The New Axis Of Evil (Max Boot)

The New Axis Of Evil – Max Boot


On Sunday, the administration was taken by surprise for the umpteenth time when Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Syria announced an agreement, ostensibly to share intelligence about ISIS. This is part of a widening role for Russia in the region, Moscow having already established a new airbase to go along with its existing naval base in Syria. It is also a sign that Iraq is getting pulled further into the Russia-Syria-Iran axis – a new Axis of Evil – that is far more determined to keep Bashar Assad’s murderous regime in power than it is to fight ISIS. It is telling that Russia has started drone surveillance flights in Syria over areas controlled not by ISIS but by other rebel groups. In fact the more this Axis keeps Assad in place, the stronger that ISIS gets because ISIS feeds off the understandable resentment that ordinary Sunnis feel towards a regime that has been responsible for the vast majority of the killing in a conflict that has claimed over 225,000 lives.

The fact that Iraq has now formally joined this unholy alliance is a sign of how little influence the U.S. exercises anymore in Baghdad. This has been obvious for some time: Ever since the pullout of U.S. forces in 2011, Iran has become the dominant player in Iraq. Thus when the U.S. has protested to Iraq not to allow its airspace to be used for Iranian flights to resupply Assad – or more recently for Russian flights to create a new Russian military base in Syria – the government of Iraq has ignored American protestations. The Iraqis are happy to accept U.S. F-16s and other weapons and money, but they willfully snub Washington on its most basic demands and they know they will pay no price for doing so. After all, if President Obama could not even act against Assad for violating a “red line” on chemical weapons or against Iran for building a nuclear weapons program, what is he going to do against the Iraqi government for being in bed with these rogue states?

Instead of forcing Syria’s patrons to accept Assad’s removal from power, Obama now being forced to bow to the demands of Russia and Iran that Assad remain in Damascus. As the Daily Telegraph noted, “President Bashar al-Assad’s key backers declared victory on Sunday night after Western leaders who had previously backed Syrian rebels, including David Cameron, said they accepted he would stay in power, at least for the time being.”

Putin is winning, and he isn’t subtle about rubbing Obama’s nose in it. He is openly and understandably mocking the failed U.S. program to train Syrian rebels: “The initial aim was to train between 5,000 and 6,000 fighters, and then 12,000 more,” he said in an interview. “It turns out that only 60 of these fighters have been properly trained, and as few as 4 or 5 people actually carry weapons, while the rest of them have deserted with the American weapons to join ISIS.”

At least Putin is accurately reciting the facts about the U.S. failure to arm Syrian rebels. Harder to swallow is his brazen claim that the American program is not only a failure but illegal under international law. “In my view, providing military aid to illegitimate organizations contravenes the principles of international law and the U.N. Charter,” Putin said. “We back only legal government entities.”

What can you say? You can only chortle at Putin’s chutzpah. Here’s the dictator who illegally annexed Crimea and is now illegally sponsoring a breakaway movement in eastern Ukraine claiming that Russia only backs “legal government entities.” It’s hard to believe that even Putin believes what he’s saying. He just says whatever serves Russian interests in a particular moment, and – give credit where it’s due – he is succeeding in advancing his interests in the Middle East, at least as he conceives of them. As a final prize, he gets a sit-down with Obama on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, after the U.S. military already re-launched military-to-military talks with the Russian armed forces, thus effectively rewarding him for his bad behavior and breaking any Western attempts to isolate him.

While Russia appears to be purposeful in pursuing an amoral, anti-Western policy, the U.S. looks simply lost, bewildered, defeated. It’s not clear what policy the U.S. is pursuing anymore: Are we for or against Assad? For or against Iran? All we know for sure is that we are against ISIS but that we are not doing much to “degrade” and “destroy” it, as the president claimed a year ago. In fact the latest intelligence estimates suggest that it is drawing in more than 1,000 foreign fighters a month, more than replenishing its losses from U.S. air strikes.

I cannot remember a more confused or dispiriting moment in American foreign policy since the 1970s.



New Emails Prove Hitlery Committed Perjury… Among Other Crimes

Emails Between Hillary Clinton And Petraeus Discovered, Contradicting Her Sworn Statement – Big Government


Who ever knows how, or if, “the law” will apply to Democrat royalty? It sure looks as if Hillary Clinton committed perjury with her sworn statement that she turned over all of the official correspondence from her secret email server, and deleted only the yoga routines, cookie recipes, wedding reception plans, and so forth.

What the Associated Press reported on Friday afternoon sounds like the “game over” moment Democrats have been fearing since the Clinton email scandal came to a boil:

The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.

The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military’s U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.

Hillary Clinton didn’t just “claim” she turned over all of her work-related emails. She signed a sworn statement to that effect in August, under penalty of perjury, and submitted it to a federal court. It’s the same statement her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills refused to sign.

Many observers thought the proverbial Other Shoe would drop on Clinton when the FBI started recovering deleted emails from the server she thought was wiped clean, but it doesn’t sound like we’ve even gotten to that closet full of Other Shoes yet. The AP report says this previously undisclosed string of Clinton emails was “first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department’s inspector general.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby said these emails were received “in the last several days” and confirmed they “were not previously in the possession of the department.” He added that the State Department has forwarded the documents to Congress.

Also, try to contain your surprise, but Clinton and her campaign have been lying about when she started using her homebrew email server. These new emails between her and Petraeus “start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 – a week after her swearing in – she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.”

The laughable “frequently asked questions” page produced by Clinton’s campaign claims she didn’t start using the homebrew server until March 18, 2009.


Related article:

Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Off On Decision She Said She Was Not Involved In – Daily Caller

A newly uncovered document shows that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton personally signed off on a questionable employment decision she previously claimed she was not involved with.

Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin was able to work for the Clinton Foundation, Department of State and the private consulting firm Teneo Strategies as a Special Government Employee (SGE). When questioned about the arrangement, Clinton denied any involvement, but new documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that Clinton personally signed off on the position change.

Clinton signed the document March 23, 2012 to approve the change in title, according to the documents first reported by Politico.

The employment arrangement for Clinton’s deputy chief of staff raised questions about possible conflict of interest, particularly given allegations that Clinton used her position at the State Department to help the Clinton Foundation.

On top of that, the document appears to contradict statements Clinton made earlier about the arrangement.

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell at NBC that aired earlier this month, Mitchell asked Clinton about Abedin holding jobs at the Clinton Foundation, State Department, and Teneo, a firm started by a former Bill Clinton aide.

“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Clinton answered. “But everything that [Abedin] did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”

Either Clinton does not think giving personal approval via her signature was being “directly involved,” or she was dishonest with Mitchell.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been critical of Abedin’s multiple interests and the lack of transparency.

“How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?” Grassley said in a statement in late August. “How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?”



The Donald Releases New Policy Paper On Second Amendment Rights

Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again – Donald J. Trump


The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.

We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.



Republican Primary Debate Ratings Set New CNN Record

GOP Debate Ratings Appear To Set New CNN Record – CNN


Wednesday’s GOP debate appears to be the highest-rated event in CNN’s history, according to preliminary Nielsen ratings.

The prime time debate averaged a 14.7 household rating, indicating that 1 in 7 American homes with TVs tuned in.

These are NFL-level ratings – affirming that the Donald Trump fueled Republican debate slate is one of the most popular television shows of the year.

The overnight ratings estimates are subject to adjustments. But the 14.7 rating is likely to translate to 20-plus million viewers once final viewership figures come out Thursday afternoon.

Fox’s GOP debate last month received a 16.0 preliminary rating the next morning. That number later extrapolated to 24 million live viewers. (Another 1.1 million viewers watched via DVRs.)

Fox’s debate was two hours long while CNN’s was three hours.

From a campaign’s perspective, longer might have been better, because it gave candidates more time to talk and argue. It also gave CNN more time for commercial breaks.

But the length may diminish the overall ratings a bit. That’s because the ratings are an average of minute-by-minute viewership, so if viewers didn’t stay for the whole program, the average will be lower.

Hour-by-hour ratings may illuminate this viewer behavior later in the day.

But even the overnight ratings show that these GOP debates are drawing viewers who never bothered turning on a debate before.

For comparison’s sake, CNN’s most-watched presidential primary debate before Wednesday was a Democratic debate on January 31, 2008. It had an average of 8.3 million viewers.

CNN’s most-watched program program ever was a special “Larry King Live” episode in 1993. The episode featured Al Gore and Ross Perot debating NAFTA and averaged 16.8 million viewers.

Wednesday’s debate also set a live-streaming record for the network.

At the midway point of the debate, there were 921,000 concurrent users on CNN’s live stream, easily making it the most-watched web stream of a primary debate ever.



Suicidally Stupid Left-Wing Brits Choose Marxist Nutjob As Their New Labour Party Leader

Cheers! Teetotal Jeremy Corbyn Heads To The Pub For A Rousing Rendition Of The Socialist Anthem ‘The Red Flag’ After Being Elected Labour Leader In Landslide Victory With A Crushing 59.5% Of The Vote – Daily Mail


Jeremy Corbyn this afternoon headed straight to a pub with his supporters after storming to victory in the Labour leadership contest, winning almost 60 per cent of the vote in the first round.

In the most extraordinary result in modern political history, the 66-year-old Marxist throwback who has never run anything in his life will now take charge of the party of Keir Hardie, Clement Atlee and Tony Blair.

There were cheers at the QEII Conference Centre in central London as it was confirmed that the unassuming Islington MP had defied all expectations – including his own – to become leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.

After thanking the unions, attacking the media, and accusing the Conservatives of ‘social cleansing’, Mr Corbyn took his supporters to the Sanctuary pub in Westminster for a victory drink where they hailed former socialist firebrand Tony Benn and sang the socialist Red Flag anthem.

Earlier, supporters wept and punched the air, chanting ‘Jez we did, Jez we did’, after it emerged Mr Corbyn had taken 59.5 per cent of the vote – 251,417 of the 422,664 votes cast – against 19 per cent for Andy Burnham, 17 per cent for Yvette Cooper and just 4.5 per cent for Liz Kendall.

But winning could be the easy part: While he was still addressing the leadership conference, the first resignations from the frontbench emerged as his critics warned he would be a ‘f***ing disaster’.

Following Mr Corbyn’s stunning victory, the new Labour leader sneaked out of the special conference building opposite Westminster Abbey to go to the pub. Jubilant supporters sang The Red Flag word perfect as bemused tourists, including one American family, looked on.

He was joined by campaign manager John McDonnell and hard-left Unite general secretary Len McCluskey. Mr McDonnell said it was the ‘‎greatest victory for the left in possibly decades’. ‘I just wish Tony Benn had been here,’ he said.

He said it was an end to the ‘dark years’ where there had been ‘no discussion of socialism’, but through which Mr Corbyn had ‘kept the flame alive’.

When the result was announced, ‘the earth moved’. ‘Another world is possible,’ Mr McDonnell added. ‎’We want to bring this government down. We want to install in Number 10 one of the best socialists.’

Standing up, Mr Corbyn apologised to an American family whose pub lunch his supporters were interrupting – causing the crowd to chant ‘USA, USA.’

Mr Corbyn said liberties had not been ‘handed down by the rich and powerful and royalty’ but had come thanks to the efforts of ‘ordinary people’.

After 32 years as a backbench MP, during which he has voted against Labour more than 500 times, Mr Corbyn must now try to piece together a frontbench team and demand loyalty from the parliamentary party.

He will face big tests in the coming days and weeks on Tory plans to curb unions, cut benefits and join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Fallon warned Labour was now a ‘serious risk to national security’.

In a rambling but uncompromising victory speech, Mr Corbyn repeatedly attacked the Tories but gave little sign he is willing to tone down his extreme socialist views to win broad public support.

To cheers from his supports, Mr Corbyn said: ‘The Tories have used the economic crisis of 2008 to impose a terrible burden on the poorest people in this country.

‘Those that have seen their wages frozen or cut, those that can’t afford to even to sustain themselves properly, those that rely on foodbanks to get by. It is not right, it’s not necessary and it’s got to change.’

Offering his backing to Sadiq Khan, Labour’s candidate for the London Mayoral elections, warning: ‘I am fed up with the social cleansing of London by this Tory government and its policies.’

Four months after Britain rejected Mr Miliband for being too left-wing and not looking like a Prime Minister, Labour is now led by the most radical leader of a mainstream party the country has ever seen.

Punters were quick to place bets against Corbyn surviving as leader until the next general election, with thousands of pounds rushing in to bookmakers within an hour of his victory.

One Paddy Power customer put £2,000 on the new leader being deposed by 2020 at odds of 5/2, with a number of other gamblers placing bids of £100 against Corbyn lasting that long.

But privately senior Labour MPs branded the result a ‘f***ing disaster’ and warned he would not survive a year.

Another MP said it was ‘absolutely disastrous’ for the party. He said Mr Corbyn would be ‘vicious’ and move to deselect rebel MPs by flooding the party with the new supporters.

A senior backbencher added: ‘I will give him 12 months. I can’t see him lasting any longer than that.’

David Blunkett, meanwhile, said he was ‘deeply fearful’ of the direction Mr Corbyn might take the party, and said there was a danger that Labour will be in ‘perpetual opposition’ unless he dramatically changes tack.

Warning of the dangers of a party split, he urged New Labour supporters not to desert the party, saying: ‘Do not allow the people who lost us elections from 1983 onwards to be the ones who run the show.’

The former Home Secretary said someone in the conference hall had shouted to him: ‘Corbyn in, Blairites out’.

‘If that is the attitude, we’re on a road to nowhere,’ he said. ‘The message has to be clear – we need consensus, we need the enthusiasm, but above all we need policies that mean something and are relevant to people out there.’

He added: ‘I’m deeply fearful of the direction in which we might go. All of us will be giving Jeremy our best wishes in the weeks and months ahead.

Many senior Labour MPs will quick to refuse to serve under him as party staffers are braced for a ‘purge’ of non-Corbyn supporters from the Brewer’s Green headquarters.

Ahead of the announcement, one staffer told MailOnline: ‘The mood is not great. I’m getting made redundant on Monday. It’s the Corbyn purge isn’t it.’

Defeated leadership contender Yvette Cooper immediately announced that she would quit as shadow home secretary and return to the backbenches.

Shadow public health minister Liz Kendall, who secured just 4.5 per cent of the vote in the contest, is also expected to quit.

Shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt and shadow health minister Jamie Reed were also quick to confirm they would refuse to play any part in the new leadership team.

Mr Hunt said: ‘It is important to be honest about it – I have substantial political differences with Jeremy’.

Asked if he thought Mr Corbyn would find sufficient numbers of MPs willing to be part of his front bench, he said: ‘That’s for his team to discover. I imagine they are working on that.’

Mr Reed – whose Copeland constituency includes the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site – condemned Mr Corbyn’s anti-nuclear policies as ‘poorly informed and fundamentally wrong’.

And Mr Reed warned: ‘No amount of well-meaning protest will protect the NHS, drive up standards, recruit more medical professionals or improve the accessibility of world-class healthcare to the British people. Only an elected Labour government will do this.’

Emma Reynolds, who has been an outspoken critic of Mr Corbyn’s wavering support for the EU, quit as shadow communities secretary. Writing on Twitter she said: ‘Congratulations to Jeremy – he needs to space to build his own team. I will serve our party and my constituents from backbenches.’

Others expected to refuse to serve in his team are current shadow chancellor Chris Leslie, shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker, shadow transport secretary Michael Dugher, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Shabana Mahmood, shadow international development secretary Mary Creagh and shadow Cabinet Office minister Lucy Powell.

During the campaign, Ms Cooper and Ms Kendall both refused to work with Mr Corbyn team, while Mr Burnham insisted the party should always come first and was prepare to work with anyone.

However, shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna – a senior centrist who withdrew from the contest after a matter of days – issued a plea for the party to ‘come together’ behind its new leader.

In a post on Facebook, Mr Umunna said: ‘Now the contest is over, we must respect the result, come together and focus on providing the most credible and effective opposition to the Tories.’

Mr Corbyn is expected to promote Angela Eagle and Owen Smith to more high profile roles, and his close friend and leftwing firebrand John McDonnell is in line for a top job.

Corbyn supporter Clive Lewis, who entered Parliament as MP for Norwich South in May, said: ‘One of the things that Jeremy is about is about opening up the party, being more inclusive. Rather than the top-down ‘Here is the policy’, it’s going to be from the bottom up and everyone will have an input into it.’

At the height of Corbynmania the party was deluged with members, swelled by new 113,000 registered supporters who paid just £3 to get a vote, along with an extra 148,182 affiliated supporters and 105,973 full members who have signed up since May.

It led to allegations of ‘entryism’ by extreme left-wingers and Trotskyites seeking to hijack the contest in favour of Mr Corbyn. There were also claims that many people did not receive their ballot papers in time to vote, leading to calls for the result to be delayed for three days.

But in his speech, Mr Corbyn said: ‘During these amazing three months, our party has changed. We have grown enormously, because of the hopes of so many ordinary people for a different Britain, a better Britain, a more equal Britain, a more decent Britain.

‘They are fed up with the inequality, the injustice, the unnecessary poverty. All those issues have brought people in in a spirit of hope and optimism.

‘I say to the new members of the party, or those who have joined as registered or affiliated supporters – welcome. Welcome to our party, welcome to our movement. Can I say to those returning to the party who were in it before and felt disillusioned and went away. Welcome back, welcome back to your party, welcome home.’

He said his campaign had given the lie to claims that young Britons are apathetic about politics, showing instead that they are ‘a very political generation that were turned off by the way in which politics was being conducted’. He said: ‘We have to and must change that.’

Mr Corbyn said: ‘The fightback now of our party gathers speed and gathers pace.’

Iain McNicol, Labour’s general secretary, earlier insisted that the party had ‘weeded out’ people who had tried to ‘subvert our democracy’.

Addressing the leadership conference, He added: ‘We have run a free and fair election.’

Mr McNicol added: ‘In the leader we place our trust and on their shoulders they carry the hopes of millions in Britain and beyond our borders. It is not to be taken lightly or without a due sense of responsibility.

‘Friends, this Labour Party is bigger than any of us.’

In a thinly-veiled swipe at Mr Corbyn, he warned the new leader: ‘Our leaders have come and gone through the decades.’

He also aimed a dig at the thousands of £3 supporters behind Mr Corbyn’s surge. He said: ‘I look forward to seeing them on the doorstep.’ Mr McNichol said he wanted them to do more than ‘click a button’ to vote in the leadership contest.

Economist Richard Murphy, whose ‘people’s quantitative easing’ plan has been adopted by Corbyn, told the BBC: ‘I’m going to be very pleased that ideas I’ve promoted for a long time are now, I guess, going to be part of Labour Party policy, and I will be delighted about that.’

Mr Corbyn only scraped on to the ballot paper after gaining the nominations of Labour MPs who did not want him to win and was installed with odds of 200/1.

Andy Burnham, the northern shadow health secretary who had shifted to the left, was seen as the frontrunner while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper presented the strongest threat from the centre.

After strong Blairite candidates including Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt pulled out of the race, it was left to Liz Kendall to fly the flag for moderates in the party – with little success.

Union barons who backed Mr Corbyn over his rivals could not contain their delight at his victory.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of the UK’s biggest union Unite, said: ‘Voters can now look at Labour and see, unquestionably, that it stands for fairness, justice, peace and strong communities. It is the party of hope, ready to take on a Government hell-bent on making life worse for ordinary people.

‘The task now for all of us who support Labour is to back the leadership team, to unite, to turn to face the Tories and hold them to account. It is what the voters expect, it is the way back to power and it is the duty of those at all levels of the party to deliver.’

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis said: ‘Today people for the first time in a decade are hearing a message of hope. ‘A clarion call that there is another way, an alternative message that it doesn’t need to be like this.

‘People see in Jeremy a politician who has created a wave, a vision of a better, kinder world that works for everyone, not just a self-serving few‎. ‘‎Jeremy has ignited a spark of hope, a spark that had been dampened for decades. This is a chance to claim back the heart and the soul of the party and make it our Labour Party once more‎.’

Outgoing acting leader Harriet Harman today issued a plea for unity, urging people across the party to take roles on the frontbench.

She told The Times: ‘You’ve got a commitment to the party whoever is the leader.

‘I’ve served under Michael Foot to Tony Blair, my first boss was Michael Meacher.

‘The point is, it’s a broad team and you don’t decide you’ve got abilities and energy and commitment by virtue of who the leader is.’

Former mayor of London Ken Livingstone – tipped for a job under a Corbyn leadership – insisted he a is a ‘consensual’ politician who wants to have proper discussions about the direction of the party on key issues.

‘It will work if Jeremy starts to connect with people,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘He is nice and that connects with people. Don’t forget, a big factor in John Major’s surprise win in 92 was the fact that people thought John Major was nice.’

The ex-MP said he has ‘never seen him lose his temper or even be rude to anyone’.

‘And he has an economic strategy to modernise our economy, create a better range of jobs and build homes to rent.’

Shadow Scotland secretary Ian Murray told BBC News: ‘Whoever is crowned winner, we will unite behind him. That’s what the Labour Party and the Labour movement does.’

Mr Murray said that the almost 600,000 people signed up to vote in the election amounted to around one in 100 of the entire UK population, adding: ‘The Labour Party should be very proud of the way it’s been able to engage communities in this and the number of people who’ve turned out to vote and registered to vote.’

Yesterday the Labour party announced Sadiq Khan, the son of a bus driver and former human rights lawyer, would be the party’s candidate in the London Mayoral election.

His victory over Tessa Jowell, a Cabinet minister under Tony Blair, was seen as further proof of the party’s lurch to the left.

Mr Khan was one of the MPs responsible for securing Mr Corbyn a place on the ballot paper only to ensure a wider debate, despite backing actually Mr Burnham as leader.

As well as appointing a new frontbench, the new leader will have to prepare to appear on BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show tomorrow morning and the first confrontation with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

The Conservatives have timed key votes on controversial anti-strike laws for this week to pile pressure on Labour’s links to the unions.

Having resisted the temptation to comment on the contest for months, the Tories are preparing to take the gloves off.

Mr Cameron yesterday warned victory for Mr Corbyn would be bad for the country as it would break a consensus between the main parties on issues such as nationalisation, nuclear weapons, taxation and union laws

‘The country is stronger when you have shared objectives rather than when you’ve got someone who wants to take us back to the days of Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill,’ he said.

The contest showed that Labour had ‘completely vacated the intellectual playing field and no longer, in my view, represents working people’, he said.



Leftist Transparency Update: State Department’s New Email Czar Donated To Hitlery’s Presidential Campaign

State Department’s New Email Czar Is A Hillary Clinton Donor – Daily Caller


The career bureaucrat who the State Department tapped on Tuesday to improve transparency at the agency as it deals with the Hillary Clinton email scandal recently donated the maximum amount allowed under federal law to the Democrat’s presidential campaign.

Janice Jacobs will work to improve the State Department’s processing of Freedom of Information Act requests and overhaul its record-keeping practices, the agency announced.

But Federal Election Commission records show that she donated $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign on June 22.


Along with Clinton, the State Department has come under fire for the former secretary of state’s email arrangement. The agency has been faulted for allowing Clinton and some of her aides to use the off-the-books email arrangement, which allowed her to flout FOIA requests and other inquiries.

Jacobs was appointed to former President George W. Bush to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau from April 2006 to June 2007. She served as assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs from June 2008 to April 2014.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday that Jacobs will report directly to Sec. of State John Kerry and to Heather Higgenbottom, the deputy secretary for management.



Researchers Discover New ‘Super-Henge’ In England

Discovery Of New ‘Super-Henge’ Has Researchers Saying Everything About Stonehenge Will ‘Need To Be Re-Written’ – The Blaze

Stonehenge might be the most well-known of ancient standing stone monuments, but researchers announced Monday that they discovered what they believe to have been a larger “super-henge.”

Researchers with the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project made the discovery of up to 100 stones about three feet below ground using remote sensing technologies. The monument was found near the Durrington Walls, which is about two miles from Stonehenge.


Some of the stones are thought to have stood 15 feet tall before they were toppled and formed a circumference of nearly a mile. Researcher Vince Gaffney said the immense scale of the 4,500-year-old monument is unique.


“This discovery of a major new stone monument, which has been preserved to a remarkable extent, has significant implications for our understanding of Stonehenge and its landscape setting,” the University of Bradford professor said. “Not only does this new evidence demonstrate a completely unexpected phase of monumental architecture at one of the greatest ceremonial sites in prehistoric Europe, the new stone row could well be contemporary with the famous Stonehenge sarsen circle or even earlier.”


Paul Garwood, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham and the principal prehistorian on the project, said this discovery changes researchers’ understanding of Stonehenge and its surroundings.

“Everything written previously about the Stonehenge landscape and the ancient monuments within it will need to be re-written,” he added.


No excavation was needed during the investigation and none of the stones have been uncovered and removed.

These findings were announced at the British Science Festival.



Automats To Make A Comeback In San Francisco Thanks To New $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

$15 An Hour Waiters In San Francisco, Meet Your Electronic Replacements! – Soopermexican

Nothing makes me happier than to see liberals having to have their own policies shoved back in their soy-eating, clove-smoking, soul-patch-wearing smug faces. And that’s exactly what is happening in liberal San Francisco where a minimum wage hike first closed down a bunch of restaurants, and is now encouraging an innovation in self-automated restaurants!

Watch below:


Yes!! iPads!! I don’t see them out front carrying their “fight for $15″ signs! LOL!

More on the Daily Signal:

Want to know what the future of the restaurant industry looks like? It could come in the form of a San Francisco fast food restaurant named Eatsa.

Eatsa is a quinoa (a South American grain dish) eatery that is preparing to automate most of its workforce.

The Ferenstein Wire got a sneak peak at the restaurant, which will be debuting a new healthy fast food prototype in downtown San Francisco. The restaurant promises cheap, healthy food and has customizable menus with an automated experience.

(It’s difficult to describe all the futuristic design elements that go into the delivery process. Eatsa is science fiction in real life.)

Instead of a front counter, customers choose their bowls at a tablet kiosk. Then food pops up in one of a series of translucent cubbyholes a few minutes later.

For now, little of the restaurant is actually automated, but the owners plan to replace a good portion of their cooking and serving workforce with robots in the next year of two.

So Eatsa will function as a test for the feasibility of automated restaurants.

Currently, Eatsa uses a line of chefs working diligently behind the scenes, but their goal is for patrons to be unaware if humans or robots are serving them.

Suck on THAT, minimum wage liberals!! Can’t enjoy the $15 minimum wage when you’re in the unemployment line, right? LOL!!



New Monmouth Poll Shows Ben Carson Tied With The Donald In Iowa

Carson Ties Trump At The Top In Iowa Poll – Politico


Ben Carson and Donald Trump are tied at the top of the Republican field in a new survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers with 23 percent each, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

The good news continues for the retired neurosurgeon with his favorability ratings, as 81 percent said they view him favorably, compared to just 6 percent who do not. And Trump’s favorability went up as well, at 52 percent to 33 percent, up from 47 percent and 35 percent last month.

Carson has steadily gained support over the summer despite keeping a relatively low profile, especially compared to Trump. But Carson, who has never held political office, has similarly tapped into a strong anti-Washington sentiment among voters.

In the poll released Monday, the two non-establishment candidates are followed by another, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina with 10 percent. Following Fiorina are Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 9 percent, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 7 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 5 percent, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 4 percent, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 3 percent. No other candidates registered more than 2 percent, including the last two winners of the caucus – former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (both at 2 percent).

The latest survey showed Carson making inroads on key voting blocs that Trump has been winning in recent polls. Women preferred Carson at 30 percent to 19 percent, while Trump did better with men voters, at 27 percent to 17 percent.

Among those identifying with the tea party, 27 percent pledged their support for Trump, compared to 22 percent for Carson, with Cruz behind with 16 percent. But Carson leads among non-tea-party-affiliated Republicans, taking 25 percent to Trump’s 19 percent.

Voters who described themselves as very or somewhat conservative were split between the top two, while moderate and liberals went for Trump at 26 percent, Fiorina at 18 percent and Carson at 17 percent.

Carson leads among Evangelical voters, earning 29 percent to Trump’s 23 percent, while non-Evangelicals backed Trump with 24 percent, followed by Carson at 18 percent and Fiorina at 13 percent.

Nearly a third of likely caucusgoers – 66 percent – said that the next president needs to be someone who can bring experience from outside of Washington, compared to 23 percent who indicated a preference toward candidates with government experience.

The survey was conducted Aug. 27-30, polling 405 likely caucus participants with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.



*VIDEO* The Donald Absolutely Crushes Jeb With New Campaign Ad

H/T Weasel Zippers



Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group

Shattering New Evidence Reveals Obama Spent $500M To Train Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners With Al-Qaeda Group – Walid Shoebat

Obama’s $500 million plan to combat Bashar Al-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria created an elite force called “Regiment-30”. While Fox News revealed the program only gained 54 applicants, new evidence reveals that there were “thousands of outside forces” who joined Regiment-30, who are now also joining Al-Nusra terror front in Syria. The U.S-appointed Regiment-30’s main leader, as ironclad evidence reveals, is one code-named Abu Iskandar and he has now sent out an official appeal, including airing an explosive T.V interview, confirming they joined the notorious terrorist Al-Nusra Front which carried out massacres against Christians in Adra and Maaloula in Syria. Here is how the story goes:

As soon as the U.S-backed Regiment-30 was dispatched, their commander Nadim Al Hassan and his deputy Farhan Al Jassem, along with 18 others (this would be third of the U.S. trained regiment), were “abducted” and re-educated by the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. Al-Nusra was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization and are known for massacring Christians.

The Pentagon denied the claim of the abduction of a third of this U.S.-appointed regiment. This complete lie by the Pentagon was not only flatly refuted by Reuters [1], but one official document, including an interview with the main leader of the U.S.-backed Regimen-30, First Lieutenant Abu Iskandar, reveals receiving the best of training and declares his appeal to Al-Nusra, reminding the group of its unity agreement with Al-Nusra to join forces:


The pertinent part of the plea states:

“The leadership in Regiment-30 is calling upon (and for the second time) our brothers in Al-Nusra to stop these exercises [abducting Regiment 30 operatives] and stop the bloodshed and to keep our unity [agreement] intact“.


This plea to keep a “previous unity agreement”, cemented between Regiment-30 and Al-Nusra, was also exposed from sources coming directly from the Middle East. Jenan Moussa, an Arab journalist, who was able to penetrate the headquarters of the top ranking official in the U.S. appointed Regiment-30, Lieutenant commander Abu Iskandar, reveals an amazing tale showing how this U.S. appointed team was again begging Al-Nusra terror front to keep its previous arrangements and promises in preserving the unity coalition agreement that the two had made. The clear evidence from the U.S. appointed commander spilling the beans on everything, his intentions to only use the U.S. and his previous agreement to join forces with Al-Nusra and more can be watched here. translated most of the interview showing the pertinent lines.


Jenan first introduces the scene by stating:

”…they were showing me all the weapons provided by the U.S…. it is the first time that a journalist was able to get to the headquarters [of Regiment-30] which is located in Northern Aleppo”.

Abu Iskandar speaks of when Al-Nusra had attacked and abducted ten from Regiment-30 operatives on July 12, 2015 adding that: (see 1:50)

“we had arranged previously with Al-Nusra and agreed never to combat each other and we would never give any information to the allies about Al-Nusra. We are not the arm of the U.S. in Syria and we are not against Al-Nusra Front, the opposite is the truth, they [Al-Nusra] are our brothers and we personally know them… they might accuse us of being agents of the West but we are agents for our country… we are both the same sons and both sides Al-Nusra and ours who were killed are [Jihadi] martyrs…”

Jenan then asks about the detail for the collaboration and arrangements between Regiment-30 and the terrorist group Al-Nusra Front (begin at 4:17). Abu Iskandar replies:

“We are forced to make arrangements with all other fighting groups [including Al-Nusra] and we say that before we came here a week ago that we met with Al-Nusra, and four months ago we met Al-Nusra, which in turn expressed admiration for the [U.S.-led Regiment 30] program. In fact they welcomed us… our arrangements with Al-Nusra is to collaborate militarily. We are not only 54, we are thousands… We were then shocked why they kidnapped Nadim, our leader… we are not 54, we are thousands, we have ground troops on land helping us.”

The “thousands” revealed by Abu Iskandar are “defensive forces” added in by the leadership of Regiment-30. “Al-Nusra released four already” says Abu Iskandar, emphasizing that the broken unity between Al-Nusra and Regiment-30 was simply a skirmish and that both sides mended their differences.

Jenan then asks to reveal what type of weaponry Regiment-30 is using, adding that “information has been revealed that some of your weapons [provided by the allies] are now in the hands of Al-Nusra. What did they [U.S] provide you?” Abu Iskandar denied that any weapons fell in the hands of Al-Nusra and that Al-Nusra released all whom they kidnapped.

Jenan then asks (at 8:11) “Don’t you think that the Americans just dumped you here to die?” Abu Iskandar smiles, and Jenan adds “what can 54 do against all these huge numbers of the other extremist sides, especially that you are agents of the U.S. you have been already honed in on.”

Abu Iskandar replies (see 8:30):

“The Americans, you in the media keep talking about them, the Americans are only part of this alliance. They did give us aid and lots of services, but the bigger enemy [besides the U.S.] is Bashar who is defunct politically”.

Al-Nusra is known to behead Christians.


[1] Patrick Poole, PJMedia reported “From the Reuters report: The al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has abducted the leader of a U.S.-backed rebel group in north Syria, opposition sources and a monitoring group said, in a blow to Washington’s efforts to train and equip fighters to combat Islamic State. A statement issued in the name of the group, “Division 30″, accused the Nusra Front of abducting Nadim al-Hassan and a number of his companions in a rural area north of Aleppo. It urged Nusra to release them. A Syrian activist and a second opposition source said most of the 54 fighters who have so far completed a U.S.-led train and equip programmed in neighboring Turkey were from Division 30. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group that reports on the war, said the men were abducted while returning from a meeting in Azaz, north of Aleppo, to coordinate efforts with other factions. The opposition source said they were abducted on Tuesday night. The Telegraph is also reporting: Al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists kidnapped the commanders of a US-trained rebel faction operating in northern Syria on Wednesday, sources said, in another blow for the Pentagon’s train-and-equip program for Syrian rebels. A statement issued Wednesday by the Division 30 Infantry group accused the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, of taking the Division’s commander, Colonel Nadim Al-Hassan, and his companions in the northern countryside of Aleppo province. “[The Division] demands that the brothers in the Nusra Front release the colonel… and his companions with the utmost speed so as to preserve the blood of the Muslims and… so as not to weaken the frontlines with side disputes between the brothers of one side,” said the statement, which was released on Division 30′s official page on social media.



*VIDEO* Mark Levin Discusses His New Book ‘Plunder And Deceit’ At The Reagan Library (8/16/15)

Click HERE to visit the official website of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

Click HERE to purchase Mr. Levin’s new book Plunder And Deceit



New Poll Spells Trouble For Establishment RINO Leaders Mitch McConnell And John Boehner

New Poll Spells Trouble For Establishment RINO Leaders – Politistick


A new poll from Gallup poll indicates that establishment RINO leaders, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are facing a growing problem of bipartisan discontent among Americans, showing that their “go along to get along” attitude with the dictatorial Obama regime and radical leftist Democrats is backfiring more than the squishy and unprincipled duo could have ever imagined.

The new poll, conducted August 5-9, shows that only 23% of Americans view John Boehner favorably, a new all-time low for him. Among Republicans, still an overwhelming number disapprove of Boehner, known for his uncontrollable crying outbursts, with only 37% having a favorable view.

Backroom dealing, back-biting RINO Mitch McConnell, who is so charismatic that nearly four in 10 Americans (37%) have never heard of him, didn’t fair much differently.

McConnell, who became the Senate leader in January following a string of campaign promises that have already been broken, has only a 22% approval rating among Americans, with only 34% of Republicans finding McConnell favorable.

Both Boehner and McConnell have come under fire for supporting the funding of Obamacare, Planned Butcherhood, Obama’s illegal amnesty, as well as failing to fight to stop granting Obama fast-track trade authority.

Late July, conservative Congressman Mark Meadows from North Carolina launched a new resolution on the House floor, filing a historic motion requesting that establishment RINO Speaker of the House John Boehner vacate his position as speaker.

The blistering resolution stings Boehner with charges of causing the power of the legislative branch to shrink under his reign, as well as punishing members who vote in a way contrary to what Boehner desires.

McConnell’s decline falls on the heels of 2016 presidential candidate, principled constitutional conservative fighter Ted Cruz’s historic July takedown of the conniving RINO on the Senate floor for various lies (yes, he actually used the unpopular word that’s rarely used in D.C., “LIED”) McConnell has told to his fellow Republicans, the American people and the media in order to conceal his dirty dealings that support the Obama regime and big government.

To grasp the significance of Boehner and McConnell’s poor showing, their favorability ratings are even worse than hated California Communist Nancy Pelosi’s were while she was Speaker of the House prior to Boehner assuming the helm in 2010. In October of 2010, Gallup points out that Pelosi was viewed favorably by 26% of Americans, a higher score than either Boehner or McConnell. The weak leaders are also nipping at the heels of highly unpopular leftist and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who in October of last year was viewed favorably by only 21% of Americans.

Cruz’s powerful smackdown of establishment elitist McConnell last month included pointing out that the results in the Senate under McConnell’s leadership have not been one iota different than if Democrat Harry Reid were still in charge:

“There is a profound disappointment among the American people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting leaders who don’t do anything they promised.

The American people were told ‘if only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different.’

Well, in 2010 the American people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a Republican majority in the House — and very little changed. Then the American people were told, ‘you know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.’

Well, in 2014 the American people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. We’ve had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about six months.

What has that majority done?

First thing we did, in December, is we came back and passed a $1 trillion ‘cromnibus’ plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare, voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. And then leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta lynch as Attorney General.

Madam President, which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same — the same priorities.

“It’s not that this majority doesn’t get things done. It does get things done, but it listens to one and only one voice,” Cruz said on the Senate Floor during his epic speech. “That is the voice of the Washington Cartel, of the lobbyists on K Street, of the big money and big corporations,” he asserted.



New Emails Provide Smoking-Gun Evidence Of The Coordinated Targeting Of Conservatives And Cover-Up By Obama IRS

Smoking Gun: New Emails Show Coordinated Targeting Of Conservative Groups And Cover-Up By Obama IRS – Dateway Pundit


The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

* Hundreds of conservative groups
* At least 5 pro-Israel groups
* Constitutional groups
* Groups that criticized Obama administration
* At least two pro-life groups
* An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
* A 180 year-old Baptist paper
* A Texas voting-rights group
* A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
* Conservative activists and businesses
* At least one conservative Hispanic group
* IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
* 10% of Tea Party donors were audited by the IRS
* And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

IRS Commissioner John Koskinentestified before the House Oversight and Government Reform on March 26, 2014. Koskinen told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) during the hearing that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived and it would take a long time to retrieve them.

In June 2014 the IRS told Congress Lois Lerner’s emails were lost in a computer crash.

In April the Inspector General notified the Senate Finance Committee that they have recovered thousands of Lois Lerner emails.

In June 2015 the Obama IRS erased 422 computer backup tapes related to the Tea Party scandal.

Earlier this month it was reported the Obama IRS plotted how they could prosecute conservative activist groups.

Now there’s a Smoking Gun –

Newly discovered emails prove the Obama IRS was targeting conservative groups and harassing individuals.

There is evidence of a cover-up and investigators have “Smoking Gun” proof.

The Real Story reported:


Judicial Watch reported:

Judicial Watch released 906 pages of newly recovered Lois Lerner emails from the IRS that are believed to recently have been recovered by the IRS’ internal watchdog – the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The IRS released the emails under a court order by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. The new documents show that Lois Lerner and other top officials in the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

At July 1, 2015, status conference, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lois Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lois Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lois Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Judge Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing for tomorrow (July 29) shortly after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.

The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.



What, A New Kind Of Seaweed That Tastes Like Bacon And Is Better For You Than Kale? No Freakin’ Way!

Stop Everything: There’s A New Seaweed That Tastes Like Bacon And Is Better For You Than Kale – Time

The world’s most perfect food may have just arrived!



Researchers from Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center say they’ve created and patented a new type of seaweed that has the potential to be sold commercially as the next big superfood.

The reason? It tastes just like bacon, they claim.

The bizarre but tasty creation is actually a new strain of red marine algae called dulse that is packed full of minerals and protein and looks like red lettuce.

Dulse normally grows in the wild along the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines and is harvested, dried and sold as a cooking ingredient or nutritional supplement.

“Dulse is a superfood, with twice the nutritional value of kale,” said Chuck Toombs, a faculty member in OSU’s College of Business and a member of the team working to develop the product into a foodstuff. “And OSU had developed this variety that can be farmed, with the potential for a new industry for Oregon.”

The team began researching ways of farming the new strain of dulse to feed abalone, but they quickly realized its potential to do well in the human-food market.

“There hasn’t been a lot of interest in using it in a fresh form. But this stuff is pretty amazing,” said chief researcher Chris Langdon. “When you fry it, which I have done, it tastes like bacon, not seaweed. And it’s a pretty strong bacon flavor.”

They’ve received a grant from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to explore dulse as a “special crop” and are working with the university’s Food Innovation Center in Portland and several chefs to find out ways dulse could be used as a main ingredient.

Though there is currently no commercial operation that grows dulse for human consumption in the U.S., the team is confident the seaweed superfood could make it big. If it really does taste like bacon, that would be no surprise at all.



New Wisconsin Budget Repeals University Tenure

Walker Wins: New Budget Will Repeal University Tenure – Daily Caller


Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is poised to win a huge victory on education as the state legislature passed a budget that repeals state tenure guarantees while also slashing the budget of the University of Wisconsin.

The victory was enunciated by the acquiescence of the university, which recognized its defeat by passing a spending plan that implements Walker’s cuts. All that remains is for Walker to consummate his victory by affixing his signature to the budget.

The two-year, $73 billion budget approved Thursday makes a host of changes Walker has sought in the realm of education. Wisconsin’s school voucher program is expanded, and $250 million in funding is taken from the University of Wisconsin. That’s down from the $300 million cut Walker originally sought, but still a substantial haircut.

Bowing to the fait accompli, later on Thursday the University of Wisconsin approved its own budget, implementing the big cuts expected of it. About 400 positions will be laid off or will go unfilled, and the university’s budgets no money for pay hikes. The school’s situation is made tougher because the legislature has also frozen in-state tuition.

While academics have accused Walker of sabotaging the school’s competitiveness, Walker has refused to yield, arguing that professors should be teaching more classes.

Walker’s push to slash spending at U-Wisconsin has received the most press, but his push to alter tenure may have the biggest long-term implications. Until now, tenure for professors at the University of Wisconsin has been protected by statute (Wisconsin is the only state with such a law). Now, that protection has been eliminated, leaving it up to the school’s board of regents to decide whether professors have tenure.

Not only that, but tenure itself has been weakened so that it doesn’t offer the protections it once did. Previously, only “financial exigency” (an urgent budget shortfall) could justify the firing of a tenured professor. Now, tenured professors may also be laid off whenever it is “deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.”

The budget also rolls back the principle of “shared governance,” in which faculty are given heavy leeway to control the governance of their own departments. Instead, faculty are assigned a primary advisory role for helping the chancellor.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank sent a letter to Walker Friday begging him to veto the changes, saying they would drive away current and prospective faculty.

“Over its 165-year history, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has built an international reputation for the highest quality research and teaching,” said Blank. “For us to attract and retain the best faculty in the global higher education marketplace, it is imperative that UW-Madison not be seen as offering a less attractive package than can be found at our peer institutions.”

But given that rolling back tenure is Walker’s idea in the first place, a veto at the eleventh hour is a very unlikely concession.

Angry faculty have directed a great deal of venom toward Blank and the UW board of regents, accusing them of letting the tenure provisions pass by failing to make a loud protest.

Walker is expected to sign the budget by Monday, when he is scheduled to officially announce his presidential campaign.



New Conservative Crowdfunding Website Promises It Won’t Cave To PC-Nazis

Liberal Crowdfunding Platforms Are About To Get Competition From A New Player That Promises It Won’t Cave To The PC Crowd – Liberty News


A new crowdfunding player has emerged in response to growing concern about mainstream crowdfunding platforms finding loopholes in their terms of use to discriminate against Christians and conservatives. The new website, located at, takes direct aim at the mainstream websites in one of its blog posts.

Via the blog.

Unfortunately, instead of standing up to the mobs, the mainstream platforms cower and side with them while turning their backs on thousands if not hundreds of thousands of customers. All for the simple mindset that mainstream platforms would rather discriminate against their own customers over being accused of something they aren’t guilty of by a noisy minority.

This is not only ridiculous, it’s disingenuous, weak and anti-American in principle.

Today RallyBuilder quietly launched the Beta version of its platform and is working with a handful of project creators that it will unveil early next week. RallyBuilder says they will also be hosting a major crowdfunding campaign next week on behalf of a Christian small business that was banned from GoFundMe several weeks ago.

According to RallyBuilder the new platform will have every feature available on any of the mainstream crowdfunding websites. The service will enable project creators to rally peers and others around their products, business ideas, causes and fundraising campaigns, and will have the added benefit of ensuring project creators are not bullied off the site by politically correct special interest groups.

“The crowdfunding market is due for an overhaul,” said Eric Odom, architect of the RallyBuilder platform. “Crowdfunding is a powerful tool that can be abused by people who want to silence others. We saw a void in the crowdfunding space and we’re filling it. Our pledge to our users includes the promise that we won’t cave to the PC crowd.”

RallyBuilder is fully functional and open for business, but says it won’t go public with a full version of its website until late May or early June. A quick visit to the website reveals that it already accepts new accounts and new users can create projects to immediately begin raising funds.



RINO Assclown Panders To Mexicans In New Cinco De Mayo Video



President Asshat Humiliated As Allies Rush To Join China’s New Bank

Diplomatic Disaster: Obama Humiliated By Allies’ Rush To Join China’s New Bank – Washington Times


The battle of wills between Beijing and Washington over a China-sponsored development bank for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

In what one analyst dubbed a “diplomatic disaster” for the U.S., Britain became the first major European ally to sign on as a founding member of the Shanghai-based investment bank, joined quickly by France, Germany and Italy, which dismissed public and private warnings from the U.S. about the bank’s potential impact on global lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.

Luxembourg, a major global financial center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.

The reason for the stampede is clear: China’s market and its huge hoard of cash to invest override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.

“Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake,” Thomas Koenig, a policy analyst with the European Union Chamber of Commerce, told the German broadcast service Deutsche Welle.

With 32 countries on board and more expected in the coming days, Chinese state media have begun to gloat about the failure of the Obama administration to rally even its closest allies and trading partners to shun the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.

“Welcome Germany! Welcome France! Welcome Italy!” the official Chinese Xinhua News Agency wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.

“Despite a petulant and cynical Washington,” more and more major countries are joining, the commentary noted. “Holding sour grapes over the AIIB makes America look isolated and hypocritical.”

Chinese officials noted Wednesday that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be on the agenda for the summit of top Chinese, Japanese and South Korean diplomats Saturday in Seoul. Chinese Deputy Finance Minister Shi Yaobin told reporters in Beijing that the U.S. would still be welcomed as a founding partner.

Saying Asia’s booming infrastructure financing needs – estimated at a staggering $700 billion annually – aren’t being met by institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, China is putting up half of the planned initial $50 billion financing to launch the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. India, another U.S. ally, is the second-biggest investor, and a group of developing countries from Asia and the Middle East quickly signed on.

The Obama administration has been skeptical of the idea from the start, arguing that the proposed bank could prove redundant and could undercut lending standards on such issues as worker protections and the environment. China’s large stake also raised red flags, U.S. officials said, about whether the bank would favor Beijing’s economic and strategic priorities.

Clash over clout

Underlying the public debate was a clear clash between Washington and Beijing over clout in the globe’s leading financial infrastructure, set up largely by the United States in the wake of World War II and still largely dominated in the senior ranks by U.S., European and Japanese officials.

“We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power,” an unidentified U.S. official told the Financial Times newspaper after news broke that Britain would join the bank.

Rising powers such as China, Brazil and India also have expressed mounting frustration that a proposed overhaul of the International Monetary Fund to reset voting rights to reflect the new global pecking order has been blocked because the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated Congress have been unable to pass it.

Analysts say Chinese officials have skillfully tried to meet concerns that Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank members will be drawn into a power clash. During a visit to Australia last month, Zhou Qiangwu, a point man for Beijing’s selling efforts, noted that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be run by a multinational secretariat and use the same management structure as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

The proposed bank would “follow the international practice and give highest attention to environmental impact and resettlement” issues, he said, with strong safeguards against corruption.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew tried to moderate the U.S. line against the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in testimony on Capitol Hill this week, insisting that the administration’s primary goal was to ensure that the bank did not undermine lending standards.

“I hope before the final commitments are made anyone who lends their name to this organization will make sure that the governance is appropriate,” Mr. Lew said.

But the White House and the State Department said this week that it was the “sovereign decision” of each country on whether to participate in the bank.

Mr. Lew did acknowledge that the longtime U.S. and Western primacy in the global financial sphere was being challenged by China and other rising powers, which may not share Washington’s priorities.

“New players are challenging U.S. leadership in the multilateral system,” Mr. Lew said, pleading for passage of the IMF reform package. “Our international credibility and influence are being threatened.”

But private analysts say that credibility and influence have taken major hits from the rush to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

C. Fred Bergsten, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote this week that the Obama administration made a huge mistake by trying to undermine the bank, not only failing to persuade allies to stay out but also strengthening the voices in Beijing who argue that the U.S. is trying to keep China down.

“The U.S. hostility reinforces the Chinese view that U.S. strategy is to contain and suppress it,” he wrote, “so increasing rather than decreasing the prospect of uncooperative Chinese behavior.”

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman said this week that the saga “is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the U.S.”

“By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China,” he said, “Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century.”



New Docudrama Deals Death Blow To Loathsome, Leftist Lies About Vietnam War (Video)

Movie Deals Death Blow To Vicious Lies About Vietnam – WorldNetDaily


Crazed, drug-addicted “baby-killers” and “murderers” – for more than 40 years, that’s how many in the American media portrayed U.S. troops who fought in the Vietnam War.

And America’s Vietnamese allies didn’t fare much better; they were often depicted as corrupt, cowardly and unworthy of U.S. troops’ sacrifice.

In the 1960s, negative television coverage helped turn American public opinion against the war, the veterans and even the Vietnamese who fought to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam.

Actress Jane Fonda, who called U.S. troops murderers, was famously shown sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunner used to shoot at American planes.

By 1971, John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and now secretary of state, declared on national TV, “We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service.”

But is what Americans saw on television and in the movies an accurate portrayal of those warriors and their mission to halt the spread of communism?

Executive Producer Richard Botkin and Producer Fred Koster take a provocative look at the Vietnam War and the troops who fought it in the new documentary film, “Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph.” The movie portrays the inspirational story the media neglected – one of friendship, bravery, patriotism and sacrifice.

Botkin says, quite frankly, Americans have been duped.

“The men who served in Vietnam are every bit as great as their dads and uncles who served in World War II,” he told WND. “The reason they’re not called the Greatest Generation is because Vietnam’s generation had people like Jane Fonda out there muddying up the waters and John Kerry. There were several hundred thousand junior officers who served in the Marine Corps and Army, and yet the only name that is ever recalled is Lt. William Calley. We’ve got to change that.”

After the war had been over for several years, former President Richard Nixon lamented, “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then. It is misremembered now.”


Many popular films dealing with Vietnam – such as “Apocalypse Now,” “The Deer Hunter,” “Good Morning, Vietnam,” “Rambo” and “Full Metal Jacket” – serve as great entertainment, Botkin said, but they often grossly distort the reality of the warriors who fought courageously to stop the spread of communism.

“They portray the American fighting man as doped, duped, a victim, in it for the wrong reason. And, when he comes home, he’s definitely marginalized and at the mercy of the military industrial complex,” Botkin said. “And our Vietnamese allies are portrayed even more negatively. They’re portrayed as corrupt, effete, not wanting to fight, not worth fighting for.”

But Botkin – who also authored the WND book that inspired the movie, “Ride the Thunder,” and has toured former battlefields in Vietnam and chronicled accounts of the Vietnamese Marines and their American Marine advisers – is adamant in his assertion that “those representations are just simply wrong.”

“The film is our effort to try and right the historical wrongs, to leave a more positive record of the American fighting man and also our Vietnamese allies,” he said. “Communism is evil. We were right to oppose it.”

Watch the trailer for the film, which will be released on March 27 at the Regency 10 theaters in Westminster, California, where it will be shown eight times a day for a week:


In the early 1970s, under President Richard Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program, the war was being turned over to South Vietnam. Botkin’s film tells the little-known story of a few courageous American and Vietnamese Marines who fought valiantly to thwart the Communist invasion – nearly saving South Vietnam – during North Vietnam’s all-out attack on South Vietnam from the DMZ known as the 1972 Easter Offensive.

In a true-life story, the film shows how, when the unrelenting North Viet­namese Army of 20,000 soldiers and 200 tanks reached the bridge at Dong Ha, their offensive was stopped in its tracks by a small force of just over 700 Vietnamese Marines and U.S. military advisers.

Even though the South Vietnamese Marines had nearly won on the battlefield, they would suffer terribly, starving and spending long years at hard labor after the war as part of the communists’ re-education process.


The film follows Vietnamese Marine Maj. Le Ba Binh, the main character played by Joseph Hieu, during his time at the communist camp in Nam Ha in 1979.

“We start with him in a re-education camp and having all these flashbacks,” Botkin explained. “During the flashbacks, we go to Vietnam, post-World War II, with him as a boy. We go to all the American people and Vietnamese people who were interviewed and appropriately tell the story through Binh’s life experience.”

Binh, a man with few equals in the war-fighting profession, served 13 years in heavy combat and another 11 years in prison camps. Despite numerous battle wounds and lost comrades, he showed unwavering courage in the face of extreme hardship. He was wounded nine times and awarded the American Silver Star.

“When the Americans went to Vietnam, they typically would go for 12 or 13 months,” Botkin explained. “But Binh was there for the whole thing. It’s through him that we tell the story, hoping to make the Americans see that their sacrifice was justified.”


As the war ended, millions of displaced Vietnamese citizens fled the communist invasion. Hopeless citizens faced imprisonment and execution. On the morning of April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese Marine Corps ceased to exist after 21 years of combat.

The film cast includes many Vietnamese refugees.

“For them, telling the story has become more than just a job. It really is something they passionately believe in,” Botkin said. “All of these people are strongly anti-communist. They’re passionate, because they’ve suffered at the hands of communists. Their families have been killed or brutally tortured. They risked a lot and paid a heavy price for their freedom. I have nothing but respect for them.”


As for the U.S. mission in Vietnam, Botkin said the effort bought time for the rest of developing Asia to grow free of communist influence.

“When we went ashore in 1965, there were active communist insurgencies in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, Thailand,” he said. “The American effort – for all its flaws that people point out – stalled the communist expansion and allowed those economies time to grow. I just don’t think there’s any question that our effort was the right one.”

As for America’s reputation today, Botkin said, “We’re fighting a battle for our nation’s soul. People think America is a bad country. But America is the light of the world. We’re the good guys.

“We were the good guys in World War II. We were the good guys in the Korean War. And believe it or not, we were the good guys in Vietnam.”