Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé Use Victims of Hurricanes to Advance Political Cause

“Anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent,” entertainer Stevie Wonder (shown) declared in leading off a benefit concert Tuesday night for victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. He was joined in his politicization of the twin natural disasters by Beyoncé, who echoed Wonder’s political posturing by insisting, “The effects of climate change are playing out around the world every day.”

Many other celebrities performed to raise money for victims of the hurricanes, including climate-change activists such as actor Leonardo DiCaprio, and also others such as country music star George Strait, a Texas native who did not feel the need to interject left-wing politics into what should have been a non-political event.

Wonder, however, is among those who just cannot resist using a national tragedy to promote the human-caused global-warming position, as well as other liberal social and political views. While he began his performance talking about “love,” it quickly became apparent that such talk was just a ruse to get to the politics.

“When love goes into action,” Wonder asserted, “it preferences no color of skin, no ethnicity, no religious beliefs, no sexual preferences, and no political persuasions.” But he then immediately added, “It just loves. As we should begin to love and value our planet.”

Wonder did not show much “love” for those who hold a different political viewpoint from his — at least on the issue of “climate change. When he said that those who don’t believe in global warming are either blind or unintelligent, there was a certain irony, as of course Wonder himself is blind; but of course he means that a person who does not believe in man-caused global warming just doesn’t see his version of the truth. Doesn’t sound like a very “loving” thing to say.

Beyoncé’s comments expanded the negative consequences of such supposed blindness or unintelligence. “Just this past week,” she stated, “we have seen devastation from the monsoon in India, an 8.1 earthquake in Mexico, and multiple catastrophic hurricanes. [I guess we have to concede that two is technically “multiple.”] Irma alone has left a trail of death and destruction from the Caribbean to Florida to the southern United States. We have to be prepared for what comes next. So tonight, we come together in a collective effort to raise our voices, to help our communities, to lift our spirits and heal.”

Anti-gun Researcher Frightened by How Many Guns Americans Own

The virulently anti-gun group The Trace sent an e-mail blastto its members last week, alerting them to what it said was the danger of an overly and unnecessarily armed American citizenry:

Jennifer Mascia [a member of “TeamTrace”] pulled some numbers from the Small Arms Survey, which gauges gun stockpiles in the hands of civilians, law enforcement, and militaries around the world. She found that with an estimated 270 million firearms owned by everyday Americans, civilians own 70 times more weapons that all police and military services combined.

Mascia is an editorial assistant at the New York Times and was a regular contributor to its anti-gun column “The Gun Report” until it was shut down in 2014. Her source, the Small Arms Survey, is an international anti-gun group purporting to provide accurate statistics on all aspects of private gun ownership worldwide. Unfortunately, its reputation for accuracy has been tainted, with much of its reporting being challenged as “misleading or just plain wrong.”

In this instance, however, the numbers Mascia dug up from the outfit actually understated the “concerns” she expressed about how many firearms are owned by those “everyday Americans.” The real number isn’t 270 million — not even close — but is at least 100 million higher. And even that number is likely too small, given gun owners’ propensity not to be forthcoming to pollsters asking question about their gun ownership.

In any event, Mascia’s revelation is instructive: If she and her group are getting nervous, that’s good news for supporters of the Second Amendment — those supporters must be doing something right.

Indeed, if the goal of anti-gunners is total confiscation of all privately owned firearms (as has been shown repeatedly by mouthpieces such as California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate … for an outright ban … ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,’ I would have done it.”) then their job has gotten a lot harder.

How would confiscation be accomplished? Writer and economic historian Gary North stated,

They could get some Americans to turn in their guns if the penalties were stiff enough. But the stiffer the penalties the tighter the really hard-core gun owners are going to hold onto their guns. The stiff penalties will send a message: “You were right. We are after your guns. Then we’re going to take your liberties.”

The numbers are truly daunting to the gun grabbers. It would mean that someone, or perhaps a team, would ultimately have to knock on the door of every household in America and demand the owner surrender his firearms. The fact that they would not know just where those firearms are and who owns them doesn’t help. Who would take on such a task? The local sheriff, who is running for reelection? A federal official, perhaps a U.S. marshall? But there are fewer than 4,000 U.S. marshalls in the federal government. They would need some help.

Alarmists who oppose off-grid living now claim wood-burning stoves have killed 3 million people

TRACEY WATSON–The World Health Organization (WHO) calls air pollution “the world’s largest single environmental risk.” In 2012, one-in-eight deaths around the globe were a result of exposure to air pollution. There is a direct link between exposure to both indoor and outdoor air pollution and increased incidences of stroke, heart disease and cancer. Now, a review led by Professor Onno van Schayck of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, claims that a global surge in lung disease deaths, in spite of steadily decreasing numbers of smokers, can be explained by the increasing numbers of wood-burning stoves being used worldwide.

There are two main causes of a life-threatening disease called Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): smoking and exposure to air pollution.

According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, COPD is a progressive disease that makes it increasingly difficult to breathe. It can cause a wet, slimy cough, wheezing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. COPD encompasses both emphysema and chronic bronchitis. For those living with this illness, every breath is agony, and COPD places them at increased risk for complications which can be life threatening.

While awareness of the dangers of smoking has led to more and more people quitting this dirty habit, an increase in the number of wood-burning stoves used worldwide has offset this trend, causing an 11.6 percent increase in COPD diagnoses in the last 15 years. (Related: If you haven’t quit yet, get tips and hacks to help you at StopSmoking.news)

Professor van Schayck points out that around 1.8 billion of our planet’s residents use biomass cooking methods – where heat for cooking is derived from the burning of wood or other organic matter.

While for many burning wood to cook their food is a basic element of survival, a surge in popularity of wood-fired cooking in trendy restaurants and pizzerias is also contributing to the problem, as is the use of wood-burning stoves for household heating. (Related: Air pollution from vehicles damages your lungs and cardiovascular system after just two hours on a busy street.)

Professor van Schayck claims that many of the 3.2 million people who died from COPD in 2015 became ill as a direct result of pollution caused by such stoves.

He reached this conclusion after reviewing a study published in the journal The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

The lead author of that study, Professor Theo Vos, noted:

“COPD and asthma contribute substantially to the burden of non-communicable disease. Although much of the burden is either preventable or treatable with affordable interventions these diseases have received less attention than other prominent non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular disease, cancer or diabetes. Up-to-date information on COPD and asthma is key to policy making to improve access to and quality of existing interventions.”

The sad fact is that even though COPD kills close to 30,000 people in the U.K. alone each year, most people have never even heard of the disease.

And air pollution exposure makes you vulnerable to many other diseases, as well, because it damages your immune system’s ability to destroy bacteria and viruses.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail reports:

Air pollution could make you more vulnerable to infection, if new research is to be believed. Edinburgh Napier University were behind the findings which investigated the link between car-choked streets and illness. The results, showing significant human health implications, are believed to be the first to confirm an association between the two.

Dr. Peter Barlow, lead author of the Edinburgh Napier study warns, “We were extremely concerned when we found that air pollution particles could inhibit the activity of these molecules, which are absolutely essential in the fight against infection. In light of these findings, we urge that strong action plans are put in place to rapidly reduce particulate air pollution in our towns and cities.”

As the problem of indoor and outdoor air pollution continues to escalate, and governments seem no closer to improving the situation, now is a good time to consider investing in a high-quality air purification system for your home and office.

Media now pushing claims that being unemployed is healthier than holding down a “stressful” job … all part of the push toward “basic monthly income” welfare

JD HEYES–It should be obvious to even the casual political observer that the Alt-Left media is the driver of so-called “progressive” idealism. Once the media begins pushing a concept, it becomes part of the Left’s modus operandi.

In recent years progressives have been pushing the concept of a “universal basic income” — that is, a monthly stipend from the government that would replace actual employment. The idea is that everyone would be taken care of, no one would go without, and income equality would finally be achieved.

What they never tell you, however, is that a basic income is just welfare by another name. Also, when you essentially pay people to do nothing, that’s exactly what society gets in return: Nothing. Like every other government (taxpayer) program, cradle-to-grave welfare breeds irresponsibility, saps initiative and drive, destroys any sense of self-worth and more importantly, permanently limits a person’s lifetime earning ability.

It also puts every single person under further control of the government: After all, if you literally depend on government for your livelihood, what’s to stop that government from imposing whatever tyrannical rule it wishes to impose? Anyone who resists will be cut off and left to fend for themselves, which will become increasingly harder to do. (Related: America has turned into a handout nation, record 236 million people collecting some form of assistance from the Government.)

And there is this: Who decides how much the “basic income” will be? What will be the criteria? Where will the money come from?

But no matter. Hey, at least we’d all be equal, even if it’s equally miserable.

Still, the Left-wing media pushes this as if it’s a real solution, even finding creative ways to do so. The UK’s Daily Mail, for instance, is trying to sell a basic monthly income as a “stress reliever” and a key to better health:

It is healthier to be unemployed than have a stressful job, new research suggests.

Adults who go from being out of work to having a poor-quality job suffer more stress-related health concerns, a study found.

These include having significantly worse blood glucose and cholesterol levels, the research adds.

It also affects fat storage, increases the levels of substances associated with blood clots and causes inflammation, the study found.

The story did not actually promote the concept of a basic monthly income, but there is an implied meaning behind the findings: Better to be on some form of assistance than to actually have to get up in the morning and go to a job, thus becoming a productive member of society rather than someone who takes from it.

If you’re like most people, you’ve had a lousy job. You have worried about how you’re going to pay bills and how you’re going to stretch your income from paycheck to paycheck.

Yes, that is stressful, and there is no reason to doubt the research, which was conducted by the University of Manchester.

But to conclude that unemployment is better even than a “poor” job is to also conclude that, on the basis of ‘better health,’ no one should even attempt to work their way up if that first, second or even third job is “poor.”

“Just as good work is good for health, we must also remember poor quality work can be detrimental to health,” researchers concluded.

Okay, but what about feelings of worthlessness, self-loathing and dependency — what do those do to the body? Surely feeling like you’re not worth anything to society, that you’re unimportant and not able to contribute anything to your own survival has to have an effect at least on mental status — right?

In fact, people already struggle with self-worth issues. There is a growing field of psychology devoted to studying it.

“When we do not see worth in something, we often treat it poorly. Self-worth is the same way,” according to Brooke Lewis, a registered clinical counselor who specializes in self-harm, as reported by PsychCentral.

SPONSOR: ​12 Great Exercises That Fix Your Crappy Posture

People who are not productive or are unable to achieve anything other than a “basic income” and basic status in life surely can’t be healthy, either.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

“Mainstream” media stoking hatred and division by calling for MORE violence against patriotic Americans

JD HEYES–The disgustingly dishonest “mainstream” media consists primarily of Left-wing ideologues who will stop at nothing to advance their Marxist agenda, even if it means advocating violence against patriotic Americans who are fighting to preserve the country’s heritage.

As noted by SHTFPlan, an op-ed in the Washington Post this week is indicative of the kind of violence being advocated by the media. The writer, N.D.B. Collins, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, literally called for Left-wingers to “throw rocks” as a way of ‘protesting’ alleged social injustices:

[I]n April 1968, amid a flurry of other “rocks,” riots shook American cities following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. It took that rolling unrest, not the promise of further economic growth, to spur President Lyndon Johnson and Congress to action. Within a week they had passed the Fair Housing Act.

Over the past century, liberalism, vexed by an ever-sharp, ever-cutting white supremacy, has needed these rocks. …

Segregationists have again assumed their pedestals in the Justice Department, the White House and many other American temples. Paper alone won’t drive them out. Start throwing rocks.

Frankly, this should not surprise anyone. Going back a century, with the advent of the modern Communist/Marxist/Leftist movements in Europe, Central and South America, violence has always been used — and justified — as a means of achieving political ends.

And as in those instances, the media, rife with Left-wing ideologues posing as “journalists,” have led the call.

Writing in The Daily Wire, John Nolte made this observation:

Going back to the Bolsheviks straight through to Barry Obama’s terrorist-pal Bill Ayers, violence is always the end result of an ideology that demands purity and conformity, even at the point of a gun. And now, probably because they have been unable to bully President Trump to its will, The Washington Post has finally revealed itself as an un-American and un-democratic monster.

Nolte further observes that the good professor is using the word “rock” as a metaphor, but it’s a metaphor for rioting, as demonstrated by his 1960s-era example. And granted, sometimes violence is the only way to get the attention of those in power after normal political processes prove unsuccessful.

But Prof. Collins, and by an act of commission, the Post for deciding to publish his call to violence, is using the Charlottesville incident to paint all opponents of Left-wing authoritarianism with the same broad brush.

Every white person who is conservative and supportive of President Trump’s “America first” mantra is being portrayed as a neo-Nazi, a skinhead, and a closet member or backer of the KKK. And the not-so-subtle message emanating from the Post and the rest of the disgusting establishment media is that anyone who opposes socialist liberalism is a Nazi who must be violently opposed and silenced.

You know… the way real Nazis used to silence their political opponents using the Brown Shirts. (Related: Left-wing media and organizations are branding others as ‘hate groups’ just because they’re conservative.)

“The Washington Post is openly legitimizing political violence against ‘racists’ in an era where anyone who did not vote for Barry [Obama], who does not automatically call for the toppling of Confederate statues, who does not like Obamacare, who supports Donald Trump, who opposes affirmative action … anyone who is not politically ‘appropriate’ and ‘correct’ is declared a racist,” Nolte correctly points out.

It’s an all-out assault on any patriotic American who believes in traditional, constitutional America and rejects Leftist authoritarianism. And the establishment press is all-in, justifying political terrorism against anyone who has a different perspective or who believes that the Constitution protects all ideals, all points of view, all perspectives.

The Post’s motto is, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” That’s rich, coming from a fake news gin, but it’s also pathetically hypocritical — there is nothing “democratic” about the use of violence to force your political ideology on people.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Maxine Waters Won’t Rule Out All-Black Party

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters wouldn’t rule out the concept of an all-black political party when asked about it on Monday.

Waters joined  “The Breakfast Club” radio show on Monday morning and was asked if it was time for black people to form their own political party.

“No, not at this point,” Waters said. “You have to show that you’re willing and you’re able to put the numbers together and exercise your influence.”

“We still are not voting our influence yet,” she continued. “What we should do is organize our power, exercise our power, particularly in the Democratic Party because that’s where most of us are.”

P/C mark6mauno

It begins: Chicago will be first to file lawsuit against Trump administration’s ​threat to cut sanctuary city funding

National SentinelImmigration policy: The court battles aimed at stopping the Trump administration from punishing law-breaking cities over immigration policy have begun.

Unmoved by the stunningly brutal violence on the city’s south side, where hundreds of mostly black men are gunned down and killed every year, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been stirred to act instead to stop the Justice Department from cutting off millions in funding over his “sanctuary city” policy. Defending illegal immigrants

Defending illegal immigrants is more important to Emanuel than defending law-abiding victims from being gunned down in their own neighborhoods.

The Washington Times reports:

Specifically Mr. Emanuel said the city will sue in federal court to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from restricting the use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants which are federal funds awarded annually to state, local and tribal jurisdictions to assist with law enforcement personnel, training and equipment.

Chicago has planned to use $3.2 million in Byrne grants this year to buy vehicles for the city’s police department, but the Justice Department said last month that the city and more than 200 others risk losing funds for protecting illegal immigrants.

“We’re not going to actually auction off our values as a city, so Monday morning the city of Chicago is going to court, we’re going to take the Justice Department to court based on this,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said during an interview that aired Sunday on WLS radio 890, set to air Sunday, The Chicago Tribune reported Friday.

“We find it unlawful and unconstitutional to be, as a city, coerced on a policy,” added Mr. Emanuel, a second-term Democrat who served in the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Obama before being elected mayor in 2011.

Perhaps Emanuel should actually read the Constitution. If so, he would discover what is known as the “supremacy clause” — Article VI, Clause 2 — which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land, not edicts from Left-wing mayors.

More than that, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants have specific compliance rules including this one: Cities receiving these grants must assist federal agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws. That means reporting the presence of illegal aliens in their cities, not adopting policies that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

“So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last week when announcing the funding crackdown. “These policies also encourage illegal immigration and even human trafficking by perpetuating the lie that in certain cities, illegal aliens can live outside the law.

“From now on, the Department will only provide Byrne JAG grants to cities and states that comply with federal law, allow federal immigration access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities. This is consistent with long-established cooperative principles among law enforcement agencies,” he added.

Chicagoans should demand their mayor to comply with grant requirements which help better protect them instead of wasting tax money on baseless lawsuits because of misplaced concern for people who aren’t even citizens.

P/C Daniel X. O’Neil

Beware of “Redneck Revolt,” a radical left-wing terrorist organization that’s recruiting starry eyed youth to wage war against the government

JD HEYES–President Donald J. Trump has no shortage of political and media enemies in Washington, D.C., but he’s getting thousands more all across the country if one Left-wing domestic terrorist group has their way about it.

“Redneck Revolt,” according to watchdog website Far Left Watch, is a budding communist/Marxist organization that teaches “urban guerrilla” warfare, kidnapping, and armed resistance to authority. And the group’s members have a healthy disdain for Trump and his supporters.

As Far Left Watch noted:

Right wing radio personality, Dana Loesch and The National Rifle Association recently came under fire for launching a “controversial” ad. There was an immediate backlash from numerous left leaning publications claiming that the video was a call to violence. Interestingly enough, the recent spike in political violence has come overwhelmingly from the left. Even more concerning is the growth of far left organizations openly advocating for “armed struggle,” especially considering the recent targeted shooting of Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others by a deranged left wing activist.

Redneck Revolt is one of the fastest-growing Alt-Left groups in the Age of Trump, describing itself as an “above ground militant formation” founded in June 2016 and now claiming to have more than 30 fully vetted branches around the country.

If you read through the group’s organizational philosophy, it all sounds so very reasonable, which is in line with other far-Left militant groups: Opposition to “white supremacy,” quest for “equality,” economic parity, etc. But then the organization begins to focus on the usual anti-capitalist, anti-wealth, anti-founding American principles kind of stuff that looks very similar to what you’d find in the Communist Manifesto.

Finally, they openly call for “militant resistance” and “revolution” — but not the kind that freed our nation from the grips of an authoritarian monarchy.

Group members have been busy recruiting as well, and in some of the same places where Left-wing liberals used to accuse conservative, liberty-minded militia groups of recruiting, like gun shows. And when they’re not recruiting, they are pushing for class warfare (sound familiar?), and conducting armed anti-Trump demonstrations (remember when the Alt-Left claimed that Trump supporters were the violent ones?).

Given all of this, there is much more about the group that should alarm law-abiding Americans of all political stripes, and that is its advocacy for armed rebellion, guerrilla warfare, and ‘revolution.’ On the group’s website are links to a number of ‘resources’ in the form of PDF files including a manual called “Three-Way Fight: Revolutionary Anti-Fascism and Armed Self-Defense” (really hypocritical, considering that this organization is the real face of fascism, not Trump or his supporters); “Piece Now, Peace Later”; “I Will Not Crawl”; and “Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla.”

And while claiming to be anti-racist, the group focuses a lot of its attention on recruiting “poor, working-class whites.”

As this publication notes:

Considering Redneck Revolt’s vision, their embrace of the term ‘redneck,’ their belief in building solidarity with working and poor communities, their recruitment within rural white communities [emphasis added], and their embrace of late ‘60’s-style survival programs, it is hard not to draw parallels to the original Rainbow Coalition, and specifically to the Young Patriots (YPO).

Class warfare is a major point of focus within the group. Said one member named “Shaun”: “All poor and working class folks suffer at the hands of the rich. We all have trouble — bordering to the point of impossibility — making house rent, paying medical bills especially these days, covering food, making sure that our children and families are cared for, and it doesn’t have to be that way.

“It’s that way because a vastly small percentage of the population hordes access to resources and they’re able to do this because they’ve managed to get one-half of the working class to turn against the other half in exchange for basically preferential treatment,” he added.

“It’s in everyone’s best interests that we as quickly and aggressively as possible dismantle that system so that poor and working folks essentially have something resembling a fair shake at a decent life,” he said — without really defining any of that.

This group is for real, and it’s growing. And it’s not out to preserve or protect the American dream, but rather to upend it in the name of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice.’

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Spineless Jellyfish: After Everything That Has Happened, Does Being A ‘Republican’ Still Mean Something?

MICHAEL SNYDER–The spineless Republicans in Washington have been compromising for so long that it seems like many of them don’t really stand for much of anything these days. I was 10 years old when Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election, and ever since that day I have considered myself to be a conservative. Even at such an early age, Reagan’s message resonated with me, and I felt that I clearly understood what it meant to be a Republican. But now I’m not so sure. Many of the Republicans in Congress are often doing the exact opposite of what Reagan would have done, and this is confusing a lot of people.

For example, just look at the Obamacare debacle. For years, Republican politicians have pledged to repeal Obamacare if we would just give them control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. So we did that, and Obamacare still has not been repealed. Many are pointing to John McCain’s shocking betrayal on Friday, but the truth is that the effort to do something about Obamacare has been a disaster from the very beginning.

Instead of simply repealing Obamacare, Republican leadership in the House and in the Senate attempted to “replace” Obamacare with a slightly less odious version of Obamacare. But that isn’t what we wanted, and that sure isn’t what we were promised.

I still remember the days when the Republican Party actually believed in free enterprise. Free markets work exceedingly well when you take the shackles off, but for some reason Republicans in Washington don’t seem to want to apply free market principles to our health care system.

At this point, it looks like no health care legislation of any form is going to get through the Senate, and that means that Obamacare is going to remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

Just saying that makes me sick to my stomach.

Something else that Republicans used to stand for is limited government. Republican members of Congress have given thousands of speeches about reducing the size of government, and yet it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

This year the federal government will spend more than 4 trillion dollars for the first time ever. But of course not a single penny could be spent without the approval of the House and the Senate, and the Republicans are fully in control of both.

So why can’t we reduce the size of government?

Is it because many Republicans in Congress actually want big government?

Back in 2010, the Tea Party movement swept Republicans into power in the House. We were promised that the out of control borrowing and spending that the Obama administration was doing would be brought under control.

At that point the national debt had just surpassed 14 trillion dollars.

The Republicans in the House could have stood on their principles and refused to go along with what Obama and the Democrats wanted to do, but instead they betrayed us over and over again, and today the national debt has nearly reached 20 trillion dollars.

Once upon a time the Republican Party was supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility, but I don’t know how we can make that argument to the American people with a straight face anymore.

What in the world is wrong with us?

President Trump promised that he would crack down on illegal immigration and build a wall on the southern border. And since he won the election, building that wall should be a no-brainer.

But instead, many Republican leaders in the House and the Senate want to block the wall. They are not serious about border security and they never have been. And when those RINOs are up for re-election, we should do whatever we can to give them the boot.

I am hopeful that the Republicans in Congress can at least agree on legislation to reduce taxes. If there is one thing that all Republicans should still be able to agree upon, it is that taxes need to be reduced.

Unfortunately, it looks like even this is going to be exceedingly difficult to accomplish. This Congress has been called “the most unproductive in 164 years”, and the clock is ticking. If the Democrats take back control of either the Senate or the House in 2018, President Trump’s agenda will be dead in the water at that point. So it is absolutely imperative that Republicans take advantage of the golden opportunity that they have been given right now, and instead they are completely squandering it.

Sometimes I get so frustrated with them that I want to scream.

On top of everything else, Planned Parenthood has still not been defunded.

Election after election, Republicans use the Pro-Life label to get our votes, but then once they return to Washington they vote to fully fund Planned Parenthood year after year.

Earlier this year, the Democrats threatened to shut down the government if the Republicans did not give them virtually everything that they wanted. And so the Republicans did that – including full funding for Planned Parenthood for the rest of the fiscal year.

Let me be very clear. You cannot be Pro-Life and vote to fund Planned Parenthood. That means that most Republicans in Congress are not truly Pro-Life.

I have pledged that I will never, ever, ever vote for any bill that includes even a single penny of funding for Planned Parenthood, and I am calling on every other Republican politician in the entire nation to make the same pledge.

If a “Pro-Life Republican” will not make this pledge, do not vote for that individual.

It is time that we finally took a stand.

Ever since I started running for Congress, the number one thing that I have been told by members of my own party is that I need to compromise. Many of those that I have talked to actually agree with my positions privately, but they believe that I need to “tone it down” in order to appeal to those “in the middle”.

In essence, they want to try to turn me into John McCain before I am even elected.

What they don’t understand is that I am never going to become just another spineless jellyfish.

In fact, I am going to be hunting for RINOs and doing all that I can to boot them out of office.

If we are going to have any hope of changing this country, we have got to start electing people that actually stand for something again. Ronald Reagan never would have put up with the kind of nonsense that we are witnessing today, and we shouldn’t have to put up with it either.

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Why did NASA just destroy Apollo tape recordings found in a basement?

JD HEYES–The nation’s space agency may or may not be trying to hide something, but it just did something extremely suspicious.

As reported by the U.K.’s Daily Mail, NASA officials recently discovered a trove of historical tapes from the Apollo era, when the space agency was sending astronauts to the Moon — and then destroyed them after they turned up in a basement in Pittsburgh:

NASA recently destroyed hundreds of mysterious tape reels and two Apollo-era NASA computers used during the height of the Space Race, documents have revealed.

Most of the tapes, wiped in 2015, were unmarked, but some were related to Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 – NASA’s missions to Jupiter and Saturn during the Apollo moon landing era.

The space agency said the documents were destroyed because they were of no historical value and were too difficult to recover.

That’s the story we’ve been given, anyway. But in an era when we can recover and restore all kinds of data, it seems rather difficult to fathom that one of the world’s premier space organizations can’t dig up the technology necessary to restore taped data.

In addition to the hundreds of tapes, NASA also destroyed a couple of computers from the space-race era as well. They had been stored in the basement of a onetime engineer for IBM for five decades.

The engineer worked for NASA during the 1960s and 1970s, the Daily Mail reported. After he passed away in late 2015, he left the files and equipment to a scrap dealer, according to Freedom of Information Act documents that were seen by tech site ARS Technica.

The tech site noted further:

At some point in the early 1970s, an IBM engineer working for NASA at the height of the Space Race took home the computers — and the mysterious tape reels. A scrap dealer, invited to clean out the deceased’s electronics-filled basement, discovered the computers. The devices were clearly labelled “NASA PROPERTY,” so the dealer called NASA to report the find.

“Please tell NASA these items were not stolen,” the engineer’s heir told the scrap dealer, the FOIA information noted. “They belonged to IBM Allegheny Center Pittsburgh, PA 15212. During the 1968-1972 timeframe, IBM was getting rid of the items so [redacted engineer] asked if he could have them and was told he could have them.”

The report in its entirety is here, with the engineer’s name redacted.

Upon inspection by NASA personnel, it was discovered that most of the mysterious magnetic tapes were dated between 1967 and 1974. (Stay current with all the latest news on NASA at Space.news)

According to the redacted report, NASA officials told the family of the late engineer that they’d have to remove the computers — which are extremely heavy and placed there by crane decades ago — because the space agency “had no use for them.”

But one NASA official did order that all of the tapes be destroyed, for some reason.

“There is no evidence that suggests this material is historically significant… I recommend disposal through the immediate destruction of all magnetic tapes,” the official noted, according to the FOIA-tied report released by NASA.

One space agency archivist said that restoring data on the tapes would have been “very costly,” and even then, it wasn’t likely that anything could be recovered from the “moldy” reels.

However, historical data from that period would no doubt be extremely relevant to some space experts. And again, going to all the trouble to destroy tapes containing data in which space agency experts said was probably not recoverable anyway raises doubts about the space agency’s credibility.

And there is also this, ARS Technica noted:

The NASA computers are labelled with a Contract Number: “CONTRACT NO. NAS5-2154.” NASA OIG was unable to find any records of any such contract. Given NASA once accidentally erased the Apollo 11 moon landing tapes, perhaps that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

“How is anything related to landing on the moon not historically significant? You only destroy things you don’t want people to see,” said one Reddit user.

How, indeed.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.