Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Breaking: Trump Reveal His VP

Right Wing News ^ | 11/18/2015 | Teresa Monroe Hamilton 

Well, this just made my day a whole bunch brighter! I think this is terrific, but I'm not really surprised. I actually predicted this would happen last summer as I saw the two of them meeting and appearing together. It makes total sense. They are the two strongest opponents of Obama's out there, so why wouldn't they join forces and bring back the Reagan era? Polls are now showing Trump running away with the nomination , he has, depending on the poll, between 38% and 51% behind him now and it is growing. He's speaking out against the refugees that Obama is bringing in, along with ISIS. Trump is going after the mosques. He's pounding on the illegal immigration issue too. And don't forget jobs , an issue that Americans are clamoring for. Picking Cruz ensures that if Trump gets the nod, this will be a landslide victory. It will be historic.
From Allen West:
As GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to lead in most polls , in some by rather large margins ,what might have once seemed like a longshot (remember back at the beginning of the summer) now increasingly is real possibility. So it's natural to start imagining who Trump might pick as his running mate, should he go all the way to receive the GOP nomination.
Today, Trump came as close as he's come yet to naming who that person might be. And I know some of you are going to be disappointed, while others of you will love it.
Donald Trump on Tuesday named Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) when asked about his possible running mate in 2016.
"Ted Cruz is now agreeing with me 100 percent," he said when asked about his vice presidential pick, according to Lifezette.
"Well, I like him," Trump told radio host Laura Ingraham during her broadcast. "He's backed everything I've said."
Unlike most of the Republican presidential hopefuls, Cruz has mostly refrained from attacking Trump, even appearing alongside him at a rally in September against the Iran nuclear deal.
The pair has also struck similar tones on topics such as border security and illegal immigration.
Still, Trump suggested late Monday that he will turn on Cruz if he becomes a threat to his front-runner status.
"If he catches on, I guess we'll have to go to war," he told host Joe Kernen on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Cruz and Trump are also on the same page in opposing President Obama's plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. Trump on Tuesday said Germany's decision to accept the refugees is going to "destroy" that country.
While Cruz currently holds office , and therefore can't be considered a complete "outsider" or "anti establishment," he's known for shaking up the establishment from the inside. Given that, it's easy to see how Cruz and Trump , the guy who largely set the anti establishment, no more business as usual tone for this election cycle , might mesh well together.
But though Cruz is still a distant third or fourth in most polls, there's no question he's been gaining lately , both in polls and general share of voice in the GOP race , so still has a chance to give the Donald a run for his money in this race. If that happens, I hope Trump doesn't go full on nasty on him if he indeed decides to "go to war"; either one of these candidates would be a refreshing show of strength compared to our wimp a** current president. As Trump aptly notes:
"He's supposed to be a cheerleader for this country," Trump said. Instead, "he just acts like a defeated man."
In any case, we've got quite an interesting number of months ahead to look forward to, folks!
I hope that Trump doesn't turn on Cruz if he gains on him. We need one of these guys or both to stop the Marxists. Here's what I think, I think they made a pact. Cruz would attack and eviscerate from within the political machine; Trump would smack the media and the politicos from without. It's a two pronged, brilliant strategy. And it's working like a charm. Americans love it. Trump and Cruz pretty much see eye to eye on every issue and they like each other. They both hate Obama, which works too. If Trump is naming Cruz now, he's pretty confident he's going all the way. You can bet these two have also quietly picked their cabinet. That's why Trevor Loudon and I formed the Cruz Coalition and both of these men have taken our advice. Reagan must be smiling somewhere, I know I am.

Greenfield: Obama wants to Defeat America, not ISIS!

FrontPage ^ | November 18, 2015 | Daniel Greenfield 

His real enemy isn't the Caliph of ISIS, but the ordinary American.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. "You can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women," he said.
Instead he argued, "The goal has to be to dismantle them."
Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.
Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.
ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.
Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.
Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.
And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.
The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.
Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.
Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)
There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.
The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.
And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.
Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.
Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.
Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.
In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.
The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.
Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.
Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.
He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.
Just like in Afghanistan.
Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.
And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.
Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.
Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.
Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.
This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.
That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.
The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.

National Guard could 'gather up' refugees, says state lawmaker

The HIll ^ | 11/18/15 | Bradford Richardson 

A top Tennessee state lawmaker is suggesting that the National Guard “gather up” Syrian refugees who have been settled in the state.
“We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop them from coming in to the state by whatever means we can,” Tennessee Rep. Glen Casada said in a phone interview with the Tennessean on Tuesday.
Casada, who is the chair of the state’s House Republican caucus, said the federal government has no authority to force states to accept refugees against their will.
“Tennessee is a sovereign state,” he said. “If the federal government is forsaking the obligation to protect our citizens, we need to act.”
“I’m not worried about what a bureaucrat in D.C. or an unelected judge thinks… We need to gather up [Syrian refugees] politely and take them back to the ICE center and say, ‘They’re not coming to Tennessee, they’re yours,’ ” he added.
So far, other lawmakers have not backed Casada’s plan to use the National Guard to send refugees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
But Tennessee is one of at least 30 states whose governors have committed to opposing the White House’s plan to settle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) sent a letter to President Obama on Tuesday asking him to stop sending Syrian refugees to the state, pointing to the terrorist attack in France on Friday in which at least one assailant is suspected of entering the country posing as a migrant.

Obama's Foolproof Method To Screen Out Terrorists from Legitimate Refugees!

Trump’s VP Choice and Eligibility

By Nelson Hultberg -- Bio and Archives  November 18, 2015
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Patriots of America endorse Donald Trump for President. He transcends all other candidates. But if he wins the GOP nomination, an important question will be his running mate. What if Trump picks Ted Cruz for second spot on the ticket? Conservatives need to get united on this because it’s a distinct possibility. Nominees often choose one of their strongest challengers especially if they come from a state with lots of electoral votes. Cruz is from Texas (38 electoral votes). Trump is from New York (29 electoral votes). Only California has more votes (55) than Texas and New York.
Unfortunately numerous political activists out there are pushing the idea that Cruz is ineligible to be President (which would make him ineligible also to be Vice-President) because he was born in Canada and has only one parent (his mother) who is a natural born citizen. Yes, Cruz was born in Calgary, which is where his parents worked for several years in the oil fields in the early 1970s. But does this make him constitutionally ineligible? Let’s find out.

Natural Born in the Eyes of the Founders

The major point made by the “anti-eligible birthers” regarding Ted Cruz is that the Founders subscribed to the famous Vattel definition of “natural born citizen” from The Law of Nations. It required TWO natural parents in order for an offspring to be “natural born.” So what the anti-eligible birthers are saying is that this was the “original intent” of the Founders, which makes it part of the Constitution.
I certainly agree with the use of “original intent” in interpreting the Constitution. But did the Founders clearly state in wide agreement that they subscribed to Vattel? No, they did not, probably because there wasn’t wide agreement on the question among them. This is the only way to determine “original intent,” to glean from the published opinions of the Founders in such works as The Federalist Papers and their assorted personal writings, papers, and letters throughout their lives.
What the “anti-eligible birthers” are doing, though, is assuming that since Vattel and The Law of Nations were popular at the time, this must have been the Founders intent. But this requires the Supreme Court to agree upon. And until that takes place, the question must be left up to the lower courts in our day to determine the issue.
Moreover, I would think that if there was wide agreement on the “TWO parent Vattel requirement,” the Founders would have written it into the Constitution and not made Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 so short and vague regarding what a “natural born citizen” actually was. This is a pretty important issue that is easy to be specific about if there was wide agreement on it. It requires one sentence to define a natural born citizen. So perhaps the Founders purposely left it vague because they couldn’t agree on the issue themselves.
Thus we are left with what the present legal consensus on the eligibility issue maintains. And, as we will soon see, it maintains that an individual must have ONE natural born citizen as a parent.
Also crucial to this dispute is that most anti-eligibility advocates rely on the case of Minor v. Happersett (1875), which said that Virginia Minor was a citizen because her father and mother were citizens. But, and this is most important, it did not say that the Constitution requires BOTH parents to be natural citizens in order for an offspring to be a citizen.
Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, stated the following in the case: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” He went on to cite common law as his authority onlyto declare Minor to be a citizen. He did not go further and say definitively what a “natural born citizen” is to be or not to be.
In fact, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of “natural born citizen.” So it is left up to the various lower courts and legal minds of the country to offer opinion on its exact meaning. We have no certainty in other words.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

But Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of citizenship. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 sets forth in one of its passages the legal requirements for the acquisition of such citizenship:
“For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if: 1) the person’s parents were married at the time of birth, 2) one of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born, 3) the citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth, and 4) a minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.”
After 1986, in sections 3 and 4, the ten years is reduced to five and the minimum of five years is reduced to two. Sections 1 and 2, however, remain the same.
Thus according to the law of the land, all that is necessary for someone to be a “natural born citizen” is for ONE of their parents to be a natural born citizen, which Cruz’s mother is. Does this then make Cruz eligible to be Vice-President under Trump? Yes it does. Chester A. Arthur met opposition on this very issue (U.S. mother and an Irish father), and he was not denied the Vice-Presidency in 1881 (and then the Presidency upon Garfield’s assassination) because of it. This sets a strong precedent.
But is Cruz perhaps ineligible to be Vice-President because he was born in Canada? On this question, the answer is emphatically, “No!” TheNaturalization Act of 1790 (passed three years after the Constitution was adopted) is the source for this. It states:
“Children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
Since the beginning of our country then, the courts have very rightly determined (in accord with the Naturalization Act of 1790) that any child of a natural born citizen, even though born outside the country, is an American citizen at birth. Cruz’s mother is a natural born citizen, and she and her husband worked in the oil fields during the early 1970s in Calgary. Ted Cruz was, therefore, a dual citizen of America and Canada upon his birth in 1970. He grew up in America from age four on and has renounced his Canadian citizenship. No court in the land will deny him eligibility for the Vice-Presidency or Presidency because he was born across the border in Calgary.

Of course, Trump may not wish to put Cruz on the ticket because he, himself, pressured Obama to prove his eligibility in 2011; and thus he might not want to subject himself to constant media harassment on the issue. But if Trump does choose Cruz as his running mate, conservatives need to have their facts straight regarding the eligibility issue.

The anti-eligibility case against Cruz is a non-starter. It would be quickly dismissed if any legal firm tried to take it to court. It has no constitutional merit under the history of jurisprudence in America.
Nelson Hultberg -- Bio and Archives | Click to view Comments

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas, and serves as the Director of Americans for a Free Republic,, an educational organization founded to promote sound money and fair taxation. Mr. Hultberg’s articles have appeared in publications such as The Dallas Morning News, The American Conservative, The Freeman, Liberty, and on numerous Internet sites such as The Daily Bell, Financial Sense Online, and Safe Haven. He is the author of a soon to be released book,The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.

Keeping Out Jihadists: What the Constitution Tells Us About States’ Powers

National Review ^ | 11/18/2015 | by JOHN C. EASTMAN 

Obama: "I'm Not Interested in Winning"

American Thinker ^ | 11/18/2015 | Daniel John Sobieski 

Tell us something we don’t know, Mr. President. We could have guessed as much by the puny air campaign more worthy of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick in The Mouse That Roared than by what was once the world’s only superpower. We wouldn’t be mounting any air campaign at all, had not the radical Islamists of the “JV team” Islamic State had not cut off the heads of two American journalists, Steven Sotloff and James Foley.

Our delusional commander-in-chief, who still believes the massacre at Ft. Hood by jihadist Nidal Hasan is a case of “workplace violence” and that theCharlie Hebdo massacre in Paris was a case of random violence and of victims being in the wrong place at the wrong time, pathetically proclaimed at the G-20 Conference in Antalaya, Turkey, as the Federalist reports:

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France,” Obama said. “I’m too busy for that.”

Too busy, the same as you were too busy resting up for a Las Vegas fundraiser the night Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith were murdered by a terrorist attack in Benghazi, an attack you and you’re Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, told the parents of the deal was caused by a video?

The French, whom you refused to honor with your presence during a march protesting radical Islamic terrorism after the Charlie Hebdo attack,
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama blames Republicans for rise of ISIS

World Net Daily ^ | 11/18/2015 | Cheryl Chumley 

In the wake of widespread ISIS terror, most recently seen in Paris, France, with the death and injury of hundreds, President Obama came out swinging against Republicans, calling the political party a "potent recruitment tool" for the terrorist organization. He was referring to the GOP's growing call to refuse Syrian refugees into the United States out of concerns for safety of American citizens. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation event in Manila, Obama said "fear and panic" only exacerbates the refugee situation, Mediaite reported. For instance, those politicians who are now refusing to accept refugees in their states – including Texas, Alabama and Michigan, as WND previously reported – are acting on "hysteria or an exaggeration of risks," and that's poisoning the debate, he said.
Obama also called it "offensive" that anyone would suggest only Christian refugees, not Muslims, should be admitted across America’s borders. And then he said this, the news outlet reported: "I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that's coming out of here during the course of this debate." He poked fun of "tough" Republicans expressing concern or fear at young Syrian orphans. And on Wednesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest traded barbs with "Fox & Friends" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck over just such rhetoric...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Barack Obama's Failed Containment Strategy ^ | November 18, 2015 | Donald Lambro 

In his 2012 re-election campaign, President Obama repeatedly said that al-Qaeda's terrorist forces were "decimated" and we "had them on the run."
But the events of the last few days demonstrated anew what we've known for a long time. Al-Qaeda metastasized into larger terrorist groups that have grown stronger and more deadly striking at the heart of Europe, blowing up a Russian passenger jet in Egypt, and plotting right now to attack America.
Obama, who won a second term to a large degree on his naive victory claim, had misjudged the powerful reach of the Islamist death squads that have declared war on the civilized world.
Now he is coming under renewed criticism for having underestimated the threat posed by the Islamic State that left a blood-soaked trail of carnage through Paris.
Speaking at a news conference Monday in Antalya, Turkey, where he was attending the Group of 20 summit to deal with the crisis, Obama was besieged by critical questions that raised doubts about his response to ISIS, and the war in Iraq and Syria.
He had long resisted taking any action in Syria where ISIS and its allies were making gains, gathering strength, and, it was reported, plotted its attack in Paris.
Had he waited too long, when all appeared lost, before approving air attacks against the Islamic State's supply lines and their encampments? Yet he stood by his go slow military policies and ISIS grew more menacing than ever.
"Let me try one last time," a clearly frustrated Obama told reporters," adding that it was going to take years and there were going to be setbacks.
"The strategy that we are putting forward is the strategy that is ultimately going to work, he said. "But as I said it is going to take time."
But his critics are saying that his delayed response was not only flawed from the beginning, he didn't believe ISIS was as dangerous as they turned out to be.
"The White House has never taken the jihadist threat seriously," said Eliot Cohen," a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and a foreign policy adviser under President George W. Bush.
"Do they have a comprehensive plan that really leads to the destruction of the Islamic State in a couple of years? I don't think they can plausibly say yes," Cohen told the Washington Post.
In fact, Obama admitted as much, saying there will be no new changes in his policy.
"There will be an intensification of the strategy we put forward, but the strategy that we are putting forward is the strategy that ultimately is going to work," he told reporters.
No change in our battle strategy? That's a strange and even reckless admission to tell an enemy bent on killing as many Americans as it can.
Why not keep them guessing? Why not make it clear that if anyone threatens the United States and its people, they will pay a price and be brought to justice.
And then there was this ill-timed decision by Obama carried out on the weekend when five Yemeni men, who were suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, were removed from the U.S. terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to the United Arab Emirates.
Obama has long proposed shutting down Guantanamo but he has been blocked by Congress, though he has the authority to transfer prisoners and has taken advantage of it. Nine of them have been transferred to other countries since September.
Meantime, French warplanes late Sunday immediately launched what was described as "a ferocious retaliatory assault" on military targets in Raqqa, Syria, ISIS's de facto capital.
The French aircraft dropped more than 30 bombs on key military facilities, including a war command center, a training site, and an arms depot. They got the message.
But by now it is painfully clear that the terrorist threat is far more dangerous than ever, despite Obama's boasts in the 2012 presidential election. And it's going to get worse, much worse, top U.S. intelligence officials say.
CIA Director John Brennan said Monday that the attacks in Paris were part of a much broader Islamic State plan to export terrorism throughout the West, especially the U.S.
"Not content to limiting its killing fields to Iraq and Syria, ISIL has developed an external operation agenda it is now implementing with lethal effect," Brennan said in remarks at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The attacks in Paris and on the Russian airliner "bear the hallmarks of terrorism carried out by the so-called Islamic State… an organization of murderous sociopaths," he said.
So far, no one would disagree that Obama has utterly failed to deal with the threat that terrorism poses for our country and its future safety.
And it isn't just the Republicans who are condemning the administration's record on the worst national security threat of our time.
During Saturday's Democratic debate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she supports the president's policy.
"I think what the president has consistently said which I agree with is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS," Clinton said. "But this cannot be an American fight…"
Yet, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley disagreed. "This actually is America's fight… America is best when we are standing up to evil in this world," he said. But he added that "we are not so very good at anticipating threats…"
That threat is real and we're its next target. And we had better get prepared for it, together with our allies.
Obama said, just a few hours before the Paris attacks, that we have "contained" the advance of the Islamic State.
Besides being outrageously wrong, containment is not a war policy to preserve our liberty. It is a plan of surrender and defeat.

The Black Lives Matter Movement Is About To Jump Into The 2016 Marijuana Battle

Buzz Feed News ^ | November 17, 2015 | Darren Sands 

Marijuana legalization advocates want the support of Black Lives Matter activists in 2016. But a debate on tactics is brewing legalization groups and Black Lives Matter activists who worry people of color are being left out of the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.

WASHINGTON — Leading up to his meeting with the Black Lives Matter group Campaign Zero at the Frederick Douglass House in September, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders steeled himself for an argument.
He’d only previously come face-to-face with Black Lives Matter protesters who wanted to interrupt him. But over the course of the meeting, the activists spoke authoritatively on policy recommendations to curb racial disparities in the criminal justice system, while Sanders impressed by synthesizing their talking points on police militarization, community empowerment, and systematic oppression.
The activists brought up one issue, however, that Sanders hadn’t considered: creating pathways for black Americans to take part in the emerging legal marijuana economy, which they said represented unprecedented wealth-building opportunities for people of color.
“He acknowledged that he hadn’t thought about ways to ensure black people had access to the legalized marijuana economy,” Campaign Zero’s policy analyst and data scientist Samuel Sinyangwe told BuzzFeed News. “But he said he was willing to start thinking about strategies to do this.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We the people


Then and Now












Border Wall




THANKS Democrats






Socialist State




Shame Them!

10% Poison

Planned Parenthood Plans $20 Million Election Fight

CNN, via ^ | November 17, 2015 | CNN, via 

Planned Parenthood is planning to spend at least $20 million fighting Republicans at the ballot box next year as the group punches back against GOP efforts to end its federal funding.
"Extremists made the 2016 election about attacking reproductive rights," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, who was grilled extensively on Capitol Hill in September, said in a video announcing the effort Tuesday.
The group is planning to focus on the White House and Senate races in a few key states, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The states not only have potentially competitive Senate races, but are also key swing states on the presidential map.
The $20 million will be spent on a mix of volunteer and activist organizing in each state and advertising.
"Enough is enough," Richards said in the video. "With our supporters, we’re launching 'I Vote Planned Parenthood Action.' We'll organize and mobilize to elect lawmakers who are in our corner."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...