What Did You Say?

Tagged with:

Paul Ryan

Report: Black Lives Matter Cheers New York Officer’s Death

Posted by Rusty—October 21, 2015

Should you need any further proof that the Obama/Sharpton/Clinton-supported Black Lives Matter movement is more about hatred of police officers than it is about actual ‘black lives,’ this is it.

Retired NYPD officer and current radio talk show host, John Cardillo, reported that protesters were at the scene of the hospital where officer Officer Randolph Holder would succumb to being shot in the line of duty.

Cardillo was at the hospital and earlier reports show that information he was relaying from police officer’s at the scene was accurate. But why would Black Lives Matter activists cheer the killing of an immigrant officer who is … black?

The answer? They hate police officers, plain and simple. Does Holder’s life not matter?

In December, a Daily Beast reporter made similar claims when two NYPD officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, were executed. Via Liberty Unyielding:

[T]he scene outside Woodhull Hospital wasn’t entirely supportive. “You’re a bunch of killers,” a passerby told cops standing sentry there, according to one police source. And short distance from the crime scene — where a crowd was backed up by the police tape — a few members of the crowd repeated “f*ck the cops” within earshot of a Daily Beast reporter. One 30-year-old local who gave his first name only as Carlos, didn’t hear the fatal gunfire but saw the hysteria aftewards and walked to the police tape. “A lot of people were clapping and laughing,” he said. “Some were saying, ‘They deserved it,’ and another was shouting at the cops, ‘Serves them right because you mistreat people!’” he said.

Cardillo didn’t mince words, placing the blame for Black Lives Matter’s hatred of police officers squarely on the shoulders of a select few.

The executions of Liu and Ramos led NYPD officers to turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio multiple times when he tried to pay respects to the fallen.

Category:

Political, Society

Tagged with:

NYPD Officer Randolph Holder

Paul Ryan Will Run for Speaker–if Conservative Colleagues Stop Being a ‘Problem’

by Charlie Spiering 20 Oct 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/20/paul-ryan-will-run-speaker-conservative-colleagues-stop-problem

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The establishment wing of the Republican party is finally getting its wish. After meeting with House Republicans this evening, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) admitted during a press conference that he was willing to run for Speaker of the House–but only if they met a list of demands of what it would take to get him to run.

“We as a conference should unify now and not after a divisive Speaker election,” Ryan said, calling for Republicans to gather as a team and “move from an opposition party to being a proposition party.”

Ryan’s list of demands appeared to highlight party unity but also party loyalty, as he criticized the chaos in the Republican caucus, leading to Boehner’s resignation. According to Ryan’s spokesperson Brendan Buck, his demands included a change in the process for motion to “vacate the chair.” “No matter who is speaker, they cannot be successful with this weapon pointed at them all the time,” Buck told reporters before Ryan’s speech.

Ryan signaled that the partisan brinkmanship had to come to an end. “We have become the problem,” Ryan said. “If my colleagues entrust me to be the Speaker I want us to become the solution.”

Ryan urged his House colleagues to stop blaming the other party, the president, and the media for blocking their agenda. “People don’t care about blame, people don’t care about effort, people care about results,” he said, calling for Republicans to embrace “results-driven, common-sense conservatism.”

Ryan admitted that if the conference couldn’t unite behind him, he would be “happy” to remain as chairman of the Ways and Means committee. “This is not a job I ever wanted and I’ve ever sought,” Ryan said, referring to the situation as a “dire moment” in America.

He also refused to give up time with his family in Janesville, Wisconsin, suggesting he would spend less time fundraising and less time in Washington, D.C. “I cannot and will not give up my family time,” he said, while vowing he would work hard to make up for lost time if he was elected.

It’s unclear whether or not the House Freedom Caucus will oppose Ryan unanimously or begrudgingly support him. Ryan’s ultimatum might be enough to divide rebel conservatives who will likely face peer pressure from their colleagues to fall in line.

After Ryan spoke with the conference, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) announced that he would drop out of the Speaker race in favor of Ryan. “Right person at the right time,” he wrote briefly on Twitter.

Category:

Tagged with:

Finally, Clinton Faces Panel on Benghazi: 5 Key Questions She Could Be Asked

Posted by Helle Dale / @Helledale / October 20, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/20/finally-clinton-faces-panel-on-benghazi-5-key-questions-she-could-be-asked

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton will make her long-awaited appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

This will be a crucial moment in the Benghazi investigation, and without the testimony of the former secretary of state, the record will never be complete. We have had eight congressional investigations and one Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, but the secretary was not interviewed by the ARB.

Furthermore, Clinton’s only testimony on this matter, on Jan. 23, 2013, was truncated by her health problems and by the fact that she appeared before two committees on the same day.

Getting to the bottom of the Benghazi affair is important for many reasons: The families of the four men who were killed in Benghazi deserve the truth, as they were promised by the Obama administration over three years ago. Government accountability and personal responsibility matter.

So does making every possible effort to ensure the safety of U.S. diplomats sent overseas to do the nation’s business.

This country has missions, consulates, and embassies all over the world, and we need to make sure we know what needs to be done to keep them safe and enable them to do their jobs.

That’s why we need to get to the full truth of what happened before, during, and after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, so we know how we can do to do better.

Some of the important questions that have never been adequately answered,

Why was the construction of the Benghazi consulate allowed to go ahead in the demonstrable absence of adequate security?
Law requires the secretary of state personally to issue a waiver when certain safety specifications are not present. Did she sign such a waiver?
Why were the repeated and urgent requests by U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens for additional security staff denied by the State Department?
What procedures existed then and exist now to aid diplomatic missions in danger of armed assault?
Whom did Clinton communicate with once she became aware that her diplomats were under attack, and what was the substance of her conversations and directives?

It is shameful that the Obama administration has not been committed to advance that truth, sometimes even actively attempting to block access to witnesses and documents sought by investigators.

The Benghazi Select Committee’s work has not been easy. Clinton’s testimony will be another test of the skill and determination of its members.

Category:

Tagged with:

House Select Committee on Benghazi

‘It’s Unbelievable’: O’Reilly Grills Dems For Blocking ‘Kate’s Law’ In Senate [VIDEO]

Posted by Christian Datoc, Reporter, 10/21/2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/its-unbelievable-oreilly-grills-dems-for-blocking-kates-law-in-senate-video/#ixzz3pEipgARl

Bill O’Reilly tore into Democrats for blocking Kate’s Law from advancing in the Senate on Tuesday.

“The O’Reilly Factor” host called the decision “unbelievable” before adding “unbelievable is too gentle a word.”

O’REILLY: There comes a point where the American people are going to have to take back their government. When a 32-year-old woman can be gunned down by and illegal felon who had been deported five times, and you can’t get a strict law punishing illegal alien felons passed. When that happens, you don’t have a functioning government. It is hard to believe, but far left in America is actively opposing Kate’s Law. It’s unbelievable — unbelievable is too gentle a word.

WATCH:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>” href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”>http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript> aligncenter wp-image-20313″ src=”https://whatdidyousay.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bill1.jpg” alt=”bill” width=”786″ height=”446″ />

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Get Carson

October 21, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/get-carson

Category:

Tagged with:

Christian Haters to Advise Obama Admin on Domestic Terrorism

Posted by Tim Brown October 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/christian-haters-to-advise-obama-admin-on-domestic-terrorism/#C1fyDapVsDiX9zd2.99

There is no doubt that in America, there are many who are calling good evil and evil good. At the top of that list is the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now, the SPLC wants to identify what they call “haters” on their little hate list for radicals in our society to target, whether they are individuals or organizations. Now they are teaming up with the corrupt and criminal Obama administration in order to advise the domestic terrorists in our government on violent extremism, and at the top of their list are Christians and patriots.

While the SPLC targets individuals and organizations for speaking out against abortion, sodomy, Islam, the New Black Panthers calling them “haters,” all these groups are simply doing is speaking the truth on a particular subject. That’s called free speech, but apparently, the SPLC can’t stand the truth and so they engage in slander against a variety of people.

Now, the SPLC will be teaming up with the Obama Department of (in)Justice, led by Constitution violating Loretta Lynch and seek to track and coordinate investigations into “domestic terrorism.”

Previously, we reported that this announcement was made on October 14 by Assistant Attorney General John Carlin at George Washington University. While Carlin did mention Islam on two occasions in the speech, his emphasis was on “anti-government animus, eco-radicalism, and racism.”

“The new DT Counsel will not only help ensure that DT cases are properly coordinated but also will play a key role in our headquarters-level efforts to identify trends to help shape our strategy, and to analyze legal gaps or enhancements required to ensure we can combat these threats,” said Carlin.

Since when should the American people trust lying organizations like the SPLC to advise our government on anything? And, of course, Carlin is one who buys into the maligning and slander of the SPLC’s Mark Potock’s “hate groups.”

“The attorney general noted this summer that these kinds of hate crimes are the original domestic terrorism,” Carlin said. “Among domestic extremist movements in the United States, white supremacists are most violent. The Charleston shooter, who had a manifesto laying out a racist worldview, is just one example. His actions followed earlier deadly shooting sprees by white supremacists in Kansas, Wisconsin and elsewhere.”

Noticably missing from Mr. Carlin’s comments was how the SPLC was the primary source for sodomite supporting Floyd Lee Corkins II, who was heavily influenced by the SPLC website to the point where he took a gun and was attempting a mass murder at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC in August 2012. Fortunately, he was stopped by a guard that he shot or there would have been many dead in the wake of his shooting spree. However, we don’t hear a peep about this incident.

In fact, according to a statement of offense, which was consistent with Corkins statement to the FBI, “a subsequent search of Corkins’ family computer revealed that on the afternoon of Sunday, August 12, Corkins used the computer to visit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website, as well as the websites for the FRC and the second organization on his handwritten list.”

Did the SPLC feel any responsibility for the lies they told by putting the FRC on a “hate list” and a target address for Corkins to attack? Nope, not one bit. In fact, the socialists and communists in our country attempted to justify the shooting!

The SPLC has attacked such people as Ben Carson, Ann Coulter, Bradlee Dean and Pamela Geller, along with the Family Research Council and others. However, Carlin, instead of calling out the SPLC for their own brand of hate and lawlessness, praised them, claiming that they were an “important voice on the wide range of extremist groups throughout this country.”

Yet, it was Family Research Council President Tony Perkins who wrote, “Is he (Carlin) serious? Were it not for an ordinary man showing extraordinary courage, an activist bent on massacring an office of innocent people might have succeeded in gunning down dozens of people at FRC. As prosecutors pointed out, this was no ordinary attack — but an act spurred on by the SPLC’s reckless ‘hate’ labeling. Now we’re supposed to believe that this same organization, the one that inspired Floyd Corkins to walk into our building and shoot Leo Johnson, is a legitimate ally in the fight against domestic terrorism? A trusted source in identifying the homegrown threats?”

“And despite the suffering and near casualties at FRC, SPLC refuses,” he wrote. “Obviously, the DOJ sees no problem with putting countless Americans at risk simply for participating in the political process and advocating for public policy consistent with their orthodox Christian beliefs.”

Perkins was not the only one who has pointed out the real danger SPLC poses to Christians in our land. According to a report from Liberty Counsel on the FRC shooting, “By falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as ‘hate groups,’ the SPLC is directly responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C.

The SPLC sent letters to the DOJ and Homeland Security back in 2013 claiming that patriot groups pose a domestic terror threat. In other words, the SPLC is hostile towards members of the militia, which are a constitutionally authorized force (made up of ordinary Americans) to repel invasions and put down insurrections.

Keep in mind what Mr. Potok has stated in the open:

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on…I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”—Mark Potok, director of intelligence at Southern Poverty Law Center.

We already know that the Obama administration is criminal. We also know who the real haters and domestic terrorists are, and the Southern Poverty Law Center is among the true domestic terrorists.

Category:

Tagged with:

‘Black Lives Matter’ Forces L.A. Mayor Garcetti to Flee Town Hall

by Joel B. Pollak 20 Oct 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/20/black-lives-matter-forces-l-a-mayor-garcetti-to-flee-town-hall

Mark-Anthony Johnson / @FlyEgret / Twitter

Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti was forced to cut short a town hall meeting with the black community on Monday evening after it was disrupted by Black Lives Matter protestors. The meeting, at the Holman United Methodist Church, was attended by several hundred people, but several dozen activists interrupted repeatedly and forced Garcetti to flee. The LAPD had to disperse the crowd before he could depart, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The organizers of the forum urged the protestors to have a “civil conversation.” Instead, they chanted “”Black lives, they matter here!” and forced Garcetti to leave under police guard. NBC Los Angeles recounted: “Garcetti initially came to answer questions from citizens regarding economic opportunity and community safety before protestors began chanting. But the event quickly turned to chaos as Black Lives Matter protesters rushed the podium.”

Black Lives Matter organizer Dr. Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan African Studies at Cal State L.A., posted a list of the protestors’ demands to Facebook, which includes a demand for the resignation of Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck, as well as the payment of “reparations” to the community for police violence.

Black Lives Matter protests have been staged sporadically throughout Los Angeles over the past year, in response to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri as well as police shootings closer to home, such as the Ezell Ford shooting. Garcetti was criticized when he skipped the inquiry into Ford’s death for a fundraiser in Washington.

Since then, Garcetti has been doing damage control. On Monday, he attempted to show solidarity with the Black Lives Movement by explaining, as other Democrats have been forced to do, why it was wrong to say “all lives matter.” The Times quoted Garcetti:

“Let me say, you’re right, your analysis,” Garcetti said. “I hate this back-and-forth we hear nationally, where people say black lives matter and politicians say all lives matter. Black lives matter in a unique way, and you and I see eye to eye on this.”

He added: “If you just try to say all lives matter, you write people out of history. You write slavery out of history. You write oppression and violence out of history. You write racism and lynching out of history. So I get why it is important — just hear me out for one second — you’re right.”

That was not enough for the protestors, however, who turned their backs to the stage and booed repeatedly. Their goal was to stop Garcetti from speaking, not to listen to his explanations.

Garcetti later issued a statement:

Tonight, we had hundreds of South LA residents attend a community meeting – leaders, business owners, mothers and children, who took time out of their evening to discuss the critical issues that matter most to all of us. I am disappointed that our conversation was cut short when there is so much work for us to do together to make our neighborhoods stronger and safer. I believe in our City and my commitment to our shared concerns continues, stronger than ever.

Category:

Tagged with:

SF school principal suspends student council election outcome because results not ‘diverse’ enough

By Thomas Lifson October 20, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/sf_school_principal_suspends_student_council_election_outcome_because_results_not_diverse_enough.html#ixzz3p9vD1Wrr

The children attending Everett Middle School in San Francisco’s Mission District just got an object lesson in liberal fascism. Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post, cites a report by KTVU television:

There’s a bit of controversy surrounding student elections at a San Francisco middle school after the results were immediately withheld by the principal because they weren’t diverse enough.

The incident happened at Everett Middle School in San Francisco’s Mission District. The voting was held Oct. 10, but the principal sent an email to parents on Oct. 14 saying the results would not be released because the candidates that were elected as a whole do not represents the diversity that exists at the school….

According to Principal Lena Van Haren, Everett Middle School has a diverse student body. She said 80 percent of students are students of color and 20 percent are white, but the election results did not represent the entire study body.

“That is concerning to me because as principal I want to make sure all voices are heard from all backgrounds,” Van Haren said….

“We’re not nullifying the election, we’re not cancelling the election and we’re not saying this didn’t count,” Van Haren said.

She said the school may possibly add positions in an effort to be more equal.

It is positively Orwellian to claim “[w]e’re not nullifying the election, we’re not cancelling the election and we’re not saying this didn’t count” while acting to do exactly that by means of adding hand-selected (by the principal, obviously) representatives to change the membership of the body.

Professor Volokh comments:

Well, the children’s voices were heard. They just seemed to be less obsessed with race than some administrators are. And exactly what “learning experience” would the children get this way, whether about racial tolerance or democracy?

The principal’s outrageous actions caused a bit of controversy, even in San Francisco, and as a result, she backtracked, somewhat, with this statement:

Everett Middle School is honoring the results of the Associated Student Body (ASB) elections. This is our first student council at Everett Middle School in recent history and we started up a student council because we want our students to have several ways to develop their leadership skills and be a part of shaping our school. We want a student leadership body that includes the range of perspectives and experiences of our students and we believe a representative body is an important part of democracy.

When we reviewed the results of our Associated Student Body (ASB) elections on Friday, October 9th, we saw that it was not fully representative of our school population. I made the decision to pause on sharing the results with the students in order to capitalize on a teachable moment. I wanted to have a conversation with all of the candidates and ask for their ideas to make sure that all voices and groups are represented in our ASB. In retrospect, I understand how this decision to pause created concerns. Today I visited classrooms to announce the winners of the elections.

There are many challenges and opportunities that this situation surfaces. Especially now, at a time when our school and community’s population is undergoing demographic change, I believe that we have a responsibility to take these conversations seriously, appreciating both their complexity and their urgency. There are no easy answers, so I am looking forward to talking as a community about how we can grow and get better at this for the rest of the year and into next year.

That is 264 words’ worth of pabulum that manages to obscure more than it reveals. I think it means that she is backing off her overruling of democracy, but then again, she avers that “we have a responsibility to take these conversations seriously, appreciating both their complexity and their urgency.” So what does that mean?

For the record, the Mission District, formerly a heavily Irish and Jewish neighborhood, transitioned to heavily Hispanic and is now rapidly gentrifying as many highly paid tech people move in. The principal seems to imply that “students of color” are proliferating, but even taking account of the low incidence of childrearing among the youngish tech crowd, it would seem to me that in fact, the proportion of Hispanic students would be declining as the gentrification continues. Incidentally, while there were no political protests when Hispanics displaced Irish and Jews several decades ago, the current transition of the Mission District has sparked outrage and even violent protest, as so-called Google Buses that transport employees to Silicon Valley jobs have been attacked.

If you want to find the hottest restaurants and bars in San Francisco, you go to the Mission. It is the happening place. But Principal Van Haren seems to be locked in a time warp, where omniscient and wise educrats dictate an ideal racial and ethnic outcome for elections and neighborhoods.

America’s public schools, the most expensive in the world outside Switzerland and Luxembourg, are failing our children, as the results of international comparisons of standardized tests reveals. How could it be otherwise with people like Principal Van Haren leading them?

Category:

Tagged with:

Using Biden to Block the Clintons from Regaining the White House Barack Obama’s last act

By Kevin D. Williamson — October 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425752/obama-2016-joe-biden-hillary-clinton

As he approaches the end of his career in elected office, Barack Obama is in a truly precarious position: He is going to exit the White House having accomplished almost nothing substantive on the policy front — his health-care program is not going to survive, Gitmo is not going to be closed, we are not leaving Afghanistan, and he is sending troops into Iraq — and outside of his perch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his party is in ruins: In Congress and the states, the Democrats are in their weakest position in modern political history. If the Democrats do not win the presidency in 2016, there are going to be some very uncomfortable questions about what exactly Obama & Co. accomplished, and at what price.

What to do? Throw Herself to the wolves, of course.

Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.” Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants “The secretary shall issue.”

Progressives understand this. Conservatives sometimes fail to.

For conservatives, policy matters above all: You can be Rick Perry or a Marco Rubio or a Scott Walker, but if you deviate from the true path on a single issue, we’ll cast you into the outer darkness as a phony conservative. Progressives invert that: Personnel is what really counts. They operate on the assumption (which turns out to be well founded) that as long as they get their people into positions of power, they’re going to get their way most of the time when it really counts. That’s why Barack Obama could run for the presidency to the right of Dick Cheney on gay marriage — twice, while citing the Bible for justification — without hearing a peep. And it’s why he could subsequently name to the Supreme Court Elena Kagan, who insisted that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” When the time came, Obama’s people were going to give Obama’s people what Obama’s people wanted, and everybody knew it.

But the Clintons aren’t Obama’s people. Bill Clinton thinks of Obama as his own political Stepin Fetchit, the guy who only a few years ago would have been “carrying our bags.” Herself was Obama’s main obstacle to power. (No, Senator McCain most certainly was not.) Obama did not build this machine to hand it over to the Clintons on a cold winter morning in 2017. That puts him in a double bind: He has to make it beyond question that he and his clique now own the Democratic party — that the Clintons are just weird sad old 1990s relics like those ancient AOL CDs that some youngsters ironically collect — but he also needs the Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 in order for the party to be worth owning. And of the candidates in the race, only Herself has a plausible shot at being elected president of these United States. Senator Sanders vs. Senator Rubio? Republicans would have their best year since 1988.

#share#The anti-Clinton element in the Democratic party currently describes itself as the “Warren wing,” and there is among the Sandersnistas a distinct impression that their guy isn’t really their guy, that they’re behind Senator Sanders only because Senator Warren isn’t in the running. She’d do better than Senator Sanders, but she’ll have a hard time of it, too, when her time comes. She’s the Ted Cruz of the Left: She’s exactly the sort of thing you like if you like that sort of thing. But put her in front of an audience that isn’t instinctively on her side and she’s going to have a hard time bridging that gap. She’s a partisans’ partisan. Put Mike Huckabee on a debate stage and I find myself thinking: I don’t want to like this guy, but I like this guy. Get Marco Rubio talking about his family and you cannot help but like him. I’ve seen Elizabeth Warren in action, and you can help liking her.

If President Obama really were the bloodless Machiavellian his critics sometimes think he is, he’d see to it that Herself and a few of her top staffers were indicted under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 for their improper handling of classified documents, and then put out the word that the time has come to choose sides. That she should be indicted is beside the point, politically; it would, however, be the last anybody ever heard of the Clintons. Or he may calculate that her troubles will continue to deepen and decide to simply watch quietly as she goes under with no assistance from him.

The problem is that there is no one in the field to swoop in and lead the Democrats to victory in 2016. Obama has a personnel problem.

And that’s where Joe Biden comes in. Biden is the Obama guy who isn’t really an Obama guy — he was elected to the U.S. Senate when Barack Obama was eleven years old. He had a life and a political career before he hitched his wagon to the teapot messiah from Chicago, and though his is not the keenest mind in politics, he surely gets the game: If he gets in, he is to be reduced to a purely instrumental condition, an enabler of Obama’s last and most important political play, a placeholder keeping the chair warm until Obama’s people have settled on a real president. Biden doesn’t seem like a man who minds being used so long as the deal is a square one, but he is also old and tired and has recently suffered the loss of a child, which must be nearly unbearable. There are three possible outcomes for him: He could get in the race, win, and become a figurehead. He could get in the race, lose, and retire with the stink of defeat upon him.

Or he could just keep smiling.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.

Category:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Capital Punishment

October 20, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/capital-punishment

let-us-never-forget-the-slippery-slope-of-socialism-political-poster-12968314442

Category:

Tagged with:

Socialism

Memos recovered from Benghazi compound detail staff security worries

By John Solomon – The Washington Times – Updated: 8:04 p.m. on Monday, October 19, 2015

A protester reacts as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames on September 11, 2012. (Reuters) more >

In the final weeks before the deadly Benghazi attack in September 2012, State Department officials serving in the tumultuous Libyan city had increasing worries about safety, reaching out repeatedly to the CIA and Libyan government for extra security and dealing with landlord and guard issues that raised additional red flags, according to documents recovered from the burned-out compound.

The documents, given to The Washington Times by a U.S. official, provide contemporaneous accounts of career State Department officials coping with an increasingly unstable foreign city and grasping for security help from outsiders in the absence of more action from their own department.

“In response to threats of a planned attack posted on the Internet, U.S. Mission Benghazi is requesting assistance from the Supreme Security Council,” Jennifer Larson, the State Department’s principal officer for Benghazi, wrote in a May 29, 2012, letter to a top Libyan official.

“U.S. Mission Benghazi is requesting a mobile patrol outside the vicinity of the Mission during hours of darkness, from 2000 to 0700,” she added in the letter to Fawzi Wanis, the then-head of the Libyan Supreme Security Council.

Ms. Larson repeated the request in an urgent follow-up on June 6, 2012, the same day the Benghazi mission suffered a small bomb attack that became a prelude to the much bigger attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans just three months later.

With just a few diplomatic security officers on scene at the State Department compound in Benghazi, Ms. Larson sought a perimeter patrol by Libyan forces to “remain in place until further notice,” the memo shows.

The need to seek security help from the Libyans was necessary because the State Department in Washington repeatedly turned down requests for more safety resources, according to the former head of the U.S. site security team in Libya at the time.

“They gave us nothing to work with. We had to resource everything we could with what we had in front of us, contracting with the locals, seeking the agency’s help and working with meager internal resources,” said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a special forces reserve officer who tried several times to fortify the weak security at Benghazi in 2012.

State Department officials in Washington “had their minds made up. They were not going to provide additional security there, period,” he said in an interview Monday with The Times.

State Department officials declined to discuss the memos, deferring to multiple investigations that have concluded there was inadequate security at the compound when it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012. Officials said, however, they have made numerous improvements at high-risk diplomatic compounds worldwide since.

“We cannot guarantee that attacks won’t happen again, but we can take steps to try to prevent them and mitigate risk. And that’s what we’re doing,” the State Department said in a statement to The Times.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is slated to testify Thursday before a special House committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy empaneled to look at the security lapses that preceded Benghazi.

Landlords get nervous

The memos show that the deteriorating security at Benghazi not only concerned State Department officials working there, but also the Libyan landlords who rented the two villas comprising a large portion of the compound. One of the landlords demanded more money for rent, while the other asked to be released from the rental agreement in the summer preceding the attacks, the memos show.

“The owner has requested to write to you to consider the termination of the lease contract on the end of the first term July 31, 2012,” a representative for one of the landlords wrote on June 18, 2012. “Regrettable due to family and personal reasons.”

That landlord owned the part of the complex known as Villa C, which constituted the main working place for the complex and the location where Stevens died in a blaze. The landlord expressed increased concerns for his family’s safety and the safety of his villa if Americans continued to occupy it, a U.S. official told The Times.

The owner of the second complex, Villa B, also began raising concerns around the same time. In a letter contained in the Benghazi compound staff files, the landlord demanded higher rent after discovering the other landlord was getting paid more for his complex.

“In addition to extra works of which we bear all expenses as you already know, and whereas the price of this property differs from that of the neighboring property and that this amount of rent does not cover the agreed upon charges, we look forward for good cooperation by suggesting to you either increasing the amount of rent or regretfully terminate the contract,” the landlord wrote in an April 7, 2012, letter.

Officials said that rent dispute carried through the summer unresolved and had become more intense shortly before the attack occurred. The amount of money in dispute reached $100,000 by late summer, and the landlord’s representatives warned State officials that they would “be sorry if you don’t pay rent and pay more,” according to a U.S. official directly familiar with the situation. State Department officials confirmed the rental dispute and said it was going through a mitigation process aimed at settling the issues when the attack occurred.

Mothers’ doubts

Col. Wood, the security expert, said he became aware of the landlords’ concerns and considered them a red flag indicating local Libyans were worried about being affiliated with the U.S. He became even more alarmed when local Libyan security guards began expressing concerns about showing up for work for fear of their safety.

“It did come up that they (the landlord and his representatives) were asking for more money,” he recalled. “There were several other indicators that went on that suggested an attack was imminent. The contract security guards were saying their moms are telling them ‘Don’t go to work, it is too dangerous. That was a huge indicator.”

Col. Wood said he brought the concerns to Stevens in late summer.

“I told this to Mr. Stevens himself, in front of a big meeting. I said ‘You are going to get attacked and you are going to get attacked in Benghazi,’” he said.

The run-of-the-mill memos provide an unusually personal window into the pressures and concerns of the everyday U.S. staff in Benghazi before the deadly attack. They paint a poignant picture of an American team seeking the help of Libyan locals and CIA counterparts to ensure their safety in the absence of more resources from Washington.

Those missing resources included more heavy-duty armaments, more American security personnel and U.S. air support for evacuation in case of an attack.

You’re on your own

The resource concerns are further laid bare in a CIA memo sent to the field in Benghazi shortly before the attack, which made clear the strategy for U.S. personnel was essentially a fend-for-yourself edict from Washington.

“The primary course of action for officers operating in Libya during a personnel recovery scenario should be to move away from the enemy activity as there is no mechanism/authorities in place for the field to leverage Emergency Close Air Support,” the memo warned. “The base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.”

CIA security officers told the House Intelligence Committee during an after-action report that the State Department compound was far less secure than the agency’s own buildings and that diplomatic security agents feared they were ill equipped to respond to an armed attack against the mission. The local State Department employees repeatedly sought help from CIA to try to fortify a compound with clear security weaknesses.

The lack of preparation and resources persisted, even as CIA produced more than four dozen pieces of confirmed intelligence that reported on increasing threats against Americans and Westerners in Benghazi and documented more than 20 attempted attacks in the area just before the fiery assault on the compound on Sept. 11.

“CIA security personnel testified that State Department DS (diplomatic security) agents repeatedly stated they felt ill-equipped and ill-trained to contend with the threat environment in Benghazi,” the report said.

“The DS agents knew well before the attacks that they could not defend the TMF against an armed assault. The DS agents also told CIA about their requests for additional resources that were pending,” it said.

Stevens, a respected career diplomat, was aware before he left Tripoli to visit Benghazi for a ceremony that the city was in worsening security shape. The morning before he died, his final cable to Mrs. Clinton described an increasingly violent city and his own fears that the local Libyan forces guarding the complex might not adequately ensure the safety of State Department personnel.

Militia leaders told U.S. officials just two days before the attack that they were angered by U.S. support of a particular candidate for Libyan prime minister and warned “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” Stevens wrote the morning of the attack.

State resists IG recommendation

The various investigations of Benghazi have concluded that the local Libyan forces at the compound did not effectively deter the attack and that the State Department’s heavy reliance on foreign security forces for such a high-risk location was a flawed strategy.

The State Department’s own accountability review board made 29 recommendations for improving security, including that the agency “implement a plan to strengthen security beyond reliance on host government security support” for high-risk, high-threat (HRHT) posts.

Though more than two years old, that recommendation has not been fully implemented by the Diplomatic Security office, the State Department’s inspector general recently warned.

“Although DS has not developed a plan for strengthening security at HRHT posts as Recommendation 12 recommends, it has undertaken several initiatives directed at the recommendation’s intent, including enhanced personnel training, increased use of the Deliberate Planning Process, expansion of the Marine security guard (MSG) program and revision of its mission, and closer coordination and cooperation with DOD,” the inspector general reported in a little-noticed memo released in late August when most of official Washington was on vacation.

The IG, the agency’s internal watchdog, also noted that State had outright rejected one of its recommendations for improved security: to develop mandatory minimum security standards for high-risk outposts.

“Recommendation 17 of the ARB process review report recommended that the Department develop minimum security standards that must be met prior to occupying facilities in HRHT locations,” the IG noted. “The Department rejected this recommendation, stating that existing Overseas Security Policy Board standards apply to all posts and that separate security standards for HRHT posts would not provide better or more secure operating environments.”

The IG said it disagrees with that assessment and “the department’s response does not meet the recommendation’s requirement for standards that must be met prior to occupancy.” As a result, the watchdog has reissued that recommendation and urged State to take action.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach told The Times that State has taken all the security recommendations seriously and “implemented new procedures to address high-threat posts, procured critical security assets and engaged Congress to secure increased funding for embassy security.”

But he acknowledged some of the recommendations have not been fully implemented yet.

“We adopted all the ARB’s 29 recommendations and are committed to implementing each,” he said. “We have closed 26 of 29 recommendations, some of which require long-term technical upgrades. The remaining three are in progress.”

Category:

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/16/how-the-indiana-pizza-shop-responded-after-being-tricked-into-catering-a-gay-wedding/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuKvJZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBkMbjYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Tagged with:

How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into ‘Catering’ a Gay Wedding

Posted by Travis Weber / @tsurenweber / October 16, 2015

Much of the media today roundly disparage any business-person who even voices his or her religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. This is the consistent narrative by which many presumptuously judge small business owners’ (often wedding vendors) motives in affirming their religious convictions as animating their business lives. Critics reject out of hand their claims that they are simply living out their faith with love and can’t be a part of a wedding ceremony that violates their consciences.

When the owners of Memories Pizza—a small-town pizzeria in Indiana—were posed a hypothetical question about whether they would cater a gay wedding last year, the “intolerance” of their simple response that they would not resulted in a threat to burn down their shop. They did not answer threats with threats, but continued to calmly explain that they would happily serve gay customers; they just didn’t want to be a part of the wedding. Of course, none of this mattered to those not interested in seeking the facts.

It now appears that a man ordered two pizzas from Memories Pizza, without stating his reasons (as is quite normal when ordering pizza), and brought them back to serve at his same-sex wedding. He recorded the event on video and claimed that Memories “catered” his gay wedding—without knowing it.

While the charade itself is sort of childish, it does hold several lessons for us. Let us first consider that, in response to the video, Memories owner Kevin O’Connor has…

Threatened to burn something down? Nope.

Called someone a bigot? Nope.

He’s actually not really too interested in the actions of his customer after selling him the pizza.

So what’s the point?

It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships. Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.

Those truly seeking to understand the conflicts in the “wedding vendor cases” should study what happened here, for they will see that no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years. They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them.

What else can we learn?

It’s important to note that Kevin O’Connor did not respond in an apoplectic manner with claims of “my conscience was violated here!” Conscience is violated not merely by the occurrence of events; there must be knowledge of what one is getting oneself into or being forced to participate in. It must be emphasized that the wedding vendors around the country who are asserting their religious freedom are doing so because they are knowingly being forced to participate in an act that violates their conscience, not because a customer disagrees with them on matters of sexuality.

Even then, Kevin would have had no problem serving the customer the pizzas even if he knew who he was. “We weren’t catering to their wedding,” Kevin said. “They were picking [pizzas] up.” Kevin has no problem with serving a person in his shop, whether or not that person identifies as gay.

For those who truly care to understand what the wedding vendors are seeking in these cases, there is an important lesson here. Kevin O’Connor’s indifference in this matter can be contrasted with his kind but firm refusal to participate in a same-sex wedding when asked earlier this year.

He is not asking to “turn away” people. He is only asking that he not be forced to violate his conscience by knowingly participating in a wedding ceremony that runs counter to his religious beliefs. Memories Pizza’s unproblematic “catering” of the same-sex wedding in this case shows as much. Those who sincerely care to understand more about such religious freedom claims can learn from Kevin’s actions, which are an important teaching moment on the role of conscience in the “wedding vendor cases” and beyond.

The small business owners involved in these matters are not asking for a “blank check” to do whatever they want. They are advancing sincere conscience claims against being forced to knowingly use their businesses for certain ends, and they are often happy to forgo the lost income and even refer the potential customers to another business where they can find what they need.

As long as we live in a democracy, people will have differing views on moral questions. The model of tolerance displayed by Kevin O’Connor is as good as any for how we can live together with those differences.

Category:

Tagged with:

Media Reportage Serves to Support Palestinian Terrorism

By Meira Svirsky Mon, October 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/media-bias-serves-support-palestinian-terrorism

Recent headlines from mainstream media sources

Wars are not fought exclusively on the battlefield. They are fought and supported through ideology – ideas that flow through society originating from politicians to professors, from powerful interest group to grassroots activists. But in today’s age, none of these ideas has a chance of competing in our fast-paced marketplace for attention except the ones chosen to be significant by the most important arbiters of the battlefield: the media.

In theory, journalists report the “facts,” roughly recognized as the compilation of the actual happenings of any given event. Subjective distillation is, of course, always a factor, as all journalists are forced by necessity into choosing the most salient points and leaving out what they deem insignificant details.

But to consciously choose to distort the facts or skew the facts in a way that distorts them takes the writer out of the realm of journalism and into that of propaganda. When propaganda bandied about as journalism is used to support terrorists, journalists become the terrorists’ “willing executioners” – complicit in bloodshed and murder.

The current terrorist onslaught in Israel has seen some of the worst reportage by the world’s conventional media outlets. Over the past three weeks, Israelis have faced murderous Islamists intent on killing them through a variety of means from knifing, shooting or running them over with vehicles. In the course of these attacks, most of the terrorists have been killed — by police, soldiers or armed citizens defending themselves.

Yet, the headlines ring out through world declaring

(from the Independent):

(from NPR, with a full-size picture of a relative crying over and kissing the body of a dead terorist):

(from USA Today):

(and from the Irish Independent, simply):

When Palestinians set the Tomb of the Patriarch Joseph, a revered Jewish holy site, ablaze on Saturday night, CNN reported:

CNN later updated to headline to:

Another recent article on CNN actually writes a dual report of the news of the day under the headline:

The dual report was introduced with the following subhead:

Never mind that Palestinian Authority sources, as spearheaded by Mahmoud Abbas, have a history of lying. What CNN was calling “incidents” happened to be three stabbings and two attempted stabbings of Israelis by Palestinians. One can only imagine the same dual reporting of the West’s battle against ISIS — “incidents” (let’s say, beheadings and stonings of civilians) reported from both the West’s perspective and that of ISIS.

For journalists, the Internet has made fact-checking remarkably easy, however, the Internet’s advent in the world of news has also been a Catch -22. News must now compete with social media, which can provide up-to-the-minute, first-hand reports. Decreasing revenues combined with rolling deadlines means there are fewer resources available with more pressure to get the story out.

Yet, the reportage of the current terror war against Israel goes beyond all fair journalist standards and excuses. As such, media complicity in terror is another battle all fair-minded people need to fight.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

Category:

Tagged with:

Obama: Christians threaten nation

Friday, October 16, 2015, Posted by Bryan Fischer – Guest Columnist

URL of the original posting site: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2015/10/16/obama-christians-threaten-nation

“Disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is not hate speech. Somebody needs to tell that to President Obama.”

If you have ever wondered whether President Obama has an abiding hostility to people of Christian faith, wonder no more. He believes we are a threat to national security. If you are a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ, your president believes you are a potential domestic terrorist.

I do not exaggerate. In a gathering at George Washington University this week, Obama’s assistant attorney general for national security, John Carlin, revealed that the Department of Justice is creating a brand new position just to monitor us. The position, domestic terrorism counsel, will be created to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic terrorism.

And where, pray tell, does this threat come from? From the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a stated goal of exterminating Western civilization and sabotaging our miserable house from within? Nope. From ISIS, which is actively recruiting jihadists in all 50 states? Nope. Jihadists who are sneaking into the United States disguised as Syrian refugees? Nope.

No, the real threat to our national security, according to our president and his minions, is coming from the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.

Carlin lauded the work of the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, which is so blatantly and maliciously biased against Christians that other parts of Obama’s administration – the FBI, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Army – are getting as far away from the SPLC as they can.

But the folks at SPLC are still useful to the DOJ, which is desperate to paint conservative Christians as a greater threat to our domestic tranquility than people who are determined to decapitate us in the name of Allah.

According to Carlin, the SPLC does the noble work of “examining what the threat is, observing it, and reporting on it,” and claimed that its work is “very important.”

The SPLC, mind you, is the group whose “hate group” map was used by domestic terrorist Floyd Corkins to identify the Family Research Council as his target for a massacre. Only the bravery of an unarmed security guard prevented what could have been one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history. In other words, if anybody’s the hate group here, it’s the SPLC.

Heidi Beirich, the SPLC’s intelligence project director, teamed with Carlin to demonize pro-family groups. She told a reporter that the SPLC classifies groups as hate groups “on the basis of ideology.” In other words, the SPLC will vilify groups because of what they believe, not because of what they do or because they have demonstrated any propensity toward violence.

And she flatly admits it. “We post groups on the basis of ideology, not whether they’re violent or not.”

And then she identified two groups by name: Family Research Council and American Family Association. “[W]hat they’re putting out is anti-gay material so gay people are pedophiles, or molesters, or whatever the case may be, and that’s why they’re on the list and that’s the direct analogy.”

We – FRC and AFA – “are simply pushing propaganda that [the SPLC] consider(s) hateful.” She acknowledges that theirs is a purely subjective standard: “It’s our opinion that it’s hateful, and that’s basically it.”

The plain truth is that we at FRC and AFA don’t hate a living soul. We love homosexuals enough to tell them the truth about the physical and spiritual dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. We want something better for them than the darkness and disease associated with homosexual behavior. We want them to come out of that darkness into the light of the gospel of Christ. We are for the homosexual, and so we must be against the normalization and promotion of homosexuality.

Note the SPLC is no longer accusing FRC and AFA of hate or of violence based on some objective standard. They have simply made a purely subjective assessment that our beliefs about human sexuality and our defense of natural marriage are so offensive to them that we must become the target of the unlimited resources of the federal government.

Do we disagree with the homosexual lobby about homosexuality? Of course. Do we hate them? Absolutely not. Do we advocate violence against them? Never have, never will. We are simply determined to tell the moral, spiritual, and physical truth about non-normative sexual behavior.

Bottom line: disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is not hate speech. Somebody needs to tell that to the president.

Bryan Fischer hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

Category:

Tagged with:

North Korea offers U.S. a “peace treaty” or something

Posted on October 18, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

URL of the original posting site: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/18/north-korea-offers-u-s-a-peace-treaty-or-something

Big news, citizens… the Korean War may be over soon!

Of course, this may come as news to later generations of readers who probably assumed that the war ended back in the 50s. But it never actually ended on paper… they simply came to a truce, putting the war on hold essentially for eternity. (Or at least until now.) But this week the Norks seemed to put an offer on the table to scrap the entire affair once and for all. (Fox News)

North Korea reportedly rejected the idea of resuming talks to abandon its nuclear program on Saturday, but said it would welcome negotiations for a peace treaty with Washington.

North Korea’s foreign ministry made the statement one day after President Obama and South Korean President Park Geun-hye said they were ready to open talks with Pyongyang on sanctions if they were serious about dissolving its nuclear program, according to Reuters.

“If the United States insists on taking a different path, the Korean peninsula will only see our unlimited nuclear deterrent being strengthened further,” the North said in a statement.

North and South Korea are still technically at war after signing a truce in 1953 to temporarily end their conflict.

So just to be clear, Kim Jong-un’s people are not talking about stopping or even restricting their nuclear weapons program. They aren’t going to end their saber rattling against their neighbors to the south. In fact, they aren’t going to change a single thing in terms of the reasons that the entire civilized world aside from China and a few other communist holdouts have ostracized them. But they are willing to talk about a peace treaty with the United States.

That’s nice, isn’t it? If it happened it would give

China, North Korea, Confucius Prize, Kim Il Sung, political cartoon

John Kerry a chance to hang another “agreement” on the wall for his legacy as the Secretary of State. (And given what this one would be worth, it’s probably an excellent match for the Iran deal.) But how would this work? During his meeting with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Barack Obama said that we were “ready” to talk about an agreement, but that seemed to be based on the idea that North Korea would disarm. Failing to hinder somebody’s nuclear ambitions hasn’t stopped him from coming to the table in the past, however, so what would we be giving up to the Norks for such a deal? No doubt some increases in shipments of food and other humanitarian assistance, as well as some fuel I imagine. And in exchange for that we would get…

A piece of paper???????????????????????

Why would North Korea give up their nukes at this point? They’ve gained the respect they wanted in terms of bringing the real world powers to the table with them and they don’t seem to be in any imminent danger of being attacked. They saw what happened to their partners in Libya when they gave up their program. (Muammar el-Qaddafi was unavailable for comment.) Honestly, why would we waste any more time talking to Kim Jong-un? Unless and until he starts lobbing some actual missiles at someone we’re likely better off leaving his country to starve.

Category:

International Politics

Tagged with:

DEAR EUROPE & AMERICA: Those ‘Poor Refugees’ Sure Look And Act Like Radical Muslims To Me

By Doug Giles

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/dear-europe-america-those-poor-refugees-sure-look-and-act-like-radical-muslims-to-me

A couple of weeks ago I got a flurry of appeal letters from ministries asking me to financially help them help the “refugees” fleeing the crap-hole called Syria.

The ministries hit me with the normative guilt-trip noise about “what would Jesus do?”; that “any good Christian worth their salt would definitely help the suffering refugees”; and that if the reader/me didn’t help these “refugees” then they/I suck as a Christian.

That’s not exactly what the letter said, but that was the gist of it.

Now, I know my tightly wound evangelical bros out there don’t think that I’m “saved” because I own a cigar company, openly enjoy alcohol and I, occasionally, can and do out cuss a stevedore, but I do try to please Jesus as much as a fallen critter can.

In addition, I’m well aware that my Catholic amigos think I have the soul of a heretic because I’m a fan of Calvin’s TULIP, but I too would like to inform them that, believe it or not, I’m sold, lock-stock-and-two-smokin’-barrels, on following the rebel from Galilee.

With all of that said … I would love to help people, especially folks suffering under the ignoble muck storm which is Islam, but from my perch these “poor refugees” look like psycho-terrorists, who are not “fleeing for their lives” but purposefully infiltrating Western Civilization in order to make it sink like Bruce Jenner’s new hooters soon will.

Matter of fact, ever since this mass migration to Europe from Syria has occurred, we’ve been following it over at my outfit ClashDaily.com quite religiously.

From what I’ve been able to deduce from the various news feeds from all over the planet, minus CNN, MSNBC and Glenn Beck’s show, is that these “poor refugees” don’t seem like they’re looking too arduously for help with a willingness to assimilate into their “saving” nation.

For instance, here’s what I have had a problem with:

The “poor refugee” pics I’ve seen seem to be filled with 18-45 year old, miffed Muslim men who look bat-crap crazy, entitled and angry at their receiving country.
Pardon me for being a skeptic, but when the “refugees”… “convert” … to Christianity, simply to appease and receive the perks — namely food and money — from the nation in which they’re currently flooding, I question their sincerity.
What’s up with these “refugees” being at the center of massive rape allegations? That seems weird.
I also have a hard time feeling pity for “refugees” when they scream “Allah Akbar” with pipes and sticks during rallies in Germany.
In addition, what “poor refugees” do you know that savagely attack a mother and her daughter?
Another thing I’m finding it hard to wrap my mind around is the “poor refugees’ ” talking trash to cops, screaming “f-ck you” and throwing their relief aid to the ground?
To add to this list, why would these “needy souls” orchestrate an attack in the Eurotunnel? That’s a strange choice, eh?
I hate to be negative, but I have to ask, how come these “suffering folks” overrun a hospital and stab doctors in their host country? Also, why haven’t we seen this on CNN and FOX NEWS? That’s also wa-wa-weird.
And finally, why doth the “unfortunate” file lawsuits against their welcoming governments for not coughing up cash quick enough?

Look, I’m all for helping people who wish to flee from some Suckistan and live free instead of with peeps stuck in the 7th century who believe that if they blow up innocent people that Allah is going to award them 72 chicks who don’t know to get their groove on; but the vast majority of what I’ve seen screams the opposite.

Are they indeed “poor refugees”? Well … I believe they’re poor in this sense of being morally bankrupt. In relation to their being persecuted “refugees”, I got to call BS on the vast majority of those supposedly “fleeing”. Looks more like “infiltrators’ ” preying on westerners’ multi-culti stupidity to this old redneck.

But I digress. Let’s go back to WWJD, shall we?

From what I’ve read of Jesus’ teachings, I don’t see him shaming good folks into helping murderous and religiously implacable hordes. Nay, I do not believe for one holy second that Jesus would let these enemies of humanity into any place other then hell for their delusions and deadly intent.

How do I draw such a conclusion? Well … it’s from this thing called reading “The Gospel” and drawing a conclusion, based on the entirety of Christ’s teachings regarding his nature and character. When I read, say, Matthew 23 I see Jesus’ being divinely intolerant of rude, bigoted, divisive, self-righteous, and murderous religious people who were a fraction of what Islam is. Yay, if the Jesus of the scripture poured anathemas upon the Pharisees, I’m guessing he would really lambaste impenitent Islam. But then again … that’s just me and my read of the scripture.

Oh, and by the way, in case you need proof regarding all the atrocities I lined out about the “poor refugees” in the aforementioned bullet points, well here it is. Enjoy.

One last thing: Weren’t the Boston Bombers also considered “poor refugees” at one time?

Category:

Tagged with:

Hillary Clinton Releases 5-Minute Video on Her ‘Accomplishments as Secretary of State’ — and the Internet Is Not Kind

Oct. 19, 2015 11:10am Jason Howerton

URL of the original posting site: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/19/hillary-clinton-releases-5-minute-video-on-her-accomplishments-as-secretary-of-state-and-the-internet-is-not-kind

Hillary Clinton’s critics immediately pounced when the Democratic presidential candidate released a roughly five-minute video touting her “accomplishments as secretary of state.”

The video plays up Clinton’s “vision” and “iron will,” but also focuses on her role in enacting sanctions against Iran and promoting “LGBT rights” around the world.

You can watch the video below (Make sure you have an empty stomach – JB):

You don’t have to look very hard to see the outpouring of critical replies to the video.

We were able to find a few supportive responses too:

(H/T: Twitchy)

Category:

Tagged with:

propaganda video

THESE 16 STATES: Make A HUGE Move Against Islam – And Every State Should Also

By ClashDaily.com

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/these-16-states-make-a-huge-move-against-islam-and-every-state-should-also/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:9760859&utm_campaign=The%2016%20States%20Make%20A%20HUGE%20Move%20Against%20Islam%20%E2%80%93%20And%20Every%20State%20Should%20Also

It would only be common sense for all 50 states to be doing this.

CAIR identified 16 states as having introduced legislation to ban or restrict Shariah law in 2013. The list is supposed to be meant as a condemnation of these states.

However, I know plenty of people who would use such a list as a guide for where to move.

The states are:

Alabama (two bills)

Arkansas

Florida (two bills)

Indiana (two bills)

Iowa

Kentucky

Mississippi (four bills)

Missouri (two bills)

North Carolina

Oklahoma (seven bills)

South Carolina (two bills)

Texas (six bills)

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming (two bills)

And hopefully in 2015, the list will get longer. Maybe someday we can even list all 50 states. (Conservative Tribune)

Category:

Tagged with:

Sharia Law

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Hold On Tight

October 19, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/hold-on-tight

Category:

Tagged with:

Indiana Man Says IRS Fined Him $2,344 for Violating Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

Posted by Natalie Johnson / @nataliejohnsonn / October 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/16/indiana-man-says-irs-fined-him-2344-for-violating-obamacares-individual-mandate

An Indiana man’s IRS bill went viral after he posted a photograph to his Facebook page of a $2,344 fine he claimed was from the federal government for not purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Benjamin Miller said his insurance skyrocketed after President Barack Obama’s health care law took effect so he decided to forgo enrollment, provoking the claimed hefty fine from the IRS for violating the law’s individual mandate.

In the Facebook post, withheld because it contains personal information, Miller said the plan for him and his family cost $398 a month prior to Obamacare’s implementation. In 2014, after the law took effect, his insurance soared to $1,400 a month.

“So I chose not to pay $1,400 a month so [I] got a nice little fine,” Miller wrote in the Facebook post. “Thanks Obama for the fine for not having insurance … Thanks for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks for making it so affordable!”

The bill shows Miller was penalized under Obamacare’s individual mandate, now termed a “shared responsibility payment,” which requires individuals to purchase health coverage or pay a fine.

Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said one of the main criticisms of the mandate since its introduction is that the fine is initially set so low that it is cheaper for people with middle or lower-middle incomes—particularly those who are young, healthy and without dependents—to pay the fine than to buy the health coverage. Last year, roughly 7.5 million Americans opted to pay the fine rather than purchase coverage under the Affordable Care Act, according to the IRS.

Haislmaier said the mandate remains “extremely unpopular” among Americans, with bipartisan opposition spanning across ideologies. “A lot of the people who are on the more conservative end of the political spectrum view this as an infringement on their personal liberty,” Haislmaier said. “Whereas people, even on the very left end of the political spectrum, have a dislike of private insurance and really resent the government forcing them to buy private coverage when they would much rather have a government, single-payer program.”

He said this opposition is likely to continue, particularly because these penalties are scheduled to increase.

Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the IRS, said he could not confirm the authenticity of Miller’s photograph.

“Federal law would prohibit any federal employee from actually speaking about that,” Mendie said.

Category:

Tagged with:

Hillary Clinton: Nationwide Gun Ban, Repeal of Second Amendment “Worth Considering”

Posted By Kit Daniels | Infowars.com On October 16, 2015

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-nationwide-gun-ban-repeal-of-second-amendment-worth-considering

Hillary Clinton said it’s “worth considering” a nationwide gun ban and a “buyback” program to eradicate private gun ownership.

The presidential candidate attacked the Second Amendment during an Oct. 16 town hall meeting in which she was asked if it were feasible for the U.S. to confiscate millions of firearms in a year.

Hillary said:

“You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.’

“In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach.’

“But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to, you know, curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. “

Clinton also mentioned that several U.S. cities have done gun buyback programs and it would be “worth considering on a national level.”

But she failed to mention that she supported shipping guns to Syrian rebels, the majority of whom are either ISIS militants or affiliated with the Islamic State.

“In fact she was the biggest cheerleader for redistributing these arms to Syrian rebels,” presidential candidate Rand Paul told Fox News in July. “The reason this is an important issue is many of these people who received the arms are not friends of America.”

“Many of them are linked to al Qaeda and al-Nusra and some of these weapons may well have ended up in the hands of people who became ISIS.”

Virtually all of the rebels in Syria have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

“The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” journalist Ben Reynolds wrote in November. “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”

The New York Times made a similar statement.

“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the newspaper reported in 2013.

Category:

Click here to get involved.

Tagged with:

More Americans agree that Reagan was right: The government is scary

Posted by Mark Meckler on October 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.conventionofstates.com/reagan_was_right_the_government_is_scary/?recruiter_id=11724

President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

In 2003, 30 percent of Americans polled thought that the government posed an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.
In 2015, nearly half (49 percent) of Americans polled said that the government poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.
65 percent of Republicans recognize this threat from the government.

Gallup’s polling shows that many Americans realize that, for far too long, the government has shown up to help, as Reagan warned, and made our lives miserable and less free in the process. Gallup also asked how the government poses an immediate threat to those who say it does. Their answers are not surprising to those of us who have argued for years against ever-growing government that continually shrinks our Constitutional freedoms.

Nineteen percent said too many laws and too big of government.
15 percent cited the violation of freedoms and civil liberties.
12 percent said gun control and concerns about the infringement of the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens without having any effect on the criminals who would violate any laws passed just as they violate the laws currently on the books.
10 percent cited too much involvement in people’s private lives, probably recognizing how increasing regulations make us less free and less prosperous.
Other concerns involved taking away foundational First Amendment freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, government surveillance, over-taxation and overregulation, too much spending, and so much more.

This survey is not an outlier.

Americans are also more concerned about their religious freedom in the U.S. today than in previous years. And this concern is growing across the board. According to research conducted by Barna Group,

41 percent of adults today express concern over religious freedom, compared to 33 percent of adults surveyed in 2012.
“Among Millennials, there’s been a nine percentage point increase in those who say that religious freedom is worse today than it was 10 years ago (25 percent to 34 percent); the increase is even more marked among Gen-Xers (29 percent to 42 percent) and Boomers (38 percent to 46 percent).”

No matter how old they are, no matter the political party, and no matter what their views on numerous issues are, one thing is resounding clear: Americans feel less free today and they feel that it’s the government’s fault.

And they’re exactly right.

Our Supreme Court rules that laws do not mean what they say they mean while inventing constitutional rights whole cloth out of thin air, disregarding the democratic process and community debate that strengthens our nation’s character and charter.

Congress fails to lead and fails to cast a vision. Just this past weekend, freshman Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) took to Twitter to deconstruct and dismantle the conventional wisdom and media framework of what really matters. Disregarding the petty small ball of those trying to hold on to power, Sasse refocused the conversation on what really matters: a big vision of the future of American exceptionalism that fights for people and not merely against bad government projected by a winsome warrior that celebrates earned success and empowers our friends and neighbors to live full lives of opportunity.

The Obama administration continues to rule by unconstitutional executive fiat here at home while failing to lead abroad. This is why a majority of Republicans fear our government is endangering our freedoms – because it is. This is why half of Republicans polled currently prefer presidential candidates with no political experience – because we don’t just want another politician who will say one thing and do another.

And this is why the convention of states is so important. Our Founding Fathers gave us an emergency provision to reclaim our government and protect our fundamental freedoms. The time to act is now, before it’s too late.

This article was originally published on The Hill.

Category:

Tagged with:

Where’s the Diversity, Democrats?

October 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/16/where_s_the_diversity_democrats

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Open Line Friday. So Mary Jo in Grand Rapids. It’s great to have you with us. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I’m calling about the presidential Democratic candidates, and I am — Democrat candidates. And they are constantly speaking about a life of “equality” and “diversity.” But ultimately, they are living a life of elitism. As I watched those five candidates up on the stage — all over 60, white, one female — I compared that to the Republican candidates who are numerous candidates under 60, Indian, Cuban, an Italian female. It’s… The difference is staggering. And if people would just stop and think. But the problem is that those who follow the Democrats are exactly that: They’re followers. They’re told not to question.

RUSH: Well, they react to what they hear. The Democrats preach a good game of diversity and fairness, equality, and all that, and the people eat it up. And they mean it, and they also believe it when they are told the Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. And as you say, when you look at the Republican debate field you see practically an element of every possibility in this country, ethnically. You’re right. You have Cuban and Canadian ethnicity. He have African-American. You have white rich, you have white poor, you have white middle class.

You have African-American middle class. It covers the gamut. There’s all kinds of diversity. And yet the reality of what people see is over shadowed it might not have by years and years and years of the Democrats in the media accusing the Republicans of not being diverse and hating everybody who isn’t white. Yet when you look at the Democrats all you see is white. All you see is aged — seasoned citizens in most cases. You don’t see minorities, ethnic or otherwise, and you can’t say Hillary is minority because women…

There’s no way that she could be tagged as a minority. She had five people up there: Four men, one woman, all white, all over 60, not exactly diverse. But you want to hear the piece de resistance on this? I am not making this up. The Washington Post watched the same debate you and I did. They saw Bernie Sanders: Aged white guy. They saw Lincoln Chafee: Dumb, close-to-aged white guy. They saw Hillary Clinton: Aging, obviously, white woman. They saw Jim Webb, and in Jim Webb, you kind of say, “What’s he doing here?”

But still you saw an upper-middle class, almost-aging white guy. And then Bernie Sanders: An obvious seasoned citizen, bitter and angry white guy. The Washington Post saw all of that, too, and it didn’t register. The Washington Post wrote a story going after CNN for not having diversity in the moderators! No. I’m not making this up. The Washington Post went after CNN in an article on Wednesday titled, “Where were CNN’s black and Latino moderators all night?” The Washington Post accused CNN of “talking a big game about equality and inclusion but broadcasting just the opposite.”

original So when the Washington Post saw the same debate you and I did they missed the fact that every Democrat was old and white. And instead they focused on CNN and they saw Dana Bash, and they saw Anderson Cooper. Hell, CNN had more diversity than the Democrat candidates had. They had a woman, they had a gay/homosexual. Besides, there was Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash and who…? Did they have somebody else that was moderating or just those two? Seems there were three people last… Oh, there was an Hispanic guy. There was an Hispanic guy asking Hispanic-related questions.

Oh, yeah, Don Lemon, a black guy. He got in… Well, he got to read a question off Twitter or Facebook. But at least he got some face time. That’s exactly right. So the Washington Post sees Don Lemon, black guy; Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, white; Hispanic guy. You had homosexual in that group. And they accused CNN of not being diverse, and they miss entirely the Democrats on the stage. You’ve gotta be trying to get that story. I mean, how do you…? I mean, ridiculous. But they go after CNN and give every Democrat on that stage a pass. Mary Jo, I appreciate the call.

This is Tom in Baltimore, you’re next. Great to have you on Open Line Friday. Hello.

CALLER: Hi there. It’s great to be on the show again. I talked to you as a Rush Baby, and I just wanted to say what an honor it is as a Rush Baby to be able to talk to you.

RUSH: Thanks very much. I appreciate that.

CALLER: My point here is this. After watching the Republican debate I saw that many of them did have good conservative points to make. But overall there was a lot of infighting and a lot of areas where they were not presenting themselves as conservatives. There were many that stayed conservative the whole debate. But they overall were not unified. They did not present themselves as an ideologically pure conservative party. But if you compare the Republican debate to the Democrat debate, they all presented themselves as supporters of big government or reduction in individual freedom, redistribution of wealth. They all presented themselves as that. And in that way, I feel like Democrat Party is very ideologically pure and unified, and they use that power to their advantage when they’re trying to create legislation.

RUSH: Well, there’s no question. Look, this cuts both ways. I mean, you can say the Democrats are in lockstep, and they are. On the Republican side, you could say they’re not monolithic. There’s all kinds of different points of view welcome in the Republican Party, i.e., the big tent, that we’re not exclusionary of people. But that doesn’t seem to persuade anybody. It doesn’t seem to say to people, “You know, the Republican Party is pretty good. They allow all kinds of different ways of thinking.” That doesn’t seem to work. The Republican Party’s actively trying to suppress conservatives, Tom. And the Democrats are indeed unified on the fact that you and I are not qualified to lead our lives. They must do that for us.

END TRANSCRIPT

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Democrats Celebrate Diversity

October 17, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/democrats-celebrate-diversity

Category:

Tagged with:

Democrats Celebrate Diversity

Why 6 Government-Funded Insurance Companies Created Under Obamacare Collapsed

Posted by Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / October 15, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/15/why-6-government-funded-insurance-companies-created-under-obamacare-collapsed/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuKnMZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBnPbDYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

A government watchdog overseeing the Department of Health and Human Services delivered the grim financial state of nearly all of the co-ops—that collectively received $2.4 billion—created under Obamacare several months ago.

Now, following the collapse of six of the 23 that launched in 2013, the co-ops, or consumer oriented and operated plans, face an uphill battle to solidify themselves as competitors in the health insurance market.

To assist the co-ops in getting off the ground, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services disbursed $2.4 billion in start-up and solvency loans to the 23 co-ops created under Obamacare.

However, over the last 10 months, six co-ops, which collectively received nearly $762 million from the federal government, announced they’re closing their doors and pulling out of the insurance market for 2016.

As a result, more than 420,000 Americans who enrolled in health insurance coverage through the nonprofit insurers will lose their insurance and have been instructed to select new plans next year.

Additionally, an analysis conducted by The Daily Signal in February, along with a July report from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, found that 22 of the 23 co-ops lost money in 2014.

Thirteen of the 23, meanwhile, enrolled far fewer consumers than projected.

Industry experts predicted that some of the co-ops would struggle to survive, as the nonprofit insurers lacked the financial flexibility and deep pockets of their larger, more established competitors. The collapse of the two biggest co-ops, Kentucky and New York, as well as the most recent closure‚ Tennessee, has brought into the question the viability of the remaining 17. “If you can make it through for long enough, and if this market continues to grow, you can see a world where some [co-ops] become viable and profitable in future years,” Chris Sloan, a manager at Avalere Health, told The Daily Signal. “But they have to make it through now, the lack of risk corridors payment, a slower enrollment than expected. These are brand new companies, and it’s a brand new market, so you have to make it through the initial early years.”

“There’s been a lot of factors that have happened that have really blown the winds back at [the co-ops] that no one really expected.”

In a statement to The Daily Signal, Aaron Albright, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the agency recognizes that not all of the co-ops will succeed. However, he said they have increased competition in the health insurance market. “As co-ops across the country continuously review their financial and operational positions heading into the next open enrollment period, we will work closely with state departments of insurance and co-ops to provide the best possible outcome for the consumer,” Albright said. “If a co-op has solvency issues, and we cannot rule out that others may this year, we will work with the states so that consumers have affordable options on the marketplace.” (This statement was added after publication)

Creating the Co-Ops

Co-ops, or nonprofit insurance companies, were created during the Obamacare debate in 2009 as a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, who wanted the health care law to include a public option, or a federal health insurance plan.

The Obama administration originally requested $6 billion from Congress to fund start-up and solvency loans for the co-ops, but lawmakers cut the funding to $3.8 billion in 2011 after members on both sides of the aisle raised concerns about the requested amount. Then, Congress further lowered the funding for the co-ops to roughly $2.4 billion, the majority of which has been allocated to the 23 co-ops. In addition to receiving federal dollars to launch, six co-ops requested and received additional money through solvency loans, which assisted the nonprofit insurers in meeting state solvency and reserve requirements.

The co-ops were designed to inject competition into areas where few companies provided coverage, and in their first year participating in the market, some saw higher than expected enrollment as they offered the cheapest plans available to consumers. For example, CoOportunity, a co-op that received $145 million in loans from the government, expected to enroll just 12,000 consumers in Iowa and Nebraska during its first year on the exchange. By the end of the first open enrollment period in 2013, the co-op ended up enrolling 120,000—far exceeding its projections.

The co-op offered the cheapest plans available to consumers in the two states, and as a result of the influx of consumers, officials learned they didn’t make enough from premium costs to cover their customers’ medical claims. CoOportunity announced in January it would be liquidated, leaving more than 100,000 customers to find new plans.

At the time the co-op announced its liquidation, it was not yet known if CoOportunity would be able to repay the $145 million it received in start-up and solvency loans.

In the months since CoOportunity announced it would be closing its doors, three more—Louisiana Health Cooperative, Health Republic Insurance of New York, and Nevada Health Cooperative—revealed they would follow suit.

Louisiana Health Cooperative received $65.8 million in loans, Health Republic Insurance of New York got $265.1 million, and Nevada Health Cooperative earned $65.9 million in loans. Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said in July that Obamacare’s “onerous burdens” have made it difficult for start-ups in the insurance market, such as the Louisiana Health Cooperative, to succeed. Similarly, Stacey Hatfield, a member of Nevada Health Co-Op’s board, said in August the co-op was “winding down” operations because of “challenging market conditions.”

“We talk about the co-ops as an overall program,” Hatfield said. “They are, in fact, 17 different health plans. They’re co-ops because they were seeded with the co-op loans from the ACA, but they are, in fact, plans run by different people and different orgs and things like that. And there’s pretty big diversity in terms of who is running the co-ops. Part of it comes down to if they were able to make decisions, and pricing decisions, that were viable for the market.”

Coming Up Short

In addition to adjusting to new market conditions, Obamacare’s co-ops may face additional financial uncertainty due to payments expected under the health care law’s risk corridor program. Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced that insurance companies would receive a significant amount less than expected through the program.

The risk corridor program, which is in place until 2017, was implemented to provide stability in the market. Under the initiative, companies that profited above a specified threshold shared a portion of the profit with the federal government. Those that lost more than a specified threshold, meanwhile, received assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services.

However, insurance companies that lost money—and thus expected to receive assistance from the government—learned earlier this month that they would receive just 12.6 percent of their requested risk-corridor payments. “A lot were counting on that money,” Sloan said.

In the wake of the announcement, two co-ops—Tennessee Community Health Alliance and Kentucky Health Cooperative—announced they would be winding down operations and no longer offering plans in 2016. Kentucky Health Cooperative received $146.4 million in loans, and Tennessee Community Health Alliance received $73.3 million. “In plainest language,” Kentucky Health Cooperative interim Chief Executive Officer Glenn Jennings said, “things have come up short of where they need to be.” Jennings said that the change to its risk-corridor payment led to “an unavoidable outcome.”

Kentucky’s co-op requested $77 million from the Department of Health and Human Services but will receive just $9.7 million.

Similarly, Jerry Burgess, president of Community Health Alliance, pointed to the lower than expected risk corridor reimbursement in a release notifying consumers that the co-op would no longer offer plans. “Last week’s announcement of a risk corridor reimbursement of just 12.6 percent cast doubt on the collectability of over $17 million of CHA’s risk corridor receivable and led to an unavoidable outcome,” Burgess said.

Tennessee’s Community Health Alliance froze enrollment in January. The co-op planned to offer insurance on the federal exchange in 2016, but the Obama administration’s guidance about the risk corridor program “raised concerns” about Community Health Alliance’s future.

Sloan, the manager for Avalere Health, told The Daily Signal the reduced payments “dealt a pretty big blow” to the co-ops. “I don’t think anyone expected that every single one of them was going to be successful. Obviously, the risk corridor payment was going to be the biggest thing you could change that could’ve led to improved viability for them,” he said. “If these organizations got their full risk corridor payments, that would’ve made a lot of their balance sheets look a lot better for this year.”

Sloan warned that the co-ops could be in for a similar surprise next year, as the program must be revenue-neutral, and payments could differ from their expectations next year, too.

In discussing the challenges the co-ops face, Sloan also pointed to the Department of Health and Human Services’ enrollment projections for 2016, which were announced today. The agency said it expects to enroll 10 million Americans in health insurance through Obamacare next year—far less than the 21 million projected by the Congressional Budget Office in March. “Co-ops, for the most part, they’re all only in exchanges,” Sloan said. “They’re designed for that market. That was the idea of the co-ops. … When you’ve got a market of that size—and 10 million isn’t that big for an insurance market—there’s inherently more risk, inherently more volatility in a small market.”

“It’s the only market they’re in, and it’s not a market that’s expected to grow significantly next year,” he continued. “Those are the two main things: one, the risk corridors may face a similar situation next year, and two, it doesn’t look like there are going to be significant enrollment changes next year. Put those two things together, and those are some forces working against the co-ops.”

Category:

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/14/city-made-dangerous-admission-about-faith-in-the-workplace-atlanta-fire-chief-lawyer-says/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuK7OZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBnPb%2FYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Tagged with:

Pizza Woman Delivers to Church… Leaves Sobbing After What Christians Do to Her

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/pizza-woman-delivers-to-church/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeHeadlinesEmail&utm_campaign=PM2&utm_content=2015-10-16

Members of Sycamore Creek Church in Pickerington, Ohio, recently did something absolutely amazing for a Domino’s pizza delivery driver named Natasha.

When Natasha arrived at a church gathering on Oct. 4 to deliver a $5.99 pizza, reported The Columbus Dispatch, the lead pastor Rev. Steve Markle brought her on stage and asked her what the biggest tip she had ever received was.

She replied that it was $10. Rev. Markle then handed her $15 from his own pocket.

“We’ve been teaching our church this last month about being generous, and so we did something special for you today,” he continued. “We took up a special offering for a tip for you.”

**Without a moment to lose, the reverend then handed her the rest of his congregation’s tip — a stack of bills valued at $1,046.**

Natasha not surprisingly burst into tears and hugged the reverend as the crowd cheered.

“I hope that this can help you,” Markle then said to her. “I don’t know what’s going on in your life.”

“It can help a lot,” she replied.” Thank you so much. Thank you everybody.”

Category:

Spiritual

Tagged with:

Pristine Bible Page Found Fused To 9/11 Steel — What It Says Left Us In Awe

Posted on October 16, 2015 by Dom the Conservative

URL of the original posting site: http://madworldnews.com/pristine-bible-page-911-steel

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a firefighter found a fragment of steel from the Twin Towers with a page from the Bible fused to it. As incredible as it is that the page is easily readable, the prophetic message it contains sent chills down his spine.

In March 2002, an unnamed firefighter discovered a fragment of rubble from the World Trade Center under Tully Road, a temporary truck route covering the remnants of the south tower, the New York Times reports.

Embedded in the metal was a damaged Bible, torn and singed from the horrific catastrophe. After he read the remaining words, he called over a nearby photographer, Joel Meyerowitz, to document the unbelievable message.

“Retaliation.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Pristine Bible Page Found Fused To 9/11 Steel — What It Says Left Us In Awe

Of all the thousands of message within the holy book, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel of Matthew, remained perfectly intact.

“This shredded, burned and rubble-covered Bible came to me from the loving hands of a fireman who knew that I was the record keeper of ground zero,” Mr. Meyerowitz said Thursday in an e-mail from Italy, where he now lives.

“My astonishment at seeing the page that the Bible was open to made me realize that the Bible’s message survives throughout time,” he said, “and in every era we interpret its teachings freshly, as the occasion demands.”

The chilling message not only accurately sums up the Islamic wrath upon New York City, but it prophetically warns America what will happen if it embraces its enemies — namely Islam.

Sharia law operates on an “eye for an eye” basis, as the Quran states that retaliation is commanded by Allah.

And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. [Quran 5:45]

The Islamic supremacy that spurred the event on 9/11 was in perfect accordance with Sharia law, Allah’s law. The retribution that the Muslim world felt was deserved came in the form terrorism against innocent Americans.

However, the Muslim world doesn’t see unbelievers as innocent. The Quran states numerous times that Allah has a hatred for non-Muslims and that the jihadists who fight with their lives against the unbelievers will be rewarded.

Although Jesus Christ preached and modeled a life a love, forgiveness, and peace, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, who all Muslims are called to emulate, practiced pedophilia, racism, slavery, rape, murder, and conquest. The two doctrines are not only incompatible, they are complete opposites.

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs, this message serves as a warning to the U.S. We have invited in the very religious and political ideology that commands the overthrow of our Constitution and establishment of Sharia law.

Category:

Spiritual

Tagged with:

City Made ‘Dangerous’ Admissions About Faith in the Workplace, Atlanta Fire Chief Lawyer Says

Posted by Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / October 14, 2015

The city of Atlanta made “dangerous” admissions in a court hearing today, argued the lawyer for the former Atlanta fire chief who was terminated from his job after controversy related to a religious book he authored that included his views on homosexuality.

“[The city] actually argued that you’re entitled to have beliefs and opinions, but you have to keep them to yourself, inside the four walls of your house or your church—that you shouldn’t bring them out into the public, and you shouldn’t bring them out if you’re employed by a government agency,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel David Cortman told The Daily Signal.

Cortman is representing former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, who after working 34 years as a decorated fire chief was fired from his job. Cortman added:

“We certainly thought that was an accurate admission in their position in the case but a dangerous one. Imagine telling people that you’re entitled to your own beliefs and opinions but you’re not entitled to share those beliefs and opinions with anybody else. Not only is that a Constitutional violation, but a dangerous proposition for the government to tell others what they cannot say to other folks.”

Cochran has been a firefighter since 1981 and was appointed Atlanta’s fire chief in 2008. In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed him as U.S. fire administrator for the United States Fire Administration in Washington, D.C. In 2010, he returned to serve as Atlanta’s fire chief.

In January 2015, Cochran was fired after publishing and distributing a men’s devotional book for a Baptist church group. In the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?,” Cochran addressed issues of homosexuality, gay marriage, and premarital sex from a biblical perspective.

Cochran gave his book to some of his subordinates and fellow employees, all of whom Cochran previously told The Daily Signal he had “established a prior relationship with as believers in Christ.” Eventually, according to court documents, a copy of the book made its way from an employee of the Atlanta Fire and Rescue Department to City Councilmember Alex Wan, who is openly gay.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed subsequently suspended Cochran for 30 days without pay, stating, “I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community.”

In a statement to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wan said, “I respect each individual’s right to have their own thoughts, beliefs and opinions, but when you’re a city employee, and those thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

During his seven years as Atlanta’s fire chief, Cochran was never accused of discriminating against anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic.

Upon being fired, Cochran filed his own federal lawsuit against the city of Atlanta, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated and being discriminated against for his Christian beliefs.

Although Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed suggested that Cochran’s suspension was a direct result of the book, his office now argues that the religious nature of the book “is not the reason he is no longer employed by the City of Atlanta.”

Reed’s office did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but in a previous statement, they said:

The totality of his conduct—including the way he handled himself during his suspension after he agreed not to make public comments during the investigation—reflected poor judgment and failure to follow clearly defined work protocols.

On Wednesday, Judge Leigh Martin May for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard oral arguments relating to the city’s motion to dismiss the case, which will decide whether or not Cochran’s lawsuit will move forward. Cortman, Cochran’s attorney, said he expects the judge to issue that ruling within the next two months. “If she grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses the case, we would then appeal that decision to the 11th circuit court of appeals and we would argue that the judge made a legal mistake,” Cortman said.

Regarding Wednesday’s hearing, Cochran said in a statement, “All across our country, people of faith are finding themselves increasingly at risk of losing their jobs, their businesses, and more because certain segments of society find them and their beliefs intolerable.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Raymond Ibrahim: “Abducting Women” and “Destroying Churches” is “Real Islam,” Says Iraqi Grand Ayatollah

October 15, 2015 By Raymond Ibrahim

URL of the original posting site: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/abducting-women-and-destroying-churches-is-real-islam-iraqi-grand-ayatollah

During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.

First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).

He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.

According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).

The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance. At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih]. You are just a journalist. Listen to me!”

Expounded Al-Baghdadi:

If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them. That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].

But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!

As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war! This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].

Towards the end of the interview, because the clean-shaven, suit-and-tie-wearing host kept protesting that this cannot be Islam, the ayatollah burst out, pointing at him with contempt and saying, “Who are you? You’re going to tell me what to believe? This is the word of Allah!”

Indeed. Not only is it the word of Islam’s deity, but it is the fundamental, insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Al-Baghdadi—and the countless other Muslim clerics, Sunni and Shia, that hold these views—are not “radicals.” For offensive jihad is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.

The Encyclopedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.”

Islam has yet to “completely be made over.”

Renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explained jihad as follows:

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here it’s worth noting that even the most offensive jihad is seen as an “altruistic” endeavor, not unlike the “white man’s burden” of the 19^th century. After all, the ancient argument that “we must reform your ways, with our ways, for your own good” has been one of the most cited justifications for offensive jihad since the 7^th century.

Indeed, soon after the death of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (634), when his jihadis burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They reportedly replied as follows:

Allah has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of Allah, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of Allah.

Fourteen hundred years later, in March 2009, Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

As a member of the true religion [Islam], I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Sharia], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.

Even al-Qaeda partially justified its jihad against America for being “a nation that exploits women like consumer products”; for not rejecting the “immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.”

If the “white man’s burden” was/is to “civilize” Muslims, by bringing them “democracy,” “human rights,” and “secularism,” the “Muslim man’s burden”—captured by Allah’s word to Muslims, “Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it” (Koran 2:216)—has long been to “civilize” Westerners by bringing them under the umbrella of Sharia.

This positive interpretation of jihad ensures that, no matter how violent and ostensibly unjust a jihad is, it will always be vindicated in Muslim eyes: the ugly means will be justified by the “altruistic” ends.

Finally, as Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi pointed out, the need for Muslims to wage offensive jihad “is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi… This is the word of Allah!”

Nor is it the “opinion” of ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr, al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, or any of the other countless past and present jihadis. No, jihad to conquer and bring Sharia to non-Muslims is the command of Allah.

Category:

Tagged with:

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

URL of the original posting site: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=6#myyDZs86qT8y01Vd.99

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity. In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.

“The study was overlooked when it first came out in 2007,” writes Michael Snyder, “but it was recently re-discovered and while the findings may not surprise some, the place where the study was undertaken is a bit surprising. The study came from the Harvard Journal of Law, that bastion of extreme, Ivy League liberalism. Titled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, the report “found some surprising things.”

The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.

Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

By the early 1990s, Russia’s murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”

“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated,” the statement “is, in fact, false.”

Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany. Their source of information? The United Nations’ International Study on Firearms Regulation, published by the UN’s Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Crime-Prevention and Criminal Justice.

When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.

Ignoring these realities, gun control advocates have cited England, as the cradle of our liberties, as “a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns,” write Kates and Mauser. “The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.”

Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.

“Gun owners across America reading this right now will say: ‘Well, duh!’” writes Michael Snyder. Even so, the California state legislature recently approved $24 million to expedite the confiscation of 40,000 handguns and assault weapons purchased legally, according to the Huffington Post. Gun registration records are being used to seize those California guns from owners who legally purchased and registered the guns – but who the state of California has now decided pose a risk to public safety.

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).

Senator Leno’s measure utilizes $24 million from Dealer Record of Sale funds. That account holds fees collected during any transfer or sale of a firearm in California. Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) voted against the measure because he said the fees were intended to cover background checks – not underwrite confiscations, the Huffington Post noted.

“What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality” writes Terry Roberts in California’s North Coast Journal newspaper. Confiscations are being made for all the wrong reasons, he says. “Recent mass shootings were all in places that were ‘gun free zones.’ The theater in Colorado was the only theater out of seven in the near vicinity of the shooter with ‘no firearms allowed’ posted outside. Ditto, for the other mass shootings. They were all in ‘gun free zones.’”

“Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.

“Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks,” writes Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. “To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.”

“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it’s not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don’t hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”

“Yet when a single criminal goes on a rampage, that’s all you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms,” writes Bach. “Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.”

“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide, an 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” It also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” In other words, they time their propaganda carefully. Just when it will alarm you the most.”

“We are only being told one side of the story,” notes Bach. “When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further.” The reality is that criminals “really, really, really don’t want to get shot,” writes Snyder. “When you pass strict gun control laws, you take the fear of getting shot away and criminals tend to flourish.”

In some American cities, “where strict gun control laws have been passed,” writes Snyder, “police are so overwhelmed that they have announced that they simply won’t even bother responding to certain kinds of crime anymore. The truth is that the government cannot protect us adequately, and that is one reason why millions are arming themselves and gun sales have been setting new records year after year.” He offers are “some little-known gun facts:”

Little-Known Gun Facts:

Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.
Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws. With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.
The United States is Number 1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.
The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.
Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States.
In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK.
In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?
The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.
The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city,”
After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89 percent decline in burglaries.
According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments. Why? It wasn’t to stop crime.

Category:

Tagged with:

FBI Director: Islamic State Recruiting ’24 Hours a Day’ in All 50 States

by Breitbart News 14 Oct 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/14/fbi-director-islamic-state-recruiting-24-hours-a-day-in-all-50-states

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

CINCINNATI (AP) — FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday the recruitment of potential homegrown terrorists by the Islamic State group is widespread and goes on “24 hours a day” across the United States.

Hundreds of people are “consuming” social media efforts to either draw them overseas to join the extremists “or if you can’t come, kill where you are,” Comey said. “And that is a two-pronged siren song that goes out through social media.”

He said Twitter, other instant messaging, and encrypted communications have made the recruiting efforts of extremists easier and pervasive over the past two years.

“So we have investigations in all 50 states to try to identify, among hundreds of people who are consuming this poison, where are they on the stages from consuming to acting, and how do we stop them from acting,” he said.

Comey talked with reporters during a visit to the FBI field office in the Cincinnati area. Its Ohio region had two arrests this year of young men charged with plotting terrorist acts to support ISIS extremists. Both pleaded not guilty.

Comey said authorities try to identify those being recruited who might need mental health care and see that they get it, but have “very tough messages” for the others. “This is not a game,” he said. “If we catch you doing this, you’re going to get a very long stretch in jail.”

Another top concern for the FBI is rising violent crime in many U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, he said. The reasons may vary, but he said the spread of heroin use has likely played a role in some cases. Comey said he couldn’t offer much assurance that an end is in sight for curbing heroin use. In Ohio, heroin and opioid use have contributed to record numbers of overdose deaths. Comey said it’s also likely the region will see a rise in the use of methamphetamines.

Category:

Tagged with:

Obama ‘took the wrong side’ on climate change, says physicist Freeman Dyson

Published October 14, 2015, FoxNews.com

URL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/14/obama-took-wrong-side-on-climate-change-says-physicist-freeman-dyson.html?intcmp=hpbt3

File photo. (REUTERS/Peter Andrews/Files)

Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter has expressed his disappointment with President Obama’s stance on climate change. “It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I’m 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.

Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.”

During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”

Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.

Category:

Tagged with:

Iran Rejects Obama’s Iran Nuke Pact, Writes Own ‘Deal’ To Disarm Israel

by Jordan Schachtel13 Oct 2015Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/13/iran-rejects-obamas-iran-nuke-treaty-writes-deal-disarm-israel

Ayatollah

Western media incorrectly reported that the majilis approved the actual text of the JCPOA, according to experts.

New York Post columnist Amir Taheri has explained in a series of social media posts that Iran’s version of the deal calls for the cancellation of sanctions against the regime in Tehran. He also noted that Iran’s version of the nuke deal calls for the dismantling of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, citing Iranian parliamentarian Kazem Jalali.

The Middle East Media Research Center (MEMRI), a regional watchdog organization, has confirmed that Iran did not pass the deal agreed upon in July. They instead voted to pass the amended version by a vote of 161-59.

Iranian lawmakers tried to unilaterally amend the deal to strip the United States’ ability to “snapback” sanctions should the Tehran regime cheat the agreement. They also replaced the language to ensure that the deal will “cancel” sanctions forever, instead of “suspending” them, MEMRI reported.

The Middle East monitoring group added that the decision to amend the deal unilaterally came at the behest of Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei, who on September 3 promised not to honor the agreement with Obama.

Moreover, the American Enterprise Institute’s Iran Tracker site noted that Iran considered its unilateral amendments to the deal as four “minor changes.”

Separately, as Iranian regime parliamentarians were voting on their own version of the nuke deal, its military was testing a precision-guided ballistic missile in direct violation of United Nations Security Resolution 1929.

The Iranian government has ramped up its regional aggression in the past few months, as Iran is set to soon receive tens of billions of dollars in unfrozen assets.

Tehran’s military is now deeply involved in the ongoing civil war in Syria, with some estimates stating that there are 7,000 soldiers in Syria attempting to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial rule. Iran has also continued to provide aid and arms to terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and has assisted the Houthi insurgents in Yemen. Multiple Gulf states have also accused the regime of backing terrorist movements that seek to overthrow their governments.

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Branco Cartoon – Assume the Position

Posted by A.F. Branco Thursday, October 15, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/branco-cartoon-assume-the-position/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

U.S. Foreign Policy

Category:

Tagged with:

Ann Coulter Letter: “Hispanics Wouldn’t Vote GOP If You Held a Gun To Their Heads”

Authored by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/14/hispanics-wouldnt-vote-gop-if-you-held-a-gun-to-their-heads/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Hispanics Wouldn't Vote GOP If You Held a Gun To Their Heads

At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about getting a “D-minus” from the National Rifle Association (which was also Lincoln Chafee’s GPA in high school).

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.

I would be open to such a law — but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law.

Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.

In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns — such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes’ strange voicemail message.

As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding “a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, “It’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.” Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he’d “take another look” at the gun bill.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which “enemy” he was proudest of, O’Malley said: “The NRA.” (Loud applause — especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms — or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O’Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg. But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don’t Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats’ strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the “enemies” question: “La Raza.”

Republicans don’t need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group. We just have to protect Americans first — American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants. Most voters don’t think it’s an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals — and has soared to the top of the polls. The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won’t look any different on election night. Voting machines don’t register angry glints in people’s eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote — to say nothing of the black vote — we will see a difference in the Republicans’ box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that – and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It’s crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won’t give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven’t seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it’s a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to expend any effort on constituencies they can’t win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger — but still losing — percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You’ve been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote. Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It’s honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.

Category:

Tagged with:

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton, Sanders revise history in Dem debate

Published October 13, 2015, Associated Press

URL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/13/ap-fact-check-clinton-sanders-revise-history-in-dem-debate

Vermont Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are shown in this composite photo. (AP)

WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton revised history in the Democratic debate when insisting she’s not a flip-flopper on a trade deal she promoted as secretary of state but turned against as a presidential candidate.

Bernie Sanders overstated the share of wealth being taken by the richest Americans, a subject that goes to the core of his campaign.

A look at some of the claims in the debate among Democratic rivals Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

CLINTON on the Trans-Pacific Partnership: “I did say, I hoped it would be the gold standard”‘ of trade agreements.

THE FACTS: Clinton did not say anything about mere hope in her speeches around the world in support of the trade deal. She roundly endorsed the deal taking shape. In a November 2012 speech in Australia, she declared the Trans-Pacific deal “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a sentiment she echoed in many venues.

Clinton said in the debate that when she looked at the final agreement last week, “it didn’t meet my standards.” The final agreement, however, dropped or changed some provisions that liberal activist groups — the wing of the party she is assiduously courting at this stage of the campaign — had strongly criticized.

——

SANDERS: “Almost all the new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.”

THE FACTS: Sanders appears to be relying on outdated data. In the first five years of the economic recovery, from 2009 through 2014, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. While certainly a large gain, that is a lot less than “almost all.”

In just the first three years of the recovery, from 2009 through 2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that occurred because of impending tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that took effect in 2013.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.

——

CLINTON on her email practices: “I have been as transparent as I know to be. … I said I have answered all the questions.”

THE FACTS: Clinton has yet to explain how the server was set up and serviced, whether she informed the State Department about her decision to use the private system and, most important, how it was protected from hacking attempts.

Russia-based hacking attempts tried at least five times to trick her into infecting her computer system with malware in 2011, The Associated Press learned, and her server was hit by attempted cyber intrusions in 2014 from China, South Korea and Germany.

Her server also was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. But her campaign has repeatedly declined to address these details.

—-

SANDERS: “Make every public college and university in this country tuition-free.”

CLINTON: “My plan would enable anyone to go to a public college or university tuition-free. You would not have to borrow money for tuition.”

THE FACTS: Free for the students, but someone has to pay.

Clinton and Sanders both would shift more college costs onto taxpayers and away from parents and students.

Sanders’ plan would cover tuition and fees at public universities — a $70 billion annual expense with the federal government picking up two-thirds of that tab by taxing trading in the financial markets.

Students would still be on the hook for room and board costs that average $9,804, according to the College Board.

The Clinton plan is bound to cost more than the $35 billion per year over 10 years projected by her campaign. This is because more students would probably switch to public universities on the potential to graduate without debt, raising costs for the government and potentially leaving many modestly endowed private institutions in the lurch.

The potential of a debt-free education would also depend on states providing reliable money streams and controlling costs — both major sources of uncertainty. But the Clinton plan would also expose a sharp generational divide. New college students would be helped, but the 40 million Americans who already owe a combined $1.2 trillion in education debt would receive little aid other than refinancing at lower rates.

Neither candidate told TV viewers about the costs to the treasury of what they propose.

——

SANDERS: “What we need to do is … raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.”

THE FACTS: That might boost pay for many workers, but as with college tuition, there’s a cost: His plan would probably cause many low-wage employers to outsource or automate some jobs.

Economists have long debated the impact of raising the minimum wage, and some recent research has found that modest increases don’t actually cost many jobs. But a jump to $15 an hour would be more than double the federal minimum of $7.25. It would also be far above the minimum wage’s previous peak of just under $11, adjusted for inflation, in 1968.

And a $15 minimum wage is above the median wage in eight states, which suggests a boost to $15 could cause widespread job losses in those states.

——

CLINTON on her Syria strategy as secretary of state: “What I said was we had to put together a coalition … and yes, it included Arabs, people in the region, because what I worry about is what will happen with ISIS gaining more territory, having more reach, and frankly posing a threat to our friends and neighbors in the region and far beyond.”

THE FACTS: Clinton is ignoring much of the context of her coalition-building effort in Syria: It was designed to push Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, not target ISIS or other extremist groups fighting among the opposition.

As secretary, Clinton helped spearhead meetings of the U.S. and various Arab and European countries frustrated by the escalating conflict in Syria. The coalition was concerned primarily with helping armed opposition groups better defend themselves and directing political groups to coalesce behind a common, inclusive platform for a post-Assad Syria.

At that time, the Islamic State didn’t exist. But Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups did. And even as they gained a foothold and became increasingly prominent among the anti-Assad rebels, the coalition Clinton worked on didn’t come up with a military plan for combatting them.

Category:

Tagged with:

Fact Check

What the Tea Party Has Achieved

Posted by Stephen Moore / @StephenMoore / October 13, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/13/what-the-tea-party-has-achieved/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuKzOZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBnNrHYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Tea party members on the East Front of the U.S. Capitol hold up signs and flags during a rally.(Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/ Newscom/ Edited: Daily Signal)

Remember the much maligned Tea Party movement? These were the patriotic Americans—millions of them—who took to the streets and the town halls across America and revolted against President Bush’s corporate bailouts, President Obama’s stimulus spending blowout and Obamacare, and the Federal Reserve’s policy of tossing trillions of dollars out of helicopter windows (figuratively).

Good news: They helped change and maybe even slightly fix America. The latest budget deficit numbers for the fiscal year just ended find that the deficit has fallen by $1 trillion since Obama’s tragic first term. The deficit is still near half a trillion, but the hole is a lot smaller than it was before the Tea Party spontaneous combustion happened back in 2009.

This was a movement about saving America from itself. Tea Party members are homemakers, veterans, small business owners, retirees, college students, and blue-collar workers. They generally don’t want anything from government. At the 9-12 rally in Washington a few years ago, an activist from Florida explained to me what his goal was: “All we want from government is less of it.” They wanted a lot less of it from a president and a Congress who kept dispensing trillions more.

The media portrayed the Tea Party as a spoiled three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. The left pilloried these patriots, offensively calling them “Tea Baggers” and racists and crazies.

But who was crazy? In two years, 2009 and 2010, Barack Obama and his accomplices then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., managed to borrow about $2.5 trillion. These fiscal three stooges called this volcano of debt a stimulus to the economy. It didn’t work, and the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been without the borrowing blitz—by their own admission.

The Tea Party, more than any other political organization, sprang into action, with the single-minded purpose of forcing an end to this spending orgy. Spending has fallen over a three-year period from 2011-2014 for the first time since Joe DiMaggio roamed center field for the New York Yankees.

This is all the more impressive because government spending for Obamacare is soaring. This means that every dollar that has been spent on this new entitlement program has been offset by a dollar of cuts elsewhere.

It’s also worth giving credit to retiring House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. It was Boehner who forced Obama to accept tight spending caps as part of the fiscal cliff budget deal. This was one of the best deals taxpayers have seen in a long time. Boehner refused to accept Obama’s tax hike proposals, which could have plunged the economy back in to recession.

The budget numbers of the U.S. government are, of course, still dire. The debt has toppled $18 trillion, and soon we will bump up against another debt ceiling, with the spending lobby demanding an increase in the congressional credit card. But at least we are not Greece or Detroit: we are off fiscal life support for the time being.

Alas, we may need the Tea Party to take to the streets again. Republicans are set to negotiate a budget deal with the White House that could bust through budget caps and spend an extra $75 billion, which will reverse hard-earned progress.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the House Budget Committee chairman and a consistent fiscal superstar for taxpayers, is fighting to keep the spending tides from crashing over the budget act ceilings, but he’s outnumbered even inside his own party. In Washington, the urge to play Santa Claus is still truly bipartisan.

Let’s hope the history books get the Tea Party chapter right. These weren’t a bunch of angry white males organized by the Koch brothers to protect industry. This was and still is a save-America crusade as impactful as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the anti-tax activism of the 1970s. They arrived just in time, and America still needs them.

Category:

Tagged with:

WATCH WHAT THESE JOURNALISTS DO: During The Nat’l Anthem At The #DemDebate

Written by Wes Walker on October 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/watch-what-these-journalists-do-during-the-natl-anthem-at-the-demdebate

Actions, they say, speak louder than words.

Well, they certainly did in this clip. Too bad this is a lesson that the supposed media elite haven’t learned yet.

Journalists would have us believe that we’re wrong to write them off as elitists in ivory towers. They love this country too. They’re just as American as any average working stiff.

But the camera tells a different story, a story confirming many patriots’ suspicions.

Could there be an innocent explanation? Probably. It could be that people are reading more into this than they need to.

But you don’t need to be a PR consultant to see the credibility problem. When people have been burned before, they notice the little things: the little snubs that others might get away with.

It doesn’t help that the media keeps writing off conservatives that love their country as the villains in their narratives. They like to put us on the same moral plane as terrorists — or even worse, since some downgrade actual terrorism to “workplace violence”.

If they didn’t disdain “fly-over country” it might be easier to offer the benefit of the doubt.

But those bridges have been burned already. One too many scandals buried. One too many pieces praising the bold initiatives of those abusing their office.

Well, guess what, guys? We no longer trust you. Many of us never did.

You say you love America. We don’t believe you do. Not America. Not her People. Not her History. And certainly not her Institutions.

And that is why, when the cameras are rolling, and you think nobody is watching, we are. We notice that the Anthem is played, and you ignore it. You sit distracted in your chairs. Bored.

In a room of 400 journalists at the Democratic Debate, only about 20 stood up when the National Anthem played. The numbers were similar at the Reagan Library. (And ‘conservative’ media outlets? You were little better. We noticed that, too.)

Others might get the benefit of the doubt. Most probably would.

But your indifference, (disdain?) bears too close a resemblance to what we see at 1600 Pennsylvania. It has all the class and decorum of a selfie at a funeral. And we’re sick of it.

Category:

Tagged with:

TRUMP WON THE DEM’S DEBATE: With The Most Epic Tweet Of The Night

Posted on October 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/trump-won-the-dems-debate-with-the-most-epic-tweet-of-the-night

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 7.01.03 AM Donald Trump wins the debate even when he is isn’t in it.

While Tuesday night’s CNN political debate was intended as an opportunity for one of the Democrat Party presidential hopefuls to separate him or herself from the rest of the pack, the best line of the night came from a man who was not even in the room with the debaters nor in the same party.

In effect, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump stole the show with a perfectly-timed tweet explaining that Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee spent their night talking about the all the free stuff they were going to give away–including ObamaCare benefits and tuition breaks for illegal immigrants–without once mentioning what they would do to make conditions better for U.S. military veterans.

So Trump tweeted: “Notice that illegal immigrants will be given ObamaCare and free college tuition but nothing has been mentioned about our VETERANS #DemDebate” It was the best line of the night by far.(Breitbart)

Category:

Jeremy Dodge is an American songwriter and defender of the U.S. Constitution who recently began speaking out about basic constitutional principles that continue to be ignored, violated, or forgotten.

Tagged with:

Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up

Written by Bethany Blankley

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/will-the-real-americans-please-stand-up

He mentions that several years ago he didn’t know what or how he personally could positively improve any of the numerous challenges facing America. But a breaking point arrived when it seemed to Dodge that no end was in sight to the rapidly increasing deterioration of American socio-economic life. He said,

“I just knew I couldn’t sit down any longer and watch as my country, my America was being changed into something that I didn’t even recognize. It was then that I realized, I was falling for the lie that I couldn’t make a difference, that I was just one voice in a sea of millions but that never has been nor ever will be the truth.”

He cites perhaps America’s greatest leader and first president, George Washington, who affirmed, “The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.”

This commitment to defending the Constitution is one Dodge shares with many Americans, and his growing fan base on social media. Millions of concerned American citizens are increasingly troubled by local, state, and federal government officials who blatantly ignore the most basic “shall not be infringed” prohibitions clearly outlined in the Constitution.

Dodge decided to take action and began writing, singing, and producing music videos to encourage Americans to “stand up” to restore America’s foundational principles of liberty, freedom, and unity. He tells Americans, “this is your country, our voices do matter but if we choose to remain silent, if we choose not to stand up, then we lose by default.”

From singing about being proud to be an American to belting out “God bless America,” Dodge identifies the liberties that are systematically being stripped away by media elites and fascist leaders.

His most recent song, “Stand Up, 2nd Amendment Style,” addresses the ongoing and largely false claims made by gun control advocates.

In-between sound bites of Ronald Reagan and JFK, he sings:

“… when politicians take from you and me the very liberties that set us free – so stand up and fight – for this “democracy” is you and me

“will the real Americans please stand up – divided we’ve fallen but united we’ll stand.”

Who will stand for America?

Dodge has been asking this for years. Addressing his own thoughts about “stepping out of his comfort zone,” he says:

“We need to get out of our comfort zones, we need to be bold and open our mouths and speak the truth in love. It is the knowledge of the truth that will set our country free. For far too long we have been silent, while the outspoken minorities have slowly changed the God ordained direction our country was created to head. No one in history who has stood up and made a difference was comfortable doing so, but that didn’t stop them. The love that they had for their country was greater than the fear of man’s opinion of them and so they stood. Where do you stand? You are either for America or not. There is no in between. We can no longer shift between two opinions on the back of apathy or fear, we must stand up and stand our ground without fear and full of love.”

Category:

Tagged with:

EU Diplomat: My Government ‘Believes Obama Is Quite Mentally Unwell’

Posted By Steve Watson | Infowars.com On October 14, 2015

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/eu-diplomat-my-government-believes-obama-is-quite-mentally-unwell

A former NSA intelligence analyst has claimed that a senior European diplomat told him that the entire government of a European country considers president Obama to be literally mentally unwell.

John Schindler, a security expert and whistleblower who now writes for The Daily Beast, has claimed that a senior EU official from an undisclosed country also inquired about impeachment proceedings, saying that the nation believes Obama is not fit for office.

Schindler tweeted out the revelation Monday:

The wording indicates that the opinion is not that of a single person, but rather the whole government of whichever European country the diplomat is from.

The following countries make up the European Union:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

According to Schindler’s source, one of the governments of those nations considers Obama to be mentally unstable.

Schindler is a former U.S. Naval War College lecturer and is known to have many high level military and government contacts. The revelation prompted a splurge of activity on social media:

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Category:

Tagged with:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel blames Chicago crime wave on police officers becoming ‘fetal’ out of fear they will get in trouble during arrests

Emanuel made the remark at a meeting in Washington DC with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and others mayors
In September, Chicago saw 60 homicides – making it the city’s deadliest month since 2002
Emanuel claimed police-involved deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were adversely affecting policing
A group of Chicago’s black aldermen called on the mayor to fire Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had some harsh words for the city’s police force last week, blaming a recent upsurge in crime on officers becoming ‘fetal’ out of fear for doing something wrong during arrests. The second-term mayor made the controversial remarks during a meeting in Washington DC with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other mayors and law enforcement officials from across the country. The summit was held to discuss an uptick in homicides and other violent crimes – a trend that Mayor Emanuel partially blamed on a decrease in policing.

Harsh words: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (pictured in July) partly blamed a recent uptick in homicides in the city on ‘fetal’ police officers who are second-guessing themselves

‘They have pulled back from the ability to interdict … they don’t want to be a news story themselves, they don’t want their career ended early, and it’s having an impact.’

On Monday, President Obama’s pugnacious former chief of staff doubled down on his ‘fetal’ comment, saying the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the death of Freddie Gray while in the custody of Baltimore police were having an adverse effect on the actions of Chicago cops.

‘Officers themselves were telling me about how the news over the last 15 months have impacted their instincts,’ the mayor said, according to Chicago Tribune. ‘Do they stop or do they keep driving? When I stop here is it my career on the line?’

The 55-year-old Chicago mayor said he has asked Lynch to support ‘good’ officers who are involved in community policing. In September, Chicago saw 60 homicides, marking the city’s deadliest month since 2002. According to police department statistics, homicides and shootings have skyrocketed 21 per cent compared to the same time the year before.

A group of black Chicago aldermen demanded October 5 (pictured) that the city’s police superintendent resign, pointing to the street violence plaguing the city

Early last week, a group of Chicago’s black aldermen (an elected member of a municipal council) called on the mayor to fire Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, but Emanuel stood by him.

Dean Angelo, president of Chicago’s police union, acknowledged that rank-and-file officers are concerned about the increased scrutiny in the wake of the recent events involving police-involved deaths, but he rejected the notion that they are neglecting their duties for fear of getting in trouble. ‘They’re out there working their buns off, and they’re looking for a fair shake,’ Angelo stated.

Category:

Tagged with:

fetal

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Weighing In

October 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/weighing-in

margaret_thatcher_on_socialism_by_blamethe1st-d5gppwr

wpid-socialism-has-failed-vik-battaile-politics-1356564629

Category:

Tagged with:

Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones

Posted by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-gun-free-zones/#yRA4TyFQepvJLdHz.99

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) recently released a report that indicates that since January of 2009 to July 2014 92% of all mass shootings in the US occurred in gun-free zones. The CPRC report was released to combat the liars over at Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg, communist gun grabbing organization. According to Everytown, who pushed a gun safety study claiming that only 14% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, 86% of mass shootings have occurred in places where guns are allowed.

In its presentation, the CPRC report, put out by John R. Lott, Jr. and Rebekah C. Riley, claim, “Everytown’s recent analysis of mass shootings is riddled with errors. Mistakes are made on the number of mass shootings as well as the extent of mental illness, the killers’ ages, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case. They made simple accounting errors and included cases that did not fit their claimed criteria (4 or more shooting deaths). Also, their arbitrary definition of “assault weapons” seems chosen to obtain the results that fit their ideological agenda. Their numbers should not be relied on for any type of policy analysis.”

So, let’s be honest here, because clearly Everytown was not. They did not make errors. They made calculated deceptive claims. In the vernacular, they lied, and they know it.

According to the CPRC report, Everytown’s claims of 86% of mass shootings occurring outside of gun-free zones is because of their “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”

Not only does Everytown’s report fail to identify cities that infringe on citizens’ rights to carry a gun, but they also fail to distinguish between citizens and police officers who carry guns.

The CPRC report also takes the time to educate ignorant people about so-called “assault rifles.”

“It may seem obvious that using assault weapons would result in far more victims than if other types of guns had been used,” reads the report. “After all, firearms such as the AR-15 and the AK-47 are ‘militarystyle weapons.’ But the key word is ‘style’—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original federal assault weapon ban were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.”

“The civilian version of the AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage,” the report continues. “The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. The civilian version of these guns is hunting rifles. They have just been made to look like military weapons.”

This is important because the call from gun grabbers pushes the fear of scary looking weapons, when the rest of us gun owners understand they’re really just “cool” looking. But here’s an important question, are there more fatalities when these kinds of guns are used? CPRC answers:

“Mass public shootings vary greatly and averages can be misleading. Except for the tragedy at Newtown, the typical attack with an assault weapon actually results in slightly fewer deaths than shootings with other types of guns. That one attack greatly skews the results as Adam Lanza used an assault weapon to kill 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother. When all mass public shootings are counted, the average number killed with assault weapons is 10.2 per attack versus 6.5 in a non-assault weapon attack. Excluding the Newtown shooting, assault weapons are actually associated with slightly fewer fatalities — 6 versus 6.5.”

So, sticking to the actual definitions of what a mass shooting is (four or more injured or dead in a single shooting), CPRC takes the same data, but deals with it fairly and demonstrates that Everytown is pulling a Climate Change data fraud on the American people. In the same manner that Climate Change should be dismissed as being advanced by Communists, the same can be said of the anti-gun push by Bloomberg’s communist organization Everytown for Gun Safety.

Climate Change isn’t about the environment. It’s about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well.

In the end, it matters not what the numbers spell either way, as the restrictions on government over the rights of the citizens continues to remain in black and white in Article 2 of the Bill of Rights… “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Muslims Kidnap and Starve Woman Before Feeding Her Lavish Meal… Then She Learns What She Just Ate

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/muslims-starve-woman-before/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeHeadlinesEmail&utm_campaign=PM1&utm_content=2015-10-13

The wicked depravity of radical Islamic terrorists knows no bounds. Take what they did to a Yazidi mother they had captured.

According to Iraqi parliament member Vian Dakhil, who last week spoke with Politico, after Islamic State group militants captured the mother and her two sons — aged 3 and 5 — they starved her for two days. Then on the third day, they handed the poor woman a bowl of rice with meat. As she began to eat, the militants revealed to her that the meat was in fact from her dead 3-year-old son.

“She tells me, ‘Please, I can’t, I don’t know what can I do — I’m eating my son,’” Dakhil somberly explained. “This is what happened with those woman under ISIS control, and nobody cares. This is, I say that to Mr. Obama, ‘Do you agree with … a woman — she ate her son.’”

Sadly, according to what British fighter Yasir Abdulla told the U.K. Daily Mail last March, the exact same thing happened to another mother as well.

“They brought her cups of tea and fed her a meal of cooked meat, rice and soup,” Abdulla said of the mother, who had shown up at the militants’ headquarters to ask about her kidnapped son. “She thought they were kind. But they had killed him and chopped him up, and after she finished the meal and asked to see her son, they laughed and said, ‘You’ve just eaten him.’”

It takes a very sick and twisted soul to commit such a heinous crime against a woman, let alone a mother. But to followers of the Prophet Mohammad, one of the most wicked men in human history, this sort of behavior is just a tiny stepping stone in their quest to turn the entire world into a veritable Islamic madhouse.

H/T Mad World News

Category:

Tagged with:

TWO ARTICLES: “GOP to Obama: See, we told you Iran would cheat” and “Americans Rot in Iranian Prisons While Iranian War Criminals Get Sanctions Relief”

By Jacqueline Klimas (@jacqklimas) • 10/13/15

URL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-to-obama-see-we-told-you-iran-would-cheat/article/2573930

“[T]he administration has shown a dangerous naivety regarding who it is dealing with,” Ed Royce said in a statement. (AP Photo)

Top Republicans in Congress criticized the administration’s strategy in Iran on Monday, saying recent actions prove President Obama made a mistake in securing a nuclear deal with a country that cannot be trusted.

Over the weekend, Iran tested a long-range ballistic missile, prompting some to wonder if it had already broken the newly-signed nuclear deal. Iran also announced the conviction of American reporter Jason Rezaian, who has been held in an Iranian jail for more than a year.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said these moves demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed in its negotiations with Iran.

“[T]he administration has shown a dangerous naivety regarding who it is dealing with,” Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “The administration didn’t get Jason released when it had the leverage of the nuclear agreement. It must redouble efforts to get Jason and the other imprisoned Americans home now.”

Rezaian, an Iranian-American reporter for the Washington Post, has been held in an Iranian prison for 447 days, according to a Post report. Iranian officials announced over the weekend that he was convicted in a trial not open to any outside witnesses, though it’s still unclear on which charges he was convicted.

Rezaian faced four charges, the most serious of which is espionage. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years, the Post reported.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Iran’s opaque handling of Rezaian’s trial proves that the country should not be trusted to inspect itself, as required by the nuclear deal negotiated in July.

“President Obama’s gamble that a nuclear deal would lead to a more responsible Iran has already failed,” he said in a statement.

Iran tested its newest long-range ballistic missile over the weekend, dubbed “Emad,” or Pillar. The move prompted many to speculate whether the launch violated the nuclear deal, but Iran claimed that it did not, saying the country has always retained a right to advance its own national security.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said these two issues show that while the administration claimed the nuclear agreement would improve and strengthen relations with Iran, the opposite seems to be happening.

“Iran’s increasing malign behavior in the past few weeks is the dangerous, yet predictable consequence of the administration’s long habit of ignoring and downplaying the broader threat that Iran poses,” said McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The president needs to give up on his failed policy of acquiescing to Iranian power and start doing significantly more to counter it.”

by S. Noble • July 15, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.independentsentinel.com/american-prisoners-rot-in-iranian-prisons-while-iranian-war-criminals-get-sanctions-relief

Barack Obama wrote 46 personal letters this month to felons imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses but he couldn’t find the time to write a letter to Kathryn Steinle’s family whose father held her in his arms as she died. Her final words were, “Help me Dad.” Nor could Barack Obama find a way to free our Americans held in Iranians prisons.

Mr. Obama ignored the imprisoned Americans when the nuclear deal was finalized because it didn’t involve nuclear he said. Of course the conventional weapons he included in the treaty at the last minute also didn’t have anything to do with nuclear.

While he lets former Marine Amir Hekmati, ex-FBI Agent Robert Levinson, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Washington Post Iran Bureau Chief Jason Rezaian, in the order they are pictured below, rot in violent Iranian prisons, he has removed all sanctions from an Iranian commander responsible for the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers.

(Left to Right) Former Marine Amir Hekmati, ex-FBI Agent Robert Levinson, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Washington Post Iran Bureau Chief Jason Rezaian

The head of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds Force, General Qasem Soleimani, photo below, who directed covert operations abroad, is now a celebrity in Iran and is the subject of music videos, documentaries, and news reports.

Soleimani helped Shiite militias in Iraq slaughter U.S. soldiers. He sent copper-tiipped IEDs into Iraq, killing at least 500 of our soldiers and Marines in one effort alone, the Daily Beast reports.

Also in the sanctions-relief pile is the man General David Petraeus called “truly evil”, Revolutionary Guard Corps general Mohammad Reza Naqdi (photo below) who said “erasing Israel off the map” should be Iran’s objective, with or without a nuke.

Also on the list are several other terrorists calling themselves generals. The list of individuals relieved of sanctions includes 800 of our enemies.

Barack Obama is the man who did and said nothing when two of our soldiers were kept imprisoned under trumped up charges in Mexican prisons but who spoke out on behalf of American Mohamed Soltan who is the son of a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader imprisoned in Egypt.

He left them behind but didn’t leave a deserter behind, trading five Taliban for him.

Obama spoke out for Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was rapidly turning Egypt into a dictatorship worse than the one they had.

Barack Obama is the man who defends rioters as victims (to be distinguished from protesters) and condemns the Tea Party as radicals.

He is the man who, along with Hillary, demanded the reinstatement of the Honduran dictator wannabe at the very beginning of his reign.

He is the man who called the men of Benghazi “bumps in the road”, who smirked when he said the jobs weren’t shovel ready, who said there wasn’t a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS.

He is the man who went golfing twenty minutes after his speech about the beheaded American journalist, James Wright Foley.

He is the man who mourns criminals, helps out war criminals, hasn’t a word to say about Kate Steinle, and didn’t help Americans imprisoned in Iran because they weren’t nuclear.

Category:

Tagged with:

Confederate flag supporters indicted under Georgia terrorism law

Published October 13, 2015, FoxNews.com

URL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/13/confederate-flag-supporters-indicted-under-georgia-terrorism-law/?intcmp=hplnws

A Georgia grand jury formally charged 15 members of a group supporting the Confederate flag on terror charges following a July confrontation with a black family who was celebrating a child’s birthday, according to an indictment released Monday.

Douglas County District Attorney Brian Fortner said members of the “Respect the Flag” group violated the state’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act and made terroristic threats when their caravan of vehicles bearing the rebel flag drove past a neighborhood party.

“We do want to say that we respect the rights of all citizens to exercise their First Amendment right, but we’re going to require them when they’re doing that to respect the right of all of the citizens to feel safe,” Fortner said at a news conference attended by FOX5.

The indictment, handed up on Friday, also charges two members of the group with battery for a separate incident that occurred at a gas station on the same day. While video of the Confederate convoy has made its way onto social media, there are two drastically different depictions of what occurred on July 25, with each side blaming the other for generating hostility.

This much is not in dispute: numerous pickup trucks, adorned with several large American and Confederate flags, formed a caravan and drove into a neighborhood where a birthday party was being held for a child.

Levi Bush, who was part of the procession, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in July that the motorcade was making its way back from a nearby event when it drove through the area. Kayla Norton, another member of the group, told FOX5 that party-goers began throwing objects at the trucks and making threats.

People from the birthday party contend that “Respect the Flag” participants yelled racial slurs and flashed guns.

Police were eventually called to the scene, though no one was arrested at the time.

“Officers on scene were given conflicting statements as to what led up to the confrontation,” the Douglasville Police Department said in a statement. “We do not have any evidence of any shots fired nor were there any reports of a physical altercation taking place.”

The indictment says the group threatened “to commit a crime of violence to persons attending a party” with the “purpose of terrorizing those individuals and in reckless disregard for the risk of causing such terror.” The indictment does not specify what “Respect the Flag” participants did or said to that end.

Members of “Respect the Flag” told the Washington Post the group drives around with its flags flying in order to raise money to donate American flags to people who can’t afford them.

The Confederate flag has become a hot-button topic in the wake of a June mass shooting at a black Christian church in South Carolina. The alleged perpetrator was reportedly inspired by racist propaganda and was seen in pictures with the Confederate flag. Those images led to calls to remove the symbol from public and private sites across the country, which in turn inspired a backlash from those who felt the flag symbolized Southern culture and heritage.

Robert Andrew Hansard, John Anthony Allen, Lacey Paul Henderson, Joe Eric Hood, Levi Devin Bush, Ashley Elizabeth Butler, Alexis Odell Fennell, Lacey Paul Henderson, Jose Ismael Torres, Amanda Sue Dyson, Jeffery Chad Wigley, Gregory Adam Upchurch, Scott Chapman, Thomas Charles Summers and Judy King Summers were charged with violating the state terrorism act.

Hood and Thomas Summers were charged in the battery at the gas station.

Category:

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

More Flexibility

October 13, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/10/more-flexibility

Category:

Tagged with:

National Grassroots Movement to Restore Liberty and Rein in Tyranny: “Only the People can Save America!”

Posted by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/national-grassroots-movement-to-restore-liberty-and-rein-in-tyranny-only-the-people-can-save-america/#gXVX2efG38F7Div7.99

“Justice and Judgment are the inhabitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” – Psa 89:14

“When the People fear their government there is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty” – Thomas Jefferson

A new grassroots movement is seeking to take back the rightful authority of the people to operate in our government under the authority of God. The Natural Liberty Alliance is a movement that is seeking to re-establish the Common Law (Law based upon the Bible) that we were originally founded upon, not the kind of Statutory Law that we find in our court systems today, which has become nothing more than legalized tyranny.

According to the group’s mission statement, they desire to “restore the people to sovereignty through knowledge, and only then will they be armed with the virtue to take political and judicial power. The people have it in their power to disarm and defeat the enemy of Liberty both foreign and domestic if they only understood the principles of freedom and stand upon them.”

The NLA also has the proper place to start as well. “But, to successfully apply political and judicial power you must have a sense of justice and mercy which is synonymous with virtue. And to get virtue you need to have a relationship with your creator. If everyone exercised these principles America could shake off the chains of tyranny, reinstate our republic, and bring down the NWO ‘literally overnight.’ This is the only way to save the nation, without power you are powerless!”

“Now is the time to take back the rule from our oppressors!” the NLA declares. “Due to extraordinary circumstances, on November 10, 2014 We the People from all fifty states unified as United States Common Law Grand jury for the purpose of saving America by returning Justice, and thereby the rule of Law, to our courts which will permeate all three branches of government.”

“Through the power vested in We the People by God, a Writ Quo Warranto was filed in all 94 Federal District Courts and served upon every elected state and federal servants and officers of the court, reminding them of their limited power,” the NLA says. “‘In the United States, sovereignty resides in people… that Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared,’ Perry v. US, 294 U.S330; and ‘The very meaning of sovereignty is that the decree of the sovereign makes law,’ not the servant, American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.”

“Because of arrogance, greed and ignorance our Writ was met by ‘silence which can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading….,’ U.S. v. Tweel. ‘Bad faith and fraud are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.,’ Joiner v. Joiner.”

According to the NLA’s website, they have already made significant steps in implementing their plan to take back the government of the people from tyrants. Here are the steps they have made so far:

…on May 13, 2015 We the People re-filed Writ_Quo_Warranto pdf to be followed by a series of Writ Mandamuses, exposing in-depth violations; and commanding said servants to obey and perform specific actions, remember their sworn guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and to protect each of them against invasion, Article IV Section 4; failure to comply with their oaths makes them enemies of the People.
On May 20, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to_Sheriff pdf in order to prepare, inform, educate, and expose those conspiring to overthrow the United States Constitution; empower the county sheriff, the conservator of the peace to take action by performing their Constitutional duties and thereby join the American Peoples’ endeavor to save our nation, simply by obeying, enforcing and following the “law of the land.”
On May 23, 2015 We the People, the sureties of the Peace, filed Writ Mandamus_to Judges pdf to expose their tyranny and offer the final olive branch.
On May 27, 2015 We the People filed Writ of Mandamus Martial Law pdf concerning our servants, conscious or unconscious participation in the methodical destruction of the ordained government of the United States, using martial law, the final act of an overthrown government to control the People in order to transfer power to tyrants and kill their enemies; and We the People intend to prevent.
On May 30, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus Amendment II pdf revealing the true reason concerning governments that move toward gun control. In every case governments end up killing the people who dissent. Disarmed people are neither free nor safe; rather they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings; and We the People intend to prevent.
On June 2, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning terrorism pdf exposing the fascist tactics being used by tyrants that have infiltrated our government at all levels in an effort to enslave the sovereign People of America; classifying sovereign citizens, a/k/a We the People, as terrorists or as having mental disorders for challenging authority and demanding their unalienable rights.
On June 6, 2015 We the People filed Writ Mandamus concerning subversion revealing Jade Helm, a Trojan-horse to take America, and exposing foreign and domestic tyrants, posing as Americans, who have infiltrated our government at all levels in a concerted effort to overthrow the fifty governments of the united States. These tyrants have seized their seat of power (our Federal City a/k/a Washington DC) and thereby have covertly erected a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, political operations; through courts of fiction, contrary to the authority by which they claim (Article I Section 8 Clauses 17 and 18), prevent the execution of the Law of the Land resulting in the enslaving of the sovereign People of America;

Like many patriots who visit our site, they are not interested in just being angry that they are being oppressed and their liberties stolen from them by a bloated unconstitutional tyrannical beast, but are seeking to chain up the beast with the Law. The NLA encourages everyone to read each of the Writs and says that it will empower the people. NLA believes that we must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

I have been one that has constantly called for the people to be involved, not so much in protest, as much as in true repentance towards God and bringing down justice upon the guilty. Now, the question is posed to you friends and patriots, will you at least take a look and see how you might make this movement prosper for liberty or will you merely complain and do nothing?

For more information on NLA, click here to visit their website.

Category: