I don't know the author but still this works for me. Everyone needs a job. Here is a suggestion for Hillary's future, one that would allow President-Elect Trump to show a true bi-partisan approach! Make Hillary Clinton Ambassador to Libya and station her at Benghazi. If things don't work out - well, at that point, what difference would it make?
The author is on the mark here except I believe when the author thinks Kerry's speech showed 'tunnel vision' on the subject of Palestinian and Israeli peace. It is true that Kerry's vision was terrible flawed, but it is much worse the just 'tunnel vision'.
Hardly - this is just ideology from the White House and Kerry as a puppet on a string making him dance to the tune of Barack's religious jihad for transformation. Why would anyone believe that Barack's move at the UN isn't just another stage in the depraved and ludicrous Iranian Nuclear deal, to give the Mullahs in Iran another club to beat back any opposition. Kerry's speech and UN vote was to ensure the final stages of middle east domination by the Iranians and to cement Barack's legacy of perpetual world terror, not only in the middle east, but everywhere there is civilized societies.
And Kerry is telling us to believe he and Barack have no intention off further chaos at the UN? We may be crazy, but we are not stupid!
Barack is proud to have such a legacy that brings terror to American and the destruction of Israel and the Jews. What other reason could Barack have for doing nothing to stem the killing in Chicago and else where of blacks? And why would he foster such division between the races other then to cause chaos and hatred between whites, blacks and Hispanics?
And why is Barack's focus laser like on making sure the Iranians become all powerful at the expense of all others? Why reek havoc on Iran's neighbors, the Arab states?
This is the very foundation of Barack's religious jihad for transformation and it's not new. This was the plan from his earliest days at his fathers knee. Barack believes, as his father did, the world is unfair and needs to fundamentally changed.
Welcome to the ''New World Order" of the complaint, obedient and subservient ideology.
John Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech James Phillips /
Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a detailed speech Wednesday defending the Obama administration’s recent abstention on a U.N. Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.
Kerry claimed that the decision to permit the passage of the one-sided resolution was aimed at “preserving the two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which “is now in serious jeopardy.”
The 70-minute long lamentation amounted to a passionate defense of his own failed diplomatic efforts to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Kerry proposed six principles that should guide future negotiations, including secure borders for both Israeli and a Palestinian state, a “fair and realistic” solution to the question of Palestinian refugees, and designating Jerusalem as an “internationally recognized capital of the two states.” Billed as a “comprehensive vision” of Arab-Israeli peace, Kerry’s speech boiled down to a jeremiad against Israeli settlers, whose “agenda is defining the future in Israel.”
Kerry assumed a high-minded moralistic tone that was detached from reality. He focused obsessively on settlements as impediments to peace while glossing over the harmful role played by Palestinian terrorism, the continuing incitement of the Palestinian Authority, and the failure of Palestinians to abide by their commitments under the Oslo peace accords.
Kerry’s tunnel vision regarding the settlements, and his paying only lip service to Israeli security needs, were major reasons for the failure of his diplomatic efforts to jump-start the long-stalled peace talks.
Kerry failed to mention that when Israel did freeze settlement expansion for 10 months during the Obama administration’s first term, no progress was made on peace negotiations because the Palestinians ruled out any concessions. Moreover, settlements can be dismantled if necessary to reach a peace agreement.
Israel removed all of its settlers in Gaza and turned over the territory to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. The move backfired when Hamas staged a bloody coup to expel the Palestinian Authority in 2007 and transformed Gaza into a terrorist base for destroying Israel. As long as Hamas retains a stranglehold on Gaza, there is no realistic chance for a stable Israeli-Palestinian peace. Yet rather than focus on defeating Hamas militants who reject peace negotiations and even Israel’s right to exist, the Obama administration has chosen to chastise Israel at the U.N.
Kerry’s speech comes during a historic low point in U.S.-Israeli bilateral relations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused the U.S. of colluding with the Palestinians by allowing last week’s resolution to be adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Kerry denied that “somehow the United States was the driving force behind this resolution.”
Israel is concerned that the Security Council resolution is a harbinger of more anti-Israeli actions at the United Nations, which has a long history of siding against Israel.
France plans to host an international conference attended by 70 countries next month to endorse an international framework for Mideast peace. Israeli officials worry that the conference’s recommendations may then be enshrined in another U.N. Security Council resolution before Obama leaves office on Jan. 20.
At a time when Russia and Iran are slaughtering thousands of civilians in Syria and ISIS continues to inflict carnage, it is unseemly that the Obama administration has gone out of its way to censure, isolate, and undermine Israel, a longtime ally.
Kerry’s speech is one more reminder that the Obama administration, even in its waning days, remains much more concerned about engaging adversaries than it is about alienating allies.
Its self-righteous tendency to lecture and berate friends while accommodating adversaries, such as Iran and Cuba, is a major reason that its foreign policy has been such a disaster.
If you are interested in finding out what is actually going in the insanity of ''man-made Climate change'' criminal activity, this is a good place to start. It's a little long but it will carry you to the end.
It is my contention that these states attorneys general and the others that are involved in the ''RICO 20'' climate change attack on a rational civil society, is unhinged, debased, unethical and immoral in their assumptions that mankind could actually cause the destruction of our planet. It is pathological.
I believe, given that they know their collective information is managed to obtain a certain outcome that will benefit them personally with taxpayer funds, and conspicuous control of much of the populations activates, the climate changers can be identified as domestic terrorist.
Know this as well, researched information brings power to the discussion so truth and understanding can be revealed. As the saying goes, ''Know the truth and it will set you free''. But to deny the truth dooms you to the darkness of self deception and ignorance. Not a good place to be.
The California Gathering That Hatched Plan to Prosecute Skeptics of Climate Change Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC /
Just before joining climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore for a press conference in New York City, seven state-level attorneys general huddled with a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The political activist, Peter Frumhoff, called for them and other elected officials to move decisively against major corporations and institutions for “denying” climate change.
The seeds of that call to action in March were planted four years earlier at a gathering of environmental activists, trial lawyers, and academics across the country in San Diego.
The Daily Signal found this and other revealing bits of information among material produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against Virginia’s George Mason University, home to six academics who urged the Obama administration to prosecute individuals and organizations for not agreeing that man has caused climate change.
The detail is important because Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, demanded that 17 state attorneys general who call themselves “AGs United for Clean Energy” provide documents on interactions among their offices—and with various environmental organizations.
Such details obtained through the lawsuit “reveal the incestuous relationship between climate change activists and partisan state attorneys general,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. He added:
They are subverting our democratic system by using the courts to silence the opposition to their economically costly, unneeded policy solutions for an unproven scientific theory. Americans should be outraged by this abuse of governmental powers by the chief law enforcement officials of these states.
Smith’s letters to the attorneys general refer to the meeting held in June 2012 in California and billed as a Workshop on Climate Accountability, Public Opinion, and Legal Strategies. A total of 23 environmental activists, trial lawyers, and academics came together in the seaside San Diego neighborhood of La Jolla to devise a “strategy to fight industry in the courts” over climate change, the House committee chairman says in the letters.
Another goal of the meeting was to find ways to confront what attendees described as a “network of public relations firms and nonprofit front groups that have been actively sowing disinformation about global warming for years.” According to a summary of the La Jolla gathering, the activists came up with the idea of using the federal law known as RICO—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—against the fossil fuel industry. Congress passed RICO in 1978 for the purpose of prosecuting mob crimes. In recent months, though, climate change activists have sought to use it against organizations, corporations, and scientists that aren’t convinced human activity is responsible for catastrophic climate change.
Early on in the workshop, Richard Ayres, a Washington lawyer who is a co-founder and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, first mentioned the RICO tactic as a possible weapon against fossil fuel. Ayres’ environmental organization is a well-endowed, tax-exempt advocacy group headquartered in New York City. Public records show it had financial assets of $268.1 million as of 2013.
Reached by telephone Tuesday by The Daily Signal, Ayres said the meeting “was a long time ago” and declined comment. Other workshop attendees included Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, who met with the attorneys general in New York in March, and Matthew Pawa, an environmental activist and trial attorney who founded the Global Warming Legal Action project.
The Big Tobacco Analogy
A 36-page document, “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages,” outlines the business of the workshop held June 14 and 15, 2012, in La Jolla. Those attending took inspiration from successful litigation efforts directed against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. But, according to the summary, they acknowledged that a similar legal strategy against fossil fuel companies “would present a number of different obstacles and opportunities.” By opportunities, they meant litigation.
The summary notes “widespread agreement among workshop participants” that some form of “cancer analog” for global warming, such as rising sea levels, must be established. Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University who played a key role in organizing the workshop, is quoted in the workshop summary as saying: “When I talk to my students I always say tobacco causes lung cancer, esophageal cancer, mouth cancer. … My question is: What is the ‘cancer’ of climate change that we need to focus on?”
The documents on tobacco litigation are collected in a searchable, online repository called the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, the summary notes. Workshop attendee Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, runs the project. In response to an email from The Daily Signal requesting comment, Glantz said he was “struck by the parallels” between the public relations tactics of the oil industry and the tobacco companies. He said:
The pattern of quietly financing public relations efforts and small ‘independent’ groups of scientists in order to confuse the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence linking human activities—including energy consumption using Exxon Mobil—while privately using high-quality, accurate science that recognizes global warming to make internal business decisions is precisely the behavior pattern that got the tobacco companies into so much trouble for defrauding the public. The oil industry also uses a lot of the same individuals and organizations as the tobacco industry. Such manipulation of science to defraud the public was a central element of the RICO case [against the tobacco industry].
Contrary to what some environmentalists tell the public, however, skeptics of man-made climate change argue that the analogy between tobacco use and climate change does not hold.
Theories linking human activity with global warming, they say, are in dispute. In fact, hundreds of climate scientists from across the globe have contributed to reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which calls itself an “international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars, who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.”
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was set up as a rejoinder to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also known as the IPCC, which has produced reports promoting the idea that human activity drives catastrophic climate change.
In contrast, the nongovernmental group of scientists finds no consensus, no basis for predictions of future climate conditions, and no case for forcing a transition away from fossil fuels. The organization’s reports demonstrate that an increasing number of scientists say natural variability, not human activity, is the primary driver of warming and cooling trends. In 2008, it joined with the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank based in Illinois, to produce a report entitled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”
‘It’s All About the Money’
Four years after the meeting in La Jolla, Frumhoff gave a presentation in New York to the seven state attorneys general on the “imperative of taking action now on climate change” just before they held their March 29 press conference with Gore. That same morning, Pawa’s law office briefed the attorneys general on climate change litigation.
Chris Horner, a lawyer and senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian and free-market think tank based in Washington, late last year filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against George Mason University that produced email records highlighting coordination among environmental activists and the 17 state attorneys general.
As reported previously by The Daily Signal, 20 academics from across the country who specialize in climate change, including the six from George Mason University, signed a letter dated Sept. 1, 2015, asking the Obama administration to consider pursuing a federal racketeering investigation against “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.” They addressed the letter to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The “RICO 20,” as the academics came to be known, argued that “corporations and other organizations … knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The writers credited Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for proposing use of the racketeering law against such climate skeptics. But in reality, the idea originated with the La Jolla workshop more than three years earlier.
The Union of Concerned Scientists played a critical role in organizing the 2012 meeting, notes Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a conservative educational group. “The Union of Concerned Scientists has a long history of left-wing activism,” Arnold said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “It was informally founded but not incorporated in 1969 as an anti-Vietnam War protest group by students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” The organization, which incorporated in 1973, had assets of $46.5 million as of 2014.
The 2012 meeting on climate change was simply an extension of the scientists’ involvement in “numerous far-left causes,” Arnold said:
When you take a hard look at this workshop, you will find it really has nothing to do with global warming. Instead, it’s all about the money, it’s all about big legal settlements.
A Threat to Free Speech
The coalition called AGs United for Clean Energy, also dubbed the “Green 20,” made its official debut during the press conference with Gore. All the original members are Democrats except Claude E. Walker of the Virgin Islands, an independent. The stated objective of the coalition of attorneys general is to “defend climate change progress made under President Obama.”
To this end, some of the prosecutors subpoenaed documents, communications, and research aimed at acquiring the work material of more than 100 academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and individual scientists, according to Smith’s House committee.
In his correspondence with the state officials, the Texas congressman expressed concern that their tactics undermined free speech and stifled meaningful scientific debate at the expense of the public interest, which, he noted, government attorneys should work to uphold. Smith also sent letters to eight environmental activist groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, asking for “documents related to the groups’ coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists, and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.”
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey continue to press ahead with investigations of Exxon Mobil Corp. But not everyone else in the coalition seems to be on board with the tactics congressional critics view as a violation of free speech. In fact, not every prosecutor who initially identified himself or herself with the coalition in March appears to be part of it today. The Energy and Environment Legal Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit also known as E&E Legal, recently released a batch of emails suggesting the “Green 20” was beginning to fray around the edges.
Delaware’s attorney general, Matthew Denn, has withdrawn from the coalition. The attorneys general of Virginia, Vermont, and Iowa—Mark Herring, William Sorrell, and Tom Miller—all expressed reservations in one form or another. Walker, the Virgin Islands attorney general, decided to withdraw his subpoena against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the libertarian think tank in Washington.
Walker had asked for CEI to turn over its work on climate change over the past decade. In turn, CEI asked the District of Columbia Superior Court to fine Walker for violating its First Amendment rights under the District’s law against bullying lawsuits, as well as for attorneys’ fees and other sanctions.
Resisting Congressional Subpoenas
E&E Legal describes itself as devoted to strategic litigation, policy research, and public education. Chaim Mandelbaum, a Virginia lawyer representing the organization, told The Daily Signal that he suspects that the negative media attention on the relationship between the state attorneys general and green pressure groups prompted some of the elected officials to rethink their position. Continued congressional scrutiny has backed the “Green 20” into a defensive position, Mandelbaum said.
Smith issued subpoenas to New York’s Schneiderman, Massachusetts’ Healey, and the eight environmental groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Climate Accountability Institute, Rockefeller Family Fund, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Pawa Law Group, Greenpeace, the Climate Reality Project, and 350.org.
So far, all have resisted the congressional subpoenas.
“From the moment man-made global warming was elevated to a problem requiring ‘urgent’ action, the political class has used the issue to increase its power and wealth.” —@NationalCenter’s Bonner Cohen
E&E Legal is pursuing Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin as well as Schneiderman over their use of a “secrecy pact” describing how they intended to silence climate change skeptics and conceal their actions from the public.
In related developments, E&E Legal joined several New York citizens groups in an effort to shake loose records detailing any coordination between the New York attorney general and Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist and major donor to the Democratic Party. Most recently, E&E Legal filed an open records suit against Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, asking for “portions of correspondence with and about ringleader New York AG Eric Schneiderman’s office.” The suit also seeks information from Herring about “outside advisers.”
A federal judge in Texas ordered Healey to appear Dec. 13 in a Dallas court to answer questions about her investigation of Exxon Mobil. But the day before, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade canceled his order, which Healey had vowed to resist. Kinkeade instead gave Healey and lawyers for Exxon Mobil until Jan. 4 to submit briefs on why or why not the deposition should take place in Texas, the Boston Herald reported.
Democrat AGs, Green Groups Defy Subpoenas on Coordinated Climate Efforts
“We see a substantial amount of collusion going on,” E&E Legal’s Mandelbaum told The Daily Signal, citing meetings between the state attorneys general and the Union of Concerned Scientists prior to the press conference with Gore. Mandelbaum also said calendar entries indicate Pawa, the trial lawyer who founded Global Warming Legal Action, met with the attorneys general and gave them information suggesting Exxon Mobil has concealed facts about climate change. Mandelbaum said:
There’s a lot of evidence showing these outside groups are presenting the [attorneys general] with information that says Exxon Mobil is hiding information, when there is no evidence that this is true. It’s clear these outside [environmental] groups have been driving this agenda and trying to get the attorneys general to take some kind of action. We are talking about extremely open-ended investigations that are political and not really legal.
‘Alarmists Have Never Succeeded’
Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Daily Signal that he sees vast differences between what occurred with the tobacco industry years ago and the scientific realities of climate change—what activists used to call global warming.
“The 1963 surgeon general’s report linking cigarette smoking to a higher risk of lung cancer was a scientific finding, plain and simple, one which has withstood the test of time,” Cohen said, adding:
Unlike ‘climate change,’ originally labeled ‘global warming,’ the surgeon general’s report was never a part of a larger political agenda. From the moment man-made global warming was elevated to a problem requiring ‘urgent’ action at a well-orchestrated Senate hearing in 1988, the political class in the U.S. and elsewhere has used the issue to increase its power and wealth.
Yet despite numerous international conferences, congressional hearings, untold billions of taxpayer dollars spent on climate ‘research,’ the blatant manipulation of data, and a vast PR campaign, alarmists have never succeeded in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between man-made greenhouse gases and a warming of the planet.
Cohen continued:
Such a relationship was established—and never seriously disputed—regarding the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Alarmists have tacitly acknowledged this by claiming that the ‘science is settled on climate change.’ It isn’t, and they know it, but they want to snuff out all debate on the subject so we can get on to the important business of eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy. The ultimate goal is to have a self-appointed mandarin class of transnational bureaucrats dictate how energy is to be rationed globally. This is a far cry from warning people about the dangers of smoking.
The Daily Signal repeatedly sought comment from Oreskes by phone and email, but she has not responded. The summary of the 2012 workshop proceedings makes it clear she was among key organizers. For example, Page 2 says:
The workshop was conceived by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego [since removed to Harvard University], Peter C. Frumhoff and Angela Ledford Anderson of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, and Lewis M. Branscomb of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Oreskes also is a co-founder of the Climate Accountability Institute, where she and Frumhoff serve on an advisory board. The tax-exempt organization, incorporated in 2011 in Snowmass, Colorado, reported assets of $31,579 as of 2014.
The Daily Signal sought comment from spokesmen for the Union of Concerned Scientists by phone and email, but the organization has not responded. Heede, a co-founder and director of the Climate Accountability Institute, was reached briefly by telephone but declined to comment. Branscomb, professor emeritus of public policy and corporate management at Harvard and research associate at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, declined comment. Neither Frumhoff nor Anderson, director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, could be reached for comment.
In June, Oreskes delivered testimony before a panel of the Congressional Democratic Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal lawmakers in Congress, underscoring the Harvard professor’s leading role in the campaign of the attorneys general targeting skeptics of man-made climate change.
Arnold, the Center for Defense of Freedom vice president, said:
The testimony from Oreskes revealed that Schneiderman had been conducting his inquisition against Exxon Mobil long before reports surfaced alleging the company hid information related to global warming. Ironically, Exxon Mobil sent the [New York] attorney general mountains of material and showed that all its science had been published in peer review journals, thus had been available to the public all the time. That didn’t stop Schneiderman, who was obviously operating a political crusade, not a criminal investigation.
Donors behind the 2012 workshop on climate change accountability also were acknowledged on Page 2 of the summary: “This workshop was made possible by the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, and the Martin Johnson House at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.” The Johnson House, where the activists gathered, is an oceanfront cottage used by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a department of University of California, San Diego.
The assets propelling the three named foundations amount to more than half a billion dollars—$608.5 million—according to tax documents for 2013: $89.3 million for the Rasmussen Foundation; $125.1 million for the Gilmore Foundation; and $394.1 million for the Grantham Foundation.
“Combined with the assets behind the many funders of all the workshop’s participants, the financial clout represented here is many billions of influential dollars,” Arnold said.
[Oreskes] knew of the huge payoff from the tobacco case settlement [in 1998] that gave University of California professor Stanton Glantz his own institute within the university, the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Glantz was a participant in the La Jolla meeting, [and] talked about his involvement in the tobacco cases.
Subsequently, Oreskes was a participant in New York Attorney General Schneiderman’s RICO campaign where she informed the coalition members of the content of her book and her book’s research into the tobacco cases.
The Daily Signal specified Arnold’s remarks about her in seeking comment from Oreske, but the Harvard professor has not responded. Glantz did offer a rejoinder to Arnold, saying in an email to The Daily Signal that he didn’t have “formal involvement in the tobacco cases” and was not a witness. He said he did “from time to time provide information and answer questions from some of the lawyers.”
“So, your source has it wrong,” he told The Daily Signal, “which is not surprising since ‘climate skeptics’ either don’t understand or ignore the science on global warming.” Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
Young men trying to cope with a possible mental disease .
As we become more aware of the problems that progressive liberalism brings to society, primarily due to lurid and sinister campaign of Hillary Clinton and her segregates in the democrat collective, young men are now starting to understand what is at stake for their futures, and are now beginning to make important decisions that will effect them for the rest of their lives.
It is ''settled science'' where more then 99.9% of all phycologists believe that only a few are ever able to escape this disease that effects the brain, especially that portion that is used to make coherent decisions. Studies have shown that those that are closest to these young men and women are virtually the only ones that can change the dynamic's of an infestation of compliant liberalism.
Social scientists also believe that if these decisions are not made at an early stage in life, to take control of what they are subjected to in the way of information, the result will a mental disease that will cripple them to such a point that trying to incorporate common sense and logic in a civil discussion will impossible.
The glaring proof of this is what we are seeing on so many college campuses, what went on in our streets and what we saw on television after Donald Trump was elected our next president of the United States.
The healing of mind and body are now possible, but only time will tell if the medicine that has been injected into our nation will be enough to bring our brightest and best back into the light of reality.
This is a little on the naughty side, but hey, we're all adults here, right? So enjoy this conversation between the sexes and what it all means for the rest of us. heh
A couple were at the bar taking about the weather when the lady decides to change the subject - And having already downed a few power drinks she turned around, faces him, looks him straight in the eye and says, "Listen here good looking I will screw anybody, anytime, anywhere, their place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up,sitting down, naked or with clothes on... It doesn't matter to me. I just love it." His eyes now are wide open with interest and he responds,"No kidding?” “I'm in Government too…are you federal or state”?
Again, it's a criminal activity on the part of government democrats. It called ''money laundering''. The department of energy gives $billons of dollars to high risk operations like solar and wind projects that the energy department knows before hand will fail. And when they do fail, as nearly all have, the operations are shut down. And as a result the taxpayer dollars are lost, except of course for the dollars that were returned to democrat campaign coffers (off the top) as ''legitimate'' contribution.
Over the last 8 years, 10's of $billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent and lost just to feed he progressive agenda and ideology of green renewable energy.
What Rick Perry Could Do to Prevent Future Solyndras Nicolas Loris /@NiconomistLoris/
Departing Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has announced a conditional loan guarantee for a fossil fuel project—a blatant, taxpayer-backed subsidy of up to $2 billion for Lake Charles Methanol, LLC.
Such federal government meddling in the energy sector is the exact wrong approach to America’s energy policy.
By contrast, incoming Energy Secretary Rick Perry has called for the abolition of the Department of Energy. A good place to start would be the abolition of the loan guarantee program. The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program provides taxpayer-backed loans to politically favored clean technologies that are “typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks.” Lake Charles Methanol, for example, is building the world’s first methanol plant using carbon capture technology for enhanced oil recovery.
The risk involved is likely a factor increasing their financing costs. Too much risk is often a reason why projects do not receive financial backing. Or, companies may have better options for their investment dollars. There’s a long list of reasons why projects do or don’t receive investment funding, but it’s not a legitimate function of government to fill the void for projects that do not.
The Department of Energy’s loan program is a double-edged sword for the American economy. Either the government subsidizes likely-to-fail projects, thus throwing away taxpayer dollars, or they provide corporate welfare, keeping politically favored activities alive while diminishing the innovative role of the entrepreneur and private investment. It’s a lose-lose proposition.
In the first case, the federal government has lent out taxpayer dollars to projects that could not survive even with policies trying to prop up favored technologies. Solyndra is the poster child for the government’s failure as an investment banker, but the loan program has several other black eyes with other currently struggling companies.
In the second case, the Department of Energy has awarded money to very profitable, well-established companies. In fact, some of the more successful projects in the agency’s loan portfolio have backing from some of the largest companies and financiers in the world. Neither these nor any other companies should be allowed to hedge their bets on the backs of taxpayers. If they’re willing to risk some of their own money, they should pony up the full amount if they truly believe the technology is promising and worth the risk.
In almost every instance, the company receiving the loan guarantee also stands to benefit from the plethora of federal, state, and local subsidies at their disposal. Their current and long-term success depends on more subsidies. Whether the company ultimately succeeds financially or goes belly up, the policy itself is a loser.
At the bottom of the heap are American entrepreneurs competing against the gargantuan federal government for investment. Because capital is in limited supply, a dollar loaned to a government-backed project will not be available for another project.
This means that the higher-risk, higher-reward companies that drive innovation and bring new services and technologies into the marketplace may not get support, while companies with strong political connections or those that produce something that politicians find appealing will get support.
During his eight-year tenure in office, President Barack Obama railed against fossil fuel subsidies, some of which weren’t even subsidies but broadly available tax credits.
In discussing the elimination of oil subsidies in his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama said, “It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable.” But now he’s risking taxpayer dollars for a fossil fuel project as he walks out the door. The next administration should do as Obama said, not as he did—the federal government shouldn’t be dolling out taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel industry, or any energy technology for that matter.
We have a robust energy market that efficiently supplies Americans with their energy needs. If we want to drain the swamp, Congress and the next administration need to drain the Department of Energy’s investment bank account.
That progressive liberal democrats disregarded the law doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. The new wave progressive democrats believe they are exempted from the law as witnessed by Barack that believes he is not restricted to performing his job according to the Constitution, he believes he can do what ever he wants, all he needs use an executive order or is to speak and therefore it's the law. petty crimes and misdemeanors
Little wonder why then many democrats seem to believe they to are above the law.And with the media willing to turn a blind eye to them, all is well.
Labor Secretary’s Bid to Lead Democrats Comes Under Legal Scrutiny Fred Lucas /@FredLucasWH/
Labor Secretary Tom Perez is campaigning actively to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, prompting a watchdog group to investigate whether he has violated a law prohibiting federal government employees from engaging in partisan politics while on the job.
Two other Cabinet-level department heads in the Obama administration previously were found to have broken the law, called the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, limits political activities by federal employees to ensure they do their taxpayer-funded work in a nonpartisan way and protects employees from partisan retaliation by a supervisor. Breaking this law is an administrative violation, not a criminal act, with discipline ranging from a warning to removal.
Labor Department spokeswoman Mattie M. Zazueta said Perez was careful not to violate the law.
“Before deciding to run for DNC chair, Secretary Perez sought counsel from [the Labor Department’s] counsel for ethics, who informed him that it would be permissible for him to run while still serving as secretary,” Zazueta told The Daily Signal. Robert M. Sadler is the department’s counsel for ethics.
Zazueta added:
The Hatch Act allows federal employees to be a candidate for and serve as an officer in a political party. Secretary Perez is always extremely careful to follow the law and all rules associated with political activity, and takes the appropriate measures to keep any political activity separate from his official duties. He will continue to do so in this situation.
But Cause of Action Institute, a conservative government watchdog group, last week filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for all communications by Perez with voting members of the party organization, including emails, text messages, and voicemails. “The law is clear: Public officials paid by taxpayers cannot use their position to engage in political activities,” Henry Kerner, assistant vice president of Cause of Action Institute, said in a public statement. “The Obama administration’s unprecedented history of Hatch Act violations threatens to undermine this important protection. Americans have a right to know if [Secretary] Perez used taxpayer-funded resources to further his own political campaign.”
Running for office within a party structure possibly wouldn’t be a violation of the Hatch Act, but soliciting support for a campaign could be, according to rules from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent government agency that investigates possible Hatch Act violations. Cabinet secretaries officially are always on the clock. So, mixing politics with what is not supposed to be political would constitute a violation.
Politico reported that Perez “emailed all neutral and supportive party chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors” and asked the Democrat activists to join him on a conference call. The portion of the Office of Special Counsel website devoted to “frequently asked questions” on the Hatch Act says: “A federal employee cannot send or forward a partisan political email from either his government email account or his personal email account (even using a personal device) while at work.”
The Democratic National Committee will select a leader in February. Perez is challenging Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.
Perez is mounting something of a grassroots campaign, while Ellison has the backing of prominent Democrats such as the Senate’s new top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York. In July, the Office of Special Counsel found that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president during an interview with Yahoo News in HUD’s TV studio about housing policy.
President Barack Obama opted not to take disciplinary action against Castro.
The Office of Special Counsel earlier determined that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act during the 2012 presidential race when she told a major LGBT advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, during a speech in North Carolina that it was “hugely important” to re-elect Obama. Obama took no action against Sebelius, who resigned in April 2014.
While on the job, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis raised money for Obama’s re-election campaign. However, by the time audio recordings about her fundraising surfaced, Solis already had resigned from the Cabinet position.
The Hatch Act generally applies to merit-based civil service employees, who may be disciplined by their supervisor with a warning, a formal reprimand, administrative leave, and even termination,
Office of Special Counsel spokesman Nick Schwellenbach told The Daily Signal. If a question arises about a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, the Office of Special Counsel sends its finding to the president, who determines whether discipline is warranted.
Ted Cruz has this exactly right. Never mind that Clarence Thomas is competent and a superior legal mind that has added creditability to the Supreme Court in a time when some of the decisions that have come from this august body have been tainted by politics.
Yet the larger community of progressives at the Smithsonian have decided Justice Thomas is not fit to be recognized as a competent member of the high court, and that his background or rising from hard times to become of member of this court is irrelevant because he is seen and understood to be a Conservative, that is, Justice Thomas believes the Constitution of the United States unimpeachable and is the law of the land.
For progressive socialist liberals, this is unacceptable behavior and must be shown he is 'out of step' with what the progressives understand as the 'new world order' of centralized authority. Of the people and by the people is no longer seen by progressives as relevant.
Clarence Thomas Should Be Included in the African-American History Museum Sen. Ted Cruz /@SenTedCruz/
On Sept. 24, after years of effort, the National Museum of African American History and Culture was finally opened to the public. The Smithsonian’s new museum has been rightly praised for its detailed, complex, and powerful portrayal of the African-American experience in the United States.
As The Wall Street Journal and New York Times have observed, the museum is simultaneously uplifting and upsetting—and it should be, given that the tapestry of our nation’s history includes both the disgraceful epoch of slavery and the inspiring endeavors of legendary African-American leaders like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr.
It is about one of these leaders that I write today: Clarence Thomas, the second African-American justice to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the longest-serving African-American justice.
As much as I am grateful for the museum and its efforts to preserve and promote the indispensable contributions of African-Americans to the collective history of our nation, I believe the museum has made a mistake by omitting the enormous legacy and impact of Thomas, as well as his compelling background. Even in the context of the countless African-American heroes from U.S. history, few “against all odds” tales are more inspirational than that of Thomas. To quote one Thomas expert, Mark Paoletta:
[Thomas] grew up in the segregated deep south of coastal Georgia. Because of his Geechee heritage, he experienced discrimination from other African-Americans as well as from whites. Thomas was fortunate that he was sent at age 7 to live with his grandparents, who were both strong role models. His grandfather, Myers Anderson, was uneducated but built a small business delivering fuel oil, coal, firewood, and ice in the Savannah community. He instilled the values of hard work, perseverance, and accountability. He used to tell Thomas and his younger brother, “Old Man Can’t is dead. I helped bury him.”
Ever his grandfather’s son, Thomas also helped bury “Old Man Can’t”—in spectacular fashion. Thomas’ dramatic journey from enduring entrenched racial discrimination to serving on the highest court in a country of 320 million people is one that should be shouted from the rooftops to all Americans. And Thomas’ historic rise is only half of the story. This year, we commemorate the 25th anniversary of his appointment to the Supreme Court. In a quarter-century, Thomas has carved out one of the more profound and unique legacies in the court’s history.
Never afraid to oppose the prevailing trends of the day, Thomas has become the court’s foremost adherent to the idea that the Constitution should only be interpreted in accord with the document’s historic and original meaning, as opposed to the “living Constitution” doctrine that has pervaded both the court and the legal academy for decades.
As is typical when challenging an entrenched orthodoxy, Thomas’ impassioned commitment to originalism has earned him sharp criticism over the years—some of it measured, but much of it vitriolic and disingenuous. It has also earned him effusive praise, however, and not just from like minds.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, often a harsh Thomas critic, admitted in The New Yorker in 2011 that Thomas had “emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court” whose influence has “been recognized by those who generally disagree with his views.” No other justice, Toobin observed, “studies the historical record with as much care, and enthusiasm, as Thomas.”
On top of his professional merits, I can attest from my personal experience as a law clerk at the Supreme Court that Thomas is well-known behind the scenes as one of the most jovial, down-to-earth, and gracious personalities to ever don the robe. Stories of his kindness, generosity, and humility abound. As such, I became deeply disturbed upon learning that Thomas’ moving story and incredible contributions to the country are not even mentioned in the new museum.
Making matters worse, the only reference to Thomas is in regard to a single individual’s controversial accusation against him at his Senate confirmation hearing 25 years ago—an accusation that was contradicted by numerous witnesses and rejected by The Washington Post, the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the American public at the time.
I am concerned that millions of Americans, of all ages, races, religions, and walks of life, when passing through this museum, will be subjected to a singular and distorted view of Thomas, an African-American who survived segregation, defeated discrimination, and ascended all the way to the Supreme Court. It is true that a museum cannot include every bit of relevant information, nor can it tell every tale. But Thomas’ story is not just any other story. Rather, it is a story uniquely compelling in the annals of U.S. history, African-American or otherwise.
If you were to travel back in time to Pin Point, Georgia, in 1948, and ask that community whether a newborn in Thomas’ circumstances could someday sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, I am confident the answer of most (if not all) would have been: No way. And yet, by the grace of God, 68 years later, here he is. In his closing, the museum reviewer for The New York Times writes:
I also suspect—hope, actually—that the museum will never be finished, or consider itself so; that its take on African-American history, which is American history, stays fluid, critical, and richly confused: real, in other words.
I hope for the exact same thing. Note: This op-ed was adapted from a letter sent by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to the Smithsonian. The letter can be found here.
His word is his bond - His Hate unleased on the Jews.
One might think that Barack is crazy drunk with his power to ''fundamentally'' change the world, but in reality, he is just doing what he always told us he would do from the beginning.
And what's even worse is that millions of people are still willing to believe what he says and does is in their best interest.
But in reality he is not here to do what is best for the people or the nation. He is here to do the calling of his religious leader that demands he transform America and the Western world to become compliant and obedient to his religious jihad for change.
If we need more proof, Barack's latest atrocity at the United Nations leaves no doubt as to his intentions to make sure Iran is given every opportunity to rule the middle east with an iron fist after he does everything he can to weaken Israel and then is destroyed.
And as John Bolton, former UN Ambassador stated, this is not the end of it. Barack is planning one last hit before he leaves office on January 20th, at the UN, to finally, and for all time, label Israel and the Jews as international criminals.
Questions to be answered. Is it for the same reason that Barack doesn't do anything to stop the killing of black people in Chicago? How did Barack sit in Rev.Wrights church for twenty years, condemning white people, Christians and America and still claim he is a Christian?
It's the season for fellowship and love between equals. Reaching out to each other to express their friendship in understanding of their particular place in society.
The relationship between animals is primal, and therefore unspoken but essential to the relationship.
When a person hears things like this on a college campus of a public institution, it ''begs the suspension of disbelief'' to try and comprehend just how absurd and sinister this really is coming from individuals that are purportedly to be educated enough to understand what they are doing is so far outside of our Constitution founding begs, again, disbelief.
This is staggering in it's absolute delusional continent and debased, if not immoral ideology that restricts free speech and especially a free speech that advocates a Christian religious belief as well. Does everyone hate Christians, not just the progressive liberals?
Who are these college presidents that believe they are above the law of the land, demanding their personal ideology that restricts, eliminates the most basic rights in our nation is more important then individual freedom and liberty?
Is this the ''new wave'' ideology instituted on so many campuses around the country that advocates acquiescence and obedience to centralized authority? Is this the majority of students that believes they have no rights to free assembly and speech or is this just the tyranny of the few that seek the power to control others?
Georgia Student Sues After His Public School Censored Him From Sharing His Faith on Campus Leah Jessen /@_LeahKay_/
A student in Georgia has sued his school after he claims the public college prohibited him from sharing his Christian faith on campus. Lawyers for Georgia Gwinnett College student Chike Uzuegbunam filed a lawsuit against the school on Monday.
Uzuegbunam “believes it is his duty to inform others” of his evangelical Christian beliefs and “for their own benefit, that they have sinned and need salvation through Jesus Christ,” the lawsuit says.
“Today’s college students will be tomorrow’s legislators, judges, commissioners, and voters,” Casey Mattox, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. “That’s why it’s so important that public universities model the First Amendment values they are supposed to be teaching to students, and why it should disturb everyone that [Georgia Gwinnett College] and many other colleges are communicating to a generation that the Constitution doesn’t matter.”
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit legal organization representing Uzuegbunam, says the university cannot censor Uzuegbunam because it would be a violation of his First Amendment rights. “The First Amendment guarantees every student’s freedom of speech and religion,” Travis Barham, Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel, said in a statement. “Every public school—and especially a state college that is supposed to be the ‘marketplace of ideas’—has the duty to protect and promote those freedoms.”
The student says officials at his college restricted his ability to share his faith with other students, limiting him to free speech in a small zone and requested he ask permission in advance to use the space. The lawsuit claims the college “burdens his free speech because he is prohibited from saying anything that might offend, disturb, or discomfort anyone who happens to hear him lest he be punished for ‘disorderly conduct.’”
All students must submit a free speech zone request three days prior to using the two small speech zones on campus, the lawsuit says. The college has a “Freedom of Expression Policy” that requires students to submit a free speech area request form, along with all publicity materials, for all activities in the designated free speech area.
“Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC) is committed to providing a forum for free and open expression of divergent points of view by students, student organizations, faculty, staff, and visitors,” the college’s student handbook says. “GGC also recognizes its responsibility to provide a secure learning environment which allows members of the community to express their views in ways which do not disrupt the operation of the college.” The Freedom of Expression Policy says:
Reasonable limitations may be placed on time, place, and manner of speeches, gatherings, distribution of written materials, and marches in order to serve the interests of health and safety, prevent disruption of the educational process, and protect against the invasion of the rights of others as deemed necessary by Georgia Gwinnett College.
The college defines the free speech zones as “the concrete area/walkway between Student Housing and the Student Center or the concrete in front of the Food Court area, Building A.” The areas are “generally available from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday,” the handbook says. “On occasion upon written request, other areas and other times may be authorized, and the college reserves the right to modify the free speech areas based on the operational needs of the institution,” the policy adds.
Alliance Defending Freedom calls the zones “ridiculously” small and says they take up less than 0.0015 percent of the campus.
The school stopped the student named in the lawsuit from handing out religious literature and talking to students about his religion this past summer even after he followed the protocol set by the college, Alliance Defending Freedom claims. The student claims that in August, he was allegedly following school rules while “preaching the love of Christ.” Campus police stopped him after about 20 minutes because of “some calls” complaining about him, according to the lawsuit.
“If students want to speak—whether through oral or written communication—anywhere else on campus, then they must obtain a permit from college officials,” the lawsuit says. “Thus, students may not speak spontaneously anywhere on campus. If students violate this policy, they violate the college’s Student Code of Conduct and expose themselves to a variety of sanctions, including expulsion.”
A spokeswoman for the college told The Daily Signal that Georgia Gwinnett College is unable to comment on the lawsuit. “Officials at Georgia Gwinnett College were not notified of the lawsuit and cannot comment on pending litigation,” the spokeswoman told The Daily Signal in an email.
“When Mr. Uzuegbunam tried to share his religious views in one of the speech zones after reserving it for this purpose, defendants required him to stop because his speech had generated complaints [and] informed him that his speech constituted ‘disorderly conduct’ because it had generated complaints,” the lawsuit goes on to say.
The lawsuit requests that the school suspend its policy on free speech zones.
- sigh - Remember in 2009, one of the very first thing Barack did was shut down the charter schools in Washington D.C. I mean, he did this in the first week of his new administration. Why would he kill something so beneficial to so many poor families?
Oh wait, could it be that he was giving pay-back to the teachers unions for their support in his campaign for president? Oh, and maybe he believed that it was important to keep as many poor people 'poor' so they wouldn't have any other choice, options in life, other then to vote for more support, welfare from the government.
And that the local government in D.C. is always run by progressive liberals, it make sense they would want so many of the poor, and therefore disadvantaged people, to stay that way to secure office holders know that they will always be in office leaching tax dollars and contributing to their betters in the democrat collective(Party) and their campaign coffers.
One case in point about making sure the poor remain where they are - Walmart want to build a Super Store in the area but the city council killed it. Question - why would they do that when the store would provide jobs and a great source of products at a good price in the poorest neighborhood????
Wonder no longer why the population of poor people in this area only gets larger and never smaller. What a great way to make sure the voter base will always be there to do the bidding of the progressive socialist liberal democrats.
Why would the voter continue to vote for more suffering and abuse? Just because these people are poor doesn't mean they are stupid, and yet they always vote democrat.
They Grew Up in a Poor Neighborhood. How School Choice Changed These Brothers’ Lives. Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness /
Carlos and Calvin Battle grew up in the poorest neighborhood of Washington, D.C., where nearly two-thirds of children are living in poverty. In 2016, only 42 percent of students attending the local public high school graduated.
In an attempt to get her sons a better education, their mother, Pam Battle, enrolled Calvin and Carlos in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program provides low-income families vouchers to send their children to private schools, and has shown a promising ability to increase graduation rates. However, many—including teachers unions, the Obama administration, and the education establishment—have worked to shut down the program.
Watch the video to see how the program influenced the Battle family, and to hear why Calvin and Carlos think programs like it could help others succeed not just in school, but in life.
'Pants on fire', 'Pinocchio's' or what ever the ''fact checkers'' come up with to indicate whereConservatives are lying, but when the ''checkers'' are forced to comment on a progressives statement that begs scrutiny, the tone changes significantly. The pitch nowisclouded with language that resembles a tree being tossed by the wind. A whirl wind of words leading to nowhere.
But then this has been the history of fact checkers. And what's so amazing to those of us that are awake, they continue to be awarded status of being legitimate sources of truth?
It's easy to see and understand - the media(democrats) will unwittingly? protect themselves from any kind of negative information that might expose their true agenda and ideology.
As Johnathan Gruber, designer of OgbjmaCare, and Ben Rhodes, chief of staff for the Ogbjma administration explained, the people are unable to digest information that isn't clouded with simplistic and deceptive language and or out right lies to get them to do, what those of us in power want them to do.
Facebook saying they will get a handle on 'fake news' is like believing Barack actually thinks he is president of the United Sates and not the ruler of the world. We all know when Barack speaks, nations tremble.
In reality, it's just more fake news. Hey, after all, they're all progressive democrats!
Facebook’s Reliance on Liberal Fact-Checkers Means Your News Is About to Be Censored Katrina Trinko /@KatrinaTrinko/
Facebook doesn’t think you know what’s “fake news” and what’s not. In an announcement Thursday, the social media giant said it was going to crack down on fake news through a variety of ways, including letting users report what they deem to be fake news. The 4 Steps Facebook Is Taking to Crack Down on ‘Fake News’
But one item on Facebook’s list of methods to crack down was particularly concerning:
When you look at the signatories on the Poynter list, you’ll find seven from the United States: ABC News, The Washington Post, Snopes, Associated Press, FactCheck.org, Climate Feedback, and Politifact.
Aha.
Talk about the devil being in the details. These are hardly unbiased fact-checkers—conservatives have raised alarms about several of them. Let’s go through some examples:
1). Snopes. You may have heard that the terrorist who murdered 49 people and injured dozens more at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was a Democrat. That’s for a reason: Omar Mateen was registered as a Democrat. Yet Snopes took issue with that characterization, saying it was “undetermined” because Mateen’s “U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown.” Snopes’ Kim LaCapria continued:
However, being a member of any particular political party involves expressing an ongoing allegiance to that party and its principles: one could be pegged as a Democrat (or a Republican, or a member of any other party) if he ran for office as a member of that party, exclusively campaigned or raised money for that party and its candidates, or consistently voted for that party’s candidates. But there’s no evidence that Mateen materially supported any particular political party, nor do we know how he voted (or whether he ever voted at all).
All we know is that 10 years ago he registered as a Democrat, and voter registration is an imperfect indicator that governs nothing more than which party’s primary a citizen is eligible to vote in …
What?
It’s hard to make sense of this, but it basically boils down to: No one can be labeled a member of any party unless they consistently have run for office, donated money, or voted for that party’s candidates (something that could never be proved, incidentally, since we have secret ballots). Which is a ridiculous standard.
Look, I’m someone who is registered Republican to vote in the primaries, and who has plenty of quibbles with the GOP, and yet I would agree if I were identified as a Republican by a news site, it would be true—because I am registered as a Republican.
2). Politifact. Back in June, Donald Trump said, “Crime is rising.” Politifact blasted this claim as “pants on fire.” Then the American Enterprise Institute’s Sean Kennedy looked into the facts, noted Politifact had looked at statistics ending in 2014, and wrote: “The FBI’s preliminary 2015 figures actually do show crime rising in most categories across the country between 2014 and 2015.” Politifact responded … that it stood by its rating.
3). The Washington Post. Here’s a fun one: in 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that “we, right now, have more words in the IRS code than there are in the Bible.” The Post looked at the claim and wrote, “The literally translated King James Version of the Bible contains just over 800,000 words. There are as many as 3.7 million individual words in the IRS tax code.” So Cruz deserves a true rating, right? Wrong—at least according to The Post, which went on to say: “This is a nonsense fact, something that is technically correct but ultimately meaningless.”
So perhaps in the new Facebook era, the Orlando terrorist being a Democrat, Trump discussing the rise in crime, and Cruz saying the IRS code has more words than the Bible would all be buried as “fake news” … despite being true.
Other U.S. organizations listed in the Poynter directory Facebook says it will rely on are Climate Feedback (which I’m not familiar with, but at a cursory glance does not appear to be challenging the liberal groupthink on climate change), and ABC News (home to George Stephanopoulos, who worked for the Clinton White House, and oh, didn’t disclose he had donated to the Clinton Foundation).
There is undoubtedly “fake news” online—and consumers should work to be responsible about sharing information, fact-checking themselves claims that seem spurious. And Facebook, of course, is a private company that legally can do what it wants regarding its content. But while Facebook legally can crack down on “fake news,” it’s unfortunate it has chosen to do so, particularly by relying on liberal organizations’ fact-checks as the arbiters.
It’s clear that the system Facebook has announced is much more likely to result in crackdowns on conservative outlets than liberal outlets—which is bad news for all of us conservatives on Facebook.
Even if you aren't a dog person, this has to explain, in this instance, a picture is worth much more then many words to tell a story of the relationship between the animals that find themselves at different levels along the food chain, but share many of the same characteristics that bind them both to a common dominator. That is kids will be kids and we have to put up with their antics.
I just love this shot as it says so much about the old saying, ''To get along go along'' no matter who or what you are.
This a little over the top given the season of loving one another and fellowship among men and all, but still when the message is pure and honest it brings a smile to our collective faces and that brings a special heart felt hope to those of us that have labored under such frustration and angry for our situations in our great country where the few have ruled the many without cause for the rule of law as set down in our Constitution.
Finally, now there is a coming together to reveal justice for all. Will the election last November save our country, only time will tell. And if those that elected our new leader will stay the course through the next election where we will have the opportunity to deny the few remaining progressive liberal democrats the opportunity to cause our county more harm as their predecessors have.
So in this season of renewal of spirit and hope that significant change is in the wind we should reveal in the coming of the new year's chances for rebirth of our freedom to chose.
Okay- I wonder why the progressive socialists liberals what to dump the Electoral College?
This map show perfectly why the founding fathers laid out the system to elect our leader for our highest office. Other wise there really wouldn't be any need for our 57 states, all that would be needed would be 4.
Just think how cool this would be, no need for election any longer, just a primary for finding witch progressive will be the next president.
Of course, given the disaster that states that are controlled by progressive democrats are now all disasters, it wouldn't be long before these 4 states would be in default.
Barack's demands Americans live a life with less options.
Common sense say if you are in a hole stop digging, but for Barack to obey common sense is believe he really cares about what's right for him and what's wrong for civil society.
His job as dictated by our Constitution is to protect the home land from foreign and domestic threats, but what he has done is to increase the threat aboard by refusing to protect Americans interests over seas, and by demanding to secretly bring thousands Syrian Muslim refugees into our country without know who or what they are.
Barack has a different agenda that has nothing to do with common sense or any law of nature. And as this caricature above depicts just one of his catastrophic failures, of Barack demanding 'climate change' is the single most important thereat to our country and the world, is seen as totally debased and if not sinister in it's most basic form.
But never mind all that, one would have to believe Barack to be insane, but in my opinion and as I have stated before, he is doing what he truly believes is necessary to fulfill his higher calling that derives from is religious jihad for transformation of Western society that has, in his mind, failed world societies with our wealth and misguided beliefs that everyone has a right to be free.
For Barack personally, this is unquestionably unacceptable. He was raised by is father with the ideology that a centralized power to make all decision is necessary to bring real freedom from the pain and uncertainly that is the result individual freedom to determine ones own destiny, for good or bad.
This is who he is - make no mistake, and when he leaves office, Barack will continue to force his 'new world order', his jihad for ''fundamental change'' on every level of government here and abroad. Sadly millions of citizens around the world are knowingly and willingly joining the march to subservience.
If there is bright spot in all this is Brexit vote in Britain and the election of November 8th in America. Maybe we, God willing, be able to bring common sense and logic back from the brink of the disaster that is progressive liberalism or worse.
Still, given what this man has done to the population of our great country and to the larger world, why is Barack's popularity still over 50%?
In a rational world he would in single digits. But as we know nothing is rational any more and the use of common sense must be left to mentally weak.
After all how can anyone compete with someone that has a PhD. from Harvard or Yale? They have to be the smartest people in the room. Just imagine asking a question of social importance of someone that actually has to work for a living, especially someone that earns a living with their hands. Yikes!
Little wonder then why the population that has to take responsibility for what happens in this country have decided that the progressive socialist liberals are no longer seen as credible representatives of them or what they know is important.
And with these figures presented above one has to know that Barack and his allies in the collective are responsible for leaving our country on the brink of financial disaster and a world moving toward conflict. Yet million will always vote for self destruction.
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
