Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Trump Wins ‘Lie of the Year’ For Exposing DC Media’s Muslim, Immigrant Crime Cover-Up

The Associated Press

by JOHN NOLTE21 Dec 20151,783

The DC Media is furious at Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for pushing two vitally important national issues that this very same media has been covering up for years — American Muslims celebrating 9/11 and the horrific crimes committed by illegal immigrants. In fact, although Trump has been vindicated on both accounts, the DC Media is so desperate to distract from this exposure, the serial-liars at PolitiFact have laughably awarded Trump “Lie of the Year.”

To validate the “Lie of the Year” award, PolitiFact cites Trump’s claim that, “I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.” Second on the list is “The Mexican government … they send the bad ones over.” The third and final “lie” is a tweet Trump re-tweeted about crime statistics.

Trump’s comments about Muslim celebrations and his criticism of Mexican illegals blew open  the door on truths the DC Media has, for partisan political reasons, kept covered up for years.

The DC Media can use “Lie of the Year” all it wants to try and paper over the fact that they have been caught in an industry-wide cover-up. Nothing, though, changes the fact that for the first time Americans now know that a troubling number of Muslims did celebrate on 9/11 and that there is an illegal immigrant crime wave.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter@NolteNC               

Read More Stories About:

Big Journalism2016 Presidential Race

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images

by ALEX SWOYER21 Dec 2015Washington, DC3,692

The text of the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries reverses policies that were originally put into place to prevent a foreign takeover of the nation’s infrastructure, argues political consultant Curtis Ellis, who adds that the deal threatens U.S. national security interests.

Ellis explained:

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.  The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect our national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim our national security interests violate the T.P.P. agreement and force the U.S. to pay billions of dollars in damages.


Ellis says that Chapter 11 in the more than 5,000-page trade deal provides foreign investors with special rights to acquire U.S. land, businesses, natural resources and investments.

“Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their ‘rights’ under the TPP,” Ellis argues.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the T.P.P., the Sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his T.P.P. country under Sharia law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits.” The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to our national security.


Additionally, the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei — a country that’s a party to President Obama’s trade agenda — hasoutlawed Christmas and threatens to place offenders in prison.

Ellis points to an event in 2006 that supports his concerns within the TPP.

According to Ellis, Dubai Ports World (DPW), an enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to purchase a company in 2006, which operated six U.S. ports. During that time, Ellis says, “Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks,” but he argues that the 2006 “controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.”

Ellis’s concerns with TPP is that the TPP, like the Oman pact, gives foreign investors special rights to own and operate U.S. businesses and an option to sue if they feel their rights are violated. He adds that the public outcry in 2006 blocked the sale.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT reads: “For greater certainty, if a Party invokes [the “Security Exception] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”


“In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign ‘trade’ tribunal could overrule it,” Ellis told Breitbart News.

According to Ellis, the TPP eliminated this “crucial stipulation.”

“As a result, any company operating in a T.P.P. country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a crucial American asset based on national security grounds,” he explains.

Ellis argues that without a footnote to “Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its judgment for that of our own government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.”

“The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal,” he stressed.

Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand each listed their own foreign investment review laws, according to Ellis. However, the U.S. did not do so.

Breitbart News reached out to the United States Trade Representative’s office about Ellis’s concern but did not receive comment.

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentNational Security,Economicsnational securityTrans Pacific PartnershipTrade DealCurtis Ellis

TEA PARTY VOWS REVENGE PAUL RYAN

Movement to Primary Speaker Paul Ryan Out of Congress Picks Up Steam

Jim Hoft Dec 19th, 2015 8:13 am Leave a Comment

We Were Warned–
Harry Reid threw his support behind Paul Ryan for Speaker back in October.

In July 2013 Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke with a Hispanic audience about his intention to push immigration reform in the House of Representatives.

In October 2013 Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)wrote a bill that would grant citizenship to at least 11 million illegal immigrants.

Ryan was elected Speaker of the House in October.

On Thursday Speaker Ryan passed a trillion dollar budget deal that was widely praised by Barack Obama and Democratic leaders.
They got everything they wanted.

After Republicans passed this budget Rush Limbaugh posed the question: Tell Me How the Budget Deal Would Be Worse If Democrats Ran Congress
It wouldn’t.

Now there is a movement under way to primary Paul Ryan out of office.

facebook page was set up to primary Paul Ryan from Congress.

The page already has 4,335 likes.

There is also a Fire Paul Ryan webpage set up online.

And now this…
On Friday the Wisconsin Tea Party declared war on Ryan.

Posted by Primary Challenge Paul Ryan on Friday, December 18, 2015


Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed, 

 Gateway Pundit

Hillary Clinton Fan Threatens Mosque; Media Blame Trump

Facebook

by JOEL B. POLLAK21 Dec 2015127

The mainstream media are reporting that a Bay Area plumber who allegedly planned to bomb a California mosque was a Donald Trump supporter–though he explicitly supported Hillary Clinton.

On Sunday, police arrested 55-year-old William Celli “on suspicion of possessing an explosive device and making criminal threats,” CBS San Francisco reported. A bomb squad detonated a device at his house. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) cheered the arrest.

CBS elaborated further: “On Facebook, Celli repeatedly praised Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose plan to bar any Muslims from entering the United States has drawn criticism even as he continues to rise in the polls.”

The Huffington Post and other left-wing sites played up Celli’s support of Trump, implying that Trump was responsible for “propelling” bigotry and “white domestic terrorism” into the “mainstream” of political debate.

What the media left out, however, is that Celli also praised Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

In one post, Celli wrote: “Hillary Would make a great president. If she would commit to what she is hiding. But she has to crucify the president. Then her run for the White house is over.”

The post praising Hillary Clinton is dated Oct. 22–the day Clinton testified for 11 hours at the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Huffington Post and other outletsclaimed the story has been overlooked because

Celli doesn’t fit the profile of the “terrorist” who is likely to be invoked on cable news or on a GOP debate stage. In fact, judging by Celli’s Facebook page, he seems to be the exact inverse: a disgruntled white man who has bought into the xenophobic rhetoric of people like GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.


Or Hillary Clinton. But never mind the facts.

Update: The Contra Costa Times follows the same pattern, calling William Celli a “Donald Trump supporter” in the headline and throughout the piece, quoting extensively from his Facebook page without mentioning his support for Hillary Clinton.

(Screenshot of Contra Costa Times 11 p.m. Monday Dec. 21, 2015)

The article uses Celli’s arrest as a way to slam Trump:

Trump has received mounting criticism from both political parties for inflammatory comments about the Muslim community, such as the idea to create databases to track American Muslims and restrict Muslims from entering the country. Critics have warned that such comments could fuel Islamophobia.


No mention of Clinton whatsoever appears in the article.

One of the authors, Thomas Peele, mocked “Bill the Plumber” on Twitter:

Peele’s website boasts that he has won “more than 50 journalism awards.”

Update 2: Here’s Mediaite‘s Ken Meyer, linking to Talking Points Memo‘s Caitlin Cruz, linking to Raw Story‘s Travis Gettys, all regurgitating the “Trump supporter” claim, all quoting extensively from Celli’s Facebook page, and none mentioning his remarks about Hillary Clinton.

Update 3: The San Francisco Chroniclementions Celli’s posts about Trump but not his comments about Clinton. It also quotes CAIR–an organization that has been helping the family of the San Bernardino terrorists–raising concerns about Trump.

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentBig JournalismBreitbart CaliforniaDonald TrumpHillary Clinton,terrorismMedia BiasCAIRRichmond,Contra Costa Timeswilliam celli

Sen. Ted Cruz Goes After Sen. McConnell For Being Democrats’ Puppet

AP/J. Scott Applewhite

by MICHELLE FIELDS21 Dec 20151,790

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) went after House Majority LeaderSen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)Monday, arguing that he works for Democrats — including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — to help get their liberal policies passed in Congress.

“I have said that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is the most effective Democratic leader in modern times” wrote Cruz in Politico. He added:

But don’t take my word for it. Take Sen. Chuck Schumer’s, the vice chair of the Senate Democratic conference. Today Sen. Schumer summed up what’s wrong with Washington when he told Politico, “Sen. McConnell wants to see the Senate work. But the good news for [Democrats] is, to make it work, he has to do basically our agenda.”


Cruz also went after the record of Republican leadership in the Senate.

“Since taking control of the Senate, Republican leadership has joined hands with a majority of Democrats to thwart their own caucus’ efforts to stop the Obama agenda 24 times. During each of these 24 votes, this so-called Republican majority successfully passed legislation with a majority of Democrats in support and a majority of Republicans opposed.”


Last week, Schumer gloated over the Democrats’ win in the 2016 budget talks, and declared that:

“Well, if you would’ve told me this year that we’d be standing here celebrating the passage of an omnibus bill, with no poison pill riders, at higher [spending] levels above sequesters than even the president requested, I wouldn’t have believed it, but here we are… Almost anything, the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms… Democrats had an amazingly good year.”


Since his election in 2012, Cruz and McConnell have clashed repeatedly over conservative priorities.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Ted CruzMitch McConnellChuck Schumer

Bill Kristol: ‘We’ll Have to Start’ New Party If Trump Wins Nomination

AP Photos

by BEN SHAPIRO21 Dec 20152673

‪On Monday, Weekly Standardeditor-in-chief Bill Kristoltweeted out what the rest of the Republican establishment is thinking: better Hillary than Donald. Here’s the tweet:

Crowd-sourcing: Name of the new party we’ll have to start if Trump wins the GOP nomination? Suggestions welcome at editor@weeklystandard.com

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) December 20, 2015


Kristol isn’t alone. As I wrote at Daily Wiretoday, Politico’s Jeff Greenfield says, “If the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run – from the Republicans themselves.” That follows last Thursday’s Politico column from former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who compared Trump to Hitler and called him “evil,” and last Wednesday’s Politico column reporting that Jeb Bush’s aides “began looking into the possibility of making a clear break with Trump – potentially with the candidate stating that, if Trump were the nominee, Bush would not support him.”

Last week, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said that former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour “and a lot of the Republican leaders would much rather Hillary Clinton be President of the United States than have Donald Trump represent them as a Republican.” And in November, The Hillreported that “GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”

I’m old enough to remember when it wasscandalous for Trump not to pledge his allegiance to the eventual Republican nominee. Now, day after day, reports from party leaders leak, stating that should Trump gain control over the party apparatus, they will simply smash the machinery.

Classy.

This wouldn’t be the first time.

As Greenfield points out, when iconic conservative Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) won the nomination for president, many of his rivals refused to endorse him for the Oval Office, including Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and Governor George Romney (R-MI). Romney ripped Goldwater’s “extremist” supporters” and would later support Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in 1976 and George H.W. Bush over Reagan in 1980.

These liberal Republicans, who believed in bigger government, didn’t appreciate Goldwater’s libertarianism and forcibly undercut his doomed bid. Greenfield cites the New York Herald-Tribune going so far as to endorse LBJ, the most leftist president until Barack Obama, for the White House over Goldwater.

And while the Republican establishment would like everyone to think that they were the reason for the rise of Ronald Reagan, they did everything they could to stop Reagan. Not only did establishment Republicans back George H.W. Bush over Reagan in the 1980 primaries – Bush infamously bragged about his support from liberal Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge – but a few went so far as to support the independent candidacy of former liberal Republican Rep. John Anderson of Illinois, who dumped the Party after Reagan won the nomination. Anderson explained, “I would be more comfortable with Teddy Kennedy in the sense that I do believe that Ronald Reagan’s view of the problems of our day is so utterly inappropriate.”

Obviously, the establishment failed in stopping Reagan. But with the election of H.W. Bush, they grabbed control of the Party again, and they haven’t given it up since.

Today’s establishment Republican “saviors” of the Party like to think of themselves as fighting not Reagan or Goldwater, but David Duke – they color Trump a racist and a xenophobe. The truth, however, is that it wouldn’t matter at all whether Trump were the establishment’s enemy or whether it was Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), currently the second-place finisher in national polls. So long as the frontrunner remains an outsider, the establishment will use all of its power to stop them, including the threat of a third-party run.

Which shows, as always, that they care more about maintaining control of the party apparatus than about beating Hillary Clinton. After all, they said the same about Trump when he was threatening a third-party run.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceTed CruzRonald ReaganGeorge H.W. Bushbarry goldwater

Monday, December 21, 2015

Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds

www.latimes.com
Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some surveys may actually be understating his support, a new study suggests.
The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally has done better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.
The firm conducted an experiment aimed at understanding why that happens and which polls are more accurate -- online surveys that have tended to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have typically shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer.
Their results suggest that the higher figure probably provides the more accurate measure. Some significant number of Trump supporters, especially those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.
With Trump dominating political debates in both parties, gauging his level of support has become a crucial puzzle. The Morning Consult study provides one piece of the solution, although many other uncertainties remain.
Among the complicating factors is this: The gap between online and telephone surveys has narrowed significantly in surveys taken in the last few weeks. That could suggest that Republicans who were reluctant to admit to backing Trump in the past have become more willing to do so recently.
Another issue is that not only can polls change over time, but Trump's support in pre-election surveys might not fully translate into actual votes. He has not invested as heavily as some of his GOP rivals in building the kind of get-out-the-vote operation that candidates typically rely on, particularly in early voting states.
Some of the polls that show heavy support for Trump have also shown him doing better among self-identified independents who lean Republican than among regular GOP voters. At least some of those independents may not be in the habit of voting in primaries and caucuses, which could make a robust turnout operation even more necessary.
On the other hand, a candidate of Trump's level of celebrity may simply not need much of a get-out-the-vote operation. No one really knows.
Another complication is that most polls made public this year have been of people nationwide, not of voters in the states that actually hold the first primaries. In Iowa, which will kick off the election season with party caucuses on Feb. 1, Trump has slipped into second place, trailing Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the majority of recent polls.
In New Hampshire, which holds the first primary, on Feb. 9, Trump leads, but less dramatically than in national polls. In recent weeks, he has averaged a bit more than one-quarter of the vote there.
Still, the Morning Consult experiment sheds considerable light on an issue that has puzzled pollsters for months.
The firm polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month, randomly assigning them to one of three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.
By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, the researchers hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.
The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Dropp.
The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a significant difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.
The most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe, is a well-known problem known as social-desirability bias -- the tendency of people to not want to confess unpopular views to a pollster.
Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities, the pollsters suggested. But many college-educated Republicans may hesitate to admit their attraction to Trump, the experiment indicates.
In a public setting such as the Iowa caucuses, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors, that same social-desirability bias may hold sway.
But in most primaries, where voters cast a secret ballot, the study's finding suggests that anonymous online surveys -- the ones that typically show Trump with a larger lead -- provide the more accurate measure of his backing.
"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," Dropp said.