Famous Republicans Targeted For Dumpster

Tea party 'as much a rebellion against the Big Government Republicans' as liberal Dems.

A conservative giant in Washington, D.C., has written a brand-new book that certainly won’t increase his chances of getting invited to cocktail parties inside the Beltway.

Known as the “funding father of conservatism,” Richard Viguerie’s “Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It” takes sides in what he describes as a century-old war for the soul of the Republican Party.

Set to be published on April 8 by WND Books, it offers a blueprint for how liberty-loving, small government conservatives can win the battle against big-government Republicans.

“Every day you read another story about [how] a candidate for the tea party has embraced becoming the target of the entrenched Republican Party leadership and mindset, and I believe my book offers a practical outline for how principled conservatives can make the stand to finally win this fight,” Viguerie told WND.
In “Takeover,” Viguerie – who in the 1960s and ’1970s pioneered the use of direct mail as a means for conservatives to bypass the liberal media – dares to name names when discussing the big-government Republicans waging the war on the tea party movement and other advocates of limited government.

An appendix to the book presents Viguerie’s view of those whose defeat or abandonment “would advance the cause of conservative governance.”

Target No. 1 is Karl Rove

Viguerie writes that Karl Rove “has grown wealthy by promoting the idea that content-free campaigns, rather than conservative principles, are the path to victory for the Republican Party.”
“His record of 22 losses to 9 wins in 2012 shows the folly of the Republican establishment in following Rove’s advice.”
Other members of the gallery include Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one-time vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan and a man, Viguerie writes, who “seems to relish in antagonizing conservatives,” Sen. John McCain.



 More at:

How States And School Districts Can Opt Out Of Common Core

States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:
 
If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended.

In other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.
Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregon and the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.


More at: 

Christians Swallow 'Big Lie' About Palestine

Leftist tyrants always lie to the people, the easily duped masses. It’s how they obtain and maintain control of the population. A hallmark of such a regime is the sheer magnitude of the lie. The tactic of using the “Big Lie” has been attributed to Hitler, or his propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, but whoever coined the term understood its implications.

And so it is that when a huge lie – a real whopper – is told loudly enough, often enough … people believe it.

Yasser Arafat, perhaps modern history’s most visible serial killer and mass murderer, learned from the Soviets that by transforming himself from a terrorist to a “freedom fighter,” he would win great gains in the West.

They were right.

I became aware in the ’90s that Arafat was targeting the American Christian community with a series of whoppers so outrageous, it was hard at the time to believe anyone would believe them.

Yet he was successful. One of the biggest lies is the historical falsehood that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Here’s how this works: Relying on the knowledge that many Americans are biblically illiterate (literally having never read the Bible; perhaps parts of it, but not close to both testaments), Arafat could float the trial balloon that Jesus of Nazareth – thoroughly presented as Jewish in Scripture – was in reality a “Palestinian.”


More at:

How RIDICULOUSLY HARD Can Common Core Math Make Subtraction?

College students and others at George Mason University were dumbstruck by the tedious nature of an elementary level Common Core problem during a short series of interviews conducted by Campus Reform last week.

The problem, 32-12, was demonstrated to those on campus the traditional way and juxtaposed with the Common Core method.

“That was extra difficult for no reason” one interviewee told Campus Reform.

“Make it simple, cause that’s confusing.

If public schools continue to implement this garbage a lot of parents are going to be looking at private schools!


Original story at:

The Caleb Bonham Show: Common Core Math on YouTube

Convicted Al-Qaida Spy Works For IRS

We continue our efforts to expose the infiltration of radical Islamists in America, and especially the Obama administration. Unfortunately, we never have to hold our breath for long before another case is presented.

This time, via Investors Business Daily, we learn there’s more than a “smidgen of corruption” at the IRS — there just may be treason.

Mohammad Weiss Rasool, who was busted by the FBI several years ago for spying on behalf of al-Qaida, reportedly now works for the deputy IRS chief financial officer as a financial management analyst, drawing a lucrative salary at taxpayer expense.

So now, a Muslim man convicted of abusing sensitive government data has access to the sensitive financial data of millions of Americans at an agency known for abusing such information. Sounds like a perfect fit actually.

As we previously reported, the Obama administration had loosened immigration restrictions on individuals who had provided material support to terrorist activity.


More at:

From the Greenhouse to the Big House...

When liberals said global warming causes crime, no one knew it was because they planned on prosecuting their opponents! Late last week, climate alarmist Lawrence Torcello didn't do his movement any favors when he lobbied for jailing global warming skeptics (which, after yesterday's storm, might have included the entire city of Washington). It was a new low for an environmental movement that is already God's gift to late-night comedy.

Torcello, a professor at New York's Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), tested the idea in an essay for "The Conversation," (an ironic name, since that's exactly what the Left is hoping to end). In particular, the professor takes aim at conservative groups trying to raise awareness about what the science really says about the manufactured crisis of global warming. "Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain," Torcello writes. "I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well-documented funding of global warming denialism... We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus."

Setting aside the criminal aspect, who are liberals to talk about the funding of a "sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding" of science? They don't call it the "green" movement for nothing! Radical environmentalists have funneled billions of dollars into a global fact-twisting mission to drown out the truth. Torcello's hypocrisy, though, is just a footnote to the bigger outrage -- which is the idea that disbelief with liberals is grounds for imprisonment. Unfortunately for Torcello, there's no jail big enough to hold the millions of Americans unconvinced by the Left's "science."


More at:

Common Core Compromise Would Water Down Controversial Education Standards in S.C

Education Candidates Weigh In on Senate Bill

Republican members of the Senate Education Committee had hoped to appease very vocal conservative activists, who are demanding immediate repeal of the Common Core K-12 Academic Standards, without upending the coming school year, given that school districts have already devoted considerable resources to implementing them.

Interestingly, the now-gutted bill is raising those compromise-averse activists’ hopes if not drawing their support.

S. 300, authored by Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley), began as a ban on Common Core, plain and simple. Now, to avoid wasting the aforementioned resources and inflicting chaos on classrooms already entrenched in Common Core, the bill is a thoroughly amended phasing-out.

Because the current version of S. 300 hadn’t been made public yet, a staff member of the Senate Education Committee walked Free Times through the compromise. The first section prohibits South Carolina from sending individual student data to Washington, D.C., a concern that the staffer said “we heard buckets about” but that an education policy expert described as a bugaboo, saying, “We never have nor never intended to send student-level data to D.C. under any scenario.”

The second major provision adopts the gist of a separate piece of legislation also provoked by Common Core, S. 888 by Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston), which requires that any academic standards not developed by the S.C. Department of Education be approved by the General Assembly.

The bill goes on to withdraw South Carolina from the Smarter Balance testing consortium, a group promoted by the Obama administration, and do away with high school exit exams beginning with 2015’s graduates. There is also language that will allow past graduates who did not receive diplomas because they flunked the exams to petition their old school districts for diplomas up until Dec. 21, 2015. This testing stuff is relevant because it’s how states participating in Common Core, of which South Carolina is one of 45, had agreed to evaluate their efforts.


More at:

Report: House Speaker’s Legal Team Tries Some Unusual Tactics

The legal team for Rep. Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston), the powerful S.C. House Speaker facing a state grand jury probe into allegations that he dipped into his campaign fund and abused his office for personal gain, appears to have just hammered its thumb.

But perhaps there’s more to it.

Citing unnamed law enforcement sources, The State’s John Monk reported last week that Harrell’s lawyers have requested a closed hearing with Circuit Judge Robert Hood, who’s been assigned to the state grand jury, to argue that Attorney General Alan Wilson should be removed from the case due to an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Harrell’s attorney said Tuesday it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter, citing state grand jury rules.

Harrell’s office declined to comment.

But Harrell’s critics have pounced on the alleged move as an underhanded, unfounded attempt to reset the board in the House Speaker’s favor, perhaps to line up a less motivated prosecutor.

“Speaker Harrell has taken every opportunity to exert his extraordinary power to receive special treatment,” says Ashley Landess, president of the South Carolina Policy Council, who initially took the complaints about Harrell to Wilson’s office. “He even used his power to push a secret bill through full committee that would have literally decriminalized all the ethics violations of which he is accused.”

Wilson subsequently forwarded the case to SLED for investigation. Since news of Team Harrell’s request for a closed hearing broke, Wilson’s office has stated its opposition to both the hearing and Wilson’s removal.

According to longtime ethics watchdog and attorney John Crangle of Common Cause, the argument to remove Wilson has slim chance of success, given the attorney general’s apparent lack of conflict in the case. But he described a member of Harrell’s counsel, Gedney Howe III, as an “outside-the-box kind of lawyer.”


More at:

Sheriffs Across US Refuse To Enforce Tougher Gun Laws

Sheriffs across the United States are refusing to implement new gun control laws passed by state legislatures, according to a report by the New York Times.

The numbers are particularly high in Colorado, where the majority of sheriffs have come out against the state’s new gun laws, including provisions requiring background checks for private gun sales and the banning of magazines over 15 rounds. Fifty-five of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs joined a federal lawsuit filed in May arguing the new laws are unconstitutional.

Even for some of those that didn’t sign onto the lawsuit, enforcement of Colorado’s new gun restrictions isn’t high on their list of priorities.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” said Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, Colorado, to the Times.

Last month, a federal judge ruled the sheriffs did not have standing to sue as a group, but that the court would still rule on the Constitutionality of the laws in question.

Regardless of the outcome, Colorado Department of public Safety Spokesman Lance Clem told the Times that when it comes to enforcing the law, sheriffs have significant latitude to make their own decisions.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” he said. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”


More at:

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear Using SIA68 (Another 777)?

As the search for missing flight Malaysian Airlines flight 370 drags on into the 10th day, so many questions continue to remain unanswered about how and why the airliner could have disappeared while seemingly under the control of a skilled pilot intent on making it invisible. With satellite pings showing where the plane could be after more than seven hours of flight, speculation has arisen that the plane could be on the ground anywhere along a path from northern Thailand to the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. 

The major roadblock to this theory has been the insistence from India and Pakistan that their radar network showed no such unidentified aircraft entering or traversing their airspace.  It would seem highly unlikely given such information that a Boeing 777 could indeed slip through undetected.

As a hobby pilot and aviation enthusiast, a theory began to form in my own mind on this 10th day as all of the latest information began to trickle in slowly through media outlets globally.  After being unable to escape the idea that it may have happened, I began to do some analysis and research and what I discovered was very troubling to me!

Starting with a set of facts that have been made available publically and verified over the past few days, I first plotted MH370’s course onto an aviation IFR map which shows the airways and waypoints used to navigate the skies.  I plotted the point where it stopped transmitting ADS-B information at 1721UTC.  I then plotted the Malaysian military radar track from that point towards “VAMPI”, “GIVAL”, and then onward toward “IGREX” on P628 ending with where the plane should be at 1815UTC when military radar lost contact.

That chart looks like this:


More at:

Bill Gates Supports Death Panels, Rationing Medical Advances

It is funny–in both the ha-ha and ironical senses–that those who often scream most loudly against the “death panel” meme often follow, sotto voce, ”But we need death panels.” The fact is that most of those in the technocratic classes want to medically discriminate against those who are seen as health care “takers” or perceived to have a lower quality of life.

They’re just not sure how to get from “here” to “there,” and retain popular support. (Hint: They can’t.)

billgatesNow in a Rolling Stone interview, Bill Gates joins the chorus. He says–like bioethicist Daniel Callahan–that we have to be careful about making technological improvements in medicine because we won’t want to make them available to all. From the interview:

    G:…If you accelerate certain things but aren’t careful about whether you want to make those innovations available to everyone, then you’re intensifying the cost in such a way that you’ll overwhelm all the resources.

    RS: Like million-dollar chemotherapy treatments.

    G: Yeah, or organ transplants for people in their seventies from new artificial organs being grown. There is a lot of medical technology for which, unless you can make judgments about who should buy it, you will have to invade other government functions to find the money. Joint replacement is another example. There are four or five of these innovations down the pipe that are huge, huge things.

    RS: Yeah, but when people start talking about these issues, we start hearing loaded phrases like “death panels” and suggestions that government bureaucrats are going to decide when it’s time to pull the plug on Grandma.

    G: The idea that there aren’t trade-offs is an outrageous thing. Most countries know that there are trade-offs, but here, we manage to have the notion that there aren’t any. So that’s unfortunate, to not have people think, “Hey, there are finite resources here.”

But they do want to have the government (or bioethics committees delegated the task by government) decide “when to pull the plug on grandma.” Moreover, ”trade offs” is a code term in this context for death panels.


More at:

Richard Vedder: The Real Reason College Costs So Much

Another school year beckons, which means it's time for President Obama to go on another college retreat. "He loves college tours," says Ohio University's Richard Vedder, who directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. "Colleges are an escape from reality. Believe me, I've lived in one for half a century. It's like living in Disneyland. They're these little isolated enclaves of nonreality."

Mr. Vedder, age 72, has taught college economics since 1965 and published papers on the likes of Scandinavian migration, racial disparities in unemployment and tax reform. Over the last decade he's made himself America's foremost expert on the economics of higher education, which he distilled in his 2004 book "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much." His analysis isn't the same as President Obama's.

This week on his back-to-school tour of New York and Pennsylvania colleges, Mr. Obama presented a new plan to make college more affordable. "If the federal government keeps on putting more and more money in the system," he noted at the State University of New York at Buffalo on Thursday, and "if the cost is going up by 250%" and "tax revenues aren't going up 250%," at "some point, the government will run out of money."

Note that for the record: Mr. Obama has admitted some theoretical limit to how much the federal government can spend.

His solution consists of tying financial aid to college performance, using government funds as a "catalyst to innovation," and making it easier for borrowers to discharge their debts. "In fairness to the president, some of his ideas make some decent, even good sense," Mr. Vedder says, such as providing students with more information about college costs and graduation rates. But his plan addresses just "the tip of the iceberg. He's not dealing with the fundamental problems."


More at:

Is It Better To Save The World, Or One Person In The World?

The answer to that question separates liberals from conservatives. Liberals want to save the world, and perfect it through various government programs. Conservatives believe that no one can save this imperfect world, but that we can, through our efforts, help one person at a time. When millions of conservatives help someone, the entire world is affected.

This point was recently illustrated by President Obama, a liberal, and Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative producer of the film “2016.” President Obama wants to save the world, or at least the U.S., through national healthcare, minimum wage laws, and sharp cuts in carbon dioxide. These programs all require massive government interference in people’s day-to-day lives–and sometimes the lives of people are made much worse by his well intentioned efforts to help them.

Dinesh D’Souza wants to cut out most of this government meddling, and end the damage from failed government programs. He wants people to help others, one person at a time, through charities and personal philanthropy. We can’t save the world, he believes, but we can make it a better place by our one-on-one help for our neighbors.

Dinesh D’Souza, in making his film “2016″, interviewed Barack Obama’s brother George Obama, who is living a meager existence in Kenya. Recently, George Obama made a phone call to D’Souza and asked him for $1,000 for medical treatments for his troubled family. D’Souza, being a conservative, discussed the problem with George Obama, decided it was worthy, and sent him the $1,000. People helping people.


More at:

Anti-Freedom Physicians, Policemen, And Pastors

The State Police spokesman for Connecticut, Lt. Paul Vance, shouted over the phone at a citizen who had called to question how law enforcement personnel in Connecticut were going to enforce the newly-enacted gun ban by screaming, “I don’t want to talk about the Constitution, Ma’am, at all, at all.” When reminded by the caller that police officers were servants of the people, the lieutenant yelled, “I’m the master, Ma’am, I’m the master.”

It is an unfortunate reality that the attitude depicted by Lt. Vance is shared by thousands of police officers throughout the nation. The “us-versus-them” mentality seems to permeate law enforcement. And, of course, the “them” in question is the citizenry that policemen are supposed to serve. Examples of Gestapo-like tactics being employed by various police personnel are growing like wildfire. If you are not afraid to be illuminated by the truth, I challenge you to Google “police abuse” and see what comes up. But I caution you: what you will discover will shock and anger you.

More and more innocent people are being shot and killed by trigger-happy cops who have seemingly adopted a “shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later” philosophy. It is to the point that the American people need to seriously begin lobbying lawmakers and judges to severely restrict “no knock” arrest warrants and to begin severely punishing these rogue, out-of-control policemen. If something isn’t done quickly, what is now rogue behavior will soon morph into routine behavior.

And, of course, I haven’t even addressed the militarization of most all of America’s law enforcement agencies, including county and municipal police agencies. More and more, our policemen and sheriff’s deputies are looking like soldiers, not peace officers.

Not all of our policemen share this anti-Second Amendment, us-versus-them, “I’m the master” mentality. Thank God! Lawmen in states that heavily support the right of the people to keep and bear arms are mostly very gun-friendly. However, in larger cities and in states that are less gun-friendly, the trend in law enforcement is ominous.

Finally, another group of leaders who should be among the most supportive voices of our Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, is America’s pastors. And, once again, the majority of these men seem to be either utterly indifferent to the Second Amendment or downright adamant in opposing it.



More at:

Crimea And Punishment: Who Really Stopped The Russians?

Putin’s recent decision to order Russian troops on Ukraine’s eastern border to return to base was a surprise to many. After all, vague U.S. threats that there would be a price to pay and consequences for the invasion of Ukraine were hardly much of a deterrent. The red line which Obama had painted on the ground in front of Putin ally, Bashar Assad, in Syria, turned out to have been a weak watercolor. Does anyone seriously believe that Russian troops were stopped at the Crimean border by communiques from this White House or the diplomats in Brussels threatening that Russia would no longer be able to send representatives to G8 meetings?

No, Putin was not turned by diplomats or feckless heads of state from the West. He was dissuaded by speculators. Russia was not dissuaded by threats of punishment: Russia was dissuaded by actual punishment, meted out in real time by that most vilified of classes, currency speculators. As Russian troops crashed through turnstiles and over legal international borders, their Rubles crashed too. As international rule of law collapsed, so did the Moscow Stock Exchange’s MICEX Index.

For Russia to invade and annex Ukraine would be an unwise act of imperial overreach. Apart from legal and moral considerations (which are more complicated than either Putin haters or Putin fanboys would admit), Russia simply cannot afford an empire, not even a regional one.

What markets told Putin this week is that he can either have a great empire or he can have a great currency, but not both. The choice is his (which is part of the problem). Putin can expand his economy or he can expand his empire. At least for the moment, he seems to have chosen the better option of the two: To send the troops back to base, their point having been made, to sell natural gas at market price rather than subsidized discounts, to buy client states and rebuild the true foundation of a great nation and productive economy. I pray that lesson is not soon forgotten.


Article originally published on Forbes.com

Avoid Eating Genetically Engineered Foods

Why are thousands of physicians advising patients to avoid eating GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) [1] and how did these high-risk foods get onto the market in the first place? The answers are disturbing, even shocking, but may help you get healthy and stay healthy.

Foods with added bacterial or viral genes were quietly slipped into your diet two decades ago. Using the excuse that GMOs weren't that much different, the FDA didn't require labels or even a single safety study from GMO makers like Monsanto. But a lawsuit forced the agency to release their files and the truth finally came out.

FDA scientists repeatedly warned that GMOs could create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems, and that rigorous safety testing was needed. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, was put in charge of FDA policy. (Taylor later became Monsanto's chief lobbyist, and has returned to FDA as US Food Czar.)

Can you trust Monsanto with your family's health? That company that told us that Agent Orange, DDT and PCBs were safe.

Now Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops are engineered to withstand their Roundup herbicide, which gets absorbed into the food and can't be washed off. A 2014 study found Roundup the most toxic of all herbicides and insecticides they tested. According to MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff, Roundup may be "the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions." She co-authored a seminal paper linking it to including obesity, heart disease, inflammatory bowel, IBS, autism, allergies, MS, Parkinson's, depression, infertility, Alzheimer's and cancer.


More at: