Saturday, July 11, 2015

New York Times Is Lying: Cruz Campaign Calls on the Times to Release Their Evidence ^ | 07/10/15 

HOUSTON, Texas — Yesterday, news broke that the New York Times had omitted Cruz’s best-selling book A Time for Truth from their best-seller list.
Bookscan, a subscription service that tracks the vast majority of book sales in America, is usually a reliable indicator of the New York Times bestseller list. For example, this week’s #1 and #2 books on Bookscan are also #1 and #2 on the NYT list. But the #3 book, Cruz’s A Time for Truth, has been omitted altogether from the top twenty spots on the New York Times list.
This is despite the fact that Cruz’s book sold more copies last week than 18 of the 20 books on the list.
Their decision to blackball Cruz’s book suggests that the Times very much does not want people to read the book.
The Times’s initial explanation was cryptic: “We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold.”
When the Times was roundly condemned for its obvious political bias, they issued a revised statement: “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”
This statement is false, and the Times knows it.
There were no “strategic bulk purchases.” Cruz spent last week on a nation-wide book tour, signing copies of his book at multiple locations. Booksellers at each event had long lines—sometimes over 400 people per event.
Pictures from some of these signings may be found here: Arlington, TXKaty, TX, and Sioux City, IA.
Simultaneously, Cruz’s book was ranked the #1 political seller on Amazon, and made it as high as the #9 overall seller (across all categories, including fiction).
“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response—alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’—is a blatant falsehood,” said Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper Collins.”
“We call on the Times, release your so-called ‘evidence.’ Demonstrate that your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own partisan agenda. And, if you cannot do so, then issue a public apology to Senator Cruz and Harper Collins editor Adam Bellow for making false charges against them.”

Sarah Palin Unleashes After This Sick Obamacare “Myth” Turns Out to Be True

Conservative Tribune ^ | 7/10/15 | staff 

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has long been an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act. One of her main concerns about the law had to do with its so-called “death panels,” which have been summarily dismissed by the left and it allies in the media — but which were just confirmed by the administration to in fact exist.
Though “death panels” may be something of a misnomer, it specifically refers to the use of taxpayer funds for reimbursement of “end-of-life” care and counseling mandated by Obamacare, along with the inevitable healthcare rationing that will come about due to government control and bureaucracy.
Now that Palin has essentially been proven right, she is calling out the media for ignoring and discrediting her warnings these past five years.
“There’s no denying that the ultimate fix for Obamacare’s unsustainable, unaffordable promises is rationed care,” Palin wrote in a recent Facebook post.
“Rationed care decided upon by a panel of faceless bureaucrats who, rational people like me will argue, will measure a person’s worth using disagreeable criteria as they justify doling out limited government-controlled care. That, my friend, is a death panel,” she explained.
“This decision does not take into consideration the importance of every individual, nor the sanctity of life, as many of us have said for years,” Palin added.
She went on to declare that government bureaucrats have no business being involved in “end-of-life” discussions between doctors and patients, and lashed out at those politicians on both sides who rudely dismissed her warnings about what is now beginning to happen.
“It is happening in our assisted living facilities, our nursing homes, hospitals, doctors’ offices, and schools, despite many providers who disagree with the mandate but are forced or coerced to provide answers to the death panel of the fed,” she wrote.
Love her or hate her, Palin is in fact correct, at least on this issue.
One must now wonder what other warnings about Obamacare will ultimately prove to be true?

Poll: Voters Want Sanctuary Cities Punished For Not Upholding Immigration Laws

Daily Caller ^ | 7/10/15 | Kerry Picket 

Voters want to see sanctuary cities punished, a new poll from Rasmussen Reports says.
Since 32-year old Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco last week allegedly by an illegal alien, a new poll shows that voters want to see sanctuary cities be held accountable for not upholding federal immigration laws.
According to Rasmussen’s national telephone survey, “Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.”
Only twenty-six percent of likely voters oppose such an action and twelve percent are undecided. In fact, fifty-eight percent think the federal government should cut off funds to cities that give safe haven to illegal aliens while thirty-two percent disagree.
Rasmussen also points out, “Eighty-four percent (84%) of those who want the Justice Department to take legal action against sanctuary cities also favor a cut-off of all federal aid. Among voters opposed to legal action, 80% also oppose a funding cut-off.”
Voters are wary of the Justice Department, however. Fifty-six percent (56%) think the Justice Department is more concerned with politics than with making sure justice is done when it decides to investigate a local crime independent of the local police.
This poll coincides another Rasmussen survey that shows that most voters agree with Republican presidential candidate and New York businessman Donald Trump—that illegal immigration increases crime. Prior Trump’s entry into the race in early May, Rasmussen found that seventy-seven percent of likely voters now consider illegal immigration a serious problem in the United States.
This particular survey showed that sixty-three percent of voters believe that regaining control of the border is more important than legalizing undocumented immigrants in the country.
Members of Congress and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against sanctuary city policies. These include: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter jr., Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Lou Barletta, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, and Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.
However, others, like the sheriff of San Francisco, remain adamant that sanctuary city policies must remain in place for safety reasons. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin defended Chicago’s sanctuary city status telling The Daily Caller, “The dilemma we face is this. Fundamentally, Chicago is welcoming of immigrants and law enforcement must have the cooperation of the community in solving crimes. They don’t want to drive these wedges by arresting the people on immigration violations. They would rather work to try to bring piece to our community.”
On the issue of defying federal immigration authorities when it comes to not honoring detainer requests, similar to a recent situation in San Francisco, Durbin responded, “I don’t know if there’s any evidence of that, at least not in Chicago that I’ve heard of.
Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley also defended sanctuary cities releasing his argument in a statement in both in English and Spanish.