Tag: Insane

Poll: Nearly 60 Percent Of Democrats Are Clinically Insane

Poll: Almost 60 Percent Of Democrats Think Socialism Is Great For America – Daily Caller

.

.
A clear majority of Democrats believe socialism has a “positive impact on society,” according to a poll by the American Action Forum (AAF).

The political and economic system that wreaks havoc across the world from Venezuela to North Korea is enjoying widespread support in the modern Democratic Party.

A telephone poll of 1,000 likely Democratic primary voters found that when capitalism and socialism were polled head to head, socialism won by 15 percentage points, with just 25 percent of respondents saying they favored capitalism.

In terms of definition, the poll made clear that socialism meant a greater role for government in the economy and substantial wealth redistribution, but the idea itself was not clearly defined by its traditional meaning as government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

But despite some haziness around precise wording, there was no doubt that the number of Democrats who favored a totally socialised healthcare system far outstripped those who favored retaining a private model of healthcare.

Not only are Democrats far to the left of mainstream America on the question of socialism and health care but they are also largely suspicious of how the media covers hot button issues such as racial equality on campus.

More than two-thirds of those surveyed agreed with the statement “most of the media in our country is controlled by corporations who are more interested in profits than telling the truth. Before a corporate owned media entity covers a campus rally for racial equality, they should first prove that they are not biased against the content of the rally.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s decision to stand for the Democratic nomination on a platform of democratic socialism has sparked furious debate over what socialism means and whether it has a place in 21st century America. AFF’s poll suggests there’s a wide reservoir of support for many of the policies Sanders advocates.

.

.

Iowa Democrats Prove They’re Completely Insane (Videos)

Clinton Won At Least 6 Iowa Precinct Votes By A Coin Toss – Chicagoist

.

.
That American democracy would allow even one vote to be decided by a coin toss seems bizarre – but somehow the outcome of six separate Iowa Caucus precinct elections were decided by the flip of a coin Monday. And Hillary Clinton won them all.

The Democrats’ Iowa Caucus appears to be a “virtual tie” between Bernie Sanders and Clinton – or a hairline win for Clinton, depending on whom you ask. But before eking out the narrowest of victories against Sanders, Clinton won a truly bizarre-sounding six coin tosses used to decide which candidate would get the votes of several Iowa precincts that were too tied up to call.

Precincts in Des Moines, Newton, West Branch, Davenport and Ames were decided by coin tosses, according to Reuters, and became crucial parts of Clinton’s Monday night win. Democratic Party counts show Clinton ultimately winning the Iowa Caucus by just four delegates.

If you’re still scratching your head over how this could happen, the Iowa Democratic Party sort of explains: On the night of the caucus, Iowans vote for their favorite candidate. Each precinct receives a set number of delegates, and the number of precinct delegates each candidate gets is proportional to the votes he or she got from the precinct’s population. Votes from those delegates ultimately determine the night’s big winner. When a precinct’s delegates vote and it results in a tie, the precinct leaders can flip a coin to figure out which candidate should win their majority.

You can watch some Democracy in action below:
.

.

.
Apparently Iowa is just one of 35 states to use “chance procedures” – a.k.a. throwing a coin in the air in exasperation and walking away in shame – to determine tied elections, according to the Washington Post.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Sanders Campaign: Party Lost 5 Percent Of Iowa Vote – Roll Call

The Iowa Democratic Party informed the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernard Sanders late Monday night that it has no results for 90 precincts across the state, which could account for as much as 5 percent of the total vote. And the party has asked the campaigns for help in getting a tally for those missing results.

“We are, right now, calling all our precinct captains on precincts where we have knowledge of what’s missing, to report what we think happened there,” a visibly irate Robert Becker, Sanders’ state director told Roll Call after Sanders’ speech at the Holiday Inn near the Des Moines airport.

“They’ve asked the other campaigns to do the same thing. At the end of the day, there’s probably going to be squabbles on it,” he added.

An Iowa Democratic Party official disputed Becker’s characterization.

“We are currently getting results from our small number of outstanding precincts, and results continue to be reported on our public website,” an Iowa Democratic Party official told Roll Call. “The reports of precincts without chairs are inaccurate. These outstanding precincts have chairs who we are in the process of contacting to get their results. It is inaccurate to report that these precincts did not have chairs.”

“We have reached out to the campaigns for help in contacting the chairs for our outstanding precincts. We are not taking results from the campaigns. We are taking them from the chairs who are in these precincts,” the official added.

Clinton and Sanders were locked in a virtual tie for most of the evening, with the state party announcing early Tuesday morning that Clinton achieved a slight edge in delegate counts.

“The party has a responsibility to staff 1,681 individual precincts. And what we’re seeing right now is that they had no-shows. People not showing up with the materials, not showing up with the app to report it. And when they’re telling us an hour ago that they have basically lost 90 precincts, it’s an outrage,” Becker said. “It’s insulting to the people who worked their asses off across this state that they can’t come up with people to cover these things.”

Attempts to reach the Clinton campaign early Tuesday were unsuccessful.

“I’m assuming they’re in the same boat. And they should be just as outraged as we are,” Becker fumed.

.

.

Hundreds Of Germans Rampage Through Leipzig In Protest Of Chancellor Merkel’s Insane Muslim Refugee Policies

Hundreds Of Far-Right Protesters Rampage Through German Town, Destroying Ethnic Restaurants And Takeaways Hours After Merkel Admits European Migrant Crisis Is ‘Out Of Control’ – Daily Mail

Hundreds of anti-refugee rioters have gone on the rampage in the German city of Leipzig after a demonstration where they called for asylum seekers to be deported and their nation’s borders closed.

The attacks come just hours after Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that Europe had lost control of the crisis. The right-wingers broke away from a largely peaceful march in the eastern city to trash the suburb of Connewitz.

Doner kebab fast food stalls were destroyed, cars set ablaze and shop windows smashed by around 250 hooligans of LEGIDA – the local branch of PEGIDA, the anti-migrant, anti-EU organization which marched against the refugees earlier in the evening.

.

.

.
At one point the demonstrators, who threw fireworks at police, attempted to build a barricade in a main street with signs and torn up paving stones before they were dispersed.

Firemen had to tackle a blaze in the attic of one building set alight by a wayward rocket fired by the rioters. A bus carrying leftist pro-asylum demonstrators was also attacked and seriously damaged.

Police said they have identified and arrested 211 of the crowd of right-wing hooligans, many of them with criminal records for violence.

‘This was a serious breach of the peace,’ said a police spokesman, confirming that several police officers were injured in the clashes triggered by simmering anger over the New Year’s Eve mass sex attacks against women in Cologne and several other German cities.

‘Rape Refugees stay away’ was one of the banners carried during the march, the wording above a silhouette of women running from knife-wielding attackers, one of whom resembled a caricature from Aladdin.

Earlier in the day Mrs. Merkel said; ‘Now all of a sudden we are facing the challenge that refugees are coming to Europe and we are vulnerable, as we see, because we do not yet have the order, the control, that we would like to have.’

She also said the euro was ‘directly linked’ to freedom of movement in Europe, adding: ‘Nobody should act as though you can have a common currency without being able to cross borders reasonably easily.’

Merkel said that if countries did not allow their borders to be crossed without much difficulty, the European single market would ‘suffer acutely’ – meaning that Germany, at the centre of the European Union and its largest economy, should fight to defend freedom of movement.

.

.

.

.

.

.
The EU has struggled to cope with a tide of refugees from war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa, most of whom have landed in Greece or Italy before heading for wealthier northern EU states.

Germany has taken in the bulk of them, more than a million last year alone.

Some EU countries have re-established border controls within the passport-free Schengen zone, where they had been abolished, while efforts to share out the asylum-seekers across EU member states have floundered.

Merkel said that, to preserve the Schengen zone within the EU, it was necessary to make the bloc’s external borders more secure.

The violence in Leipzig followed on from weekend attacks in Cologne by a vigiliante mob which used the social networking site Facebook to marshall young men – rockers, bodybuilders and club bouncers – to go on a ‘manhunt’ for immigrants.

Two Pakistani men were hospitalized and a third Syrian man was lightly injured before a stiff police presence on the streets thwarted further attacks.

It is unclear what their condition is although the police are looking to press charges of ‘serious bodily harm’ against their attackers who kicked, beat and abused them verbally.

The Express said the Facebook vigilante groups had promised an ‘orderly clean up’ of the old town centre in their ‘manhunt.’

Police confirmed one Syrian man was also hurt in an attack on Sunday, which took place just 20 minutes after the first, but is believed to have been carried out by a separate group of five men.

.

.

.
German police say the number of criminal complaints filed after the events on New Year’s Eve in Cologne has risen to 516 – 40 per cent relating to allegations of sexual assault.

Germany’s FBI, the Federal Criminal Office, said it had information that the surrounding and sexual molestation of women was a ‘familiar phenomenon in some Arab countries.’ Now it is liaising with police in all 16 states of Germany to formulate a strategy on how to combat it in future on German streets.

The minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, the German state where Cologne is located, admitted that people of foreign descent were responsible for virtually all of the violence on New Year’s Eve in the city.

‘Based on testimony from witnesses, the report from the Cologne police and descriptions by the federal police, it looks as if people with a migration background were almost exclusively responsible for the criminal acts,’ Ralf Jaeger, interior minister from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia told a special commission on the Cologne violence.

‘All signs point to these being north Africans and people from the Arab world,’ he added. ‘Based on what we know now from the investigation, asylum seekers who arrived in the past year are among the suspects.’

.

.
Cologne has a significant first and second generation immigrant population and racial tension has heightened in the wake of New Years Eve.

The city, which has a population of just over one million, has more than 120,000 practicing Muslim residents and the largest Jewish communities in Germany. Just over 5.5 per cent are born in Turkey.

Over the past week, the police presence in the city has been heightened, but many called the efforts ‘too little too late’, questioning why officers had not been able to stop the attacks.

On Monday, a regional parliamentary commission in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, whose largest city is Cologne, will question police and others about the events on New Year’s Eve.

The attacks on women in Cologne have also sparked a debate about tougher rules for migrants who break the law, faster deportation procedures and increased security measures such as more video surveillance in public areas and more police.

.

.

.

.

.

Kurt Russell Tells Leftist Reporter It’s ‘Absolutely Insane’ To Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists

Kurt Russell: ‘Absolutely Insane’ To Think Gun Control Will Change Terrorists – Big Hollywood

.

.
In a recent interview with Jeffrey Wells, acting legend Kurt Russell responded to questions on the San Bernardino attacks by saying it’s “absolutely insane” to “think gun control will change terrorists’ point of view.”

This was preceded by Russell explaining that he doesn’t “understand concepts of conversation about gun culture” because “we’ve lived with guns since, what, the 7th Century or something?”

But according to Hollywood Elsewhere, Wells continued to paw at Russell, combining the emphasis on terrorism with the suggestion that guns are something “disenfranchised white guys need” so they can “feel good about themselves.”

Russell said:
.

If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we’re having right now to turn it around… you may think you’ve got me worried about what you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more. And that’s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do – I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do…

.
Wells responded with, “I get that,” and Russell seized the opportunity to go back to an earlier question about the line separating fantasy and reality and said that reality is doing what has to be done to “stop” the guy coming at you–whether that guy is in the hockey scenario or in a scenario hedged in by terrorism. And once you “stop him,” Russell said, “That’s when things change.”

Wells countered by sticking with the gun control theme, saying, “Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [they’re on it] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions… they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.”

Russell said, “They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?”

Wells said, “They didn’t kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.”

Russell retorted, “But they’ve killed others that way, haven’t they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn’t the answer.”

Wells then said the words, “Just put some controls…” to which Russell responded, “Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can’t?”

Wells tried to right the ship, saying, “No, not so you can’t, just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.”

Russell said, “You really believe they’re not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.”

Listen to the audio of the interview here.

.

.

*VIDEO* Dangerously Delusional Democrats And The Threat Of Islam

.

.

Insane Muslim Migrant Policies Pushing Germany Towards Anarchy And Civil War

Migrant Crisis Pushing Germany Towards ‘anarchy And Civil War’ – Russia Today

.

.
Germany now is somewhere at the edge of anarchy and sliding towards civil war, or to become a banana republic without any government, says Hansjoerg Mueller of the Alternative for Germany party.

Bavarian official Peter Dreier called German Chancellor Angela Merkel to tell her personally that if Germany welcomes a million refugees, his town of Landshut will only take in around 1,800. Any extra will be put on buses and sent to her Chancellery in Berlin.

RT: He says he’s going to send them to Berlin, but does he have the power?

Hansjoerg Mueller: The person who wants to send them to Berlin is Mr. Dreier. He is the district head of Landshut, a town close to Munich. Usually he does not have the power, but we are not living in usual times. What we are now looking at is more and more Germany sliding towards anarchy. In this situation I think less and less is determined by law, more and more is determined by who acts. And the person who acts in fact has the power. So if he sends… refugees to Berlin, he sends them!

RT: Will threats like this one be able to affect Merkel’s policy?

HM: I hope so, because Germany now is somewhere at the edge of anarchy and sliding towards civil war, or to become a banana republic without any government. I hope that this threat will have some effect, but knowing the psychological things that Merkel does all these days – I don’t believe in it, unfortunately.

RT: Do you think Bavaria will be the only region that says something like this, or do you expect other regions to follow?

HM: Yes, of course, Bavaria is the first region because we are affected the most – we are living on the border to Austria where the influx of refugees stems from. But the second regions of Germany where this happens are Saxony and Thuringia. First of all, they have also borders to the Czech Republic, that’s the first reason. And the second reason is that in former Eastern Germany people are still aware of what it is living in a dictatorship. They are feeling quite well that our so-called democracy is sliding more and more towards a totalitarian state. This is my personal explanation why… the demonstrations in Thuringia and in Saxony are so fierce in their movements.

RT: Only allowing 1,800 desperate refugees to stay when more than a million are expected nationally, doesn’t seem all that fair does it. Surely the region should do its bit?

HM: No, this number of 1,800 refugees does not affect only Bavaria. Bavaria can take much more. It affects only the district around the town of Landshut, and the town of Landshut has more or less 50,000 inhabitants and having nearly 2,000 refugees to meddle with the original population – this is quite a big burden. So Bavaria can take more, but not towns like Landshut.

.

.

*VIDEO* Greg Gutfeld Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat Over His Insane Priorities

.

.

Judge Rules Against Insane Homeowner’s Association That Tried To Force Family To Take Down Purple Swingset

They Gave Their Little Girls A Purple Backyard Swing Set. Then The Jail Threats Started Coming – Independent Journal Review

When Marla Stout put up a new swing set in her family’s backyard, her two daughters pleaded with her to paint it the color of bubblegum. Marla wasn’t a fan of the pink swing set idea, but she agreed to paint it purple.

Now, she and her husband have been threatened with jail time because of it.

According to Fox News, the Stouts painted the swing set two years ago, but it wasn’t until this summer that the Raintree Lake Subdivision Homeowners Association (HOA) decided to make a stink about it.

.

.
While there are no distinct rules about swing set colors, the HOA dictates that they must be “harmonious with the community and with nature.” In the HOA’s opinion, the purple swing set wasn’t “in harmony” with the others in the community.

“We got very frustrated,” Marla said. “There’s somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 homes in our community. There’s all kinds of colors. There’s people with bright purple doors. There’s trees that are the color of this swing set.”

Marla and her husband were told that if the swing set wasn’t removed, they would be fined or jailed.

The HOA claimed that the Stouts were in the wrong for not getting their swing set color pre-approved. They tried to dissuade the Stouts from filing a lawsuit, claiming that the costs would be “far greater than any principle [they] are trying to prove.”

But after an initial hearing on August 21, a Missouri judge ruled a week later that the swing set can stay purple. While the Stouts are thrilled with the judge’s decision – they had a barbecue Friday to celebrate – they believe that the HOA should apologize to the entire community.

“It’s been very embarrassing for our community and it’s cost every resident in this community a lot of money and reputation,” Marla said.

.

.

.

200 Retired Generals And Admirals Sign Letter Urging Congress To Reject Insane Iran Nuclear Deal

200 Ex-Generals Write Congress: Reject Nuke Deal – WorldNetDaily

.

.
An estimated 200 retired generals and admirals put pen to paper and sent a letter to Congress to advise them to reject the nuclear deal pressed by President Obama, saying the world will become a more dangerous place if it’s approved.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter stated.

It was addressed to House Majority Leader John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The writers say the “agreement as constructed does not ‘cut off every pathway’ for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” an apparent reference to the terminology President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry used to tout the benefits of the deal.

“To the contrary,” it continues, “it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding the deal.”

The generals and admirals say the agreement will let Iran enrich uranium, develop centrifuges and keep up work on its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak.

And also of concern, they write: “The agreement is unverifiable. Under the terms of the [agreement] and a secret side deal (to which the United States is not privy), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for inspectiOns under such severe limitations as to prEvent them from reliably detecting Iranian cheating.”

The letter references the widely reported 24-day delay that was given Iran to keep out inspectors, under the terms of the forged deal. And it also mentions the facet of the agreement that “requires inspectors to inform Iran in writing as to the basis for its concerns about an undeclared site,” and says such allowances are inappropriate and dangerous.

“While failing to assure prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons development capabilities, the agreement provides by some estimated $150 billion… or more to Iran in the form of sanctions relief,” the letter states.

And their conclusions?

“As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally,” they wrote, summarizing the agreement is a danger to the world.

“Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord,” the letter wraps.

Among the signers: Admiral David Architzel, U.S. Navy, retired; Admiral Stanley Arthur, U.S. Navy, retired; General Alfred Hansen, U.S. Air Force, retired; Admiral James Hoggs, U.S. Navy, retired; and General Ronald Yates, U.S. Air Force, retired.

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: Senators Who Took Money From Iran Lobby Now Back Insane Nuclear Deal

Traitor Senators Took Money From Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes – Front Page

.

.
Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Nemazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

Appeasement inflation has since raised that $200 million to at least $50 billion. But there are still no strings worth mentioning attached to the big check.

Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign. Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

The hypothetical debates over the influence of the Iran Lobby have come to a very real conclusion.

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Lackeys Try To Defend Insane Iran Deal At Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing



……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Obama’s Dishonesty On Iran – Washington Examiner

Under the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, that nation’s theocratic regime receives relief from economic and arms sanctions in exchange for curtailment of its nuclear program. But there’s a catch – when inspectors seek to verify Iran’s compliance, the Iranians can delay the inspection of any site for at least 24 days.

But before the deal was struck, the Obama administration had promised much more — “anytime, anywhere” inspections, on demand. When asked about this on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry displayed symptoms of amnesia.

“This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating,” Kerry said. “It was not on the table. There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere.”

Barring a genuine brain malady, there is no gentle way of skirting around the fact that this is a lie. The White House specifically promised this in public. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser and spokesman, in making the case for the Iran deal in April, told CNN, “Under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.”

Beyond this, Kerry appears to have specifically discussed it as a negotiating point with senior lawmakers. After speaking with Kerry, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., mentioned “anytime, anywhere” in a speech this spring to Jewish groups uneasy about the deal. And Kerry seems to have told the same thing to the Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, according to their recollection.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s difficulty in telling the truth extends well beyond the issue of inspections. For example, consider the far more dangerous and controversial provision in the deal that lifts the existing sanctions against Iran’s acquisition of conventional arms and ballistic missiles. Kerry said in the same Sunday interview that the deal extended those sanctions by five and eight years, respectively. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the same thing explicitly – that the sanctions would have ended if not for the deal.

In fact, the U.N. sanctions needed no extension – they would have remained in place without further action until Iran stopped enrichment of uranium altogether. The deal that Kerry negotiated is what actually lifts the sanctions. And this concession is troubling by itself — after all, even if Iran can argue that its nuclear program has peaceful applications, it cannot say this of its ambition to develop its ballistic missile technology.

But it is even more troubling that Kerry and the Obama administration cannot just admit they traded this concession to get a deal. Instead, they are pretending that their dodgy concession is some kind of diplomatic victory for the United States.

In his weekly radio address, President Obama warned Americans, concerning the debate over the Iran deal, “you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead.” He was right. Only the dishonest arguments are coming from his own administration, which is desperately trying to defend dangerous concessions that will pave the way for a radical regime to finance terrorism and build a nuclear arsenal.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Explains Why Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Is Insane


.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Mark Steyn And Mark Levin Weigh In On Obama’s Insane Iran Nuke Deal



.

.

.

Republicans React To President Asshat’s Insane Nuke Deal With Iran

Ted Cruz Responds To Iran Deal, Calls It A Staggeringly Bad Deal For U.S. And Israel – Right Scoop

.

.
Ted Cruz:

Today, the international community led by the United States has agreed to not only legitimize and perpetuate the Iranian nuclear program, but also to further arm and enrich the brutal theocratic regime that has oppressed the Iranian people for more than thirty years – a regime that is wrongfully holding United States citizens captive, that is sponsoring radical Islamic terrorism across the globe, and that regularly promotes the destruction of both Israel and America throughout its streets.

Despite these facts, it seems President Obama would concede almost anything to get any deal – even a terrible deal – from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Under the terms of this deal, Iran will retain all of its centrifuges, one-third of which will continue to spin. Rather than the most intrusive inspections regime in history that we were promised, IAEA inspectors must petition the mullahs to visit sensitive sites, and wait for two weeks for their permission. In a final, shocking concession, the United States will support lifting of the United Nations arms embargos that restrict the Iranian ballistic missile program and arms trafficking. And in return, billions of dollars of economic relief will flow to Tehran.

Yet, in his remarks this morning, the President glossed over the truth about Iran’s world-leading state-sponsorship of terrorism that is violently destabilizing the region, and would grow more deadly should the Iranians get a nuclear bomb. He failed to mention American citizens, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Jason Rezaian, who continue to languish in Iranian prisons or Robert Levinson, who is still unaccounted for. For them, today is no ‘opportunity to move in a new direction’ as the President claimed. We owe it to our fellow Americans to elevate, not ignore, their plight, to demand their swift and unconditional release by the implacably hostile regime that holds them.

Even by the low standards of the Joint Plan of Action, this is a staggeringly bad deal. It is a fundamental betrayal of the security of the United States and of our closest allies, first and foremost Israel.

But thankfully, it is not a done deal. We still have an opportunity to tell the truth about what Prime Minister Netanyahu called today a ‘bad mistake of historic proportion.

Congress will have 60 days to review it, and the American people will have 60 days to tell their elected representatives just what they think of it. I urge all my fellow citizens to speak out and let their elected leaders know that even if President Obama won’t see it, we know the leaders of the Islamic Republic who lead crowds in chants of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ are not our partners in peace, and must not be put on the path to a nuclear bomb.

Here’s what some other Republican presidential candidates had to say about the deal.

Ben Carson:

The Iran deal announced today with fanfare and another heaping dose of false hope is almost certain to prove an historic mistake with potentially deadly consequences.

A careful review of the 100-plus pages is in order to fully understand the lengths to which the negotiators were willing to stoop to secure a deal at any cost with the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and a regime dedicated in word and deed to bringing death to America.

Without anywhere anytime surprise inspections, a full accounting of Iran’s past secret nuclear arms pursuits, elimination of Iran’s uranium stockpiles and the lifting of any sanctions only upon verification of Iranian compliance, this is not a good deal, but a recipe for disaster and the first fateful step toward a frenzied nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Scott Walker:

President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures. The deal allows Tehran to dismantle U.S. and international sanctions without dismantling its illicit nuclear infrastructure – giving Iran’s nuclear weapons capability an American stamp of approval. In crafting this agreement, President Obama has abandoned the bipartisan principles that have guided our nonproliferation policy and kept the world safe from nuclear danger for decades. Instead of making the world safer, this deal will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. What’s worse, the deal rewards the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with a massive financial windfall, which Iran will use to further threaten our interests and key allies, especially Israel.

I call on all congressional leaders and presidential candidates, including Secretary Clinton, to repudiate this agreement. Iran’s Supreme Leader should know that a future American president will not be bound by this diplomatic retreat. Undoing the damage caused by this deal won’t be easy. But when the United States leads, and has a president who isn’t eager to embrace Iran, the world will follow. In order to ensure the safety of America and our allies, the next president must restore bipartisan and international opposition to Iran’s nuclear program while standing with our allies to roll back Iran’s destructive influence across the Middle East.

Marco Rubio:

Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security. President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed.

I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama’s deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States. It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security.

Mike Huckabee:

Shame on the Obama administration for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and bring ‘death to America.’

John Kerry should have long ago gotten up on his crutches, walked out of the sham talks, and went straight to Jerusalem to stand next to Benjamin Netanyahu and declared that America will stand with Israel and the other sane governments of the Middle East instead of with the terrorist government of Iran.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Losing The War With Iran – Newt Gingrich

By any reasonable assessment, the United States is losing its 36-year war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The surrender to Iran on sanctions and nuclear weapons will be one more stage in the American defeat by a determined, dishonest and surprisingly effective theocratic dictatorship in Tehran.

Historians will look back on the Iranian campaign against the United States and conclude that there have been few examples of a weaker power so decisively outmaneuvering, bluffing, deceiving and weakening its vastly more powerful opponent.

Sun Tzu would be proud of the strategic skills exhibited by the Iranians and their ability to lie and feign reasonableness while calmly and steadily implementing a strategy of relentless aggression.

Now, through these strategies, the Iranians are on the verge of a triple victory over the United States: an agreement that will legitimize Iran as the dominant regional power, substantially expand the amount of money it has to support terrorism and other military efforts, and smooth the path to its becoming a nuclear power.

This will be the greatest victory yet for the Iranian dictatorship in its war against America.

That war began 36 years ago, in 1979, virtually the moment Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from Paris to create a religious dictatorship. Mark Bowden captures the reality of this war in his book “Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam.”

Beginning in November 1979, the Iranians occupied the American embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The regime could take two clear lessons from this illegal attack.

First, the seizure allowed the Iranians to assert their moral superiority, characterizing the crime as a “conquest of the American spy den.” It was a great political and emotional victory for the radical regime and strengthened its control of Iran.

Second, the dictatorship could treat President Carter with absolute contempt. It was unmoved by offers of financial aid and by military threats. The failure of an American military rescue effort in April 1980 just deepened Iranian hostility.

The day after the embassy was seized, Khomeini called the United States the “Great Satan.” This was not a casual remark. It expressed the depth of sincere revulsion the Iranian leadership felt – and continues to feel – for America.

As recently as last week, demonstrators burned American flags in Tehran (something that could only have occurred with the dictatorship’s approval).

Whatever good personal relations Secretary of State John Kerry thinks he is developing with the Iranian foreign minister in Geneva, there is unrelenting anti-American hostility from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As recently as June 4, he tweeted that “The term ‘Great Satan’ for US was coined by @IRKhomeini; when you consider… an entity as Satan then it’s clear how you should behave.”

Here is the supreme leader of the Iranian dictatorship reminding his followers that any deal in Geneva is a deal with “the Great Satan.”

The fact that this is an English language statement available for anyone (even the White House and the State Department) to read is a sign of the continuing contempt the Iranian dictatorship has for the United States.

The last 36 years of experience validates the Iranian approach.

For more than three decades the regime has funded, supplied and trained terrorists all over the world, and we have done next to nothing.

Iran has waged a proxy war against Americans using Hezbollah – including blowing up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63, and later bombing a Marine barracks there, killing 220 Marines, 21 other U.S. personnel, and 58 French troops – and nothing happened. They captured the CIA station chief, tortured him for months, released a video of him after the torture and killed him. Nothing happened.

Iran has consistently supplied both Hezbollah and Hamas in their fight against Israel.

Iran has sheltered al Qaeda members from Americans who were hunting them.

Iran has provided bombs and other weapons used to kill Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran has supported Bashar Assad in Syria and now supports the Houthis in Yemen.

For all of this, there has been no significant cost to the regime. Indeed, America’s influence had declined and Iran’s power has increased.

During a long stretch of economic sanctions imposed by the West, three things have become clear:

• The dictatorship values terrorism and military action more than economic growth, and the sanctions have had little or no impact on Iranian power projection.

• The dictatorship shields its military, police and political elites from the sanctions, and they are feeling little pain.

• The dictatorship has continued building centrifuges and is more nuclear-capable today than when the sanctions began. (The great irony of the talk-talk strategy is that the regime has gone from possessing a handful of centrifuges to thousands of them while its opponents pretend its progress is frozen.)

An American surrender to Iran in the nuclear talks will have four immediate and devastating consequences.

First, as much as $150 billion in money impounded by the sanctions will be released. The regime’s history teaches us that a substantial portion of this will go to fund terrorism and military action around the world. By focusing on the nuclear program and ignoring the program of terrorism and aggression, the Obama administration is on the verge of vastly increasing the resources Iran has to use against the United States and its allies.

Second, once the sanctions are gone, the Iranians will sign very profitable contracts with German, Russian and Chinese firms. The pressure against reinstating the sanctions will be overwhelming (and two of the three countries have vetoes in the U.N. Security Council).

Third, the Iranian nuclear program will be “approved” by the international community and will accelerate. If North Korea is any example, once these negotiations conclude, the Iranians will go full-speed ahead. Inspectors will be delayed, obstructed, lied to and will pathetically whine about Iranian noncompliance. It is clear this agreement guarantees an eventual Iranian bomb. And “eventual” may be a lot sooner than we think.

Fourth, signing an agreement as a co-equal with the United States, Russia, China and the Europeans will drastically increase the prestige of the Iranian dictatorship. That enhanced prestige will be translated into an already-aggressive regime bullying its neighbors even more.

Mr. Obama will argue that the choice is a bad agreement or war.

He misunderstands the current reality.

We are already at war with Iran.

They are winning.

This deal hands them a victory while continuing our fantasy.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Obama’s Insane Nuke Deal Causes Russians To Lift Ban On Missile Sales To Iran – Israelis Not Happy Campers

Israel Slams Russia Decision To Lift Iran Missile Ban – Yahoo News

.

.
Israel on Monday denounced Russia’s decision to lift a ban on supplying Iran with sophisticated S-300 air defence missile systems as proof of Tehran’s newfound “legitimacy” following nuclear talks.

“This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran is receiving from the nuclear deal that is being prepared, and proof that the Iranian economic growth which follows the lifting of sanctions will be exploited for arming itself and not for the welfare of the Iranian people,” Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said in a statement.

Moscow’s decision to lift the ban comes after a major breakthrough in talks between world powers and Iran over its disputed nuclear programme, which saw the parties agreeing on a framework deal on April 2.

The emerging deal, which is to be finalised by June 30, would see Iran curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions, sparking a welter of harsh criticism from Israel.

“As Iran disavows clause after clause of the framework agreement… the international community has already begun implementing easing measures,” he railed.

“Instead of demanding that Iran stop its terrorist activity in the Middle East and the world, it is being allowed to arm itself with advanced weaponry that will only increase its aggression.”

Russia is a key supplier of arms to the Arab world, including governments which do not recognise the Jewish state, and its weapons exports have long been of concern to Israeli leaders who have sought to persuade Moscow to scale down its cooperation Iran and Syria.

The S-300 batteries are advanced ground-to-air weapons that can take out aircraft or guided missiles.

The decree, signed by President Vladimir Putin on Monday, ends a ban on the deliveries of S-300 missiles to Iran which was put in place in 2010 after the United Nations slapped sanctions on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme, including barring the sale of hi-tech weaponry.

.

.

More Proof That Leftists Are Insane… As If We Needed More Proof

Mandatory Safety Helmets For Pedestrians – Moonbattery

Anyone who thinks forcing kids to wear helmets to play soccer is the last word in authoritarian absurdity is directed to Moscow on the Colorado, where a sample of the public overwhelmingly approved of mandatory safety helmets for pedestrians:

People at the University of Texas at Austin agreed to sign a petition that would compel the City of Austin to enforce a law requiring pedestrians to wear safety helmets.

The tongue-in-cheek operation by Alex Jones’ Infowars.com staff was called C.H.U.M.P.S. (Compelled Helmet Use for the Misfortunate Public). Participants were told the law would also require special walking lanes so people could walk while texting and freely run into things. No one would get hurt because everyone is wearing helmets.

Sadly, most people didn’t realize it was a joke. They were even told the plan would be used to lower insurance prices under Obamacare.

“We talked to 20 people and 14 of them signed the petition to pass a law to make the general population wear helmets when you walk down the street,” said talk show host Alex Jones said in a video report.

Hats off to Jones. Despite the loose screws that can sometimes be heard rattling around in his skull, this prank was worthy of Mark Dice.

The lesson to take away:

Infowars.com writer Paul Joseph Watson noted that the helmet petition shows “the majority of the general public will accept almost any nanny state measure no matter how ludicrous.”

This has been repeatedly confirmed by New Yorkers’ passive submission beneath the heel of Nanny Bloomberg.

.
…………………

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s Insane And Unconstitutional War On Coal Continues

EPA Carbon Limits Lower Boom On Coal – Watchdog

Leave it to the Environmental Protection Agency to come up with regulatory standards so restrictive that the technology to meet them has yet to be commercially tested.

.

As expected, the EPA on Friday unveiled its revised proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. And as expected, coal-fired power plants will fail to meet the limits without some very expensive technology to capture and store carbon emissions.

“There’s the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology,” notes a story in USA Today.

As the piece points out, there are least two such carbon storage power plants under construction – one in Canada’s Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi’s Kemper County, scheduled to open in May.

But the coal-fired power industry need only look to Mississippi for a cautionary tale. The $4.7-billion project has been saddled with at least $1 billion in cost overruns, “a stew of legal battles, a revolt by ratepayers and a credit downgrade for the local utility,” according to Bloomberg News story published Thursday.

And, as the story points out, consumers ultimately will foot the bill for the expensive technology in the 582-megawatt plant, the first of its kind to be built on a commercial scale.

“By some measures, it may be one of the most expensive power plants ever built for the watts of energy it will generate,” Bloomberg notes. “The utility got approval to recoup $2.88 billion in costs from ratepayers. In addition, the Department of Energy pledged $270 million, and the company qualified for a federal tax credit of $133 million. The costs of the new lignite mine and carbon dioxide pipelines are additional.”

Coal industry officials earlier this week told Watchdog.org the restrictive limits on CO2 could kill coal, and with it, many of the 800,000 good-paying jobs it supports.

“That is the area that is really going to put this conversation at the forefront,” said Nancy Gravatt, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, which represents coal and mineral mining companies nationwide. “This puts thousands of middle-class jobs at risk, and it’s akin to an energy tax on consumers. The hardest hit would be those on fixed incomes, like retirees.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a “moral obligation to the next generation” to protect the environment. She said the proposal is a “necessary step to address a public health challenge,” according to the USA Today story. McCarthy, in a speech Friday morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., said the proposed standards create a “path forward” for the coal industry, and that the CO2 limits are both achievable and flexible.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a statement basically said the EPA blew it.

“The EPA had the chance to craft a regulation that recognized the value of the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy endorsed by President Obama, and ensured that standards were achievable and based upon commercially and economically viable technology. Instead, they have released yet another major regulation that will hamper economic growth and job creation, and could lead to higher energy costs for American families and businesses,” said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s vice president for Government Affairs.

“It is clear that the EPA is continuing to move forward with a strategy that will write off our huge, secure, affordable coal resources by essentially outlawing the construction of new coal plants.”

Jo Ann Emerson, former Missouri Republican congresswoman and now CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, earlier this week said the administration is “gambling with the economic well-being of future generations and our nation’s economy.”

“As not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities, electric co-ops are deeply concerned about maintaining affordable, reliable electricity. It’s worth noting that residents of rural communities already spend more per capita on energy than anywhere else,” Emerson said in a statement.

Environmentalists, of course, rejoiced.

“In the words of our Vice-President, this is a BFD,” celebrated the Sierra Club in a blog post.

“If finalized as written, the draft will make it impossible to build a new, conventional, climate-destroying coal plant in the U.S. With climate-related disasters already landing on the doorsteps of millions of Americans, from Western wildfires to Superstorm Sandy, this new protection comes as welcome news.

Jason Hayes, associate director of the American Coal Council, fully expects the proposal to be challenged in court.

“The same thing that happened with the CSAPR Rule… Everyone was going forward before it was remanded by the D.C. court,” Hayes told Watchdog.org Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 vacated the EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, often pronounced Casper, and the associated implementation plans and remanded the rule back to the EPA following widespread criticism.

The coal industry and other critics of the EPA’s proposal predict the strict limits will batter a U.S. economy struggling to recover, and stall the strides the industry has made in cutting CO2 output.

“Regulators are setting the bar so high that, even the new plants with the most advanced technologies would not be allowed,” Hal Quinn, CEO and president of the National Mining Association, said in a video released Friday. “Without coal our utility bills will be higher, our industries less competitive, electricity reliability compromised, and of course tens of thousands of jobs lost.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

New Mexico Supreme Court Goes From Mildly Retarded To Insane Overnight

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Non-English Speaking Citizens Have Right To Serve On Juries – Weasel Zippers

What the f…?

.

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) – The New Mexico Supreme Court is cautioning trial courts and lawyers that citizens who don’t speak English have the right to serve on juries.

The court issued the admonition in a ruling that upholds an Albuquerque man’s convictions for murder and other crimes in the bludgeoning death of his girlfriend and a subsequent armed robbery and stabbing.

Michael Samora’s appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because a Bernalillo County judge excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.

The Supreme Court says it agrees with that argument but also says Samora’s defense needed to object during the trial but didn’t.

The ruling issued Monday tells judges and lawyers that they must make reasonable efforts to protect the rights of non-English speaking citizens to serve on juries.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About The Leftist ‘Occupy’ Movement In America