Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96%

said that if Iran uses the money it gets under the nuclear deal to fund terrorists that kill Americans, Israelis, or Europeans, “then this administration is responsible” at Monday’s Voters First Presidential Forum in New Hampshire.

“I believe this Obama Iranian nuclear deal, is the single gravest national security threat raising America. It is a catastrophic deal. If this deal goes through, several things will happen. First of all, roughly 100 billion dollars, over 100 billion dollars, will flow into Iran. Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. That money in turn, billions of it will go on to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis. You know, it’s very interesting. I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, that if this deal goes through, that the Obama administration will become the world’s leading global financier of radical Islamic terrorism. In response, just last week, President Obama attacked me from Africa for saying that. He said that rhetoric was overheated. Let me tell you…speaking the truth is not rhetoric. The truth is, if this administration, if President Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are responsible for sending billions of dollars to Iran, and that Iran — those billions go to jihadists, who use that money to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans, then administration is responsible. Beyond that, this deal leaves four Americans languishing in Iran. … And this deal accelerates Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Cruz then talked about his alternative, saying, “I’ve already introduced legislation in the Senate that would reimpose sanctions, that would strengthen them, and that would lay out a clear path, a sensible path for Iran to lift sanctions, that they would disassemble all 19,000 centrifuges, they would hand over their enriched uranium, they would shut down their ICBM program, which exists for one purpose, and that is to carry a nuclear weapon to the United States of America. And they would cease being the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Over the next 60 days, I’m going to do everything I can to mobilize and energize the American people against this catastrophic deal, because I think it is a profound threat to the safety and security of America, and we need a commander-in-chief that will defend this nation.”


“You can’t have the rules of yesteryear now”


Hillary Clinton supporters in San Diego would support a move by the 2016 presidential frontrunner to repeal the bill of rights, another shocking illustration of how many Americans are completely ignorant on basic issues.

Asked by Mark Dice whether they would advocate Hillary’s ‘primary campaign promise’ to “help with the new world order,” virtually all were in agreement.

“Do you think it’s time we get behind her and support the repeal,” Dice asked one woman, who responded, “I think it is, I think we need change like they’ve been promising us for so many years, I think it’s time to get behind Hillary Clinton and support her.”
Referring to the bill of rights, the woman added, “You can’t have the rules of yesteryear now, so much has changed….we live in a different world now,” before again emphasizing that she supported Hillary’s plan to repeal the freedoms outlined by the founding fathers.

Another woman concurred that it was a “good time to look at” repealing the bill of rights, another young lady agreed that it was necessary to “move America forward.”

Yet another individual remarked that the bill of rights was, “somewhat outdated,” while another two women blithely supported abolishing the founding document to “help America progress.”

An African-American man who said he “agreed with a lot of Hillary’s policies” said he wouldn’t repeal the entire bill of rights, just part of it, namely the ones that “are related to injustices to the blacks.”

Suffice to say, the man couldn’t actually name any of the bill of rights or why they were unjust towards black people. After he implied that the bill of rights itself was racist, the man acknowledged, “this is just coming from a guess.”

Dice’s video once again illustrates not just how profoundly dumb many Americans are when it comes to any political issue, but how ignorant they are of their own country’s history and the hard fought freedoms they now enjoy, as well as how easy it is to attain consent from the general public for the most outrageous things just by using trendy buzzwords.


Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 10.11.39 AM

Maureen Dowd: Starbucks’ Howard Schultz Urged to Challenge Hillary


Howard Schultz, the chairman and CEO of Starbucks, is being urged to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Schultz, 62, is getting encouragement from supporters because they believe “the time is right for someone who’s not a political lifer,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said on Saturday. “It may be a tempting proposition.”Raised in low-income housing in Brooklyn, Schultz later graduated from Northern Michigan University. He bought Starbucks in 1988 and built the company to where its operating income totaled $939 million in its most recent quarter, on $4.9 billion in sales.

Schultz also once owned the Seattle Supersonics.

“He has strong opinions, and even position papers, about what he calls the fraying American dream,” writes Dowd, who has long criticized Clinton and former President Bill Clinton.

She referenced the book Schultz co-wrote last year, “For Love of Country: What Our Veterans Can Teach Us About Citizenship, Heroism, and Sacrifice.”

“While he was promoting his book on veterans last year, he honed a message about making government work again and finding ‘authentic, truthful leadership,'” Dowd said.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!



Power prices will undoubtedly rise as POTUS shuts down plants

WASHINGTON — 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 has faced steep Republican opposition from Capitol Hill to the 2016 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.

“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 began reverberating 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.

But Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted electricity bills would go up for millions of Americans and called Obama’s policies on power plants “catastrophic.”

“They will do nothing to address the underlying issue that they’re talking about, because as far as I can see, China and India and other developing countries are going to continue to burn anything they can get their hands on,” Rubio said at a conservative conference Sunday organized by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

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, the White House said.

In an attempt to encourage states 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 finalized, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. 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 defend the rule by holding public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts.”

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.

Remember That One Time Hillary Clinton Praised Margaret Sanger?

Screen Shot 2015-08-02 at 8.45.06 AM

Planned Parenthood is disgusting. We all know that. (Well, anyone with an Actual Brain and Actual Soul knows that.)

Liberals don’t really like to talk about the hosebeast who founded Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger– the woman who was totally racist and disgusting and championed birth control in order to “weed out the unfit.”

She was terrible. She was a champion of eugenics. She wanted to limit the type of people who could reproduce based on her own view of the world and value of human life.

Here are some of her quotes, just so you can get a taste of her hosebeastery.

Screen Shot 2015-08-02 at 8.47.00 AM

“Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”

“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).

“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”

“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 7).

“They are…human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning… human beings who never should have been born.
 Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

“Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

Speaking of human weeds, Hillary Clinton really looks up to Sanger. While accepting the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger award March 27, 2009, she said she “admired Margaret Sanger enormously, her tenacity, her vision.”

Her vision of selective breeding and weeding out the unfit (which in most cases were black people)?

Huh? See for yourself–

Emphasis added–

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. Another of my great friends, Ellen Chesler, is here, who wrote a magnificent biography of Margaret Sanger called Woman of Valor. And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

And there are a lot of lessons that we can learn from her life and from the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so bravely. One in particular, though, has always stood out for me almost a hundred years later. It’s the lesson that women’s empowerment is always, always about more than bettering the lives of individual women. It is part of a movement. It’s about economic and political progress for all women and girls. It’s about making sure that every woman and girl everywhere has the opportunities that she deserves to fulfill her potential, a potential as a mother, as a worker, as a human being.

So weird. Of course, MSM won’t make Hillary explain herself. Because she’s a Clinton and can get away with anything. Plus, who cares? She’s standing with Planned Parenthood because she’s a woman and a woman of the people darn it. Morals and truth be damned!

The Hillary Email Scandal Just Saw Its ‘Most Significant Legal Development To Date’



A federal judge has ordered Hillary Clinton and two of her top aides at the State Department, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they have turned over all official government records in their possession.

U.S. District Court judge Emmett Sullivan issued the bombshell ruling late Friday, hours after the State Department released its second batch of Clinton emails.

The ruling was issued in the matter of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department.

Sullivan issued three orders that will likely produce answers to looming questions about Clinton’s private email server arrangement. Clinton has repeatedly stated that she turned over all work-related emails she maintained on her private email account — She gave the State Department 55,000 pages of emails in December but deleted a large batch that she said were personal in nature. But Clinton has not allowed anyone to check that claim as she has so far refused to turn the server over to a third-party for inspection.

In his ruling, Sullivan ordered the State Department to “identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information.”

The State Department must also request that Clinton, Abedin and Mills “confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department.”

“If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith,” Sullivan ruled.

The State Department must also require the trio “describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.”
Sullivan is giving the government until next Friday to comply while also providing any response from Clinton or her aides.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton celebrated the ruling in a statement.

“This blockbuster ruling is the most significant legal development to date in the ongoing Clinton email scandal,” Fitton said.

“Hillary Clinton will now have to answer, under penalty of perjury, to a federal court about the separate email server she and her aides used to avoid accountability to the American people.”

Read more: