08/25/16
Sanders

#OurRevolution: Bernie Sanders organizes socialist takeover of Congress

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Sanders socialists busily organize socialist takeover of America starting tonight via map.berniesanders.com/

Sanders socialists busily organize socialist takeover of America starting tonight via map.berniesanders.com

“Helping to build a democratic socialist political force, DSA members have stepped up to run for political office around the United States. Their campaigns represent the next stage of the organizing that began with the Sanders campaigns, and their successes will reflect the strength of socialist organizing beyond national politics.” – Democratic Socialists of America website, August 23, 2016, “DSA Members Run for Office to Continue the Political Revolution

Senator Bernie Sanders has created a new 501(c)(4) organization whose non-stated goal is to fundamentally transform the United States into a socialist country. There will be over 2500 “house parties” in all 50 states livestreaming Bernie himself jump-starting the effort Wednesday evening.

After Sanders lost his bid to become the Democrat nominee for president, his allies have been busily plotting the complete transformation of America using the hashtag  . In addition to the ongoing effort to support so-called “Berniecrats” who endorsed the socialist during his presidential campaign, many “grassroots leaders from the Bernie campaign and a few ex-staffers” are dedicated to “replacing Congress all at once with a Brand New Congress in 2018.”

It should be noted that many Berniecrats already won their primaries. Americans need to pay attention. Here is just one example of a tweet touting winning Berniecrats:


The goal is to “recruit and run 400+ candidates as a single, unified, presidential-style campaign.” The candidates will follow an agenda inspired by Bernie Sanders’ policy proposals.

From the Brand New Congress website:

“We’re happy to see so many “Berniecrats” running in 2016 and we want to be supportive, but we’re just getting started, so we don’t think we’ll have that much to offer 2016 candidates. We think the way to win is to start very early and plan a great campaign. That’s why we’re focusing on 2018.”

Socialists are highly organized and dedicated to pushing through anti-American candidates who are not interested in limited government as envisioned by America’s founding fathers. In order to get America back on the path to peace and prosperity, constitutional conservatives need to strongly support principled candidates for office who will take their oath to the Constitution seriously.

Follow the hashtags #Berniecrats and #OurRevolution to learn more.

Read More:

08/24/16
Candle

Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) – BYU Noteworthy A Cappella Cover

08/24/16
Saudi Oil

OPEC’s Output Freeze: What Has Changed Since Doha?

It’s possible that OPEC is crying wolf with hints of an output freeze next month in Algiers; but it’s also possible that they are ramping up production to take the sting out of a freeze. This is a delicate balancing act that the Saudis need to play very carefully.

The official chatter is that the OPEC meeting in Algeria from September 26 to 28 could conclude with an agreement to freeze production by the member nations, with even Russia joining forces in a freeze that may prevent further oil price erosion. But everyone’s a bit gun-shy after the false hopes of the last round in Doha—even if a freeze at levels that existed then wouldn’t have meant much either—and it’s hard to blame them. The question is, how many times can the Saudis cry wolf without forever losing the ability to leverage this chatter to affect a rise in oil prices?

But lets rewind a bit to the nature of the recent chatter. The Saudi Energy Minister has indicated that Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer, is willing to proceed with a production freeze.

“We are, in Saudi Arabia, watching the market closely, and if there is a need to take any action to help the market rebalance, then we would, of course in cooperation with OPEC and major non-OPEC exporters,” said Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih, reports Reuters.

“We are going to have a ministerial meeting of the International Energy Forum in Algeria next month, and there is an opportunity for OPEC and major exporting non-OPEC ministers to meet and discuss the market situation, including any possible action that may be required to stabilize the market.”

The hopes of reaching an agreement in Doha were scuttled by Saudi Arabia, because it wanted its arch rival, Iran, to participate in the freeze. Unfortunately for oil prices, Iran had made it clear that it would not join any such discussion until they reached pre-sanction levels of oil production.

What has changed from Doha to Algeria?

Iran

Iran’s oil production is close to its pre-sanction levels, meaning that its first cited prerequisite for any discussion has now been met—a criteria that was not met at the time of the Doha meeting. In addition, increasing oil production further by Iran is a big ask—it would need billions of dollars worth of investments in both upstream and downstream facilities to make this happen. With oil prices languishing below $50 a barrel, major oil companies are reluctant to commit huge sums of money for new oil projects.

Iran’s oilfields are mature, and more than half of its wells have an annual decline rate of 9 percent to 11 percent, according to Michael Cohen, an analyst at Barclays in New York. Therefore, at their existing production levels, they need an additional 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day annually to replace the shortfall from their aging wells.

Iran needs more money and investment to continue pumping at the current rate, making it more likely for Iran to agree to some kind of an arrangement where they continue to pump oil at a rate close to their target of 4 million barrels a day.

That said, the last thing that Iran wants is to be sidelined, so Tehran is bound to make its presence felt at the meeting with strong statements. But at the end of the day, it is unlikely that Iran will scuttle an agreement where it has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

“There may be a little bit more to it this time. I’m still very skeptical, but it’s just with Iran being where they are production-wise, they’ll be more inclined to eventually go along with a deal,” said Again Capital’s John Kilduff, reports CNBC.

Saudi Arabia

The oil-rich nation underestimated the resilience of the U.S. shale oil drillers when they declared war on them in 2014. American oil has not only kept flowing—the shale producers have managed to bring down production costs considerably. This ability was not anticipated by Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has burned more than $175 billion in reserves since August 2014. The Saudis have introduced austerity measures and plans to monetize their crown jewel Saudi Aramco to survive the oil downturn. Nevertheless, things are not going well for this nation, which youth is struggling to find jobs as shown in the chart below.

IMG URL: http://cdn.oilprice.com/images/tinymce/2016/Oil%20Graphs%201.png

A large population of unemployed youths who cannot take care of their families can sow seeds of frustration, and the Arab Spring will still be fresh in the memory of the rulers.

Saudi Arabia is struggling to grow in this oil downturn. Barring the 2009 dip, the current growth rate of 1.5 percent is the worst in a decade, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

IMG URL: http://cdn.oilprice.com/images/tinymce/2016/Oil%20Graphs%202.png

If oil prices remain low, the Saudi plan to sell shares in Saudi Aramco might not fetch them the valuations they expect, and a nation that cannot provide the most basic of amenities—food for its foreign workers—says a lot about their financial condition.

Saudi Arabia has seen the recent slide in crude oil prices towards the $40/barrel mark, which could have gone deeper without the chatter of a production freeze. And since they have already cried wolf once in Doha, doing so again in Algiers decrease the importance of any ‘chatter’ leverage they have in the future.

Rest of the nations already onboard

Barring Iran and Saudi Arabia, the rest of the nations were in agreement about the need to freeze production during the Doha meeting.

From OPEC to Russia, everyone is at record production levels

The oil-producing nations want to ensure that even if there are talks of a production freeze, they should not feel the pinch. Hence, even before the meeting, they will try to produce more, rather than less. The recent ramping up may very well be an indication that a freeze—although at a level higher than what would have likely come out of the Doha meeting—may be on the horizon.

The oil markets are so sensitive that even a statement of agreement by OPEC at the end of the meeting is enough to send oil prices flying above the resistance level of $51 a barrel.

What about the shale oil producers?

Though U.S. production is declining and experiencing a flurry of bankruptcies, the remaining companies are much better positioned to continue pumping at lower levels to survive the downturn.

Though the risk remains that the shale oil drillers will come back in full force when oil prices recover, the risk is worth taking. OPEC and Russia have realized that any new world order will have to include the shale oil companies. They are a large enough force not to be neglected or defeated.

With all of this in mind, an agreement between OPEC and Russia is more feasible in Algiers than it was in Doha. It might not mean much though, with output levels soaring ahead of the meeting. A freeze at current levels—or levels reached by the time of the meeting—won’t do much to change the fundamentals, nor is there any indication that a freeze would have long legs.

Link to original article: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/OPECs-Output-Freeze-What-Has-Changed-Since-Doha.html

By Rakesh Upadhyay for Oilprice.com

08/24/16
Hillary

The Human Side of Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Hillary

Some of us in the media watchdog business think Americans are anxious to read every last word from The New York Times and The Washington Post. These are important papers that do help shape the national agenda. But many people look to publications like the National Enquirer, the tabloid solidly in the corner of Donald J. Trump, the one that he used to smear Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). On the other hand, the Democratic presidential candidate has US Weekly with millions of readers in her corner. Its May 2 issue featured a cover story on Hillary Clinton, telling America the “fun facts” about the former First Lady, such as that she loves to snack on hot chili peppers, and “I put hot sauce on everything.”

I was forced to read several copies of the weekly celebrity and entertainment magazine while waiting in a doctor’s office with a dead cell phone. It’s a different media world with its own sphere of influence that may eclipse so-called serious papers like the Post and Times.

In this world, Hillary is a celebrity, not a politician. But she’s just like us, an ordinary person. She eats things we eat. She does things we do.

I don’t know for sure who reads US Weekly on a regular basis, but the publicationclaims to have millions of subscribers and reaches through its various platforms a total of 50 million “young, high income consumers with the most timely and current entertainment news, style, beauty and fitness/nutrition content…”

As we see with the Hillary Clinton cover story, a big dose of political bias is also thrown in occasionally. This is a reflection of owner Jann Wenner’s preferences for the policies of the Democratic Party. He is a major donor to the Democratic Party and used another of his publications, Rolling Stone, to endorse Barack Obama in 2008. Rolling Stone ran a Paul Krugman article in 2014 declaring Obama one of America’s most successful presidents. Obamacare, Krugman declared at the time, was “working better than even the optimists expected.”

These days, of course, even liberal publications are warning that the so-called Affordable Health Care Act is on the verge of complete failure and disaster because of higher costs.

The US Weekly issue with Mrs. Clinton on the cover was an obvious attempt by the magazine, acting in concert with the campaign, to “humanize” the candidate and counteract charges that she is a liar with health problems and not fit to be president.

The “25 Things You Don’t Know About Me” cover story had nothing about emails or Benghazi. Instead, written from her own perspective, she informs us, “Bill Clinton proposed to me twice before I said yes.” Nothing was said about his womanizing or impeachment. It was if they are still a happily married couple. There was no talk of a lousy marriage in the pages of US Weekly.

The inside story featured a flattering picture of Mrs. Clinton waving, with the notation that readers can “Find out more about her campaign at hillaryclinton.com.”

Another revelation from Hillary was, “I do yoga. Not enough.” Plus, “Chocolate is my weakness…as are Goldfish,” a reference to the snack.

You get the idea: she’s just an ordinary person with needs and feelings like everybody else. She’s not some power-hungry politician with a radical left agenda. She’s one of us.

We may laugh at such coverage, but the owner has to figure that his mostly young readers can be easily fooled into accepting such an extreme make-over of one of the most dishonest candidates ever to run for the highest office in the land.

Number 18 in the list of 25 things we don’t know about Hillary is that when President Obama asked her to serve as his secretary of state, she joined the administration: “Because when your president asks you to serve, you say yes.” This is one patriotic lady devoted to public service. She is truly for the public interest, the common good.

The US Weekly website is similar to the magazine. Included with the latest celebrity news is an item on how Mrs. Clinton opened a jar of pickles and had her pulse taken on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show to prove she’s healthy, while Stephen Colbert did a bit comparing Donald J. Trump to disgraced American swimmer Ryan Lochte.

In addition to the US Weekly puff-piece on Hillary, owner Jann Wenner endorsed Mrs. Clinton in Rolling Stone magazine in March, saying that she “is one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency in modern times…” Attempting to refute charges that she is a liar, he added, “I keep hearing questions surface about her honesty and trustworthiness, but where is the basis in reality or in facts? This is the lingering haze of coordinated GOP smear campaigns against the Clintons—and President Obama—all of which have come up empty, including the Benghazi/e-mail whirlwind, which after seven GOP-led congressional investigations has turned up zilch.”

Zilch has now been surpassed by several more email controversies, to the point where Tuesday’s New York Times is running a story headlined, “New Clinton Emails Raise Shadow Over Her Campaign.”

The paper reported that “…thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November.”

Some of them may be as hot as her hot sauce. Kimmel should be prepared to check her pulse at that point.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

08/23/16
Trump

Alt-Right Bashes Constitutional Conservatives, Patriots Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro – Dances with Leninism

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Trump

I believe that each of us has a right to support our chosen candidate and that includes Donald Trump. I do not hold that against someone once they have made that decision, for any of a myriad of reasons. However, I do hold it against those that go out of their way to attack and savage patriotic conservatives because they will not kneel at the altar of Trump. Such is the poison written by Edmund Kozak on Laura Ingraham’s website entitled: “Alt-Right vs. Conservative Inc.

I have been a Ted Cruz supporter from the beginning. Even though he is no longer in this race, I still support him as the Constitutional Conservative we have waited for. I most likely will write him in when I vote. That is not a vote for Hillary Clinton. It is me voting my conscience, standing by my principles and refusing to vote for one evil to stop another. Two evils that I view as two sides of the same coin and equally repugnant.

I was told when I didn’t fall in line with Trump that my vote didn’t matter and wasn’t wanted. Now I’m told that if I don’t vote for Trump, it will be my fault that he loses and Hillary wins. That doesn’t sway me in the least. In my world, right is right and wrong is wrong. I won’t vote for a Fascist to stop a Marxist, especially when the two are interchangeable.

Kozak has written a piece that paints Constitutional Conservatives as the Establishment GOP Elite. Nothing could be further from the truth and he knows it:

In truth, it is the Establishment GOP elite — who profit in both power and dollars by pushing a globalist economic agenda — who have strayed farthest from the tenants of traditional conservatism. These elites have actually created a for-profit structure. This “Conservative Inc.” dupes the base of the party into handing more power and campaign cash to an Establishment network that operates primarily against their interests.

Constitutional Conservatives and patriots such as Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro in no way support a globalist economic agenda. They are for free trade… perhaps that is something that seems foreign to the likes of Kozak. We are not protectionist as Trump is and there’s the rub. True conservatives believe the market should decide the economic outcome. Those that are true globalists are on the left and this is his attempt to smear conservatives and lump them in with not only the GOP Elite, but leftists as well, essentially branding them the enemy. You see, he has to do this as true conservatism and constitutionalism is a danger to the likes of Trump. We believe in our God-given rights and freedoms and we want the Constitution to be followed, just as we want the rule of law implemented. Nice try on branding, but fail.

The next part I am quoting is simply insane:

The Constitution worship of those like Shapiro and Sen. Ted Cruz reveals that the mainstream conservative movement has largely forgotten the principle of imperfectability.

The Constitution alone cannot guarantee some sort of political utopia. Man is fallen — a city on a shining hill cannot be guaranteed by a mere piece of paper. The fact that within a decade of the documents’ adoption the government was already trying to subvert it should be a clear indication of that reality.

None of us has ever claimed the Constitution was perfect. No document or man is. But the Founding Fathers made sure that could be rectified with Amendments. Whereas it does not create a political utopia, when the Constitution was adhered to, our country thrived and prospered. There have been those trying to subvert the Constitution from the beginning and who still are. Again, I was told that when I would not follow Trump, that Constitutional Conservatism was dead and the document was outdated. I was told that I would regret not following the man and it would destroy me. It hasn’t yet, but if it did, then so be it. My principles and freedom mean more to me than any strongman or his followers who threaten me. Kozak’s argument here is specious and utterly flawed. It is the justifications of someone laying the groundwork for a dictatorship.

It is not Constitutional Conservatives and the likes of Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro who have lost their way. They aren’t lost period. It is the Alt-Right who has veered off to follow a leader who does not believe in the Constitution or freedom. A man who will rule with an iron grip, an enemies list and who will slam the lid down on this nation so hard it will shatter.

I believe that Donald Trump is a very dangerous man. And some of those around him may be just as dangerous or more so. Steve Bannon comes to mind. Bannon has claimed that he is a Leninist.

This is the definition of Leninism:

Leninism is the political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party and the achievement of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of socialism. Developed by and named for the Russian revolutionary Lenin, Leninism comprises socialist political and economic theories, developed from Marxism, and Lenin’s interpretations of Marxist theories, for practical application to the socio-political conditions of the agrarian Russian Empire of the early 20th century.

Ronald Radosh, a former communist turned conservative, had this to say about Steve Bannon:

Why has the Trump campaign taken as its new head a self-described Leninist?

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse in early 2014. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

This is the man who now basically has Trump’s ear and this is what he proclaims and supports. That’s chaos and it is just moonbat crazy. Add that to Russian influence, shady dealings, vile attacks and unconstitutional leanings and you have the makings of a South-American style strongman.

Nationalist populism is not the answer… it is a death knell for this country, just as liberal Marxism is. The only thing that will save the Republic and our country is to return to what made us great in the first place: faith in God, the Constitution, founding principles, limited government and our God-given rights. No one man can save us or solve this and to turn to one is suicide.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant men who sacrificed everything for this country and to ensure our freedoms. The Constitution is a foundational document that has served us well for 240 years. These people keep trying to fix something that is not broken to serve their own political agenda. We don’t worship the Constitution… we revere it and believe that it is the answer to righting this country. The answer certainly isn’t a strongman, nor is it a federal leviathan government.

I’m proud to be a Constitutional Conservative and if one day that has me labeled as a traitor and tried for being a patriot, I will make sure they have enough to convict me.

08/23/16
Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s Tangled Web Grows by the Day

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is still considered by many people to be a fundamentally dishonest candidate. A recent NBC poll shows that only 11 percent of surveyed voters believe she is “honest and trustworthy.” However, contrary to the mainstream media’s attempt to save her reputation, and her campaign’s complaints about a double standard, Mrs. Clinton has done most of the damage to her reputation herself through her penchant for lying.

This week adds more Clinton lies to the many that have already been exposed. As Accuracy in Media chairman Don Irvine notes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has taken exception to the Clinton campaign’s decision to “pin” responsibility for Mrs. Clinton’s private email server on him. According to The New York Times, the notes turned over to Congress last week by the FBI about their interview with Mrs. Clinton early last month, said that Mrs. Clinton apparently told the FBI, as she has stated publicly, that Powell had suggested that she use a personal email account.

Powell said, “The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,” reports the Washington Examiner. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough detailed a number of differences between Powell’s and Clinton’s email use, including that Powell didn’t use a private email server and did use a State Department office desktop for classified communications.

Now that it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton lied to the FBI, shouldn’t FBI Director James Comey want to reopen the investigation?

The 302s, or FBI summaries, of Mrs. Clinton’s interview with that agency are heavily redacted, according to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). He said on Fox News’ Outnumbered on August 22 that he was surprised that the FBI redacted what they did, and was concerned that there wasn’t more detail in the summary.

Records of the FBI interview could contain evidence of contradictions between Mrs. Clinton’s congressional testimony and her statements to the FBI. Yet Chaffetz, asking for a second classified copy, received two different sets of notes from the Bureau, but said they were inconsistent with each other.

Apparent contradictions between the FBI findings and Mrs. Clinton’s assertions extend beyond blaming Powell for her unsecured server. They also include her claims that she sent nothing that was classified at the time through that server, and that her staff “went through every single email” when deciding to delete personal emails.

“Clinton deleted more emails than she turned over,” reports Chris Cillizza for The Washington Post. “Her team never actually read all of the emails, skimming subject lines instead…The essence of Clinton’s argument regarding this email-sorting process was: Trust me.”

But Hillary Clinton has demonstrated time and again that she can’t be trusted. The Post is reporting that the FBI found approximately 15,000 previously undisclosed emails and documents, and “a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.”

However, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin (D) asserts that the concern over Hillary Clinton’s emails is a “partisan witch hunt,” and he falsely claimed on Fox News Sunday that “Three former secretaries of state used private e-mail servers.” In reality, Mrs. Clinton is the only secretary of state to have established a private, homebrew server. That is what she used for all of her government business.

EmailGate continues to be an enduring scandal that calls Mrs. Clinton’s integrity and judgment into question. The real scandal, as we’ve pointed out before, is not about what device she used for her emails. It is a national security scandal. Hillary regularly sent and received classified information, including Top Secret information, on an unsecured server, putting our nation’s security at risk, as well as potentially exposing sources and methods used by U.S. intelligence to our enemies.

Also enduring is the scandal of the apparent quid pro quo arrangements made between Clinton and her staff and Clinton Foundation donors while she was serving as secretary of state.

The Clintons are trying to control the damage from allegations of pay-for-play. Former President Bill Clinton recently announced that this September marks the last Clinton Global Initiative annual conference, and that if Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency the Clinton Foundation will only accept money from U.S. citizens and charities. The Washington Post reports that these restrictions would not apply to the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“But my point is that there is all this scrutiny because Hillary Clinton has been transparent,” argued Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook on CNN. “…So, as I said, the foundation is taking unprecedented steps here.”

If the Clintons wanted to be transparent, they would stop the Clinton Foundation from taking foreign donations immediately. Instead, this arrangement serves as a blatant call for foreign governments and corporations to buy access and favors now by paying off the Clintons before the election takes place. After all, each donation is an investment in a possible Clinton presidency.

Some of the press agree. The Boston Globe published an editorial suggesting that the Clinton Foundation should stop receiving any donations now, and should close its doors if Hillary becomes president. Similarly, Slate’s Josh Voorhees has issued cutting words criticizing the Clintons’ current plan: “While the Clintons are now promising to build that firewall for themselves if they win the White House, this announcement does nothing to prevent foreign entities from splashing the foundation pot during the final months of the general election,” he writes. “The Clintons’ cozy relationship with their foundation’s global patrons was a problem when Hillary was secretary of state and it is a problem now that she’s running for president.”

But fear not for the Clinton Foundation. According to the results of a Washington Post investigation reported in June of last year, the foundation had already raised $2 billion since Bill left office in 2001, and the Clintons have personally collected a combined average of $10 million a year for the last 15 years in speaker fees. According to an investigation by The Federalist website, only about 10 percent of the foundation’s money went to charitable grants in 2013.

Hillary’s ethical problem is that she can’t stop lying about things that might make her appear to be a weak or dishonest candidate, one compromised by money in politics. The purpose of the lying is to keep her from being indicted, and convince voters that she can make it to the White House, where she figures she could make this all go away. While the mainstream media continue to pull out all the stops to ensure the viability of her presidential candidacy, the Clinton Foundation quid pro quo has proven to be too bitter a pill to swallow.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

08/22/16
Bathrooms

REVOLT: Judge Blocks Obama’s Insane Bathroom Directive

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Thank God for Texas! There’s a sane federal judge in the Lone Star state that has blocked Obama’s insane edict on transgenders and bathrooms in public schools. He took a solid stance in opposition to the president’s mandate that a student should be able to choose the bathroom they wish to use based on their chosen gender preference rather than reality. Figures it would take a Texan with a set to stand against this Marxist bullcrap.

As excited kids headed back for a new school year this morning, they were informed that they should use the bathroom that coincides with their anatomical differences determined at birth. I’m sure students for the most part were relieved by this and radical liberals were ticked off. Schools should be allowed to weigh in on this and have a say. You cannot separate common sense and morality from the public school system… regardless of what liberals think.

Bathrooms

From TheBlaze:

AUSTIN, Texas (TheBlaze/AP) — A federal judge in Texas has blocked the Obama administration’s directive to public schools that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms coinciding with their chosen gender identity rather than their biological sex.

On Monday — the first day of class for most public schools in Texas — hundreds of school districts awoke to news of the order by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor.

On Sunday, O’Connor ruled that the federal education law, Title IX, “is not ambiguous” about sex being defined as “the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” O’Connor concurred with Texas Republican state leaders who argued that schools should have been allowed to weigh in on the directive.

Texas is leading 12 other states in taking a stance against Obama and his unconstitutional mandate. The Texas-led lawsuit was filed in May alongside Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah and Georgia. It also included the Republican governors of Maine, Mississippi and Kentucky. Two small school districts in Arizona and Texas — which have fewer than 600 students combined and no transgender persons on their campuses — also joined the effort to prevent the directive from being enforced.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement hailing the judgement:

We are pleased that the court ruled against the Obama Administration’s latest illegal federal overreach. This President is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect States and School Districts, who are charged under state law to establish a safe and disciplined environment conducive to student learning.

That is exactly what Texas and the other states are doing… they are protecting their students, who, should this mandate be implemented, would find themselves at the mercy of deviants and sexual predators. School would no longer be a remotely safe haven for our children and grandchildren.

Paxton pointed out that it was necessary to block the directive and its enforcement before school commenced, or the schools would risk losing federal funding because of non-compliance. Obama has made it clear that schools who oppose his mandate “are clearly on notice” and they must follow his order or lose that funding. Personally, I would tell him to stuff his funding and find another way. I believe that all schools should be privately held and not take anything from the federal government. But that’s just me. Texas receives approximately $10 billion a year in federal funds.

The Department of Education and Department of Justice did not immediately react to the injunction. Oh, but they will. This sets precedent and you can bet there will be a massive, harsh response.

This all started last May when the federal government decreed that transgender students must be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. This followed the Justice Department’s lawsuit over a North Carolina state law requiring people to use public bathrooms that corresponded with the biological sex printed on their birth certificate. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch characterized the law as akin to the policies of racial segregation. Republicans have argued that such laws are commonsense privacy safeguards. And they are.

What Obama, Lynch and others have tried to force on America is not only unconstitutional, it is unethical and immoral. I’m just saddened that only 12 states have had the spine to fight and have kept their principles intact enough to dig in their heels.

I hope this spreads and that other judges follow this example. This directive must not stand… this isn’t so much about choosing your gender as using the bathroom meant for your biological needs. It’s about ensuring that those that would take advantage of such a directive will not get the chance to prey on our kids. Sexual preference should never be valued more than the safety of our children.

08/20/16
Hillary

Does the Clinton Campaign Really Want to Make Benghazi an Issue?

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Hillary

The Benghazi scandal should be a significant campaign issue in this year’s presidential race. It goes to the heart of the many questions about Hillary Clinton’s integrity, judgment and values, as it does also for President Barack Obama’s. Together they sit at the center of this grand fiasco of botched decision-making, the refusal to provide adequate security in Libya, and the cover-up blaming the video in the aftermath. Questions still remain, such as how much of this was ideological, as opposed to just bad judgment. Why was the decision made to not send available air power into Benghazi while there was still time to save at least two of the four lives?

As we have reported, the Obama administration and Secretary of State Clinton not onlyswitched sides in the war on terror by pushing for the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and aiding al-Qaeda-linked rebels, but they also betrayed those Americans in Benghazi by leaving them on the ground to fend for themselves while under attack. This was unquestionably a dereliction of duty. Our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi dealt with all aspects of this scandal at a press conference we held back in June at the National Press Club.

Yet in an effort to undermine the impact of the Benghazi scandal on her campaign, Clinton’s running mate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine (D) has started stumping on the false claim that she has treated the relatives of the Benghazi victims with compassion. Is this really an issue they want to run on?

“Did you see Hillary interrupt her campaign and start to go after grieving parents who had lost somebody on an attack on one of our embassies?” he asked, referring to Trump’s treatment of the Khan family. “No, because she has the heart of sympathy for people who’ve lost—she’s not going to go after them. She feels for them. I’ve talked to her about it.” But those relatives tell quite a different story.

There is a reason why the public feels that Mrs. Clinton is fundamentally dishonest. Contrary to Sen. Kaine’s assertions, Hillary has claimed that the relatives of the Benghazi victims are lying about what she told them in the aftermath of the terror attacks. Several members of the families of the deceased claim that Hillary said she would go get the filmmaker and bring him to justice, thereby blaming the video for the attacks. She denies that this happened.

“Somebody is lying,” said the Conway (New Hampshire) Daily Sun columnist Tom McLaughlin. “Who is it?”

“Not me, that’s all I can tell you,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

So who is lying, really?

Mrs. Clinton has been caught in a number of lies, including her false claim that FBI “Director Comey said my answers were truthful.” Among the lies that Comey refuted were her claims that she didn’t send or receive classified information on her homebrew server, and that she had turned over all of her work-related emails. She also has lied about what she said shortly after the Benghazi attacks. As we have reported, Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, wrote in his planner contemporaneously that Mrs. Clinton blamed the filmmaker. Yet Mrs. Clinton continues to argue that the families are merely distraught and making mistakes.

Mrs. Clinton also claimed during the Democratic debates that Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, was “absolutely wrong” in saying that she had blamed the video. Smith feels she has been mistreated for speaking up.

“Townhall cites not two, but four, family members claiming that Mrs. Clinton is an outright liar,” we reported.

“But has Clinton attacked the families of the Benghazi victims? Of course not, Kaine said Wednesday,” reports The Washington Examiner. “Hillary’s classier than that. Hillary’s smarter than that. Hillary’s more compassionate than that. Hillary has better judgment than that.”

Hillary’s statements have created animosity between her and the families of the victims, contrary to Kaine’s claims. Charles Woods and Pat Smith are suing Hillary Clinton for defamation for publicly calling them liars, as well as jeopardizing the security of those in Benghazi through her use of a private email server. The lawsuit states that “During her campaign for President, Defendant Clinton has negligently, recklessly, and/or maliciously defamed Plaintiffs by either directly calling them liars, or by strongly implying that they are liars, in order to protect and enhance her public image and intimidate and emotionally harm and silence them to not speak up about the Benghazi attack on at least four separate occasions.” These include appearances with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, the Conway Daily Sun, a Democratic presidential debate, and an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

Making Benghazi a campaign issue might be the Clinton campaign’s biggest blunder yet. But don’t look to the mainstream media to make them pay a price for it.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

08/20/16
Blue

Blue Lives Matter Celebration: Honoring America’s Police – Our Brave Men and Women in Blue.

By: Lloyd Marcus

Blue

Headline: Riots in Milwaukee. “They’re beating every white person!” “Black power!” These extremely disturbing comments are from the audio of the riots aired nationwide. http://bit.ly/2b7uCMA I thought, “Well, Obama, Democrats and mainstream media, are you happy now?

Their relentless spreading and nurturing of the bogus narrative that America is racist and cops routinely murder blacks is responsible for unprecedented assassinations of police, chaos and violence in our streets. For decades democrats have controlled major cities, enslaving blacks on inner city plantations. Democrat overlords filled their black slave’s heads with victim-hood-ism and hatred for whites and America. This is the cause of blacks launching a race war on white America and police. The Democrats’ chickens have come home to roost.

It is truly unfortunate that democrats filling blacks with such negativity has cost them so much, robbing far too many of them of pursuing their full potential. Many moons ago I was a young black man in my mid twenties. I became a born-again Christian and wanted to save the world. I visited youth detention centers and jails to tell them about Jesus. I was struck that so many of those incarcerated were black. I also could not help noticing that many were handsome, bright and even gifted. Their biggest problem holding them back was their negative attitudes. Why try? The white man will stop you and so on. I was politically clueless back then and never tied their hopelessness to democrat/liberal brainwashing.

Two cops shot in the head while eating lunch in their patrol car http://nydn.us/1HgOCm5, another ambushed from behind, killed while pumping gas in his patrol car is extremely disturbing. http://cnn.it/1TOh1Jc These men were husbands and fathers. As Americans, we must come together and counter the Left painting targets on the backs of our nation’s brave men and women in blue.

Saturday, September 10th, I am hosting a Blue Lives Matter Celebration event. National response has been wonderful. Candidly, I had to let it go that some politicians and local law enforcement have backed away; not wanting anything to do with such an event.

Think about that folks. Some Americans are so intimidated, bullied and controlled by evil people that a family event featuring comics, dancers, speakers and singers coming together to celebrate, thank and encourage America’s police is too scary to be a part of. Lord help us. Every-time we shy away from doing the right thing for fear of angering bad people, we embolden them.

I have reached out to several national celebrities to participate. I will announce them as they confirm. Tea Party Express has signed on to help.

This quote by Edmund Burke is probably overused, but so appropriate. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Folks, the Left’s slander of our nation’s police is pure evil from the pit of hell.

Please, please help to pull-off this extremely important event. I prayerfully hope it will spark many more nationwide. At minimum, I need about $10,000. The Ocean Convention Center costs $2000. The production company providing lighting, video, camera with tech, two huge video projection screens and sound system costs $6000. We have to provide light-fare food for the cast and crew. There are other miscellaneous expenses. I am seeking volunteers, but I must provide transportation getting guests to and from the airport. Thus, I need around ten grand to make this event happen.

By the way, Black Lives Matter, the evil hate group that declared it “open season” on killing whites and cops http://bit.ly/2aVVbpN received over $30 million from George Soros. http://bit.ly/29Ob3I6

The Ford Foundation and other liberal groups are raising $100 million for Black Lives Matter. http://bit.ly/2aYw0Ol Meanwhile, I am struggling to raise $10,000 for an event supportive of our nation’s police. What has gone so terribly wrong with our country folks?

Please go to http://www.lloydmarcus.com/ and give using the crowd funding link. You can also give at: http://bit.ly/29MSqHg

Blue Lives Matter Celebration
Date: Saturday, September 10th.
Time: 11am – 2pm
Place: Ocean Convention Center, Daytona Beach, FL
Admission: FREE

Let’s come together on this and send a huge love letter to our brave men and women in blue. I realize that sounds a bit corny and touchy-feely. And yet, that is the tone that I believe in my spirit that the rally should embrace. My Blue Lives Matter Celebration will be a fun, uplifting and inspiring event for the entire family.

Please go to http://www.lloydmarcus.com/ or to the crowd funding site. http://bit.ly/29MSqHg

Check out our facebook event page. https://www.facebook.com/events/278303052553755

Thank you and God bless, Lloyd

08/20/16
Putin

Rick Gates, Paul Manafort and the ‘European Center for a Modern Ukraine’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Putin with Yanukovich1

Viktor Yanukovych with Vladimir Putin

“Political consultants are generally leery of registering under it [the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act], because their reputations can suffer once they are on record as accepting money to advocate the interests of foreign governments — especially if those interests conflict with America’s.” Associated Press, August 18, 2016

Trump surrogates Rick Gates and Paul Manafort (The Count of Monte Cristo) both worked to promote the pro-Russia, anti-Western communist: Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych even after he fled Ukraine in 2014 though an organization called the “European Center for a Modern Ukraine.”

Manafort is no longer working for the Trump campaign, but Rick Gates “will be taking over as the campaign’s liaison to the RNC based in Washington.”


If one was to devise a textbook example of what a front group’s name should look like, the ‘European Center for a Modern Ukraine’ fits the bill in all of it’s vague, euphemistic glory. The name struck this author as indicative of the type of flowery name often assigned to communist front groups such as “Peace Action,” or “Grassroots Global Justice Alliance,” or “Causa Justa.”

Read more here…