrorism by decade. For the 1990s, it shows there was no religious terrorism in New York or Los Angeles and only two terrorist attacks during the 2000s.

Ruth King, writing for Ruthfully Yours, noted that the report apparently does not consider the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be terrorism. Also omitted was a 1994 shooting by Rashid Baz, who killed 16-year-old Jewish student Ari Halberstam and attempted to murder dozens more in a van on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The report also ignores the 2002 shooting at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Following the attack, which killed two and wounded four others, the FBI and Justice Department concluded that the shooter, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, was an Egyptian terrorist who wanted to be a Muslim martyr.

Also, by cutting the report off at 2007, it was able to omit events such as the Fort Hood massacre by Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, and the Little Rock Army recruiting center, where a Muslim convert shot soldiers in front of a recruiting office. continue reading

Fatwa On Islam

 Scooped by Jarrad Winter

Bee's Note:

See Right Wing News

DHS Study Brands Those Who Believe In Individual Liberty As Terrorists

Video: Message to Obama from America

American Patriotism

Published on Jul 3, 2012 by joyfulinnh

Response to the White House administration's campaign ads

Peres: America Remains Israel's Greatest Ally

President Shimon Peres congratulates the U.S. on its Independence Day during a reception at the home of Ambassador Daniel Shapiro.

AAFont Size

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 7/4/2012, 3:15 AM

ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS - by By Elad Benari

President Shimon Peres

Flash 90

President Shimon Peres congratulated the American people on Tuesday as the U.S. celebrates its 236^th Independence Day. Peres spoke at a special reception in honor of the 4th of July at the residence of U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro.


“I am delighted to salute, on behalf of the State of Israel, the great United States of America on its 236^thIndependence Day,” said Peres.


“There is a historic friendship between our two nations,” he added. “America has been and remains Israel’s greatest friend and greatest ally.”

Speaking about the Iranian nuclear issue, Peres said the Iranian government and its policies are “the greatest threat to world peace. There is no justification for the rule of agovernment that threatens the existence of other countries, distributes and supports terrorism and develops nuclear weapons.
“I am convinced that President Obama will stand on this issue strong as a lion,” said Peres.“President Obama has assembled a coalition to lead the international campaign of sanctions and diplomatic understanding to call upon the Iranian regime to change its course,” he noted. “He prefers to achieve an end to the issue peacefully but he has made it clear that all options remain on the table.”
“Two weeks ago I returned from the United States, where President Obama gave me the Presidential Medal of Freedom," said Peres. "Beyond my own personal gratefulness for the decision of President Obama to award me this medal I felt a profound sense of national pride. It was in my eyes a moving gesture of a great leader and a great friend of Israel.”
During the celebration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s special video messageto the citizens of the United States in honor of the July 4^th holiday was presented to the guests. A leg injury prevented him from attending in person.
Speaking about the transformations in the Middle East, Netanyahu said, “In the near term, I think we'll all agree, there's ample reason for skepticism…But in the long term, in the long term I believe there's reason for hope.”

Netanyahu on U.S. Independence Day: There's Reason for Hope

 ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS
 By Elad BenarI First Publish: 7/4/2012, 12:12 AM

PM Netanyahu's Message for the July 4, 2012 US Independence Day

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released on Tuesday a special message to President Barack Obama and to the citizens of the United States, in honor of theFourth of July holiday. His speech was taped and sent to the annual July 4 celebration at the home of the United States Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro.



“As Israel’s Prime Minister, I appreciate deeply all that America has done for Israel, and as the leader of one of the world’s most vibrant democracies, I appreciate all the great sacrifices that America has made in order to advance liberty and democracy throughout the world,” said Netanyahu.

Speaking about the transformations in the Middle East, Netanyahu said, “All those who value freedom should remember that to be a real democracy, it is not enough to have a government that represents the majority of the people.

“Real democracy also means having a government that respects the rights of each and every individual in it.

“Real democracy is not merely about holding popular elections.
“It is about what happens between elections.
“It means ensuring that no one is above the law.
“It means protecting free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion.
“It means upholding the rights of women, minorities, gays, children, everyone.
“By ensuring both popular sovereignty and individual rights, the nations of the region can join America and Israel in being genuine democracies.”

He said that “In the near term, I think we'll all agree, there's ample reason for skepticism…But in the long term, in the long term I believe there's reason for hope.


“Because with the spread of information technology, it will become increasingly difficult to keep young minds closed, cloistered in darkness.

“Ultimately, the power of freedom is bound to prevail.

“Ultimately, people throughout the Middle East will enjoy the rights that we in free societies too often take for granted.”

He concluded by saying, “On behalf of the people of Israel, let me wish President Obama and all the American people a Happy Independence Day.”


Bee's Note:
Thank you Prime Minister Netanyahu, for your kind message to America.  We know that you understand the true meaning of Democracy, as Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East.

Does The Supreme Court Need Term Limits?

SAY ANYTHING BLOG

Written By:
Rob Port

Jul 3, 2012
5:08pm

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and can’t be removed from office short of impeachment. Throughout the history of the country, only one justice has ever been impeached (Chief Justice Samuel Chase for, among other things, his disgusting behavior during the sedition trial of pamphleteer James T. Callender) but he was ultimately acquitted by a majority vote of the Senate.

The idea behind the lifetime appointments, and the difficulty in removing them, is to insulate them from the whims of public opinion and the sway of partisan politics. But is it really working? Is it time to limit the term of justices on the Supreme Court?

Mark Levin, a long-time critic of the federal judiciary, thinks so:

Obviously this debate is happening in the wake of the Obamacare ruling, with conservatives not especially thrilled about Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling that the individual mandate is legal, but revelations about Roberts’ having apparently switched his vote after writing most of what would ultimately become a dissenting opinion holding that the entire law should have been struck down makes the debate pertinent.

Does anyone really think the Supreme Court isn’t partisan? Or, at least, ideological? Right nowthe status quo has the fate of some of the most important policies in the nation being decided based on which presidents made which judicial appointments in years previous.

I’m not sure that term limits are the answer, but I find it hard to defend the court’s status quo too.

Lies We Can Believe In

Monday, July 02, 2012


Civil disobedience is the act of breaking the law and defying the authorities to do anything about it. So is tyranny. The difference between the two lies in which side of the power equation the breaker is on. When the law is broken, two things happen. Either the law is upheld or the authorities back away from a confrontation and find some way to save face. 

The ObamaCare process involved breaking a long list of rules and laws and then defying the ragged remnants of the system to do anything about it. At every turn the United States was unable to stop a rogue chief executive and his ruling party from trampling the law. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court, the leading judicial body in the land sidestepped a confrontation by redefining what the action was, rather than rule on the law. It was a classic case of the authorities saving face.

Civil disobedience balances moral absolutes against legal principles. The Supreme Court exists to serve as the final bastion of the law against runaway moral absolutes. But, just as in its showdown with FDR, the Court blinked, and our court, unlike that court, didn't even at least put up a good fight for the law before backing down. Obama didn't even have to threaten to pack the court with justices. All he had to do was make it clear that he wasn't going to follow the law, which forced the law to save face by following him instead.

The American chief executive has a great deal of power and a chief executive who dons imperial robes is a danger with few precedents. There have been conflicts between the branches, but even FDR made a pretense of bowing to some outside authority. Obama never has, with the exception of the King of Saudi Arabia.

If he were to be impeached tomorrow, as some urge, he simply wouldn't leave. I don't know what he will do if he loses the election, simply because I don't think he knows what he will do-- I don't think the prospect of losing has seriously entered his mind. If he loses it will be a pitched battle between Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama on one shoulder telling him to stay and Joe Biden and whatever unfortunate soul is Chief-of-Staff at that point acting as the voices of reason telling him that it's over.

Even absolute monarchs make concessions to something outside themselves, to religion or tradition, but Obama never has. History, religion and tradition are nothing but lines that he drops into speeches in praise of himself. The American flag and the Constitution are trophies that he uses as backdrops, the same way that he uses Greek columns-- these aren't things that mean anything to him. They're decorations for the sets playing the eternal movie of him.

Obama is not a politician. Politicians learn to compromise. They learn that they can't always get their way. Obama has never learned that lesson. He always gets his way. Or he did until 2010. No one has ever told him "No" and made it stick. There is no weight of life experience that tells him what to do when this happens.

Unlike many of his predecessors, Obama was never in the military. Unlike all of them, he never held anything resembling a real job that required him to do anything but show up and make speeches. Children are natural tyrants. Take a child throwing a tantrum off the playground, give him every privilege in life, leave out any real challenges, keep telling him that he's special for 50 years and he will be an actual tyrant.   

No one ever thought that a man with the emotional maturity of a child, with no life experience and no principles, would occupy the White House, surrounded by sycophants and worshiped by a press that acts as an extension of the White House Press Office. It took an extensive breakdown among multiple institutions and the national culture for that to happen, and the inability to assert the rule of law is a further symptom of that breakdown.

No one is fooled, unless to some degree they want to be fooled. To believe a lie, you have to want to believe it, and that means that at some level, you know that it is a lie. 

Obama was elected because we, Democrats and quite a few Republicans, wanted to be saved from ourselves. We wanted to be saved from our policies, our debates and our guilt. In a time of crisis, we weren't looking for a reliable experienced professional to do the job; if we had been, McCain, for all his flaws, would have won by a landslide. We were looking for someone who would lie to us and make us feel better.

The man we picked had no experience and no skills beyond his surface charm. He was irresponsible, and that was why the country chose him. His irresponsibility made our irresponsibility look good. Even his racist associations were a plus, they made voters feel better about their own prejudices. Every wrong, ugly, stupid and irresponsible thing that he did only made him more appealing to the people who voted for him.

Every now and then people like to get drunk. When things are a complete mess, that's when the temptation to open the bottle and pour it down the hatch comes. Things were a complete mess in 2008, and the country got stinking drunk. It decided to be completely irresponsible and, feeling sorry for itself, it elected someone who wouldn't have been qualified for any position in his own Cabinet.

Since then, the country has sobered up. It thinks that Obama is doing a bad job, but it doesn't know how to tell him that he was only a one-night stand. He seems like such a nice guy, and it would hurt his feelings to tell him why he was really elected. It wasn't because anyone, besides zombie liberals, thought that he knew what he was doing. It was because he seemed like a cheerful bright spot in a dour time and everyone felt sorry about slavery and segregation.

The problem is that Obama won't leave. 2010 was a sharp hint. Any halfway-competent politician would have caught it and changed direction. But Obama refuses to understand hints. He refuses to understand the unspoken message because that gives him power. The power of the rude is in their rudeness. The rudeness is a challenge to anyone with manners to match him equally or shut up and take it. Some Republicans, like Joe Wilson, have matched him rudeness for rudeness; many more, like Justice Roberts, have chosen to take it instead.

A Head of State who refuses to follow the law is engaging in rudeness squared, but Obama is doing what the left has always done. The left rejected manners and mores; it trashed the culture, threw out its morals, defied the law with acts of civil disobedience and, once in office refused to accept any limitations on its power. And most of the time it won. It stared down the society, the police and the politicians, defied their rules and took their rulemaking powers for its own.

The power of the left lies in challenging the lies that society tells itself and creating the illusion of credibility and sincerity through that challenge. It succeeds when its enemies lack faith in their own ideas, their own policies and their own values. The more abrasively it challenges norms, the more it refuses to follow any rules but its own, the more credibility it gains as a liberation movement. 

Obama is the apotheosis of the left's project, a brat nurtured on self-esteem, weaned on white guilt, educated to play with words and rewarded for staged confrontations with equally staged surrenders. All these qualities have shaped him into the entitled monster that he is, squatting in the Oval Office and grinning from the covers of a hundred magazines, determined to always win the only way he knows how, by ignoring the rules of the game.

If you have ever encountered someone genuinely worthless yet successful, it was almost certainly a man or woman who refused to take "No" for an answer. That can be a useful quality in some fields, but it's also a perfect way for people with no useful skills to get what they want out of life. These are the people who don't get fired or denied promotions because it would cause too many problems, who get discounts they aren't entitled to, because they keep demanding them, who use determination and confrontation as substitutes for knowledge, ability and competence-- who become a success story purely based on their enormous sense of entitlement and complete lack of shame.

Today such a man occupies the highest office in the land and rules accordingly. What the left once practiced as civil disobedience has become tyranny. Under Obama, the country is turning lawless because its chief executive is lawless. But Obama's rise to power is a symptom of deep-rooted problems in the country. They cannot be fixed just by voting him out of office, because there are other Obamas out there.

Obama's rise to power is a mirror of the national problems that got him there. All the things wrong with him are reflected, to some extent, in the men and women who voted for him. It could not be otherwise. His lawlessness is a symptom of an existing lawlessness. His contempt for values and morals, for tradition and history, for the nation itself, is a symptom of the contempt that the left has fed over the years until it has become a poison in the national bloodstream.

To truly defeat Obama, we have to be able to defeat those negative traits as well. To understand what gave someone like him power over so many people. It is not enough to just remove him from office, because, unless we understand the corruption that made his rise possible, he, or someone like him, will rise again. 

Star Spangled Banner Awesome!

When Was the 4th of July First 

Celebrated?

By: Greg Soltis

Date: 19 March 2010 Time: 08:59 AM ET

John Adams predicted in a letter to his wife Abigail that Americans would celebrate their Independence Day on July 2. Off by two days — not too bad for government work.

On July 2, 1776, Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, signed only by Charles Thompson (the secretary of Congress) and John Hancock (the presiding officer). Two days later Congress approved the revised version and ordered it to be printed and distributed to the states and military officers. The other signatures would have to wait.

Many actually viewed the Declaration of Independence as a yawner — a rehashing of arguments already made against the British government. John Adams would later describe the Declaration as "dress and ornament rather than Body, Soul, or Substance." The exception was the last paragraph that said the united colonies "are and of Right ought to be Free and Independent states" and were "Absolved of all Allegiance to the British Crown."

For Adams, it was the momentum towards achieving American independence initiated on July 2 that future generations would consider worth celebrating, not the approval of this document on July 4.

Bee's Note:

During the past 4 years and under this present White House administration, and with the aid of Congress and the latest Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, Americans look back at the first signing of the Declaration of Independence and slowly see, with deepest sadness, that unless we WAKE UP and VOTE this November to turn out the "Red Coats" - all of them - this could be the last year we celebrate "INDEPENDENCE DAY" as we've known it since 1776.  

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY, AMERICA!

Boston celebration of 4th of July, 2011

Jack Lew, Obama’s Chief of Flack, on Obamacare

SAYANYTHINGBLOG

JULY 1, 2012

Jack Lew, Chief of Flack for the Obama Administration was on Fox News Sunday this AM. He’s a smooth talker, all right, but what he had to say had as much familiarity with the truth as Michael Jordan had with being chosen last for a pick up basketball game.

“One thing that’s great about our system, is that we the Supreme Court rules, we have a final answer.”

Really, Mr. Lew? Because the final answer from the Supreme Court was that Obamacare is a tax. Why do you keep denying this if the Supreme Court affirmed it in their “final answer”?

“We sent Congress plans, which if they were enacted, would have create a million new jobs: policemen, firemen, teachers…”

Noble professions, to be sure, but all on the government payroll. All of them funded by the private sector and all of them contributing to public sector unions, which contribute heavily (Read: almost exclusively) to Democrats. Since the federal government and many of the states , cities and counties are broke, the money to pay these employees and their benefits would have to be borrowed, and add to the National debt, or printed by the government, which leads to inflation. This president’s plan, his “focus” if you will, is to spend more money from Washingtonto stimulate the economy and end the recession.

But, that’s exactly what he’s been promising and doing for the last almost four years. How would the next four years of doing the exact same thing be any different? Other than to perhaps, take America’s credit rating down another notch?

“…the American people want the divisive debate on Healthcare to stop.”

Stop??? It never even got good started before Congress by the barest of majorities and not in any way a bi-partisan bill, passed a 2000+ page bill that most of them had never read and the people they supposedly represent didn’t have the time to read, or reflect on or give any feedback to their elected representatives.

A majority of the American public, when asked, say they not only don’t like Obamacare, but want to see it repealed. Of course, you would prefer that the matter be settled, Mr. Lew. Obamacare and the economy, the crowning jewel of his first (and hopefully only) term and his primary responsibility after securing the national defense, are both colossal failures. (I was going to say national “borders”, but we all know what a miserable job he’s done at that, too!)

Jack Lew, like the Moooove-on people, wants us to “move on” from a discussion of Obamacare to its implementation. He even used those exact words: move on. That way, the Bamboozler-in-Chief could natter on about his “vision” for what he wants America to look like. And his “vision” is very flowery and full of high sounding words. Just words, as someone might say.

He wants to run on his “vision” because he cannot run on his record. His primary achievement has been to push a phony “healthcare” reform down the throats of the American people instead of addressing any of the problems with the cost of healthcare. Like tort reform, for example. Tort reform is opposed by the Democrat Party, which is a subsidiary of the Trial Lawyers Association, which doesn’t want tort reform. (See: How John Edwards became a millionaire.)

During the interview, Jack Lew spoke of how much President Obama had lowered people’s taxes. Lowering your income will certainly do that to you!

If you listen to the whole interview, you can here him lie about how Obama wants to “reach across the aisle” to work with Republicans (like he did when he rejected all their input and amendments to Obamacare) and the lie ( around 13:21)that “Fast and Furious” started in the Bush administration, when in fact the Bush program Wide Receiver had been shut down for two years before Obama, Holder and Co. ever started Fast and Furious.

I don’t know about you, but whenever I catch someone in an obvious lie, I have a hard time believing anything that person says.

Now, I’m wondering…is his name really Jack Lew???

Cross posted at Proof Positive

CALL TO ACTION: WE MUST RETAKE THE SENATE TO REPEAL OBAMACARE – LIST OF CLOSEST SENATE RACES AND LINKS TO GET INVOLVED

RETAKE THE SENATE TO REPEAL OBAMACARE

By @iResistAll - Source: PAT DOLLARD

In order to repeal Obamacare, we need a Republican majority in the Senate. The Senate currently has 53 Democrats, and 47 Republicans. Republicans must hold all of their Senate seats, PLUS pick up four more. According to Real Clear Politics, there are currently eight toss up seats for U.S. Senate. Two of those  are currently held by Republicans. Below are the eight toss up Senate seats with links to contribute, volunteer, and to each candidate’s Twitter accounts. Please consider contributing so that we can retake the Senate and Repeal Obamacare. If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, he Cannot repeal Obamacare without a Republican controlled Senate. It is Imperative that we gain at Least four U.S. Senate seats. 

You can also contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC is "the only political committee solely dedicated to electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate." To contribute, visit www.nrsc.org.

I have listed the Senate races by order of polling data. The races that are the tightest are at the top. (RCP = Real Clear Politics) See toss up polls at Real Clear Politics Senate Toss Up Races. 
 

CLOSEST RACES

Florida US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Incumbent: Bill Nelson – Democrat
Challenger: Connie Mack IV, U.S. Representative – Republican

RCP Average 5/17 – 6/25 — Nelson: 45.3, Mack: 39.3. Nelson +6.0RCP Florida Polls

Connie Mack – Republican
Donate: https://donate.conniemack.com/initiative/15k-in-15-days
Volunteer: http://conniemack.com/home/#join
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ConnieMackIV/
—
North Dakota US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Democratic candidate: Heidi Heitkamp
Republican candidate: Rick Berg, U.S. Representative

Mason-Dixon 6/4 – 6/6 — Heitkamp: 47, Berg: 46. Heitkamp +1RCP North Dakota Polls

Rick Berg – Republican
Donate: https://www.bergfornorthdakota.com/view/contribute
Volunteer: https://www.bergfornorthdakota.com/view/cat/volunteer
Twitter: http://twitter.com/reprickberg
—
Virginia US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Democratic candidate: Tim Kaine
Republican candidate: George Allen – Former Senator

RCP Average 4/26 – 6/25 — Kaine: 44.3, Allen: 44.2. Kaine +0.1RCP Virginia Polls

George Allen – Republican
Donate: http://www.georgeallen.com/donate/fight-obamacare/
Volunteer: http://www.georgeallen.com/take-action/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/georgeallenva
—
Massachusetts US Senate Election 2012 – Must Hold
Incumbent: Scott Brown – Republican
Challenger: Elizabeth Warren – Democrat

RCP Average 5/7 – 6/24 — Brown: 44.2, Warren 44.0. Brown +0.2RCP Massachusetts Polls

Scott Brown – Republican
Donate: https://www.scottbrown.com/donate/
Volunteer: http://www.scottbrown.com/get-involved/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/USSenScottBrown
—
Montana US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Incumbent: Jon Tester Democrat
Challenger: Denny Rehberg, U.S. representative – Republican, former lieutenant governor, and former state representative

Rasmussen Reports 6/18 – 6/18 — Rehberg: 49, Tester: 47. Rehberg +2RCP Montana Polls

Denny Rehberg – Republican
Donate: https://www.mtsp.biz/rehberg/
Volunteer: http://dennyrehberg.com/volunteer/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rehberg2012
—
Nevada US Senate Election 2012 – Must Hold
Incumbent: Dean Heller – Republican
Challenger: Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative – Democrat

RCP Average 4/30 – 6/10 — Heller: 47, Berkley:42.3. Heller +4.7RCP Nevada Polls

Dean Heller – Republican
Donate: https://secure.deanheller.com/donate/
Volunteer: http://deanheller.com/volunteer/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DeanHeller
 

RACES LESS CLOSE, BUT STILL MUST WIN

Missouri US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Incumbent: Claire McCaskill – Democrat
The GOP primary will take place on August 7th. There are three Republicans vying to challenge McCaskill. Running are former state treasurer and state senator, Sarah Steelman, U.S. Representative Todd Akin, and businessman John Brunner. According to the latest polls, Steelman has the biggest lead over McCaskill. It would probably be best to go with the strongest challenger to McCaskill. 

See current polling data here: RCP Missouri Polls

Sarah Steelman – Republican
Donate: https://www.secureiws.com/sarahsteelman/make-a-difference/donate-v2
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SteelmanCamp/

Todd Akin – Republican
Donate: https://secure.campaignsolutions.com/toddakin/donation1/?initiativekey=EVC5SEAB56RX
Twitter: http://twitter.com/toddakin/

John Brunner – Republican
Donate: http://johnbrunner.com/donate/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brunnerformo
—
Wisconsin US Senate Election 2012 – Must Win
Democratic candidate: Tammy Baldwin
Republican candidate: Tommy Thompson – former governor, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Marquette University 6/20 — Thompson 49, Baldwin 41. Thompson +8
RCP Average 5/11 – 6/16 — Thompson: 49.3, Baldwin: 40. Thompson +9.3RCP Wisconsin Polls

Tommy Thompson – Republican
Donate: https://www.tommyforwisconsin.com/donate/
Volunteer: http://www.tommyforwisconsin.com/join-the-team/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tommyforwi

Help us take the Senate back and Repeal Obamacare! Donate & volunteer Today!

Compiled by: iResist aka Jeff Rainforth