Monday, October 26, 2015

Sanctuary City Policies Will No Longer Be Tolerated In Texas Say Gov. Abbott

Breitbart ^ | 10/26/2015 | Bob Price 

Governor Abbott wrote the tersely worded letter to Sheriff Valdez after her decision announced earlier this month to scale back on honoring immigration detainers sent to her jail by the federal government’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her announcement was reported by Breitbart Texas on October 12.
“’Sanctuary City’ policies like those promoted by your recent decision to implement your own case-by-case immigrant detention plan will no longer be tolerated in Texas,” Abbott began in his letter attached below. “Your decision to not fully honor U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) requests to detain criminal immigrants poses a serious danger to Texans. These detainers provide ICE with the critical notice and time it needs to take incarcerated immigrants into federal custody.”
“Your refusal to fully participate in a federal law enforcement program intended to keep dangerous criminals off the streets leaves the State no choice but to take whatever actions are necessary to protect our fellow Texans,” Abbott continued. “Now more than ever, it is essential that state, federal, and local law enforcement work collaboratively to protect our fellow Texans and to ensure that our laws are upheld, not disregarded.”
The governor laid out actions he and the state of Texas could take in response to the renegade actions of this sheriff. Those include the following: •
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Seattle Raised Minimum Wage To $15- What Immediately Happened Will Have Them Regretting It

Western Journalism ^ | October 26, 2015 | jack Davis 

As the battle over increasing the minimum wage is fought out from coast to coast, new facts dispel the myth that increasing labor costs for employers somehow results in an economic Nirvana.
When Seattle decided to pass a law sending the minimum wage up to $15 an hour, liberals ridiculed claims that paying workers a higher wage could have any negative impact on employers and the regional job market.
It appears they should have listened.
A study released Wednesday by the American Enterprise Institute said that even though the full impact of the wage increase has not yet been felt, Seattle is already losing restaurant jobs at a time when the rest of Washington is gaining them.
The report said 700 restaurant jobs have already been lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...

12 Things You Don't Know About Seventh-Day Adventists

By Nick Sanchez   |   Monday, 26 Oct 2015 02:08 PM


Ben Carson's faith as a Seventh-day Adventist came under fire at a Donald Trump rally on Saturday when the billionaire suggested his Presbyterian faith was superior.

Having recently slipped behind Carson in the Iowa polls, Trump told a crowd in Florida, "I love Iowa. And, look, I don't have to say it, I'm Presbyterian. Can you believe it? Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian . . . Boy, that's down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about."

On Sunday, Carson was given the opportunity to respond on Fox News, but said "I really refuse to really get into the mud pit" with Trump.

Gathered below are 12 things you may or may not know about Seventh-day Adventists and their unique system of belief.

Urgent: Do You Support Ben Carson for the GOP Nomination? Vote Here Now 

1. Millerite origins — After studying the prophecies of Daniel, Baptist preacher William Miller predicted the literal Second Coming (advent) of Jesus Christ on Oct. 22, 1844, and formed a large following around this belief.

2. Great Disappointment
 — When Christ did not return to earth on the predicted date, some adherents abandoned their faith in the idea of a literal Second Coming, while many continued to find the idea of a literal Second Coming useful to the practice of their faith.

3. Founding — Out of the Millerite denomination grew the formal Seventh-day Adventist Church, which was founded in 1863 at the First General Conference. At the conference, twenty delegates met in Battle Creek, Michigan, to outline the beliefs of the denomination.

4. Ellen G. White
 — Among the original founders was a woman born in Maine named Ellen G. White. According to official church websiteAdventist.org, White is recognized as having received the gift of prophecy as outlined in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12, and her writings are seen as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." 

5. Sabbath — Adventists recognize Saturday as the Sabbath, the original seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week.

6. Body as temple of the Holy Spirit
 — Many Adventists "adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures," as they view the body as the vessel for the Holy Spirit. Many abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and narcotics.

ALERT: When Do You Think Christ Is Returning? Vote Now 

7. Unconscious dead
 — Seventh-day Adventists believe that those who die lay in an unconscious state until the return of Jesus Christ to earth.

8. Second Coming of Christ — Adventists believe that Christ, having died on the cross, been resurrected, and ascended to heaven, will return to earth twice more: once to catch up the righteous, and finally to establish heaven on earth.

9. First resurrection — During the first resurrection, the righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord.

10. Millennium
 — After Christ resurrects and takes up the righteous, he will reign in heaven with them for 1,000 years, while Satan and his angels will occupy a desolate earth with no living human inhabitants.

11. The End of Sin
 — At the end of the Millennium, Christ, His saints, and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will be resurrected, and surround the city along with Satan and his angels. At that time, God will consume them in fire, thus cleansing the earth and the universe from sin and sinners forever.

12. New Earth — After Satan is destroyed, Seventh-day Adventists believe suffering and death will have passed away, and God will rule with the redeemed in a perfect environment of love, life, and joy.

ALERT: Should 'One Nation Under God' Stay in the Pledge of Allegiance? Vote Now 
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/ben-carson-seventh-day-adventist-faith/2015/10/26/id/699052/#ixzz3pid567BF
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist. So What?

sgberman.com ^ | 10/26/2015 | Steve Berman 


How important is it really that Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist?  And does it matter if the Seventh Day Adventists are a cult?
Donald Trump, the master at sowing doubt while retaining deniability (“it wouldn’t be nice if I said [insert insult here] but I have to be nice.”), said “Seventh Day Adventist, I don’t know about.  I just don’t know about.”  Trump says nothing without a purpose—of course he knows that many people consider them a cult, and he’s playing the card.
Questioned about he remarks on Face The Nation on Sunday (see the video at the 2:50 mark), Trump doubled down on his “I don’t know” comment.  “That wasn’t meant to be an insult,” he said—so why bring it up at all?  He brought it up because he knows some people think it’s a cult and will react accordingly.
Almost a year ago, I wrote a popular piece titled “8 Signs You May Be In a Cult” and used the Adventists as an example.
Since I know Christianity best, I’ll use that for my examples.  The Seventh Day Adventist church professes 28 fundamental beliefs.   Number 18 is entitled “The Gift of Prophecy” and states in part:One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
The simple test is this:  would the Seventh Day Adventist beliefs survive independently if Ellen G. White were a false prophet?  I am not arguing whether she is or is not, but you see how the test makes this question very clear.  If a Seventh Day Adventist would defend Ellen G. White’s standing as a prophet above the Bible she preached from, that’s a sign.
The easiest way to determine whether Carson holds firmly to Adventist teachings is to ask him.  By all appearances, he seems to keep their doctrine: he’s a vegetarian, doesn’t drink coffee, and appears to agree with many of their views on health.  None of those are bad things.  And so what?
If the Seventh Day Adventists are a cult, they’re a benign one, from a political viewpoint.  I’d say the same about a whole lot of other groups which I won’t name.
And that doesn’t detract from Carson’s statement that he wouldn’t support a Muslim in the White House.  Islam is a fundamentally different system than Christianity or other religions, in that it contains a political-legal system within it.  That’s what Carson was referring to, not some religious doctrine.
Also, people are free to leave the Seventh Day Adventists without having their heads forcibly removed from their bodies.  That says a lot.
A larger point here is that a person’s religious beliefs and doctrine don’t disqualify them from the office of president—their commitment to America and their political views may disqualify them in that without loyalty to the country how can they be trusted, but the job in the Oval Office is not to lead people to a religious solution.
So if a Catholic were running against a Mormon, I’d have to consider their political views as paramount, and my personal views of their religious doctrine as a separate issue.  If I don’t like Mormons because of their doctrine, or because I consider them a cult, I have to determine if those are really relevant to their ability to lead our country, or just my own private dislikes.
There were people in 2012 who thought Mitt Romney should never be elected president because he’s a Mormon and would deceive people about the nature of Christ--and because he wears funny Mormon underwear.  If it was the job of the president to supply Biblical truth about Christ, I’d agree that’s a disqualifying factor, but it’s not.  So it’s nonsense to use that argument.  Even a committed Christian in the White House won’t necessarily lead people to Christ, so having a cult member in the White House isn’t necessarily the worst possible thing.
I’d rather have someone who believes in God, and has some doctrinal issues, but espouses a Biblical morality than an atheist, humanist, or Barack Obama, who’s functionally an atheist.  And honestly, I’d rather have Ben Carson, Seventh Day Adventist, than Donald Trump, lapsed Presbyterian.
I’m not about to become a Seventh Day Adventist, and I don’t hear Carson proselytizing about his faith.  He only applies it to his life.  We should all learn the truth and pray for our leaders (and candidates), but let’s not descend into the fear-mongering and name-calling we’ve seen throughout American political history.

House bill would remove the term 'alien' from federal law

http://thehill.com/ ^ | 10/26/2015 | Lydia Wheeler 

Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) has introduced the Correcting Hurtful and Alienating Names in Government Expression Act. The bill would remove the term "illegal alien" and replace it with "undocumented foreign national” and keep executive branch agencies from using “alien” or "illegal alien" in signage and literature.
"Words matter, particularly in the context of an issue as contentious as immigration," Castro said.
"Discontinuing our use of the term 'alien' will help lessen the prejudice and vitriol that for too long have poisoned our nation's discussions around immigration reform," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Tea party targeting accusations, legal issues persist for IRS after Justice ends probe

Washington Times ^ | 10/25/15 | Stephen Dinan 

The IRS is still holding up the nonprofit applications of tea party groups, including one that has been waiting nearly six years for approval, as conservatives panned the Justice Department’s announcement last week that it had cleared the tax agency, and former senior executive Lois G. Lerner, of any wrongdoing.
The Obama administration’s decision, outlined in a Friday afternoon letter to Congress, said the IRS did mishandle nonprofit status applications from conservative groups but said the bad behavior wasn’t criminal.
Still, the decision does not end the legal jeopardy for the tax agency, nor does it quell the political battle in which the IRS has lost billions of dollars in funding from a Congress that remains troubled by employees’ behavior.
Several lawsuits, including one seeking to be certified as a class action, are still pending against the IRS.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Chuck Todd Calls out Cummings and Benghazi Democrats: Why Did You ‘Shield’ Hillary Clinton?

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 10/25/15 | David Rutz 

Meet The Press host Chuck Todd called out ranking Benghazi Select Committee member Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) and other Democrats Sunday for using so much of their time this week with Hillary Clinton to “shield” her rather than ask real questions about Clinton’s handling of the terrorist attack.
Less than 25 percent of the Democrats’ questions, according to the NBC show’s calculations, were actually “challenging,” Todd said. The hearing was referred to as “partisan” by many mainstream media outlets, but they chose to give it that label because of the Republicans’ tough questioning of Clinton, not Democrats consistently bashing the proceedings and saying “nothing new” was being learned.
“We tallied up 68 total questions to Secretary Clinton [from Democrats],” Todd said. “16 of them, at best, could we call challenging. Why did you guys choose a strategy of shield rather than a strategy of, really what Tammy Duckworth did, probably the one Democrat that did it the most, of conducting a hearing, asking questions about the security situation?”
“From the very beginning, Chuck, I said we were looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Cummings said. “In many instances, we found ourselves having to not defend Secretary Clinton but to make sure the record was complete, and I’m glad that the public had an opportunity to see all of that. When you look at what we were asking about, they were the things that went to Benghazi, the things that we were supposed to be dealing with from the very beginning.”
Cummings raised his voice on several occasions Thursday while decrying the proceedings and using his time with Clinton to praise her responses and slam Republicans for investigating her, at one point drawing applause for his remarks. Far-left website Salon called him “the real star” of the hearing.

BRING IT ON: Why The Washington Establishment Hates and Fears Ted Cruz!

Clash Daily ^ | October 25, 2015 | John Tutten 

You can always tell when the Washington statists really fear something. They become like jackals on a carcass in the savannah, tearing and ripping at it until there is nothing left. Anything or anyone that might upset the symbiosis between the political hacks and their corporate cronies must be eliminated. After all, they worked very hard to put this self-serving, freedom killing mechanism in place. No idea or outsider can be allowed to interfere with the unending orgy of money and power.

There really is just one party in Washington today. Yes, we still have Democrats and Republicans, but when it comes to the party establishments, they share what is the most important goal for each – keep the money and power growing inside the beltway. The Republicans are in lock step with the Dem’s, just following a few steps behind.

The Democrats’ low information constituency has drunk the Kool-Aid and will obediently pull the “D” lever no matter what. The Republicans, though, still have to pay lip service to smaller government, balanced budgets, adherence to the Constitution, etc., you know all that antiquated eighteenth century stuff. They still need our votes so they can have the committee leadership positions and then can facilitate everything the Dems want. They don’t care where the country is headed; they just want to be behind the wheel.
Which then brings us to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Can there be a more hated man inside the beltway? I don’t think so. Cruz has a clear record of speaking truth to power. Whether it’s defending our religious liberty or our Second Amendment rights or standing up against Obama’s disastrous Iran nuclear weapons treaty, Senator Cruz has been the clearest voice of truth and justice in a government that has forgotten both. Cruz is the only candidate that has actually done what the rest of the Republican field says they will do – “stand up to Washington”.
Cruz’ presidential campaign so far has him in the fourth or fifth position in the national polls. The Republican establishment and the media have decided up until now to ignore the senator. His time at the two Republican debates was significantly lower than his poll position would demand and the time he did get was later in the debates.
However, the time of ignoring the senator hoping his campaign would fade away appears to be over. That’s because the senator’s presidential efforts are building momentum, gaining committed followers and money at a rate that makes statists’ blood run cold.
Recently at the “New Hampshire 603 Alliance” meeting of the state’s conservative leaders, Cruz won their straw poll with 72% of the vote. A month ago at the FreedomWorks convention in Florida, the home of Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, Cruz won their straw poll with 42% of the vote. And at the Values Voters summit two weeks later, Cruz won their straw poll with 35% of the vote.
Maybe these results are the reason former president, George W. Bush, had to break with the “ignoring Cruz” strategy and directly attack the senator. At a fundraiser for his brother, Jeb, last weekend G.W. made clear that of all the candidates running, Cruz is the one that he really disliked. Bush characterized the senator as “opportunistic and self-serving” and that he just didn’t like him. Have you heard the former president say anything critical of our current train wreck of a president? I sure haven’t, but a solid, freedom loving conservative, well that what’s prompts Bush to attack. This shows how the establishment is threatened by the senator’s campaign.
Senator Cruz has also been very savvy in how he has managed the Donald Trump phenomenon. While Jeb Bush continues to allow himself to be baited by Trump and end up looking sluggish, inarticulate, and weak, Cruz has stayed out of the high school lunchroom food fights. In fact, Cruz appears to be drafting Trump like a NASCAR pro.
The dynamic between the two candidates does make me wonder if there might not be some cooperation being effected. Despite how well Trump is doing in the polls and how right now it certainly looks like he can lock up the nomination, I just get the feeling that Trump really doesn’t want to be president. I just can’t see him slogging through all of the policy decisions and bureaucratic molasses day-in and day-out. I can see him reveling in delivering the nomination to a staunch conservative who can return our country to the greatness Trump so often speaks about.
One thing is for sure. The surest indicator of who is the best candidate for the future of our constitutional republic is the one the Washington establishment fears the most. I believe that’s Ted Cruz.
It’s clear now that by delivering a Republican controlled Congress we cannot stop Washington’s accelerating drive towards totalitarian statism. Congress is a major part of the problem, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans. It will take a courageous, steel-spined, conservative president to wrest control of our government from the Washington cartel and return it to we the people. I believe Ted Cruz is the one candidate that can do this.

Hillary Clinton: The fat cats’ favorite candidate!

New York Post ^ | October 25, 2015 | 9:45pm | Editorial Board 

Fire-breathing scourge of Wall Street on the campaign trail — and reliable friend of Wall Street in the boardroom. That’s Hillary Clinton — and the big-money crowd thinks it’s in on the game.
For all her populist rhetoric against hedge-funders and the like, Clinton has received more donations from CEOs than any candidate in the GOP — you know, the party of the greedy rich.
More than 760 of Clinton’s presidential donors have listed their occupation as CEO or some variation, according to a Big Crunch analysis of federal election forms.
That’s as many as have given to Republican hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz combined.
And it doesn’t even include people like hedge-fund CEO Robert Mercer, who prefers to list himself as a “financial consultant” — or those who’ve given instead to pro-Hillary super-PACs. (Or all the folks who’ve bought goodwill over the years by giving to the Clinton Foundation.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Poll: NRA more popular than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

FoxNews/Gallup ^ | October 22, 2015 | Unattributed 

A new poll shows The National Rifle Association is more popular than the Democratic party's two most prominent members, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
According to the Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans surveyed said they have a favorable view of the gun rights group, while 35 percent said they have an unfavorable view.
“In a year plagued with mass shootings, including a recent tragedy at a community college in Oregon, there has been a national debate as to whether the NRA, with its ardent support for gun rights, is somehow complicit in these shootings,” Gallup points out.
“Gallup's survey shows that, even after shootings nationwide, Americans overall still have a favorable opinion of the NRA, as they typically have, suggesting that the public may not be specifically blaming the organization for the crimes of those who commit mass shootings.”
Compare this to recent approval ratings for the president and former secretary of state, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, and recently announced that she would support tougher gun laws once in office.
According to a Gallup Poll between Oct.19-21, just under 50 percent approve of Obama’s job performance, while 45 percent disapprove. Meanwhile, in a NBC/Wall Street Journal survey of Americans taken Oct. 15-18, 39 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of Clinton, compared to 48 percent with an unfavorable view.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Deal With It – We Conservatives Are Here To Stay!

Townhall.com ^ | October 26, 2015 | Kurt Schlichter 


Now is when the adults in the room are supposed to rise from their rocking chairs and send us uppity conservatives to our room without our supper. But instead, we’re going to stay right here and have another cheeseburger. And another beer. And there’s nothing you Chamber of Commerce-kissing, Obama-submitting moderates can do about it.
When Paul Ryan was drafted for Speaker, who held the real power in that dynamic? Not Ryan – he knew he couldn’t say ‘No” because he would catch the blame if everything went to hell. No, the guys with the real power were the dreaded conservatives – they were the ones whose bottoms were getting bussed.
Sure, there are only a few dozen in the Freedom Caucus, but today they are in the driver’s seat, forcing the caucus kicking and screaming to the right. They are the ones who pummeled the House GOP into transforming from the old status quo-reinforcing transactional paradigm based on trading earmarks into an ideological paradigm based on fighting the liberal agenda. The conservatives have won. We need to understand and accept that so we can move on to the next phase in our campaign to destroy progressivism and restore America.
The fact that conservatives have taken the reins away from the moderates makes people mad, mostly moderate people. Their problem is that we conservatives just won’t cooperate and compromise and lose. This insistence on actually doing conservative things freaks out the squares – “You mean, when you said you wanted to defund Obamacare, you guys were serious?”
Now, that’s not to say that many of us on the right are not also frustrated and annoyed at the hardcore conservatives. We are. Even I am occasionally, like when they won’t take “Yes” for an answer. Paul Ryan was saying “Yes” when he agreed to not push amnesty, to maintain the Hastert Rule, and to reform House procedures. In return, all Ryan wanted was to be allowed to spend more of his time with his kids than sucking face with donor class squishes and trading our principles for their cash. Oh no, Paul – don’t throw us in the briar patch.
Yeah, hardcore conservatives are a pain, but it’s a good hurt, like when your legs get sore after a run or your knuckles ache after punching a hippie.
Let’s face facts – without the hardcore conservatives, Paul Ryan would be happily wonking out as Ways and Means chairman instead of promising to give up about 90% of what we want. John Boehner would still be the Annoying Orange of GOP politics, clinking his highball glass in his secret conclaves with the same K Street jerks we want to see shuttering their expensive offices and wearing barrels as they ride out of D.C. in a caravan of battered U-Hauls.
The smart center right guys get this. They know how to make hard lemonade out of the hard right lemons of the Freedom Caucus. I negotiate for a living as a trial lawyer, and I understand that getting 80% of what my client wants on a given deal means I’m getting hi-fived and a bonus. And I love playing the “Craziest Guy in the Room” card. Sometimes, I even am that card. The CGITR strategy involves being the guy willing to pull a Samson and bring it all down on top of everyone – he’s perfectly happy to get smooshed in the collapse just as long as he takes you all with him. That’s the role of the hardcore conservatives who won’t settle for anything less than 110% of what they want. You can point to them, sigh, shake your head sadly, and say, “Gosh, you better give me 80% and then maybe – maybe – I can hold off these lunatics.”
All hail the conservatives who won’t compromise, who won’t buckle, who won’t let the go-along/get-along gang keep going along and getting along. After all, without the hardcore conservatives, the speaker issue would be moot. Pelosi would be in charge and busy helping Obama turn this country into Venezuela II: The Enfascisting.
There’s no turning back either. We are not returning to the days when the House GOP caucus was satisfied to be a bunch of gentlemanly losers happy to spend several terms spinning their wheels on the Potomac as the government grew and metastasized on their watch. Every election cycle, more of the old guard retires and more of the new breed comes on board. The tilt has happened. John Boehner left the speakership and the House for one reason and one reason only – to avoid a humiliating repudiation at the hands of the GOP caucus that a dozen cases of Jack Daniel’s couldn’t make him forget.
Boehner made no secret that he held conservatives in contempt. And for that the conservatives broke him. Maybe the media missed this essential truth, but that’s a lesson ambitious Republican politicians are all going to learn. The likes of David Brooks will wet their collective Dockers, but the Age of the Squish has come to an end. The RINOs are Cecil, the conservatives are the dentists, and the no one wants to the next head on the wall next to Eric Cantor and Sobby John’s.
This isn’t some phase the GOP is going to outgrow. We’re not afraid to demand that those who lead us be conservative. No dignified elder statesman with a track record of honorable defeat is going to talk some sense into us. We have no desire to utter the squish war cry of, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”
Yeah, conservatives can be annoying. Hell, they often annoy me, and I’m so hardcore that I’d oppose replacing EBT cards with community gruel pots because I think that’s still too generous to deadbeat Democrat-voting losers. But people who actually believe in something often are annoying.
Here’s the reality. We conservatives have won. And as we exchange our place on the fringes of the party with the RINOs – when the squishes mutter that the GOP they knew is gone, they’re right – we are dealing with a whole new set of challenges. We conservatives now represent the GOP consensus, and power struggles we have seen are our growing pains.
We will get through them. We will prevail. We are the conservatives, and this House is now our house. Deal with i

Hit and Run!

Staying-Power-NRD-600.jpg

A Waste of time!

wK0NDNo.jpg

I have a dream!

asfSrhi.jpg

Health Reasons!

R5mUILR.jpg

Email President

170433_600.jpg

Deleted

Bl0TuYz.jpg

SENSE?

pF4kPlf.jpg

Professionals?

10FcbcS.jpg

Bull Shit

dtqafNt.jpg

MORE!

HxS1M5E.jpg

POWER

Ng2x4WO.jpg