 |
| For a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality Visit S.F. (Tony) Branco |
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Thursday, July 30, 2015
No coupons or EBT cards for body parts
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Trump's mouth - The ultimate GOP nuke
From Wayne Root at Root for America
The biased, clueless liberal mainstream media are in shock and awe. They have no idea why so many Americans love Donald Trump. But the answer is so simple and clear. Just ask any conservative. Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air. Donald Trump is the answer to what ails America- simply because he kills two birds with one stone.
America has two big problems. America is under attack by a vicious one-two combination. America has been ruined by two parties. And Donald Trump's mouth solves both problems. Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon.
Democrats clearly hate American exceptionalism, capitalism, entrepreneurship, and Judeo Christian values. They hate business owners (see "You didn't build that")...and blame American patriotism, white people, business owners and Christians for every problem in the world today.
The Democrat Party is riddled with socialists, Marxists and communists hell bent on "fundamentally changing America." The Democrat Party is filled with frauds (see Obama, Jonathan Gruber and the lies used to sell Obamacare)...
But the GOP may be worse. If there's anything worse than evil, it's pathetic. The GOP leadership is riddled with cowards, wimps and naïve, feckless, country club powder puffs who have no clue how to fight back against the Democrats ruining America and destroying our children's future with debt.
Yes, Democrats are ruining America and destroying our children's future. But Republicans are standing by helplessly, scared, petrified, allowing it to happen.
I suspect many of the Republican leaders in DC are either being bribed or blackmailed. Exhibit A is Supreme Court Justice Roberts, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. These guys are all either bought and paid for...or someone is holding a gun to their heads (along with a photo of them in bed doing something shocking).
Don't believe me? See Dennis Hastert. They are all doing something morally wrong, or breaking some law...and Obama's partners in the NSA and IRS are always watching.
America is being lost because the GOP is bringing knives to a gunfight. The only way to save America is to bring a nuclear weapon to a gun fight.
And Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon.
It's time to stop being "nice." "Nice" is okay for playing golf with Muffy at the country club. But "nice" doesn't work in politics. "Nice" guys finish last in politics. "Nice" is getting our country ruined. "Nice" is killing middle class jobs.
"Nice" is wiping out middle class incomes. "Nice" has led to negative GDP growth. "Nice" has led to more businesses closing than opening each day for the first time in America's history.
"Nice" has left the border wide open to an illegal alien invasion, the bankruptcy of America and a terrorist attack like 9-11.
"Nice" has led to disaster and disgrace all over the globe. The world no longer has any respect for, or fear of America. We are in decline and disarray. We are headed for collapse and disaster.
Into this crisis steps "the nuclear mouth" Donald Trump. He isn't afraid to put America first. He isn't afraid to tell the truth. He isn't afraid of what the media thinks. He isn't afraid of being called a "racist" for pointing out how Obama has damaged and destroyed America. He isn't afraid to question Obama's very mysterious, questionable and troubling past- much of it sealed away in darkness.
Trump isn't afraid to fight like our future is on the line- because he understands it is. He isn't afraid to offend. He isn't afraid to expose the cowards and frauds in his own GOP leadership for what they are. He refuses to be "politically correct" when he sees corruption and idiocy. He won't back down or apologize for telling the truth.
Of course the evil Democrats, corrupt and cowardly GOP leadership, and biased mainstream media hate him. They are all rooting for another Mitt Romney. Let's compare Mitt to Donald Trump. They are both rich white guys...both famous successful businessmen...both Republican Presidential candidates past and present. That's where the similarity ends.
Mitt Romney is a very nice guy. Mitt has manners. Mitt would never offend anyone. Mitt let the media run roughshod over him. Mitt would never say something rude or offensive about Obama or Hillary. Mitt would never accuse them of crimes against the American people. Mitt would never prosecute Obama or Hillary if he was elected.
And one other difference- Mitt lost.
It's no coincidence that Mitt lost. The last thing we need now is "nice." It's also no coincidence that the people in power- evil Democrats, the corrupt GOP leadership, and the mainstream media all want another Mitt Romney.
They want the status quo. They want to keep the bribes and blackmail coming. They don't want anyone to upset the apple cart. They are scared to death of Donald Trump- who doesn't play by traditional rules or etiquette. They are scared to death of a guy who can't be bribed. They are scared to death of a guy who is tuned into the hopes, dreams and fears of middle class Americans. They are scared to death of a street fighter.
Mostly, they are scared to death of Trump's mouth. The kind of mouth that could stir up a citizen revolution and topple "business as usual" in Washington DC.
Yes Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon. And that's precisely why we love him.
Bombs away!
America has two big problems. America is under attack by a vicious one-two combination. America has been ruined by two parties. And Donald Trump's mouth solves both problems. Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon.
Democrats clearly hate American exceptionalism, capitalism, entrepreneurship, and Judeo Christian values. They hate business owners (see "You didn't build that")...and blame American patriotism, white people, business owners and Christians for every problem in the world today.
The Democrat Party is riddled with socialists, Marxists and communists hell bent on "fundamentally changing America." The Democrat Party is filled with frauds (see Obama, Jonathan Gruber and the lies used to sell Obamacare)...
But the GOP may be worse. If there's anything worse than evil, it's pathetic. The GOP leadership is riddled with cowards, wimps and naïve, feckless, country club powder puffs who have no clue how to fight back against the Democrats ruining America and destroying our children's future with debt.
Yes, Democrats are ruining America and destroying our children's future. But Republicans are standing by helplessly, scared, petrified, allowing it to happen.
I suspect many of the Republican leaders in DC are either being bribed or blackmailed. Exhibit A is Supreme Court Justice Roberts, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. These guys are all either bought and paid for...or someone is holding a gun to their heads (along with a photo of them in bed doing something shocking).
Don't believe me? See Dennis Hastert. They are all doing something morally wrong, or breaking some law...and Obama's partners in the NSA and IRS are always watching.
America is being lost because the GOP is bringing knives to a gunfight. The only way to save America is to bring a nuclear weapon to a gun fight.
And Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon.
It's time to stop being "nice." "Nice" is okay for playing golf with Muffy at the country club. But "nice" doesn't work in politics. "Nice" guys finish last in politics. "Nice" is getting our country ruined. "Nice" is killing middle class jobs.
"Nice" is wiping out middle class incomes. "Nice" has led to negative GDP growth. "Nice" has led to more businesses closing than opening each day for the first time in America's history.
"Nice" has left the border wide open to an illegal alien invasion, the bankruptcy of America and a terrorist attack like 9-11.
"Nice" has led to disaster and disgrace all over the globe. The world no longer has any respect for, or fear of America. We are in decline and disarray. We are headed for collapse and disaster.
Into this crisis steps "the nuclear mouth" Donald Trump. He isn't afraid to put America first. He isn't afraid to tell the truth. He isn't afraid of what the media thinks. He isn't afraid of being called a "racist" for pointing out how Obama has damaged and destroyed America. He isn't afraid to question Obama's very mysterious, questionable and troubling past- much of it sealed away in darkness.
Trump isn't afraid to fight like our future is on the line- because he understands it is. He isn't afraid to offend. He isn't afraid to expose the cowards and frauds in his own GOP leadership for what they are. He refuses to be "politically correct" when he sees corruption and idiocy. He won't back down or apologize for telling the truth.
Of course the evil Democrats, corrupt and cowardly GOP leadership, and biased mainstream media hate him. They are all rooting for another Mitt Romney. Let's compare Mitt to Donald Trump. They are both rich white guys...both famous successful businessmen...both Republican Presidential candidates past and present. That's where the similarity ends.
Mitt Romney is a very nice guy. Mitt has manners. Mitt would never offend anyone. Mitt let the media run roughshod over him. Mitt would never say something rude or offensive about Obama or Hillary. Mitt would never accuse them of crimes against the American people. Mitt would never prosecute Obama or Hillary if he was elected.
And one other difference- Mitt lost.
It's no coincidence that Mitt lost. The last thing we need now is "nice." It's also no coincidence that the people in power- evil Democrats, the corrupt GOP leadership, and the mainstream media all want another Mitt Romney.
They want the status quo. They want to keep the bribes and blackmail coming. They don't want anyone to upset the apple cart. They are scared to death of Donald Trump- who doesn't play by traditional rules or etiquette. They are scared to death of a guy who can't be bribed. They are scared to death of a guy who is tuned into the hopes, dreams and fears of middle class Americans. They are scared to death of a street fighter.
Mostly, they are scared to death of Trump's mouth. The kind of mouth that could stir up a citizen revolution and topple "business as usual" in Washington DC.
Yes Donald Trump's mouth is a nuclear weapon. And that's precisely why we love him.
Bombs away!
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
The return of the grad-tax hustle
By Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe
Five times - in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994 —Massachusetts voters have been asked to jettison their state's flat-rate income tax and replace it with a system of graduated tax brackets. Each time they have unequivocally refused to do so.
After that many rejections, even the most importunate suitor usually gets the message. But for some liberal true believers, all can never be right with the world as long as Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution commands that taxes "shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property."
So here we go again. Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of left-wing activists, labor unions, and "social-justice" advocacy groups, is gearing up to put yet another graduated income-tax amendment on the ballot. As always, they will preach the virtue of picking other people's pockets, promising lots and lots of expensive goodies at no cost to anyone but millionaires.
More than a century ago, the Legislature recognized the fundamental inequity of imposing higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes, a perpetual invitation to class warfare.
Lawmakers refused to allow the practice in Massachusetts, even as most other jurisdictions embraced it, and they went so far as to write that prohibition into the state constitution. Plainly it is a stance that has stood the test of time, having been reconfirmed at the polls on five separate occasions.
Still, liberal Democrats like state Senator Jamie Eldridge, who has filed a constitutional amendment to overturn Article 44 and mandate graduated income tax rates, hope the sixth time will be the charm. Like every grad-tax advocate, his pitch is one part soak-the-rich envy, one part government-spending wish list, and one part feel-their-pain con job. Some concoctions improve with age. This isn't one of them.
"Few people would consider a tax system to be fair if the poorer you are, the more of your income you pay in taxes – and yet that's exactly what the Massachusetts tax system currently does," argues Eldridge. Switching to progressive tax brackets, he says, could "potentially" mean "lower taxes for the majority of Massachusetts residents." And all it requires is "asking a small percentage of residents with very high income to pay their fair share."
If Eldridge and his fellow legislators really yearn to lower taxes, they can do so any day of the week. But broad-based tax relief isn't what the grad-tax lobby hungers for. On the contrary: The grad-taxers' goal, as WGBH radio and TV personality Jim Braude has written, is to "make it easier for the Legislature to raise taxes when they need to."
Braude should know — as the former director of the Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts, he ran the "Yes" campaign the last time a graduated income tax amendment was on the ballot. (It was crushed in a 2-1 landslide.)
Notwithstanding their rhetoric about "fairness" and the disproportionate share of income paid by the poor to the tax man, the activists evade the simple fact that of all the taxes levied in Massachusetts — on income, sales, meals, gasoline, tobacco, liquor, and property — the income tax is already the most progressive.
According to Department of Revenue data, all the other state taxes take a much larger bite out of lower- and middle-income residents' earnings than out of those in the highest income bracket. For example, taxpayers in the bottom income quintile lose 7.5 percent of their income to sales taxes; for taxpayers in the top quintile, the comparable figure is 0.8 percent.
The state income tax is different. Though there is a single flat rate for regular income (currently 5.15 percent), there are also exemptions, credits, and deductions skewed to ease the tax burden on low-income earners, as well as a much higher tax rate on capital gains (12 percent), which overwhelmingly affects high-income earners.
As a result, the effective income tax rate for taxpayers in the bottom fifth is only 0.6 percent. For those in the middle fifth, it's 3.6 percent. For the top fifth, 4.75 percent. Progressivity defined.
What's more, taxpayers making $100,000 and up contribute a whopping 70 percent of the state's income tax revenues. Those making $50,000 or less? Only 11 percent.
Massachusetts voters have always seen through the grad-tax hustle. Five times they've said no. If that wasn't clear enough, we can always make it six.
Five times - in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994 —Massachusetts voters have been asked to jettison their state's flat-rate income tax and replace it with a system of graduated tax brackets. Each time they have unequivocally refused to do so.
After that many rejections, even the most importunate suitor usually gets the message. But for some liberal true believers, all can never be right with the world as long as Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution commands that taxes "shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property."
So here we go again. Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of left-wing activists, labor unions, and "social-justice" advocacy groups, is gearing up to put yet another graduated income-tax amendment on the ballot. As always, they will preach the virtue of picking other people's pockets, promising lots and lots of expensive goodies at no cost to anyone but millionaires.
More than a century ago, the Legislature recognized the fundamental inequity of imposing higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes, a perpetual invitation to class warfare.
Lawmakers refused to allow the practice in Massachusetts, even as most other jurisdictions embraced it, and they went so far as to write that prohibition into the state constitution. Plainly it is a stance that has stood the test of time, having been reconfirmed at the polls on five separate occasions.
Still, liberal Democrats like state Senator Jamie Eldridge, who has filed a constitutional amendment to overturn Article 44 and mandate graduated income tax rates, hope the sixth time will be the charm. Like every grad-tax advocate, his pitch is one part soak-the-rich envy, one part government-spending wish list, and one part feel-their-pain con job. Some concoctions improve with age. This isn't one of them.
"Few people would consider a tax system to be fair if the poorer you are, the more of your income you pay in taxes – and yet that's exactly what the Massachusetts tax system currently does," argues Eldridge. Switching to progressive tax brackets, he says, could "potentially" mean "lower taxes for the majority of Massachusetts residents." And all it requires is "asking a small percentage of residents with very high income to pay their fair share."
If Eldridge and his fellow legislators really yearn to lower taxes, they can do so any day of the week. But broad-based tax relief isn't what the grad-tax lobby hungers for. On the contrary: The grad-taxers' goal, as WGBH radio and TV personality Jim Braude has written, is to "make it easier for the Legislature to raise taxes when they need to."
Braude should know — as the former director of the Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts, he ran the "Yes" campaign the last time a graduated income tax amendment was on the ballot. (It was crushed in a 2-1 landslide.)
Notwithstanding their rhetoric about "fairness" and the disproportionate share of income paid by the poor to the tax man, the activists evade the simple fact that of all the taxes levied in Massachusetts — on income, sales, meals, gasoline, tobacco, liquor, and property — the income tax is already the most progressive.
According to Department of Revenue data, all the other state taxes take a much larger bite out of lower- and middle-income residents' earnings than out of those in the highest income bracket. For example, taxpayers in the bottom income quintile lose 7.5 percent of their income to sales taxes; for taxpayers in the top quintile, the comparable figure is 0.8 percent.
 |
| Massachusetts has a flat tax on income — but when deductions, credits, and exemptions are taken into account, the state's income tax system is in fact quite progressive. |
The state income tax is different. Though there is a single flat rate for regular income (currently 5.15 percent), there are also exemptions, credits, and deductions skewed to ease the tax burden on low-income earners, as well as a much higher tax rate on capital gains (12 percent), which overwhelmingly affects high-income earners.
As a result, the effective income tax rate for taxpayers in the bottom fifth is only 0.6 percent. For those in the middle fifth, it's 3.6 percent. For the top fifth, 4.75 percent. Progressivity defined.
What's more, taxpayers making $100,000 and up contribute a whopping 70 percent of the state's income tax revenues. Those making $50,000 or less? Only 11 percent.
Massachusetts voters have always seen through the grad-tax hustle. Five times they've said no. If that wasn't clear enough, we can always make it six.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Allen West - US Senate in Florida
Millions of dollars are being spent in the Florida U.S. Senate race because the election has national consequences. Not only will the Florida U.S. Senate race likely determine control of the Senate, it will also help determine who wins Florida's electoral votes in the Presidential election.
Allen West is the strong conservative leader needed to take on the Democrat in the general election and help the Republican Presidential nominee win Florida's electoral votes.
Will you help elect Allen West to the U.S. Senate?
Allen West is an American patriot. In Congress, Allen West was a principled conservative and a leader in the Tea Party movement. He worked tirelessly to cut spending, secure our borders, and defend the Second Amendment.
As a true conservative, Allen West was dedicated to defending the Constitution and he refused to surrender to the political establishment. In fact, Allen West's commitment to conservative principles often frustrated John Boehner.
Allen West is truly one of the most principled patriots to ever serve in Congress!
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West has served in both Kuwait and Iraq with the U.S. Army. His military experience has emboldened him to continue fighting to defend freedom in America.
Unlike most of Washington, Allen West understands the dangers of America's immigration crisis and skyrocketing national debt. Action must be taken immediately to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to live the American dream!
If elected to the U.S. Senate, Allen West will work to secure the borders and stop the illegal immigration invasion! He will also work to immediately balance the budget!
Help elect Allen West to the U.S. Senate.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Trump doubling down on Mexico
From the art studios of Dan Youra at Utoons.com
Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality fron Dan Youra at Utoons.com |
Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
States sue over EPA statute
EPA deletes “navigable” from statute and Environmental Protection Agency is flooded with lawsuits over controversial water rule by Ron Arnold
Twenty-nine states, more than half the stars on the American flag, have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for redefining the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. EPA rewrote the law, erasing “navigable” and usurping states’ rights by including local seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches, and even “connective” dry lands placed under authority of the Clean Water Act.
The WOTUS rule, published the morning of June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to high-handed regulation by one of the most reviled and least trusted federal agencies, dreaded for its cadre of “revolving door” officials hired from anti-industry green groups.
The astonishing response began on the afternoon of June 29: states teamed up in clusters to file their lawsuits in U.S. District Courts. Utah and eight others filed with Georgia in Augusta’s U.S. District Court; Alaska and eleven others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later, Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.
Each state lawsuit asked a federal judge to declare the WOTUS rule illegal and issue an injunction to prevent the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, co-administrators of the rule, from enforcing it. Each state also asked the judge to order both agencies to draft a new rule that complies with the law and honors state authority.
The WOTUS rule is so alarming because it enables agency bureaucrats to control virtually anything that gets wet, including a desert dry wash that gets a “drizzle” – actual EPA language criticized by House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) at a Heartland Institute conference in Washington in June.
Heartland Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, commented: “Farmers, ranchers, developers, industries and individual property owners would now be subject to the EPA’s arbitrary, unsound and often incomprehensible regulatory system. It cannot be trusted.”
American Farm Bureau Federation general counsel Ellen Steen announced the group’s lawsuit with similar distrust: “When EPA and the Corps first proposed the rule in March 2014, they promised clarity and certainty to farmers, ranchers, builders and other affected businesses and landowners. Instead, we have a final rule that exceeds the agencies’ legal authority and fails to provide the clarity that was promised.”
More than a dozen national agricultural and production organizations also filed suit against EPA, including the National Alliance of Forest Owners, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, and Public Lands Council.
The non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation sued on behalf of the state cattlemen’s associations of California, Washington and New Mexico. When contacted for comment, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association’s president, Jose Varela Lopez, said what many ranchers feel. He told The Daily Caller, “My family has been on our land for 14 generations, each leaving it better for the next. Water is the source of all life and after all our generations, our water is clear and the land lives on. We have the history to prove that we are caretakers of the water and the land without the help of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
The alarm over WOTUS is not just about strangulation by regulation. Corruption has become a primary issue: evidence has emerged that EPA officials unlawfully lobbied crony green groups to send “one million comments” supporting the rule, according to a May 19 New York Times article. The Army Corps of Engineers examined the comments and the Senate found that 98 percent appeared to be non-substantive mass mailings.
Three lawmakers from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and two subcommittee chairmen, Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Mike Rounds (R-SD), immediately sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy demanding answers about rigging public input with YouTube videos, Twitter accounts and many other social media marketing tools.
Although the senators focused on misdirection of staff time and taxpayer funds, most of their concerns – except for obtaining a legal opinion prior to campaigning – can be sidestepped with the EPA’s powerful Left-green network, a fact that emerged coincidentally when Heartland Institute researchers looked into Rep. Lamar Smith’s “drizzle” remark.
The million-member Natural Resources Defense Council has a long crony history with EPA: it has had 33 employees on 21 highly influential EPA federal advisory committees from 2001 to 2013. The Sierra Club had 21 people on 12 EPA committees; National Wildlife Federation, 8 employees on 5 committees; National Audubon Society, 7 on 4; Friends of the Earth, 6 on 4. And so on. Even the huge NRDC couldn’t singly muster “one million comments” for WOTUS, but somebody could. Who?
Those five groups are among the 20 Left-green members of the Partnership Project, a Washington, DC-based non-profit campaigning company that compiles and enhances all 20 membership lists with detailed demographic data, keeps each precious list secret from other members, and operates expertly managed collaborative campaigns for multiple members that agree to pool resources for mega-projects. Such projects are funded by massive foundation grants with no government money involved.
Was the Partnership Project actually involved with EPA’s WOTUS campaign? We don’t know. We do know that several other high-dollar campaign powers are also available to the Left-green movement. It’s time to shine some light into those shadowy corners of American politics.
Ron Arnold is Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller.
The WOTUS rule, published the morning of June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to high-handed regulation by one of the most reviled and least trusted federal agencies, dreaded for its cadre of “revolving door” officials hired from anti-industry green groups.
The astonishing response began on the afternoon of June 29: states teamed up in clusters to file their lawsuits in U.S. District Courts. Utah and eight others filed with Georgia in Augusta’s U.S. District Court; Alaska and eleven others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later, Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.
Each state lawsuit asked a federal judge to declare the WOTUS rule illegal and issue an injunction to prevent the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, co-administrators of the rule, from enforcing it. Each state also asked the judge to order both agencies to draft a new rule that complies with the law and honors state authority.
The WOTUS rule is so alarming because it enables agency bureaucrats to control virtually anything that gets wet, including a desert dry wash that gets a “drizzle” – actual EPA language criticized by House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) at a Heartland Institute conference in Washington in June.
Heartland Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, commented: “Farmers, ranchers, developers, industries and individual property owners would now be subject to the EPA’s arbitrary, unsound and often incomprehensible regulatory system. It cannot be trusted.”
American Farm Bureau Federation general counsel Ellen Steen announced the group’s lawsuit with similar distrust: “When EPA and the Corps first proposed the rule in March 2014, they promised clarity and certainty to farmers, ranchers, builders and other affected businesses and landowners. Instead, we have a final rule that exceeds the agencies’ legal authority and fails to provide the clarity that was promised.”
More than a dozen national agricultural and production organizations also filed suit against EPA, including the National Alliance of Forest Owners, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, and Public Lands Council.
The non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation sued on behalf of the state cattlemen’s associations of California, Washington and New Mexico. When contacted for comment, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association’s president, Jose Varela Lopez, said what many ranchers feel. He told The Daily Caller, “My family has been on our land for 14 generations, each leaving it better for the next. Water is the source of all life and after all our generations, our water is clear and the land lives on. We have the history to prove that we are caretakers of the water and the land without the help of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
The alarm over WOTUS is not just about strangulation by regulation. Corruption has become a primary issue: evidence has emerged that EPA officials unlawfully lobbied crony green groups to send “one million comments” supporting the rule, according to a May 19 New York Times article. The Army Corps of Engineers examined the comments and the Senate found that 98 percent appeared to be non-substantive mass mailings.
Three lawmakers from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and two subcommittee chairmen, Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Mike Rounds (R-SD), immediately sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy demanding answers about rigging public input with YouTube videos, Twitter accounts and many other social media marketing tools.
Although the senators focused on misdirection of staff time and taxpayer funds, most of their concerns – except for obtaining a legal opinion prior to campaigning – can be sidestepped with the EPA’s powerful Left-green network, a fact that emerged coincidentally when Heartland Institute researchers looked into Rep. Lamar Smith’s “drizzle” remark.
The million-member Natural Resources Defense Council has a long crony history with EPA: it has had 33 employees on 21 highly influential EPA federal advisory committees from 2001 to 2013. The Sierra Club had 21 people on 12 EPA committees; National Wildlife Federation, 8 employees on 5 committees; National Audubon Society, 7 on 4; Friends of the Earth, 6 on 4. And so on. Even the huge NRDC couldn’t singly muster “one million comments” for WOTUS, but somebody could. Who?
Those five groups are among the 20 Left-green members of the Partnership Project, a Washington, DC-based non-profit campaigning company that compiles and enhances all 20 membership lists with detailed demographic data, keeps each precious list secret from other members, and operates expertly managed collaborative campaigns for multiple members that agree to pool resources for mega-projects. Such projects are funded by massive foundation grants with no government money involved.
Was the Partnership Project actually involved with EPA’s WOTUS campaign? We don’t know. We do know that several other high-dollar campaign powers are also available to the Left-green movement. It’s time to shine some light into those shadowy corners of American politics.
_______________________________________
Ron Arnold is Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Condi Rice can win the Senate
 |
| Meet Condolezza Rice |
Condoleezza Race is by far the patriot most capable of winning back the seat for conservatives.
As a former Secretary of State, her foreign policy experience is stronger than nearly anybody in Washington. She understands the threat of Islamic terror and the importance of keeping America safe. America needs Condoleezza Rice in the U.S. Senate!
Condoleezza Rice is a true conservative on every issue. She is committed to downsizing Washington and cutting government waste. In the U.S. Senate, she will work to balance the budget, stop amnesty, and secure our borders. As a national security expert, Condoleezza Rice understands the dangers of illegal immigration. She is committed to ending birthright citizenship and stopping the invasion across our borders!
Second Amendment rights will also be protected by Condoleezza Rice in the U.S. Senate!
Do you want Condoleezza Rice to become California's next U.S. Senator? If elected, she will work tirelessly to end big government programs like ObamaCare and Common Core.
All Americans will benefit from Condoleezza Rice serving in the U.S. Senate! Condoleezza Rice is a heroic defender of freedom. She is one of the boldest voices for keeping America safe from Islamic terror. Despite opposition from the left,
Condoleezza Rice stood strong and advocated for effective interrogation methods during her time as Secretary of State. She will do whatever is necessary to keep America safe!
After serving as Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice entered the private sector. She currently serves on the boards of several technology companies. She is also a member of the faculty at the Stanford School of Business. There is no question that Condoleezza Rice is extremely qualified and very intelligent! Grassroots conservatives can count on her to fight for conservative principles in the U.S. Senate!
Conservative patriots across America must help elect Condoleezza Rice to the U.S. Senate.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Iran deal is a knockout says Kerry
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Salmon can retire John McCain
 |
| Meet Matt Salmon |
In recent years, John McCain has supported expanding guest worker programs, ending the Bush tax cuts, and stricter gun control.
It is very clear that John McCain is not a conservative!
Matt Salmon is a principled conservative. He is committed to securing the borders, repealing ObamaCare, and balancing the budget. In the House, Matt Salmon has worked to lower taxes, defend the Second Amendment, and stop Common Core. He is the perfect leader to take on John McCain!
Matt Salmon can replace John McCain. This is going to be an extremely expensive battle and John McCain has funding from the Washington establishment.
If grassroots conservatives are mobilized, Matt Salmon can win.
The majority of Arizona Republicans want John McCain gone. Over the years, John McCain has become part of the problem and not part of the solution. The truth is that John McCain is not a maverick and is simply another big government politician. Arizona deserves better!
Matt Salmon has support from tea party groups, conservative leaders, and grassroots activists. He is a movement conservative that voters can depend on. He will cut spending, defend the Constitution, and fight the Obama agenda. If elected, he will return power to the states and get the federal government out of local education. Matt Salmon is an enemy of the D.C. establishment!
Help Matt Salmon replace John McCain. This is one of the most important Senate races in years!.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Don't let them get away with it
For Kate and America's Sake by Lloyd Marcus
C'mon Nancy, are you really going to go there? How could you stoop so low? Haven't you the slightest bit of compassion for murdered Kate Steinle and her grieving family? Must scoring political points even trump American lives?
For my relatives who only get mainstream media spin, here is what's really going on. An illegal alien shot and killed complete stranger, 32 year old Kate Steinle, while enjoying strolling with her dad along a San Francisco pier. Kate's scumbag murderer had been convicted of 7 felonies and deported five times. And yet, this criminal kept returning to the US without consequence.
The reality is many bad people are entering our country illegally unabated. Heck, Obama even rolls out the welcome mat. Uneducated and unskilled, Obama is confident he can woo them with taxpayer funded handouts, making them future Democrat voters. Consequently, the Obama Administration has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens.
While the coddling of criminal illegals has been going on for many years, Kate's senseless murder was the straw that broke the camel's back in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
In his heart-wrenching appeal to congress to pass Kate's Law, Kate's dad said the last words he heard his daughter say before she died was, “Help me dad.”
In a nutshell, Kate's Law says when these deported illegal criminals get caught sneaking back into the US, they get a mandatory five years in jail. Politicians/officials who disobey this law also go to jail. Makes sense? Of course. Will Kate's Law save Americans lives? Absolutely.
Like the wicked witch of the east (or was it the west), Democrat Nancy Pelosi enters the conversation. Rather than compassionately expressing reservations about Kate's Law for whatever reasons, Pelosi attacked it.
Here's the deal folks. Donald Trump is polling high in his bid for the WH by addressing illegal immigration. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats want to protect their illegal-immigrant-future-voters-scheme. So, in typical Democrat fashion, Pelosi and her MSM partners are trying to brand Trump a racist and hater for simply talking about illegal immigration.
Throwing the late Kate Steinle, her family and future American victims under the bus, Miss-ice-water-in-her-veins Pelosi tried to tie Kate's Law to Trump. Nancy Pelosi said Kate's Law should be called the “Donald Trump Act”, meaning it is nothing more than hate inspired legislation. Really, Nancy? Have you no shame?
In the Democratic Party, Pelosi's win-the-issue-at-any-and-all cost mindset is the norm. This is why it drives me nuts that Democrats get such high marks for their faux compassion.
Even media typically supportive of Democrats was a bit taken a back when Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he would not allow a vote to ensure that kids with cancer would get their meds during a budget debate. As cold and unbelievable as this sounds, Reid obviously considered the kids' lives acceptable sacrifices in his quest to beat the Republicans.
Pat Smith is the mother of Sean Smith who was killed at our US consulate in Benghazi. At the casket ceremony, Ms Smith said Hillary Clinton gave her a big hug and lied to her; vowing to punish the person who produced the anti-Muslim video which supposedly caused the attack.
Emails later revealed that Hillary, Obama and other Administration officials knew the attack had nothing to do with a video. The attack on our consulate happened 9-11-2012. It was election time folks.
Obama and his minions were out there telling the American people that terrorism was no longer a threat. So when our Benghazi Ambassador Stevens anticipated an attack due to the anniversary of 9/11, he pleaded for extra security. His request was denied. Ambassador Stevens, Pat Smith's son Sean and two other Americans were killed in the Islamic terrorist attack. Those guys were sitting ducks folks. Sitting ducks.
And yet, the mainstream media continues to hide these truths about the Democrats, awarding them gold stars for compassion.
So Nancy Pelosi taking the below-the-gutter low road while claiming the high road regarding Kate's Law is par for the Democrat course. My prayer is that we cease allowing them to get away with it.
Kate's Law is a very, very, very good thing.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
For my relatives who only get mainstream media spin, here is what's really going on. An illegal alien shot and killed complete stranger, 32 year old Kate Steinle, while enjoying strolling with her dad along a San Francisco pier. Kate's scumbag murderer had been convicted of 7 felonies and deported five times. And yet, this criminal kept returning to the US without consequence.
The reality is many bad people are entering our country illegally unabated. Heck, Obama even rolls out the welcome mat. Uneducated and unskilled, Obama is confident he can woo them with taxpayer funded handouts, making them future Democrat voters. Consequently, the Obama Administration has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens.
While the coddling of criminal illegals has been going on for many years, Kate's senseless murder was the straw that broke the camel's back in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
In his heart-wrenching appeal to congress to pass Kate's Law, Kate's dad said the last words he heard his daughter say before she died was, “Help me dad.”
In a nutshell, Kate's Law says when these deported illegal criminals get caught sneaking back into the US, they get a mandatory five years in jail. Politicians/officials who disobey this law also go to jail. Makes sense? Of course. Will Kate's Law save Americans lives? Absolutely.
Like the wicked witch of the east (or was it the west), Democrat Nancy Pelosi enters the conversation. Rather than compassionately expressing reservations about Kate's Law for whatever reasons, Pelosi attacked it.
Here's the deal folks. Donald Trump is polling high in his bid for the WH by addressing illegal immigration. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats want to protect their illegal-immigrant-future-voters-scheme. So, in typical Democrat fashion, Pelosi and her MSM partners are trying to brand Trump a racist and hater for simply talking about illegal immigration.
Throwing the late Kate Steinle, her family and future American victims under the bus, Miss-ice-water-in-her-veins Pelosi tried to tie Kate's Law to Trump. Nancy Pelosi said Kate's Law should be called the “Donald Trump Act”, meaning it is nothing more than hate inspired legislation. Really, Nancy? Have you no shame?
In the Democratic Party, Pelosi's win-the-issue-at-any-and-all cost mindset is the norm. This is why it drives me nuts that Democrats get such high marks for their faux compassion.
Even media typically supportive of Democrats was a bit taken a back when Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said he would not allow a vote to ensure that kids with cancer would get their meds during a budget debate. As cold and unbelievable as this sounds, Reid obviously considered the kids' lives acceptable sacrifices in his quest to beat the Republicans.
Pat Smith is the mother of Sean Smith who was killed at our US consulate in Benghazi. At the casket ceremony, Ms Smith said Hillary Clinton gave her a big hug and lied to her; vowing to punish the person who produced the anti-Muslim video which supposedly caused the attack.
Emails later revealed that Hillary, Obama and other Administration officials knew the attack had nothing to do with a video. The attack on our consulate happened 9-11-2012. It was election time folks.
Obama and his minions were out there telling the American people that terrorism was no longer a threat. So when our Benghazi Ambassador Stevens anticipated an attack due to the anniversary of 9/11, he pleaded for extra security. His request was denied. Ambassador Stevens, Pat Smith's son Sean and two other Americans were killed in the Islamic terrorist attack. Those guys were sitting ducks folks. Sitting ducks.
And yet, the mainstream media continues to hide these truths about the Democrats, awarding them gold stars for compassion.
So Nancy Pelosi taking the below-the-gutter low road while claiming the high road regarding Kate's Law is par for the Democrat course. My prayer is that we cease allowing them to get away with it.
Kate's Law is a very, very, very good thing.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Monday, July 27, 2015
Planned Parenthood: We sell body parts
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Obama implies Iranian oil is good
But Canadian and American oil are bad by Marita Noon at Energy Makes America Great, Inc.
President Obama’s confusing approach to energy encourages our enemies who shout “death to America,” while penalizing our closest allies and even our own job creators.
Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations that have slogged on for months, have now, ultimately, netted a deal that will allow Iran to export its oil—which is the only reason they came to the table (they surely are not interested in burnishing Obama’s legacy). International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran, it is estimated, currently has more than 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea—part of a months’ long build up.
It is widely reported that, due to aging infrastructure and saturated storage, it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions are lifted—if Congress approves the terms of the deal, Iran wants to be ready to move its oil. In fact, even before the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is already moving some of its “floating storage.”
On July 17, the Financial Times (FT) reported: “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail—moving the oil closer to customers in Asia. In April, another tanker, Happiness, sailed from Iran to China, where, since June, it has parked off the port City of Dalian.
Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached—which is, according to the FT: “signaling its looming return to the oil market.” Reuters calls its departure: “a milestone following a months-long build-up of idling crude tankers.” Analysts at Macquarie Capital, apparently think the oil on Starla will not be parked, waiting for sanctions to be lifted. A research note, states: Iran is “likely assuming that either a small increase in exports will not undermine the historic accord reached or that no one will notice.” We noticed.
Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal’s been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of the recent gains. While the Obama Administration’s actions are allowing Iran, which hates America, to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, they are hurting our closest ally but putting delay after delay in front of the Keystone pipeline—which would help Canada export its oil.
After six-and-a-half years of kicking the can down the road, and despite widespread support and positive reports, the Keystone pipeline is no closer to construction than it was on the day the application was submitted. It is obvious President Obama doesn’t like the project, which will create tens of thousands of jobs, according to his own State Department.
Back in February, he vetoed the bill Congress sent him that would have authorized construction, saying that it circumvented “longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.” At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “Congress won’t stop pursuing good ideas, including this one.” But he was not able to gather enough votes to override the veto and, since then, we’ve heard nothing about the Keystone pipeline. In Washington, DC, silence on an important issue like Keystone isn’t always golden.
There is no pending legislation on Keystone, but the permit application has still not been approved or rejected. I had hoped that the unions, who want the jobs Keystone would provide, would be able to pressure enough Democrats to support the project, to push a bill over the veto-proof line. But that didn’t happen. For months, Keystone has been silently dangling. But that may be about to change.
Reliable sources tell me that Obama is prepared to, finally, announce his decision on Keystone. According to the well-sourced, and verified, rumor, he is going to say: “No”—probably just before or after the Labor Day holiday. He’ll conclude that it is not in the “national interest.” So helping our ally grow its economy and export its oil is not in our national interest but helping our sworn enemy do the same, is? It’s like the “Channeling Jeff Foxworthy” parody states: we just “might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.”
Speaking of economic growth and oil exports, what about here at home, in the good old U.S. of A.? Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) questions the deal that allows Iran to export its oil, while we cannot: “As Congress begins its 60-day review of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about whether it is in our nation’s—and the world’s—best interests. Not least among them are the underexplored, but potentially significant consequences the deal will hold for American energy producers.”
Most people don’t realize that the U.S. is, as Murkowski says in her op-ed, “the only advanced nation that generally prohibits oil exports.” Due to decades-old policy, born in a different energy era, American oil producers are prohibited from exporting crude oil because it was perceived to be in “short supply.”
(Note: refined petroleum product, such as gasoline and diesel, can be exported and is our number one export. We are also about ready to ship our major first tanker full of natural gas headed for Europe.) Today, when it comes to crude oil, our cup runneth over.
The U.S. is now the world’s largest producer or oil and gas. Rather than short supply, we have an over-supply—so much so that American crude oil (WTI) is sold at a discount over the global market (Brent). This disadvantages U.S. producers but doesn’t benefit consumers because gasoline is sold based on the higher-priced Brent.
Murkowski argues that it is time to lift the 40-year-old oil export ban. She’s introduced bipartisan legislation that would do just that, but, if he was so inclined, President Obama could reverse the policy himself—if he found it to be in the national interest. And how could it not be?
Allowing U.S. crude oil into the world market enhances global energy security, as it would be less impacted by tensions in the Middle East. Our allies in Europe and Asia would have access to supply from a friendly and reliable source—remember the Arab Oil Embargo crippled Japan’s economy because it had no domestic supply and was overly reliant on Arab sources.
Lifting the oil export ban would allow U.S. crude to be sold at the true market price, not the discounted rate, which would help stem the job losses currently being felt throughout the oil patch due to the low price of oil and exacerbated by the drop in the price of crude triggered by the Iran deal.
So, the Obama Administration is lobbying Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan. Lifting sanctions would allow Iran to resume full oil export capabilities and boost its economy—while refusing to give our allies and our own country the same benefit. Iranian oil will enter the world market, while Canadian and American oil is constrained. How is that in the “national interest?”
It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy ~ which expands on the content of her weekly column.
 |
| Meet Marita K. Noon |
Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations that have slogged on for months, have now, ultimately, netted a deal that will allow Iran to export its oil—which is the only reason they came to the table (they surely are not interested in burnishing Obama’s legacy). International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran, it is estimated, currently has more than 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea—part of a months’ long build up.
It is widely reported that, due to aging infrastructure and saturated storage, it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions are lifted—if Congress approves the terms of the deal, Iran wants to be ready to move its oil. In fact, even before the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is already moving some of its “floating storage.”
On July 17, the Financial Times (FT) reported: “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail—moving the oil closer to customers in Asia. In April, another tanker, Happiness, sailed from Iran to China, where, since June, it has parked off the port City of Dalian.
Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached—which is, according to the FT: “signaling its looming return to the oil market.” Reuters calls its departure: “a milestone following a months-long build-up of idling crude tankers.” Analysts at Macquarie Capital, apparently think the oil on Starla will not be parked, waiting for sanctions to be lifted. A research note, states: Iran is “likely assuming that either a small increase in exports will not undermine the historic accord reached or that no one will notice.” We noticed.
Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal’s been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of the recent gains. While the Obama Administration’s actions are allowing Iran, which hates America, to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, they are hurting our closest ally but putting delay after delay in front of the Keystone pipeline—which would help Canada export its oil.
After six-and-a-half years of kicking the can down the road, and despite widespread support and positive reports, the Keystone pipeline is no closer to construction than it was on the day the application was submitted. It is obvious President Obama doesn’t like the project, which will create tens of thousands of jobs, according to his own State Department.
Back in February, he vetoed the bill Congress sent him that would have authorized construction, saying that it circumvented “longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.” At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “Congress won’t stop pursuing good ideas, including this one.” But he was not able to gather enough votes to override the veto and, since then, we’ve heard nothing about the Keystone pipeline. In Washington, DC, silence on an important issue like Keystone isn’t always golden.
There is no pending legislation on Keystone, but the permit application has still not been approved or rejected. I had hoped that the unions, who want the jobs Keystone would provide, would be able to pressure enough Democrats to support the project, to push a bill over the veto-proof line. But that didn’t happen. For months, Keystone has been silently dangling. But that may be about to change.
Reliable sources tell me that Obama is prepared to, finally, announce his decision on Keystone. According to the well-sourced, and verified, rumor, he is going to say: “No”—probably just before or after the Labor Day holiday. He’ll conclude that it is not in the “national interest.” So helping our ally grow its economy and export its oil is not in our national interest but helping our sworn enemy do the same, is? It’s like the “Channeling Jeff Foxworthy” parody states: we just “might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.”
Speaking of economic growth and oil exports, what about here at home, in the good old U.S. of A.? Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) questions the deal that allows Iran to export its oil, while we cannot: “As Congress begins its 60-day review of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about whether it is in our nation’s—and the world’s—best interests. Not least among them are the underexplored, but potentially significant consequences the deal will hold for American energy producers.”
Most people don’t realize that the U.S. is, as Murkowski says in her op-ed, “the only advanced nation that generally prohibits oil exports.” Due to decades-old policy, born in a different energy era, American oil producers are prohibited from exporting crude oil because it was perceived to be in “short supply.”
(Note: refined petroleum product, such as gasoline and diesel, can be exported and is our number one export. We are also about ready to ship our major first tanker full of natural gas headed for Europe.) Today, when it comes to crude oil, our cup runneth over.
The U.S. is now the world’s largest producer or oil and gas. Rather than short supply, we have an over-supply—so much so that American crude oil (WTI) is sold at a discount over the global market (Brent). This disadvantages U.S. producers but doesn’t benefit consumers because gasoline is sold based on the higher-priced Brent.
Murkowski argues that it is time to lift the 40-year-old oil export ban. She’s introduced bipartisan legislation that would do just that, but, if he was so inclined, President Obama could reverse the policy himself—if he found it to be in the national interest. And how could it not be?
Allowing U.S. crude oil into the world market enhances global energy security, as it would be less impacted by tensions in the Middle East. Our allies in Europe and Asia would have access to supply from a friendly and reliable source—remember the Arab Oil Embargo crippled Japan’s economy because it had no domestic supply and was overly reliant on Arab sources.
Lifting the oil export ban would allow U.S. crude to be sold at the true market price, not the discounted rate, which would help stem the job losses currently being felt throughout the oil patch due to the low price of oil and exacerbated by the drop in the price of crude triggered by the Iran deal.
So, the Obama Administration is lobbying Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan. Lifting sanctions would allow Iran to resume full oil export capabilities and boost its economy—while refusing to give our allies and our own country the same benefit. Iranian oil will enter the world market, while Canadian and American oil is constrained. How is that in the “national interest?”
It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots.
________________________________________
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy ~ which expands on the content of her weekly column.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
An errant environmental encyclical
Pope Francis’ prescriptions will perpetuate poverty, disease, premature death in Third World by Paul Driessen
The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.
“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”
The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).
All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.
One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]
However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.
Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]
Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.
Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.
Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.
Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.
We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.
As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years. None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.
Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.
Hundreds of millions get horribly sick and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.
Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance, because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.
Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?
We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.
No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years, because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.
The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.
But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.
Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.
Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.
It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical man made climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
 |
| Meet Paul Driessen |
“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”
The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).
All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.
One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model.” [emphasis added]
However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.
Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]
Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.
Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” – never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.
Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources – with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.
Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.
We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.
As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years. None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.
Over the past three decades, fossil fuels – mostly coal – helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.
Hundreds of millions get horribly sick and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.
Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance, because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.
Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?
We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people – from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators – and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.
No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years, because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.
The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise – or give up on further progress.
But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.
Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.
Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral – and lethal.
It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical man made climate and other dangers decades from now – by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.
_________________________________________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion
By Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe
As a US senator and a candidate for president a decade ago, John Kerry couldn't bring himself to worry overmuch about Islamic terrorism. Today, as a secretary of state trying to sell a nuclear accord that would lift economic sanctions from the world's leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, he still can't.
During his run for the White House in 2004, Kerry insisted that the danger from global jihadists should be viewed as primarily an "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort," not a military conflict. "We have to get back to the place we were," he told an interviewer — back to regarding suicide bombings and planes flying into skyscrapers as a manageable annoyance, not an existential threat. He likened terror attacks to prostitution and illegal gambling: "a nuisance" that "we're never going to end . . . but we're going to reduce."
Ten years later, jihadist violence remains a deadly global reality, much of it fueled and financed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why one of the gravest concerns about the proposed Iran deal is the massive financial windfall Tehran will reap as international sanctions come off. With well over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets poised to be released, plus some $20 billion a year in new oil revenues, the Iranian regime will be awash with cash — cash it will be free to invest in its lethal proxies.
True to form, Kerry isn't worried. Will Iran's sanctions-relief jackpot mean more money for Hezbollah's terror operations, for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, for Shiite militias in Iraq, for Bashar al-Assad's ruthless killers? "Sure, something may go additionally somewhere," he breezily told the BBC. "But if President Rouhani and his administration do not take care of the people of Iran, they will have an enormous problem."
The Obama administration has been pushing this line for a while. White House press secretary Josh Earnest explained in May that it was just "common-sense" that as new funds surge into the regime's coffers once the nuclear deal takes effect, the nation's rulers will "use those economic resources to try to relieve that economic pressure they are feeling."
Oh? Tehran doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.
"We will supply arms to anyone and anywhere necessary, and will import weapons from anywhere we want," Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state TV on Monday. "We will take any necessary action to ... help our regional allies to fight."
You'd think that would be blunt enough even for Kerry. But, like the president he works for, the secretary of state has made a career of underestimating the malignance of America's enemies, and of overestimating the amenability of dictators to sweet reason.
The ruthless men who control Iran have proclaimed for more than 35 years that their overarching priority is victory in a theocratic struggle that will end with raising "the banner of Islam over the White House," the "annihilation" of Israel, and the end-of-days apocalypse foreseen by the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. In their pursuit of that triumph, Iran's rulers regard terrorism and the bomb as integral; domestic comforts and economic growth are only ancillary concerns.
Iran did not become the world's foremost funder and promoter of Islamist terror — and, directly or indirectly, the murderer of thousands of American citizens since 1979 — by prizing butter over guns. Nor by adhering to international norms and civilized values. That's why its pursuit of nuclear arms is so alarming. It is the unbridled fanaticism of the regime, not the weapons themselves, that underlie the crisis. That fanaticism has not abated in the slightest, and it is almost criminally naïve to act as if Iran's signature on the Vienna deal proves the contrary.
In a recent PBS interview, Kerry was asked about widespread apprehension that Tehran will use the tens of billions of dollars coming its way in sanctions relief to unleash new bloodshed through Hezbollah and other terror groups.
"Well, we're going to clamp down," Kerry replied. "They're not allowed to do that." Why, he said, UN resolutions "specifically" forbid Iran from transferring assets to Hezbollah.
Uh-huh. And as everyone knows, Iran is scrupulous about complying with UN resolutions.
It must make Tehran's terror masters chortle with disbelief when they hear such inanities from the mouth of the secretary of state. But there is nothing funny about the carnage the Vienna agreement will unleash. It may be a while yet before Iran gets its nuclear weapons. But $100 billion is coming its way, and with that kind of money, you can spill a lot of blood.
As a US senator and a candidate for president a decade ago, John Kerry couldn't bring himself to worry overmuch about Islamic terrorism. Today, as a secretary of state trying to sell a nuclear accord that would lift economic sanctions from the world's leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, he still can't.
During his run for the White House in 2004, Kerry insisted that the danger from global jihadists should be viewed as primarily an "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort," not a military conflict. "We have to get back to the place we were," he told an interviewer — back to regarding suicide bombings and planes flying into skyscrapers as a manageable annoyance, not an existential threat. He likened terror attacks to prostitution and illegal gambling: "a nuisance" that "we're never going to end . . . but we're going to reduce."
Ten years later, jihadist violence remains a deadly global reality, much of it fueled and financed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why one of the gravest concerns about the proposed Iran deal is the massive financial windfall Tehran will reap as international sanctions come off. With well over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets poised to be released, plus some $20 billion a year in new oil revenues, the Iranian regime will be awash with cash — cash it will be free to invest in its lethal proxies.
True to form, Kerry isn't worried. Will Iran's sanctions-relief jackpot mean more money for Hezbollah's terror operations, for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, for Shiite militias in Iraq, for Bashar al-Assad's ruthless killers? "Sure, something may go additionally somewhere," he breezily told the BBC. "But if President Rouhani and his administration do not take care of the people of Iran, they will have an enormous problem."
The Obama administration has been pushing this line for a while. White House press secretary Josh Earnest explained in May that it was just "common-sense" that as new funds surge into the regime's coffers once the nuclear deal takes effect, the nation's rulers will "use those economic resources to try to relieve that economic pressure they are feeling."
Oh? Tehran doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.
"We will supply arms to anyone and anywhere necessary, and will import weapons from anywhere we want," Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state TV on Monday. "We will take any necessary action to ... help our regional allies to fight."
You'd think that would be blunt enough even for Kerry. But, like the president he works for, the secretary of state has made a career of underestimating the malignance of America's enemies, and of overestimating the amenability of dictators to sweet reason.
The ruthless men who control Iran have proclaimed for more than 35 years that their overarching priority is victory in a theocratic struggle that will end with raising "the banner of Islam over the White House," the "annihilation" of Israel, and the end-of-days apocalypse foreseen by the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. In their pursuit of that triumph, Iran's rulers regard terrorism and the bomb as integral; domestic comforts and economic growth are only ancillary concerns.
Iran did not become the world's foremost funder and promoter of Islamist terror — and, directly or indirectly, the murderer of thousands of American citizens since 1979 — by prizing butter over guns. Nor by adhering to international norms and civilized values. That's why its pursuit of nuclear arms is so alarming. It is the unbridled fanaticism of the regime, not the weapons themselves, that underlie the crisis. That fanaticism has not abated in the slightest, and it is almost criminally naïve to act as if Iran's signature on the Vienna deal proves the contrary.
In a recent PBS interview, Kerry was asked about widespread apprehension that Tehran will use the tens of billions of dollars coming its way in sanctions relief to unleash new bloodshed through Hezbollah and other terror groups.
"Well, we're going to clamp down," Kerry replied. "They're not allowed to do that." Why, he said, UN resolutions "specifically" forbid Iran from transferring assets to Hezbollah.
Uh-huh. And as everyone knows, Iran is scrupulous about complying with UN resolutions.
It must make Tehran's terror masters chortle with disbelief when they hear such inanities from the mouth of the secretary of state. But there is nothing funny about the carnage the Vienna agreement will unleash. It may be a while yet before Iran gets its nuclear weapons. But $100 billion is coming its way, and with that kind of money, you can spill a lot of blood.
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Trump's spectacle: Hidden golden nuggets
By Lloyd Marcus at Renew America
I know. I know. As a veteran political activist, I am suppose to be extremely upset with Donald Trump, out there saying what some on both sides of the political aisle consider to be outrageous things.
But folks, I cannot help myself. It is thrilling to watch someone in the arena of ideas not playing the game according to the dictates of the Left. For far too long, our anti-America enemies on the Left have been allowed to set the rules of engagement. The Left dictates what truths we can say out loud, what words we are permitted to use and what is racist or mean.
Please note. I am neither supporting nor opposing Trump's comments. I am celebrating Trump's refreshing unprecedented fearlessness in dealing with the iron-fist out-of-control bullying tactics of the Left/MSM.
I guess it goes back to my childhood living on the mean-streets of Baltimore projects. I detested bullies. They were cowards and mean opportunists. My cousin Jimmy, who loved to fight, taught me the power of a strong military. I was small as a child. When bullies took my lunch money, cousin Jimmy ended the problem. Nothing serious happened, but the bullies knew not to "mess" with Jimmy's cousin, Peanut (my nickname).
I view the mainstream media and their Leftists partners as the ultimate bullies, whipping Americans into submission, silencing our right to free speech. It sticks in my craw that daring to state an opinion other than the Left's combined consensus on an issue means your derriere is grass.
It also distresses me that whenever a conservative/Republican says something that the Left chooses to distort and become hysterical about, folks on our side run to microphones to say, "What so-and-so should have said or really meant to say is..." Why surrender to the Left's distort-and-become-hysterical tactic?
Why kowtow to the Left/MSM, especially when we know they are wrongly interpreting conservatives' comments on purpose; publishing distortions, exaggerations and lies about what a particular conservative/Republican said?
The Left/MSM allows Democrats to make off-the-cuff outrageous inflammatory statements insulting millions of Americans. Waters – "The tea party can go straight to hell!" Grayson – "Republicans want you to die quickly." Schultz – "Republicans want to see you dead." Carson – "The tea party wants blacks hanging on a tree." Obama about middle America – "Clinging to their Bibles and guns." Indicting millions, President Carter said an "overwhelming portion" of the opposition to Obama is because "he is a black man."
Remember the Democrats' outrageous lying ad showing a Republican pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff?
Then, there was the absurd shameful irresponsible Democrat ad warning blacks that if they do not vote, they will need to send their kids to school wearing bulletproof vests to protect them from being shot by white police.
Has the MSM demanded that these Democrats apologize/walk back any of their false statements or hate generating ads? No.
Meanwhile, a conservative/Republican has to market test every word that comes out of their mouths, less they suffer the Left's hysteria/wrath and shoulda-coulda-woulda from fellow conservatives/Republicans. Folks, with the MSM deck so stacked against us, standing up to the Left is extremely challenging. I just wish our side was more forgiving and supportive of our fighters.
Name me one occasion in which a conservative/Republican walking back a statement caused the Left/MSM to forgive him or her. Never. To the Left, an apology is blood in the water, causing a media feeding frenzy to devour a conservative or Republican. Every time one sheepishly apologizes, it is another notch on the Left's gun barrel; letting the world know they are in charge.
This is what makes Trump's defiance so remarkable and exhilarating. Thus far Trump has not fallen for the Left's tactic and become terrorized into walking back his comments. As a matter of fact, Trump routinely doubles down on his original statements. Sorry folks, but I love it. There's a new sheriff in town. His name is Donald Trump.
Another trick of the Left/MSM is to claim that their hysterical reactions reflect the feelings of a majority of the American people. However, Trump's addressing illegal immigration shot him to the top of the polls.
Some say Trump is muddying the waters for "serious GOP candidates." I am not going to argue either way regarding that point. I will say that it is about time someone stood up to these vipers (Leftist media).
A recent incident bears witness to how far PC and Leftist bullying has gotten out of hand; infecting the Democratic party base. Democrat presidential candidate Martin O'Malley was speaking at a Democrat Netroots conference. He was interrupted by protesters screaming about "black lives matter."
The protesters demanded that O'Malley repeat their mantra. Allowing the protesters to hijack the meeting, O'Malley said black lives matter. But when O'Malley added white lives and all lives matter, the audience exploded in outrage, erupting with boos and curse words.
Now, here is the kicker folks, Democrat presidential candidate Martin O'Malley actually apologized for saying white lives and all lives matter. That is crazy and speaks volumes.
Am I grateful for what Donald Trump has done? You betcha!
But folks, I cannot help myself. It is thrilling to watch someone in the arena of ideas not playing the game according to the dictates of the Left. For far too long, our anti-America enemies on the Left have been allowed to set the rules of engagement. The Left dictates what truths we can say out loud, what words we are permitted to use and what is racist or mean.
Please note. I am neither supporting nor opposing Trump's comments. I am celebrating Trump's refreshing unprecedented fearlessness in dealing with the iron-fist out-of-control bullying tactics of the Left/MSM.
I guess it goes back to my childhood living on the mean-streets of Baltimore projects. I detested bullies. They were cowards and mean opportunists. My cousin Jimmy, who loved to fight, taught me the power of a strong military. I was small as a child. When bullies took my lunch money, cousin Jimmy ended the problem. Nothing serious happened, but the bullies knew not to "mess" with Jimmy's cousin, Peanut (my nickname).
I view the mainstream media and their Leftists partners as the ultimate bullies, whipping Americans into submission, silencing our right to free speech. It sticks in my craw that daring to state an opinion other than the Left's combined consensus on an issue means your derriere is grass.
It also distresses me that whenever a conservative/Republican says something that the Left chooses to distort and become hysterical about, folks on our side run to microphones to say, "What so-and-so should have said or really meant to say is..." Why surrender to the Left's distort-and-become-hysterical tactic?
Why kowtow to the Left/MSM, especially when we know they are wrongly interpreting conservatives' comments on purpose; publishing distortions, exaggerations and lies about what a particular conservative/Republican said?
The Left/MSM allows Democrats to make off-the-cuff outrageous inflammatory statements insulting millions of Americans. Waters – "The tea party can go straight to hell!" Grayson – "Republicans want you to die quickly." Schultz – "Republicans want to see you dead." Carson – "The tea party wants blacks hanging on a tree." Obama about middle America – "Clinging to their Bibles and guns." Indicting millions, President Carter said an "overwhelming portion" of the opposition to Obama is because "he is a black man."
Remember the Democrats' outrageous lying ad showing a Republican pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff?
Then, there was the absurd shameful irresponsible Democrat ad warning blacks that if they do not vote, they will need to send their kids to school wearing bulletproof vests to protect them from being shot by white police.
Has the MSM demanded that these Democrats apologize/walk back any of their false statements or hate generating ads? No.
Meanwhile, a conservative/Republican has to market test every word that comes out of their mouths, less they suffer the Left's hysteria/wrath and shoulda-coulda-woulda from fellow conservatives/Republicans. Folks, with the MSM deck so stacked against us, standing up to the Left is extremely challenging. I just wish our side was more forgiving and supportive of our fighters.
Name me one occasion in which a conservative/Republican walking back a statement caused the Left/MSM to forgive him or her. Never. To the Left, an apology is blood in the water, causing a media feeding frenzy to devour a conservative or Republican. Every time one sheepishly apologizes, it is another notch on the Left's gun barrel; letting the world know they are in charge.
This is what makes Trump's defiance so remarkable and exhilarating. Thus far Trump has not fallen for the Left's tactic and become terrorized into walking back his comments. As a matter of fact, Trump routinely doubles down on his original statements. Sorry folks, but I love it. There's a new sheriff in town. His name is Donald Trump.
Another trick of the Left/MSM is to claim that their hysterical reactions reflect the feelings of a majority of the American people. However, Trump's addressing illegal immigration shot him to the top of the polls.
Some say Trump is muddying the waters for "serious GOP candidates." I am not going to argue either way regarding that point. I will say that it is about time someone stood up to these vipers (Leftist media).
A recent incident bears witness to how far PC and Leftist bullying has gotten out of hand; infecting the Democratic party base. Democrat presidential candidate Martin O'Malley was speaking at a Democrat Netroots conference. He was interrupted by protesters screaming about "black lives matter."
The protesters demanded that O'Malley repeat their mantra. Allowing the protesters to hijack the meeting, O'Malley said black lives matter. But when O'Malley added white lives and all lives matter, the audience exploded in outrage, erupting with boos and curse words.
Now, here is the kicker folks, Democrat presidential candidate Martin O'Malley actually apologized for saying white lives and all lives matter. That is crazy and speaks volumes.
Am I grateful for what Donald Trump has done? You betcha!
_________________________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now