Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions


waving flagBy Greg Richter   |   Wednesday, 12 Aug 2015 10:48 PM

Image: Ben Carson: Planned Parenthood Trying to Control Black Population
Planned Parenthood sets up abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to “control that population,” GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson said Wednesday. “I know who [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger is,” Carson said on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.” “I know that she believed in eugenics and that she was not particularly enamored with black people.”Picture1

Sanger’s writings indicated that she viewed some races as inferior, though she worked with African-Americans in her projects.

“Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany thought of her,” Carson said.

Cavuto asked Carson about his views on defunding Planned Parenthood in the light of a recent series of videos showing abortion doctors discussing the sale of fetal tissue.

Carson said he is willing to have a discussion about when life begins.

“Certainly once the heart starts beating. Certainly at that point,” he said. “If we are willing to open up the discussion, both sides, I think we can come to accommodation.”

comparison

 

Before you read the following, you need to know that all of what you are about to read will sound like they are describing a Nazi. You’ve been warned.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

Destroyed for lack of knowledge

PP MonsterMargaret Sanger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Controversies

Sexuality

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[77] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[78] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[79] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[80] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[79]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[81][82] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[83] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[84] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[85] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[86] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[86]

Abortion

Sanger advocated the use of contraception for family planning as a safe alternative to abortion.[87][88][89][16] As a nurse she was alarmed by the cases of death that resulted from botched abortions.[90][91] She was eager to separate the issue of birth control from the less acceptable and higher risk procedure of abortion.[87][92] While she did accept abortion “as a last resort”[87][93] she generally distanced herself from the practice as it was then performed.[92]

EugenicsPicture1

Originally Sanger based the advocacy of birth control on feminist ideals. After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing while the poor and ignorant lacked access to contraception and information about birth-control.[94] Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[94] She believed that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” They differed in that “eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state.”[95] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[96][97]Picture2

In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the “educated and informed” class that regulated the size of their families, the “intelligent and responsible” who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the “irresponsible and reckless people” whose religious scruples “prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”[98]

Sanger’s 1920 book endorsed negative eugenics. An advertisement for a book entitled “Woman and the New Race”. At the top is a photo of a woman, seated affectionately with her two sons.

Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the “profoundly retarded”.[99][100] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[101]Picture2

Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[102][103][104]

In contrast with eugenicist William Robinson, who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 8] Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[105] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[100] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[102][106]

Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In “A Plan for Peace”, a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.[99][100][107]

Race

E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger’s Harlem clinic.[108]

Sanger’s writings echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races. In one “What Every Girl Should Know” commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians, to her “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,” possessed “so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets,” as compared to the “normal man and Woman.” who were able to exercise control over their desires.[81] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics “… have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted.”[106]

Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York’s Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[109] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[110] Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[111] Sanger’s work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[112]

From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[113] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” While New York University’s Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, “Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;”[114] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[115]

Freedom of speech

Sanger opposed censorship throughout her career. Sanger grew up in a home where orator Robert Ingersoll was admired.[116] During the early years of her activism, Sanger viewed birth control primarily as a free-speech issue, rather than as a feminist issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel in 1914, she did so with the express goal of provoking a legal challenge to the Comstock laws banning dissemination of information about contraception.[23] In New York, Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to members of the Free Speech League, such as Edward Bliss Foote and Theodore Schroeder, and subsequently the League provided funding and advice to help Sanger with legal battles.[117]

Over the course of her career, Sanger was arrested at least eight times for expressing her views during an era in which speaking publicly about contraception was illegal.[118] Numerous times in her career, local government officials prevented Sanger from speaking by shuttering a facility or threatening her hosts.[119] In Boston in 1929, city officials under the leadership of James Curley threatened to arrest her if she spoke. In response she stood on stage, silent, with a gag over her mouth, while her speech was read by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.[120]

In God We Trustfreedom combo 2


Posted by Norvell Rose August 13, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-heavily-armed-black-panthers-caught-chanting-4-shocking-words-just-feet-from-police

NBP05

NBP08Outside the Texas jail where Sandra Bland apparently hanged herself following her controversial arrest after a traffic stop, heavily-armed members of the New Black Panther Party insulted and taunted law enforcement personnel on Wednesday. Breitbart News reports that some fifteen Black Panther protestors were met by a far larger force of deputies, many mounted and outfitted in full riot-control gear. There was no violence, unless you consider the insult-filled verbal assault on the law enforcement personnel by armed protestors to be “violence.”

On video of the march posted by Breitbart, you can hear the Black Panthers chanting provocatively, using words and phrases directed at deputies outside the Waller County jail that many might believe to be threatening.

“Oink, oink, bang, bang!” the group says loudly. In addition, with many holding “shotguns, hunting rifles, and AR-15 style assault rifles” at the ready, the Black Panthers chant, “The revolution is on… Off the pigs!”

There was such a large law enforcement presence at the jail because of a disturbance last weekend where people protesting about the Sandra Bland case stormed the facility, invaded the foyer of the sheriff’s office, and confronted authorities in a scuffle that left several deputies injured. Despite the taunts and shouts on Wednesday calling for “pigs” to be killed, there were no reported arrests stemming from the military-style march by the New Black Panther Party.

By clicking on the video below, provided courtesy of Breitbart, you can see for yourself what authorities in Waller County, Tx., had to put up with outside the jail on Wednesday.

b;lpanth

Leftist monster race In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 


waving flagPosted by Melissa Quinn / / August 12, 2015

Me Myself and LIEThe percentage of Americans who are uninsured decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015. However, health care experts say the Medicaid expansion could have played a role in the drop. (Photo: Zbigniew Bzdak/TNS/Newscom)

Nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, a new survey found that the number of uninsured Americans decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015, which is the lowest level in the survey’s 50-year history.

depression-obamacareHowever, experts say the change could be mostly attributed to the Obama administration’s expansion of Medicaid. According to the survey from the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people who were uninsured declined from 36 million in 2014 to 29 million in the first three months of 2015. Among adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the percentage of those who were uninsured dropped from 16.3 percent in 2014 to 13 percent in 2015’s first quarter.

The changes to the rate of uninsured come nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, which went into effect October 2013. While the drop speaks to the mission of the health care law, Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert, pointed to outside factors that affect the decrease in the number of uninsured Americans.

death-panelIn an interview with The Daily Signal, Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said that though it’s likely the Obama administration was likely “in the ballpark” for the changes in the number of uninsured, the survey had limitations.

Primarily, the government relied on answers from 26,121 respondents as opposed to an actual count, such as the number of people enrolled in health coverage, data that can be provided by health insurance companies.

“They’re trying to say how many people didn’t have Being sick of Obamacoverage and extrapolate from that,” Haislmaier said.

Most notably, though, the survey failed to address an increase to the Medicaid rolls, which stemmed from Medicaid expansion created under Obamacare.

According to Haislmaier, Medicaid enrollment from January 2014 to March 2015 went from approximately 60.9 million to 71 million.

>>> Commentary: Why Obamacare Could Be Heading to the Supreme Court (Again)

Obamacare SuppositoriesThe National Center for Health Statistics calculated the change to the rate of the uninsured in the 30 states and the District of Columbia that expanded Medicaid and the rate of the uninsured in the 19 states that decided not to expand the program. According to the survey, the percentage of adults between 18 and 64 years old who were uninsured in states that expanded Medicaid fell from 18.4 percent in 2013 to 10.6 percent in the first quarter of 2015. In states that opted against Medicaid expansion, the percentage of the uninsured fell from 22.7 percent in 2013 to 16.8 percent from January to March of 2015.

“Most of this is Medicaid,” Haislmaier said. “We know that for the first months of 2014, most of what happened in the private market wasn’t new coverage.”

The National Center for Health Statistics also looked at how the percentage of people who had public health plans, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and private plans, including employer-sponsored coverage and insurance purchased on the state and federal exchanges, has changed over time.

From 1997 to the first three months of 2015, the percentage of all Americans with public health coverage has increased steadily and Obama Clintonhas held at 34.6 percent from 2014 to March 2015. However, the percentage of Americans enrolled in private health coverage decreased from 1997 to 2013, when it increased from 59.6 percent to 64.5 percent as of March 2015.

Under Obamacare, Americans who do not have health insurance are forced to pay a Communistmonetary penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. The fine increases each year. Those without insurance had to pay $95 per adult or 1 percent of income in 2014. In 2015, the fine increases to $325 per person or 2 percent of income.

Though there has been an increase in the number of Americans enrolling in Medicaid after states adopted expansion, Nina Owcharenko, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said the quality of care provided to Medicaid recipients differs substantially from SCOTUScarethose receiving private insurance.

In a paper examining Medicaid following its 50-year anniversary last month, Owcharenko noted that Medicaid recipients have less access to providers. Just 68.9 percent of doctors accept new Medicaid patients, a 2014 Centers for Disease Control study found. Medicaid recipients also have longer hospital stays and higher mortality rates, Owcharenko said.Mar 3 13 Mar 3 12

>>> Commentary: What States Can Do Now to Be Ready for an Obamacare Repeal

Stop Obamanomics Indenification of Obama The Lower you go tyrants burke freedom combo 2


waving flagBernie


waving flagBy Ben Johnson Ben Johnson 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-new-undercover-video-planned-parenthood-would-just-take-aborted-ba

Note: Over 57,000 people have signed the petition demanding that Congress investigate and defund Planned Parenthood. Sign the petition here.

how many body parts

FRESNO, CA, August 12, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Despite official denials, Planned Parenthood would regularly “steal” aborted babies’ organs without asking the mother’s consent for the “donation,” a former StemExpress employee says in the latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, is featured in the latest video in CMP’s “Human Capital” series. StemExpress is a biotech company that would purchase the tissue and organs of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood.

ppvid

PP MonsterSince the video series broke, Planned Parenthood officials have said that they always obtain the mother’s consent – a legal requirement – before charging biotech companies “reimbursement costs” for storing the “organ and tissue donation.” But O’Donnell, a former technician who worked inside the Stockton and Fresno Planned Parenthood facilities, said if Planned Parenthood stood to make money, they would simply take the specimens they wanted. “No, doesn’t happen all the time,” O’Donnell said. “They would not consent the donors” in every case. “They give you a sheet, and it’s everybody for that day, who’s coming in for an ultrasound, who’s coming in for an abortion, medical or a late-term abortion,” O’Donnell explains.

Even patients who scheduled a pregnancy test were considered potential “donors,” she said. “Pregnancy tests are potential pregnancies, [and] therefore potential specimens.” Her bosses looked at this as “just taking advantage of the opportunities.”

They often told her obtaining aborted babies’ tissue and body parts is “not an option; it’s a demand.”  “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

In one case, O’Donnell said she spoke with a patient who refused to consent – but her co-worker emerged with numerous samples after the patient’s abortion. “What did you say to her to get that blood?” O’Donnell asked her co-worker. “She said, ‘Nothing.'” “Basically, you just went in there and took her blood, and you’re going to be taking her fetus without her knowing,” O’Donnell said.

She said she felt tremendous empathy for the mothers who lost children in this way. “Imagine if you’re an abortion patient, and someone was going in stealing your baby’s parts,” she said in the video, the sixth released by CMP following its 30-month investigation.

She disputed Planned Parenthood’s image as a compassionate health care provider, embodied in their slogan: “Care No Matter What.” “The women I worked for were cold. They don’t care. They just wanted their money. They don’t care that a girl’s throwing up in a trash can,” O’Donnell said in the video.how many body parts

Abortion monster“I’m not going to tell a girl to kill her baby so I can get money, and that’s what this company does,” she said. “I would tell them, ‘Run.'”

O’Donnell also revealed other abuses inside the Planned Parenthood facility. She said she was the only certified technician, but other StemExpress employees drew blood samples inside the facility.

The abortionist at the facility, Dr. Ron Berman, “had a reputation for going viciously fast…It’s almost like he wanted to do it.” The atmosphere inside the abortion facilities frightened her, she said. “It’s morbid,” she said. “You can hear screaming. You can hear crying…It’s terrifying.”Picture5

“Experiences like Holly O’Donnell’s show that Planned Parenthood’s abortion and baby parts business is not a safe place where vulnerable women can be cared for, but a harvesting ground for saleable human ‘product,’” said CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden. “Taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood’s barbaric abortion business should be revoked immediately, and law enforcement and other elected officials must act decisively to determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s offensive practices and hold them accountable to the law.”

Developing….

I AM A PERSON with Poem In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flag Ann Coulter 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/12/immigrant-the-new-n-word/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

'Immigrant': The New N-Word

Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting “illegal” into any discussion of immigration. After I pointed out on “Fox News” that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on “Americans” was entirely a problem of immigration, “Fox Insiders” put these two sentences together: 

“[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. ‘Don’t make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we’ll have a lot less of a national security problem,’ Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga.” (Emphasis added.)

Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?

No. Our government invited them in.

Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:

– Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against — I quote — “American citizens”;

– the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;

– the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;

– all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;

– Sirhan Sirhan;

– the 9/11 hijackers;

– the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;

– the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;

– Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;

— the “local man” arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh — anchor baby “American citizen.”

ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?

It’s not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting “illegal” into the discussion, as if they’re being polite, like saying “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” But all these “homegrown,” “American” terrorists aren’t Americans, at all — except as a result of recent government policy.

This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many “non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993.” National Review’s headline? “Cruz, Sessions: How Many ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?” (The headline was later changed, after complaints.)

It’s a national neurosis! People simply refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.Illegal Immigration Giant

Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, “2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge,” and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?

The “New Jersey men” were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, “Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family” and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.) Alessa’s co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn’t play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home “in caskets.”

He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading “DEATH TO ALL JUICE,” which he posted to his Facebook page — a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)

CNN was so relieved to have a “homegrown” terrorist who wasn’t a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of “Latino immigrants” — amid fulsome descriptions of him as “an all-American kid” and an “all-American altar boy.”

So the good news is: Not all “American” terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants — who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.

In addition to “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York’s Penn Station.

At least he’s not one of those icky illegal immigrants!

I have a word limit, so I’ve limited today’s discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez’s co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?

It’s getting to the point where we’re going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip “ILLEGAL” in front of the word “immigrant.” The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite’s make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.cause of death

Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?

In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted By Linda Harvey On 08/11/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL of the original posting site: http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/equality-act-gaystapos-latest-attack

Gaystopo logo

The “gay lobby” has tried it before. But now that marriage is officially a grand social experiment in our nation, homosexual activists have moved on, updating and re-launching the next weapon of revolution. And it’s a whopper, one that potentially unites homosexual advocates with defenders of Planned Parenthood.

Their enemy? Christians, conservatives and all who are pro-life and pro-family.

The unjust and unequal “Equality Act” was introduced in Congress as H.R. 3185 and S. 1858 just before summer recess. This legislation jumps way beyond any previous anti-discrimination bill and would essentially wipe out free speech and religious liberty on the issues of homosexuality and gender change by declaring these behaviors to be civil rights in America.Big Gay Hate Machine

Religious freedom restoration acts are declared to be powerless under this bill. Other religious exemptions are very weak and sure to be challenged as the gaystapo deploys armies of lawyers to undermine the Constitution. The 14th Amendment “equal protection” clause can justify investigations by the attorney general of suspected violations.

But the picture gets worse. This bill adds not just “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to civil rights law, but the category of “sex.” The bill says:

“Discrimination can occur on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes. Each of these factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and each is a form of sex discrimination.”Keys taken

Do you see where this is going? This language seems to allow claims of discrimination against a multitude of pro-life efforts. Crisis pregnancy centers may be sued to change the services offered or the messages conveyed.

The “Equality Act” may be deployed in lawsuits to overturn laws restricting abortion. Prospective clinic patients may claim discrimination on the basis of sex if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

Burning ConstitutionThe House bill has 168 co-sponsors as I write this, with 39 in the Senate. All so far are Democrats and independents. Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies have pledged support for this anti-Christian, anti-American bill, so Republicans may start taking heat from Wall Street to back this unconstitutional power grab.want_rel_liberty_r

This measure covers not just employment, but housing, public accommodations and education. Those local “bathroom” bills in Houston and in schools like Gloucester County, Virginia, along with local controversies about school homosexual clubs would be instantly resolved to affirm sexual deviancy, because all bathrooms, locker rooms and “sex-segregated facilities” must be open to anyone based on “gender identity.”

And the Equality Act would open the door to proudly gender-bending people in our armed forces.

We must ask every presidential candidate: “As president, will you pledge to veto the anti-family ‘Equality Act’?” Yes, GOP majorities occupy both chambers, but that is little comfort, seeing how easily a “conservative” like Gov. Mike Pence in Indiana caved on religious freedom under corporate pressure.Combined

This version may die at the end of the 114th Congress, but it won’t go away. The Human Rights Campaign, the pro-abortion lobby and leftist politicians will bring it back in the 115th, so we need to know where GOP candidates stand.

If you support life, you cannot support this bill.

If you support natural marriage, you cannot support this bill.

If you support de-funding Planned Parenthood, you cannot support this bill.

If you support religious liberty – or say you do – you cannot support the “Equality Act.”

It kills religious liberty. And an amendment won’t fix it, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. Offering a stronger religious exemption may be among his plans as he considers support for S. 1858.

Right away, I see problems for Chris Christie, a consistent supporter of “gay rights” in New Jersey. He signed a ban on “conversion therapy” for minors and even called for an investigation of teacher Viki Knox, fired for her biblically based sexuality views. Jeb Bush and John Kasich both have outspoken pro-homosexual advisers in key slots in their campaigns.

The sexual anarchy lobby has a talking point ready for their denial of religious freedom. “Being Christian doesn’t give you the right to discriminate!” A homosexual advocate just sent me a piece from the Detroit News with this headline, in fact. Those who are well-informed will immediately recognize the rhetorical trickery being used.Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

“LGBT” pressure groups do not dictate Christian doctrine, first of all. Our Almighty God has already done that. And they define “discrimination” as any opinion they don’t like, even if the view is based on reality. Homosexuality is not inborn – it’s not like race – and the behavior is harmful to individuals and societies. These identities and attractions do not characterize separate types of “persons” (as the Obergefell majority ruling incorrectly assumed). So they are not defensible under the 14th Amendment.

As I wrote in a column a few months ago, the left is moving toward the position of telling us what to believe. Christianity is now a target to be obliterated or revised with homosexuality no longer a sin, humans no longer distinctly male and female, abortion a “right” for females and believers painted into a narrow doctrinal corner if we let them do this.persecution-persecuted-christians

We must not let them do this. This bill should be Priority No. 1 to defeat this year, next year and as long as it takes. Everyone needs to make it clear to congressional representatives that this fascist attempt to dismantle the First Amendment, to defy parental authority and to drive Christians out of jobs simply cannot happen.

The authority to silence believers that the “Equality Act” would provide Christ’s enemies would leap beyond homosexuality and gender confusion. It’s tyranny, and only we the people rising up and saying NO will stop this. The so-called “Equality Act” is not about equality – we already have that. It’s about calling evil good, calling sin a right, and about punishing and silencing the voices of morality and faith.Good evil and evil good

Copyright 2015 WND

 burke In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flagAugust 11, 2015 Listen to it Button Windows Icon

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/11/as_multiple_white_house_lies_about_the_iran_deal_emerge_the_regime_unleashes_bigoted_attacks_on_chuck_schumer

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH; Big news from the Middle East about the Iran deal.  It turns out that we were negotiating with the Iranians before Kerry was secretary of state. We were negotiating with the Iranians beforethe election of the “moderate”Rouhani.  We were negotiating an Iranian nuke deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when nobody knew what was happening.  The Regime was telling us that they couldn’t do anything ’cause Ahmadinejad was such a radical extremist goofball.We had to wait for a “moderate” to win, which was Rouhani, and after he did, that’s when we got serious.  It turns out none of that’s true. We had been negotiating with the Iranians long before then and signaling our willingness that they can nuke up.  This latest news is from MEMRI, which is a credible Middle East news source.  Details coming up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are doing to Chuck Schumer… They are treating Chuck Schumer as though he is a Republican, ’cause he is opposed — come out opposed to — the Iran deal.  The attacks they are mounting on him are bigoted — some might even say racist or ethnic — highlighting in every report “Chuck Schumer, noted Jew,” it says in the New York Times, “Chuck Schumer, noted Jewish senator from New York,” Washington Post.

They’re saying that Schumer voted against the deal because he’s in bed with the big money Jewish lobby.  They usually reserve that for Republican Jewish people.  But Schumer is getting it all from sides, led by the White House.

BREAK TRANSCRIPTObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART

RUSH: Let me give you the latest here on the Iran story, because this is stunning.  The American people have been lied to about another three issues regarding this deal, this so-called nuclear deal with Iran.  First, it turns out that negotiations did not start because of Iran electing a “moderate,” “some guy we could do business with,” i.e., Rouhani.  It turns out that the negotiations between the United States and Iran began when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president.

But we were told by the administration that there’s no way we could talk to Iran with Ahmadinejad in there because he’s a nutcase, he’s an extremist, he’s a lunatic. That was one of the excuses the Regime gave for not doing anything on Iran at that time.  And there was pressure to do something, because the news coming out of Iran was they were bragging about how much progress they were making toward the discovery, creation, development of a nuclear power.

And the Regime was saying, “We can’t talk to ’em. There is no reason to get into negotiation with this guy ’cause he’s such a madman.  We have to wait for them to have their next presidential election. Hopefully they’ll elect a moderate,” which they did. There’s no such thing, by the.  This is another thing.  There’s no such thing as a “moderate” Iranian leader, and there’s no such thing as a “conservative” Iranian cleric.  The guy that runs Iran is the supreme leader.

His name is the Ayatollah Khamenei, and he is the heir to the first Ayatollah Khomeini.  They spell their names differently.  One is K-h-o, that would be the original Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and this guy spells his name with an A, other than that they’re identical.  Anyway, he is the supreme leader, and whoever the “president” is a figurehead. Whoever the president is has to clear everything with the supreme leader.

The supreme leader is the genuine radical that runs this country and is state sponsor of terrorism all over the Middle East and parts of the world.  The guy leading the chants “Death to America!” is the supreme leader, and he’s standing there with his Kalashnikov while doing it. He’s written a book on how to trick and how to fool the US and how they’re gonna wipe out Israel, after the deal has been effected between us, the other five nations, and Iran.

So who their “president” is matters not in terms of what the policy of the country is going to be.  It is a genuine theological, religious dictatorship, and it’s run by the mullahs.  The Ayatollah Khamenei has his buddy ayatollahs, and they make up the supreme leadership council.  But the president is merely an office for the rest of the world to observe and think that Iran’s just like every other country.

“It has an elected president! It has a parliament! It’s a democratic process!” None of that is true.  So the idea that we had to wait for Ahmadinejad to go? Why do you think they got rid of Ahmadinejad?  Why do we even get Rouhani in the first place? Isn’t it amazing that we’re sitting around waiting for a “moderate,” and they deliver one?  How’s that happen?  They got rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because the guy was too open and honest about what the intentions of the extreme leader are.

Every time he opened his mouth, it was “Death to America! Death to Israel!” There was no Holocaust, whatever was it. Every time he opened his mouth.  He made it tough for the supreme leader to put forth the false image that Iran is a moderate, harmless country simply wanting to move into the twenty-first century.  So Obama says, “Well, we can’t negotiate with some nutcase like that!  We gotta wait for a moderate.”

Bammo! They give us Rouhani as a moderate, we start negotiate — the point is we were negotiating with Ahmadinejad, because whenever you’re negotiating with your negotiating with supreme leader.  Negotiating with the Ayatollah Khamenei.  There isn’t a single one of these people over there can make a deal or any agreement within a deal without the approval of the Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader.

Now, the second thing we were lied about, even before the negotiations began, is John Kerry — who was a senator at the time — acting on Obama’s orders, had already recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium on their own soil.  This was known and reported all the way back in 2007.  I think it is huge, because the United States has been trying for more than a decade to make Iran stop its uranium enrichment program.  That involved the centrifuges and all that.

It turns out even before he was secretary of state, Senator John Kerry, as emissary of the Regime, green-lighted Iran’s right to go ahead and enrich uranium on their own soil.  Now, the entire purpose… To illustrate the focus or the magnitude of this lie, the entire purpose of the economic sanctions that we slapped on Iran was to get them to stop their enrichment.  Not only were the sanctions designed to get them to stop, they were designed to prevent them from being able to.

Because with the sanctions in place, they wouldn’t have the money, the capital, or access to materiel that they needed in order to move forward.  And yet all of it did move forward while we had sanctions placed on them, while Ahmadinejad was the president — who we said we couldn’t negotiate with, who we said we couldn’t negotiate with.  By the way, it’s been reported by that great Middle Eastern news service, MEMRI, M-E-M-R-I. All of this was a charade.  The third thing, the third lie, third issue we were lied to about.

The Iranians are already pumping and selling their oil like crazy.  Now, the Obama administration claims that sanctions are not yet been lifted on Iran as it relates to their oil.  MEMRI is the Middle East Media Research Institute.  The headline of the story: “Iranian Senior Officials Disclose Confidential Details From Nuclear Negotiations.”  So the source for all this is a bunch of braggadocios Iranians who feel that it’s apparently okay now ’cause the deal’s done and Obama’s on his way to making sure the world and everybody else ratifies this thing.

“Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the US since their early stages. Their statements indicate that the US initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after President Hassan Rohani, [supposedly] of the pragmatic camp, was elected in 2013, but rather in 2011-2012, in the era of radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”  Again, folks, there’s no difference in the two.  Don’t doubt me on this.  Because whoever’s “president” is nothing more than a placeholder.

muslim-obamaHe’s a public figurehead that’s designed to create or produce or present an image of Iran as your normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill nation that has a president, has a parliament, that has elections and so forth.  “The disclosures also indicate that, already at that time, Iran received from the US administration a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil,” while we supposedly had sanctions in place.  President Barack Obama has wanted Iran to be able to move forward on their nuclear program.

He made it possible for this to happen even while sanctions were supposedly in place.  “Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the Majlis speaker, specified that the letter had come from John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iranian vice president and top negotiator Ali Akbar Salehi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by President Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.” Kerry was assuring the Iranians they had the right to enrich uranium on their soil since 2007.

Now, what’s happening here is Chuck Schumer has come out in opposition to the deal, and the administration is unloading on him.  The administration and its buddies in the media are unloading on Chuck Schumer.  They accuse him… Washington Post, New York Times, they accuse him of being “a Jew who is in bed with the Jewish lobby, wealthy interests.” All of the code words it had usually use to attack conservatives they are using here to attack Chuck Schumer.

James Taranto, Best of the Web, Wall Street Journal:  “Bigotry, Pure and Simple — The ugly attacks on Senator Chuck Schumer.”  Now, say what you want, Senator Chuck Schumer is getting a taste of his own tactics.  I mean, he’s not a stranger to these tactics.  He has used them himself.  I just find it fascinating he’s on the receiving end of them now.  And, by the way, other Jewish members of Congress are also getting to one degree or another the same kind of treatment as Chuck-U Schumer is getting from the administration, from the Regime.

Basically the attacks are all, “He’s not a loyal American! He’s a Jew first!  He’s an Israeli Jew and he’s supporting the Jewish lobby.”  It’s despicable.  It really is.  It’s the kind of stuff that when a conservative Republican comes out and supports Israel, that’s the kind of stuff they say about him.  And now they’re accusing Chuck Schumer, but it goes worse than that.  Now they’ve got McCain coming out, actively opposing this deal for his own reasons.  McCain is saying the Senate is not gonna pass this; the Senate is not gonna make this reality.

Obama is saying, “I don’t need you! I already got the UN. It’s gonna happen. I don’t care. You guys are just exercising your own folly here.  I don’t need you guys to vote for this.  It’s already a done deal.”  I gotta tell you, like I said yesterday, I really misjudged this whole Schumer thing.  I thought that Schumer coming out for the deal meant that they had enough Democrat votes to pass this thing and that Schumer could thus vote against it and remain loyal to his base in New York.

Which, in majority (I guess) position opposes the deal.  But it turns out that’s not the case.  It turns out his opposition to it is real and substantive, and it’s extensively documented and written.  But I tell you, folks, this is the kind of in-the-weeds stuff that I know that the low-information crowd couldn’t care less about; they’re not gonna understand it when they hear it.

But it’s huge, to me, the things that we’ve been lied to about and the objective that these lies reveal. All along we have been facilitating Iran’s quest? All along we have been helping them make it possible?  It now puts… You know, people have analyzed the deal and said, “Yeah, Iran’s gonna get a deal in two years, 10 years.” It all makes sense now.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Stan in Winlock, Washington.  Great to have you on the program Stan.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  Hello and thank you very much for taking my call.  I’ll get right to my point.  I think Obama’s brilliant.  He put Israel in a no-win situation when he got the UN to approve the Iran nuke deal.  If Israel unilaterally destroys Iran’s nuke capability, it will be condemned by the UN and they become the outlaw nation, not Iran.  If Israel does nothing, Iran gets the bomb and Israel is toast.  And all this was done while framing himself as seeking peace.

RUSH:  Let my let me ask you a question, and I’m not per se disagreeing with that other than your claim that Obama’s brilliant.  He may be a brilliant deceitful political tactician. Do you think Israel cares? On one hand, Israel destroyed and vaporized.  On the other hand, the UN thinks Israel is mean.  Which do you think they would choose?

CALLER:  Oh, I think they have no choice.  I think they will react militarily.

RUSH:  Well, do you know that Obama has told them that we will stop them if this try to do that?  Do you know that in this deal in the United States and the other negotiating partners promise to protect Iran against such an Israeli attack?

CALLER:  Yeah, and supposedly Obama’s saying there won’t be any war but Israel’s already said that they will have no choice.

RUSH:  No, no.

CALLER:  They have to defend themselves.

RUSH:  Obama said there would be a war if we don’t approve the deal.  Oh, really?  Well, who’s gonna start that war?  There won’t be a war if there…? There will be a war if there isn’t a deal?  How does that work?  If that’s the case, who starts that war?  It must be the Ayatollah Khamenei ticked off you can’t get his nuclear power.  Who would start that? If there is no deal, it guarantees a war?  This is what Obama said.  It’s a classic Obama tactic.  “You either take my way or it’s Armageddon!”Alinsky affect

On either health care or economy, the stimulus. Now the Iran deal. Whatever it is, “It’s either my way or it’s the end of the world! It’s either my way or hell! It’s either my way or the worst that can possibly happen.”  He always creates a straw dog.  And, by the way, there are always people, in Obama’s worldview, who want the worst that can happen.  In this case, it would be Benjamin Netanyahu.  His straw dog or straw man always has people who represent the evil that he says would naturally occur if his way doesn’t happen.  Stan, I appreciate the call.

END TRANSCRIPT In God We Trustfreedom combo 2


waving flag

cribs

Constancy inconvenient truth In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 


waving flagDealing From Behind


waving flagPosted by Photo of Rachel Stoltzfoos Rachel Stoltzfoos, Reporter;  08/10/2015

Abby Johnson quit her job as a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic director in 2009 after witnessing an ultrasound abortion. This is how she and her co-workers would convince women to donate their aborted babies for research, and, she says, profit from their consent. “We never discussed, [researchers] may want just a leg, or an arm, or these specific organs,” Johnson told The Daily Signal in an interview published Monday. “That would create a sense of humanity in their unborn child. And really, we would even shy away from calling it fetal tissue research because just calling it tissue sanitizes it — the women don’t necessarily think about the body of their baby, they’re just thinking about blood and tissue.”how many body parts

She and her co-workers received a bonus of between $5 and $20 for every woman they personally convinced to donate to the clinic, depending on the value of that particular unborn baby. Once the woman agreed to have an abortion and signed the paperwork, clinic staff would bring up a “research opportunity.” “It creates coercive tactics,” Johnson told The Daily Signal. “We would tell the client that we are participating in a study and she has an opportunity today to donate the tissue that’s removed from her uterus to a research laboratory where they will be working on life-saving treatments for various diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or other types of medical studies,”  she added. “We would tell her this is an opportunity for her to possibly save the life of someone else by donating this tissue. By creating this altruistic scenario, women would almost always consent and say, ‘Yes, absolutely.’”Picture4

Johnson worked in the Texas mega-clinic featured in the latest undercover video released by The Center for Medical Progress. The group is alleging Planned Parenthood is selling aborted baby parts for profit.

Planned Parenthood denies the allegations, saying the clinics are receiving legal compensation for the cost of procuring the tissue.

In God We Trust

freedom combo 2


waving flagBy

According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday, businessman Donald Trump’s attacks on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly have had no impact on his place at the top of the GOP primary polls. Not only does Trump remain atop the 17-candidate presidential field, with 24% of Republican primary voters behind him, but the real estate tycoon also comes out as the winner of the debate among respondents participating in the online survey:

Image Credit: Screenshot

At the same time, there seems to be little room for Trump’s image to change. One-third of Republican primary voters had a more favorable impression of him after the debate, while the same number reported gaining a more negative image or having their opinion of him stay the same as it was pre-debate.

Trailing Trump in second place was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who saw his support drop five points to 12% after the debate. No other candidate earned more than 8% in the online poll, which was conducted between Thursday night and Sunday:

Image Credit: Screenshot

Image Credit: Screenshot

Several candidates did see a boost in their favorability ratings as a result of their strong debate performances, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Only Kentucky Senator Rand Paul saw his image suffer as a result of Thursday night’s debate, with one in five voters developing a negative opinion of him as a result of his performance.

Despite Trump’s current lead in the polls, the survey found that he fares no better than other Republicans against Democrat Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State would best Trump, 43% to 29%, in a general election head-to-head match-up.

The poll also found that Clinton would beat Bush, Rubio and Cruz by similar margins.

Picture3In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 


waving flagReuters Reuters  Aug. 10, 2015, 8:33 AM

Republican 2016 U.S. presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump listens to a question at the first official Republican presidential candidates debate of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign in Cleveland, Ohio, August 6, 2015. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Monday he supported the use of US ground troops to fight Islamic State militants in the Middle East.

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, the billionaire businessman said it would take American soldiers to target the militant group, also known as ISIS or ISIL. “They have great money because they have oil,” Trump said. “Every place where they have oil I would knock the hell out of them. I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil,” he told MSNBC. “And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I’d put a ring around it and I’d take the oil for our country.”

In addition to cutting off ISIS’ oil income, Trump said, the militants’ money in the banking system would also have to be targeted, though he did not offer any details. “You have to cut that off,” he said. Trump’s comments follow last’s week’s first prime-time televised debate for Republican presidential candidates.

The real-estate mogul and television personality leads public-opinion polls, putting him at the top of the 17-person pack of Republicans heading into the 2016 election for the White House.

ISIS oil mapTwitter/@Karybdamoid

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2015.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flag

sam

freedom combo 2

 


waving flagOpinion by Genevieve Wood / / August 05, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/05/the-poll-numbers-on-the-planned-parenthood-scandal-cnn-left-out

Regardless of one’s point of view on an issue, you can usually find a poll that shows that a majority of people agree with you. I’d suggest that is exactly what we saw happen on CNN Wednesday, when anchor Alisyn Camerota interviewed Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., about the debate surrounding Planned Parenthood.

  • A May 2015 Gallup poll asked, “Should abortion be legal?” Here’s how the numbers broke down:
  • Twenty-nine percent said abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
  • Fifty-one percent said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.
  • Nineteen percent said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

Here’s what Camerota said:

“That’s 80 percent of respondents who believe abortion should be kept legal.” (She added together the 29 percent who said abortion should be legal in any circumstance and 51 percent who said it should be allowed only in certain circumstances.)

Here’s what Camerota could have said:

“That’s 70 percent of Americans who believe there should be limits on abortion.” (Adding together the 51 percent who said it should be legal only in certain circumstances and the 19 percent who said it should not be legal under any circumstances.)More Evidence

Those who identify as pro-choice are more inclined to report the poll the way CNN did, and those who identify as pro-life are likely to use the latter number—the point being, in this particular poll and many others, you can “interpret the data” to get the spin you want.

I also found interesting that while CNN chose to show questions from a Monmouth University Poll showing that a majority of respondents favored the use of fetal tissue for research and that 49 percent opposed cutting off federal funds to Planned Parenthood, they conveniently left out the response to this question: “Have you seen or heard recent news about videos that supposedly show Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of aborted fetus tissue, or not?”how many body parts

Here were the responses:

  • Only 27 percent said they had heard a lot.
  • Only 21 percent said they had heard a little.
  • But 53 percent of respondents said they had not heard about the story at all.

I wonder how different the other answers in the poll about fetal tissue research and defunding Planned Parenthood would have been if the 74 percent of people who had heard or seen little to nothing had indeed seen the videos.

Of course, as the Media Research Center points out, the death of Cecil the lion has received more than four times the coverage in one week by the network news media than the five undercover videos released over the past three weeks showing Planned Parenthood committing potentially criminal acts.

CNN didn’t mention those numbers, either.Party of Deciet and lies

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal

In God We Trust freedom combo 2


GOP presidential candidates from left, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and John Kasich take the stage for the first Republican presidential debate, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Former first lady Nancy Reagan is inviting 16 Republican candidates to participate in the CNN/Reagan Library presidential debate. Candidates must achieve an average of at least 1 percent of support in three national presidential polls before Sept. 10 to be included in the Sept. 16 debate at the Air Force One Pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

The top 10 contenders who made it into the first GOP debate last week on Fox News — Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, John Kasich — have all been invited, as well as six of the seven candidates who participated in the earlier debate: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore has not yet been invited.

The CNN event will be broken into two back-to-back debates with two groups of candidates. CNN’s Jake Tapper will moderate both debate groups.

“Debates are a crucial part of the election process, and I’m thrilled that so many qualified candidates have the opportunity to be heard at the Reagan Presidential Library,” Reagan, the widow of late President Ronald Reagan, said in a press release.

Picture1

(h/t CNN)

In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flagUnviable Hands


waving flagBY:  August 10, 2015

Hassan Rouhani, Vladimir Putin

Hassan Rouhani, Vladimir Putin / AP

The war exercises come just weeks after Iran and global powers inked a nuclear accord that will provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief in return for slight restrictions on the country’s nuclear program. Russian and Iran have grown close in recent years, with delegations from each country regularly visiting one another to ink arms deals and other agreements aimed at strengthening Iran’s nuclear program. Russia and Iran agreed earlier this year to begin construction on several new nuclear power plants. Russia has also agreed to sell Iran a controversial advanced missile defense system that can prevent attacks by Western powers.

The Russian fleet docked in Iran’s port “carrying a message of ‘peace and friendship,’” according to Iranian officials quoted by Fars. The fleet was “welcomed by Iranian naval commanders and staff.” The Russian commander of the fleet is scheduled to hold meetings with “local political and military officials” in Iran’s northern provinces, according to Fars.

Levan Jagarian, Russia’s ambassador to Tehran, reportedly attended the docking ceremony and called for “for boosting mutual ties between the two countries in various fields,” according to the report. The two nations went on to say that “expanding bilateral economic, political, and military cooperation is among the priorities of the visit.”

A Russian fleet also docked in northern Iran in October.

Last week, a senior Iranian naval commander warned the United States against ever taking military action on Iranian interests, claiming that the response would be “unpredictably strong.” “The western media are mocking at the U.S. for speaking of ‘on the table options (against Iran)’ because the U.S. always utters some words without the ability to materialize them,” Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Naval Commander Ali Fadavi was quoted as saying by the country’s state-run press. Iran is “ready to give such a powerful response to the slightest move of the U.S. that it won’t be able to make any other moves,” Fadavi was quoted as saying. The military leader went on to claim that “Iranian Armed Forces are now at the highest level of preparedness” and that “only the dead body of the American troops realizes the power of the Islamic Revolution.”against America

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said the Obama administration is fundamentally misreading Iran’s intentions in light of the recently inked nuclear accord. “We’re witnessing a new great game, and Obama is so self-centered he keeps playing solitaire,” Rubin said. “Obama simply doesn’t understand that the world is full of dictators who seek to checkmate America. What he sees as compromise; they see as weakness to exploit.”ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART Indenification of Obama

Referring to a visit last week to Russia by IRGC leader Qassem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of Americans, Rubin said it is clear that Moscow and Tehran aim to build a tight military alliance. “Visiting Russia to talk arms purchases and now this naval visit, it’s clear that Putin and Khamenei will waste no time to really develop their military cooperation,” he said.

An axis between Russia, Iran, and North Korea is beginning to emerge Rubin said, citing official releases that a North Korean delegation is currently visiting Russia to tour war games sites. “The Russian warship visit combined with North Korea scoping out war game sites in Russia suggest a new Axis of Evil is taking shape with Russia the lynchpin between Iran and North Korea,” Rubin said. “As for the United States, rather than the leader of the free world, Obama and Kerry have transformed us in much of the world’s eyes as the pinnacle of surrender.”Pitiful-Deal-NRD-600 IranKerry

Meanwhile, Obama admitted Monday that Iran’s nuclear breakout time will shrink to “a matter of months” once the nuclear accord expires in around 15 years.

freedom combo 2


waving flagWritten by Allen West on August 10, 2015

ABW Straight on
I remember when the mantra of “every kid gets a trophy” began to take hold in our youth athletic programs. Well, now that philosophy of social utopianism has permeated throughout our culture and now in a place where it absolutely has no place. In life, there are standards and no one’s entitled to “have” anything — well, besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, that is not the societal vision of the liberal progressives; theirs is based upon egalitarianism. That, however, is not consistent with the duty and mission of our armed forces.

I was sent the following article from a distinguished retired Special Forces officer, Brigadier General Remo Butler, who was and continues to be a role model for me. As reported in USA Today:

Many of the Pentagon’s elite commando units — including the Navy SEALs — are overwhelmingly led and manned by white officers and enlisted troops, a concern at the highest levels of the military where officials have stressed the need to create more diverse forces to handle future threats.

Black officers and enlisted troops are scarce in some special operations units in highest demand, according to data provided by the Pentagon to USA TODAY. For instance, eight of 753 SEAL officers are black, or 1%.  

An expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces said the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win.

“We don’t know where we will find ourselves in the future,” said Army Col. Michael Copenhaver, who has published a paper on diversity in special operating forces. “One thing is for sure: We will find ourselves around the globe. And around the globe you have different cultural backgrounds everywhere. Having that kind of a diverse force can only increase your operational capability.

Special Operations forces, including SEALs and the Army’s Green Berets, are often the face of the American military in foreign hot spots where they rescue hostages, raid terrorist camps and train local troops. SEAL Team 6 famously raided Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and killed him. As the military sheds conventional forces — the Army will pare 40,000 soldiers in the next few years — special operators’ ranks continue to be filled as demand for their unique capabilities remains high.

US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) based in Tampa, does not track that information on its nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnel, said Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman. Gen. Joseph Votel, SOCOM’s commander, declined to speak to USA TODAY for this story, said Col. Thomas Davis, another SOCOM spokesman.

Votel did address the issue last month at the Aspen Security Conference and stressed the need for diverse commando units, which operate in almost 90 countries. The average enlisted special operator is 29, married with two children and has deployed four to 10 times, Votel told the audience.

What he didn’t say is that most of them are white.

“SOCOM needs diversity, we need people of color, we need men, we need women to help us solve the problems that we deal with today,” Votel said. “So we need good people; men, women, people of all colors.”cause of death

What we need is a highly trained, well-resourced military focused on defeating our enemies. What these folks fail to understand is that in the community of warriors, no one cares about pigmentation. They care about honor, integrity, character and fierceness.

What I don’t want to see is all of a sudden the focus turn to having “black faces” instead of elite warriors. Diversity is not the goal of the U.S. military; it is to fight and win the nation’s wars. On the battlefield, bullets don’t seek out someone based on skin color. This design of social egalitarianism has no place in our military.

And spare me the diatribe about the integration of blacks into the U.S. military. From the days of Crispus Attucks, black men have shown they’re brave and willing to stand and fight for one single objective: liberty. The men of the 54th Massachusetts and the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry didn’t seek preferential treatment. As well, the 369th Harlem Hell Fighters, Tuskegee Airmen and Montford Point Marines achieved not because of their skin color, but because of their character.

There’s no need for “diversity agents” to try and manipulate the composition of our armed forces, sacrificing our effectiveness in pursuit of fairness, under the guise of enhanced increased capability. And what’s most disconcerting is the infiltration into the military of this ill-conceived mindset — namely the Pentagon joining in on this folly. The statement from an “expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces” — since when did the U.S. military need an expert on diversity of commando forces? I can tell you right now, if I were Secretary of Defense, that’s the first position I’d eliminate! The deduction of this so-called expert — “the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win” — is utterly disrespectful to the men and women serving, sacrificing and committing themselves in fighting for this nation today.

The strength of our military is we do not see color; we only see the oath we take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, each man and woman who takes up that oath serves in their best capacity — not one based on respective differences, but rather united in the commonality of being an American.

Our elite forces are elite because of their standards — and “monkeying” around with their composition based on some insidious research about diversity is stupidity. There are things that must be earned in life, and so it is with titles such as Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, Navy SEAL, Recon Marine and Air Force PJ. These are not just little plastic trophies to be handed out by the gods of diversity. They represent time-honored impeccable standards of excellence and elitism that only a few are called to seek, and even fewer attain.

On my chest I wear three sets of wings: Army Master Parachutist, Army Air Assault and the Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist. Those were not given because I was a minority. They were earned because I sought to “Be All I Could Be.” I didn’t get these through some diversity-approved course; rather, I entered as others and proved myself worthy.

At a time when we’re facing countless global enemies from Russia, China, Iran and Islamic jihadism, it’s not about the skin color of the person pulling the trigger to send our enemies to hell. It’s about the qualifications and their ability to do so. Diversity in our Special Operations forces means committed men and women who have diversified skills and talents enabling us to defeat the enemy. The policies of our Defense Department MUST not be about meeting quota goals, but rather in placing the MOST qualified, trained and ready force on the field of battle. No one cares about skin color, save those who only care about inane statistics they can show for their own elevation.

Once upon a time, the government said every American had a right to own a home and boasted of an increase in minority home ownership. Standards were lowered and what ensued 30 years later, in 2008, was a financial collapse. The folly here will result in an even greater collapse with ramifications on the national security of this republic.

For America, it’s never been about the skin color of the warrior. It has been, and must always be, about their oath of service and commitment to victory — not diversity.

freedom combo 2


waving flagSun, August 9, 2015

A bullet hole from the Islamic State attack in Tunisia. (Photo: © Reuters)

A bullet hole from the Islamic State attack in Tunisia. (Photo: © Reuters)

Analysts in the intelligence community warned the Islamic State may be preparing to carry out a mass-casualty terrorist attack, rather than encouraging its international supporters to carry out ‘lone-wolf’ attacks. Increased competition for recruits and prestige with different jihadist factions are being floated as causes for this possible shift in emphasis. Groups such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) typically are more focused on larger attacks, such as the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, or plots against airliners. The Islamic State may be attempting to portray itself as capable and powerful in that regard.culture of deceit and lies

Lt-Gen. Mark Hertling told CNN “I think they’re taking a lot of the new recruits that don’t have time to train, who have not been brought up in their systems, and they’re using them to create the type of mass casualty which produces the media attention, which is exactly what they want, that shows they’re still powerful.”

Despite the U.S.-led bombing campaign and ISIS fighting wars on every front, losing thousands of fighters, the Islamic State is still estimated to have the same number of fighters as it did last year (20,000 to 30,000). Its sophisticated recruitment methods have enabled the organization to replenish its forces as fast as their enemies can kill them.

For more information about the Islamic State see Clarion Project’s Special Report: The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL)

Islam is NOT muslim-obama freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted on August 6, 2015Michael Ware

 Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

Persecution AlertWe have seen this over and over in movie after movie.  The rich land developer swoops into a dying section of town.  He uses his power to condemn people’s homes and businesses to get the land cheap.  Then, unless a hero comes in to save the day, he builds massive high-rises and quadruples his investment.  This is the fantasy that we were fed in the late eighties.  Now, we come to realize that more times than not it is the government who uses these tactics rather than the rich.

Christian News reports

want_rel_liberty_rThe Houston Housing Authority is seeking to purchase property through eminent domain belonging to the two entities—a total of four properties—to build a 63-unit affordable housing development and a library in the city’s Fifth Ward. But the churches don’t want to give up their property and the Housing Authority says that the project can’t move forward without them.

This will mean that the churches will have to take the offer the city gives for the land, or they will lose their land.  The churches are not unused, and they are seeking to make a difference in their communities.  They want and are having an impact in the place that God has placed them.Combined

Christina News continues

“These churches have been all along the way from back when the Fifth Ward CP 03was called ‘the bloody Fifth’, or as Texas Monthly used to call it—‘the toughest, proudest, baddest ghetto in all of Texas,’” attorney Jeremy Dys told reporters. “This was back when it took the police hours instead of minutes to get to them when gunfire was a routine sound in the community.”

“These churches have been buying up properties and houses of ill repute and turning them into centers for youth, tearing down one that had to be torn down and building new places for youth centers, ministries for people coming out of drug addiction and that sort of thing,” he continued.

These fellowships have been working in these difficult communities while no one was willing to do anything for the fifth ward residences.  When the work was the hardest and most dangerous, the city had no interest in the people.  It was the Christians who were hard at work, ministering and praying.

And these fellowships have now filed to block the city from taking their property.

Christian News reports

With the assistance of the Christian legal organization The Liberty Institute, CP 01First Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church and Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Harris County Court in an effort to obtain both a temporary and permanent injunction against the effort.persecution-persecuted-christians

They want to ensure that the work they have sought to do for their community will not be undone by pencil pushers.  People who do not care for those who live, work and worship in this neighborhood.  They think that statism is the answer, and we will find that we as the Church will be more and more at odds with them.

Christian News continues

“Now that the churches have done well to get this challenging community back on their feet, now that they have done a good job of cleaning up the properties and getting the Fifth Ward back into a good place to live in and to work in and to raise a family, the city is saying, ‘Thanks a lot for the hard work, good bye,’” Dys said.Hate Merchants

We find that when the church acts and function as the church, we do not need the state to do for the poor and wicked in our neighborhoods.  We are the means that God uses to redeem our culture.  Hopefully, these Christians will send the HHA down the road, and the work they have begun will NOT be finished.

freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted at 2:01 pm on August 9, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

This week the Seattle City Council moved one step closer to imposing a sweeping sales cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgtax on both weapons and ammunition which appears to fly in the face of a thirty year old state law banning such restrictions. A committee vote took place on Wednesday and the proposal will move to a full vote tomorrow. And this is just a bad deal all the way around.

The committee voted unanimously this morning to send the proposal to the full city council for consideration next Monday, according to the Seattle P-I.com. Monday’s vote could set the stage for a legal confrontation, and there were hints that existing gun shops could move out of the city, and that gun owners living in Seattle will simply shop outside the city, thus thwarting any dreams that this tax will generate $300,000 to $500,000 annually for the city’s gun control efforts.Alinsky affect

Waiting in the legal tall grass are the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They’ve already advised against the tax proposal, primarily on the grounds that it will violate the state’s 30-year-old model preemption law.

Even if this move were to pass muster in terms of the state’s preemption law, it is bound to accomplish very little beyond the thinly veiled intent of punishing lawful gun owners and gun shops. A tax such as this is certain to do almost nothing to total volume of sales except for those truly living on the edge and simply shifts business from one location to another. NRA ILA summarizes the concept.

The burden of regressive taxes like the Seattle proposal falls squarely on those that are least able to afford them. Persons of means will simply drive outside the city to purchase firearms and ammunition, while those without such options will be forced to go forego their rights or pay the tax. This is especially egregious considering how those at the lower end of the economic scale also tend to reside in areas where violent crime is the highest. One wonders whether this type of social engineering on the downtrodden is an intended feature of the legislation rather than an unfortunate consequence.Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Supporters are claiming that this tax could bring in a half million dollars in revenue, but under the best of circumstances that sounds vastly inflated. It also doesn’t take into account how much it could affect the local market. As one local gun dealer pointed out, it’s a competitive sales space and they already sell pretty much on the margins. If he has to jack up the price of a ten or fifteen dollar box of ammunition by five dollars, shooters will simply go outside the city limits and buy their rounds where the tax is not applied. The same goes for new gun purchases. If sales plummet, the tax revenue goes down by default and if the shops close, the revenue disappears entirely.

Of course, that’s been the idea all along. This isn’t a tax intended to raise revenue for vital services. It’s a political statement. That’s why the supporters of the proposal even call it the gun violence tax. They’re not expecting to raise cash or reduce violence. They’re simply looking to show their base constituents how “serious” they are about restricting gun rights. The irony behind all of this is that the city will doubtless face a series of expensive lawsuits if the tax is put in place and they’ll probably lose. In the end they will wind up getting no revenue and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for the court costs and associated expenses.

But hey… this is Seattle. What did you really expect?

Symbolism over substance squeeze into mold insane Demorates freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted by    Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:00pm | 8/9/2015 – 5:00pm

“1 million gallons of acidic wastewater spills, creating environmental and PR catastrophe”

LI #07 EPA Spill on Animas RiverWhen the history of the Obama administration is written, few agencies will top the Environmental Protection Agency for the thuggish misuse of regulatory power to work the President’s will.

It’s just too bad that in the quest to shut down America’s coal industry, it failed to actually do the job it was initially mandated to do: Protect the nation’s environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the federal agency committed to protecting “human health and the environment,” jeopardized both Wednesday by accidentally releasing one million gallons of wastewater into Colorado’s Animas River.EPA Tyranny

EPA bureaucrats were using heavy machinery to nose around the Gold King Mine near Durango, Colorado, when they triggered the release of wastewater containing heavy metals like zinc, iron, and copper.

The Denver Post reported that residents of Durango “gathered along the Animas River to watch as the blue waters turned a thick, radiant orange and yellow just after 8 p.m., nearly 34 hours after the spill started.”

The wastewater dumped was an acidic solution loaded with heavy metals (e.g., lead, arsenic), which created a harmful environment for aquatic life and an intriguing video opportunity for witnesses. The Cortez Journal offers this clip, as well as additional details on the spill:

epa

The accident occurred about 10:30 a.m. Wednesday at the Gold King Mine in San Juan County. A mining and safety team working on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency triggered the discharge, according to a news release issued by the EPA.

The EPA’s team was working with heavy equipment to secure and consolidate a safe way to enter the mine and access contaminated water, said Richard Mylott, a spokesman for the EPA in Denver. The project was intended to pump and treat the water and reduce metal pollution flowing out of the mine into Cement Creek, he said.

The agency’s initial response was to downplay the contamination. . . indicating the area was already polluted, implying there were basically no fish to kill.

…Due to current and longstanding water quality impairment associated with heavy metals there are no fish populations in the Cement Creek watershed and populations in the Animas River have historically been impaired for several miles downstream of Silverton.

Subsequently, EPA regional administrator Shaun McGrath had to walk back that initial response by saying, “Some of our earlier comments may have sounded cavalier about the public health concern and the concern for wildlife. I want to assure you that the EPA absolutely is concerned.”

Wildlife experts are not mollified, calling the EPA’s response deeply inadequate:

“Endangered species downstream of this spill are already afflicted by same toxic compounds like mercury and selenium that may be in this waste,” Taylor McKinnon, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement Thursday. “These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure makes a bad situation worse. EPA’s downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts.”

As an added bonus, the released wastewater will be streaming into Native American lands:

“This is an all too familiar story on the lax oversight responsibility of the US government,” said Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation in a statement. “It is unfortunate that we have to once again tell our people to stay away from the river due to the release of dangerous chemicals into our water.” Begaye also called on the EPA to immediately release details of the water’s contaminants.

The city of Durango stopped pumping water out of the Animas River to prevent contaminating the city reservoir, out of concern for contamination of the drinking water.

This contrasts with fracking operations, often the target of environmental activists who claim it is a source of water pollution. In June, we noted that a report, released after years of study, indicated that fracking isn’t causing widespread damage to the nation’s drinking water.

So, the next time an eco-activist derides fracking, you can honestly point out the current EPA has been more toxic to the environment.

Indenification of Obama Leftist Giant called Tyranny Demorates The Lower you go Alinsky affect freedom combo 2


waving flagBy Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer

EIKO was founded with the mandate of confiscating property from individuals linked to the shah’s system after the Islamic revolution of 1979. Khamenei broadened the mandate in 1991 to confiscate property from dissidents, too. EIKO officials have included some of Iran’s worst human-rights abusers.

Treasury slapped sanctions on EIKO and its subsidiaries back in June 2013, noting that the purpose of EIKO was “to generate and control massive, off-the-books investments, shielded from the view of the Iranian people and international regulators.” As one senior Obama administration official noted, Iran’s kleptocrats “profit from a shadowy network of off-the-books front companies . . . the Iranian government’s leadership works to hide billions of dollars in corporate profits earned at the expense of the Iranian people.”ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART

A closer look at EIKO reveals that it maintains a stranglehold on the Iranian economy. The value of EIKO’s real-estate portfolio totals nearly $52 billion. EIKO’s investment arm is worth $40 billion. Its stakes in publicly traded companies total nearly $3.4 billion. EIKO maintains a complex network of front companies and subsidiaries abroad in places like Germany, Croatia, South Africa, the UAE, Turkey and beyond. These businesses were all flagged by the US government for illicit financial practices, including government corruption. As Treasury noted, EIKO made tens of billions of dollars alone through  the exploitation of favorable loan rates from Iranian banks.

muslim-obamaAnd they’ll all soon be off our sanctions list. Not because they have suddenly become legitimate. In fact, there’s no indication that their conduct has changed. The White House is simply trading them in for a purported diplomatic victory — even if it’s a temporary one, given that Iran must only wait 10 to 15 years to inherit a massive nuclear program, a short path to a bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles and its economy immunized against future sanctions.

No matter how you slice it, this move undermines the mandate of the Treasury Department, which has spent the last decade building a powerful yet delicate sanctions architecture designed to punish Iran for its nuclear mendacity, ballistic-missile development, financial support for terrorist groups and backing of other rogue states like Bashar al-Assad’s Syria.

But above all, the goal was to shield the US-led global financial sector from Iran’s vast network of financial criminals and their illegal transactions.

The Obama Administration continues to insist that the nuclear deal won’t stop America from punishing Iran’s destabilizing activities across the Middle East. They say that the deal will keep sanctions on some of the worst actors within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which directs Iran’s external regional aggression, its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its vast system of domestic repression. The Guards also control at least one-sixth of the Iranian economy, including strategic sectors — banking, energy, construction, industrial, engineering, mining, shipping, shipbuilding and others.Party of Deciet and lies

But Khamenei is the man who directs the activities of the Guards. Once EIKO is freed from the sanctions list, Khamenei will be free to invest billions around the world with impunity. With the benefit of American sanctions relief, and with the aid of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s supreme leader will now be able to tighten his stranglehold on the Iranian people — a side effect of the nuclear deal that has not garnered enough attention. At the same time, he’ll be under fewer restrictions to finance terror and bloodshed around the region.Death to America

Mark Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance. Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury terrorism finance analyst, is vice president for research at FDD.

Islamapologist Obama Muslim collection freedom combo 2


waving flagZIP | August 10, 2015 10:14 am

CMDQaepUEAADcVz

Feel the Bern!

Via The Hill:

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saw 28,000 supporters attend his rally in Portland, Ore. on Sunday, setting a record for the largest number of supporters at a political event in the 2016 race.

“Whoa. This is an unbelievable turnout,” Sanders said after walking onstage at an NBA arena.

Michael Lewellen, an arena spokesman, said that more than 19,000 people filled the center, with thousands more lined up outside, according to Sanders’s campaign.

Sunday’s showing smashed Sanders’s attendance record of 15,000 set the previous day in Seattle.

The independent Vermont senator, who has emerged as the main Democratic presidential foil to frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly garnered attention for drawing huge crowds on the campaign trail.


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael BastaschMichael Bastasch, 08/10/2015

Potential Republican 2016 presidential candidate Ohio Governor John Kasich speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Conference in Nashua, New Hampshire April 18, 2015. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

rino alertGov. John Kasich’s campaign has been scrambling to clear up the Republican presidential candidate’s stance on whether or not he believes in global warming after he told NBC News Sunday he didn’t want to “destroy people’s jobs based on some theory that’s not proven.”

Kasich told NBC’s Chuck Todd he believes humans have an impact on the environment, but cautioned against punitive regulations that could cripple the economy and kill jobs.

“Well, I think that man absolutely affects the environment. But as to whether, you know, what the impact is, the overall impact, I think that’s a legitimate debate.” Kasich said, touting his state’s environmental record. “So of course we have to be sensitive to it. But we don’t want to destroy people’s jobs based on some theory that’s not proven.”

Interestingly enough, liberal news outlets criticized Kasich for saying global warming was “some theory that’s not proven.” This forced his campaign to respond over social media, tweeting out a remarks Kasich made about global warming in 2012.

tw

“He believes it is real and that humans play a significant factor and we need to do something about it,” a Kasich campaign spokesman told Politico in an emailed response, regarding the governor’s position on man-made global warming.

Kasich’s campaign also pointed Politico to other recent interviews where the governor talked about global warming without questioning the science. Kasich has been trying to position himself as a moderate Republican who believes in trying to find solutions to global warming.

“I am a believer—my goodness, I am a Republican—I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change,” Kaisich said in 2012. “I don’t want to overreact to it, I can’t measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us, and I want to make sure we protect it.” no more rinos

 


waving flagMon, Aug 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.srnnews.com/peaceful-rallies-in-ferguson-give-way-to-violence-gunfire/?utm_source=headlines_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=August-10-2015

1439204720128712WUrDsKGVpP

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — A man who opened fire on officers in Ferguson, Missouri, on the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death was critically wounded when the officers shot back, St. Louis County’s police chief said early Monday.

Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference that officers had been tracking the man, who they believed was armed, during a protest marking the death of Brown, the black, 18-year-old whose killing by a white Ferguson police officer.

The man approached the officers, who were in an unmarked police van, and opened fire, Belmar said. The officers returned fire from inside the vehicle and then pursued the man on foot when he ran.

The man again fired on the officers, the chief said, and all four officers fired back. He was struck and fell.

The man was taken to a hospital, where Belmar said he was in “critical, unstable” condition. Authorities didn’t immediately release the identities of anyone involved, but Tyrone Harris told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the injured man was his son, 18-year-old Tyrone Harris Jr.

The elder Harris told the newspaper shortly after 3 a.m. that his son had just gotten out of surgery.

None of the officers was seriously injured. All four have been put on standard administrative leave. They were not wearing body cameras, Belmar said.

The shooting happened shortly after what the chief called “an exchange of gunfire between two groups” rang out around 11:15 p.m. Sunday while protesters were gathered on West Florissant Avenue, a business zone that saw rioting and looting last year after Brown’s killing. The shots sent protesters and reporters running for cover.

The chief said an estimated six shooters unleashed a “remarkable” amount of gunfire over about 45 seconds.

Belmar waved off any notion that the people with the weapons were part of the protest. “They were criminals. They weren’t protesters,” he said.

The man who fired on officers had a semi-automatic 9MM gun that was stolen last year from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, according to the chief.

“There is a small group of people out there that are intent on making sure that peace doesn’t prevail,” he said. “There are a lot of emotions. I get it. But we can’t sustain this as we move forward.”

Early Monday, another reported shooting drew officers to an apartment building in the area. Two men told police they were targeted in a drive-by shooting near the memorial to Brown outside Canfield Apartments. A 17-year old was shot in the chest and shoulder while a 19-year-old was shot in the chest, but their injuries were not life-threatening, the St. Louis County Police said in a news release.

The anniversary of Brown’s killing, which cast greater scrutiny on how police interact with black communities, has sparked days of renewed protests, though until Sunday they had been peaceful and without any arrests.


 

waving flag

Shortly before gunfire erupted during protests marking the anniversary of officer-involved fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrators were caught on video chanting that they were “ready for war.”

“Ready for what?! We’re ready for war!” the protesters chanted. (CLICK ON PICTURE TO VIEW VIDEO)

war

Leftist monster raceThe video was tweeted by St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Paul Hampel at 10:47 p.m. central time — and gunfire rang out just after 11 p.m., police said. Police shot and critically injured one suspect who allegedly opened fire on plainclothes detectives.

Separately, police said a 17-year-old male has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon and one count of resisting arrest after he fired shots near the protesters late Sunday. He is being held on $100,000 bond.

The anniversary of Brown’s killing, which cast greater scrutiny on how police interact with black communities, has sparked days of renewed protests, though until Sunday they had been peaceful and without any arrests.

Before the gunfire, protesters were blocking traffic and confronting police. One person threw a glass bottle at officers but missed.

St. Louis County Police and Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers (C) stand guard as protesters (foreground) march on West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2015.  A day of peaceful remembrance marking the anniversary of 18-year-old black teen Michael Brown's killing by police in the US city of Ferguson came to a violent end on August 9 as gunfire left at least one protester injured.       AFP PHOTO / MICHAEL B. THOMAS        (Photo credit should read Michael B. Thomas/AFP/Getty Images)

For the first time in three consecutive nights of demonstrations, some officers were dressed in riot gear, including bullet-proof vests and helmets with shields. Police at one point early Monday shot smoke to disperse the crowd that lingered on West Florissant, Belmar said.

One officer was treated for cuts after a rock was thrown at his face, and two officers were pepper-sprayed by protesters, county police spokesman Officer Shawn McGuire said in an email. Five people were arrested, according to records McGuire released.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

freedom combo 2


waving flagObama Iran


waving flagBy Newsmax Wires   |   Saturday, 08 Aug 2015 11:02 AM

URI of the original posting site: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/redstate-erickson-disinvite-trump/2015/08/08/id/669124/#ixzz3iFmNJjXy

Image: Trump: RedState Chief ‘Total Loser’ for Pulling Plug on My Speech (Getty Images)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was dumped from a prime speaking role to an important gathering of conservative activists on Friday for his criticism of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly after a combustible debate performance.  Trump was scheduled to deliver the keynote address on Saturday night at a conference in Atlanta organized by RedState, an influential conservative group.

Trump’s campaign fired back at RedState chief Erick Erickson twice after the GOP front-runner was dumped from RedState’s schedule. In the second statement, issued Saturday morning, Trump’s team said:

“Not only is Erick a total loser, he has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns so it is an honor to be uninvited from his event. Mr. Trump is an outsider and does not fit his agenda.

“Many of the 900 people that wanted to hear Mr. Trump speak tonight have been calling and emailing — they are very angry at Erickson and the others that are trying to be so politically correct. To them Mr. Trump says, We will catch you at another time soon.'”TMSHorsey0617_1434644296235_20064964_ver1_0_640_480

Erickson said he disinvited Trump from the event because of what he described as “demeaning” remarks about Kelly, who was one of three moderators during the first major Republican debate on Thursday night in Cleveland. “While I have tried to give him great latitude, his remark about Megyn Kelly was a bridge too far,” Erickson said.  Erickson said he had invited Kelly, one of Fox’s highest profile anchors, to attend his conference in Trump’s place.In an initial response to Erickson, Trump’s team labeled the move as “just another example of weakness through being politically correct.  For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader.”

During the debate, Kelly asked Trump to respond to derogatory statements he had made in the past about women, calling them “fat pigs” for example. Trump tried to wave off the question and dismissed Kelly during a raucous debate performance.

“And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry,” Trump said. “I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.”

Erickson said in a Facebook statement that in a CNN interview Trump said of Kelly: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”  “His comment was inappropriate,” said Erickson.

“It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong,” he said.

“He is not a professional politician and is known for being a blunt talker. But there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross. Decency is one of those lines.”

A variety of Republican presidential candidates have been speaking at the Red State gathering in Atlanta and Trump was scheduled for a prominent appearance.

Shortly before Erickson’s statement, Trump’s campaign had just put out a media advisory with the schedule for Trump’s appearance.

The New York billionaire has been riding high in the polls in recent weeks as Republican search for their nominee to face the Democrats’ choice in the November 2016 election.

Carly Fiorina, the business executive who is the only woman running for the Republican nomination and who spoke to Red State on Friday, applauded Trump’s dumping.

“I stand with @megynkelly,” she tweeted.

Reuters contributed to this report.

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2


waving flag

thGHXSCEOE

rino-logo no more rinos Reality 2 Rino-River-1 GOP-RINOS-OBAMACARTOON Cannot fix RINOS freedom combo 2

 

 

 


In God We Trust


waving flagPosted by Cheryl Sullenger   Aug 7, 2015   |   Houston, TX

PP MonsterToday, the Center for Medical Progress released the full, uncut video of the undercover visit to the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Houston, Texas, that was summarized in the a shorter video released earlier this week. That longer video contains new revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. The full video, which runs for five hours and forty-five minutes, expands on a conversation between Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, and two CMP actors posing as representatives of an organ procurement company. That conversation focused on potential compensation to Planned Parenthood in exchange for fetal remains.

Farrell made it clear that Planned Parenthood had been involved in the selling of aborted baby parts for some time and was very familiar with the use of fetal remains in the production of humanized mice.

She discussed how the Houston affiliate for which she worked was “resistant” to recent efforts by Planned Parenthood Federation of America to standardize fetal tissue sales throughout the participating affiliates because “we’ve been doing our own thing for a long time.” Apparently, Farrell had the routine down pat.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

PP MonsterShe emphasized repeatedly that she creates a written line-item budget for compensation that effectively conceals the fact that the money received from fetal remains is actually a financial benefit to the company above and beyond hard costs. In addition, she noted that they are able to alter abortion procedures to make sure they have baby parts to sell. “And we have had studies in which the company, and or in this case, investigator, has a specific need for certain portions of the parts of conception and we base that into our contract and our protocol that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that,” Farrell said, (emphasis added).Picture1

Yet Farrell acknowledged that it was illegal for them to alter the timing or manner of the procedure for the purpose of ensuring organs were fit for use by researchers.

In the lengthy video, Farrell is seen looking over her e-mail when she finds a message from an immune-biology laboratory that was requesting fetal tissue to create humanized mice. The full conversation can be reviewed beginning at the 4:27:45 time marker on the full video.

pp

Part of the conversation was included in the CMP summary video published earlier in the week.

The purpose of the request was to obtain cadavers and fetal tissue to generate humanized mice for immune-deficiency experimentation and the development of pharmaceuticals.

One actor posing as a potential buyer asked, “So are they requesting just liver or liver, thymus? Liver, thymus, long bone?” “Everything! CNS, brain, kidney, thymus, liver, spleen, femur, bone marrow, hematopoietic stem cells, from 14-22 weeks gestation,” Farrell responds in a sing-song voice.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

PP Monster“They’re going to engraft all those? Or just the hematopoietic?” asked the actor.

“It doesn’t say,” Farrell says.

“Wow! They want everything!” said the actor. “See, so that’s the thing. For a study like that, if we could provide, you know, just the whole cadaver, then they can take exactly what they want with the full quality of – you know – and everything.”

“Exactly, Um-hum.” Farrell responded.

“That is actually going to be ideal for them,” the actor continued.

“Well, it would make me very happy for us to finish up what we need to and I can put you in touch with them,” Farrell laughs, later adding, “Oh, I was wrong! They want 120 samples.”

“A hundred and twenty? This is huge!” says the actor.

To illustrate exactly how big this request was, earlier in the conversation, the actors told Farrell that they were interested in obtaining liver-thymus pairs from the same donor, which would then be supplied to a laboratory that was hoping to create humanized mice. But the actors only hoped to harvest one sample per week, adding that five to six per week would be better.I AM A PERSON with Poem

What exactly are “humanized” mice?

PP MonsterAround the year 2000, a line of mice created through breeding and genetic alteration to suppress the immune response that prompts rejection of foreign tissue. This was around the time that Operation Rescue first discovered that scientists had begun experimenting with stem cells derived from aborted babies and began speaking out against it.

With the rodents’ immune systems suppressed, human fetal cells or tissue could be transplanted or grafted into the mice where it would grow.

For example, “hematopoietic” stem cells mentioned in the CMP video are cells related to the creation blood. Grafting these cells into mice would create blood that more closely resembled human blood. Then researchers could conduct experiments on these “humanized” mice and get results more reflective of how a human being’s blood would react.

Mice continue to be altered and bred to allow their tissues to take on more realistic human properties.

In the case of the immune-biology group discussed in the video, they were seeking a very large order of essentially 120 intact fetal cadavers from 14-22 weeks gestation. The bodies would then be dissected to extract the desired tissue, which would either be transplanted into mice and grown, or processed into cells that would be grafted or injected into mice.

“It is as if researchers have taken a page out of The Island of Doctor Moreau, the classic sci-fi story by H.G. Wells, where a mad scientist crossed the bounds of ethics and morality to create human-animal hybrids,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, who also serves on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress. “The profit stream that extends from the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, through the third party procurement companies, to the pharmaceutical and commercial laboratories is all generated at the expense of human babies. To Planned Parenthood, the only value in these human beings is in how much they can get for their broken remains. They are like butchers selling meat by the pound.”comparison

For years Planned Parenthood has benefited financially from the illegal sale of aborted baby remains, which has created a lucrative additional revenue stream for the abortion giant.Almighty dollar idol

It is clear from the full contents of the latest CMP video that Planned Parenthood is aware of the laws that regulate fetal tissue “donation” and have constructed an elaborate scheme to conceal and even justify their illegal activities.

Operation Rescue puts the blame for this illicit market in aborted baby remains squarely on the shoulders of greedy Planned Parenthood officials who are operating more like a cut-throat for-profit industry than a non-profit charity.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton testified before the a Texas legislative hearing on July 29, 2015, that his investigators visited the Houston Planned Parenthood’s tissue room and observed recognizable body parts from aborted babies being dumped into a red trash bag. He noted that this facility generates 260 pounds of fetal remains per week, every week.

It is difficult to even mentally process the enormity of that number and what it means in destroyed human lives.

“It is time to re-examine Planned Parenthood’s non-profit status. The way they look to squeeze every buck out of taxpayers, vulnerable women, and now even the broken bodies of defenseless babies, merits the revocation of their tax-exempt status along with their defunding at the state and federal levels,” said Newman. “But more than anything, criminal prosecutions of Planned Parenthood affiliates that have engaged in illegal activity in the selling of baby parts often obtained through the use of the banned partial birth abortion procedure are absolutely necessary. In order to bring an end to this horrific flesh-trafficking, Planned Parenthood must not be held above the law.”

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue, a pro-life that monitors abortion practitioners and exposes their illegal and unethical practices.burke


waving flagPosted by

The Iranian regime already broke the the nuclear deal with the West.
iran negotiations

Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani already visited Moscow despite a .
Israeli activist Omri Ceren reported:

muslim-obamaFox News just published an exclusive confirming that Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani just visited Moscow even though he’s under a travel ban and prohibited from leaving Iran by United Nations Security Council sanctions. The article is at the bottom of this email and has details down to the Air Iran flight numbers and times of his arrival and departure.

Evidence of sanctions-busting by Soleimani has the potentially to be politically disastrous for the Obama administration. The Iranian general was originally sanctioned for a wide range of terror activities, including against Americans: U.S. military officials estimate that he has the blood of roughly 500 American soldiers on his hands and that the majority of American causalities during the final two years of Iraq were because of his surrogates [a][b]. The JCPOA lifted many sanctions against Soleimani were lifted under the final JCPOA, generating a flood of criticism and forcing the administration to go into damage control mode.

At first the State Department denied the concession even existed, with Kerry claiming that it was a different Qassem Soleimani who was being delisted [c]. That was false and so the White House quickly had to concede that the general was indeed getting sanctions relief [d].ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART

If his mouth is open he must be lyingAdministration officials then shifted to declaring that the delisting was the best they could do: it would occur 8 years into the deal, after the UN’s sanctions authority lapsed, and would never occur on a domestic level at all. In the meantime they emphasized that both sets of sanctions would be vigorously enforced at the international level.

A senior administration official told reporters on July 14 “IRGC Commander Qassem Soleimani will not be delisted at the United Nations… [until] 8 years into the deal, so sanctions are not being lifted early on Qassem Soleimani… his designation under U.S. sanctions will in no way be impacted by the [JCPOA]. Since secondary sanctions remain in place on the U.S. side, this means that sanctions on Qassam Soleimani will still have an international effect” Kerry made the same point on July 29 to the Senate Armed Services “under the United States’ initiative… [Soleimani] will never be relieved of any sanctions” [g]. The talking point was built into a White House memo titled “The Iran Deal: What You Need to Know About the JCPOA” [e]: culture of deciet

talking point lies

freedom combo 2


By Newsmax Wires   |   Thursday, 06 Aug 2015 11:22 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/putin-russia-claim-north-pole/2015/08/06/id/665858/#ixzz3iACwU8Il

Image: Putin Lays Claim to North Pole (Newsmax File Photo)

Russia has filed claim with the United Nations for 463,000 square miles of  of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole, according to reports.

The territory contains some of the world’s largest untapped reserves of fossil fuels, as well as valuable minerals, reports CNBC.

Russia’s claim is filed under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes the rights to exclusive economic zones beyond a nation’s borders.

The convention allows for a 200-mile zone from recognized borders, except where a country can demonstrate that the continental shelf on which it sits actually extends farther then 200 miles. In such cases, the law recognizes a 350-mile limit.

The U.N. rebuffed a similar effort by Russia in 2002.

If the U.N. accepts Russia’s petition this time,  it would give the government of President Vladimir Putin oversight of the the waters on economic matters, including fishing and oil and gas drilling, though will not have full sovereignty, The New York Times says.

Related Stories:

freedom combo 2


waving flagPublished August 07, 2015; FoxNews.com

From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.

The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.

Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.

Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.

Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.

“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.

Paul fired back: “I know you gave [President Obama] a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go ahead.” Christie said the hugs he gave were to the families of 9/11 victims, and then accused Paul of playing “politics,” by using videos of floor speeches to raise money.

The exchange was striking, even in a debate that was tense from the start. Though several rivals stood out, Trump did not hold his fire, either – making clear he’s not softening his approach to campaigning as he picks up steam in the polls.

If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.

Trump, the billionaire businessman front-runner, sparred at the outset of the debate with Paul after refusing to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee if it’s not him and to swear off an independent run.

“I will not make the pledge at this time,” Trump said.

Paul accused him of “hedging his bet on the Clintons.”

“He’s already hedging his bets, because he’s used to buying politicians,” Paul said. (Trump later acknowledged he gave money to the Clintons and demanded Hillary Clinton “be at my wedding” in exchange; he called this a sign of a broken system.)

Trump also stood firm on his vow to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump said, blasting “stupid leaders” in the U.S. harboring illegal immigrants.

Bush said a comprehensive solution is needed, including a “path to earned legal status,” which he said is not “amnesty.”

Moments later, Cruz said some on stage support “amnesty”, while he does not.

A big question going into the debate was whether Bush would aggressively challenge Trump and try to knock him off his perch.

But he would only go so far as to question Trump’s tone, calling his language “divisive.” Hours before the debate, Politico ran a story saying Bush recently told a donor he thinks Trump is a “buffoon” and a “clown.” Asked about that report on stage, Bush denied it.

“It’s not true,” Bush said.

Trump then called Bush a “true gentleman.”

As for his tone, Trump said it’s “medieval times” in the Middle East, and, “We don’t have time for tone.”

But other candidates were able to stand out on the crowded stage. Carson called Hillary Clinton the “epitome” of the progressive movement.

“She counts on the fact that people are uninformed. The Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots,” he said.

Walker also blasted the Iran nuclear deal, as did other candidates: “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS, it is tied together and once and for all we need a leader who is going to do something about it. It is yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton doctrine.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us, he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Rubio also vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and called the lack of accountability after the Veterans Affairs scandal “outrageous.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed to defend entitlements and stood his ground on social issues. He blasted Planned Parenthood and defended his pro-life views, accusing abortion providers of “selling” fetal parts “like they’re parts to a Buick.”

Kasich, like Walker and Bush, tried to keep the focus on his record in his state.

“America is a miracle country and we have to restore the sense that the miracle will apply to you,” he said.

And Cruz vowed, if elected, to prosecute Planned Parenthood, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and nix Obama’s executive orders. “I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth,” he said.

Trump was challenged several times on his conservative views. He previously was pro-choice, but said he’s “evolved” on the issue.

Also, under questioning from moderator Megyn Kelly about past disparaging comments he made about women, Trump interrupted to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” He then said, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry.”

The candidates squared off at the second of two kick-off debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.

The seven other Republican hopefuls spent much of the first debate doing their best to hammer home the message that Clinton represents four more years of Obama. In the earlier debate, the candidates largely avoided sparring with each other and instead trained their fire on the Obama years — with promises to roll back ObamaCare and undo the Iran nuclear deal.


 

waving flagHuckabee: ‘The Military Is Not A Social Experiment’ [VIDEO]

Reported by Steve Guest; Media Reporter

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/07/huckabee-the-military-is-not-a-social-experiment-video/#ixzz3iA7i4eqC

During the Fox News GOP debate Thursday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated, “The military is not a social experiment.” Huckabee continued, “The purpose of the military is kill people and break things. It’s not to transform the culture by trying out some ideas that some people think would make us a different country and more diverse. The purpose is to protect America. I’m not sure how paying for transgender surgery for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines makes our country safer.”

huck


 

Fiorina stands out in Republican ‘happy hour’ debate

Getty Images

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stood out Thursday in the first GOP primary debate, taking shots at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton while showing off her foreign policy acumen.

Fiorina, the only woman among the 17 Republican candidates taking part in Thursday’s two debates, shined as the seven candidates who didn’t make the Republican top 10 squared off in a 5 p.m. undercard.

Minutes into what’s being called the happy hour debate, she took a shot at GOP front-runner Donald Trump for his connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t,” Fiorina said, referencing reports that Trump spoke with Bill Clinton ahead of his presidential launch.

“Maybe it’s because I haven’t given money to the foundation or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign,” she added.

Fiorina further highlighted Trump’s policy inconsistencies, an attack that may return in the 9 p.m. debate.

“I would also just say this. Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion, I would just ask, what are the principles by which he will govern?” Fiorina asked.

Fiorina outlined an ambitious agenda for her first days in office if she were to become president. She would call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Iranian supreme leader to express displeasure with the agreement, she said, then on the second day, she’d convene a summit at Camp David with Arab allies.

Fiorina, who has often been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate for her party, closed her performance by taking a shot at Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for that party’s presidential nomination.

She criticized Clinton for dodging questions on topics including the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

“We need a nominee who is going to throw every punch, not pull punches,” Fiorina said.

Google reported that Fiorina was the most searched candidate during the early debate, and she also received the most Twitter chatter.

Pundits also gave her good reviews, with Washington Post columnist George Will saying she “stood out with precision and fluency,” and Fox News host Chris Wallace also praising her.

Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer said she won the debate “going away.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry also maintained a steady performance throughout the debate, using his time on stage to tout his state’s economic performance and calling for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama to be torn up.

It was a much stronger performance for Perry than four years ago, when his first presidential campaign quickly came crashing down after he was heard saying “oops,” when he forgot that he wanted to abolish the Department of Education in response to a debate question.

But Perry also seemed to boost Fiorina, by at one point suggesting she should have negotiated the Iran deal on behalf of the U.S. instead of Secretary of State John Kerry.

“I would whole lot rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry. Maybe we would have gotten a deal where we didn’t give everything away,” Perry said.

Fiorina has not been shy about going after Clinton, whose allies quickly fired back on Thursday.

“Carly Fiorina sure seemed to like Hillary Clinton back when she spoke before the Clinton Global Initiative,” Correct the Record spokeswoman Mary Jennings said.

Correct the Record is a rapid-response organization allied with Clinton.

“In reality, Fiorina is just another cookie-cutter, out-of-touch far-right Republican — holding the same out-of-date positions as all the rest on stage, and willing to take shots at the positive, philanthropic work of others.”

The seven candidates for the initial debate performed before a mostly empty auditorium; tickets were not sold for the undercard to the 9 p.m. debate.

The Fox News hosts moderating the debate, Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer, essentially asked each candidate at the beginning why anyone should take them seriously.

MacCallum and Hemmer asked Perry why he’s ready to lead the country now after his failed 2012 bid; whether Fiorina comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher is “a stretch;” if former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s moment had “passed;” and why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal should be president given his low popularity in his home state.

The seven underdogs spared each other from criticism, but aimed fire at two Republicans who will be on the prime-time stage: Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Under questioning from the moderators, Jindal criticized Kasich for expanding Medicaid in Ohio under ObamaCare.

“I don’t think anybody should expand Medicaid,” said Jindal, who rejected the Medicaid expansion in his state. “I think it was a mistake to expand Medicaid everywhere, in Ohio and across the country.”

Kasich stands out among the Republican presidential candidates for accepting the expansion. Under ObamaCare, states have the choice of expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, up to 138 percent of the poverty level.Complete Message

Former New York Gov. George Pataki sided with Jindal.

“I don’t think you expand entitlements when so many people are dependent on government,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who appeared loose and open in a New Hampshire forum earlier this week, seemed tense at the start of Thursday’s debate and rambled on an answer about Clinton’s comment that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

But near the end of the debate, Graham shared a compelling story of depending on Social Security after his parents died.

“Today I’m 60. I’m not married, I don’t have any kids. I would give up some Social Security to save the system that Americans are going to depend on now and in the future,” Graham said.

The Democratic National Committee panned the debate as a repeat of GOP candidates who ran for president four years ago.

“They are outdated, out of touch and out of line, but not out of company. If you missed the pre-show, these ideas will be on full display again in a few hours,” DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement.

Jesse Byrnes and Peter Sullivan contributed.

This story was updated at 7:46 p.m. 


waving flagBy Marita Noon

URL of the original posting site: http://netrightdaily.com/2015/08/obama-iranian-oil-good-canadian-oil-bad-american-oil-bad/#ixzz3iA1wNK3s

off limitsPresident Obama’s confusing approach to energy encourages our enemies who shout “death to America,” while penalizing our closest allies and even our own job creators.

Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations that have slogged on for months, have now, ultimately, netted a deal that will allow Iran to export its oil — which is the only reason they came to the table (they surely are not interested in burnishing Obama’s legacy). International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran, it is estimated, currently has more than 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea — part of a months’ long build up.

It is widely reported that, due to aging infrastructure and saturated storage, it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions are lifted — if Congress approves the terms of the deal, Iran wants to be ready to move its oil. In fact, even before the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is already moving some of its “floating storage.”

On July 17, the Financial Times  reported, “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail — moving the oil closer to customers in Asia. In April, another tanker, Happiness, sailed from Iran to China, where, since June, it has parked off the port City of Dalian.

Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached — which is, according to the Financial Times, “signaling its looming return to the oil market.” Reuters calls its departure “a milestone following a months-long build-up of idling crude tankers.” Analysts at Macquarie Capital apparently think the oil on Starla will not be parked, waiting for sanctions to be lifted. A research note, states that Iran is “likely assuming that either a small increase in exports will not undermine the historic accord reached or that no one will notice.” We noticed.

Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal’s been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of their recent gains.

While the Obama Administration’s actions are allowing Iran, which hates America, to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, they are hurting our closest ally by continuing to delay the Keystone pipeline — which would help Canada export its oil.Indenification of Obama

After six-and-a-half years of kicking the can down the road, and despite widespread support and positive reports, the Keystone pipeline is no closer to construction than it was on the day the application was submitted. It is obvious President Obama doesn’t like the project, which will create tens of thousands of jobs, according to his own State Department. Back in February, he vetoed the bill Congress sent him that would have authorized construction, saying that it circumvented “longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.” At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “Congress won’t stop pursuing good ideas, including this one.” But he was not able to gather enough votes to override the veto, and, since then, we’ve heard nothing about the Keystone pipeline. In Washington, DC, silence on an important issue like Keystone isn’t always golden.

There is no pending legislation on Keystone, but the permit application has still not been approved or rejected. I had hoped that the unions, who want the jobs Keystone would provide, would be able to pressure enough Democrats to support the project, to push a bill over the veto-proof line. But that didn’t happen. For months, Keystone has been silently dangling. But that may be about to change.insane

Reliable sources tell me that Obama is prepared to, finally, announce his decision on Keystone. According to the well-sourced rumor, he is going to say, “No” — probably just before or after the Labor Day holiday. He’ll conclude that it is not in the “national interest.” So helping our ally grow its economy and export its oil is not in our national interest but helping our sworn enemy do the same, is? It’s like the “Channeling Jeff Foxworthy” parody states, we just “might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.”

Speaking of economic growth and oil exports, what about here at home, in the good old U.S. of A.? Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) questions the deal that allows Iran to export its oil, while we cannot. “As Congress begins its 60-day review of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about whether it is in our nation’s — and the world’s — best interests. Not least among them are the underexplored, but potentially significant, consequences the deal will hold for American energy producers.”

Most people don’t realize that the U.S. is, as Murkowski says in her op-ed, “the only advanced nation that generally prohibits oil exports.” Due to decades-old policy, born in a different energy era, American oil producers are prohibited from exporting crude oil because it was perceived to be in “short supply.” (Note that refined petroleum product, such as gasoline and diesel, can be exported and is our number one export. We are also about ready to ship our first major tanker full of natural gas to Europe.) Today, when it comes to crude oil, our cup runneth over. The U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. Rather than short supply, we have an oversupply — so much so that American crude oil (WTI) is sold at a discount over the global market (Brent). This disadvantages U.S. producers but doesn’t benefit consumers because gasoline is sold based on the higher-priced Brent.

hypocrite in chiefMurkowski argues that it is time to lift the 40-year-old oil export ban. She’s introduced bipartisan legislation that would do just that, but, if he were so inclined, President Obama could reverse the policy himself — if he found it to be in the national interest. And how could it not be?

Allowing U.S. crude oil onto the world market enhances global energy security, as it would be less impacted by tensions in the Middle East. Our allies in Europe and Asia would have access to supply from a friendly and reliable source — remember the Arab Oil Embargo crippled Japan’s economy because it had no domestic supply and was overly reliant on Arab sources. Lifting the oil export ban would allow U.S. crude to be sold at the true market price, not the discounted rate, which would help stem the job losses currently being felt throughout the oil patch due to the low price of oil and exacerbated by the drop in the price of crude triggered by the Iran deal.

So, the Obama Administration is lobbying Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan. Lifting sanctions would allow Iran to resume full oil export capabilities and boost its economy — while refusing to give our allies and our own country the same benefit. Iranian oil will enter the world market, while Canadian and American oil is constrained. How is that in the “national interest?”

It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.Never Argue Delusional

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program, “America’s Voice for Energy,” which expands on the content of her weekly column.

burke freedom combo 2


waving flagMinimum wage benefits

URL of the original posting site: http://netrightdaily.com/2015/08/cartoon-minimum-wage-benefits

Min Cost NRD 600

The Lower you go Demorates Freedom is never free B2A_FvyCMAE14px tyrants burke Dupe and Chains freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted On 05 Aug 2015; By :

Of all the opponents of the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, none have been as outspoken as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the start, he has warned anyone who will listen of the folly of trusting Iran with nuclear capabilities. And with Congress in the middle of a 60-day review of the deal, Netanyahu is putting the pressure on U.S. lawmakers.

In an online address to American and Canadian Jews this week, Netanyahu said that Obama’s deal gave the Islamic Republic “two paths to the bomb.” Whether they abide by the agreement or cheat, he said, they will ultimately gain possession of a nuclear weapon. “This deal will bring war,” he said, eschewing Obama’s suggestion that war was the sole alternative to negotiations. “Increase the sanctions, increase the pressure.”

Netanyahu said that the deal would likely lead to the “nightmare” scenario of a Middle Eastern arms race, a concern echoed by many regional experts. Such a scenario could put Israel in extraordinary jeopardy, to say nothing of its effects on the United States. He also warned that Iran was building intercontinental missiles for the express purpose of hitting the U.S.

“Here’s the bottom line,” he said. “Oppose this bad deal.”

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a viable political strategy for overturning Obama’s deal. Any opposition from Congress will be swiftly vetoed by the president. There’s an outside chance that enough Democrats could cross the aisle to override the veto, but the numbers aren’t promising. And given the track record of Republican lawmakers when it comes to blocking Obama’s agenda, there’s little reason to hope for a miracle.

muslim-obamaThat leaves us to wait and watch and pray that Iran does not have its heart set on a nuke. It feels foolish to even entertain such a notion, but this president has given us no other options. We all know this is going to lead to a disaster down the road, but we are powerless to do anything but stand by and wait for the mushroom cloud. This is the legacy of Barack Obama. To leave the U.S. and her allies in a world of danger.

It would be nice if we were wrong about this one. To think that Iran’s theocracy has turned over a new leaf. That international inspectors will be able to catch cheating in time to prevent tragedy. To hope that someone in the Obama administration actually knows what they’re doing.

But Netanyahu’s warnings, sadly, sound a lot more plausible.

 

 

freedom combo 2


By / 6 August 2015

<!—->

Big Gay Hate MachineOK, the very things that Christians warned of concerning the illegal, and unconstitutional, ruling regarding sodomy-based “marriage” is coming to pass. Sadly, it seems the even those who oppose such perversion are falling prey to the propaganda. Senator Mike Lee(R-UT) asked Internal Revenue Commissioner John Koskinen if he would pledge not to remove tax exempt status from Christian colleges without the authorization of Congress of the courts and the commissioner said that he wouldn’t surprise anyone, but give fair warning. “Will you commit to me that while you remain on as the commissioner … you will not in the absence of a directive by Congress or by the courts, that you will not take any action to remove the tax-exempt status from religious colleges and universities based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Senator Lee asked Koskinen.

First things first. Neither the courts nor the Congress not the Executive Branch have authority, according the Constitution, to remove such status (See here and here). Lee assumes they have this authority.

Going along with the bone thrown to him, Koskinen replied, “We would issue a regulation … the Treasury and the IRS issue jointly. If we ever did that, we would issue it for public comment. There would be no surprises.” “The public would have plenty of notice and plenty of opportunity to comment, and that’s not going to happen in the next two and a half years,” Koskinen added.

He should have said, “We don’t have authority to do that,” and Lee should have phrased his question to better get to the point of where the IRS would have found such authority to exercise it.

IRSFurthermore, how can you trust a corrupt federal government that has already targeted its citizens concerning tax exempt status to tell you the truth about whether they will or will not target Christian institutions regarding their views on marriage?

Koskinen did tell Lee, “I can make that commitment.”

This comes from the man who had no clue as to what was going on in the IRS under Lois Lerner and still has not fully complied with all of the demands of Congress concerning that investigation.

The Christian Post reports:

However, Koskinen did leave the door wide open for tax-exempt statuses to be a problem for Christian schools in the future.

Lee, who introduced legislation in the Senate last month that would prevent the federal government from imposing consequences on individuals or organizations that uphold religious beliefs on marriage, asked Koskinen if Christian colleges losing their tax-exempt status could be an issue as the nation moves forward with the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.

Lee explained that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that it “is certainly going to be an issue,” when asked by Justice Samuel Alito during the Supreme Court oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges in May. Lee asked if Koskinen shares that view and if that is going to be a real concern.SCOTUS GIANT

The conversation did continue.

“The [subcommittee] chairman, [Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,] last week, asked the same question in a letter asking for our Obamas IRS Gestaporesponse and we responded to the chairman and we have responded publicly that at this time, we see no basis for changing our examination criteria as a result of this Supreme Court case,” Koskinen said.

“When you say ‘at this time,’ is that meant to qualify or restrict your answer or are you saying there is no basis upon which you could revisit tax-exempt status,” Lee queried further.

“At this time there is no basis for us to revisit tax-exempt status on that that grounds. We will continue, obviously, to ensure that those who enjoy tax-exempt status are still doing the work they said they were going to do,” Koskinen elaborated. “But that exam and those reviews will continue as they always have.”

“I don’t mean to leave uncertainty there. It’s not the IRS’s position to make public policy. We implement the laws as they stand,” Koskinen added. “It is our view right now in terms of overall lay of the land that there is no basis at this point to make any different change in our review policies and our exam policies. We can’t predict over the next years what is going to happen in terms of decisions that will be made in public policy but those aren’t decisions that we are going to make.”

When Lee asked if Koskinen disagreed with Solicitor General Verrili’s comments ‘that is certainly going to be an issue,” Koskinene replied, “Not necessarily, but he was not saying that it would be an issue with the IRS. I think what he was trying to say was that over time and other areas over time, public policy decisions have been made by courts and legislatures that ultimately then did influence tax-exempt status,” Koskinen contended. “The Bob Jones case is one of those. But that was not a case of policy made by the IRS, that was a case over 15 or 20 years of decisions made by courts and legislatures.”

John Koskinen2Koskenin assumed the IRS did have the power to action in such a measure not according to law, but according to policy. For you see, the IRS is an unconstitutional entity.

“Down the road, if the IRS ever moves in that direction because of public policy changes, it would first issue a draft regulation for public comment so the public would have plenty of notice and plenty of opportunity for comment and that’s not going to happen in the next two-and-a-half years,” Koskinen said.Obamas IRS Gestapo

Lee concluded by pointing out the obvious.

“While I greatly appreciate Commissioner Koskinen’s word that he will not target religious institutions for their religious beliefs, it worries me and it should worry every American that the IRS does not absolutely disavow the power to target religious institutions based on their religious beliefs, even if the current IRS commissioner has committed not to use that power for the time being.,” Lee said.Giant Government Compliance Officer

That’s exactly right. This behemoth called the federal government has grown and already shown it has broken the chains of the Constitution, and in the words of Thomas Jefferson, has engaged in a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” Therefore, it is no longer time that we debate the issue as those who formed the beast that now seeks to devour us. It is time to eliminate it permanently.

Jefferson went on to state what the rightful remedy to such tyranny is:

“…it is their right (the people), it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

May the God of Heaven, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, grant such measures in our land once again.

burke Tree of Liberty 03 freedom combo 2


waving flagPublished August 06, 2015; FoxNews.com

PP MonsterA company mentioned as a fetal tissue supplier in recent Planned Parenthood sting videos reportedly does business with two federal health agenciesAccording to a report in Politico, Advanced Bioscience Resources, a contracting research company, has made over $300,000 in transactions with the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration. Both agencies reportedly had contracts with the firm since 2009, and have paid money for materials in order to conduct various types of research, including HIV and eye disease studies.

Politico reports it’s unclear if the firm got any tissue from abortions at Planned Parenthood, though the company was mentioned in one of the recent videos released by an anti-abortion group. Those videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue harvesting.

Officials reportedly said NIH has paid the ABR firm $257,000 since 2009 and $53,000 last year alone. The officials, however, didn’t explain how much of the money went toward fetal tissue and how much went to other supplies. The report added that some tissue came from 17- to 22-week-old fetuses. Multiple anti-abortion organizations want to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks.Abortion monster

The FDA also paid the firm $73,000 in the same amount of time. Officials told Politico that much of that money was for certain liver and thymus tissue in order to test drug therapies.

The firm did not return Politico’s requests for comments.

I AM A PERSON with Poem comparison B2A_FvyCMAE14px freedom combo 2


 

waving flagAugust 5, 2015 | by

obamairan0805&amp;amp;lt;img class=”alignleft wp-image-233838″ src=”http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/obamairan0805.jpg&#8221; alt=”obamairan0805″ width=”320″ height=”167″ /&amp;gt;Comparing American politicians to Muslim mobs screaming “death to America” is an insult like no other in American politics – and President Obama hurled it Wednesday right at Republicans opposed to his nuclear deal with Iran.

Before a crowd of cheering sycophants at American University in Washington, Obama was patronizing before he became insulting. But the insult came.

“I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously,” he said, as though he was talking to third-graders.

“But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.”

And that’s when the hammer fell.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

You have to see it to believe it.

&amp;amp;lt;iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/FjY_GkhqJsk&#8221; width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”&amp;gt;obama

Indenification of ObamaSocial media was disgusted by the outburst.

t01 t02 t03

CORRECTION: This post originally stated the location of Obama’s speech incorrectly.

freedom combo 2


waving flag

Constancy freedom combo 2

 

 

 

 

 


waving flagTHE LITTLE RED HEN – in today’s POLITICAL WORLD… 

 

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD  STORY OR WHAT? 

Would you have ever thought that the barnyard could tell such an important tale so well?                   

Picture2

“Who will help me plant my wheat?”

asked the Little Red Hen. 

“Not I,” said the cow. 

“Not I,” said the duck. 

“Not I,” said the pig. 

“Not I,” said the goose.

Picture1 

“Then I will do it by myself.” 

So, the Little Red Hen planted her crop

and the wheat grew and ripened.

Picture1 

  “Who will help me reap my wheat?”

asked the Little Red Hen.

 

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Out of my classification,” said the pig.

“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,”

said the Little Red Hen, and so she did.  

Picture1 

  “Who will help me bake the bread?”

asked the little red hen.

 

“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

“I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.

“If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,”

said the Little Red Hen.

Picture1

   She baked five loaves and the wonderful aroma filled the land,

all of her neighbors couldn’t help but enjoy the fragrance.

 They wanted some and, in fact,

demanded a share

but the Little Red Hen said,

“No, I have worked hard on all five loaves,

and I will freeze what I don’t eat.”   

“Excess profits!” cried Nancy Pelosi the cow.

“Capitalist leech!” screamed Barbara Boxer the duck.

“I demand equal rights!” yelled Jesse Jackson the goose.

Harry Reid the pig just grunted in the disdain. 

And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs

and marched around and around the Little Red Hen,

shouting obscenities.

 

Then Obama the farmer came.

He said to the Little Red Hen,

“You must not be so greedy.”

“But I worked and earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

 “Exactly,” said Barack the farmer.

“That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful.

Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.

But under our modern government regulations,

the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor

with those who are not working and are idle.”

Picture1

And they all lived happily ever after,

including the Little Red Hen, who smiled and clucked,

“I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her

since she never again baked bread

because she joined the ‘party’ 

and got her bread free. ‘Fairness’ had been established. 

Individual initiative had died, 

but nobody noticed, 

perhaps no one cared, 

so long as there was free bread 

that ‘the rich’ were paying for? 

EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. 

Hillary got $8 million for hers. 

That’s $20 million for the memories from two people,

who for eight years repeatedly testified,

under oath,

that they couldn’t remember anything…

and one is now running for President!!!   IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT? 

“WHO IS THE FRIED CHICKEN?”

 

HAVE YOU FIGURED IT OUT YET…

 freedom combo 2

 

 

 


waving flagPosted by NPO Politics

URL of the original posting site: http://qpolitical.com/maine-just-put-welfare-leeches-in-their-place-every-american-needsto-see-what-happened-next

284985_10100149213736667_1081684808_n

Republicans in Maine are celebrating an epic victory with their successful welfare reformation and Democrats are not happy about it. This is incredible.

Governor Paul LePage of Maine passed a measure last year that requires recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program to complete a certain number of work, job-training, or volunteer hours in order to be eligible for assistance. The new requirement has resulted in a dramatic decline in food stamp enrollment, resulting in a logical win-win for all of Maine.

GOPLEPAGE050612-600x384

At the end of 2014 the enrollment count for SNAP was approximately 12,000 individuals. Now that individuals have to complete either 20 hours of part-time work a week, volunteer for at least 24 hours per month, or get involved in a vocational program, the amount of SNAP recipients has dramatically dropped from 12,000 to approximately 2,500 by the end of March…Impressive, right?

seriously_these_people_are_despicable_540

Instead of just giving welfare applicants an easy way out, Maine is forcing people to explore every opportunity for employment before allowing capable adults to take advantage of the system and the people of Maine. Of course Democrats are insisting that the program targets those in poverty or rural areas but their argument is invalid. The individuals benefitting from the new food-stamp law are the ones who really need the assistance and aren’t just lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes.

This is a huge victory for the Republicans of Maine and of course the sore loser Democrats are trying to tarnish the reformation’s success. Democrats are urging for special measures to ease back on some of the new requirements because they are too strict. However, their response is ill-fated because even if the requirements loosen up, once someone is removed from Maine’s food stamp program, it will be another three years before they can receive benefits again from the program.

Congratulations Maine Republicans! Now we just need other states to follow the trail you have blazed so that we can utilize the leeches of society in a beneficial way to the community and actually assist those in need. Share this article to celebrate this Republican victory!

cause of death freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted by Wayne Root on July 7, 2015

 URL of the original posting site: http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2015/07/07/why-obama-and-hillary-must-stop-donald-trump-at-all-costs/#sthash.fAcDREDJ.dpuf

Someone is getting very nervous; 

  • Obama. 
  • Valerie Jarrett. 
  • Eric Holder. 
  • Hillary Clinton. 
  • Jon Corzine…

to name just a few. And I know why.

I wrote a book entitled, “The Murder of the Middle Class” about the unholy conspiracy between big government, big business and big media. They all benefit by the billions from this partnership and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all, and all for one.

It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich. Everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies.

But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. I’ve never seen them this outraged… this vicious… this motivated… this coordinated. NEVER in all my years in politics, have I seen anything like the way the mad dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

When white extremist David Dukes ran for Governor of Louisiana even he wasn’t treated with this kind of outrage, vitriol and disrespect. When a known fraud, scam artist and tax cheat like Al Sharpton ran for President, I never saw anything remotely close to this. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened like never before.

Why? Because David Duke was never going to win. Al Sharpton was never going to win. Ron Paul was never going to win. Ross Perot was never going to win as a third party candidate. None of those candidates had the billion dollars it takes to win the presidency. But Donald Trump can self-fund that amount tomorrow… and still have another billion left over to pour into the last two week stretch run before election day.

No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business and political elite understand that Donald Trump is no joke and could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy Donald. No this is a coordinated conspiracy led by President Barack Obama himself. Obama himself is making the phone calls and giving the orders–the ultimate intimidator who plays by the rules of Chicago thug politics.

Why is this so important to Obama? Because most of the other politicians are part of the “old boys club.” They talk big, but in the end they won’t change a thing. Why? Because they are all beholden to big money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, multi-national corporations like Big Pharma or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock stock and barrel by foreigners–like George Soros owns Obama, or foreign governments own Hillary with their Clinton Foundation donations.Indenification of Obama

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But one man–and only one man–isn’tbeholden to anyone. One man doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Autoworkers, or the Teachers Union, or the SEIU, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.

Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slavemasters.

Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why Boehner and McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet they’ve never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal Executive Action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

Well first, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs… or secretly gay… or stealing taxpayer money… the NSA knows everything.

Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money, from his own bank account. Trust me–the NSA, SEC, IRS and all the other 3-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They know everything.

Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called “racists.” So they are scared to ever criticize Obama, or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.

Fourth, why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a “good boy” you’ve got a $5 million dollar per year lobbying job waiting.

The big money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose… they win.

But Donald Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice cozy relationship between big government, big media and big business. All the rules are out the window if Donald wins the presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides. But not Donald.

Remember Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.

Now he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do–question our relationship with Mexico… question why the border is wide open… questioning why no wall has been built across the border… questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests… questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes yet are not deported… questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

  • Donald Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question.
  • I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michele Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare web sites. By the way that tab is now up to $5 billion.
  • Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. He will ask if Obama himself committed fraud when he said, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
  • Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records.
  • Trump will prosecute Hillary Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election.
  • How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?  

Truth The New Hate Speech

Obama, the multi-national corporations and the media need to stop this. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Donald could wake a sleeping giant.

Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Donald would dare to prosecute. Donald Trump will not hesitate. Once Donald gets in and gets a look at “the cooked books” and Obama’s records, the game is over. The gig is up. The goose is cooked.

  • Eric Holder could wind up in prison. 
  • Valerie Jarrett could wind up in prison. 
  • Obama bundler Jon Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
  • Hillary Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails… or accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State… or for “misplacing” $6 billion as head of State Department… or for lying about Benghazi.
  • The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison. Obamacare will be defunded and dismantled. The Obama Crime Family will be prosecuted for crimes against the American people. And Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters.

Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved… just for fun. That will all happen on Trump’s first day in the White House. Who knows what Donald will do on day #2?

That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump. That’s why we must all support Donald. This may be our only shot at saving America, uncovering the crimes committed against our nation and prosecuting all of those involved.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Wayne Allyn Root was a guy that went to Columbia University at the same time that Obama supposedly went.  He has written many great articles about Obama.  This article tells it the way it is! Sort of makes me like Trump more and more.  (But not quite there yet.)  He is a narcissist, mouthy and condescending, but this article really gives me reason to think about it from a different perspective!

 freedom combo 2


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/05/donald-trump-still-right-about-mexican-rapists/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Donald Trump: Still Right About Mexican Rapists

There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim’s illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico. 

“She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant — the family needed the stepdad’s paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face.”

Far from “I am woman, hear me roar,” these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as “my wild child.” She even criticized the girl’s older sisters for complaining about the young girl’s promiscuous clothing choices, saying — of an 11-year-old: “Well, she’s got the body, so leave her alone.”

  • In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)
  • That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: “Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.”)
    The Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez, raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl’s corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl’s extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica’s mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter’s, but never told anyone.
  • In 2014, Isidro Garcia was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the “Not Our Problem” file.
  • In 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio’s talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. “I have been here for many years,” Casarez told the judge — incongruously, through a translator. “That’s why,” he added, “I’ve been working instead of getting involved with problems.” Other than that one thing.
  • Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it’s not “anecdotal.” “Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member” isn’t your run-of-the-mill crime. It’s rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth — to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they’ll show up at the girl’s house — and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a “blessing.”

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke lacrosse players that didn’t happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.

freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted by    Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 8:55pm | 8/4/2015 – 8:55pm

URL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/gaza-2014-international-media-in-the-service-of-hamas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

Skewed reporting and newsroom bias served the interests of the Hamas propaganda machine.

Media For Hamas
On August 2, 2014, in the middle of the Gaza conflict, we ran the A.F. Branco cartoon that is the featured image to this post. It’s a fitting occasion to revisit the media bias that frames the international view of the 2014 Gaza conflict, as the fourth in our series looking back at our coverage. Our first three posts were:

As before, we are focusing on revisiting our contemporaneous coverage.

The international media is extremely sensitive to discussions of its bias, so much so that when, in June of 2015, the Israeli Foreign Ministry produced a comical short cartoon video poking fun at international media bias, the international media blew a gasket. The Foreign Ministry took down the video, though it was captured by others:

vid01

Was this unfair to the international media?

No, it was very fair, though overly simplified (just like the media’s coverage of Gaza). Our posts from the summer of 2014 reflected the media bias.

In that conflict, the media played a key role in covering up Hamas use of civilians as shields:

For example, this tweet exposing Hamas’ use of Gaza’s main hospital, Al-Shifa, was deleted:

nick casey deleted tweet

As was this article by a Palestinian journalist about his interrogation down the hall from the operating room in the same hospital:

Liberation Magazine You must leave Gaza Shifa Hospital removed

Liberation Magazine You must leave Gaza Shifa Hospital

Hamas bragged about its intimidation of reporters:

Hamas Spokeswoman Intimidate Reporters Gaza

This Finnish reporter accurately reported rocket fire from near Al-Shifa, but then complained when people reported about her report.

http://youtu.be/Nu-e5qWXx-k

It is noteworthy that although there is a mountain of evidence of Hamas using hospitals as cover, this Finnish reporter was the only, or one of the only, to do a broadcast from the location.

Another reporter disclosed how Hamas staged a blast scene it caused to make it appear Israel was at fault — but he only made the disclosure, in his words, when he was out of Gaza and far away from Hamas:

tw01

CAMERA discovered a Wall Street Journal reporter coming to the same conclusion as the Italian reporter, but then deleting the tweet:

wsj tamer el-ghobashy deleted tweet

The reporter later claimed he deleted it because it was speculative.

And that’s how it went. Key disclosures were not made, or deleted. An those that were made, were made only after reporters left Gaza. But by that time the narrative set by Hamas through the media had been set.

For example, this report by NDTV was released only after its reporters left Gaza:

vid02

And that was the problem.

It’s not that there was zero reporting, it’s that Hamas intimidation of reporters made such reporting the exception, rather than the rule, and pushed that reporting to an after-thought.

tw02

In an after-assessment, the Foreign Press Association in Israel (and not an organization that shrinks from criticizing Israel) decried Hamas’ “blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods” to intimidate journalists.

The result was an almost total lack of on-the-ground media coverage of Hamas’ war crimes, with the coverage of casualties caused by Israeli responses to Hamas rocket fire.

Without the first part of the equation — the use of civilians and civilian structures — the second part of the equation was out of context. It allowed anti-Israel propagandists to make ridiculous claims that Israel deliberately tried to kill civilians.

Reporting from Gaza thus served a critical role in the Hamas propaganda machine.  An al-Jazeera reporter was so valued by Hamas that when the final ceasefire was announced, he was lifted on shoulders in thanks:

vid03

The role of reporters on the ground was amplified by more traditional media bias against Israel in the form of selective framing of the conflict, including unquestioning acceptance of Hamas casualty reports claiming few military combatant deaths.

So yes, the international media did serve a critical role in the Hamas war machine.  International pressure resulting from civilian casualties is a critical part of the Hamas war plan, but reporting how Hamas was responsible for the casualties by hiding behind and among civilians would harm the narrative. And reporters, and the media generally, thereby became complicit.

freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch 08/04/2015

The Obama administration recently unveiled regulations further limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and some climate scientists are criticizing the rules for doing virtually nothing to reduce global temperature rises — the whole point of reducing CO2. “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”EPA-Chopper-590AEA

The EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan aims to reduce emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA has touted billions of dollars in public health and nebulous “climate benefits,” but avoids mention of the rule’s impact on global temperatures. Curry wasn’t alone in her criticism of the Obama administration’s global warming agenda, scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute criticized the plan for doing little for global temperature while increasing energy prices.

t01

The EPA, however, argues the Clean Power Plan alone is not meant to address global warming, but instead they say rule will galvanize global support for an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions. The Obama administration has gotten tentative agreements from China and Brazil to curb their greenhouse gas emissions, but they won’t make any immediate cuts.burke

The agency also justified the Clean Power Plan by claiming it would reduce asthma rates, which they say will be exacerbated by global warming. A White House fact sheet claims the rule will “avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, and prevent 300,000 missed work and school days.” But claims linking global warming and asthma rates are dicey. So far, there’s no strong link between increasing temperatures and asthma attacks. Cato scientists slammed EPA for making such claims.

t02

Indenification of Obama“The public health arguments are even weaker,” Curry wrote. “CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with asthma. Extreme weather events are not increasing with increased CO2; extreme weather events are dominated by natural climate variability. Particularly in the U.S., extreme weather was substantially worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s.”

“Trying to sell this plan as economic and public health issue is a ploy to develop political will for President Obama’s preferred energy policies,” Curry wrote.

Symbolism over substance Alinsky affect The Lower you go Demorates  freedom combo 2


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch;  08/04/2015

The Obama administration unveiled the linchpin of its global warming agenda Monday: a 1560-page regulation called the “Clean Power Plan.” The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The EPA claims the plan will benefit the economy and the environment by reducing asthma attacks, creating jobs in the green energy sector and showing the world the U.S. is committed to fighting global warming. All of this ahead of a major United Nations climate summit this winter.EPA Monster

Put simply, the new agenda is a massive undertaking, and one that’s already facing legal challenges from a coalition of states and the coal industry. There are going to be clear winners and losers with this rule. Red states, fossil fuel companies and even blue dog Democrats stand to lose out — not to mention all the families who will be hit with higher energy bills.

Is EPA Punishing Red States?

The EPA’s cuts to CO2 emissions could cost states billions of dollars in the coming decades. States are forced to find ways to cut emissions based on certain building blocks set forth by EPA. But this could be costly for energy-intensive states, like North Dakota, with grids and economies that rely on lots of coal power, and oil and natural gas production.

There’s another interesting dynamic underlying the EPA’s rules. The Daily Caller News Foundation examined the data and found that red states were among those hit with the biggest, and likely costliest, emissions reduction mandates.

Of the ten states with the biggest CO2 reduction mandates, eight are dominated by Republicans and only two are Democratic. On the flip side, the states with the lowest CO2 reduction mandates are overwhelmingly liberal — six are Democrat and only four are Republican.

TheDCNF looked at which party controlled each chamber of the state legislature and the governorship to determine control. For example, Republicans control both chambers of the South Dakota legislature and there’s a Republican governor. We considered that state Republican. On the other hand, Montana has a Democratic governor but a Republican-controlled legislature. We’d also consider that state Republican since two of the three groups looked at were GOP-controlled.

Republican states were among those that saw the highest increases in their CO2 mandates from the EPA’s proposal to the final rule, according to Politico Pro. Some 16 states had their emissions targets increased by the EPA, but the agency also loosened targets for 31 states.

Politico reported that while North Dakota “enjoyed the lowest emission reduction goal in the proposed rule,” the state “saw that goal more than quadruple in the final rule to 44.9 percent.”

“Other states saw significant increases in their goals as well. Montana’s goal increased by 26.3 percentage points to 47.4 percent. Iowa’s went up 25.4 points, to a 41.5 percent reduction. And Wyoming’s goal went up 25.3 points to a 44.3 percent reduction,” according to Politico.

“On the other hand, 24 states saw their goals reduced. Washington’s declined the most, down 34.6 percentage points to 37.2 percent,” Politico reported. “Oregon dropped 28.1 points to 20 percent, and New York went down 24.7 points to 19.5 percent.”

Before drawing too many conclusions, it’s worth noting that red states are likely being hurt the most because they rely more heavily on coal for their energy needs. These states also tend to be major energy producing states, like North Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.

States that rely too much on coal will have the toughest time complying with the Clean Power Plan because burning coal emits much more CO2 than burning natural gas. The EPA says it bases its reduction targets on what’s “achievable.” The agency sees coal-reliant states as having much more work to do when it comes to reducing emissions than states relying more on natural gas and green energy, as many Democrat-controlled states do.

The fact is that far more states saw their emissions targets reduced from the EPA’s proposal last year. Even so, states are still going to have a tough time complying with their targets no matter what since the Clean Power Plan essentially forces them to restructure their electricity markets and regulations.

Is This An Attack On Fracking?

The Clean Power Plan has also been seen as an attack on natural gas-fired power, which has been made economical due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of shale. The oil and gas industry is worried the EPA’s rule ignores the role natural gas can play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions — when burned for electricity, natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. The Financial Times reported that the “US shale gas is the unexpected loser from President Barack Obama’s climate plan, as the White House abandons its previous enthusiasm for natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal.”Indenification of Obama

In recent years, the U.S. has become the world’s largest producer of natural gas thanks to hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep underground to unlock hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations. But industry leaders fear EPA could harm the industry. “With the reported shift in the plan, we believe the White House is perpetuating the false choice between renewables and gas,” Martin Durbin, president of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, told Oil and Gas Journal. “We don’t have to slow the trend toward gas in order to effectively and economically use renewables.”EPA-Chopper-590AEA

Reports have come out, mainly with support from environmentalists and green energy backers, declaring the Clean Power Plan downplays natural gas’ role in reducing U.S. emissions. Instead, reports indicate the EPA is focusing on boosting green energy instead of gas. “With or without new regulations, gas will continue to grow as a critical source of clean energy, but EPA’s rule does more harm than good,” Howard Feldman with the American Petroleum Institute told OGJ.

Major natural gas producing states have also been hit with steep emissions targets mandated by the EPA. Texas, the country’s largest oil and gas producer, must reduce power plant emissions 33.5 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The state gets twice as much energy from natural gas as it does from coal.

Democratic-led Pennsylvania is also being hit with tough emissions reductions mandates from EPA. The state must reduce emissions 34.9 percent by 2030. Pennsylvania is now the country’s second-largest natural gas producer thanks to fracking in the Marcellus Shale. The state even gets 37 percent of its electricity from nuclear, while coal and natural gas each provide slightly less. EPA-torture-600-AEA-378x257

Blue Dog Dems Backstabbed By Obama

What’s probably most interesting about energy states being hit hard by the Clean Power Plan, is that many of them also sport Democratic lawmakers who are now put in a tough position.

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp called the rule a “slap in the face,” according to Politico Pro. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin criticized the rule for being “utterly unrealistic.” Both of these lawmakers opposed the rule since its proposal, but now their states are some of the hardest hit.

North Dakota and West Virginia were initially given some of the smallest state emissions reductions targets by the EPA. In June 2014, the EPA said North Dakota would only have to reduce emissions 10.6 percent and West Virginia 19.8 percent by 2030. Now these states have to make much deeper cuts than the EPA initially told them. “Our President and his Administration think our country can do without coal, and they are dead wrong. They are in denial,” Manchin said in a statement condemning the rule.

Montana Democrats, who originally supported the rule, are now reeling after the EPA announced the state would have to reduce emissions even more than was initially proposed by the agency last year. Montana now has one of the highest CO2 emissions reduction mandates of any state. Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock complained that the EPA “moved the goal post on us,” saying that while “we need to address climate change” but added that “how we do so has to work for Montana.” The Montana’s AFL-CIO branch actually planned a press call in support of the rule, according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, but it was cancelled after the union found out the EPA had increased the “reduction requirement.” The group called it a “gut punch.”

Even Democratic Sen. Jon Tester was cautious in his statement on the Clean Power Plan’s release, not condemning it but also not celebrating it being finalized. Tester told the Chronicle he needed “more time to review it to ensure it works for Montana and creates healthier communities and a stronger economy.”
freedom combo 2


waving flagWritten by Allen West on August 5, 2015

Obama-sinister
If there is one thing absolutely true about the liberal progressive left, it is the fact that they hate the truth, and will doggedly attack anyone using it against them. Truth The New Hate Speech

We are watching the left do its darndest to defend the indefensible, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — always beware when politicians use the word “comprehensive” — which is the official name of the Iranian nuclear agreement. Funny thing, it says “joint,” but the Iranians are telling the Americans we cannot take part in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections — and it has been revealed that there are secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran. The Iranian emissary to the IAEA stated that the terms will not be disclosed to any other country — so much for “joint.”Party of Deciet and lies

And the left is all in an apoplectic uproar because Senator Ted Cruz called out President Obama on the Iranian deal. As reported by Politico, “According to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is essentially financing terrorism. And he’s not backing down after the president called his comments “outrageous.” 

“If this deal is consummated, it will make the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during a round table [last] Tuesday. “Billions of dollars under control of this administration will flow into the hands of jihadists who will use that money to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans.” muslim-obama

What I find “outrageous” is that President Barack Obama would refer to Senator Cruz’s assertion as “outrageous”. So what DO you call it when you are the president of America and you threaten a veto against the U.S. Congress if it does not consent to the JCPOA that releases billions of dollars to the world’s number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism?

I know, we just have to sit back and allow the Emperor — who truly has no clothes — do whatever he wishes, including funding a militant Islamic theocratic regime that chants “Death to America?” I know, all my leftist supporters believe Iran and the ayatollahs are just kidding.Indenification of Obama

And why take the word of Senator Cruz, or even someone like myself who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows the terrorist support and influences of Iran? Nah, my assessment is worthless in light of Barack Obama and all his vast experience in Middle East community organizing.

However, what about the word of someone who has intimate knowledge of the terrorist activity and support of Iran against our men and women in the Middle East? Now, in full disclosure, the person to whom I am referring was once a Commanding Officer of mine in the 4th Infantry Division when I was an Artillery Battalion commander.

As written in the Weekly Standard by Lieutenant General Michael Barbero (US Army, Retired), “One man was responsible for the deaths or injuries of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. That same man is responsible for sowing sectarian conflict today in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And yet, in the nuclear deal with Iran, this man, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qassem Suleimani, will have sanctions lifted against him. Indeed, he will receive a large infusion of cash to wreak more havoc and terror. Obama Muslim collection

Having served in Iraq, having experienced first-hand his proxy operations against American forces, and having lost men to Gen. Suleimani’s terror operations, I find this offensive. Preventing a nuclear Iran is a critical national security objective. We should seize any real chance of achieving this goal diplomatically. Whether the agreement negotiated in Vienna, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands is a question that should be vigorously debated.

But it is appalling that we would agree to lift sanctions on a known terrorist in pursuit of this nuclear deal. President Obama claims to be under no illusions about the Iranian regime and its murderous activities. Even in defending the JCPOA, he has admitted that, “we’ll still have problems with Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism: its funding of proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and threaten the region, the destabilizing activities that they’re engaging in, including in places like Yemen.” Behind all these problems stands one organization, and behind that organization, one man. Within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force is responsible for special operations, including training, arming, and giving instructions to the terrorists, insurgents, and proxies that Iran uses to spread chaos across the Middle East. The head of the Quds Force is Major General Qassem Suleimani.

Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Quds Force mobilized and trained Shiite militias within Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans. This proxy campaign against United States forces was abetted by a particularly lethal weapon: explosively formed projectiles (EFPs). A form of roadside bomb with a sophisticated triggering mechanism and the ability to penetrate American armor, EFPs were estimated to account for 20 percent of U.S. deaths. And they came from only one place. “We knew where all the factories were in Iran.” General Stanley McChrystal, then head of the Joint Special Operations Command, told the New Yorker. “The E.F.P.s killed hundreds of Americans.”

I’ve spoken about the EFPs previously in interviews and on this website. So I must ask, what part of President Barack Obama financing Islamic terrorism do you NOT understand? What is confusing about what LTG Barbero just stated? If anyone knows, LTG Barbero does, because he served 46 months over three combat tours in Iraq, including serving as the senior operations officer in Iraq during the surge. And LTG Barbero also served as the Commanding General of JIEDDO (Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization). So if there’s anyone who knows the IEDs and from whence they come, it is my former Assistant Division Commander, LTG Barbero. Then again, why listen to him, especially when you have General Valerie Jarrett and all her vast experience in combat operations and the Iranian influence — the country of her birth.

If you want to draw a parallel, consider the Iranian Quds force the same as the Nazi SS during World War II. They are just that vicious and murderous, devoid of any sense of humanity. This is the organization which will be the recipient of Obama’s billions of dollars of goodwill. And please, again, do not give me the surrender monkey song about the only other alternative is war. Guess what Einsteins? Iran and the Quds force have been at war with America, and as LTG Barbero states, 20 percent of US deaths in Iraq came at the hands of Iran — chances are thousands were maimed.against America

So to all the liberal progressive leftists, take your unrighteous indignation elsewhere. Senator Ted Cruz was correct in his assertion and I know that facts and truth are to liberal progressives as sunlight is to vampires. However, it is time we stop trying to create some fantasy world surrounding this abhorrent acquiescence called the JCPOA.

ObamabotBarack Obama has signed an agreement with the same folks responsible for the deaths and maiming of Americans. Iran has continued to state that nothing changes in their relationship and position towards the United States. Perhaps those inane Hollywood talking heads who were mouthpieces for Obama and this Iranian agreement should visit one of the families who lost their loved ones to an Iranian EFP. Look into the eyes of the children who lost a mom or dad and tell them, we need to release billions of dollars to the crazed clerics in black robes.Obamabot Army

You want to know what is truly “outrageous?” The fact that the President of the United States is more concerned about his insidious and delusional legacy than honoring the men and women who carry the scars or lost their lives because of Iran. Yes, he is content to allow this to happen.

The U.S .Code refers to actions of aiding and abetting the enemy, as well as providing material support and comfort…releasing billions of dollars in unfrozen assets to Iran is in complete violation of U.S. Code. Iran is the enemy and Obama is financing the enemy. I know what that’s called. Do you?freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud