Wednesday, May 27, 2015


Breitbart ^ | May 27,2015 | by CHARLES HURT 

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the longest-running Southern Gothic soap opera in American history! It is a mix of “Days of Our Lives,” “Dr. Phil,” “The Sopranos,” “Oprah,” and “Judge Judy” all rolled into one, long, endless saga called “The Clintons — a Tale of Naked Ambition, Unquenchable Libido, Towering Greed, and Their Desperation to Be a Part of Every American’s Life as Long as We Live.”
It is about 20 years on from being “The Young and the Restless.” It has become “The Old and Relentless.” Washed Up. Won’t stop talking. Won’t stop spinning. Won’t stop lying. Won’t stop taking money.
The characters, well, William Shakespeare could not have thunk them up. Machiavelli would have blushed before he created such shameless creatures. And William Faulkner would have found all of their incestuous webs of shenanigans confounding. “Too confusing,” he would have written in the margins of the screenplay.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Breitbart ^ | 5/26/2015 | Matthew Boyle 

MIAMI, Florida — Conservative columnist and 10-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter steamrolled Fusion host Jorge Ramos in an appearance Tuesday filled with dramatic moments, none more interesting than where Coulter got Ramos to admit he doesn’t believe there should be a limit to how many Mexicans the United States will allow into this country—either legally or illegally.

Ramos followed up by asking Coulter if he thinks America is a “stronger nation” because it’s “more diverse, more tolerant.”
“It’s not more diverse, it’s more Mexican,” Coulter shot back.
“I think it’s more diverse—much more diverse,” Ramos replied.
After Ramos said he thinks “diversity” is “fantastic” and “beautiful,” Coulter wrapped the full segment with a question of her own for him.
“We have taken in one quarter of the entire Mexican population,” Coulter asked him. “At what point will we have taken in enough, in your view?”
That’s where Ramos made his stunning admission.
“I think that with the legal system—“ he started to answer.
“Half the Mexican population? The entire Mexican population?” Coulter kept pressing.
“No, I think with the legal system we wouldn’t need and we wouldn’t be having hundreds of people dying crossing the border,” Ramos replied.
“That isn’t an answer to the question,” Coulter corrected him. “One quarter of the Mexican population. How much more do we have to take?”
Ramos dodged again, essentially admitting he supports no limit whatsoever.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Charlie Daniels: 'Lock and Load America, Trouble is on the Way'!

Newsmax ^ | 05/25/15 | John Blosser 

Grammy-winning country music legend Charlie Daniels is fed up with President Obama's refusal to blame Muslims for terrorism and America's political correctness when it comes to Islamic murderers, and says, "Lock and load America, trouble is on the way."
In a lengthy statement on his website, triggered by the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, on May 3, Daniels blasted both Muslims and Obama.
Daniels, whose hits, "The Devil Came Down To Georgia" and "The South's Gonna Do It Again" have earned him a place forever in country music history, wrote about the Garland shooting, "The ramifications of this incident should, and hopefully will, open the eyes of the people in America who can't accept the fact that there are radical Muslims in this country who are willing to die in the Islamic cause, taking as many Americans with them as they can. "Is America to walk on egg shells in practicing our constitutional rights from now on, observing strict rules of political correctness in a fruitless effort to placate the sensibilities of people who hack the heads off Christians and kidnap children for sex slaves?"
Read Latest Breaking News from Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Two birds, one stone: Ted Cruz punches press and Rainbow Jihad in mouth at same time!

Steve ^ | May 21, 2015 | Jeff Dunetz 

The economy sucks, the Islamic State now controls half of Syria and is poised to do the same in Iraq, our allies are losing faith in this country, and the media are acting as if gay marriage and a 14-year-old decision made by the previous president are the two most important issues facing the country.
Senator Ted Cruz says he’s had enough, at least when it comes to questions about gay unions. Coming out of a meeting with Beaumont Texas officials, the candidate for the GOP presidential nomination stopped to take some questions from the press.
After getting questions about his views on same-sex marriage for the umpteenth time, Cruz fired back:
“Is there something about the left — and I am going to put the media in this category — that is obsessed with sex?” Cruz asked after fielding multiple questions on gay rights. “ISIS is executing homosexuals — you want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals — that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.”
Cruz also said he did not think his opposition to gay marriage will hurt his chances with moderate voters.
“With respect, I would suggest not drawing your questions from MSNBC. They have very few viewers and they are a radical and extreme partisan outlet,” Cruz told a reporter. He cited the expansion of “mandatory same-sex marriage” as an assault on religious liberty in the United States.
I say the senator is 100% correct. These are questions reporters do not ask of Democrats (remember the 2012 questions about birth control asked by George Stephanopoulos during 2012 debates?). The point is there are many important issues facing this country today. Gay marriage is not at the top of the priority list and there is very little a president can do to make changes either way on that issue.
This should be a lesson for people like Jeb Bush when they waffle on hypothetical questions about Iraq and similar flash points. Push back if you get a question that has noting to do with your policy proposals.

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers!


Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.
For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.
But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Differences Between Left and Right ^ | 5-27-2015 | Dennis Prager 

Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to explain their position or the position they oppose.
But if you can’t explain both sides, how do you know you’re right?
At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.
I grew up in a liberal world — New York, Jewish and Ivy League graduate school. I was an 8-year-old when President Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election against the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. I knew nothing about politics and had little interest in the subject. But I well recall knowing — knowing, not merely believing — that Democrats were “for the little guy” and Republicans were “for the rich guys.”
I voted Democrat through Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976. He was the last Democrat for which I voted.
Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn’t easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion.
In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was — and remains — that fundamental to many American Jews’ identity.
Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so.
The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between left and right.
I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the “little guy” holds conservative — or what today are labeled as conservative — views.
Difference No. 1: Is Man Basically Good?
Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. Yes, we are born innocent — babies don’t commit crimes, after all — but we are not born good. Whether it is the Christian belief in Original Sin or the Jewish belief that we are all born with a yetzer tov (good inclination) and a yetzer ra (bad inclination) that are in constant conflict, the root value systems of the West never held that we are naturally good.
To those who argue that we all have goodness within us, two responses:
First, no religion or ideology denies that we have goodness within us; the problem is with denying that we have badness within us.
Second, it is often very challenging to express that goodness. Human goodness is like gold. It needs to be mined — and like gold mining, mining for our goodness can be very difficult.
This so important to understanding the left-right divide because so many fundamental left-right differences emanate from this divide.
Perhaps the most obvious one is that conservatives blame those who engage in violent criminal activity for their behavior more than liberals do. Liberals argue that poverty, despair, and hopelessness cause poor people, especially poor blacks — in which case racism is added to the list — to riot and commit violent crimes.
Here is President Barack Obama on May 18, 2015:
“In some communities, that sense of unfairness and powerlessness has contributed to dysfunction in those communities. … Where people don’t feel a sense of hope and opportunity, then a lot of times that can fuel crime and that can fuel unrest. We’ve seen it in places like Baltimore and Ferguson and New York. And it has many causes — from a basic lack of opportunity to some groups feeling unfairly targeted by their police forces.”
So, poor blacks who riot and commit other acts of violence do so largely because they feel neglected and suffer from deprivations.
Since people are basically good, their acts of evil must be explained by factors beyond their control. Their behavior is not really their fault; and when conservatives blame blacks for rioting and other criminal behavior, liberals accuse them of “blaming the victim.”
In the conservative view, people who do evil are to be blamed because they made bad choices — and they did so because they either have little self-control or a dysfunctional conscience. In either case, they are to blame. That’s why the vast majority of equally poor people — black or white — do not riot or commit violent crimes.
Likewise, many liberals believe that most of the Muslims who engage in terror do so because of the poverty and especially because of the high unemployment rate for young men in the Arab world. Yet, it turns out that most terrorists come from middle class homes. All the 9/11 terrorists came from middle- and upper-class homes. And of course Osama bin Laden was a billionaire.
Material poverty doesn’t cause murder, rape or terror. Moral poverty does. That’s one of the great divides between left and right. And it largely emanates from their differing views about whether human nature is innately good.

Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit!

Wash Examiner ^ | 5/27/15 | SARAH WESTWOOD 

Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court.
The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.
Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.
The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation's chief diplomat.
"Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to ... The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official," Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.
"Hillary Clinton deleted 32,000 email messages from her email server that included her communications arranging, negotiating, and agreeing upon speaking engagements by Bill Clinton in return for large speaking fees and donations to The Clinton Foundation," the documents, dated May 20, said

What a catch! Suitor offers Obama 50 cows, 70 sheep, 30 goats to marry his daughter Malia!

BizPac Review ^ | 5/27/15 | Steve Berman 

President Obama’s daughter Malia has won her first marriage offer, and boy is he a keeper!
Malia, who will be 17 on July 4, received a serious matrimony proposal from a Kenyan lawyer who’s willing to put all his wealth on the table to win her hand.
Felix Kiprono reportedly told the scandal-loving Kenyan tabloid The Nairobian he’s willing to pay the president 50 cows, 70 sheep and 30 goats as a dowry for Malia.
”I got interested in her in 2008,” when Malia was 10 years old, Kipromo told the newspaper. “As a matter of fact, I haven’t dated anyone since and promise to be faithful to her.”
“I have shared this with my family and they are willing to help me raise the bride price,” he said. “People might say I am after the family’s money, which is not the case. My love is real.”
Such a find!
The Obamas had better act quickly before this one gets away.
“I am currently drafting a letter to Obama asking him to please have Malia accompany him for this trip,” Kiprono said.
The odds of Malia going to Kenya with the president are surely the longest of long shots. But, as they say, there’s still a chance.
If she does go, her anxious suitor will be there waiting for her, along with his barnyard dowry. Young Malia has surely always imagined her wedding day to be just like that.
It seems Kiprono may have ignited a bidding war of sorts.

First Baltimore Riot Bill Comes Due: $20,000,000 – Baltimore City Leadership Send Bill To FEMA!

Conservative Treehouse ^ | May 26, 2015 

Complete Headline: First Baltimore Riot Bill Comes Due: $20,000,000 – Baltimore City Leadership Send Bill To FEMA, Forces All Americans To Pay….
It takes some kind of nerve to intentionally “provide space for people to destroy” a city, and then ask everyone who doesn’t live in the city to pay for it.

…”The $20 million estimate released by city officials does not include the cost to businesses of the unrest. The figure also does not include state or federal costs. It’s unclear when those figures will be tallied”…
The expenses — which go before the city’s spending board for approval Wednesday — include overtime for police and firefighters, damage to city-owned property and repaying other jurisdictions for police and other assistance.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Man Card

Not a runner?

Her Name!

The Best?


Do Not Touch!

Who WON?

Cop Killers

Crime Spree


Arrest me!




More Coverage


What matters?

General Welfare!


Tan Lines

An Ice Cream Cone

Don't Go! ^ | May 27, 2015 | John Stossel 

It's graduation time! Have we learned much? No.
College has become a scam.

Some students benefit: those with full scholarships and/or rich parents so they don't go deep into debt, those who love learning for its own sake and land jobs in academia and those who get jobs that require a college credential.
But that's not most students.
Half today's recent grads work in jobs that don't require degrees. Eighty thousand of America's bartenders have bachelor's degrees.
Politicians such as Hillary Clinton promote college by claiming that over a lifetime, college graduates "earn $1 million more." That statistic is true but utterly misleading. People who go to college are different. They're more likely to have been raised by two parents. They did better in high school. They'd make more money even if they never went go to college.
Economist Bryan Caplan argues that there isn't much evidence that college grads are paid more because they learned anything at college that is valuable to their jobs.
Getting into elite universities and graduating from them is mostly a "signaling" device, he says. It tells employers you're a smart person, so employers can begin teaching you things you really need to know. Employers, not the colleges, turn out to be the ones making students valuable contributors.
This suggests college is more like a hurdle than an investment. It would be better if companies found cheaper ways to screen for talent than four years of college.
Most of America's prestigious universities started out as training centers for the priesthood and ways of confirming your status as part of the upper crust. In many cases, that's still true today. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize that. But we are.
Now President Obama proposes spending more of your money on "free community college." Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders goes further, proposing "free tuition" at four-year public colleges.
Of course, "free" just means taxpayers are forced to pay.
This is nuts. When government subsidizes services, people supplying those services get wasteful. Colleges now spend millions on manicured lawns and fancy gyms.
A University of Missouri admissions officer bragged to my TV show crew about the university's "day spa" and said when it comes to recruiting students, "more important than reading, writing and arithmetic" is giving "our Tigers spring break every time they step into the student recreation complex."
I'm happy that Missouri's students like their luxurious gym, but I don't want to help pay for it. If the school thinks its "day spa" is crucial for recruiting, let them sucker their own alumni into making voluntary contributions for it. Leave taxpayers alone.
Government subsidies encourage students who don't belong in college to go anyway. Many don't graduate, feel bad about themselves and end up deep in debt. The subsidies also invite schools to increase the cost of tuition.
Democrats complained we need Obamacare because health care costs "were skyrocketing." But while the cost of health care rose 296 percent over the past 30 years, college tuition rose 553 percent. College is now a grotesque spending bubble, funded by government, that's about to burst.
Law professor Glenn Reynolds, author of "The Education Apocalypse," writes, "The rapid increase in college tuition began just about exactly the time the federal government started helping to subsidize college ... (Y)ou don't want to engage in subsidies that make universities more bloated and more inefficient."
But that's what Obama and Sanders propose to do.
A more compassionate move would be to warn people that college is not as valuable as colleges advertise themselves to be.
PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel encourages students to escape the college trap by paying them $100,000 not to go to college and instead to found their own capitalist ventures.
If we really want to build a better future and not just keep going through the same old motions, experiments like that are a much smarter idea than throwing more money at the college bubble.

Hillary the Arms Dealer!

Canada Free Press ^ | 05/27/15 | Matthew Vadum 

Clinton Foundation payola funds State Department approval of arms shipments to repressive governments.
While presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was America’s top diplomat the Department of State that she oversaw approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments forked over millions of dollars to the now-embattled Clinton Foundation.
According to an International Business Times report by David Sirota and Andrew Perez, “at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary.” The article identified the seven nations as Algeria, Australia, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, and Thailand.
Mainstream media’s surprisingly probing coverage of the unfolding Clinton Foundation donations-for-favors scandal suggests that reporters have turned on the Clintons in the age of Obama.
And the fact that the IBT piece was co-authored by Marxist author and radio talk show host David Sirota adds to the growing pile of evidence that some of the more ideologically pure progressives in the Democratic Party are ganging up on Mrs. Clinton in order to help as yet undeclared presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

An Iraq War veteran pens a powerful defense of the decision to invade, remove Saddam

Canada Free Press ^ | 05/27/15 | Dan Calabrese 

The detail hindsight forgets, and the fiction murky memories create
We’ve been coming back to the Iraq War lately for two reasons. One is that the media keep bringing it up in the form of a knowing-what-we-know-now gotcha question aimed at Republican presidential candidates (although they offer no such question to Hillary Clinton concerning the 2011 withdrawl of all U.S. troops . . . not that she would answer). The other, more pertinent reason, is that ISIS is overrunning Iraq at the moment, taking advantage of the absence of a residual U.S. force and Barack Obama’s refusal to wage a real fight against them.
Conventional wisdom long ago decided that George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that for all his faults, Saddam Hussein’s presence was preferable to what came after - not to mention the price we paid in blood and treasure to remove him. I have remained one of the steadfast defenders of the decision to invade Iraq and take Saddam out, and I discussed that in some detail last week.
But I am just a guy who remembers what was happening at the time and found the post-event revision of history unconvincing. David Patten was there, fought in the war and remembers in much clearer details why we fought, and why the current revisionist narrative is total B.S. Many of the post-invasion decisions the Bush Administration made were mistakes, and resulted in a very difficult four-year post-invasion period that only turned our way with the 2007 surge. Patten doesn’t deny that and neither do I. But anyone who now argues that we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power is forgetting the true nature of his regime and the destablizing force he represented in the region.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Respect the Vietnam Vet


Old White People?








Fill 'er up?




Kick the can!


Overly Attached


Members of Congress


On his watch!




Pet Tricks


Lies that matter


Sea Level