The Texas Attorney General Has Been Booked in Jail on Felony Charges 5/5 (2)

By:  AP

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been booked at a Dallas-area jail on felony charges alleging that he misled investors before becoming the state’s top lawyer.

Paxton arrived at the Collin County jail Monday to be processed on two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser count of failing to register with state securities regulators.

The 52-year-old Republican was fingerprinted and photographed before being released on bond.

Questions about Paxton’s financial dealings have shadowed the tea party conservative since he took office in January.

Appreciate the articles you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

Paxton joins former Gov. Rick Perry as the second high-ranking Texas official in the past year to be indicted while in office.

Read More:  TheBlaze.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

Navy Responds to Reports Sailor Will Be Charged for Returning Fire Against Chattanooga Shooter 5/5 (1)

By: Liz Klimas

The U.S. Navy said no charges have been brought against the sailor who admitted to returning fire against the Chattanooga shooter, despite reports flying around that such charges are coming.

Former Republican Florida Rep. Allen West wrote in a blog post over the weekend that he was “fighting dog mad and seriously pissed off” after a source told him the U.S. Navy was bringing charges against Lt. Commander Timothy White who discharged his gun on federal property as a defensive maneuver against the  Muhammad Abdulazeez last month.

Ed Note: I wonder what they will charge him with … Extreme Heroism, Bravery, Carrying Out His Oath of Office, Defending This Country and Citizens From All Enemies Foreign and Domestic, Self Defense, Killing a Murderous Terrorist, or Maybe Giving A Jihadist ‘A Ticket To Paradise’ Without A Transfer Order?  Idiots!

 The conservative commentator’s blog post from Saturday went viral on many websites, but the Navy, after fielding an onslaught of negative comments, has at least said no charges have been brought at this time.

While some had already speculated that the sailor could face charges, West said he received a text message from a source, allowing him to “confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.”

Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb also tweeted similar information over the weekend:

While some had already speculated that the sailor could face charges, West said he received a text message from a source, allowing him to “confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.”

Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb also tweeted similar information over the weekend:


Navy charging LCDR Tim White w/ a crime for trying to defend our sailors & Marines in ? He deserves a medal, not an indictment.
Retweets 594  Favorites 429


Please rate this

Donald Trump Says He’s ‘Probably the First Candidate in the History of Politics’ Willing to Admit This 5/5 (1)

By: Jason Howerton

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he is “probably the first candidate in the history of politics” to admit he fights hard to “pay as little” in taxes as possible.

Trump’s admission came during an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday after he was asked whether or not he would release his tax returns.

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 22: Donald Trump greets supporters, tourists and the curious after taping an interview with Anderson Cooper at a Trump owned building in mid-town Manhattan on July 22, 2015 in New York City. Trump, who is running for president on a Republican ticket, has come under intensifying criticism for his behavior on the campaign trail. The billionaire's most recent comments on Senator John McCain's war record in Vietnam have resulted in almost universal criticism from fellow candidates. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

“We’ll see what I’m going to do with tax returns. I have no major problem with it, but I may tie it to the release of Hillary’s emails,” Trump responded.

Appreciate the articles you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

He continued: “I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman. And that’s the way you’re supposed to do it…The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.”

Trump then said he will be “probably the first candidate in the history of politics within this country to say… ‘I try to pay as little tax as possible.’”

Watch the video via CBS below:

Read More: TheBlaze.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

Poll: Iran Deal Approval Craters, WaPo Spins to Protect Obama Admin 5/5 (1)

By:  John Hayward

The polling on President Obama’s lousy Iran deal just keeps getting worse.  The lies and deceptions from Obama’s team are so thick that only by watching the Iranian victory parade can Americans learn what the deal actually says.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s disastrous performances before Congress might just be the worst “sales pitch” in modern history.  Few of the GOP candidates for president have done as much damage to the deal as Kerry has.

The result is a new Quinnipiac poll that shows an astonishing 57 percent disapproval for the Iran deal, with only 28 percent in favor.  That’s a 2-1 margin of opposition.  Furthermore, respondents said by a margin of 58-30 that the deal would “make the world less safe.”

As Quinnipiac notes, there is “only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters.”  Democrat support is only 52-32, while Republican opposition stands at 86-3, and independents oppose the deal 55-29.  Considering how hard Obama has pushed for the deal — he and his surrogates have openly insulted critics as mindless warmongers — that’s a shockingly weak level of partisan support from Democrats.  They’re not exactly stampeding to renew their loyalty oaths to the Dear Leader on this issue.

Want The Best Of The Web All In One Spot? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

The Washington Post hastily updated a look at the Iran deal’s declining poll numbers to include the latest Quinnipiac results but still clings to the last-ditch talking point that polls including lots of “details” about the deal tend to produce better numbers for the president than general “do you support or oppose the Iran deal?” questions.  At this point, after weeks of saturation coverage — which was supposed to be a triumphal procession for Obama, before it all blew up in his face — are we really supposed to think poll respondents don’t know any of the details unless the pollster recites bullet points for them?

Also, which details should poll respondents be given — the phony Administration talking points, or the full picture, including Iran’s gloating interpretation of key points, the quick U.N. votes Obama arranged to bypass Congress, and the secret side deals American voters and congressional representatives weren’t supposed to know about?

One of the reasons public opinion, including from Democrats, has turned so sour is the growing — and accurate — perception this deal was negotiated dishonestly, with America’s interests an afterthought at the bargaining table.  It’s a deal between Barack Obama personally and his new best friends in Tehran, with no room in those posh hotel conference rooms for the American people, especially not the families of all the American troops Iran helped to murder.

“As the Administration became more yielding with Iran, it became more dishonest with Americans,” writes George Will at Investors Business Daily.  He catalogs various Administration deceptions and backpedals, including the bald-faced lies about “anytime, anywhere” inspections — promised to the American people for years as a vital component of any Iran deal but then breezily dismissed as mere “popular rhetoric” once the deal was in place.

Will recommends rejecting the agreement as a slap against this president’s “Wilsonian arrogance” and “to rebuke Obama’s long record of aggressive disdain for Congress — recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, rewriting and circumventing statutes, etc.”  Could that be a factor in public disapproval?  The steps Obama has taken to bypass Congress are obvious.  Perhaps even some Democrats are growing uncomfortable with the way Congress has been marginalized, especially as they face the prospect of losing the White House, and perhaps even remaining the minority in both House and Senate.

Obama and his crew have a massive blind spot when it comes to Iran’s involvement in the Iraqi insurgency.  They believe their own weird alternate history about how everything was George Bush’s fault and forget that people who aren’t left-wing extremists remember Iran’s role in years of American casualties, as well as Iran’s ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the world.  The American people are not appreciative of Iran reaping billions of dollars in rewards, plus priceless international influence and atomic weapons, after years of dirty deeds forgotten by no one outside the Obama Administration.

There is no sense among the American public that Iran has been rehabilitated in any way.  (That’s even more painfully clear to informed voters who have been watching Iran’s behavior since the nuclear deal was announced.)  Obama’s team portrays Iran as a responsible nation-state that can be trusted to honor its side of the bargain, without any real consequences for treachery.  Virtually no one outside the Obama Administration believes that.  They look at what Iran actually is and find the Administration’s rhetoric about its partners-in-peace laughable, if not deranged.  (Kerry isn’t helping matters by running around and telling everyone what a great guy the Iranian Foreign Minister is.)

In Monday’s New York Times, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton runs through the ugly reality behind Obama and Kerry’s false promises of “snapback” if Iran violates the deal.  Bolton notes that Iran gets all its economic rewards up front, and rescinding them would cause at least as much pain to the Europeans as it would to Iran, while the bureaucratic mechanisms for prosecuting Iranian violations are so slow and convoluted — with built-in mechanisms for extending them even further — that Iranian violations are far more likely to be ignored than addressed.

“Thus the inexorable pattern will not be: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran resumes compliance. Quite the reverse. The far more likely future is: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran tells us, using a diplomatic term of art, to take our deal and stuff it,” Bolton concludes.

Obama and Kerry thought their Iran deal would be greeted with a round of applause for their peacemaking prowess, but Iran’s history and behavior are so dire that they’ve been forced into a gloomy fallback position of wailing that nobody could do better than their lousy deal, and the only alternative is immediate war.  Maybe that baloney gives Administration mouthpieces a jolt of phony righteousness before they take the Sunday talk-show stage, but to normal Americans, it sounds like they’re saying Iran defeated the United States in a conflict, and this was the best surrender agreement Obama could negotiate.  The Iranians certainly seem to see it that way.

What’s killing Obama in the polls is that the American people remember what Iran has done over the years, and they remember Obama’s copious 2012 promises that sanctions were bringing them to their knees, and he’d never let them get up without taking their nuclear weapons program away.  It’s not just the details of the Iranian nuclear deal that are causing it to crater in the polls.  It’s the details of this president’s political history and of his negotiating partners’ murderous history.

The punch line is that all this dire polling probably won’t matter, because Obama cut the American people and their representatives completely out of the process, with a little help from the Republican leadership in the Senate.  It doesn’t matter what you people out in flyover country think of the deal.  You weren’t represented at the tables in Lausanne or Vienna, and you won’t be getting any seats at the table now.

“Regardless of the reasons, public support for the final Iran deal is clearly weaker than before it was announced, making it a tougher sell for President Obama to solidify the one-third support in either chamber of Congress needed to keep it in-place,” reads the hilarious closing paragraph of the Washington Post article.  Do you think a hyper-partisan president will be able to hold one-third of Congress together, when every member of his own party knows that scuppering the deal would be one of the greatest rebukes any president has ever been given?

Read More: Breitbart.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

Trump Leads, Jeb Slips, Rubio Crashes, Cruz Shows Traction, In WSJ/NBC News Poll 5/5 (1)

By:  John Nolte

The latest poll from The Wall Street Journal and NBC News is all good news for Donald Trump and all bad news for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Florida Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Since the last WSJ/NBC poll in June, despite a full-frontal media push to destroy him, billionaire businessman Trump has risen from just 1% to take the lead with 19%.

Bush, who was in first place in June, has not just been overtaken by Trump, his support has cratered from 22% to just 14%. Bush is now in third place behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who sits at 15%. Back in June Walker was in second place with 17% support.

Hit the hardest between the two polls is Rubio, who fell from 3rd place in June to 8th place. Support for Rubio has slipped from 14% to just 5%.

Holding even steadier than Walker is Ben Carson. In June, the retired neurosurgeon was in 4th place with 11% support. Today Carson is still in 4th place with 10% support.

Rounding out the poll: Texas senator

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sits in 5th place with 9% support; former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kentucky Senator

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are tied for 6th place at 6%; Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and John Kasich all earned just 3%.

This poll pretty much backs up what we have been seeing from most of the more recent polls.

Appreciate the articles you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

The volatile movement for Bush and Rubio is worthy of note, as is the relative steadiness of support for Walker and Carson.

Donald Trump Campaigning

You would think the Trumpnado would do more damage to a Walker, who is loved by the base, and Carson, who is the outsider, and not the more establishment Jeb and Rubio. It could be that by comparison, Trump is making Jeb look paler, weaker, and  too careful. Jeb was always going to be a scripted and controlled candidate. Next to Trump, these don’t come off as virtues; he looks tentative, the opposite of a leader.

Rubio just hasn’t been in the news much.

Nevertheless, the fact that Trump is draining establishment votes is the most fascinating piece of news,

Caveat is this poll’s sample size and margin of error: “The poll of 1,000 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. For the 252 GOP primary voters surveyed, the margin of error was plus or minus 6.17 percentage points.”

Read More: Breitbart.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

Democrat Debates Vanish – Six Scheduled None In Works 2.5/5 (2)

By: WND.com

Is the Democratic National Committee dodging debates between its candidates this year?

In May, the DNC announced its plans to hold six primary debates which would be in “the fall of 2015.” Yet as the Republican candidates prepare to square off, there is pointed silence from the Democrats.

“We’ve always believed that we would have a competitive primary process, and that debates would be an important part of that process,” said DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said during the springtime announcement of the half-dozen debates.  “Our debate schedule will not only give Democratic voters multiple opportunities to size up the candidates for the nomination side-by-side, but will give all Americans a chance to see a unified Democratic vision of economic opportunity and progress – no matter whom our nominee may be.”

In a lead story on the Drudge Report Sunday night, her promise has vanished as Democrats dodge a candidate showdown.

democrats-dodge-debates-drudge-600

While the first Republican presidential debate this week in Ohio stirs media frenzy, the Democrats are reduced to “vague chatter” about a forum in Iowa within the “next few months.” Much of this elusiveness may revolve around Hillary Clinton’s lengthy and growing list of scandals plaguing the Democrat’s top contender.

The yawning debate silence is in contrast to the 2008 presidential primaries, when the Democratic Party scheduled a total of 26 debates between candidates. With George W. Bush unable to run for a third term, the stakes were high for the Democrats.

The stakes are just as high this upcoming election, in large part because President Obama cannot run for a third term. By this point in 2007, five debates had already taken place. Yet this year, the first Democratic debate has yet to be scheduled.

Want The Best Of The Web All In One Spot? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

Wasserman Schultz said the Democratic presidential candidates must meet certain “threshold” requirements to participate in the six as-yet unscheduled primary debates, but she did not specify which criteria will be used to determine who qualifies.

“It’ll be a threshold that’ll be expansive and allows for the maximum inclusion of our major party candidates,” Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC’s Ari Melber. She said the DNC hasn’t “quite finished formulating the details” for the debates, including specific dates, locations and media sponsors.

As the Huffington Post reports, “The lack of clarity has been frustrating to both campaigns and major TV networks, the latter of which produce the debates and need to book venues and handle logistical details well in advance.”

A statement announcing the debates explained, “While a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles, this year the DNC will further manage the process by implementing an exclusivity requirement. Any candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process. Any violation would result in forfeiture of the ability to participate in the remainder of the debate process.”

Speculation for the delay is running high. Part of the issue is the Democratic lineup is still jockeying for position. Hillary Clinton had no serious challenge until Bernie Sanders entered the race at a relatively late date, and quickly overtook the other contenders – Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley – as the most serious candidate after Clinton.

Sanders is pressuring Wasserman Schultz to accelerate the schedule. The national media exposure resulting from debates will likely benefit him more than anyone else except Clinton, who presumably has the most to lose by getting on the debate stage.

One Democratic 2016 campaign adviser, speaking anonymously to Business Insider, said they believe the Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule was “worked out” to benefit Hillary Clinton and hurt her opponents. They also suggested the relatively late schedule of the debates will make it harder for Clinton’s lesser known opponents to introduce themselves to voters.

Justin Lane at Ring of Fire believes Sanders’ rising popularity and Clinton’s falling numbers may be part of the issue.

“Is this what the DNC is afraid of?” he asks. “For that matter, is this what the mainstream corporate media is afraid of? It’s becoming obvious that the corporate Democratic establishment doesn’t want Sanders’ voice publicly challenging Clinton in a head-to-head debate. Furthermore, it’s a good bet that the DNC is putting off scheduling the debates because corporate media giants are equally afraid of Sanders.”

Lane suggests it’s time for the DNC to “fish or cut bait” and to bypass the old-fashioned media of television and newspaper, and instead bring the debates to social media and the web. “If social media groups step up to the plate and offer to sponsor the debates, the DNC will have to act,” he concludes.

It remains to be seen whether the DNC takes his advice.

Read more at WND.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

John Boehner Embarrassed: Whip Team Couldn’t Find Votes to Reelect Him Speaker Last Week 5/5 (1)

By:  Mathew Boyle

House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) Liberty ScoreVoting Record FRep. John Boehner (R-OH) had been planning to call up on the House floor last week a measure from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) that would have removed him as Speaker of the House if it succeeded—intending to embarrass Meadows—but abandoned the plan after his entire leadership structure learned that they did not have the votes to re-elect him as Speaker before the August recess.

“[House Majority Leader Kevin] McCarthy was making phone calls—he was whipping it—and so was [House Majority Whip] Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA),” a senior conservative movement leader who’s had many personal and direct discussions with various House GOP members about this told Breitbart News in an interview last week.

“I know members personally who were called by Steve Scalise. So they had the entire leadership whip team frantically making phone calls to members to whip the vote because they wanted to attempt to embarrass Meadows and call the vote [on Wednesday last week] so it’s not hanging over Boehner’s head.

“What they found out was the exact opposite. They found out bad things would happen, that literally they would be calling the vote without knowing what would happen. Therefore, they did not call the vote and now they have this issue hanging over John Boehner’s head for the next five weeks.”

“Yes, I can confirm at least three members were whipped: Two of whom voted against the Speaker and one of whom voted for the Speaker on Jan. 6,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), one of the cosponsors of Meadows’ measure, told Breitbart News in a phone interview. “I can confirm three of them were whipped.”

“Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) was calling around, and Steve Scalise and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC),” a House GOP member added. “All three of them were involved in the whipping process. Whipping can be trying to convince somebody and whipping can be taking a whip count. In this case, I think it was just a whip count—a sort of a barometer reading.”

Boehner’s office, McCarthy’s office, Scalise’s office and the offices of Reps. Steve Stivers (R-OH) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC)—allies of leadership and members of the “whip team”—have not responded to Breitbart News’ requests for comment in response to this matter.

Meadows, the public face of the rebellion, told Breitbart News that while he can’t confirm personally whether whipping occurred because leadership didn’t call him, he has heard the same from his colleagues and conservative movement leaders.

“You hear all kinds of rumors in Washington, D.C., but I can tell you I was not one of the members that they called to whip,” Meadows said. “I can tell you that I did hear from a number of people who had apparently gotten calls—the nature of that was from what I understand was that should they bring up that resolution before we left, then ultimately decided not to do that.

“I wasn’t privy to those conversations and all I have to go on is what’s being reported. I have not seen that reported but I have heard some of that in terms of the chatter. I do know much of the frustration was more with ‘is this the right time? Is this the right tactic?’

“Most of the debate was not that the things in the resolution were inaccurate. You have yet to hear anybody come out and say that the things in that resolution were not factual.”

Boehner’s team was getting ready to move the resolution to the floor—and their move actually backfired, because all of his leadership team now knows he’s too weak to get re-elected unless somehow the political dynamic changes between now and a vote. Of course, with politically hungry people everywhere on Capitol Hill, that means that one of them could turn on Boehner or that conservatives could muscle up the strength to get rid of him.

“The parliamentarian confirmed that the Rules Committee could have put this resolution on the floor the last day we were there,” one GOP member told Breitbart News. “Then the motion to table it could have been introduced as a motion to table it. Whether they intended on doing that or not, I’m not sure. I can’t say what’s in their minds. But I bet they were also concerned that any member might bring it up as a privileged resolution—which can be done.”

The strategy from Meadows and his allies goes something like this: They offered the resolution right before the August recess and knew that there is enough dissatisfaction with Boehner that should he try to bring it to the floor immediately–to shut it down as fast as it came up–he’d walk away without his speakership.

Want The Best Of The Web All In One Spot? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

There are 25 members who voted for a Republican alternative at the beginning of this Congress, and now there are plenty more who are disaffected with the tactics of Boehner and his allies in leadership. More members, those who want to replace Boehner suspect, will, over the course of the month of August, come out publicly against Boehner at town hall events and in interviews with media. Unless Democrats bail Boehner out in September or October, if and when such a vote for the speakership would occur, by that point there would be enough members opposed to Boehner’s re-election for him to lose his position.

When the August recess is over, if Meadows wants to—or any other member wants to—they could offer the motion to vacate the chair and remove Boehner as Speaker of the House as a privileged resolution, which means it gets a floor vote in full without the consent of Boehner’s leadership team. That means the Speaker is extraordinarily vulnerable, and his conservative opposition could make a move whenever, wherever they want to—and when they have the votes to remove him from office.

“It caught everybody by surprise. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea,” the conservative movement leader told Breitbart News. “That’s the thing. Even though it caught everyone by surprise, it’s a good idea. There are enough members to vote against him.

“You look at the progression—look at a little over two years ago, how many members voted against him two years ago or 30 months ago? Then you look at how may voted against John Boehner six months ago. How many people voted against the rule [on Obamatrade], right? And you look at the punitive way they’ve tried to deal with these members including guys like

Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV)Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)

who voted for Boehner six months ago.

“They have alienated an enormous number of members and they have only increased that number. That number is now greater than the number who voted against the rule and that’s the danger John Boehner is in.”

A moment later, that conservative movement leader added that Americans who want new Republican leadership can pressure their congressmen and congresswomen to issue public statements pledging to vote against Boehner if and when a vote comes up.

“Over the next five weeks if enough grassroots conservatives can voice their frustration with a failed status quo and failed leadership of John Boehner—as members attend town hall meetings after town hall meetings—and when they come back it will be more difficult for John Boehner to keep his Speaker’s gavel,” he said.

“Secondarily, there’s a second element to this—let’s say when they get back, Meadows may not call it up right away because there a series of major legislative issues that will be coming to the fore including the budget, including the potential for the Ex-Im Bank, including immigration reform—which John Boehner desperately wants to make a deal with Barack Obama on.

“So there could be a pivotal moment that John Boehner creates at which point Mark Meadows calls the vote. I believe this sitting out there strengthens the conservative movement because it keeps John Boehner honest.”

Meadows, in his interview with Breitbart News, explained that the measure he put forward outlines several different points—“whereases”—that lay out clearly why the Republican conference is so disaffected with leadership.

“We outlined several different issues we’ve been struggling with within the House like deadlines that make members take uninformed or difficult votes with very little information and the legislative calendar is used that way,” Meadows said. “We lurch from crisis to crisis. We have just a few people that are controlling not only the legislative calendar—which is certainly their right—but really any legislation that comes up has to originate with just a few ideas that originate with just a select few within the conference.

“It’s not the way that our Founding Fathers set it up and it’s really that all members should have a voice in the process and represent whether it’s the 750,000 people I represent in North Carolina or anywhere across the country.

“The majority of Americans believe that Washington, D.C., is broken, and it’s time if we can’t fix it with a majority in both the House and Senate that we look at leadership and either one of two things needs to happen: We either need to change the leader, or the leader needs to change the way that in this case does business. That’s really why we took this step, to have this discussion.”

Massie, who along with Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) has cosponsored the Meadows measure, told Breitbart News he agrees with all the clauses contained within Meadows’ measure.

“I agree with all of the eight ‘whereases’ in the resolution,” Massie said in a phone interview. “In the House of Representatives, we have 434 members who tend to work for the Speaker instead of the Speaker working for the representatives at this point. It’s devolved into a top-down organization and power is being used in ways that’s not conducive to a representative democracy.”

With conservative groups like FreedomWorks and Citizens United, among others, backing the play, that means that members nationwide will likely feel the heat for the next month plus throughout the August recess. There will undoubtedly be videotaped questions of congressmen and congresswomen at town halls across America.

“You got just about 30 members of the house who are doing exactly what they said they’d do,” FreedomWorks’ Adam Brandon told Breitbart News in a phone interview. He said the rest aren’t pursuing the conservative ideals such as spending cuts, real reform, addressing the IRS targeting. “That conservative agenda is getting stifled and ignored,” said Brandon.

According to Brandon, it was the CRomnibus spending bill that really frustrated true conservatives.

“There’s absolutely zero spending reform,” he added. Brandon said what is being discussed in the House is moving is repealing the medical device tax and the Keystone Pipeline.

“This stuff sounds like it’s been written off on K street by K street lobbyists – where’s the stuff the activists want?” Brandon said.

Citizens United’s David Bossie is similarly outraged, writing for Breitbart News in a late July column that he’s furious with Boehner.

“It was grassroots conservatives who put John Boehner in power, and we haven’t seen a positive conservative agenda for America as promised in the last several elections,” Bossie wrote. “Because of Boehner’s failure of leadership and a track record of broken promises, conservatives are ready for new leadership in the U.S. House now. Maybe newly empowered conservatives like Congressman Meadows will lead a revolt and finally take back the people’s House.”

Read More: Breitbart.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

ISIS in London: How Many More Times Can We Say ‘I Told You So’? 5/5 (1)

By: Raheem Kasam

As you may be aware, I hold the august title of Islamophobe of the Year 2014, as dictated by a terrorist-friendly, Iranian-run think tank. I don’t know what happened to me over the 12 months afterwards, but apparently I wasn’t mean enough to the cyber-Islamists to warrant holding onto my crown.

But perhaps that will change next year, because what Islamists and terror-sympathisers really hate is when you’re right. Following today’s news that young jihadi brides have been radicalised and recruited at an East London Mosque, allegedly at the hands of those linked to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), Britain’s “Islamophobes” will once again be able to say with one voice, “We told you so.”

The Mail on Sunday reports:

Islamic leaders and some of their family members blamed the internet for grooming the four schoolgirls, who were all pupils at Bethnal Green Academy in Tower Hamlets, East London.

But now it is claimed that Sharmeena was first radicalised inside the East London Mosque, Whitechapel, allegedly by women from a group called Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE). She then allegedly groomed three friends to join her at the meetings. 

This is of course, the same IFE that so many of us hard warned about, specifically with regards East London, radicalisation, and the now terminated mayoralty in Tower Hamlets of Lutfur Rahman. Hats off particularly to Andrew Gilligan and Ted Jeory, who have been banging on about this for longer than most.

Appreciate the articles you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, led by Gilligan, even uncovered a transcript of a 2009 IFE recruitment course, which admitted: “Our goal is not simply to invite people and give da’wah [call to the faith]. Our goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da’wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad [struggle]. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-Deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order].”

It’s really very little surprise to some of us that IFE are therefore being implicated in the latest radicalisation revelations. This is a group that has prided itself on its takeover of swathes of East London, and that counts amongst its political successes, not just the election of Mr Rahman, but also that of George Galloway to Parliament in 2005.

The group’s spokesman, Azad Ali, is known for opposing democracy in favour of Sharia law, has praised the now deceased Al Qaeda preacher Anwar Al Awlaki, and endorsed the killing of British and American soldiers. Curiously, he worked at the heart of the civil service during the last Labour government.

But the rabbit hole goes deeper than that, and starts to incorporate some of our friends on the hard left. Because Ali is also the Vice Chairman of Unite Against Fascism, a group that masquerades as being pro free-speech, and human rights, but has one of the most blunt, ugly, and fascistic approaches to political campaigning of all the campaign groups in Britain today.

Its sister organisation, Hope not Hate, chases around right wing politicians, acting as a political party, and publishes spurious reports and demands for the British government to curtail freedom of speech.

But Unite Against Fascism’s allegiance with an Islamist sympathiser may help to explain how the terrorist murderer of a British soldier came to speak at one of their rallies in 2009.

And Ali, despite all this, still enjoys the support of numerous Labour MPs, as well as Conservative Party peer Baroness Warsi, who Prime Minister David Cameron put at the heart of government during the last government. Indeed the Prime Minister himself is a signatory to Unite Against Fascism’s founding documents.

So now what?

Well if the allegations, that IFE is an ‘ISIS in London’ recruiter, and against the East London Mosque hold up, there surely has to be cause to proscribe the group, disrupt its recruitment, and even demand full structural change of the mosque’s management and transparency. Either that, or given its history, shut it down altogether.

Read More: Breitbart.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

Climate Change: Defying The Courts – Obama Orders Steeper Cuts From Power Plants 5/5 (1)

By:  Lederman

WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.

In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.

Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.

The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.

Appreciate the articles you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

“They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.

Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.

“Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”

The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.

Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.

“It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”

“Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.

Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.

Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.

Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.

In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.

Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.

The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.

By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.

“We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.

Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.

Read More: CNSNews.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

Please rate this

The Bold Untold Way To Fix DC Monstrosity: We Have A runaway Presidency – Congress Has No Spine 5/5 (2)

By:  Bob Unruh

The Washington elite in recent weeks have destroyed traditional marriage across America, have redefined English words to save Obamacare, have proposed regulations that could put your backyard under inspections by the EPA, have pulled off a deal critics say will grant the rogue Islamists in Iran nuclear weapons and more.

Too much more even to list.

How would you like to see a process to reverse those decisions? To TELL Washington what it’s actually going to do. Think that’s an impossible dream? Just check out Article 5.

Officials with Convention of States, a project of the Citizens for Self-Government, say the U.S. Constitution already provides a solution that gives citizens of the U.S. a way to bypass Congress, decide what direction the nation to go and then announce marching orders.

Fix Washington so that those deficit budgets are a thing of the past. So that Washington’s interference in local school-board curriculum decisions is gone. So that those orders for you to buy the health insurance Washington bureaucrats think you need no longer exist. So that a “federal government … drunk with the abuses of power” is reined in.

Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution provides for a Convention of States which can amend the U.S. Constitution – for example, by demanding a balanced budget. Or simply removing the issue of marriage from the jurisdiction of the courts. Or how about eliminating the federal Department of Education entirely? Simply having it no longer there.

The article is an alternative to having Congress proposed amendments.

Ed Note: Wait a minute.  We can’t control the GOP in Washington DC,  we can’t control the GOP at the state level, very rarely can we control the GOP on a county level, and somehow we think that we can control a constitutional convention.  Get Real!  The RINOs, Establishment, Dedicated Left and other miscreants,  will fill the place with provocateurs, sellouts, they will buy delegates, the media will herd us like cattle into wrong decisions, and there will be a constant battle between the libertarians siding with the RINOs on issues siding with Christian Constitutionalists on other issues and it would be a disaster.  Libertarians would probably side with ‘gay marriage’ many with abortion,  and many with legalizing drugs, while the RINOS would also side with “Gay Marriage” and would use that as a club against the Christian Right which is 20% of the party and 40% of the activists.   Sorry but this is wrong-headed.

The answer is to take over a state.  One state at a time.  – but all at once.  The real solution is to have Constitutional States where we just tell the fed to get out.  This is our state.  It is constitutional.  It is not just permissible it is required by the constitution.  For instance not many people know that no officer serving in any branch of the military can be appointed by the federal government or the “federal” armed forces but they can only be appointed by the state in which they reside.    Every state is required to have a standing army which they loan to the fed when called into service at the declaration of war.  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  No, federal control rests with states that will tell the fed to stick it.  That comes when states have the guts to  tell the fed “no more.”  There is a plan that we will bring forth in the not too distant future that will make this plan both understandable and more importantly achievable in one election cycle. 


It allows that those changes also can be proposed – they’d have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states ultimately – “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.”

Want The Best Of The Web All In One Spot? Sign up for free news alerts from TapWires.com, When The Truth Matters

The Convention of States website explains that the Founders provided the alternative, through which the states “can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power.”

Get “Constitutional Literacy,” a DVD set that explains how citizens of the U.S. are called on to enforce the sworn duty of every leader to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

“The current situation is what precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use,” organizers explain.

Sen. Tom Coburn, who represented Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate before leaving just recently, said the convention has become a necessity, because of Washington’s perpetual overreach.

“We won’t fix it any other way,” he told WND. “Washington will never give up its power. It takes more every year, either through the bureaucratic branch, or through the courts.”

While he was in Washington, he said, he identified $400 billion in unnecessary spending every year, but could not eliminate it because of those in Congress who were not about to deprive their own constituencies.

“It’s a catastrophe,” he told WND. “The only way to do it is a Convention of States.”

Mark Meckler, president of the Citizens for Self-Governance, told WND, “We clearly have a runaway presidency, and a Supreme Court that enables that. … Congress has no spine.”

The convention, he said, is the only mechanism for Americans to regain religious freedom, empower states with the rights given to them in the Constitution and more.

He said the current plan is to bring together representatives of the states to consider three issues: Fiscal restraints on the federal government, the imposition of limits on the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, and term limits for federal officials, including members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The actual practical portions of the plan could be the elimination of the Department of Education or the Department of Energy.

States could define that “The federal government has no role in education,” he said.

They also could simply terminate the massive promulgation of millions of pages of federal rules by imposing a requirement that Congress authorize each and every rule.

Coburn said the requirements are straightforward – at least two-thirds of the states (34) must approve identical resolutions calling for a convention. After that, Congress, which cannot stop the plan, must arrange for the particulars.

Four states already have passed the resolution, and it’s been introduced in dozens more already this year.

The goal, he said, is to return the federal government to the few dozen powers specifically given to the government in the Constitution. The rest of the responsibilities are supposed to rest with the states and their populations.

“Our Founders intended for the laboratories of democracy [the states] to work these things out,” he said.

Meckler said some big names have endorsed the idea – from Mark Levin and Sean Hannity to Allen West and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal.

He warned that there literally is no other mechanism to restrain Washington, but hope springs, since there already has developed support for the plan from 97 percent of the state legislative districts from coast to coast.

The organization announced that the draft rules for a Convention of States were revealed recently to several hundred state lawmakers meeting in San Diego.

“The legislators, along with many more all across the nation, have been invited to participate in the Convention of the States Caucus,” it said.

With that move, it has advanced beyond what any other group ever has done in support of such a convention.

“While other groups have talked about proposing rules, we are the only ones who actually took action and produced a working draft. And we already have 119 charter members signed on to help review and revise,” it announced.

The project was launched by Meckler and Michael Farris, who also is chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Sarah Palin has endorsed the move, pointing out that it is “the tool that people have to rein in government.”

Jindal said, “Over-spending, excessive regulatory overreach and disdain for individual liberty all run rampant in Washington, D.C. Luckily, the Founders gave us a mechanism to reform a runaway federal government … We can – and we must – scale back the monstrosity that our federal government has become.”

Huckabee said the plan is both innovative and realistic.

According to the Jefferson Statement, which was adopted just a year ago in Washington by former members of the Reagan administration, seasoned Supreme Court litigators, Ivy League professors and more, the national leaders believe the Article 5 procedure is the only constitutionally effective means of fixing the nation.

Their statement said, “We share the Founders’ conviction that proper decision-making structures are essential to preserve liberty. We believe that the problems facing our nation require several structural limitations on the exercise of federal power. While fiscal restraints are essential, we believe the most effective course is to pursue reasonable limitations, fully in line with the vision of our Founders, on the federal government.”

It explains some of the top legal minds in the nation also have promoted the plan.

Here, advocates describe just exactly how to put Washington back under control:

Read more at WND.com

More Must Read Stories
Author: ‘Gay Marriage’ All About Attacking Christianity, ‘The Mob Is IN Control Now And Won’t Be Satisfied”
Allen West: Navy Will Prosecute Chattanooga Hero – “What Kind of Idiots Are In Charge of Armed Forces”
The Hill: Trump Builds Political Machine in Primary States
Human Smugglers Running Wild in Texas Border City…
Report: Garland Terrorist Bought Fast and Furious Handgun
 Editor’s Choice
Obama TPP Trade Deal Hits Wall – Globalist Pact Sputters – Neither Side Was Prepared To Move

 

Please rate this

The American Perspective

%d bloggers like this: