Saturday, October 31, 2015

Dating Mr. Wrong? Find Mr. Right!

From the files of Mary Jane Popp at KAHI Radio in Sacramento, California

Are you dating a loser?


Is it because you don’t know how to seek out Mr. Right?

If you want to find Mr. Right, there are signs according to Dr. Frieda Birnbaum who is a research Psychologist, Psychoanalyst, and author of “What Price Power:” An in-depth study of the Professional woman in a relationship.

We really hashed this one out on my radio show POPPOFF because our divorce rate in the U.S. is about 53% and I wanted you to have the best chance of being on that 47% of the line. So let’s begin with the seven signs you are dating the wrong guy. It’s best to rid yourself of the bad before you start looking for the good. He is Mr. Wrong if…
1) Your relationship with him doesn’t feel right in your gut.
2) You call him more than he calls you.
3) Your family and friends are unusually going out of their way to warn you about him.
4) His compliments don’t feel personal as if they could be said to just anyone.
5) He sends no cards or roses.
6) His words make you feel a bit insecure and not more secure.
7) His idea of dating is to text message you at the last moment. 
Any of these or several strike a chord in your relationship? Then you might want to set some new standards to find Mr. Right.

So here are some basic tips.
1) First step is believing in your heart that you deserve someone great so you’ll immediately start to put out the right vibe.
2) You need to accept you for who you are because every guy senses when you are trying too hard, looking too desperate, or acting like you are having fun, when you’re not.
3) Some men and women desire more what they can’t have. Don’t make yourself too readily available.
4) Many men date women who want to change them. If you accept the person you are dating they are and they truly love you. They’ll want to change for you. The ones who do this are potential Mr. Right material. I had to interject my big fat opinion before we got to the next tip. In my humble and 44 year marriage experience, why not find the person you accept and like, and then you don’t have to worry about change on either side of the relationship. If you like them, why do you want to change them? It gets too messy! OK, no more comments from the peanut gallery.
5) Observe the person you are dating with both your mind and heart. If it feels right in your heart, and your mind accepts what the heart says without hesitation, this is a good indication you might be dating a keeper. 
So there are some positive things to look for and some things to get you running screaming away from a relationship.

If you need more information, you can find it at

Hope you find Mr. Right and hang on.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Hillary: Haunted and Possessed

From the art studios of Dan Youra at

Humor and Reality Rule from Dan Youra at

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


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

RNC: The real villian

From the files of Jeff Crouere at Rinside Politics in New Orleans, Louisiana

After the latest debate debacle, Republican presidential candidates have finally had enough. They are meeting this weekend without officials of the Republican National Committee (RNC) to discuss the format of upcoming presidential debates.

The final straw was Wednesday night's CNBC Republican debate. While it was a ratings success, drawing a network record 14 million viewers, it was a political disaster.

The three liberal moderators exposed their bias and utter disdain for the candidates. The questions were unfair, trivial and not germane to the supposed topic of the evening, the economy.

The tone of the debate changed when Senator Ted Cruz responded to a question about the budget by blasting the moderators. He said that the loaded questions were examples of why the American people “don't trust the media.”

After his statements, the floodgates were unleashed and several of the other candidates joined in the moderator bashing. It was a remarkable display of turning the tables on the moderators. As a result of the debate, a new rallying cry has been established for all of the candidates.

It is a clear reminder that as Republican presidential candidates they may differ with each other on certain issues, but they are united against two political enemies: the Democrats and the media.

After the backlash, the fools at the RNC finally received the message. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus decided to remove NBC as the broadcast partner for the February 26, 2016 presidential debate in Houston.

In a letter to NBC Chairman Andrew Lack, Priebus said that the decision was made because CNBC, an NBC broadcast network, conducted the last debate in “bad faith.” Priebus noted that many of the questions were “inaccurate or downright offensive” and were designed to “embarrass our candidates.”

Of course Priebus is right, but the only reason he took this step was because of the candidate revolt. He knew prior to Wednesday night that CNBC was a liberal network. The real question is why would the RNC partner with such a network in the first place?

The CNBC debate followed two other GOP presidential debates that were justifiably criticized. In the first debate, moderator Megyn Kelly of Fox News repeatedly targeted Donald Trump with unfair questions.

In the second debate, CNN moderators pitted candidates against each other on various issues, trying to create a political “cage match.”

The real fault for all of these debacles lies with the leadership of the RNC, which sanctioned the presidential debates. The presidential candidates understand the problem which is why they are excluding the RNC from their meeting this weekend.

Now that he realizes the genuine anger among Republican presidential candidates and their supporters, Priebus is doing damage control. In an interview on Fox News, Priebus said that “every debate on the calendar is going to be reevaluated, reset – look at the format, the moderators, everything.”

This corrective action is too little and too late for the RNC to save any credibility. For years, the party leadership agreed to liberal “journalists” moderating debates with GOP candidates.

In 2012, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton White House official, questioned Mitt Romney about whether he supported a “ban” on contraceptives.

This unusual question was part of the Democratic Party's overall campaign to label the GOP as anti-women. This strategy helped Barack Obama garner a strong majority of female voters and defeat Romney in the general election.

The RNC also participates in a bi-partisan commission that sanctioned all of the 2012 presidential debates. Each one was hosted by a liberal moderator with devastating results for Romney.

It was especially painful in the second debate, when Candy Crowley of CNN served as Obama cheerleader and public relations spokeswoman. Thus, Romney battled both Obama and the moderator in each debate.

Finally, the GOP presidential candidates are starting to realize that the RNC has no problem with liberal moderators. For years, the RNC has done a true disservice to their presidential candidates and the party faithful.

It is time for action. Not only should NBC be dropped as a broadcast partner, but RNC Chairman Reince Priebus should be fired. As talk show host Mark Levin noted, “that guy's incompetent, he's a boob.” For the sake of the Republican Party, he needs to go.

Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. 

For more information, visit Jeff's web site at or e-mail him at

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Friday, October 30, 2015

Hey NBC - Go "Piss Off"

The RNC canceled plans to partner with NBC News for a February 26th debate, citing a "bad faith" performance by CNBC in Wednesday night's meeting of the candidates.

"The CNBC network is one of your media properties and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith," Priebus wrote.

"We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC's journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance."

Priebus argued that CNBC assured the committee that the debate would focus on substantive policy issues like jobs and taxes, but he said the network failed on that count.

He also said it failed to guarantee relatively equal speaking time for the candidates.

"While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it," Priebus added.

From the I-Group at


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

John Kasich: What happened to the GOP?

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from Tony Branco


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

So this is how liberty dies

From the files of Dan Bongino at The Conservative Review

Meet Dan Bongino at The Conservative Review
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Although this quote could probably be attributed to millions of liberty-loving, patriotic Americans watching the thunderous crowds upon the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, it didn't come from them.

This is a quote from the character Queen Amidala in the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith movie.

With the upcoming release of the latest installment of the Star Wars movie franchise, I was reminded of this quote and the Hollywood left's influence on the culture.

Sadly, I was also reminded of President Obama's painful legacy of complete, abject policy failure, which has destroyed millions of lives and will unquestionably wreak havoc far into the future, all the while the left celebrates these "accomplishments."

At the recent Democratic presidential debate President Obama delivered a pre-taped address to the adoring debate crowd, and gauging by the enthusiastic response, you would think he had claimed a record number of presidential merit badges for his policy achievements.

In fact, this administration has been a disaster for the American people based on President Obama's own measures of what legislative success looks like.

And yet the left celebrates his "accomplishments," seemingly oblivious to his failure to live up to his own false-promises.

Click here to read more from Dan Bongino

Dan Bongino is the bestselling author of the book Life Inside the Bubble and is a Contributing Editor at Conservative Review. He was the 2012 and 2014 Republican nominee for the United States Senate and 6th congressional district in Maryland. 

He served for over a decade as a special agent in the United States Secret Service, and currently owns a security consulting business and you can follow Dan Bongino on his website, at Facebook or on Twitter.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Obama and ObamaCare continue to fail

They have little money in savings, half are young, and a third are racial minorities.

They are the 10.5 million people eligible for Obamacare coverage who, two years since enrollment began, still haven't signed up through the insurance marketplaces created for Obamacare.

Experts agree that these will be the hardest people to convince to buy healthcare coverage. They've remained uninsured through two signup seasons, because they don't believe they can afford it, don't think they need it, or haven't heard about it.

But what surprised many this month is that the Obama administration not only agrees that reaching the uninsured is a big challenge, but that it expects to enroll barely more this year than it did last year. This would leave the number of marketplace enrollees at fewer than half those originally expected by the end of 2016.

There are 10.5 million Americans eligible for Obamacare coverage who still haven't signed up. (AP file) Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced in mid-October that her goal is only 100,000 more paid enrollees than the agency achieved last year. In June, 9.9 million people had paid for Obamacare coverage; during this enrollment season, Burwell hopes for 10 million people to pick a plan and pay the premiums.

"We believe 10 million is a strong and realistic goal," Burwell said. "We've seen high levels of satisfaction with the marketplace and expect the vast majority of our current customers will re-enroll. And our target assumes that more than one out of every four of the eligible uninsured will select plans."

But that will still leave a significant number of people, at least 7 to 8 million, lacking insurance through their employer, qualifying for the Obamacare exchanges, and yet still uninsured when enrollment closes at the end of January.

Add to that the people who are eligible for Medicaid but haven't enrolled and those who would have been eligible for Medicaid had their states expanded the program, and there's unlikely to be a big reduction in the approximately 32 million people who still don't have coverage six years after Obama signed the reform bill into law.

The uninsured rate dropped from 16.2 percent to 12.1 percent from 2013 to 2014, and in August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that it's below 10 percent for the first time in American history.

But the administration's modest enrollment projections underscore future challenges, and make it vulnerable to criticism from Republicans keen to point to shortcomings in law they've repeatedly tried to repeal.

"They got the low-hanging fruit already," said Tim Jost, health law professor at Washington and Lee University and a leading proponent of the law. "If you don't have universal coverage, how do you reach people, many of whom have very little money, very frantic lives, very little education? They're not people out there shopping the Internet for anything, much less insurance coverage."

Advocates of the law face the simple fact that for people on low incomes, health insurance is dauntingly expensive. The administration estimates that half of the uninsured have less than $100 in savings, and nearly eight in 10 have less than $1,000.

While the tax penalty for remaining uninsured increases for the 2015 tax year to $325 or 2 percent of adjusted income, it's doubtful that this will prove a big incentive to low-income people. Most will qualify for a hardship exemption; in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that all but 7 million of the remaining uninsured will be exempt from the fine.

Conclusion of the story at The Washington Examiner

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Jeff Sessions: Mass amnesty in 2017?

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions has concerns of a mass amnesty in 2017 by Julia Hahn

Meet Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is echoing the concerns of other prominent conservatives that the events unfolding now in Washington could lead to mass amnesty in 2017.

“The word is that 2017 is the year to watch for immigration,” radio host Laura Ingraham asked Sessions. “What are the chances… that if Paul Ryan is Speaker and Hillary Clinton is President of the United States, or Marco Rubio is President of the United States that they would move in the first 100 days to push a massive, similar [to the ‘Gang of Eight’] immigration reform bill?”

Sessions replied, “I think there’s a great danger that that would happen.” After the failed 2006-2007 amnesty push, the immigration lobby spent $1.5 billion leading up to the 2013 push in which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) delivered a bill to allow even more foreign workers.

A recent PBS documentary exposed how Ryan and Rubio were nearly successful in their effort to pass amnesty in 2014. Ryan had crafted a bill and had the Republican votes necessary to pass it. Ryan’s amnesty effort was aided by many of the members of the House Freedom Caucus, including Mick Mulvaney and Raul Labrador.

Mulvaney has since become one of the biggest boosters in the House Freedom Caucus of a Paul Ryan Speakership. According to the documentary, the Ryan-Rubio amnesty plan was foiled when Dave Brat scored a historic primary victory to oust then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Sessions explained in the interview, “There’s a great danger to elect a Speaker of the House who is a leading advocate for two major issues today — trade and immigration — and advocating against the wishes of the Republican voter.”

As Breitbart News has previously documented, Ryan has a long history of promoting open borders immigration and trade policies. More than 9 in 10 Republican voters oppose the Ryan-Rubio immigration agenda. According to Pew, at least 93 percent of Republican voters want to see immigration into the United States leveled or slashed, rather than continue to grow.

“We need leaders who fight for and advocate for the values of the voters who elect us, not against them.” Sessions said. “The anger and the frustration out there is much deeper than personalities, as some people suggest.

It’s that our voters agree by a supermajority that immigration should be reduced, not increased. Whereas the Senate passed and it almost passed in the House a bill that would increase immigration dramatically, and not stop illegal immigration.”

Sessions is referring to the Obama-backed immigration bill Senator Rubio co-authored and ushered through the Senate.

As Breitbart News has reported and Politico recently confirmed, Rubio has not backed away from a single policy item outlined in the mass amnesty bill.

As Rubio said on the Senate floor in 2013 as he urged conservatives to support the La Raza-endorsed immigration bill, which would admit triple green card admissions and double the admission of foreign guest workers on visas: “In my heart and in my mind, I know that we must solve this problem once and for all.”

For months after his amnesty effort collapsed, Senator Rubio refused to support any of the immigration enforcement bills offered by his Republican colleagues. Rubio did, however introduce a new bill that would triple the number of foreign guest workers and allow companies such as Disney and Microsoft to replace American workers with low-skilled foreign laborers who will work for lower wages. Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying group has called this bill, “our gold standard for high tech reform.”

Under our current immigration policy, every day the United States brings in enough immigrants to fill a large high school. Since Marco Rubio came into office, the United States has imported an immigrant population that four times the population of Manhattan.

Since Wisconsin voters sent Paul Ryan to Washington, the United States has brought in a population that is nearly triple the size of the population of their state.

Yet under the Ryan-Rubio vision for a New American Century, those numbers would be even larger.

In a joint op-ed with Rep. David Brat (R-VA) Sessions recently declared that any candidate who will not work to reduce immigration should drop out and not seek the office:

After nearly half a century of massive immigration it is time to turn our attention to our own residents. It is time to help our own workers, families and communities — immigrant and U.S.-born — rise together into the middle class.

We need an immigration policy that shows compassion for Americans. Anyone running for the White House who cannot publicly commit to these principles should consider a different occupation.

Americans should no longer have to wonder for whom their leaders work.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Ben Carson - So what if he is a creationist?

By Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe

The TV news was on, and there was a story about the leading candidates in the Republican presidential field.

"So if Donald Trump gets the nomination," my liberal friend needled me, "are you going to vote for him?"

"He's not going to be the nominee," I said, "but I wouldn't vote for him in any case."

"What about Ben Carson?" he wanted to know.

I like what I've seen of Carson's personality and character, I replied, but I couldn't imagine backing someone so inexperienced for president. Then I added: "He'd make a great surgeon general, though!"

I meant it lightheartedly, but my companion was appalled. A surgeon general who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution? I couldn't really imagine Carson in that post, could I?

Now it was my turn to be amazed. Carson is an eminent physician and surgeon. He was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, and spent 29 years as the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

In a 2001 celebration of "researchers and doctors who are changing our world," Time magazine hailed Carson as one of America's best scientists and physicians. The Library of Congress, no less, declared him a "living legend."

Surely even the most impassioned liberal couldn't argue that Carson, whatever his political or religious beliefs, would lack the scientific and medical chops to make a fine surgeon general, the nation's leading spokesman on matters of public health.

Nonsense, said my liberal friend. Someone who questions the fundamental scientific understanding of the development of life on earth would have little credibility on any scientific topic, including public health.

Carson may be a great surgeon, but if he rejects such bedrock scientific findings, who knows what other well-founded data he would refuse to acknowledge?

It is certainly true that Carson denies that life developed through random, unguided genetic mutations over millions of centuries. It is also true that he believes in literal six-day creationism (though he's agnostic on the question of the planet's age) and that he attributes the rise of Darwinian thinking to the influence of "the Adversary," — i.e., Satan.

Those are not mainstream views, but Carson has plainly thought about the subject and hasn't been shy about explaining his conclusions, in both religious and scientific terms.

To be sure, he is seeking the presidency, not the office of surgeon general or any other science-related position. But would Carson's views on evolution and Creation be such a red flag to Democrats if his views generally were more in line with left-wing priorities?

A trailblazing pediatric neurosurgeon, Ben Carson
specialized in traumatic brain injuries, brain and
spinal cord tumors, and congenital disorders.
In 1987, he was the first to successfully
separate twins conjoined at the head.
The best-known and most beloved surgeon general of all — C. Everett Koop — is remembered for his early leadership in fighting AIDS and for warning bluntly that smoking was harmful. Liberals admired him for putting public health before politics or ideology.

Yet Koop, too, was skeptical of Darwinism. "It has been my conviction for many years that evolution is impossible," he wrote in a 1986 letter. Like Carson, Koop also believed that Genesis should be taken at face value, not as "something like parables." Yet those views clearly were no barrier to Koop's nonpareil service as surgeon general.

Similarly, Carson's decades of remarkable medical achievement should quell any suggestion that his biblical views about the development of life "in the beginning" have impeded his scholarship and skill at saving and improving lives in the present.

All faiths (including dogmatic atheism) incorporate teachings that cannot be supported by mainstream science. Water into wine? Manna from heaven? Golden plates from an angel in New York? A universe that spontaneously created itself?

Can you regard someone's religious creed as preposterous, yet entrust the person who is faithful to that creed with public office? Of course; Americans do it all the time.

I can't see Carson as president, but what I really can't see is why his religion or his doubts about evolution (neither of which I share) should even enter the conversation.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Survivor families said "NO to RYAN"

Fron Julia Hahn at

If Paul Ryan is Speaker and Marco Rubio is President, "we might as well have just kept Barack Obama,” [Dan] Golvach said [whose 25-year-old son was murdered by a four-time deported criminal illegal alien]... "They're forsaking our immigration laws for cheap labor to appease their donors. This is an act of treason against us."

When Breitbart News asked [two of the grieving mothers] if they had ever been contacted by either Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, the two replied, “No, and I don’t think they ever will [reach out to us]. We’re on the opposite spectrum of their agenda... We're not the voters that they want," the mothers said with resignation.

Representative Brian Babin delivered opening remarks at the press event. Babin has been a leader in the House of Representatives on tackling the huge inflow of foreign refugees into the United States.

He has introduced a bill that would pause refugee resettlement and has been vocal about the need to end Sanctuary Cities. For Babin to be successful, House Leaders will likely need to be forced into attaching a Babin-backed measure into a must-pass bill.

Conservatives worry that with Ryan wielding the Speaker’s gavel— a man whom longtime immigration fighter Roy Beck described as “the heart and soul of crony capitalism” and whose open borders ideology “seeps out of every pore of his being”— many of the popular enforcement bills championed by conservative members such as Reps. Brian Babin, Steve King, Dave Brat, and Mo Brooks, will never see the light of day.

Click here to read more of Julia Hahn

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Media: Biggest losers in the CNBC debate

From the files of Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe

CNBC Panel at the GOP Debates

[Note: This comment was written immediately following the third televised Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colorado, on Wednesday night.]

It was, hands down, the most arresting moment of the Republican debate in Colorado.

One of the CNBC moderators, Carl Quintanilla, asked Senator Ted Cruz whether his opposition to the just-announced congressional deal raising the federal debt limit demonstrates that he's "not the kind of problem-solver American voters want."

Cruz's response was to turn the tables on the moderators, blasting them for the hostility toward the candidates that oozed from virtually every question they had asked so far.

Then, with devastating accuracy, he recited back the offensive questions:

"Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"

By this point, the audience was going wild with cheers.

But Cruz wasn't finished. He contrasted the animus of the media panel toward the GOP field with the recent Democratic debate, "where every fawning question was: Which of you is more handsome and wise?" And then he underlined the message: "Nobody watching at home believes that any of the moderators has any intention of voting in a Republican primary."

It was brutal takedown, and CNBC's smarmy moderators had it coming. Cruz is far from the first conservative to rail against liberal media bias, but he did it about as effectively as it can be done in 30 seconds. The clip of that moment will go viral. It may or may not give a boost to Cruz's presidential hopes, but it will certainly reinforce the public's sense that the mainstream media isn't trustworthy.

Rubio played the media-bias card, too. When he was asked about a home-state newspaper calling on him to resign from the Senate because of all the votes he has missed while on the campaign trail, he pointed out that he has missed fewer votes than John Kerry and Barack Obama — two former senators who ran for president, and were endorsed by the very same paper.

Bush then made the mistake of trying to pile on: "Marco, when you signed up for this, this was a six-year term, and you should be showing up to work." Rubio's deft response was to note that Bush claims to be modeling his campaign after John McCain's — "yet I don't remember you ever complaining about John McCain's voting record. The only reason why you're doing it now is because . . . someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you." Ouch.

It was a good night for Cruz and Rubio; a bad night for Bush. But the biggest loser in Boulder wasn't a candidate: It was the media.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Maria Bartiromo - Biggest winner of GOP debates

Meet Maria Bartiromo at Fox Business News

PRonlineNews - John Harwood at the CNBC network was the biggest loser and Maria Bartoromo at Fox Business had to be the biggest winner of the GOP debates held Wednesday night in Colorado.

The channel surfers watching the early morning financial market reports have long been fans of Bartiromo since she moved from CMBC but find the Fox Business format for reporting stock movement on the TV screen scroll uninformative since it reports stock movement by sector rather than in a random real-time way.

However, many of the listeners we talked to today agreed they can handle the format and are switching over to Fox because of the inconsistencies, arrogance, obvious bias and lack of trust in John Harwood.

Viewers said they hoped that Rick Santelli, once known as the Father of the Tea Party movement, would also leave his position with CNBC because it's obvious from telecasts that many of the Left Wing news readers would prefer he not opine on what the markets really have to offer evidenced by the bond sector.

As the CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event, Texas Senator Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing the CNBC panel of all being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie soon piled on the network, with Trump wrapping up his night by claiming he had strong-armed them into shortening the debate 'so we can get the hell out of here.'

The evening event in Boulder was billed as a purely economic discussion but turned into a referendum on America's political media, making the Republican-on-Republican rhetorical violence a secondary sideshow.

Claims of media bias became a major theme of the night, with Cruz letting loose the night's first scathing barrage against moderators Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz drew wild applause for reciting a list of CNBC anchors' questions that he said illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.

Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee's chairman, vented his disgust with the financial news network after the two-hour debate was over. 'Nobody watching at home believes that any of the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary,' he charged.

'The questions asked so far illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match,' Cruz said. 'Look at the questions: "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"' 'How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?'

Cruz earned the night's loudest single wave of applause for the outburst.

Rubio followed him with additional slams on the U.S. political press corps after Trump demanded an end to 'scam' super PACs that 'are causing some very bad decisions to be made by some very good people.'

'The Democrats have their own Super PAC,' Rubio claimed. 'It's called the mainstream media.'

Portions of this report appeared at the U.K. Daily Mail ~ Contact:

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Hey Hillary: Take off the costume

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from Tony Branco


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Fed's counterfeit prosperity

From the files of Dan Bongino at The Conservative Review

Meet Mr. Dan Bongino
When I was a young Secret Service agent on a local financial crimes task force between 2000 and 2002, I was inundated with an explosion of new counterfeit cases.

There were a number of causes for this explosion in currency counterfeiting but the main ones were: the rapid advancement in ink-jet printing technology, the declining costs, and correspondingly increased availability of affordable home printers.

Prior to these technological advancements, counterfeiting U.S. currency was the near exclusive purview of state-sponsored actors, sophisticated criminals and criminal syndicates.

With the growth in ink-jet printing, any thirteen-year-old with a printer could counterfeit money. I, along with hundreds of other Secret Service agents, were so preoccupied with tracking down this new class of counterfeiters and stemming the tidal wave of new counterfeit making its way into the money supply that I never had the time to philosophize on the deeper reasons why this crime is so dangerous to national cohesion.

We are lucky enough to live in a time where the authenticity of the physical currency in our wallets is taken for granted, but when the Secret Service was founded in 1865 to combat counterfeiting-the Secret Service's role in Presidential Protection didn't formally begin until 1901 after the assassination of President William McKinley-it was estimated that approximately half of the currency in circulation was counterfeit.

Think about that: you had a roughly 50 percent chance, when engaged in commerce, of receiving money with ZERO value.

That people had faith in their currency was so important to the U.S. government at the time that the Secret Service was established and charged with hunting down and prosecuting counterfeiters in order to re-establish public trust in the battered dollar.

Click here to read more Conservative Review news

Dan Bongino is the bestselling author of the book Life Inside the Bubble and is a Contributing Editor at Conservative Review. He was the 2012 and 2014 Republican nominee for the United States Senate and 6th congressional district in Maryland. 

He served for over a decade as a special agent in the United States Secret Service, and currently owns a security consulting business. 

You can follow Dan Bongino on his website, at Facebook or on Twitter.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Strong black man should stand with Trump

Courtesy of Maggie's Notebook and Tony Caputo

Black Pastors Pray for Donald Trump

The following is the transcript of a room full clergy laying hands on Donald Trump and praying for him. They pray for his wisdom and guidance, and that a "strong African American to stand with him and represent that community so that his voice can be heard even in a stronger way."

First speaker/prayer:

"...says what he believes but is willing to put himself in jeopardy for what he believes, and will help us economically and spiritually, in every way in this nation, so today we pray for Donald Trump. We pray for his family, we pray for his associates. We pray for what he has heard today, those who have spoken into his life, he will consider.

Lord, I pray that You will bring into his life a strong African American that can stand with him and represent that community so that his voice can be heard even in a stronger way.

Lord, whatever it is that You are going to do to bring about the right people as he moves forward in this campaign, we ask you to give him direction, and give him hope, and Lord thank You for allowing us to be here for this special moment. Perhaps we'll look back on this day and remember that we stood together and we prayed over the next president of the United States.

Second speaker/prayer:

Father, You said in your word, yes Lord, any man that lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, to give liberally, You who giveth, liberally to all men, [inaudible], but let him ask in faith, nothing wavered, for any man that wavers is like the blowing wind on the water. Let not that man think he shall receive anything.

No man can be successful as President of the United States without Your wisdom, and so we ask You today to give this man your wisdom, only make sure and certain that he hears. Manifest Yourself to him. And we thank you and praise you for a bold man, a strong man, and an obedient man. We praise you and we thank You in Jesus' name. Amen.

Read more news at Maggie's Notebook

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

IRS chief may face impeachment

By Todd Beamon at

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee introduced a resolution Tuesday to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over his actions in the tea party targeting scandal, including providing false information to Congress and the destruction of the emails of former supervisor Lois Lerner.

"Commissioner Koskinen violated the public trust," Chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah said. "He failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled.

"Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress," Chaffetz said. "This action will demonstrate to the American people that the IRS is under repair, and signal that executive branch officials who violate the public trust will be held accountable."

On Tuesday, Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing one of the groups targeted by the IRS, told Newsmax TV that the investigation had been a "sham."

"I don't think they did a real investigation," Mitchell said Monday on "Newsmax Prime." "They never interviewed any of the victims. To my knowledge they did not interview a single victim of the IRS targeting."

The committee's move comes after the Justice Department said on Friday that it was closing its two-year investigation of the targeting debacle without charging Lerner or any other IRS employee.

The decision sparked outrage among conservatives and many tea party groups that were heavily scrutinized in their applications for tax-exempt from the agency.

Lerner, now 65, oversaw the division that screened the applications. She retired shortly after the scandal broke in 2013 and was held in contempt of Congress for twice refusing to testify on the screening.

Koskinen testified Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee on the scandal.

According to the Oversight Committee's resolution, Koskinen violated the public trust by:
  • Failing to comply with a subpoena that resulted in the erasing of 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of Lerner's emails. The evidence was destroyed on Koskinen's watch.
  • Failing to testify truthfully and provided misleading information in telling Congress that all relevant emails had been turned over, but later admitting that they were missing and could not be recovered. The Treasury Department's inspector general has since located as many as 30,000 of Lerner's emails.
  • Failing to tell Congress that Lerner's emails were missing in February 2014 in response to a subpoena. The emails were destroyed on March 4, 2014, according to investigators. The agency told Congress that the emails were missing four months later, in June 2014, and that was "well after" it had informed the White House and the Treasury Department.
In July, Chaffetz called for President Barack Obama to remove Koskinen, who took over the embattled agency in December 2013. His letter was supported by 51 Republicans.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Ryan commits anti-amnesty to "MO" Brooks

Alabama Congressman "MO" Brooks Secures a Commitment from Ryan - No Amnesty Bills

Meet Congressman "MO" Brooks (Alabama-5)

This morning, Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-5) addressed the U.S. House, submitting for the Congressional Record, a letter agreed to by Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1) which formalizes pledges that, if elected Speaker, Ryan will not bring up immigration reform “so long as Barack Obama is president” and Ryan will not allow any immigration bill to reach the floor for a vote unless it is supported by a majority of Republican House Members.

Brooks and other House Freedom Caucus members had concerns that Ryan may use the role of Speaker to push through immigration policies that will suppress the wages of and take even more jobs from struggling American families.

Said Congressman Brooks from the floor of the House, "Mr. Speaker, between 2000 and 2014, in the 16 to 65 age bracket, and although the American economy created 5.6 million net new jobs, American born citizens lost 127,000 jobs. All jobs gains in America, and more, went to people born in foreign countries.

In 2012, 51% of households headed by immigrants relied on welfare, compared to 30% of households headed by someone born in America, thus driving up America’s deficits and driving down America’s ability to pay for safety nets for Americans.

This week I vote on Paul Ryan’s bid for House Speaker. While Paul Ryan has excellent communication skills, is charismatic, understands the economic risk of out-of-control deficits, and the like, Paul Ryan and I have a major disagreement on border security.

Last week, on October 22, Paul Ryan, I and others met about his candidacy. Border security was discussed. Thereafter, I hand-delivered to Paul Ryan on the House Floor at roughly 4 P.M. a letter that states, and I quote:
Struggling American families have lost more than 8 million job opportunities to illegal aliens. All lower and middle income American workers have suffered from suppressed wages caused by the surge in both illegal alien and lawful immigrant labor supply.

Your past record and current stance on immigration conflicts with the values of the Americans I represent and causes great concern to me and the Americans I represent.

Yesterday during discussions about the Speaker’s race, you made two representations about immigration that stood out. They are: 1. It is unwise or unproductive to bring up any immigration legislation so long as Barack Obama is President. 2. As Speaker, you will not allow any immigration bill to reach the House Floor for a vote unless the immigration bill is “supported by a majority of the majority” of Republican House Members.

Although you talk faster than I can write your words down, I believe the above statements properly reflect what you said. I send this letter to confirm that I accurately portray your remarks and that I may rely on them when the House Floor Vote for Speaker occurs next week.

If my portrayal of your words errs in any respect, please deliver to me (before the GOP Conference meeting next week in which we are to conduct Speaker elections) a written communication correcting my errors.

If I do not receive such a communication from you, then I will infer that you concur that my portrayal of your remarks is accurate and that I, and the rest of the GOP Conference, and the American people, may rely on your words as I have written them.

I need your assurance that you will not use the Speaker’s position to advance your immigration policies, except when in accord with the two above statements, because there is a huge gap between your immigration position and the wishes of the American citizens I represent. Your words yesterday constitute the needed assurance.

If your assurances as I have portrayed them are accurate, then I am much more comfortable voting for you for Speaker on the House Floor (and will do so, absence something startling coming to my attention between now and the election, which I don’t anticipate).

If, however, you would use the Speaker’s chair to advance an immigration belief system that is unacceptable to the Americans I represent, it will be very difficult for me to vote for you for Speaker on the House Floor.

To be clear, I intend to publicly share this letter and your responding letter, if any, to help explain to my constituents why I voted as I did on the House Floor in the Speaker’s election.

Thank you for considering the contents of this letter."
Concluded Brooks, "At roughly 5:20 P.M., Paul Ryan called me and stated that my letter accurately portrayed his immigration representations. Paul Ryan confirmed that he meant what he said and would keep his word.

Based on Paul Ryan’s representations and my trust that Paul Ryan is a man of his word, I will vote for Paul Ryan for House Speaker on the House Floor if he is the Republican nominee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter for the record to the House Clerk, and I yield back the balance of my time."

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Hillary's CYA plan exposed by Branco

From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically

Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from Tony Branco


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Michael Savage and Government Zero

Michael Savage and Government Zero goes on sale today by Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker

Now Available at
Talk show host Michael Savage’s latest book Government Zero: No Border, No Language, No Culture, published today, will delight his legions of fans. It is primarily a survey of much that is wrong with what America has become under President Obama, with a closing chapter on what approaches and specific measures Savage sees as saving America.

The prose is uniquely and unmistakably Savage, flowing, soaring, digressing, meditating, reflecting, and swooping back to the original subject at hand. For those who listen to his weekday show heard on over 260 stations, this approach is familiar and comforting, an excursion into the multifaceted causality of what we have become.

While the radio Michael Savage experience is close to a stream of consciousness, mercurial and at its best almost dreamlike, the print version retains the variety and breadth, but is just a bit tighter in organization, and of course brings with it footnotes for documentation and more precision.

Michael Savage has achieved the status of the bad boy of contemporary conservative media, often angry and cutting, never hesitating to criticize sharply those with whom he disagrees. His targets have included most of the other major talk show hosts and the on-air talent at Fox News, as well as the panoply of liberal/left media and political actors.

He has his radio show, The Savage Nation, introduced as “unprotected talk,” and the label fits well. It and the book are full of hard-hitting terms and imagery, sometimes blunt -- Nancy Peosi is “the most despicable woman in American politics,” -- and sometimes striking in its imaginative metaphors: Barack Obama is a

“…rogue president [who] tramples every institution, divides the people by race, sex, religion, and political orientation. He set out to transform the beautiful nation, and in so doing, he’s causing irreparable damage.

"Like a stoned plastic surgeon, he botched the operation and created a mutilated face and an ugly body politic."

As a result of his acerbic prose and willingness to take on fellow conservatives (Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Susteren come in for blistering criticism in Chapter 11, "Zero Liberty”), he never gets invitations to appear on Fox News or any of the other cable news outlets [he briefly had an MSNBC show, only to be fired abruptly after telling a homosexual caller to die], and generally is regarded as persona non grata by the rest of the media despite his standing as one of the most popular forces on conservative talk radio with millions of passionate fans.

I suspect his latest book will not receive many reviews, certainly not in the New York Times or Washington Post, and very few in the right-leaning media, either. Savage also has, as he mentions in the book, the distinction of having been banned from entering the United Kingdom, allegedly for stirring up hate.

This is a scurrilous charge and a heinous act, for Savage never encourages violence, but he is a severe critic of Islamism, and almost certainly the UK authorities banned him as a sop to Muslims when they simultaneously banned some Islamist preachers from entering Britain and stirring up violent jihad.

The book is organized into 13 chapters, each but the last incorporating the word “zero” along with a subject area. The final chapter, with proposed solutions, is entitled “Saving a Nation with Nationalism,” Savage’s prescription to trade in the label and concept of conservatism for outright nationalism, which he sees as making possible considerable outreach to people who consider themselves Democrats.

In the first chapter, Government Zero, he defines the concept as “absolute, unchecked government power and zero representation of the people.” The problems with such hyperbole are obvious. “Zero representation” means no elections, and so far it appears that no coup has cancelled them.

As for “unchecked government power,” we may have a Supreme Court that is willing to go a long way to accommodate Obamacare and other activities the founders would blanch at, but the checks and balances of the Constitution are still in place, even if shamefully unexercised by the political class of Democrat and Republican elites. With this book, you have to understand that bombast is part of the package.

It is also a little confusing that with the expression “Government Zero” Savage means maximum government, while in most of the other chapters, he means zero to indicate the opposite: minimal, as in -
  • Chapter 2, “Zero Leadership,” 
  • Chapter 3, “Zero Strategy Against ISIS, 
  • Chapter 4, “Zero Military,” 
  • Chapter 5, “Zero Education,” 
  • Chapter 6, “Zero Culture,” 
  • Chapter 7, “Zero Immigration” (here, he reverts to the title’s usage), 
  • Chapter 8, “Zero Religion: Lenin’s Pope,” 
  • Chapter 9, “Zero Science,” 
  • Chapter 10, “Zero Business Sense,” 
  • Chapter 11, “Zero Liberty,” 
  • Chapter 12, “Zero Police.” 
The chapter headings do not in the least constrain the subject matter discussed in each. In Chapter 8, for instance, Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change is rather insightfully discussed, and the broader topic of climate science introduced in some detail.

Yet, the following chapter, “Zero Science,” also continues that subject, presented in the context of an earlier massive scientific scandal, Lysenkoism in the USSR under Stalin, in which genetic sciences were corrupted just as badly as climate science today. Throughout the book, Savage does not hesitate to bring in the lessons of history, and quite often the narrative is both enlightening and entertaining.

With his three graduate degrees including a doctorate from UC Berkeley, as well as a lifetime of reading, Savage is able to draw on a very wide knowledge base in making his points, and never lets himself be constrained by the formal organization of the chapters.

My favorite of the chapters was number 4, “Zero Military.” Despite having no background serving in the military, Savage has done great work chronicling what he (accurately, I fear) terms the “purges” of senior military officials who disagree with the agenda of the Obama forces, more concerned with issues like integrating transgender troops than with military effectiveness, and unwilling to even mention the word “Islam” in formulating strategies. There are many names worth knowing in this chapter.

The concluding chapter 13, “Saving a Nation with Nationalism,” was the weakest in my eyes. The list at its end of “40 Actions to Save America” contained no consideration whatsoever of any details. For example, Number 4 was “Repeal the “Anchor Babies” law.

Of course, there is no law per se, there is the 14th Amendment and the way it has been interpreted to date. Perhaps Savage knows this, and a discussion of the 40 Actions will be the basis of his next book. But as presented quickly at the end, the plan was more a set of broad goals than an actual action agenda.

What Government Zero lacks in rigor, it makes up in breadth and imaginative prose. Who else but Michael Savage would treat readers (in Chapter 2) to a discussion of two of his dreams, one of them about a white owl, the other about a black woman?

But then, Michael Savage is a unique figure on the American media landscape, and has from his first days broadcasting local talk radio on San Francisco’s KSFO ignited passionate support, deep scorn, and almost never indifference.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now