Americans Just Pushed Back In A HUGE Way Against Obama’s Big Plan To Change The World

Iran’s supreme leader is still declaring that the United States is the “enemy:” “We will not allow the Americans to have economic or political influence in our country,” CNS News quotes the ayatollah as saying in a recent speech. “Nor will we allow them to have a political presence and cultural influence in our country.”

Controversial secret “side deals” to the Iran nuclear pact negotiated by the Obama administration are being revealed and are causing great concern among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The New York Times reports the disputed contents of those side deals are fueling opposition to the accord that Obama argues must be approved because it will stop Iran from developing the bomb:

To the most strident opponents of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the suspicious behavior at a military base about 12 miles southeast of Tehran has become a rallying call to defeat the accord, especially as it now appears that Iranian officials may be allowed to take their own environmental samples at the site and turn them over to inspectors.

And another article in The New York Times — a news analysis published on Monday — points out that Obama’s argument in favor of the nuclear accord has a glaring problem that’s only growing more pronounced:

His problem is that most of the significant constraints on Tehran’s program lapse after 15 years — and, after that, Iran is free to produce uranium on an industrial scale.

As much as Obama and supporters of the Iran nuke deal — now including Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — try to convince the American people that the pact is a significant step toward promoting peace in the Middle East and national security for the United States, the public remains unconvinced. In fact, voters seem to be wise to what they see as word games and diplomatic double-talk that the president and his pro-deal allies have been using.

The Hill just published the results of a new poll from Quinnipiac University showing that voters in three key swing states oppose the Iran nuclear accord “by margins of more than 2-to-1.”

Florida voters oppose the deal 61 percent to 25 percent. Ohio voters oppose it 58 percent to 24 percent and Pennsylvania voters oppose it 61 percent to 26 percent, according to the poll.

That level of opposition in those three states that are so important in deciding the outcome of the 2016 election would seem to raise a big red flag for Democrat lawmakers still undecided as to how they will cast their votes for the pact on a thumbs-up or thumbs-down basis.

Another poll with clear-cut results — this one a national survey from CNN/ORC released last week — also shows that most Americans want Congress to reject the president’s legacy-building proposal to lift sanctions on Iran and send the Muslim nation billions of dollars in frozen assets.

Reporting on the outcome of the poll — results showing voters disapprove of the deal by a wide margin — The Hill notes that Obama’s overall handling of relations with the mullah-controlled Iranian regime is a huge sore spot for Americans.

Six in 10 Americans, 60 percent, disapprove of how President Obama is handling relations with Iran, up from 48 percent back in April shortly after a framework agreement with Tehran was unveiled.

Congress returns to Washington in September and will vote on whether to accept or reject the pact brokered by the Obama administration. Despite the obvious negative feelings of so many Americans toward the agreement, the president has promised to veto any legislation that would block the Iranian nuke deal from going forward.

Obama, it seems, is willing to defy the will of the public and get his way, no matter the political consequences to others in his own party.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Planned Parenthood: Custom Killing 20 Week Old Babies To Harvest Their Organs

So, let me get this straight.

If you have an objection to a Planned Parenthood staffer telling an undercover investigator that they can do things to make an aborted fetus “less crunchy” in an attempt to preserve viable organs, you have declared a war on women.

If you object to using the euphemism “fetal tissue” when they really mean “body parts” harvested from late term, partial birth abortions, than you have declared a war on women.

Well, I don’t know about that. But I do know that Planned Parenthood has apparently declared a war on viable babies, and I know it because I saw the video and read the unedited transcripts.

If there were ever a reason to declare a war on a half a billion tax dollars funding this organization, this is it.

And their lamo response?

The video was “heavily edited,” and shooting the video was possibly illegal since the poor miscreants from Planned Parenthood didn’t know they were being recorded.

As my step children would have said before they all became adults (because their mother wisely decided to have them), duuuhhhh…

Even the moron doctor who said she wanted a Lambo when she was haggling over the price probably would have cleaned up her big fat white wine rinsed mouth if she knew she was being recorded.

ABC News does a program with John Quinones called “What Would You Do?” where they set up a whole situation somewhere with actors and hidden cameras. This would have been a fascinating episode because all that was missing was the big reveal with John stepping out and introducing himself. Nobody says that ABC has violated anybody’s rights.

What do you think the abortionist would have said under those circumstances?

What would you have done—no matter your political leaning—if you were at the next table?

Harry Reid (D-Ritz Carlton, Washington DC) defended Planned Parenthood, noting that the videos were “politically motivated” and that fetal tissues had been used in research for a long time.

The part about fetal tissue is true.

But whole organs? Which were harvested by a doctor who—for lack of a better term—custom kills a baby so as not to damage the organs?

I don’t know about you, but that’s a little too much playing God for me.

It sounds pretty close to what Dr. Josef Mengele (The Nazi Angel of Death) did during the third Reich.

It’s only a small step from there, to just picking out a kid whose life maybe doesn’t matter as much as others and harvesting his or her organs.

Just like they custom kill a cow to get a specific cut of meat.

It is typical of the left that even when they get caught doing or supporting the most horrific of things, they never, ever admit that they might have gone over the line.

I’m a realist. I don’t think you will ever stop abortions as long as you have irresponsible people having irresponsible sex.

Reasonable people can differ on when life begins.

But when you can harvest an intact heart and lungs, then what you are really doing is murdering a baby.

Anybody who can argue with that has never seen an ultrasound at 20 weeks.

We don’t have to pay for it with tax dollars, and we certainly don’t have to encourage late term partial birth abortions where the baby is custom killed by a doctor who is trying to harvest the baby’s organs intact.

When people getting federal funding to the tune of half a BILLION dollars a year admit what they are doing over white wine, salad and brie, we need to stop paying for it.

Only God can play God.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Echoing Obama, Harry Reid Takes Aim At The Supreme Court With This Insulting Comment

Following the lead of President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has suggested that the Supreme Court made a mistake in taking up the current challenge to ObamaCare — the high-stakes case over whether people who enrolled through the federal marketplace are eligible for tax credit subsidies to help lower their insurance premiums.

It was about a week ago when the president — in a move sharply criticized by many analysts as inappropriately aggressive — told a news conference in Germany: “This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

The Hill notes that some Republicans accused Obama of trying bully the justices by his public criticism of their legal judgment.

“His pointed comments, which appeared to be aimed at least partly at influencing the justices, baffled some court-watchers who say that the decision in the King v. Burwell case was likely settled long ago.”

Speaking with Capitol Hill reporters outside the Senate chamber on Tuesday, Reid (D-Nev.) also implied that he knows better than the justices what their business should be when he declared: “The Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken up this case.” Then the Nevada Democrat who’s known for venturing into outrageous rhetorical territory from time to time, added when asked about the disputed language in the Affordable Care Act: “I think the language is clear. I hope the Supreme Court can read English.”

Despite the minority leader’s cocky condescension in suggesting the language of the law is clear in its authorization of subsidies for ObamaCare enrollees through the federal marketplace, the actual wording of the Act would seem to support the contrary conclusion…thus the Supreme Court’s consideration of the momentous legal matter.

As the article in The Hill notes of the prospects for the ruling in the second high court challenge to the president’s signature legislative achievement:

With the ruling on ObamaCare expected any day, legal experts say it’s unlikely that any rhetoric from the White House could cause a major shift in the justices’ opinion. Still, they say it’s possible that the justices are continuing to nail down all the details, particularly if they are planning to rule against the administration.

It would be reasonable to suppose that President Obama and high-ranking Democrat lawmakers might already know how the Supreme Court will rule — against the administration — and are building their case that the justices are wrong. Otherwise, one might believe that those now attacking the high court would be praising it, or at least remaining neutral in their rhetoric.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

ObamaCare Catastrophe Continues As This New Report Confirms Another Lie Many Warned About

As numerous healthcare experts have warned for years — and as studies have shown since ObamaCare became the law of the land — another key selling point of the president’s signature legislative achievement has turned out to be wrong…very wrong.

Proponents of ObamaCare frequently claimed that costly trips to hospital emergency rooms by uninsured patients would go down as a result of the law’s taking effect, thus saving money and conserving ER resources. But that hasn’t happened. Critics have been proven right, and once again it’s been shown that the sales job for the president’s healthcare takeover scheme was built on a pack of lies.

We’re all painfully familiar with Obama’s big lie — you know, the one about, “if you like your doctor….” Then there’s the promise that health insurance premiums would go down. Don’t forget the one about the individual mandate not being a tax, until the Supreme Court saved the law by declaring that it was.

Add to this list of blatant untruths the results of a brand new poll from the American College of Emergency Physicians about ER visits. USA Today reports that “28% of 2,099 doctors surveyed nationally saw large increases in volume, while 47% saw slight increases.”

“Such hikes run counter to one of the goals of the health care overhaul, which is to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by getting more people insured through Medicaid or subsidized private coverage and providing better access to primary care,” explains the USA Today article.

However, this sort of survey result is nothing new. In May of 2014, the far-left Huffington Post noted a similar finding as benefits from ObamaCare coverage went into effect for millions of Americans.

“The American College of Emergency Physicians polled more than 1,800 emergency room doctors last month, and 46 percent reported increases in patients coming through their doors since Jan. 1, the day coverage took effect for millions under Obamacare.”

The HuffPo article also points out that, what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company proclaimed would be a big plus of ObamaCare should have been known from day one to be a promise that couldn’t be fulfilled — based on the experience of two states with expanded health coverage for residents required by law.

“While a survey of emergency department physicians’ impressions lacks hard data about patient behavior and can’t be considered conclusive, the results are consistent with studies about the effects of Massachusetts’ 2007 health care reform law and a 2008 expansion of Medicaid in Oregon.”

Of course, these sorts of facts don’t prevent Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid from doing what he has come to be known for, especially with regard to Mitt Romney’s tax-paying habits — not sticking with facts. As The Hill pointed out in an article only a week ago, the Nevada Democrat took to the Senate floor to bash Republican opponents of the law he so aggressively championed; declaring, without reservation, that “ObamaCare is a smashing success.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

It’s Time To Stop The Practice Of Funding Government By Misdemeanor

As regular readers know, I have, over the last few years, become a critic of our criminal justice system.

It comes under the heading of ‘a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has just been charged.’ I did some work for a TV network back during the Abramoff “scandal” and, for the life of me, cannot figure out what Jack Abramoff did wrong except to piss some powerful people off. Yet he served time in a Federal prison at our expense.

Then came the Harvey Whittemore “scandal” in Nevada, where Whittemore was accused of raising the $140,000 Harry Reid asked him to raise, convicted of a felony, and nobody even suggested that Reid did anything wrong–much less criminal. In short, Harvey was convicted of pissing off powerful people and is now serving time in a Federal prison, while Harry is living at the Washington DC Ritz Carlton.

Now, there are powerful people and powerful people. To many people, some Justice of the Peace in rural Nevada is “powerful” in a way that he or she should not be–and it’s now time to change that.

As Eric Holder’s investigators correctly found in Ferguson, Missouri, the “criminal justice” system was being used to extract money in prodigious amounts from the citizens to fund the cops, the courts, and who knows what else.

That’s not a surprise to those of us who watch the system closely. I know that many see this as a racial issue, but the truth is that the system is busy screwing everybody all the time. It’s just that many times, middle class white folks in the suburbs are harder targets because we have lawyers. And the best justice is the justice you pay for.

A logical solution is to make it illegal to fund the system with fines, fees, and the like. If that makes some tin horn JP in Mineral County a part timer, so be it. And if that reduces the workload of the Las Vegas Justice Court, oh, well…

In Nevada, as an example, speeding is a criminal violation, not a civil violation.

That means that when you pay a speeding ticket to make it go away, you have a criminal record. You plead guilty to a misdemeanor. It also means the cops can show up at your house if you fail to pay the ticket and haul you to jail. And cops hauling people to jail over traffic tickets are NOT policing the streets for violent crime.

The whole system is a perversion of justice. Cops have an incentive to write tickets to bring in revenue to make judges happy. Legislators don’t have to worry about actually funding the court system because, assuming the cops write enough tickets, it takes care of itself. Taken to its ridiculous conclusion, you get Ferguson, Missouri, and plenty of other places.

It’s a hot potato that even the most conservative elements of our own state legislature are hesitant to deal with because, for some reason, they are afraid of small town justices of the so-called peace. What brings it to the forefront is an intelligent decision on the part of the Nevada Highway Patrol to focus their traffic enforcement efforts on things that actually cause crashes as opposed to writing a quota of tickets. This has reduced revenue so much that judges are crying aloud about funding.

That comes under the heading of a load of crap.

There is a way to solve this problem permanently.

Given the very small turn-out in the last general election, there has never been a better time to launch things like this as voter initiative constitutional amendments. Getting the relatively small number of signatures required and placing an initiative on the ballot making it illegal to fund the court system with fines and fees should pass with the kind of numbers that restricting tax increases did.

If the legislature doesn’t like that idea, they should do something themselves before the voters force their hands.

And if the judges don’t like it, they need to remember that they are elected, too.

Right now, we need to get our criminal justice system under control; and you can start by removing most traffic enforcement from its jurisdiction. Then, we’ll start looking at other things that come under the heading of revenue farming.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth