VIDEO – CONSERVATIVE CALIFORNIA CANDIDATES

October 21st, 2018

 

SAVE CALIFORNIA  !
 PLEASE SHARE WITH YOUR CALIFORNIA FRIENDS !  An excellent video by Connect the Dots describing the conservative candidates in California
VIDEO – CALIFORNIA’S  CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES TO VOTE FOR
Share

SOROS IS SUPPORTING NC SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CANDIDATE, ANITA EARLS

October 21st, 2018

 


George Soros is supporting North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate Anita Earls !    Please read and share with your friends.
Soros’s money is supporting candidates in many states.  Be aware and vote informed and wisely !   Thanks to Sloan Rachmuth for sharing with us.  Nancy
WASHINGTON EXAMINER

George Soros’ candidate in North Carolina

By Bradley Martin   Bradley Martin is a senior fellow with the news and public policy group Haym Salomon Center. Sloan Rachmuth is director of research and special projects for the Haym Salomon Center. Follow @salomoncenter.
October 21, 2018

With all of the divisive rhetoric and controversy surrounding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States, the stakes have never been higher for the future of America’s judicial system. Yet the highest court in the land is not the only place where American values are under threat.

While both sides of the political aisle are fighting for victory in the upcoming November midterm elections, billionaire Democratic mega-donor George Soros has been channeling funds into pursuing a complete overhaul of the U.S justice system. According to Politico, Soros has directed his wealth into “an under-the-radar” campaign to advance his goals of “reshaping the American justice system.” Soros has dumped millions into district attorney races throughout the nation to promote a “progressive” leftist vision of social justice.

In Soros’ grand vision of America’s future, neither the Jewish people or the state of Israel are held in high regard. Soros himself has blamed the rise of European antisemitism on Jews, while taking the opportunity in a Washington Post op-ed to libel the state of Israel as “the main stumbling block” to the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

It is therefore not surprising that Soros wants to solidify his influence in North Carolina’s Supreme Court through his support for supreme court candidate Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. Founded by Earls in 2007, SCSJ has partnered with openly antisemitic organizations and individuals in Durham such as the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group Spirithouse Durham. Since 2010, Soros’ Open Society has made considerable investments in SCSJ to control the city’s criminal justice system.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

THE DARK MONEY THAT FUNDED ‘DARK MONEY’

October 20th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Dark Money That Funded ‘Dark Money’

Liberal groups sponsor a documentary faulting conservative groups that sponsor political advocacy.

By Scott Walter    Mr. Walter is president of the Capital Research Center
October 17, 2018
Left-wing interests are raving about the documentary “Dark Money.” Airing this month on PBS, “Dark Money” purports to expose the effects of right-wing political spending in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Los Angeles Times calls the film a “political thriller.” NPR lauds it for revealing the “assault on the American electoral and judicial process by corporations whose agenda is nothing less than the dismantling of government itself.”

There’s one problem: This attack on conservative-funded political advocacy is itself liberal-funded political advocacy. The proof? The end credits listing the film’s funders.

Top billing goes to the Ford Foundation, the third-largest private political-advocacy philanthropy in the U.S. Its sheer size—$12.4 billion in assets—isn’t unique on the left. Even before hedge-fund billionaire George Soros injected $18 billion into his Open Society Foundations, eight of America’s 10 largest private foundations (ranked by giving as of 2013) were aligned with the political left.

Nominally nonpartisan but actually liberal foundations and nonprofits spend three or four times as much as their conservative peers on “education” and advocacy, as the Capital Research Center documents.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

DEMOCRATS HAVEN’T TURNED BACK FROM 1968

October 20th, 2018

 

A very interesting article written by a long-time Democrat, analyzing what has been happening in his party.  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Democrats Haven’t Turned Back From 1968

The politics of identity and attack have supplanted the old liberal tradition, which favored national unity.

Democrats Haven’t Turned Back From 1968
PHOTO: CHAD CROWE

America is polarized in many ways, but one of the most significant is between generations in the Democratic Party. Coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, we present-day seniors saw liberalism as the promise of racial and social justice and broadly shared prosperity. We also saw it as a defender of civil liberties against abuses such as those that took place in the 1950s McCarthy era. Abroad, we supported a strong United Nations and other multilateral institutions to reduce conflict but had no illusions about the expansionist ambitions of totalitarian states.

In other words, the dwindling number of Greatest Generation and Depression-born Democrats came of age with a liberal tradition that is increasingly marginalized in today’s party. That was evident in Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight and in the party’s use of race, sex, ethnicity and other identity markers in politics more broadly.

The best example of the old Democratic Party’s aspirations was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provided that no citizen should receive favorable or unfavorable treatment based on irrelevant factors such as race, sex, national origin and religion. Our domestic agenda was further realized in President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society: the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty, federal aid to education and other measures designed to create greater opportunity for all, underwritten by a safety net for those who needed it.

You could feel the first big change in 1968 as a new generation in the West rebelled against established institutions and leaders. In the U.S., protest formed around opposition to the mistaken Vietnam War. I experienced this rebellion first as Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s assistant in the Johnson White House, then as a vice president of Columbia University during the disorders there, and later as an active member of the antiwar movement and George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

 

There was idealism in the protests but also cynicism and a touch of totalitarianism. “We Demand!” often preceded the protesters’ list of objectives. You could have a discussion with them over coffee or in small groups, but when an audience was present, a professor, speaker or political candidate expressing a contrary opinion would often be shouted down, sometimes with obscene chants. “Never trust anyone over 30,” the slogan went (or, as I often thought silently, no one under 25). Those in established positions were usually judged reactionary no matter the substance of their views.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

‘GOSNELL’, FACES A MEDIA BLACKOUT

October 19th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
‘GOSNELL,’ LIKE ITS NAMESAKE, FACES A MEDIA BLACKOUT

Reviews are withheld and ads rejected for fear of facing up to what ‘abortion rights’ mean in practice.

by Jason Riley    October 17, 2018

“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.

Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder following a two-month trial in 2013, is currently serving a life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole. He was an abortion doctor based in Philadelphia, where state law prohibits the procedure beginning at 24 weeks gestational age. By his own admission, Dr. Gosnell regularly performed illegal late-term abortions, mostly on low-income minority women. In some cases he would induce labor, deliver live babies, and then kill them by snipping the backs of their necks with scissors.

Nick Searcy directed the film, based on a book of the same title by a married couple of investigative journalists from Ireland, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. In an essay last month, Mr. Searcy explained why he was drawn to the subject. “It is nearly impossible to find an adult person who does not have an opinion on the issue of abortion,” he wrote in National Review, “and yet how little we all know about it—how it is done, what the laws are surrounding it, how it is regulated, legislated, and practiced. I wanted to share that knowledge.”

Dr. Gosnell’s story may not change a single mind about abortion, yet the movie and book make an important contribution to a debate that continues to rage 45 years after Roe v. Wade. They offer a better understanding of what “abortion rights” mean in practice and a renewed appreciation of the tragic consequences that can result when politicians, public-health officials and the media put blind ideology ahead of basic human decency.

Dr. Gosnell had been performing illegal abortions for decades before law-enforcement officials stumbled upon him, and when they did, it was for reasons that had nothing to do with his abortion practice. In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern.

In their book, Ms. McElhinney and Mr. McAleer write that the Gosnell raid unveiled “a house of horrors.” The toilets were clogged with fetal remains. Cupboards contained jars with the severed feet of infants inside. In refrigerators and freezers, detectives found more discarded fetuses stored in milk cartons, water jugs, cat-food containers and Minute Maid juice boxes with the tops cut off to make the openings larger. Later, authorities would discover that Dr. Gosnell employed “assistants”—who had no medical training and were paid under the table—to sedate patients, conduct ultrasounds and administer labor-inducing drugs.

Dr. Gosnell’s story becomes even more upsetting when you realize how much sooner he should have been caught. State inspectors visited the clinic three times between 1989 and 1993. Each time they discovered that no registered nurses were on staff, as the law requires, yet permitted him to continue providing abortions. After Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1994, the state Department of Health stopped all routine inspections of abortion clinics.

Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way.

Once Dr. Gosnell’s trial began in 2013, it was the national media’s turn to ignore him. Fox News gave the trial significant attention, but few other major outlets did the same. The liberal press knew the story would cast a negative light on abortion, and that concerned them much more than bringing to justice a doctor who committed infanticide and routinely risked the health of women.

Ultimately, social media shamed the press into covering the trial, and you won’t be shocked to find out that interest in the story hasn’t lasted. Some outlets have refused to run ads for the film, and almost all major publications have declined to review it. Which also helps explain why I had so little company on Friday.

 

Share

THE AMERICAN ARSENAL IS VULNERABLE TO CYBERATTACKS

October 17th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

THE AMERICAN ARSENAL IS VULNERABLE TO CYBERATTACKS

U.S. firepower could be crippled by software flaws. The Pentagon has been slow to respond.

October 16, 2018

by Brian E. Finch  Mr. Finch is a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, where he is a leader of the firm’s cybersecurity team. His clients include cybersecurity vendors that may support the U.S. Defense Department under Comply to Connect.

 

Modern American military history is replete with examples of poorly designed weapons. Submarine torpedoes failed to explode after hitting Japanese ships. M16 rifles only could be counted on to jam in the middle of a firefight in Vietnam. Pentagon planners have since spent countless hours and billions of dollars to create acquisition programs that wring the bugs out of U.S. arms before they reach the hands of soldiers and sailors.

Despite the hard work, the U.S. still fields weapons systems with dramatic weaknesses. A new Government Accountability Office auditthis month indicates that huge swaths of American firepower could be rendered inert by software flaws. There are solutions to the cyber weaknesses plaguing our arsenal, but bureaucratic inertia at the Defense Department is hampering their implementation. Faster action is needed to clear the logjam and harden America’s weapons before it’s too late.

The GAO could not have been clearer about the threat: “A successful attack on one of the systems the weapon depends on can potentially limit the weapon’s effectiveness, prevent it from achieving its mission, or even cause physical damage and loss of life.” American ships, airplanes, combat vehicles, satellites and other systems have design flaws that leave them vulnerable to debilitating cyberattacks. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is growing more reliant on automation and artificial intelligence.

Share

F-22 FIGHTERS DOWNED BY HURRICANE

October 17th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
F-22 FIGHTERS DOWNED BY HURRICANE
October 17, 2018
An aircraft hangar damaged by Hurricane Michael is seen at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Oct. 11.
An aircraft hangar damaged by Hurricane Michael is seen at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Oct. 11. PHOTO: JONATHAN BACHMAN/REUTERS

Hurricane Michael did terrible damage in Florida last week, and that may include some of the world’s most capable military aircraft left in its path. But why can’t Air Force F-22 jet fighters, of all things, escape a storm? Answer: They lack the parts to be operational and so were stuck in hangars to take a beating.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Sunday that the damage to an unspecified number of F-22s on Tyndall Air Force Base was “less than we feared.” But maintenance professionals will have to conduct a detailed assessment before the Air Force can say with certainty that the planes will fly again. Press reports estimate that at least a dozen planes were left on the base due to maintenance and safety issues.

Welcome to a fighting force damaged by bad political decisions and misguided priorities. Of the Air Force’s 186 F-22s, only about 80 are “mission capable,” according to a July analysis from the Government Accountability Office. The average across the Air Force in 2017 was that about 7 in 10 planes were mission capable, which is still too low for meeting increasing demands.

Part of the F-22 problem is upkeep on a coating that helps the planes evade radar. Another issue is the supply chain for parts now that the U.S. no longer produces the airplane, and “some original manufacturers no longer make the parts or are completely out of business,” GAO notes. Air Force officials told GAO that a simple wiring harness requires a 30-week lead time for finding a new contractor and producing the part. Ripping out parts from planes that work, or “cannibalizing,” is now common practice in military aviation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

NO TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

October 13th, 2018

 

We don’t hear much about the International Criminal Court but it is extremely important that we do not allow it to overrule our Supreme Court and to prosecute our citizens.  Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
AMERICANS’ RIGHT TO SELF-RULE
By Clifford D. May  Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. September 25, 2018

 

In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

VIDEO – BLUE COLLAR LOGIC

October 12th, 2018

 

VIDEO  BLUE COLLAR LOGIC (WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING )

Share

VIDEO – PROJECT VERITAS EXPOSES TENNESSEE DEMOCRAT

October 11th, 2018

 

 

This is the same tactic all so-called moderate Democrats are doing to get elected and then become good little liberals and vote strictly party line. Tim Kaine and Elaine Luria are playing the same game here in Virginia in taking Pelosi’s message to ‘do whatever you have to do’ to get elected. Deceit at its core.  

VOTE RED, November 6, 2018!

ject Verit

     
   

 

  View the video HERE.

Tennessee: US Senate Candidate Phil Bredesen’s staff says he is lying about Kavanaugh vote in Undercover Video. “It’s a political move.”

  • Bredesen Staff Thinks Tennessee Voters Are “Ignorant”.
  • In an apparent Vote-Grab, Bredesen says he would vote YES on Kavanaugh but staffers say he wouldn’t, “It’s politics.”
  • His Lie was “a political move” that staffers call “gross.”
  • Bredesen wants to appear “Moderate” Rather Than Liberal – Bredesen’s Campaign Staff Report they are “all here” to Run Against Trump, “he hates Trump.”
  • Staffer confides “we’re trying to make it so it’s not about Democrats…” BUT “between you and me once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”
  • Blue Wave: “This isn’t about everything else… this is for the Blue Wave…” “we don’t say that out of these walls.”
  • On Alliance with Senate Democratic Leader Schumer: “Even though that’s all why we’re all here. We can’t put it out there.”

View the video HERE.

Share
Search All Posts
Categories