Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Say hello!!!!!!!Write us at:

Nevadanewsandveiws 3

According to Bloomberg News, the Left’s effort to shove Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, down the nation’s throat before he leaves office has fizzled.  
Republicans, for a welcome change, have actually stuck to their guns and refused to hold hearings on a nomination they said Obama shouldn’t make and the GOP wouldn’t consider.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ lady-in-waiting for once Sen. Harry Reid finally leaves office, had a curious thing to say about this turn of events yesterday.  
“In key states,” the Chuckster said in a statement, “Republican senators are feeling the heat for their obstruction that would let Donald Trump pick the next Supreme Court justice.”
Whoa!  That means the D’s #2 in the Senate has come to the conclusion that Trump will be the GOP’s nominee and that he’s going to beat Hillary Clinton. Hillary must be thrilled.
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Publisher / Irritator-in-Chief
P.S.  I saw that Jeb Bush said that Ted Cruz picking Carly Fiorina as his running mate was a “smart move.”  And we should listen to Jeb because his own presidential campaign was such a huge success.
Oh, wait…

George Frey/Getty Images
George Frey/Getty Images

A national sheriffs’ group is calling on law enforcement officers to refuse to enforce gun controls that infringe on the Second Amendment.

The group, called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), began taking steps to drop enforcement of such controls “at the association’s 2014 convention.” Since that time, they have stepped up their efforts “to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.”
According to The Center for Public Integrity, former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack formed the CSPOA in 2011. Mack “claims the dues-paying support of several hundred of the nation’s more than 3,000 sheriffs and the sympathies of hundreds more.”
Some of these same sheriffs end up “in curious agreement with members of the sovereign citizens’ movement” from time to time. But “dozens” of the sheriffs have made their name writing letters to President Obama–following events like Sandy Hook Elementary School–letting Obama know they will not enforce any new gun laws passed onto the backs of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a crazed gunman.
Mack made a name for himself in 1996 by challenging Brady Law requirements that “local chief law enforcement” officers carry out background checks for the public’s gun purchases. Mack won that case at the Supreme Court with a 5-4 ruling. The Washington Post reports Antonin Scalia wrote a majority opinion “affirming the states’ sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and that the federal government could not enlist the local police in 50 states to do its bidding.” Although gun control advocates got around the decision by creating a database allowing Federal Firearms License holders (FFLs) to do background checks themselves, Mack found himself endeared to a solid contingent of gun owners and conservatives throughout the land.
Mack says of himself:
I never advocated violence. I spent 20 years in law enforcement without ever beating up anybody. [But] when you have no place else to go, when all the courts are against you, all the legislators are against you, where else do you go? I believe to the local county sheriff … and if that means standing against the federal government, then so damn be it.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at

FOR 1 KEY GROUP TRUMP'S MUSLIM BAN IS YUUGERepublican presidential candidate Donald TrumpRepublican presidential candidate Donald Trump
When GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced his idea of temporarily banning the immigration of Muslims to the Untied States, his idea was condemned by virtually the entire Republican Party.
Jeb Bush responded, “Seriously?”
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan addressed the nation to condemn it.
Even Ted Cruz wouldn’t support it.
But there’s one massive group of people that overwhelmingly backs Trump’s proposal: Republican primary voters.
A poll taken soon after Trump announced his plan in December showed almost two-thirds of Republican voters in favor of it. And as the votes are cast in state after state, support for Trump’s proposal is actually higher in some areas.
In the Northeastern primaries held earlier this week, exit polls showed almost 70 percent of voters in New York and Pennsylvania supported Trump’s proposed ban. This narrowly exceeds the support expressed for the policy in supposedly more conservative Southern states.
G.M. Davis, who earned his doctorate in political science from Stanford University and is author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad against the World,” said the widespread popular support for Trump’s policy shouldn’t be a shock to Republican leaders.
“It is an eminently reasonable and moderate proposal, which one hopes will set the tone for more sweeping proposals as the campaign progresses,” he said.
“It demonstrates that Mr. Trump understands the danger posed by Muslim immigration as well as the slanted politics of the issue, which routinely cast such proposals as his own as ‘extreme,’ ‘racist,’ etcetera and which requires special handling from figures such as himself.”
Davis argued Republican leaders are committed to an agenda of globalization, which leads them to put political correctness ahead of national security.
“On the issue of Muslim immigration, perhaps more than any other, ordinary voters and the establishment of both parties are divided,” Davis said. “Really, the establishment is happy to give voters whatever they like as long as the general program of globalization continues to move forward. That program entails the continued demolition of national borders, the mixing of national, religious and ethnic populations, and the general dissolution of local and regional distinctions of all sorts around which ordinary people can rally to defend their traditional freedoms.
“Ongoing immigration, especially Muslim immigration, is central to the general plan of eroding national integrity and identity, which is exactly why the establishment loves it and ordinary voters hate it.”
In fact, support for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration far exceeds support for Trump himself.
Large majorities support the policy even in states that voted against Trump. In Texas, which backed his Republican rival Cruz, 67 percent of GOP voters supported Trump’s policy proposal. In Wisconsin, where Trump also lost to Cruz, 69 percent agreed with Trump on banning Muslim entry into the country. Sixty-five percent of Republican primary voters in Ohio also supported Trump’s idea, even though the state went to Gov. John Kasich.
Pamela Geller, an activist who speaks out against extremist Islam and the author of “Stop the Islamization of America,” is one of those voters who supports Trump’s policy while not supporting Trump himself.
Geller, who has endorsed Cruz, called Trump “questionable on the free speech issue” after Trump criticized her for hosting a contest featuring images of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. However, she called Trump’s idea “a common-sense solution.”
“There is no way to vet for jihadis or distinguish them from peaceful Muslims,” Geller told WND. “Trump’s idea is so popular because people see the problem of jihad and see how our leaders are not dealing with it adequately. No one who had denounced Trump for suggesting this has come up with an alternate plan.”
Davis also said the whole issue of Muslim immigration and entry into the United States is bigger than Trump himself.
“Even a mere political opportunist ought to be able to see the vote-winning potential on the issue,” claimed Davis. “Westerners, Europeans and Americans are increasingly waking up to the nightmare of having their lands invaded by a hostile ideology that recognizes nothing of their own as sacred: not Christianity, not women’s rights, not freedom of speech, not responsible, secular government. Regardless of how the 2016 election turns out, the issue of Muslim immigration will persist, either as a focus of policy in a Trump (or possibly Cruz) administration or as an ever-growing elephant in the room of a Clinton administration.”
The issue is likely to increase in importance as investigations continue into the Dec. 2, 2015, terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. On Thursday, the brother of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers, was arrested and charged with marriage fraud, conspiracy and lying under oath. Two other individuals related to Farook were also arrested.
Philip Haney, a former Customs and Border Protection officer who won numerous awards and commendations during his long career for analyzing intelligence and identifying terrorists, argued in December the San Bernardino attacks could have been prevented if the federal government hadn’t shut down his investigation for fear of profiling Muslims. He chronicles his experiences in the upcoming book “See Something, Say Nothing.”
Haney told WND there is a lack of political will to carry out the laws needed to protect the American people.
“I support enforcement of our constitutionally mandated immigration laws, so that we can more effectively protect our country from threats both foreign and domestic,” he said. “The flaws in our current vetting system are well documented. They are fixable, but only if there is concerted effort.”
However, Haney expressed some doubts about Trump’s plan, arguing it was too vague.
“He needs to clearly define ‘temporary’ and define exactly what he hopes to accomplish during the halt,” he said.
Regardless, Haney argues both Republicans and Democrats need to start taking the threat of terrorism seriously because the American people won’t settle for anything less.
“This is not just a partisan issue but a national security issue,” the former intelligence analyst warned. “The primary responsibility of our elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, is to do their utmost to protect American citizens from those who seek to enter our country in order to do us harm.”
Haney concluded: “For almost eight years, the Obama administration has supposedly been advising the American people if they ‘see something,’ they need to ‘say something.’ Well, what the American people are seeing today is very disturbing, and the support for Trump’s idea shows they are saying something, too.”

Pentagon to Trey Gowdy and Benghazi panel: Back off

The Pentagon is sick of a House panel's demands regarding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, and sent a letter to the committee Thursday night calling on them to do a better job with their urgent requests for interviews.
"The department has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi-specific congressional compliance, including reviews by four other committees, which have diligently reviewed the military's response in particular," Stephen Hedger, the department's assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs, wrote in a Thursday letter addressed to the Select Committee on Benghazi. The committee is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

"The department is working diligently to accommodate your staff's multiple and changing requests," Hedger said. "[H]owever, we are concerned by the continuous threats from your staff to subpoena witnesses because we are not able to move quickly enough to accommodate these new requests."

The letter was released by committee Democrats, who have charged that the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on American facilities in Libya is aimed at impugning former secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Republicans have suggested they hope to finalize their report on the issue by mid-summer, revealing what the State Department knew about the issue and whether officials responded appropriately.

"In February 2016, nearly 22 months after the establishment of the Committee, DoD lawyers met with Committee staff to receive what was represented to be a final list of requests for the Department," Hedger wrote, adding that the list expanded in February and March, leading to a March 31 meeting to establish the new final list. Yet another came April 22. "While we understand that investigations evolve over time, it is unfortunate that the Committee has identified the need for these interviews only now.

"The number and continued pace of these requests since February 2016 are in tension with your staff's statements that the committee expects to finish its investigation in the near term," Hedger wrote. "Perhaps because of this conflict, the committee's requests are accompanied by unrealistic timelines for the department to identify the correct service members (who are often only identified by positions), locate them if deployed or retired, and schedule interviews, which in some cases require them to return from overseas.

Hedger also cited instances of the committee requesting "individuals who seem unnecessary even for a comprehensive investigation, or has insisted we prioritize certain requests only to later abandon the request." One of the requests involved finding "John from Iowa," who was someone who called into a radio show and described himself as a drone pilot and talked about what happened that night in Benghazi.

The letter concluded with a complaint that Pentagon officials were being asked to talk about issues they deemed speculation, and a request that the department be left out of it.

"DoD interviewees have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals posed by Committee Members and staff, regardless of the interviewee's actual knowledge or expertise to provide appropriate analysis or insight ... I would respectfully request that you ensure pending interviews remain focused on obtaining facts rather than encouraging speculation," Hedger wrote.

The twitter site of the military's U.S. Central Command was taken over by hackers claiming to be working on behalf of the Islamic State militants. (AP Photo)

Security firm: Islamic State hacking groups are getting their act together

The Islamic State's technical experts are getting along better thanks to a recent merger between groups, according to a new analysis from security firm Flashpoint.
"Until recently, our analysis of the group's overall capabilities indicated that they were neither advanced nor did they demonstrate sophisticated targeting," said Flashpoint co-founder Laith Alkhouri, who also serves as the group's director of research for the Middle East and North Africa.

"With the latest unification of multiple pro-ISIS cybergroups under one umbrella, there now appears to be a higher interest and willingness amongst ISIS supporters in coordinating and elevating cyberattacks against governments and companies," Alkhouri said.

The firm noted that at least five similar groups fell under the Islamic State umbrella for a majority of the terror group's existence, and the main division, the "Cyber Caliphate Army," was formed in 2014. That group announced it was changing its name to the "United Cyber Caliphate" in early April, suggesting it had merged with its counterparts.

The group or its predecessors have taken credit for several incidents over the last year that involved disseminating American "kill lists." Those lists have included information on hundreds of military and law enforcement officials, though most or all of that data was publicly available online.

"As pro-ISIS cyberattacks and capabilities have gradually increased over time but remained relatively unsophisticated, it is likely that in the short run, these actors will continue launching attacks of opportunity," Flashpoint said. Likely attacks include "finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in websites" and launching attacks aimed at crashing websites.

However, the firm said, the group could have more troubling capabilities on the horizon. "Pro-ISIS cyberactors are demonstrating an upward trajectory … Advanced targeting and exfiltration are not far-fetched if the group is able to recruit outside experts into its fold," the report added. "The advancement of cybercapabilities [by] pro-ISIS actors largely depends on the group's ability to bring in a technological savvy, diverse group of people with broad technical skills."

Armed Services Committee Rejects Amendment to Allow Abortions at Military Facilities

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. (AP Photo, File)
( – The House Armed Services Committee voted down an amendment Wednesday evening that would have allowed “service members and their dependents to receive abortion services at defense medical facilities (MTFs) if they personally provide funding.”
At a committee markup, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) argued strongly against the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, one of several proposed by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). It was ultimately voted down 25-37.
“We want to make bases of our military abortion clinics, and I think it dishonors those who gave everything they had for this country and what it stands for,” Franks argued. “I think it’s time for all of us to ask the real question as hard as it is and that is, does abortion really take the life of a baby?”
“Those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died for a principle suggesting that we hold certain truths to be self-evident--that all of us are created, that the Imago Dei, the image of God, is stamped on every soul, and that every little child has that image stamped on their souls,” Franks said.
“So when the gentle lady that introduced the amendment suggests that there is an intensity and kind of a contention surrounding the debate she is precisely accurate.”
Franks said the contention has to do with “our collective conscience,” noting that ultrasound technology “is beginning to demonstrate to all reasonable minds, to all people of goodwill, to all people of compassion the humanity of the victim here, and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.”
Federal law in effect since 1996 prohibits abortions by Department of Defense medical personnel or at DOD medical facilities. Use of DOD funds for abortion is also prohibited except to save the life of the mother.
Speier argued on behalf of her amendment that “if we truly believe that our service members who are women are not second class citizens give them the right to have the abortion at a military facility in which they pay for it themselves.”
“Physicians at that facility know how to do that procedure, because they have done dilations and cerclages and dilations and evacuations for women who are there on base or are the dependents of members who are on base when it’s a miscarriage situation,” she said.
Franks pointed to the high rate of abortion in the U.S., and had strong words about abortion advocates.
“It’s always difficult for me to understand the fact that we take the lives of over a million children a year in America that that is somehow not enough for my friends on the left,” he said.
“That they not only want abortion on demand for any reason, at any stage of development, or for no reason, up until the moment of birth and they want the government to pay for it,” he continued. “Now I would challenge them to suggest what part of that statement isn’t true.”
“Our job here is to make sure that our men and women that defend this country are capable of doing so and giving them every opportunity they have,” Franks concluded, “not to politicize military bases and to overlook the notion that what we’re doing here is something that hurts little babies and hurts their mothers.”

WH Asked, Would Obama Want His Daughters to Be Drafted?

( - Would President Obama want his daughters to be required to sign up for the Selective Service?" a reporter asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Thursday.
Earnest said he couldn't "weigh in" on the issue "because it is a subject of litigation." He also said he hasn't heard President Obama "weigh in publicly on this."
On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee passed an amendment requiring women between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for the Selective Service. The full House is expected to vote on the larger defense authorization bill next month.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) introduced the Draft America’s Daughters Act in February, not because he supports the idea of drafting women, but because he opposes it.

“It’s wrong and irresponsible to make wholesale changes to the way America fights its wars without the American people having a say on whether their daughters and sisters will be on the front lines of combat,” Hunter said in February. “If this Administration wants to send 18-20 year old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives."

Hunter voted against his bill, which passed the committee 32-30.

At the White House on Thursday, a reporter asked if Obama would sign a bill containing the selective service provision.

"That's a good question," Earnest said. "Obviously, this is an issue that is going to attract a lot of attention, understandably so. There's not much that I can say about it, however, because this is the subject of some ongoing litigation.
"You've seen recent announcements from the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that would give more women who are in the military the opportunity to defend their country in more roles.

"And the president obviously has welcomed that progress. He certainly believes that makes our fighting forces even stronger."

"And the other thing that we know to be true is that men and women have served in our all volunteer force in both Iraq and in Afghanistan with distinction, and with courage, and with bravery. And it's because of their service and sacrifice, both men and women, that we're safer and that we enjoy so many of the freedoms that are easy to take for granted.

"The president certainly does not take them for granted. The president has often talked about how serving as the Commander in Chief of the United States military is the greatest honor. And that certainly is true because of the service and sacrifice that American men and women have made in our military."

The United States currently has an all-volunteer military. The draft ended in 1973, but all young men must register with the Selective Service when they turn 18.

A teenage girl in New Jersey filed a class-action suit against the military last July, claiming it's discriminatory for the Selective Service to omit women now that the U.S. military has opened all combat jobs to women.

Curt Schilling: ESPN hires 'some of biggest racists'

FILE - In this Aug. 3, 2012, file photo, former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling looks on after being introduced as a new member of the Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame before a baseball game between the Red Sox and the Minnesota Twins at Fenway Park in Boston. Schilling is defending himself after making comments on social media about transgender people, saying he was expressing his opinion. (AP Photo/Winslow Townson, File)

Fired ESPN analyst Curt Schilling says racism and bigotry is alive and well at the “Worldwide leader of Sports.”
In an interview on SiriusXM radio’s “Breitbart News Patriot Forum,” Schilling said ESPN hires “some of the biggest racists in sports commentating.”
“Some of the most racist things that I’ve ever heard come out of people that are on the air at ESPN,” Schilling said. “You take it for what it is. You know who they are. You know what they are. I like that they are, openly, because then you know who they are. You know that they exist.”
Schilling specifically pointed to controversial comments made by ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith and Tony Kornheiser that did not result in any backlash from the parent company.
“You listen to Stephen A. Smith, and Stephen A. Smith was the guy who said that Robert Griffin didn’t play quarterback for the Redskins because he’s black,” Schilling told Newsday. “No, Robert Griffin didn’t play quarterback for the Redskins because he [stunk].
“Tony Kornheiser compared the Tea Party to ISIS. I don’t know any planet where those are sports topics. But I don’t care. It’s OK. I think those conversations need to happen. But as soon as you go to the flip side, the right side, there are repercussions for not talking about sports.”
The former major league pitcher who compiled a 216-146 record and finished second in Cy Young voting three times, blamed his right-leaning political viewpoints as the reason why he was fired. He said fellow ESPN employees secretly admitted to him that they too were Republicans.
Schilling was fired last week after posting an anti-transgender post on Facebook. He is no stranger to controversy. He once was suspended by ESPN for posting a meme comparing the number of extremist Muslims today to the number of Nazis during World War II.

Trump Democrats might ruin Clinton

A Democratic strategist and former presidential campaign advisor is predicting that Republican Donald Trump would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton by a landslide in the general election with the help of working class whites leaving the Democratic Party in droves.
Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, who served as senior advisor to John Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign, made the prediction during a recent interview with The Daily Caller.
“I know a ton of Democrats — male, female, black and white — here [in southern Virginia] who are going to vote for Trump. It’s all because of economic reasons. It’s because of his populist message,” Sunders told the website.
According to the strategist, working class whites in the north who’ve held on to the Democratic Party because of strong union values are poised to join white southern Democrats who left the party long ago for social reasons.
“It’s compelling for working class people who have always followed their union to hear a guy who’s pro gun and pro economic fairness,” Saunders told The Daily Caller.
Saunders added that beyond her voter weaknesses, Clinton has yet to face serious political attacks.
“Hillary hasn’t been shot at yet. I hear on TV people taking about Bernie Sanders being negative, he ain’t attack her, he just tapped on her,” the strategist said, adding, “Trump’s going to take a wire-brush to her.”
Saunders said he believes Trump should comfortably be able to cause Clinton’s unfavorability rating to rocket to 80 percent. That’s because, unlike Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders, Trump isn’t likely to hold back in attacking Clinton over her mountain of scandals.
In addition to scoring Democratic defectors, Trump remains an outsized favorite among Republicans. In fact, the billionaire businessman has already surpassed Mitt Romney’s 2012 popular vote totals and is on track to trump the 10.8 million vote record George W. Bush set in 2008.

G’ day
Ciao…….Moe & Helen  Lauzier

About Me

My Photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive