Saturday, August 1, 2015

[VIDEO] Todd Starnes: Congress Vacations While Humans Are Harvested

Congress is packing its bags and getting ready to go to the beach -- the summer recess.
While our elected leaders are working on their tans and sipping fruity drinks with tiny umbrellas -- Planned Parenthood will still be harvesting body parts from aborted babies.
House Speaker John Boehner ignored my call to suspend his vacation and deal with this most pressing matter.
The Center for Medical Progress first exposed Planned Parenthood's human chop shop on July 14th -- and yet - our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize their killing fields.
To be fair - legislation has been introduced - and investigations are underway -- but based on the evidence already uncovered Congress is well within its rights to temporarily suspend funding.
It's the least they could have done.
But sadly -- when it comes to protecting the unborn - the least is the most Congress has ever done.
 

Watch Todd Starnes' American Dispatch above and sound off!
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

DEMS STRUGGLE TO FIND UNTAINTED REP FOR APPROPIATIONS COMMITTEE

House Minority Leader 
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
9%
 is replacing embattled Democratic 
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
11%
 (D-PA), who’s held a leadership position on the House Appropriations Committee.

Yet, the man who is slated to replace him, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), is the subject of a substantial investigation into ethical wrongdoing of his own, which allegedly involves a “pay-to-play” scheme discovered out of a probe into his official congressional and re-election committee’s improper mixing of government and campaigning business.
Fattah, for his part, was indicted this week on 29 counts of racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy, along with four of his associates,
The Office of Congressional Ethics was created by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008 in what she called an attempt to “drain the swamp” of rampant corruption by officials in Washington, D.C. Yet Pelosi has not done anything to prevent her fellow Democrat Honda from rising to this powerful committee position.
Pelosi’s creation of this committee had a large founding in her personal targeting of former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), who after eight long years of trial was exonerated last Octoberafter a Texas court found that the evidence in the case was “legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions.”
Will Pelosi live up to her founding office’s ethical standards and prevent Honda from representing a committee which stands to eliminate ethics violations in the nation’s capital?
Honda’s troubles were amplified this past week when a binder dubbed “1,000 cranes” emerged listing 1,000 of the embattled congressman’s top donors who were pawns in an alleged showing of pay to play politics in which Honda sought to “fast track” the acquisition of $1 million — $1,000 from 1,000 people — in exchange for having his team complete transactional work and provide prioritized treatment for constituents who were interested in acquiring visas or other services in a more expeditious manner.
The binder reportedly emerged last week during the House ethics announcement that they would extend their probe into Honda’s alleged misconduct, which involved the mixing of government work and campaigning. The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer Carla Marinucci points out that Honda’s binder was named “1,000 cranes” after an ancient Japanese tale that sees cranes as a symbol of luck and good fortune. Honda’s top donors were reportedly identified either as “cranes” or “friends of MH.”
The investigation into the ethics matter was prompted after allegations surfaced suggesting Honda’s Chief of Staff, Jennifer Van der Heide, had blurred the lines between her official government duties and Honda’s reelection campaign by coordinating with Honda’s campaign staff for a State Department event which targeted the congressman’s fellow South Asian constituents.
The perceived ethics violation surfaced during his 2014 reelection campaign against fellow Democratic rival, and former Obama trade official, Ro Khanna. However, it did little to dissuade voters from reelecting Honda for an eighth term, which he won by a slight 5,000 vote margin.
Khanna, who is a Yale law graduate, author, and university lecturer, announced in May that he will again seek the 17th Congressional district seat which Honda now occupies.
Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz and on Facebook.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

[VIDEO] Congressman: EPA Sexual Predator ‘Fed A Steady Diet Of Interns’

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz had some harsh words for EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy during a hearing Wednesday regarding the agency’s handling of an employee who repeatedly sexually harassed interns.
For the past couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been investigating reports of misconduct at the EPA from employees watching porn everyday while on the job to an agency employee who sexually harassed interns and was not reported to the authorities and continued to work at the agency for years.
“This is a predator who was fed a steady diet of interns,” Chaffetz told McCarthy during the hearing. “The first time this happened he should have been fired and he should have probably been referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution.”
“It happened 10 times
Chaffetz remarks come after the EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins told Congress that Peter Jutro, an EPA employee, “engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior toward at least 16 women, most of whom were EPA co-workers.” Elkins also said very senior EPA officials “were made aware of many of these actions and yet did nothing.”
The IG also noted that Jutro was even promoted to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security where he again “engaged in such behavior toward an additional six women.”
Chaffetz went off on McCarthy over the agency’s failure to fire Jutro despite repeated allegations that he was sexually harassing women. Here is the exchange starting with McCarthy’s response to Chaffetz’s first remarks about a “predator who was fed a steady diet of interns”:
McCarthy: I am aware that eleven years ago there was an issue raised and it was handle appropriately is my understanding.
Chaffetz: Appropriately?! He got a promotion, he continued to work there.
M: No, he was carefully watched. The very minute we had any indication of impropriety, which was the recent issue, we took prompt action and in less than two months…
C: You moved his cubicle four spaces away. You think that’s appropriate? What do you say to the mother and father who sent their twenty-four year old to the EPA — she’s starting her career, and she’s harassed. Look at her statement. And you did the right thing by moving her four cubicles away?
M: Sir, we are doing everything we can to reinforce the policy and the law. We are developing procedures so there’s never a question about this, and we are doing everything…
C: That isn’t good enough! When someone is sexually harassed you send them to the authorities, you fire them.
M: I did send them to the authorities…
C: You sent them to human resources, who wanted to reprimand him, you never did send them to the criminal referral.
M: Human resources recommended the same thing as every manager, which was to proceed to removal, the man is no longer in federal…
C: That’s not what actually happened. It was in his record that they had had ten complaints — ten sexual harassment complaints against this gentleman and he was allowed to continue to be there. And as we heard testimony, a predator who was a fed a steady diet of interns.
M: I am aware of one complaint, eleven years ago, and the complaint that was just processed under my watch which resulted in his removal from public service within five or six weeks.
C: Did you fire him, or was he allowed to retire?
M: He was allowed to retire because that is his right. Even if he were fired, he’d be allowed to retire.
C: Do you believe this intern who said there was sexual harassment? Do that her statement is true?
M: Oh, I absolutely do…
C: Then why didn’t you refer it for a criminal referral? If you believe that her statement is true, and it was sexual harassment, and that is a violation of the law, and you allowed him to just retire, why didn’t you send that to the proper authorities?
M: We took the appropriate action.
C: Do you think it’s appropriate, do you think it’s against the law to sexually harass somebody at work?
M: I think it’s not only against the law, but it’s also against our policies, and we acted under the policies and the law when it led to the removal of him from public [office].
C: Did you let any of the law enforcement officer know?
M: Mr. Chaffetz, I’ve got two young daughters just about this woman’s age…
C: I’ve got two young daughters too! And I would never send them to the EPA, it’s the most toxic place to work I’ve ever heard of. This person, this twenty-four year old girl, she’s starting her career, she’s harassed over a three-year period and you admit that is a violation of the law. Why didn’t you do the criminal referral?

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

[VIDEO] It's back: FEC says regulating Internet, Google, Facebook under its 'purview'

After backing down amid concerns she wanted to regulate political speech, and even new sites like the Drudge Report, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission has renewed talk about targeting campaign and political activities on the internet.
Ann M. Ravel, discussing election regulation during a speech in New York, suggested it was time to produce "thoughtful policy" targeting internet political activity. She also expressed frustration that her last bid was met with "threatening misogynist responses to me."
She was speaking at a day-long conference hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Committee for Economic Development when she was asked about regulating the internet, Google and Facebook.
Ravel said that it would be under the "purview" of the FEC to oversee internet political activities such as fundraising and donations.
Her speech was just posted on YouTube.
Under current rules, the FEC regulates paid campaign ads on the internet just like they do on TV. However, videos or other social media posted for free are not regulated.
When the Democrats on the FEC first raised the possibility of regulations, opponents feared they were going to target conservative groups, activities and news sites. A proposal to delve into the issue died in a 3-3 vote.
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman, the previous chairman,warned that regulations would silence voices on the internet and that sites with a political bent, even in the media, could face rules requiring them to disclose donors and finances.
But in answering the question this week, Ravel indicated she wants to pursue regulations. "It would be under the purview of the FEC to look at some of the issues that arise in new media and the impact of new media, in particular with respect to disclosure and ensuring that there is no corporate contributions, for example excessive contributions or contributions to a particular candidates for example," she said.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Don’t Fear The Shutdown… well, it *kind* of scans.

From the people who brought you "The Koch Bros will hurt Republicans in 2014" comes "Attacking will hurt Republicans in 2016"
2:10 PM - 31 Jul 2015
More
With some clarifications, sure. First off: yes, very little that happens with a shutdown in Congress this year will have any effect on the national elections next year.  This is, of course, broadly similar to what happened in 2013: everybody who wasn’t part of the Republican grassroots (and a few of them, too) was convinced that the shutdown would do permanent damage to the GOP brand, right up to the point where Obamacare blew up in the missile silo. Technically, something equivalent has not yet happened this year.  But something will. Something always will. You can’t subject the populace to a year-plus-long rant about the inequities of the Republican party without said populace eventually tuning it out.
Second: unfortunately, you can’t really count on the Democrats being as dumb in 2015 as they were in 2013 – and they were dumb. Starting with the Democrats not taking the free gift that the GOP had offered them – there’s a bunch of former Senators and governors who wish that they had – and following with not capitalizing on even the transitory advantage the shutdown gave them. At this point somebody’s going to smugly mutter ‘Virginia,’ and I’ll mutter ‘sitting governor obvious en route to being indicted,’ and then we can all pick sides over who to blame in the Virginia gubernatorial election. I will note that, the way things were going, one more week and we would have won that race… which does not suggest that the Democrats really followed through on things. Presumably they’ve learned better. Obviously, it’s great if the Democrats haven’t, but it’s safer to assume that they have.
Third: this year’s races. A shutdown could very well affect the Kentucky gubernatorial race between Matt Bevin and Jack Conway. It probably won’t hurt Mississippi’s, given that Phil Bryant is running for re-election and he’s pretty popular. As for Louisiana’s… are we certain that a Democrat will even survive the jungle primary in the first place? – So if you do favor a shutdown of the government over Planned Parenthood funding, you should also be in favor of making sure that it doesn’t hurt Matt Bevin‘s gubernatorial bid.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

[VIDEO] Clinton camp releases candidate's clean bill of health, tax returns

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign on Friday released a statement from her doctor declaring she is in “excellent physical condition and fit to serve as president of the United States,” along with eight years of tax returns showing the Clintons paid tens of millions of dollars in federal taxes. 
The release comes on the same day the State Department released thousands of emails relating to her tenure as secretary of state. 
In the tax returns, released late Friday afternoon, the documents show the Clintons have paid $43 million in federal taxes since 2007. They also donated $15 million to charity, and paid an additional $13.6 million in state taxes.
The Clintons' effective federal tax rate for 2014 was 35.7 percent, while the effective tax rate for federal, state and local taxes was 45.8 percent.
Meanwhile, the statement on her health, from Dr. Lisa Bardack, an internist and chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York, said the former secretary of state has seasonal pollen allergies and listed "deep vein thrombosis," an elbow fracture and her 2012 concussion in her recent medical history. Following the concussion, a subsequent blood clot developed in her brain.
As a result, Clinton experienced double vision and wore glasses with a Fresnel prism for two months. During Clinton’s follow-up evaluations, she was found to have a “transverse sinus venous thrombosis” and started “anticoagulation therapy” to dissolve the clot.
In 2013, she tested “negative” for all clotting disorders, though continues a daily anticoagulation as a precaution, Bardack said.
Clinton’s current medications also include Armour Thyroid, which is used to treat underactive thyroids, antihistamines and Vitamin B12.
She doesn’t smoke, drinks occasionally and eats a diet rich in protein. She also exercises regularly, practices yoga, swims, walks and weight trains, her doctor said.
At her most recent physical on March 21, her blood pressure was 100/65 and her heart rate was 72. Her cholesterol came back at 195, with an LDL of 118, HDL of 64 and triglycerides of 69.
“(Clinton’s) cancer screening evaluations are all negative,” Bardack added.. “She is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as president of the United States.”
Clinton’s camp is touting the fact she is the first 2016 candidate to release any kind of health information, though she only officially released a one-and-a-half-page letter from her doctor.
Both these releases come as the State Department releases thousands of pages of emails from her time running the department. It was the third major release of Clinton’s email records.
The State Department has made available several hundred pages of documents in prior releases related to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and other issues.
Fox News' Ed Henry contributed to this report.
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

The Left’s Fight-for-$15 Scam

The current feel-good push for a $15 an hour minimum wage has nothing to do with helping workers and everything to do with advancing the goals of the left wing, especially the labor movement.


This is true despite the occasionally soaring rhetoric of President Obama amid the Left’s incessant whining about “income inequality,” itself a particularly un-American concept, an imaginary evil that dwells only in the nightmares of left-wingers. The fact gets lost that the minimum wage itself and continuing increases in the minimum wage hurt working people. Period. And as economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, minimum wage laws themselves have an inglorious history, having been used to price minorities out of labor markets. If a racist business owner has a choice between a person whose race he likes and someone whose race he doesn’t like and their services cost the same, take a guess whom he’ll pick.

Raising the hourly minimum wage, whether to a job-killing $15 or a higher dollar figure, isn’t intended to aid those who are financially struggling. It’s not compassionate; in fact it’s the opposite. It doesn’t help the poor. It’s a left-wing vote-buying scam that moves money around on an Alinskyite chess board. Democrats desperately want to recapture the House and Senate so they can impose even more destructive progressive policies on the populace. They use the minimum wage, which has become a “motherhood” issue for the Left in recent years. It gets bleeding-heart voters to the polls the way that opposition to same-sex marriage used to get conservative voters to the polls.

Hiking required hourly pay is about redistributing wealth to fat-cat labor unions and recruiting Democratic voters. It allows the gluttonous Left to gorge itself on other people’s money.

No serious economist doubts that raising the minimum wage eliminates jobs from the workforce. How it does this is not rocket science.

Workers whose skills aren’t worth $15 an hour to employers, teenagers for example, won’t get hired. Summer jobs and part-time jobs for students evaporate which makes young scholars more dependent on student loan programs. Businesses like fast food purveyors don’t want to be forced out of business. Justifiably insistent on preserving their profitability, they fire employees and install specialized robots and touch-screen ordering systems. Major restaurant chains and gas station-convenience stores are already doing this.

Some of the newly unemployed people end up on welfare which helps to expand the size and scope of government. People who are dependent on the government tend to support Democrats. It’s a big win-win for the Left no matter how you look at it.

New York’s loud left-wing demagogue of a governor, the relentlessly strident Andrew Cuomo (D), wants to impose the $15 an hour wage mandate on a specific industry without bothering to consult the state legislature in Albany because he knows such a move is a crowd pleaser. A panel of lapdogs appointed by Cuomo gave him political cover by recommending last week that the minimum wage be raised to $15 for all fast-food restaurant chains of a certain size in New York State.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?

In a recent speech criticizing African political leaders who stay too long in office, President Obama said he could win a third term if he ran for president again but acknowledged that U.S. law does not allow it. Could Obama win again?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party - and 32% of Democrats - would not.

Obama defeated Republican nominee John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin in 2008 and was reelected with 51% of the vote against GOP candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits presidential candidates from being elected to more than two four-year terms. Nineteen percent (19%) of all voters believe that amendment should be changed so presidents can serve longer. Seventy-eight percent (78%) oppose such a change.

Interestingly, only 32% of Democrats support changing this amendment. Ninety percent (90%) of GOP voters and 82% of unaffiliateds are opposed.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 28-29, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.


Majorities of voters across most demographic groups oppose changing the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms and would not vote for Obama if he ran for a third term.

The older the voter, the less likely he or she is to say they would vote for Obama.

Most black voters (54%), however, would change the constitutional amendment. Just 10% of whites and 38% of other minority voters agree.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of black voters would vote to elect Obama to a third term, compared to 22% of white voters and 39% of other minority voters.

Among voters who favor changing the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms, 74% would vote for Obama if he ran again.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of all voters want to continue using the Constitution as the fundamental law of the United States, and 59% say legislators should leave it alone. 

Just over half (51%) of voters think Obama has been less faithful to the U.S. Constitution than his predecessors in the Oval Office.

Voters continue to overwhelmingly favor term limits for members of Congress but don’t expect legislators to meet this demand.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter orFacebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.



at No comments:
Labels: , ,

HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF: WE WON’T CALL CHATTANOOGA ‘ISLAMIC TERRORISM’ OUT OF RESPECT FOR MUSLIMS

THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR US, WHY SHOULD WE HAVE ANY FORM THEM??
Why won’t the Obama administration call Fort Hood Islamic Terrorism? Why aren’t they calling Chattanooga Islamic Terrorism? Because it’s disrespect to Muslims and Islam is about peace:
ARUTZ SHEVA – Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson announced the policy this past Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum in Washington, D.C. He explained that though it was a Muslim terrorist who shot to death four unarmed Marines in Tennessee two weeks ago, the government will call the attack, and other similar ones, “violent extremism” and not “Islamic terrorism” – out of respect for the Muslim community.
Johnson said it is “critical” to refrain from the “Islamic” label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.
The Tennessee murderer, Mohammad Abdulazeez, is officially a “homegrown violent extremist,” according to the government – even though he blogged about his Islamic religious motivations for the attack. He and his family also attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.
Johnson explained that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere” in gaining the “cooperation” of the Muslim community.
The moderator of the panel tried to protest: “Isn’t [the] government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?”
“I could not disagree more,” Johnson responded, and explained that Islam “is about peace.”
So if we say we want Muslims to stand up against Islamic extremism but we won’t call it Islamic extremism, how will they know it’s Islamic extremism if we won’t even tell the truth about it?
Heck, it’s not even extremism, really. It is simply Muslims taking their religion very, very seriously and trying to walk in the footsteps of Muhammad. Now there is an extreme component to it, as some believe the time is now to wage Jihad and others believe that time will come when their Mahdi returns. But that’s just a matter of ‘when’, not ‘what’.
But hey, let’s not offend Muslims here by telling the truth about Islam. Let’s just pretend Jihadis are just a bunch of angry poor people who can’t get jobs in their countries. And let’s send them money to see if that fixes the problem.
Good plan.




at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts