Category Archives: News

Democrat operative resigns after being exposed by Project Veritas hidden cam sting

Let’s talk about the videos. There are two so far that have been released, with more to come.

The first video is about Democrats manufacturing violence at Trump rallies. (Warning: vulgar language)

Description:

Published on Oct 17, 2016

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging.

Video:

The second video is about Democrats engaging in voter fraud. (Warning: vulgar language)

Description:

Published on Oct 18, 2016

In the second video of James O’Keefe’s new explosive series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale. Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.

Video:

When O’Keefe mentioned that he was going to post these videos, Twitter suspended O’Keefe’s Twitter account. He was able to get it reactivated after a massive landslide of complaints by his supporters.

Google, a far-left organization that censors conservatives, decided to keep this video off of their YouTube Trending section.

O’Keefe tweeted:

Google censors O'Keefe video from YouTube Trending section
Google censors O’Keefe video from U.S. YouTube Trending section

(Click for larger image)

I personally verified this on Tuesday afternoon, confirming that videos with far fewer hits (around 100,000 views) were listed in the trending section, but not O’Keefe’s first sting video, which had over 2.6 million views in only 24 hours . The page view count is much higher now: 3.4 million for the first video, and 564K for the second video, as of Tuesday night.

What about leftist CNN?

Well, I have blogged about CNN’s record of supporting the Democrats with biased coverage dozens of times on this blog. But there is one person at CNN who is not a complete hack, and that’s Anderson Cooper. He covered the videos on Tuesday night:

Anderson Cooper covers James O'Keefe video on CNN
Anderson Cooper covers James O’Keefe video on CNN

And the story was actually posted on CNN at the time that I was writing this post:

A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday that he would be “stepping back” from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump’s campaign rallies and incite violence.

Robert Creamer — husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky — announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O’Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.

[…]Creamer was helping the Democratic National Committee with Clinton’s campaign while working for Democracy Partners, a progressive consulting group. He is also the head of a group called Mobilize, which contracted with the DNC.

[…]He confirmed that he was referring to the Clinton campaign, with which he was “fully integrated.”

[…]”I mean, honestly, it’s not hard to get some of these a——- to pop off,” [Scott] Foval purportedly says at one point in the video. “It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into their rally, in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt. Or ‘Trump is a Nazi,’ you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them out to punch you.”

In the past, Cooper has responded to calls by conservatives to cover stories that are only being covered by individual bloggers, conservative talk shows, and maybe Fox News Channel.

Pakistan delays ruling on death penalty for Christian woman accused of blasphemy

Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism
Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism

This story appeared in several Christian sources, but I went looking to find the details in a far left source: Al-Jazeera.

Excerpt:

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has delayed an appeal into the country’s most notorious blasphemy case against a Christian mother on death row since 2010, after one of the judges stepped down.

[…]Bibi was convicted and sentenced to hang in 2010 after an argument with a Muslim woman over a bowl of water. Her supporters maintain her innocence and insist it was a personal dispute.

But successive appeals have been rejected, and if the Supreme Court bench upholds Bibi’s conviction, her only recourse will be a direct appeal to the president for clemency.

[…]Rights groups complain that the controversial legislation is often abused to carry out personal vendettas, mainly against minority Christians.

Now would be a good time to pray for Asia Bibi.

I saw another interesting story in the news that I think shows why we need to be more hawkish in our foreign policy with nations like Pakistan and Iran.

ABC News reports:

The destroyer USS Mason fired defensive countermeasures in response to what may have been incoming missiles, a defense official said . The ship had been attacked two times before in the past week, which triggered retaliatory strikes against radars used by Houthi rebels in those attacks. The Pentagon is investigating the incident.

“A U.S. Strike Group transiting international waters in the Red Sea detected possible inbound missile threats and deployed appropriate defensive measures,” said a U.S. defense official. “Post event assessment is ongoing. All U.S. warships and vessels in the area are safe.”

The destroyer USS Nitze and the USS Ponce, an afloat forward staging area ship, were close to the Mason at the time.

U.S. officials had said earlier Sunday that the Mason had come under attack from two inbound missiles that originated in Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen.

[…]The Houthis are an Iranian-backed rebel group that in January 2015 overthrew the Yemeni government. Since March 2015, they have been fighting a Saudi-led coalition that intervened militarily in Yemen to restore that government to power.

You’ll recall that Obama decided to give Iran a $1.7 billion ransom, $400 million of it in cash, in order to help them with their sponsorship of terrorism and their nuclear weapon development. Perhaps the missiles fired at our ships were bought with money from U.S. taxpayers, funneled to the Houthis via Iran? Thanks, Obama.

Obama is also bringing in over a hundred thousand Muslim refugees (but almost no Christian refugees) tot the United States, and giving them green cards. There was just a news story about that, reported in the Houston Chronicle.

Excerpt:

A Houston man who pledged his allegiance to ISIS and plotted to detonate homemade bombs in local shopping malls pleaded guilty Monday to a terrorism-related charge.

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a 24-year-old father, stockpiled circuitry components, wireless remotes and other bomb-making implements in his west Houston apartment, according to court documents.

“I want to blow myself up. I want to travel with the Mujahidin,” he once said, according to prosecutors. “I want to travel to be with those who are against America. I am against America.”

[…]Al Hardan originally entered the country as an Iraqi refugee in 2009. He gained legal permanent residence in 2011 and settled in the Houston area.

Wow, he got a green card in 2 years. People who can speak English who come here with advanced degrees to work, pay taxes and follow the law, have to wait over a decade for a green card. But this refugee got right in at the head of the line. Obama priorities.

Well, what is the Democrat attitude to these domestic terrorists? Is it that the government needs to crack down to protect the public? Of course not. The bigoted taxpayers are not their main concern.

The Daily Caller reported on leaked Clinton e-mails reveal the standard Democrat attitude to domestic terrorism committed by radicalized Muslims:

After Syed Farook was identified as one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman expressed dismay that Farook had an ethnic-sounding name rather than a stereotypical white one, newly released emails show.

“Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,” Podesta wrote in a Dec. 2, 2015 email to Karen Finney, a Clinton campaign spokeswoman.

He was referring to white MSNBC host Christopher Hayes, who had reported on Twitter that Farook was identified as one of the San Bernardino shooters.

“Damn,” was Finney’s response to the tweet, which she forwarded to Podesta.

That’s Hillary Clinton’s view of radical Islam.

So, is there a plan to address Christians in Pakistan getting the death penalty for being Christian, missile attacks against Navy ships by Iran-backed groups, and domestic terrorism here at home? Yes, Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch has a plan for dealing with radical Islam. This is the great plan that moral relativists on the secular left are offering to address radical Islam. Are you ready?

Here it is from the Daily Wire:

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” she said.

[…]After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

Democrat priorities, American voters.

New study: unborn child’s heartbeat is detectable at 16 days

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study

A new study conducted by University of Oxford was published in the journal eLife. (H/T Dad)

Here is the report from the Oxford University website:

When does our heart first start to beat? Until now, researchers thought that the first time our heart muscle contracted to beat was at eight days after conception in mice, which equates to around day 21 of a human pregnancy.

Now, a team funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) at the University of Oxford has demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception.

In the study, published in the journal eLife, researchers looked at the developing mouse heart and found that the muscle started to contract as soon as it formed the cardiac crescent – an early stage in heart development. In mice, this crescent forms 7.5 days after conception, which is equivalent to day 16 in the human embryo. Previously, it was thought that the heart started to contract a stage later, when the heart appears as a linear tube.

Here’s how they did it:

By adding fluorescent markers to calcium molecules within the mouse embryo, the team was able to see at exactly which point in time the calcium tells our heart muscle cells to contract and then become coordinated enough to produce a heartbeat.

The team also found that this initiation of beating was essential for the heart to develop properly at an early stage and that a protein called NCX1 plays a key role in the generation of the calcium signals needed to produce the beating action of the heart.

The heart is the first organ to form during pregnancy and is critical in providing oxygen and nutrients to the developing embryo. The process of heart development is highly conserved between mammalian species, meaning that these findings may add considerably to our understanding of how the human heart develops.

Abortion is another one of those issues where conservatives are determined to abide by what the progress of science reveals, while liberals are determined to block out what science reveals.

Here is a nice video that shows how unborn children develop in the womb:

From the moment of conception, a new set of human DNA is formed, different from the mother, different from the father. And already the little unborn child is in relationship with his or her mother. He or she is depending on her to honor her obligation to him or her, because it was she who chose to have sex, and who chose the man to have sex with, and who chose when in the relationship to have sex with him.

Those of us who are Christians have always believed that abortion was morally wrong, going write back to the beginning of the Christian faith.

This is from Birds of the Air.

Summary:

Recently I came across a reading of the Didache. “The what?” you may ask. The Didache is a book written somewhere in the first or second century. For a long time it was up for consideration as Scripture. It was believed to be the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Eventually it was agreed that the book was an excellent book, but not inspired Scripture. So I was pleased to be able to download this admirable book containing good teachings from the early Church fathers.

The book seemed to be largely a lot of quotes from Scripture. You’ll learn the basic rules of Christianity — “First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself.” You’ll learn that “grave sins” are forbidden, like adultery, murder, fornication, and so on. (They specifically include pederasty in the list.) There are instructions regarding teachers, prophets, Christian assembly, and so on. Lots of the normal, good stuff. But, since this was written sometime prior to 200 AD, I was somewhat surprised at this instruction: “You shall not murder a child by abortion” (Didache, Ch 2).

Christians really would benefit from looking at the moral values of the early church. These days, we tend to decide what is right and wrong based on our feelings, including the feelings we have when other people like us or don’t like us. But deciding things based on your feelings was not real popular with the earliest Christians. They decided what to do based on what was morally right, and they always protected the weak rather than favoring the selfishness and hedonism of the strong.

One the reasons I could never be an atheist is that I would have to shut my eyes to science, and not let science provide me with the facts that undergird my reasoning about moral issues. Most of the atheists I know don’t care about science. They just want to do what makes them feel good, and they don’t care who else gets hurt.