Wednesday, April 1, 2015


Ted Cruz has the big momentum in new poll 

Public Policy Polling  Cruz enters top tier of Gop Hopefuls.


NO HATE CRIME CHARGES in Brutal Beating of White Passenger on St. Louis Metroline



Republicans Probing 'Potential Retaliation' Against Federal Agents Who Enforce Immigration Law

By Susan Jones-CNS

Russian Strategist suggests Nuking Yellowstone 


By Bob Unruh-WND

State Department Aide Listed as Clinton Foundation Director

By Alana Goodman
Free Beacon

Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department was listed as a director at the Clinton Foundation in its corporate records for more than three years after joining the administration, highlighting concerns that Clinton’s aides were too close to the foundation during her tenure.

The “William J. Clinton Foundation Corporation” named Cheryl Mills as one its three directors when it applied for nonprofit corporate status in Florida in June 2009—five months after Mills began serving as Clinton’s chief of staff and counsel at the State Department.

The organization continued to list Mills as a director in its annual state filings in 2010, 2011, and 2012. During this time, the foundation updated its office address and registered agent on the same documents. Chelsea Clinton replaced Mills in the March 2013 report.

The Florida filings highlight the cozy relationship between Clinton’s inner circle at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny from watchdog groups for accepting money from foreign governments and donors.

Huma Abedin, another close Clinton aide, received a waiver in 2012 that allowed her to do part-time consulting for the foundation while working for the government. She did not publicly acknowledge the work until it was revealed by the New York Times.

Earlier this month, the conservative group Citizens United sued the State Department to release emails between Mills and Clinton Foundation officials.

Legal experts said Mills’ inclusion in the Florida filings could have been an inadvertent error. She had previously served on the foundation’s board beginning in 2001, and is not named in the Clinton Foundation’s federal tax disclosures between 2010 and 2013.

Nonprofit corporations in the state of Florida are required to have a minimum of three directors. In addition to Mills, the foundation also listed Terrence McAuliffe, now the governor of Virginia, and James “Skip” Rutherford.

Read More

Allen West Has Sexually Harassed At Least Two Women

 SHAW I have not heard of these type of charges leveled at Allen West. I will have to hear
more stories by more sources before I believe Allen West has Bill Clinton type problems.
Currently I consider Allen West to one of the best candidates for president in 2016

By Charles C. Johnson
Got News can independently confirm that conservative icon Allen West sexually harassed two different women at Pajamas Media using more than a dozen sources.

West, who was fired from Pajamas Media, grabbed the breast of then 24-year-old, Michelle Fields in front of an elevator while the two of them were colleagues. Fields declined to be interviewed on record but three different sources at PJ Media confirmed this story. (Update: Fields repeatedly and emphatically refused comment on the record and asked that I change her earlier confirmation which I have now done.)

According to sources at PJ Media and some who have since left–the organization is apparently shutting down–West also undressed himself in front of communications professional Sarah Culvahouse Mills. Mills actually drafted the press release that led to West’s departure. Mills, who is married and the daughter of McCain lawyer A.B. Culvahouse Jr, reportedly sought therapy for the incident.

West, who is also married, has a string of women that’s editor-in-chief Charles C. Johnson has tracked down over the past two years. His marital infidelity is an open secret in conservative circles but a taboo subject among conservative activists who point to his military record and (less vocally) his race as an asset to the conservative movement.

Read More

Trevor Noah Taking Over The Daily Show is Great News For Conservatives

American Glob

First of all, Trevor Noah is a mediocre comedian who will diminish the Daily Show’s political influence.

Second, the fact that TDS’s audience of trained seals will overlook his crappy jokes about Jews and women shows them for who they are.

Lastly, Trevor Noah’s internet vetting robs him of the toolbox Jon Stewart regularly relied upon.

If Trevor Noah plans on following the same political path Stewart was on, and BTW he said he is, every joke comment or tweet he ever sends out which attacks conservatives in the typical Daily Show out-of-context style can and should be met with comments like…
Just like the Jews, huh?
Just like fat chicks, huh?
Just the gays, huh?
Trevor Noah may have the best gig a progressive comedian could ever hope to get but he goes into it a tarnished hypocrite and many people on the left already know this. Even Trevor Noah. What an awful way to start such an exciting new job.


  Trevor Noah         @Trevornoah

To reduce my views to a handful of jokes that didn’t land is not a true reflection of my character, nor my evolution as a comedian.

The New Intolerance: We Are Now Required To Embrace Just About Everything, Except the Gutter Religion Christianity

Ace of Spades

Pardon the "attack" on Christianity in the headline -- but I think that sums up the venomous beliefs of the bullies.

There is no principle here. The zealots are not claiming that we must be tolerant towards all -- that is a principle most could agree with.

No, they are instead claiming we must embrace the things they love, and hate -- and persecute -- the things they hate.
This is not "tolerance." This is, at best, simply the replacement of one set of bigotries and hatreds with the left's favored set of bigotries and hatreds.
This WSJ is worth a read, though it gets, I think, pretty deceptive in its middle part.
The WSJ says that opponents of Indiana's RFRA law "claim" that the law would "empower" florists and wedding photographers to "discriminate" against gay weddings.

That's not the claim, Old Bean. That's the entire point.

And it signals how lost this issue is when not even the defenders of the RFRA can even admit the law's purpose. They seem compelled to pretend this bit about refusing service to gay weddings is just some hypothetical crazy talk.

Read More

Video-ISIS Agressively Recruiting From Minnesota


Mike Lee wants to investigate Google’s frequent meetings at the White House

By Maria Santos

Has Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) incurred the wrath of Google?

On Monday, Lee announced that he would like to know more about Google’s meetings with the White House while they were under a Federal Trade Commission investigation for anti-trust violations.

Lee, chairman of the Senate’s antitrust panel, suspects that Google and the White House may have improperly meddled with the FTC’s decision.

But, as the Wall Street Journal quickly pointed out, the timing of this announcement was a bit awkward—as Lee was scheduled for a Google-sponsored fundraising event on Tuesday, where he would be soliciting campaign cash from Google employees.
Now Google has decided to skip the event, deeming it inappropriate.
“Out of an abundance of caution, the senator’s campaign reached out to Google Tuesday, and they elected not to attend the event,” Lee’s office said.
Lee’s concerns over Google arose after the Journal reported on the company’s frequent visits to the White House, averaging one meeting a week. One Google lobbyist alone has had over 60 meetings in the White House, compared to Comcast lobbyists, who have had just 20 over the course of Obama’s terms. And during the FTC antitrust investigation, they reportedly held “a flurry of meetings” with both White House and FTC officials.

The Journal also discovered an internal FTC report showing that some in the agency wanted to sue Google for antitrust violations, although they ultimately ended their investigation after Google made several voluntary changes. The report was accidentally given to the paper in a FOIA request.

The FTC has criticized the Journal’s reporting as “misleading,” while Google said their White House meetings at the time in question “were not to discuss the antitrust investigation.”

Google responded to the reports point by point in a blog post titled “Really, Rupert?” (as in Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Wall Street Journal,) completely with gifs.


Tuesday, March 31, 2015

They Don’t Want Your Cake-Want to Slence Christianity


They Don’t Want Your Cake

By Ben Howe-Red State

It’s insulting. It’s insulting to the people that lived in those times and fought those battles. People that were kicked out of restaurants and shoved off buses because of the color of their skin.

But let me draw the clearest distinction possible for you right now as to why these events aren’t remotely the same situations and that no, the return of the Reconstruction Era is not upon us.

No one is being discriminated against in Indiana as a result of this law. No one.

In fact, let me go one step further: none of the people that you’ve heard about on the news who were denied a cake or photography for a gay wedding… none of those people were discriminated against either.

On religious grounds, certain business owners have said they are unwilling to provide their product or service for specific types of events. Period. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if the person that came in asking for the cake or the photography was a straight man, a gay woman, or Steven Crowder in drag.

If a store owner were to say “I’m not willing to serve gay people, get out of my store,” well then one assumes there might be a case. But that’s not what happened in all these situations and that’s not what the RFRA seeks to protect.

Consider this: with gays being executed in other countries, some like Cuba who we’ve just reopened communication with, why would progressives be so focused on civil disputes between engaged couples and bakers?
Because their focus is on making sure that open Christianity is silenced. 
Read More

John Kerry accused of exaggerating role as senator in early global warming hearings


Secretary of State John Kerry is taking heat for exaggerating his role as a senator in organizing the chamber’s first climate-change hearings.

Questions about Kerry’s repeated assertions that he helped organize and participated in the Senate hearings roughly 27 years ago resurfaced after a March 12 speech before the Atlantic Council, in Washington, D.C.
“Climate change is an issue that is personal to me, and it has been since the 1980s, when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the Senate,” Kerry told the audience. “Al Gore, Tim Wirth and a group of us organized the first hearings in the Senate on this, 1988. We heard Jim Hansen sit in front of us and tell us it’s happening now, 1988.”
The Washington Post fact-checker concluded that Kerry at least exaggerated about his involvement and -- comparing his statements to recent tall tales by anchor Brian Williams -- gave him four “Pinocchios.”   

The paper concluded he likely didn’t attend the June 23, 1988, hearing and perpetuated often-told details about the event that proved to be false. According to the Post, the March 12 speech was hardly the first time the tale was told.

The Post reported that Kerry in a 2007 Council of Foreign Relations speech, at a 2009 Senate hearing, in a 2010 Huffington Post story and in a 2014 Boston Globe profile said he and Gore, then a Tennessee senator and a fellow Democrat, were part of the first hearing or hearings.
“In all of the statements, there is a common theme -- Kerry and Gore, riding shotgun together, organizing the ‘very first’ Senate or Capitol Hill hearings on climate change,” the newspaper wrote. 
Whether Kerry participated in the first hearings is a matter of interpretation.
Read More

‘Expel me!’ Nebraska senator challenges lawmakers

By Deena Winter | Nebraska Watchdog

A defiant state Sen. Ernie Chambers says he’s ready for his colleagues to punish him for speaking his mind when he compared police to ISIS terrorists
“I have not taken it back, I have not apologized for it,” Chambers said. “I will not take it back, I will not apologize for it.

Video- Greta,TGowdy-Now that Hillary's server is 'wiped clean,' what's next?


Now That Hillary's Server is 'Wiped Clean,' What's Next?

Supreme Court Rules Government GPS Trackers Can Break Fourth Amendment

The Supreme Court has confirmed in a ruling that if the government places a GPS tracker on someone's person or their belongings, the act counts as a search—something that remains protected by the Fourth Amendment.

As part of a case referred to as Grady v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court heard about how Torrey Dale Grady—twice-convicted as a sex offender—was made to wear a GPS monitor at all times by North Carolina officials. In court, Grady challenged this, claiming it qualified as an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining:
The only theory we discern […] is that the State's system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents.
It also listed some Supreme Court precedents to make its case, including a case where a tracker placed on a car without a warrant counted as unreasonable search. 
"It doesn't matter what the context is, and it doesn't matter whether it's a car or a person," Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, told The Atlantic. "Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search."
Still, the Fourth Amendment takes poor account of digital technology generally, and courts have only ruled on a small number of cases involving GPS data. At some point, as Lynch points out to The Atlantic, the justice system will need to establish how geo-location data—now prolific in phones, cars, watches and more—is governed and protected. In the meantime, though, North Carolina better rethink its policy on issuing GPS trackers to sex offenders. [The Atlantic, Washington Post]  

Image by Canned Muffins under Creative Commons license

IEEE-USA: United States Doesn't Need More H-1B Visas


U.S. high-tech companies say they want Congress to immediately increase high-skill immigration, but what they're really trying to do is pull an April Fools' joke on America. Rather than ask for green cards and real immigration, the companies are demanding more temporary H-1B visas.

The annual allocation of temporary work permits begins 1 April, and the 85,000 cap is likely to be reached in a few days. Cue the whining.

"Like any lottery, many more H-1B applications are filed by employers who do not expect to win," IEEE-USA President Jim Jefferies said. "Random oversubscription is not a measure of demand."

Much of the tech sector actually disagrees with raising the H-1B cap. The largest representative of American high-tech workers, the 200,000-member IEEE-USA, thinks that issuing more of what is commonly called the "outsourcing visa" is not good for the U.S. economy or U.S. technologists.
"H-1B visas are simply not that valuable," Jefferies said. "If they were, the federal government would not give them away at random in a way that clearly favors outsourcing companies.
"It's like buying a lottery ticket. If you win, you get to hire someone cheaply, regardless of their real skill level or long-term impact."
H-1B Visas Contribute to Loss of U.S. Jobs

More than half of current H-1B visas are used by outsourcing companies, including the top 10. These firms specialize in replacing Americans with cheaper foreign labor and eventually shipping the jobs overseas.
"This eliminates U.S. high-skill, high-wage jobs, as well as the taxes and economic activity it generates," Jefferies said.
IT workers at Southern California Edison recently found out the hard way how their jobs can be lost to foreign workers. It's the latest example of Americans being replaced by lower-paid employees and often being forced to train their replacements if they want a full severance package.

IEEE-USA supports expanding the employment-based green card program to make skilled immigrants Americans free to work where they want and start their own businesses.
"The H-1B program does not do this," Jefferies said. "The green card program does."
IEEE-USA serves the public good and promotes the careers and public policy interests of more than 200,000 engineering, computing and technology professionals who are U.S. members of IEEE. 

Madison Project Policy Memo: The Repeal Of Obamacare

 Madison Project Staff

It is a pattern we have witnessed for years, but especially the last four election cycles.

It goes something like this.

The Republican Party messages to the conservative grassroots: if you turn out and vote us into a majority, we will accomplish X, Y and Z.

X, Y and Z happen to be THE issues the grassroots are concerned about.

The conservative grassroots responds and delivers the majority (or in 2000 and 2004, the Presidency) in one or both chambers of Congress under the illusion of a GOP majority advancing conservatism and rolling back rampant government expansion.

Then, Lucy-like, the GOP majority pulls the ball just as the conservative movement goes for the extra point.
As the grassroots conservatives dust themselves off wondering what just happened, the GOP spin machine kicks into high gear. “We are with you, but the timing isn’t right.” Or, “The work isn’t done. We have the majorities in both the House and Senate, but we need the White House to REALLY get things done.”
Then stories like this one from The Hill crop up, an obvious attempt by the GOP leadership to set the stage for further abdication on critical issues, this one being the repeal of Obamacare. First comes the above messaging, then the leaked stories to bolster the GOP Establishment’s messaging: We are trying, but there isn’t anything we can do right now on your issues.

Except for one problem.

The GOP is lying to the conservative base in hopes that no one will challenge their messaging.
As we have noted many times, this is why the Madison Project exists. To challenge the GOP Establishment’s progressive, big government tendencies. We do it on all fronts, from recruiting full spectrum conservatives to run against middling incumbents to prosecuting the case against a GOP gone awry.

Obama and the Democrats--Support For Obana's Iran Deal

by Ron Radosh- PJMEDIA

The Obama offensive to garner support ahead of a possible deal with Iran has run into some headwinds.  The administration’s intensive lobbying campaign directed towards Democrats in Congress is, according to the Wall Street Journal, based on the argument “that opposing President Barack Obama would empower the new Republican majority.” 

Apparently there are reports that the administration has come to the realization that Congress will have to have a say, no matter how minimal, and is trying to come up with something to assuage a lot of congressional ruffled feathers.

The administration is also relying on liberal and progressive groups to do outreach in support of a dealTheir pitch is that to oppose a deal, even a bad one, would mean going to war with Iran. 

At the forefront of this effort is Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, who has appeared frequently on major TV talk shows speaking on behalf of negotiations and acceptance of a deal. His group has invested over $7 million over the past few years in think tanks, activist groups and friendly media that favor the administration’s position.

Also working as a shill for the administration is J Street, which had even lobbied against sanctions altogether a few years ago. At their recent convention, the keynote was delivered by
James Baker, who, as George H.W. Bush’s secretary of State, developed a strong anti-Israel policy and who famously said at the time, “f*** the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway.” By featuring Baker, the Obama front group is trying to make it appear that to oppose Israel is bipartisan.