Connect with us

“Pro-Family” Hate Group Awards Deadbeat Dad Tea Party Congressman

Published

on

The so-called “pro-family” hate group, the Family Research Council, has awarded a deadbeat dad Congressman, Tea Party Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), with a 100% “True Blue” rating and lavished praise on the lawmaker who made headlines for refusing to pay over $100,000 in overdue child support.

“We thank Cong. Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom,” said FRCA President Tony Perkins. “Cong. Walsh and other ‘True Blue Members’ have voted to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood, end government funding for abortion within the health care law, uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and continue support for school choice. I applaud their commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family.”

“I am proud and honored to be recognized by the Family Research Council as the only member from Illinois with a 100 percent pro-family voting record,” Walsh said in a news release. “Defending American values have always been one of my top priorities, and this reward reaffirms my dedication to that fight.”

Joe Walsh has been married two times, and has five children. Apparently, charity does not begin at home for Congressman Joe Walsh.

Via Wikipedia:

Following Walsh’s victory in the 2010 Republican primary, it was reported that a bank had foreclosed on his condo and he had been evicted in October 2009, but that he and his family were living in a rented house in the Chicago North Shore suburb of Winnetka at the time. A GOP spokesman said that voters would likely identify with Walsh’s financial troubles. He was also reportedly facing a lawsuit by a former campaign manager who claimed Walsh owed him $20,000 for services and had had federal and state tax liens in the 1980s and 1990s (all paid by 2001). Walsh explained that the major portion of the past due taxes were on a college trust fund he received from his grandfather and that neither he nor his family had been aware that the funds were taxable. He also explained that his more recent financial struggles have made him more attuned to the difficulties faced by the average constituent.

On July 28, 2011, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Walsh’s ex-wife, Laura, was suing him for $117,437 for past due child support dating from 2005 for three of the children. Walsh allegedly told his ex-wife that he did not have the money because he was out of work but he reportedly loaned $35,000 to his 2010 campaign, and allegedly enjoyed foreign vacations in earlier years.

Lee Fang at Think Progress adds:

Despite their very poor understanding of what the term “pro-family” means — the Family Research Council was recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of their virulently anti-gay views — they are disturbingly influential among conservative lawmakers.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that Walsh’s failure to pay child support isn’t even his only failure to look out for the basic needs of his own family. As Marie Diamond noted for ThinkProgress a few months ago, “Walsh also rejected the congressional health insurance plan for his family on principle, much to the chagrin of his current wife, Helene, who had a preexisting condition and needed surgery while the couple was uninsured.”

Recently, a judge rebuked Walsh for failing to even show up to a court hearing about his missed child support payments, telling the Chicago-area lawmaker that he doesn’t deserve special treatment and that he’s “no different than anyone else.”

More evidence of right wing hypocrisy at its finest. Just as in the case of the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain, we learn that 55% of Republicans don’t think it’s a serious matter.

Family values. Right.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

Published

on

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s future in the Trump administration is being questioned after her top aide and “closest adviser,” Joe Kent — who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center — abruptly resigned in protest against the Iran war on Tuesday.

Trump White House reporter Jake Lahut commented that Kent’s resignation “puts Tulsi in an even more precarious position.”

“Embarrassing for Tulsi,” remarked Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark.

Gabbard’s standing in the administration has at times appeared tenuous, and has been questioned before, including over Iran — the reason Kent quit.

As The Hill reported last June, Gabbard’s “strength and standing within the Trump administration” were coming under question “after the president twice publicly brushed off her testimony that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon, and amid reports of tensions between the two.”

Gabbard’s “anti-war stance” at the time fit in with the “MAGA movement’s aversion to getting the U.S. sucked into foreign conflicts,” although now Trump voters largely support his Iran war.

Gabbard was told by the White House to fire Kent for being a “known leaker,” but “she never did,” according to Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie, citing a senior Trump administration official. Hasnie also reported that Kent “was cut out of” the president’s intelligence briefings “months ago,” and that Kent “has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all.”

MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer, called Kent’s resignation a “nuke from a true MAGA member,” and commented, the “big question, is Tulsi next?”

Michael V. Hayden Center director Larry Pfeiffer asked, “Over/under on how quickly Gabbard throws Kent under the bus at the hearing tomorrow?” Last year, Pfeiffer called Gabbard “the perfectly dangerous mix of incompetence, narcissism, sycophancy, and malign intent.”

Gabbard is slated to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday and before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Republican former U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock summed it up, asking, Gabbard “kept on a known leaker in a national security position?”

“Let’s face it,” she added, “Tulsi has been cut out too because she agrees with Kent – or at least always did before Trump flipped his position.”

Far-right political activist Laura Loomer, who at times has had the ear of President Trump, responded to Kent’s resignation by predicting that Gabbard “will resign next.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

White House Scrambles for Damage Control After National Security Official’s Abrupt Exit

Published

on

The Trump White House is scrambling to contain fallout after Tuesday’s sudden, very public, and high-profile resignation of its top counterterrorism official — the first senior departure linked to the Iran war.

Joe Kent, who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in a letter to President Trump that he posted to social media.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” wrote Kent, whose wife was killed by ISIS. “Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly pushed back on Kent’s resignation, declaring that there are “many false claims” in his letter, including, she said, that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Leavitt charged that this claim “is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over.”

READ MORE: ‘Clear All Along’: Backlash Grows as Trump Aide Shrugs Off Consumer Pain From Iran War

“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first.”

Just five days ago, Leavitt reportedly “declared that Iran poses no threat to the United States,” as The Daily Beast reported.

“TO BE CLEAR: No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did,” she wrote.

On Tuesday, multiple high-profile social media accounts mocked the Press Secretary over those very remarks.

According to a New York Times report two weeks ago, Trump’s “decision to order the attack on Iran, he said, was mostly a matter of gut instinct about Iranian intentions.”

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he said. “I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen.”

The Times added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “had offered the opposite explanation the previous day, telling reporters that because Israel was going to act, Mr. Trump had no choice but to join what he called a ‘pre-emptive’ strike before Iran counterattacked U.S. bases and allies.”

But according to Leavitt on Tuesday, Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran was based on evidence that “was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum.”

Leavitt appeared to dismiss any other interpretations of what constitutes a threat to the nation.

READ MORE: ‘Sick, Demented, or Deranged’: Trump Issues Harshest Threat Yet Over Voter ID Bill

“The Commander-in-Chief determines what does and does not constitute a threat, because he is the one constitutionally empowered to do so – and because the American people went to the ballot box and entrusted him and him alone to make such final judgments,” she wrote.

Leavitt denounced what she called the “absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries,” calling it “both insulting and laughable,” despite what Secretary Rubio had said earlier.

She lashed out at Kent’s allegation that “it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” remarks that have been derided by both sides of the aisle.

Heath Mayo, founder of the pro-democracy center-right group Principles First, on social media on Tuesday warned his followers to not hold Kent up “as some paragon of principle.” He urged them to “recall this is the same man who flunked his congressional bid for his outspoken anti-Semitism, his ties to Nick Fuentes, and his insistence that the 2020 election was rigged.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was the Only One’: Trump Mocked for Declaring Iran’s Moves ‘Shocked’ Him

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Clear All Along’: Backlash Grows as Trump Aide Shrugs Off Consumer Pain From Iran War

Published

on

A top Trump economic adviser is under fire after declaring that consumers hurt by an extended Iran war are the “last of our concerns right now.”

Despite some expert predictions of possible recession or even stagflation, Kevin Hassett, the Director of the National Economic Council (NEC), on Tuesday called the U.S. economy “very sound,” and insisted that the  Iran war “wouldn’t really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all” if it were to continue for an extended period of time, MS NOW reported. The war is in its 18th day.

“It would hurt consumers, and we’d have to think about, if that continued, what we’d have to do about that, but that’s really the last of our concerns right now,” he said, claiming that the war is “ahead of schedule.”

Consumers are feeling the pain, especially at the pump.

As of Monday, five states were hovering near $4 a gallon and several others were seeing sharp increases. “The national average is up 80.0 cents from a month ago and is 66.1 cents per gallon higher than a year ago,” WANE reported on Monday, citing data from GasBuddy.

Critics rushed to denounce Hassett’s remarks.

“In any normal administration, a senior advisor to the President (basically) saying they don’t care that Americans are being harmed financially by something the President has done would resign before 5 pm today b/c the media outrage would be THAT extreme,” wrote one social media political commentator.

“This is what this Administration of billionaires for billionaires really thinks. The consumer is an inconvenience,” said Democratic congressional candidate Fred Wellman.

“It has been clear all along that consumers, aka the American public, are the least of this administration’s concerns,” observed Jared Ryan Sears, who writes at The Progressive Capitalist. “Fits right in with claiming that affordability is a hoax, as Americans are draining their 401ks and savings trying to stay afloat. Pretending the economy is good is a joke. Instead of creating jobs, the US has been losing jobs over the past 10 months, and GDP growth was just 0.7% last quarter. Trump has ruined the economy.”

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent called Hassett’s comment “an extremely serious political blunder” that “will end up in a lot of Dem ads.”

“If Republicans were trying to lose the midterms on purpose, they wouldn’t need to change a thing,” wrote podcaster Hemant Mehta.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.