Conservative Happenings

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Charles Koch calls for an end to 'corporate welfare'

The Koch conspiracy theorists are having a field day this weekend, as the bi-annual confab of Koch brothers donors got underway on Saturday.

In addition to about 450 contributores, no less than 5 GOP presidential candidates will make an appearance through Sunday.Saturday featured "auditions" by two prominent White House hopefuls Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina. Jeb Bush will address the gathering today.

In his opening remarks, Charles Koch called for an end to "corporate welfare," specifically targetiing the big banks.

Wall Street Journal:

The press-shy 79-year-old chief executive of Koch Industries took the nation’s biggest banks to task for accepting “massive bailouts” and cheap loans from the Federal Reserve in return for the federal government wielding increased influence over how they run their businesses.

The comments came at a cocktail reception kicking off the latest gathering of wealthy conservatives assembled by Mr. Koch and his brother David. In brief remarks welcoming donors to the event at the St. Regis Monarch Beach resort, Charles Koch challenged the assembled business leaders to encourage other corporate chieftains to “start opposing rather than promoting corporate welfare.”

[...]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of the Republican White House contenders invited to appear, presented himself as the only candidate in the GOP field with a record of both fighting for conservative principles and winning those battles. He questioned why Republican majorities in Congress couldn’t repeal the 2010 health law or the Dodd-Frank financial-market reforms, a not-so-veiled shot at the senators in the race.

But on other occasions, Mr. Walker sidestepped opportunities to take direct shots at two top rivals, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and real-estate developer Donald Trump.“You’re not going to hear me belittle any other Republicans,” he said, before restating his criticism of Mr. Trump for questioning the war record of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who spent more than five years in a Vietnamese prison camp.l

Former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, the other 2016 contender to appear at the event Saturday, was much more assertive in her critique of Mr. Bush, questioning whether the son and brother of former presidents is the best candidate in the field to reform Washington. “Why do you think you’re the Bush who can change that?” she said, when asked what question she would pose to the former Florida governor, who will make an appearance on Sunday.

The big banks give generously to both parties, in order to ensure they can keep their perks and advantages. But change is in the wind. The Republican who emerges as the nominee will almost certainly souind a more populist note when it comes to Wall Street and the big banks. Market friendly reforms could become an issue in the campaign as Democrats will seek to demonize Wall Street (while grasping for as much campaign cash as they can").

But Fiorina highlights the big question that should concern GOP primary voters; how can Jeb Bush be a credible candidate for "change"? He may end up raising more money than anyone else, but his policies reek of the Washington establishment and, in many cases, are in direct opposition to what the conservative mainstream believes. Right now, his poll numbers reflect his name recognition. But it should be interesting to see where he stands after the first debate when every other candidate attacks him for some of his more problematic proposals.

Via: American Thinker

[VIDEO] Watchdog: Fake ObamaCare applicants allowed to keep coverage

Via: Fox News

[VIDEO] Man chews off his own fingerprints in an attempt to not be identified by police

LEE COUNTY, Fla. -- A man is under arrest in Lee County, Florida, despite his attempts to chew off his own fingerprints in an attempt to not be identified.

The Lee County Sheriff's Office says detectives spotted a 2015 Mercedes which had been stolen and stopped the vehicle.

Detectives discovered that the driver, 20-year-old Kenzo Roberts, was using a fraudulent ID, had a concealed firearm, and possessed three fraudulent credit cards, according to Lee County Sheriff's Office.

As Roberts was being detained in the back of the patrol vehicle, surveillance video shows him attempting to remove his own fingerprints by chewing them off and rubbing them against the cage.

The ploy wasn't successful though, as a fingerprint scanner quickly identified Roberts.

LCSO says he has two felony warrants for his arrest out of Broward County for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Roberts has been charged with three counts of possession of a counterfeit credit card, grand theft auto, possession of a concealed firearm, possession of similitude of a driver's license, driving while license suspended, and false identification given to law enforcement.

Border Patrol was also contacted and found that Roberts was in the U.S. illegally.

Via: WPTV West Palm Beach

[VIDEO] Baltimore killings soar to a level unseen in 43 years

BALTIMORE – Baltimore reached a grim milestone on Friday, three months after riots erupted in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody: With 45 homicides in July, the city has seen more bloodshed in a single month than it has in 43 years.

Police reported three deaths — two men shot Thursday and one on Friday. The men died at local hospitals.

With their deaths, this year's homicides reached 189, far outpacing the 119 killings by July's end in 2014. Nonfatal shootings have soared to 366, compared to 200 by the same date last year. July's total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972, according to The Baltimore Sun.

The seemingly Sisyphean task of containing the city's violence prompted Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to fire her police commissioner, Anthony Batts, on July 8.

"Too many continue to die on our streets," Rawlings-Blake said then. "Families are tired of dealing with this pain, and so am I. Recent events have placed an intense focus on our police leadership, distracting many from what needs to be our main focus: the fight against crime."

But the killings have not abated under Interim Commissioner Kevin Davis since then.

Baltimore is not unique in its suffering; crimes are spiking in big cities around the country.

But while the city's police are closing cases— Davis announced arrests in three recent murders several days ago — the violence is outpacing their efforts. Davis said Tuesday the "clearance rate" is at 36.6 percent, far lower than the department's mid-40s average.

Crime experts and residents of Baltimore's most dangerous neighborhoods cite a confluence of factors: mistrust of the police; generalized anger and hopelessness over a lack of opportunities for young black men; and competition among dealers of illegal drugs, bolstered by the looting of prescription pills from pharmacies during the riot.

Federal drug enforcement agents said gangs targeted 32 pharmacies in the city, taking roughly 300,000 doses of opiates, as the riots caused $9 million in property damage in the city.

Perched on a friend's stoop, Sherry Moore, 55, said she knew "mostly all" of the young men killed recently in West Baltimore, including an 18-year-old fatally shot a half-block away. Moore said many more pills are on the street since the riot, making people wilder than usual.

"The ones doing the violence, the shootings, they're eating Percocet like candy and they're not thinking about consequences. They have no discipline, they have no respect — they think this is a game. How many can I put down on the East side? How many can I put down on the West side?"

The tally of 42 homicides in May included Gray, who died in April after his neck was broken in police custody. The July tally likewise includes a previous death — a baby whose death in June was ruled a homicide in July.

Shawn Ellerman, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Baltimore division of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said May's homicide spike was probably related to the stolen prescription drugs, a supply that is likely exhausted by now. But the drug trade is inherently violent, and turf wars tend to prompt retaliatory killings.

"You can't attribute every murder to narcotics, but I would think a good number" of them are, he said. "You could say it's retaliation from drug trafficking, it's retaliation from gangs moving in from other territories. But there have been drug markets in Baltimore for years."

Across West Baltimore, residents complain that drug addiction and crime are part of a cycle that begins with despair among children who lack educational and recreational opportunities, and extends when people can't find work.

"We need jobs! We need jobs!" a man riding around on a bicycle shouted to anyone who'd listen after four people were shot, three of them fatally, on a street corner in July.

More community engagement, progressive policing policies and opportunities for young people in poverty could help, community activist Munir Bahar said.

"People are focusing on enforcement, not preventing violence. Police enforce a code, a law. Our job as the community is to prevent the violence, and we've failed," said Bahar, who leads the annual 300 Men March against violence in West Baltimore.

"We need anti-violence organizations, we need mentorship programs, we need a long-term solution. But we also need immediate relief," Bahar added. "When we're in something so deep, we have to stop it before you can analyze what the root is."

Strained relationships between police and the public also play a role, according to Eugene O'Donnell, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Arrests plummeted and violence soared after six officers were indicted in Gray's death. Residents accused police of abandoning their posts for fear of facing criminal charges for making arrests, and said emboldened criminals were settling scores with little risk of being caught.

The department denied these claims, and police cars have been evident patrolling West Baltimore's central thoroughfares recently.

But O'Donnell said the perception of lawlessness is just as powerful than the reality.

"We have a national issue where the police feel they are the Public Enemy No. 1," he said, making some officers stand down and criminals become more brazen.

"There's a rhythm to the streets," he added. "And when people get away with gun violence, it has a long-term emboldening effect. And the good people in the neighborhood think, 'Who has the upper hand?'"

Via: Fox News

Iran Says It Will Ban Americans From Nuclear Inspections

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities, an official said in remarks broadcast by state TV on Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will only allow inspectors from countries that have diplomatic relations with it. The previously undisclosed remarks were made during a Sunday meeting with parliamentarians.

"American and Canadian inspectors cannot be sent to Iran," said Araghchi. "It is mentioned in the deal that inspectors should be from countries that have diplomatic relations with Islamic republic of Iran."

He also said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will not have access to "sensitive and military documents."

Iran and world powers reached a historical deal earlier this month aimed at curbing Tehran's disputed nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Western nations have long suspected Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons alongside its civilian atomic program, allegations denied by Tehran, which insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful.

The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Canada closed its embassy in Tehran and suspended diplomatic relations in 2012.

Via: Yahoo News

Would you believe it? The judge who blocked the @PPact videos is an Obama guy!

I know. I was shocked, too. Via Mollie Hemmingway at The Federalist (if you don’t have a fainting couch, you may need to invest in one before reading this):

A federal judge late Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

I know, gang. I know. Take a moment to recover from the news that a California liberal judge who not only was appointed by Obama, but was a campaign bundler, might be making rulings based on political ideology. I can wait.

Feel better? Let’s go.

This should really not be surprising to anyone, considering this is politics as usual in the United States of America. As my colleague and intellectual superior, Leon Wolf, pointed out yesterday, the rule of law has been replaced by a system built entirely on prosecuting the hell out of people, and it has been heavily peppered with judges who act solely on political ideology and allegiance rather than the Constitution and the law.

So, while people and organizations can run to friendly judges appointed by their political allies, what used to be a system of laws is now a system of feels. If we feel you’re harming our cause, we’ll find something to bring you down. If we don’t like you, we can (at least until someone notices we’re engaging in prior restraint or the like) silence you. You don’t have freedom of speech so law as we have political activism in lieu of an actual judicial system.

P.S. If you want the First Amendment to succeed, consider donating to the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the Center for Medical Progress and is currently matching all donations dollar for dollar.

Via: Red State

ORTIZ: WORK ON WASHINGTON’S SCHEDULE, OR ELSE

Washington politicos who keep to a predictable, 9-to-5 schedule seem unwilling to accept that a huge portion of the American workforce not working this way. In our increasingly service-based economy, characterized by such jobs as yoga instructors, restaurant servers, and Uber drivers, the workday of previous generations is gradually becoming a relic of it.

In fact, nearly one-third of Americans work on the weekends, more than one-fourth work at night, and one-fifth work“nonstandard” hours.

But politicians and regulators, beholden to labor unions threatened by this new economy, are waging a full-fledged assault on job creators who don’t conform to their concept of “work.” Their latest front is the so-called “Schedules That Work Act,” recently introduced in Congress.

This bill places limits on “on-call” and “split-shift” work. It would also require employers to post work schedules two weeks early, accommodate most of their employees’ scheduling requests, and limit changes to the work schedule within 24 hours of a shift. If only employers could demand this type of reliability from their customers.

But with the exception of government jobs, staffing needs vary with customer demand, not employee convenience. Trying to mandate scheduling consistency would place yet another burden on American small businesses and hurt the very people it intends to help.

“On-call,” “split,” and last-minute shifts, for instance, are staples of many industries where consumer demand fluctuates throughout the day and week. They allow restaurateurs, for example, to respond to a surge in diners from, say, a concert finishing nearby, and allow for appropriate staffing when the restaurant is busiest (i.e. mealtimes).

Limiting these shifts would lead businesses to understaff, meaning a less enjoyable experience for both the customer and the employee. It would also mean that employees miss out on the last-minute shift opportunity they otherwise would not have had the chance to take. And, where previously an employee could have worked eight hours over a “split-shift,” under this bill they may only have the opportunity to work one of the lunch or dinner rushes.

Too few hours is already a major problem for many American employees. There are 2.2 million employees in the country who receive 35 or fewer hours a week but who would like to work more. This bill would only exacerbate this trend.

Regarding the bill’s requirement to accommodate employees’ scheduling requests: The overwhelming majority of employers already attempt to do this. But guaranteeing them is not always possible. If such a mandate were passed, it would turn the scheduling process into a glorified logic problem, where employers try to match up which employees can work which hours and which days based on their countless scheduling conditions.

It’s not difficult to see who would be most hurt by such a mandate: those with the most onerous scheduling requests. Why provide job opportunities to employees whose scheduling demands create big headaches? In other words, like so many of the recently proposed workplace regulations ostensibly created to protect employees from the new economy, this bill would hurt the very people it is trying to help.

Alfredo Ortiz is CEO and President of Job Creators Network

Via: Breitbart

Terror Trends: 40 Years' Data on International and Domestic Terrorism

Abstract: A decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, looking back is as important as looking forward in order to learn from the past and to examine the current and future threats facing the U.S. This survey aggregates international data on global and domestic terrorism from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, this data can better inform U.S. counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. From 1969 to 2009, almost 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States. The onus is now on the President and Congress to ensure that the U.S. continues to hone and sharpen its counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.

On September 10, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s name was well known to the U.S. intelligence community. By that point, bin Laden had directed various attacks against the U.S. through the al-Qaeda terror network, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Yet, despite the fact that “the threat of transnational terrorism was widely recognized by the IC [intelligence community] and policymakers, virtually no initiatives were taken to address the deep-seated limitations of U.S. strategic intelligence that made it an inadequate instrument for meeting its threat.”[1]

The 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent publication of The 9/11 Commission Report served as a tremendous catalyst for a much-needed and robust debate over the nature of the threat facing the United States. The report also drew significant attention to the nation’s intelligence failures and lack of a framework for preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism.

The national conversation that followed, specifically about the lessons learned from 9/11, continues to play a significant role in discussions related to the very definition of terrorism, the extent and severity of the threat, and the best methods for stopping future attacks. In many ways, the U.S. has taken this information and acted on it—drastically reforming the federal effort on homeland security, breaking down communication walls between law enforcement and intelligence, providing law enforcement with better intelligence-gathering tools, and forging a national homeland security enterprise composed of federal, state, and local assets, as well as private citizens.

As a result, law enforcement has foiled at least 39 terror plots since 9/11.[2] Simply put, the intelligence and law enforcement communities are better able to track down leads in local communities than they were on September 10, 2001.

A decade later and shortly after the demise of Osama bin Laden, it is as important to look backward as it is to look forward in order to keep learning from the past and to examine the threats now facing the U.S. The survey presented in this paper aggregates international data on terrorism around the world from the past 40 years. Combined with new intelligence, such data can better inform counterterrorism decisions and continue the process of delineating enhanced homeland security policies for the future. The onus is now on the President and Congress to continue to hone and sharpen U.S. counterterrorism capabilities and adapt them to evolving 21st-century threats.

Summary of Research

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks, 7.8 percent (2,981) were directed against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were directed at other nations of the world:

Nearly 5,600 people lost their lives and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries due to international terrorism directed at the United States;
While terrorist attacks against the U.S. tend to be slightly deadlier (2.01 fatalities per incident) than attacks against other nations (1.74 fatalities per incident), the higher number of average fatalities for the United States is a consequence of 9/11;
Terrorism directed at the United States accounts for only 7.8 percent of all terrorism worldwide, but almost 43 percent of all attacks against military institutions are leveled against U.S. institutions; and
Furthermore, 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks against diplomatic offices and businesses, respectively, are aimed at U.S. institutions.

Between 2001 and 2009:

There were 91 homegrown terrorist attacks of all kinds against the United States, while there were 380 international terrorist attacks against the United States;
The two most prevalent U.S. targets of international terrorism were businesses (26.6 percent) and diplomatic offices (16.6 percent);
The two most prevalent U.S. targets of domestic terrorism were businesses (42.9 percent) and private citizens and property (24.2 percent); and
The preferred method of attack against the United States for international terrorists was bombings (68.3 percent), while the preferred method for domestic terrorists was arson (46.2 percent).

The Data

The data used in this descriptive analysis by The Heritage Foundation stem from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI).[3] The version of the RDWTI used in this analysis contains information on nearly 38,700 terrorist incidents from across the globe between February 1968 and January 2010. For this analysis, terrorist incidents were counted only if the recorded incidents were officially confirmed as a terrorist incident by RAND in the database. In addition, state-sponsored terrorist attacks are excluded from the analysis. The data are limited to incidents that occurred during a 40-year time span from 1969 to 2009. However, this figure underestimates the number of terrorist incidents because the last entries are not complete for all countries.[4]

To keep the RDWTI up-to-date, RAND staff with regional and language expertise review incidents around the world that can be potentially defined as terrorism.[5] In addition, terrorist incidents must be confirmed as such through press reports before they can be officially counted. While the version of RDWTI used by The Heritage Foundation covers terrorist incidents through January 2010, not all cases of recent terrorism are included in this analysis (such as the November 2009 massacre at Fort Hood perpetrated by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan). As with any database that tries to contain the most current information, there are necessary delays in confirming cases of terrorism to ensure the incidents are correctly recorded.

An important attribute of the RDWTI is the consistent application of its definition of terrorism, as described by Professor Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University:

[T]he deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider “target audience” that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either local or international scale.[6]

According to this definition, terrorism is defined by the nature of the incident, not by the identity of the perpetrators.[7] The fundamentals of terrorism include:

“Violence or the threat of violence;
“Calculated to create fear and alarm;
“Intended to coerce certain actions;
“Motive must include a political objective;
“Generally directed against civilian targets; and
“It can be [carried out by] a group or an individual.”[8]

Essentially, terrorism can be summarized as violent acts that are “calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take.”[9] Further, regular criminal acts are not counted as terrorism. So, while drug-trafficking conducted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) is not counted as terrorism,[10] FARC’s attacks against Colombian citizens are.[11]

A Descriptive Analysis of Worldwide Terrorism

Between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of these attacks 7.8 percent (2,981) were against the United States, while 92.2 percent (35,364) were against the rest of the world. (See Chart 1.)

Global Terrorist Attacks: Fatalities and Injuries

From 1969 to 2009, the average number of fatalities per terrorist attack against a nation other than the United States yielded 1.74 fatalities. (See Chart 2.) When the data are limited to incidents against the United States, the average terrorist attack yielded 2.01 fatalities per incident. These fatalities represent all individuals killed, not only Americans. Without 9/11, the average falls to 0.97 fatalities per attack.

Chart 2 also includes the mean for the number of injuries per terrorist incident. On average, terrorist attacks against nations other than the United States yielded 3.85 injuries. Attacks against the United States averaged 5.88 injuries. As with fatalities, the mean for injuries resulting from attacks against the United States is tied closely to 9/11. Without 9/11, the mean drops to 5.07 injuries per incident.

Four of 10 Terror Attacks on Military Targets Are Against the US

Chart 3 breaks down terrorism by type of institution targeted. The United States comprises a large share. Almost 43 percent of terrorist attacks against military institutions are against the U.S. Armed Forces. The United States also accounted for 28.4 percent and 24.2 percent of all terrorist attacks against diplomatic and business institutions, respectively. Alternately, the United States accounted for only a small percentage of attacks against police (0.3 percent), private citizens and property (1.1 percent), transportation systems (1.4 percent), and government institutions (1.5 percent).

Terror Against the U.S.

International terrorist attacks against the United States have fluctuated. (See Chart 4.) From 1969 to 1991, despite a few down flows, international terrorism against the U.S. was on the rise. In 1991, the trend peaked at 150 terror acts committed against U.S. interests. After 1991, international terror declined sharply until reaching its lowest low point of 14 incidents in 2000. In 2001, the trend reversed and rapidly increased until peaking in 2005 with 87 incidents. The number of attacks decreased until reaching the lowest point in 40 years in 2009 with five recorded international terrorist attacks against the United States. This number, however, needs to be interpreted with caution. While the record of terrorist incidents in the RDWTI for 2009 was completed for North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe, data collection for Africa, the Middle East, and Asia stopped in January 2009. Afghanistan incidents for 2009 were recorded through August. In addition, the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009, by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known as the “Underwear Bomber,” was not yet confirmed as a terrorist incident in the RDWTI.

Via: Heritage Foundation

Levin: Republican Leaders ‘Smother’ The ‘Few Voices Of Liberty’ In Congress

Talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin believes the “ineffective” leadership of congressional Republicans is alienating conservatives and pushing some of them to embrace Donald Trump.

In the first installment of a three-part interview with The Daily Caller over his new book, “Plunder and Deceit,” Levin shared his views on the latest actions of the Republican-controlled Congress and how it’s affecting presidential politics.

In his opinion, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knocking down Sen. Ted Cruz’s amendments to a highway bill — which included measures to defund Planned Parenthood and the Export-Import Bank — Sunday night was Washington at its worst. (RELATED: McConnell Angers Conservatives By Blocking Defunding Planned Parenthood, Kate’s Law)

“Those who are paying attention and are informed would be more repulsed by what McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Orin Hatch, John Cornyn et al. have done to the few voices of liberty in the Senate,” Levin told The Daily Caller. “They smother them and try to silence them and then go to liberal media outlets to trash them.”

“I think what McConell tried to do with the highway bill and the Export-Import Bank is quintessential Washington, which is to lie through your teeth,” the radio host added.

With these acts in mind, Levin believes it should be the task of conservatives like Cruz and Utah Senator Mike Lee to expose the Republican establishment’s supposed misdeeds.

“They’re called the establishment for a reason. They have established an ineffective and out of control government and they continue to feed it and to protect it,” the commentator told TheDC. “I really feel conservatives have an opportunity to expose this and to battle this and that we also need to make sure that our children and grandchildren — the next generation the generation after that — are protected from this.”

Considering, in Levin’s view, that this establishment is doing little to prevent the “coming catastrophe” of “out-of-control government,” it’s no surprise to the talk show host that many conservatives are flocking to the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Via: Daily Caller

Obama Will Investigate Death of Cecil the Lion, Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

The killing of Cecil the lion has been at the forefront of international outrage regarding big game hunting and now the Obama administration says they will join in helping investigate his death. The Hill reports that the administration is “ready to take action” and offer support to the Zimbabwean government. Earlier this month, American dentist Walter Palmer killed Cecil outside a Zimbabwean park.

Laury Parramore, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The Service is deeply concerned about the recent killing of Cecil the lion. We are currently gathering facts about the issue and will assist Zimbabwe officials in whatever manner requested. It is up to all of us — not just the people of Africa — to ensure that healthy, wild populations of animals continue to roam the savanna for generations to come.”

Although it is wonderful that the Obama administration has strong convictions about the killing of animals, it is unbelievable that this concern outweighs the trafficking of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood.

As LifeNews previously reported, President Obama has been virtually silent on the abortion giant’s videos showing their top executives negotiating the sale of aborted babies and sharing how they alter their procedures to obtain salable organs.

However, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said today that the President does not believe there is evidence of Planned Parenthood acting unethically and wouldn’t support legislation to defund them. He said, “On balance, the president would not be supportive of such congressional action. This is a tactic we have seen used before. The president obviously does not support that ongoing effort.”

Unfortunately, this is not surprising since President Obama and Planned Parenthood are best friends.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

In 2013, Marjorie Dannenfeiser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said the following about Obama’s support for Planned Parenthood: “There is no industry that President Obama is more willing to protect than the abortion industry and particularly Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion provider, which in a single year performed more than 333,000 abortions. The president has defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood to the point of being willing to shut down the government over the continuing resolution battle, and in return they spent a record amount to reelect him in November.”

In 2013, President Obama praised the abortion giant and said he wanted God to bless them. He said, “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Most recently, President Obama has showed his extreme abortion views by threatening to veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would protect babies after 20-weeks from abortion based on the concept that they can feel pain. In January, the Obama administration said in a press release: “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 36, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

Via: Life News

TV legend Norman Lear gives 6 strong opinions about American life

Legendary TV producer Norman Lear stopped by the Televisison Critics Association’s press tour in Beverly Hills to promote an upcoming PBS documentary covering his career that’s set to debut next year. But what seemed to most impress reporters was the 93-year-old’s opinionated tangents, covering politics, TV, America and mindfullness. Below are six highlights from a press conference with the creator of hits like All in the Family, The Jeffersons and One Day at a Time:

— On politics: “Everybody knows me to be a progressive or a liberal or lefty or whatever. I think of myself as a bleeding-heart conservative. You will not f— with my Bill of Rights, my Constitution, my guarantees of political justice for all. But does my heart bleed for those who need help and aren’t getting the justice that the country promises them and the equal opportunity the country promises? Yes. I’m a bleeding heart, but I think myself to be a total social conservative. The people who are running just don’t seem to have America on their minds, not the America I think about. When I was a kid we were in love with America. As early as I can remember, there was a civics class in my public school. And I was in love with those things that guaranteed freedom before I learned that there were people who hated me because I was Jewish. I had a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, those words out of the Declaration that protected me. And I knew about that because we had civics in class. We don’t have that much in the country anymore. So before World War II or shortly after, we were in love with America because we understood what it was about and that’s what we were in love with. I believe everybody’s patriotic today. Everybody loves America. But I don’t need their flag plans to prove it. I’d like to go back to civics lessons.”

— On waking up: “I want to wake up feeling as I usually do, loving the day. The title of my book is Even This I Get to Experience, and that’s the way I basically look at life moment to moment. And now I’m looking out at you. I was 93 on Monday. So it took me 93 [years] and five days to get here. It took you every split second of each of your lives to get here for me. So I’m way ahead of you. It took all your lives to get here, so this moment is the moment. Even this we get to experience.”

— On the Golden Age of television: “I think this is the Golden Age. I understand what the Golden Age was when I was coming into television, and it was those years of Playhouse 90 and Philco Playhouse. But there’s great drama and some great comedy on television today. I can’t see it all.”

— On excess: “Our greatest export in America is excess. We are so excessive. There is so much to watch, so much to buy, so much they’re selling. I wish they would sell the value of the country as hard as they sell the rest of it.”

— On living in the moment: “There are two words that are under-recognized: ‘over’ and ‘next.’ When something is over, it’s over. And we’re always on to ‘next.’ And the hammock, the imaginary hammock in the middle is what I think is meant by living in the moment. I’m living in the moment waiting for next.”

— On perspective: I’ve learned introspectively how much each of us matters and how little we understand how much we matter in the course of our day. I’m impressed with the way we all affect each other in small ways and the good we do in terms of relationships that would otherwise seem meaningless, or certainly easy to overlook, that we don’t take credit for, each of us, all of us. If I could make anything clear, it would be that.

Via: Entertainment Weekly

Wide Political Fallout Expected From Massive Nuclear Bomber Deal

Sessions called the deal "a huge procurement."

In a few weeks, the Pentagon will announce the companies picked to develop America’s next bomber jet, sparking a budget war that will last for years and reshape the defense industry, experts say.

The Long Range Strike Bomber, which will probably be called the B-3, will provide more bang for the buck than several fighter jets. But it won’t be cheap. It is likely to cost at least $111 billion to acquire 100 planes, says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. That’s almost twice the amount the Air Force has quoted before, and it assumes no cost overruns. The higher price tag is due to the service previously understating the costs, not to any real hike in expenses, Harrison says.

Adding the cost to operate the planes more than doubles the price tag yet again to in excess of $200 billion, experts say. Plus, the B-3s are expected to only replace the oldest U.S. bombers, the B-1s and B-52s. An additional program will probably be required in a couple of decades to replace the younger bombers, the B-2s, the experts say.

“It’s a huge procurement,” says Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. “We will pay much more attention to it as we move forward.”

The B-3 bomber is just one of several multi-billion-dollar weapons to be produced in the 2020s, and advocates for those ships and planes will fight each other tooth and nail, analysts say. The bomber program will also be a test case on Capitol Hill for whether the Pentagon can buy major weapons without massive cost overruns and schedule delays.

The bomber contract decision will lead to changes in the companies bidding for it. If the team that includes Lockheed Martin Corp. wins, it could give that one company unrivaled—and perhaps unhealthy—power as a central player in all three of the newest U.S. warplane programs—the bomber plus the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets—on top of the company’s newly expanded role in the military helicopter market.

What’s more, the bomber award may result in the losing bidder being purchased by another company or at least entering new markets or selling parts of its business. That in turn could reorder which politicians are champions of which companies in the coming budget battles.

“We shouldn’t underestimate how consequential this contract award is going to be for the future of this sector of the aerospace industry,” says Harrison.

Via: Roll Call

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Summary of Research

The Data

A Descriptive Analysis of Worldwide Terrorism

Terror Against the U.S.

Popular Posts