Will this giant problem finish Elizabeth Warren for good?

Will this giant problem finish Elizabeth Warren for good?

Elizabeth Warren has become the darling of the far-left Democratic base.

They are clamoring for her to run for President in 2020.

But she has one giant problem.

Elizabeth Warren is up for re-election in 2018.

Running as a far-left radical in far-left Massachusetts, she should be a shoe-in for re-election as a pit stop on her way to running for President in 2020.

But reality has a funny way of intruding on plans.

A brand new poll shows she is vulnerable to defeat.

Politico reports:

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren may not have an easy path to reelection in 2018.

A poll released Monday shows that 46 percent of Massachusetts voters think it’s time for someone else to have a shot at the Senate.

“It’s not a great place to start for her, but she still would be the favorite at this point,” said MassINC Polling Group President Steve Koczela, who conducted the poll with public radio station WBUR.

Fifty-one percent of the poll’s respondents approved of the first-term Democrat, while 37 disapproved.

While it’s still early to handicap the 2018 race, a relatively underwhelming field of potential Democratic primary challengers and Republican opponents means that while there is an opening to upset Warren, it is narrow.”

Warren stumped for Hillary Clinton in 2016

Who would step up to take on Warren?

One possibility is former Red Sox ace Curt Schilling.

Schilling famously helped the Red Sox break the Curse of the Bambino in 2004 by fronting the Red Sox rotation on the way to winning their first World Series victory in 86 years.

And he has announced his interest in the race.

Will Schilling ultimately take the plunge?

While many believe Massachusetts is inhospitable territory for Republicans recent statewide races have shown it is possible for GOP candidates to achieve victory.

Charlie Baker won the governor’s race in 2010 and now holds a higher approval rating than Warren.

And in 2010, Scott Brown famously broke the Democrats filibuster-proof majority by winning the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Brown campaigned as a populist man of the people and in the era of Trump, his win could provide a roadmap for Schilling to topple Warren.

Franklin Graham is under major attack because of this statement

Franklin Graham is under major attack because of this statement

Liberals carry politics to every aspect of life.

And that includes a gathering led by evangelical preacher Franklin Graham.

He’s catching serious heat because of one statement.

Now that Trump is President, he is carrying out the agenda he campaigned on.

Part of that agenda included his executive order banning travel for 90 days from seven countries with known ties to terrorism.

In a facebook post, Graham backed Trump’s executive order.

The Christian Post reports:

“Taking action to secure our borders had to start somewhere. Is it perfect? Maybe not, but it is a first step. As they work on solutions during this 90-day travel ban, unfortunately there are some innocent families caught in this time of transition,” Graham noted.

Graham, who is the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the aid organization Samaritan’s Purse, added that he believes that the screening process needs to apply to everyone, not just to people from the seven countries listed on the executive order.

“We have to be sure that the philosophies of those entering our country are compatible with our Constitution. If a person does not agree with our principles of freedom, democracy, and liberty, which we cherish, they should not be allowed to come. Without question, Sharia [Islamic] law is not compatible,” he continued.

Franklin with his father Billy Graham.

The liberal Huffington Post asked Graham about Trump’s executive order and if it complied with a biblical outlook.

Graham defended the order by stating that open borders aren’t in the Bible.

The Huffington Post reports:

“The Huffington Post spoke with Graham on Wednesday, and asked whether it’s possible to reconcile Trump’s temporary ban on refugees with the Christian commandment to welcome, clothe and feed the stranger, and to be a Good Samaritan to those in need.

Graham said he doesn’t believe those two things need to be reconciled.

“It’s not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come, that’s not a Bible issue,” Graham told HuffPost. “We want to love people, we want to be kind to people, we want to be considerate, but we have a country and a country should have order and there are laws that relate to immigration and I think we should follow those laws.

Because of the dangers we see today in this world, we need to be very careful.”

Liberals were outraged.

In response, Baptist groups in Puerto Rico announced they would boycott Graham’s planned rally in that San Juan.

The Christian Post reports:

“Some Baptists groups in Puerto Rico have said they will no longer support Franklin Graham’s evangelistic rally in San Juan this weekend because he supports President Donald Trump’s policies, claiming they are “contrary to the values of the Kingdom.”

In a Feb. 4 statement, written in Spanish by Baptist Churches of Puerto Rico Executive Minister Roberto Dieppa-Báez and President Margarita Ramirez, the groups said they “cannot agree with the expressions of Trump as they attack the life of our neighbor and Jesus has always called us to love even enemies and to be our brother’s keeper.”

But Graham never said we shouldn’t love our enemies or not be our brother’s keeper.

In fact, he explicitly said Americans should be kind to those seeking refuge.

Graham, however, believes that a nation can both have secure borders and live under a biblical code.

Loretta Lynch did something that should frighten every American

Loretta Lynch did something that should frighten every American

Loretta Lynch had a problem with the Constitution.

She eagerly defended Barack Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and other power grabs.

But one move she made before she left office should frighten every American.

Shortly after Obama’s re-election, Edward Snowden revealed that Obama was illegally spying on every American.

The National Security Agency (NSA) was snooping through every American’s electronic communications without a warrant.

Millions of Americans were outraged.

And in response, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act which was a first step toward reforming the out-of-control surveillance state.

However, in Loretta Lynch’s final days as Attorney General, she signed an order that further eroded American’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lynch’s order allowed federal agencies beyond the NSA to dig through electronic communications without obtaining a search warrant.

She also allowed for the NSA to share electronic communications with their foreign intelligence counterparts.

Writing on Foxnews.com, Judge Andrew Napolitano laid out the scope of Lynch’s attack on the Fourth Amendment:

“On Jan. 3, outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch secretly signed an order directing the National Security Agency — America’s 60,000-person-strong domestic spying apparatus — to make available raw spying data to all other federal intelligence agencies, which then can pass it on to their counterparts in foreign countries and in the 50 states upon request. She did so, she claimed, for administrative convenience. Yet in doing this, she violated basic constitutional principles that were erected centuries ago to prevent just what she did…

…Now, because of the Lynch secret order, revealed by The New York Times late last week, the NSA may share any of its data with any other intelligence agency or law enforcement agency that has an intelligence arm based on — you guessed it — the non-standard of governmental need.

Down the slope we have come, with the destruction of liberty in the name of safety by elected and appointed government officials. At a time when the constitutionally recognized right to privacy was in its infancy, Justice Louis Brandeis warned all who love freedom about its slow demise. He wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”

Someday we will learn why Obama did this. I hope that when we do, it is at a time when we still have personal liberty in a free society.”

The abuses of the surveillance state are coming into focus as leaks of intercepted phone calls forced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn to resign.

Many contend those communications were intercepted illegally because no warrant was obtained.

Giving even more power to unelected and unaccountable spy state bureaucrats is a frightening proposition.

And it was Loretta Lynch’s swan song move as Attorney General to sneak in expanding the powers of the NSA on her way out the door.

If they could sink the career of a former General and National Security Advisor, what chance do ordinary Americans stand against the vast, unchecked powers of the surveillance state.

Do you agree?

Let us know what you think in the comments section.

Donald Trump just dealt a major blow to Obamacare

Donald Trump just dealt a major blow to Obamacare

Repealing Obamacare was a lynchpin of Donald Trump’s successful Presidential campaign.

Many questioned if he would be able to make good on his pledge.

One of his first actions in office gutted Obamacare in a major way.

Trump signed an executive order instructing the IRS not to enforce the mandate, penalties, and taxes associated with Obamacare.

Many assumed it was just a symbolic gesture to give the appearance of keeping a key promise.

But a close examination revealed Trump actually gutted Obamacare.

Reason.com reports:

“Following President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.

The health law’s individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a “shared responsibility payment.” The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a Form 8965.

For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise, they would be labeled “silent returns” and rejected.

Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.

Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it’s not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow-up.

But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.”

When the order was signed, some saw it for what it was.

Judge Andrew Napolitano called it “revolutionary” because it instructed the government to favor the individual over the state.

Without the individual mandate, Obamacare collapses.

The legislation depends on young and healthy individuals being forced into the insurance pool in order to buy coverage they are unlikely to use in order to subsidize the cost of insuring older and sicker Americans.

Trump’s executive order guts the enforcement mechanism of Obamacare.

But the regulations and the government controls over health care plans can only be repealed by an act of Congress.

And so far the Republican-controlled House and Senate have been paralyzed by fear over repealing the law.

Neither chamber can agree on a replacement plan so no legislation has advanced to President Trump’s desk.

Will the Republican congress follow Trump’s lead and fulfill their seven-year promise to repeal Obamacare?

Will these sleeper cells be the end of Donald Trump?

Will these sleeper cells be the end of Donald Trump?

Donald Trump has a problem.

Factions within the government are plotting against him.

And it’s about to blow out into the open and it could mean the end of his Presidency.

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was forced to resign after what radio host Laura Ingraham described as “death by a thousand leaks.”

While no one has accused Flynn of committing any criminal acts, sources within the intelligence community framed information in the most damaging way possible while leaking it to friendly, anti-Trump media outlets.

Flynn discussed sanctions against Russia in a late December phone call with the Russian ambassador.

As incoming National Security Advisor, it was within the scope of reasonable behavior for him to discuss the state of affairs with foreign counterparts.

The Wall Street Journal reported Flynn only discussed the sanctions in general terms:

“U.S. intelligence services routinely intercept and monitor conversations with Russian diplomats, officials have said. The transcripts of the conversations don’t show Mr. Flynn made any sort of promise to lift the sanctions once Mr. Trump took office, the officials said. Rather, they show Mr. Flynn making more general comments about relations between the two countries improving under Mr. Trump, people familiar with them said.”

But those facts did not get in the way of a runaway press pile-on led by members of the intelligence community who were happy to cherry pick information to leak in order to hurt the Trump administration.

Breitbart News reported that there “sleeper cells” within the government of Obama loyalists and career bureaucrats steadfastly opposed to Trump:

“Many other potential Yateses—holdovers from the Obama administration who have found their way into spots throughout the Trump administration—await throughout government.

“They’re hiding like sleeper cells everywhere,” one source said.

White House and other government sources say there are as many as 50 of them throughout government, and Priebus has full knowledge of their whereabouts, who they are, and what potential for damage they may cause. He is not doing anything about it, these sources add.”

Sally Yates was the Acting Attorney General who defied Trump by refusing to instruct the Department of Justice to defend Trump’s extreme vetting executive order.

Trump promptly fired her.

Eli Lake, writing in Bloomberg described what happened to Flynn as “political assassination.”

He argued that the selective leaking of monitored calls by U.S. officials and U.S. citizens is tactic used in authoritarian governments.

Lake also wrote that Flynn was a target for Democrats, Obama loyalists and intelligence community stalwarts resistant to his reforms:

“Flynn was a fat target for the national security state. He has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama.

Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals.

He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn’s breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.

In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama’s incoming national security adviser and Iran’s foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening.”

The Obama loyalists within the bureaucracy and intelligence community – none of whom were elected – carried out a coordinated campaign to sabotage the Trump administration.

These forces have been described as “sleeper cells.”

Will they take down the Trump administration for good?

The media is covering up this scandal involving this First Lady

The media is covering up this scandal involving this First Lady

Melania Trump

The media kicked the smear machine into overdrive the moment Donald Trump wrapped up the election.

Now the attacks are extending to his wife.

And the media is engaged in a major cover-up.

Recently, supermodel Emily Ratajkowski fired off a series of tweets about an offensive remark made by a New York Times reporter about the First Lady.

Ratajkowski stated that the reporter called Trump a “hooker.”

The Times reprimanded the reporter, but has so far refused to divulge the identity of the individual who spread lies and falsehoods about the First Lady.

This is a cover up to protect their anti-Trump partisan who was spreading defamatory information about the First Lady.

Politico reports:

Editors at the New York Times have reprimanded a reporter for referring to first lady Melania Trump as a “hooker” at an event Sunday night, calling the remarks “completely inappropriate.”

The reporter in question, who has not been identified by the paper, came under fire Monday morning after supermodel Emily Ratajkowski made the reporter’s remarks public in a series of tweets. Ratajkowski, who said the reporter made the remarks while sitting next to her at a New York Fashion Week event, called the comment “disgusting sexist bull—t.”

“At a party last night, a Times reporter who does not cover Washington or politics, referred to an unfounded rumor regarding Melania Trump,” a Times spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. “The comment was not intended to be public, but it was nonetheless completely inappropriate and should not have occurred. Editors have talked to the reporter in question about the lapse.”

The Times reporter was parroting a lie about Melania Trump that has been peddled by liberal bloggers and the media.

Trump has already settled one defamation lawsuit against a left-wing blogger in Maryland who had falsely asserted she worked as an escort.

Rueters reports:

“First lady Melania Trump has settled a defamation lawsuit for a “substantial sum” against a Maryland blogger who wrote about unsubstantiated rumors she had worked as an escort and falsely said she suffered a breakdown, Trump’s lawyer said on Tuesday.

“I acknowledge that these false statements were very harmful and hurtful to Mrs. Trump and her family, and therefore I sincerely apologize to Mrs. Trump, her son, her husband and her parents for making these false statements,” the blogger, Webster Tarpley, wrote in a statement released by Trump’s lawyer.

A lawyer for Tarpley confirmed the accuracy of the statement in an email and said the case had been resolved. Neither side would divulge the amount of the settlement, though Trump’s lawyer Charles Harder called it a “substantial sum.”

Others pointed out the double standard in the media.

Critics contended there is zero chance the media would have conspired to conceal the identity of a reporter who referred to Michelle Obama as a “hooker.”

There is little chance any reporter who even cared to say Michelle Obama was anything less than a combination of the Virgin Mary, Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I would be protected, let alone fired and run out of the journalism profession.

The NFL saw another ratings drop and it was because of this unbelievable reason

The NFL saw another ratings drop and it was because of this unbelievable reason

One negative headline that dogged the NFL throughout the season was the decline in ratings.

TV ratings were down eight percent in 2016 and that trend continued in the Super Bowl, where the league’s title game saw another ratings decline.

But the media is trying to cover up the shocking reason behind the league’s ratings slump.

In 2016, the NFL took a hard turn to the left.

San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem because he believed America systematically oppresses blacks.

Polls by YouGov and Rasmussen found viewers listed Kapernick’s protest as the number one reason they tuned out the League.

That trend of left-wing activism continued at the Super Bowl.

And it may have cost the NFL viewers.

Super Bowl XLI saw a slight decrease in viewers when it drew a 48.8 rating which was down from last year’s 49.

Media members hounded Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady over his friendship with President Trump.

Other players, like Patriots Tight End Martellus Bennett announced he would refuse to attend the White House ceremony if they won to protest Trump.

Heading into the game, the media breathlessly reported that anti-Trump singer Lady Gaga would use her halftime performance to slam Trump and make it clear liberal America would use every platform available to them to “resist” Trump.

Some leftists were upset when Gaga did not mention Trump’s name but gave an inclusive performance that Americans of all political affiliations could enjoy.

But that did not mean the game was free from left-wing politics.

In fact, the commercials were chock full of liberal propaganda.

One and from 84 Lumber depicted what appeared to be illegal immigrants trying to enter America.

The company claimed it was the story of legal immigrants, but many saw the open borders messaged being pushed.

Home sharing app Airbnb also aired a commercial that had nothing to do with their product, but was a 100% hysterical attack on Donald Trump with their “we accept” slogan that was designed to blast Trump for his supposed “anti-immigrant” beliefs.

Google’s ad also displayed homosexual rainbow pride flags prominently in their commercial.

Politics dominated the run-up to the Super Bowl with liberals salivating over denouncing Trump on the largest television platform of the year.

The commercials pushed social justice and left-wing ideology.

So it was so surprise that Americans who gave up on the league in the regular season because of its embrace of left-wing activism did not tune in for the Super Bowl.

Trey Gowdy perfectly summed up liberal insanity

Trey Gowdy perfectly summed up liberal insanity

Leftists have been on the attack since Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel from seven countries with known ties to terrorism.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Trump’s executive order.

The decision outraged many and Trey Gowdy summed up just how insane the decision really was.

Gowdy tweeted out a statement blasting the decision.

Gowdy ripped leaving the TRO in place, which essentially established a right for foreign noncitizens to demand entry into the United States.

He also pointed out that Presidents are elected and Judges are not.

In this decision, the judges substituted their judgment on matters of national security for those of the President, whom the American people elected to make these decisions.

He also tweeted the final line from his statement suggesting that the judiciary had grown far beyond the power originally intended by the framers of the Constitution.

In this case, the law clearly states the President has the right to suspend entry of any class of aliens he believes is detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Many have criticized the judges for reaching a decision that aligned with their political beliefs as opposed to the law.

In this case, the court stopped operating as a co-equal branch of government and assumed the role of supreme policy makers.

Liberals have had the most success over the years by using the courts to advance their agenda.

Gowdy used this case as a perfect example of how off-the-rails the left has flown.

This Symbol Left Sarah Silverman in Hysterics

This Symbol Left Sarah Silverman in Hysterics

Comedian Sarah Silverman is known for her rabid support for Bernie Sanders.

And last summer she spoke at the DNC, urging all of Bernie’s supporters to rally around Hillary Clinton.

Now, she’s taking to Twitter to ramp up anti-Trump hysteria.

On Monday, Silverman tweeted a picture of a symbol spray painted on the sidewalk several times in a row.

Silverman asked her followers: “Is this an attempt at swastikas?”

It turns out, the symbols — spray-painted in bright orange — were common markers used by utility companies and construction workers.

This is just another example of left-wing celebrities attempting to paint President Trump as “literally Hitler.”

What Silverman and her Hollywood pals haven’t yet realized is that every time they cry wolf it backfires on them.

Chelsea Clinton got caught red handed telling these gigantic lies

Chelsea Clinton got caught red handed telling these gigantic lies

Chelsea Clinton

The left has been howling about “fake news” ever since Hillary Clinton lost the election.

There is only one problem.

Chelsea Clinton spread two fake news stories and you won’t believe the mess she found herself in.

Now that Trump is President, Chelsea has taken on a more aggressive online persona.

She is trying to establish herself as a social justice warrior at the tip of the spear in the “resistance” to Trump.

To that end, she is now spraying social media with one loony left-wing outrage after another.

She recently spread two debunked fake news stories on twitter.

The first hoax claimed the Trump administration was deleting the information on so-called “man-made” global warming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s website.

She was quickly corrected by one user who pointed out that the information in question was just moved to a different URL.

The second fake news story was about a Pro-Life law in Arkansas.

The legislation prevents dismemberment abortions in the second trimester and allows family members to seek an injunction to stop the procedure.

The law is 100% pro-Life and does not allow for loopholes such as rape or incest.

Clinton falsely claimed the law allowed rapists to sue women getting abortions and collect damages from the Doctor.

A fact check by snopes.com (certainly not a pro-life organization) shows that the law does not allow for civil damages if the pregnancy results from a criminal act and it only allows for family members to obtain an injunction to stop dismemberment abortions from proceeding.

They write:

“The law in question, titled the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion, essentially bans what lawmakers term “dismemberment abortions” (which the medical community refers to as “dilation and evacuation,” or D&E) by making the provision of such a procedure a felony crime. Although the law precludes family members or rapists from suing pregnant women, it does grant spouses, parents, or legal guardians the ability to sue physicians who perform the procedure for damages and obtain injunctions preventing those physicians from performing additional such procedures.

JR Davis, spokesman for Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, pointed to a section of the law that prevents damages from being awarded when a terminated pregnancy was the result of a criminal act: “Civil damages shall not be awarded to a plaintiff if the pregnancy resulted from the criminal conduct of the plaintiff.” Thus, a rapist cannot sue his victim and reap any benefits from doing so. Furthermore, the law excludes a woman “who receives or attempts to receive a dismemberment abortion” from civil liability.

Davis also pointed out that the language in the law doesn’t enable a woman’s relatives to halt an abortion; rather, it allows them to seek an injunction that prevents “the abortion provider from performing or attempting to perform further dismemberment abortions …” The law, Davis said, was geared toward prosecuting physicians who perform the procedure rather than targeting pregnant women.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Clinton was called out for spreading fake news by the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, but she only copped to the climate change story being fake:

“Clinton sent out one story on Wednesday that described how climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is “disappearing” from its website, in an apparent swipe at President Donald Trump, who has questioned the existence of climate change.

The second story discussed a new law in Arkansas that would, according to Clinton’s retweet from Saturday, allow rapists to sue victims who get an abortion.

Both stories have since been proven false, and the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross called out Clinton for promoting the stories.”

Despite the facts being against her, she clung to the hoax to smear the pro-Life legislation in Arkansas.

There is definitely a “fake news” problem in America.

But the main culprits are the Democrats and their allies in the media.