BOMBSHELL: Reuters Colluded With Beto to Help Beat Ted Cruz, Buried His Hacker Past

H/T Flag And Cross.

This is more proof that President Trump called the drive-by media fake news he was correct.

Another example of why the people don’t trust the MSM!

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is royally ticked off – and rightfully so.

Apparently, Reuters knew that Beto O’Rourke was a bad apple during his Senate race in 2018 but said nothing.

Check out Ted’s tweet…

Which Beto confirmed on the record—but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race? But when he’s running against Bernie etc, NOW it’s news?

Ted Cruz


So Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies—which Beto confirmed on the record—but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race? But when he’s running against Bernie etc, NOW it’s news? 

Backstory: How Reuters uncovered Beto O’Rourke’s teenage hacking days

Reuters reporter Joseph Menn exclusively revealed on Friday that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke belonged to one of the best-known groups of computer hackers as a teenager.

9,338 people are talking about this

Here’s more, via Reuters:


Reuters reporter Joseph Menn exclusively revealed on Friday that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke belonged to one of the best-known groups of computer hackers as a teenager.

Within minutes, his special report was the most popular story on here and was picked up by other news outlets. But the origin of the story goes back more than two years.


Members of the group, which calls itself Cult of the Dead Cow, protected O’Rourke’s secret for decades, reluctant to compromise the former Texas Congressman’s political career.

After more than a year of reporting, Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record. In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018.

Cruz knows exactly how to pay for the border wall Democrats so desperately despise.

It won’t even cost the American people a single cent.

The bill is called Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act, or EL CHAPO Act.

How could Democrats say no to this?

From Daily Caller:

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz explained how he intends to get notorious drug lord and gangster ‘El Chapo’ to pay for the southern border wall with Mexico.


The bill would designate any money and assets seized from notorious gangster Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán and allocate them for the construction of the border wall. El Chapo was extradited to the U.S. in 2017 to face charges related to running one of the most notorious drug cartels in the world.

El Chapo was worth $14 billion at the time of his arrest.

President Trump is only asking for $5 billion.



O’ Rourke thinks America needs to start over with new governing documents.

Beto: “I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work. Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?

O’Rourke is vehemently opposed to building a wall on the southern border.

When asked how America can go about solving the crisis, Beto offered a poignant response: “I don’t know.”

Beto has been caught lying about his mother being a “lifelong Republican” and saying he did not flee the scene of a hit and run accident (he actually did).


Five of the Most Hysterical Environmentalist Claims

H/T Godfather Politics.

I have heard and laughed at these extreme chicken little’s telling us the sky is falling.

Jarrett Stepman recently penned a great piece revealing the five most hysterical environmentalist claims about globaloney climate change.

In his March 11 article, Stepman notes that the biggest target of these enviro-nuts are our children.

“Perhaps children and young Americans are more likely to buy into the extreme environmentalist doomsaying due to the fact that they weren’t around for the laughably wrong predictions of the past that never came true,” he said.

Stepman went on to say that nearly every big prediction made by the environmentalists ends up being proven wrong. Remember in the 60s and 70s when enviros were all worried about overpopulation?

The continued to layout five of the worst clams (I summarize, he has far more at his article):

1. Population Bomb to Cause Global Famine by 2000

The first Earth Day, in 1970, was filled with hyperbole and exaggerations about mankind’s future. Much of the craziness was unearthed in a remarkable expose in 2000 by Reason contributor Ronald Bailey.

One of the most common ideas, in a throwback to Malthus, was that the global food supply simply couldn’t keep up with population growth.

Stepman adds that the left claimed that the planet could not feed the people of the world. But this has failed to come to pass. Indeed, global hunger has been declining.

2. Air Pollution Will Be So Bad That City Dwellers Will Have to Wear Gas Masks

“Another grand prediction at Earth Day 1970 (it was full of doozies) was that the air pollution problem common to many American cities would continue to get exponentially worse without widespread government control of the American way of life,” Stepman wrote.


This didn’t happen, in part due to federal, state, and local restrictions on emissions. But it had much more to do with the general societal response to the problem.

Wealthier, more prosperous societies simply have more means and more of an inclination to make trade-offs to enjoy cleaner air. Free societies such as the United States found ways to reduce pollutants as a means to improve quality of life.

3. Entire Nations Could Be Wiped Out by 1999

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.,” the AP reported years ago.

Well, we know that didn’t happen.

4. Ice Caps Will Melt Away

“Predictions about the polar ice caps melting have been common. Dramatic pictures of polar bears floating on tiny icebergs have been some of the iconic images of the climate change movement,” Stepman wrote.


Not only have the ice caps survived these predictions of doom, but they have occasionally grown in size. Between 2012 and 2016, Arctic ice increased from an average of 2.2 million square miles to 3.3 million square miles, according to The Telegraph.

5. The Coming Ice Age

In 1958, Betty Friedan, one of the leading thinkers of radical, modern feminism, wrote an article in Harper’s magazine describing the “coming ice age.”

It seems the mixing of climate science and radical left-wing politics is nothing new.

Stepman notes: “Needless to say, despite the chilly winter, the ice caps are still with us and the new ice age hasn’t come.”

Stepman concludes saying, “If there’s a lesson to be learned from all of these predictions, it’s not that scientists are always wrong or that we shouldn’t be good stewards of the environment. Instead, we should treat extreme predictions with skepticism, especially if they mean upending our way of life.”

Massachusetts AG’s Attempt to Block Gun-Rights Suit Fails

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Attorney General Maura Healey(D-MA) knows her scheme is UN-Constitutional and she will get smacked down in court.

Now she is grasping at straws to try to stay out of court.

On Friday, a federal judge denied Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey’s (D.) request that a suit filed against her decision to unilaterally redefine “assault weapons” be stayed.

Healey had requested the stay because she believes a parallel case against her 2016 decision to expand the definition of banned “assault weapons” should be decided first. U.S. District Court judge Timothy Hillman ruled the federal case deals with factors beyond those at hand in the state case. “The Enforcement Notice warrants constitutional review for vagueness without reaching the state law issue,” he wrote in his ruling.

Healey announced on July 20, 2016, that she would be reinterpreting the state’s decades-old “assault weapons” ban to expand what are termed “copycat” gun designs. At the time she accused the gun industry of using such designs to circumvent the ban.

“The gun industry has openly defied our laws here in Massachusetts for nearly two decades,” said Healey. “That ends today. We have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that combat-style weapons are off our streets and out of the hands of those who would use them to kill innocent people.”

Healey’s announcement included a test to determine if a gun meets the new “copycat” definition.

“A weapon is a copy or duplicate if its internal operating system is essentially the same as those of a specifically-banned weapon or if the gun has key functional components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon,” Healey’s announcement said.

The gun community criticized the new standard as vague, a violation of state rulemaking laws, and unconstitutional.

“With the 2016 ‘Enforcement Action,’ the attorney general’s office demonstrated how little it understands about firearms,” Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president, said in a statement at the time. “Attorney General Healy and her staff clearly overreached their statutory authority and decided to legislate from that office without the benefit of any public process and in total disregard of 18 years of Massachusetts firearm law, under which firearm retailers operated. The attorney general undermined the state legislature by unilaterally declaring firearms that were legal to be illegal.”

Gun-rights groups, joined by gun retailers inside the state, filed their suit shortly after the change was announced.

In reaction to Judge Hillman’s decision to deny Healey’s request for a stay, NSSF stood by its claims that Healey’s actions were unlawful.

“The actions of Attorney General Healy in 2016 were unconstitutional, leaving firearms retailers in Massachusetts unable to determine the meaning or scope of the Enforcement Notice and subsequent explanations,” Keane said in a statement. “Because criminal penalties can result due to her unilateral reinterpretation of a state statute done without administrative process or input from affected parties, her office exceeded its lawful authority and retailers were deprived of their due process protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

California veterans home threatens to expel 84-year-old widow for leading Bible study group

H/T Fox News.


I promise you if Artis Breau was holding a study of The Satanic Verses aka The Koran it would not be a problem.


An 84-year-old widow claims California officials are threatening to kick her out of a residence for veterans if she doesn’t stop hosting a longtime Bible study.

Artis Breau and her husband moved to the Veterans’ Home of California in Yountville nine years ago. Breau’s husband, who died a few years ago, served as a Merchant Marine, Army, in World War II and then, during the Korean War he served in the Air Force. The two met in the 1950s while she worked at the Pentagon as a civilian employee in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army.

She has been volunteering with the chaplaincy program and led Bible studies much of the last decade at an area of the residence known as the Holderman Building, which is a shared space for residents of the home. Recently, the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) notified Breau that she would face “involuntary discharge,” or expulsion, from the home if she doesn’t give up her status as a volunteer Bible study leader.

“This shocking attack from the state against our client’s exercise of religious convictions is deeply disturbing,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the firm representing Breau. “The state seeks to punish Artis based on non-existent directives, and deprive her of a personal ministry to the veterans who have benefited from her religious services for years. Artis isn’t fighting just for herself, but for the Gospel and for the residents who are unable to fight for themselves against the state’s attempted intimidation.”

Breau came under fire for a discussion she had last September with another resident about heaven and hell that allegedly caused the man to lose sleep and was deemed “elder abuse, emotional abuse, and otherwise illegal,” according to PJI.

In December, the veterans home notified Breau that her volunteer status was being suspended indefinitely due to an ongoing investigation. She said she has not had an interview scheduled with CalVet officials about the alleged complaint.

Until last week, she was allowed to continue to lead the Bible study for some of CalVet’s most elderly and mobility-challenged residents who have a hard time attending chapel services.

But on Friday, a CalVet attorney threatened Breau with expulsion if she didn’t stop offering the voluntary Bible studies. The attorney claims the decision was for the “health and wellbeing” of the residents.

“The safety, security, and wellbeing of all of our residents is our top priority. We are very proud of the religious services provided to all of our residents through our chaplaincy services. This investigation concerns the private conduct of an individual. Beyond that, we are unable to comment on an ongoing investigation,” Lindsey Sin, deputy secretary of Women Veterans Affairs at CalVet, said in a statement.

Breau is an Evangelical Jew and believes in Jesus. She told PJI she believes people have an issue with her religious beliefs.

The California-based law firm is weighing all options on behalf of Breau.

Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to Break Up Big Tech Would Be Bad for America

H/T Town Hall.

Breaking up Big Tech Companies is just one of many disastrous ideas Princess Fauxahontis has.

Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has a new plan to break up Big Tech companies. The proposal entails appointing a bunch of regulators to undo mergers that her administration would deem anti-competitive. Warren’s plan would classify any company that runs a marketplace and makes more than $25 billion a year as a “platform utility” and prohibit them from selling their own products.

Considering the prevalent knee-jerk loathing of Big Tech and capitalism in general, it’s likely to be a popular idea. Many conservatives, angered at social media platforms, will also find the notion of breaking up these companies agreeable. But there are number of good economic and idealistic reasons to oppose Warren’s plan.

For starters, Warren’s plan wouldn’t only strip the incentive for big companies to invest in growth and innovation; it would inhibit small-business innovation, as well. It’s true that Big Tech frequently swallows enterprises to eliminate competition. Yet many times smaller tech firms don’t have access to capital that allows them to bring big ideas to fruition, or they simply can’t take the risk. Big corporations can do both.

I look forward to the day that market forces, rather than meddling politicians with aversions to the profit motive, smash Apple for good. But does anyone believe a gaggle of technocratic political appointees are going to do a better job of allocating investments?

“Twenty-five years ago,” Warren writes, “Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn’t exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world. It’s a great story — but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets.”

The fact that Facebook, Google and Amazon didn’t even exist 25 years ago tells us the exact opposite. It highlights how quickly innovative ideas can transform the marketplace in an era of relative deregulation. I’d tell you to ask the executives at Woolworth’s or Blockbuster — and soon AOL, MySpace and Sears — but there aren’t any.

Apple or Amazon were early adapters of the market’s new realities. Now, some of their businesses are forced to compete with other giants like Walmart or Samsung. This has been beneficial for consumers. Now, if Twitter and Facebook want to stay on top, they probably should stop antagonizing half of their marketplace. Then again, in 25 years, it’s quite likely that a bunch of new platforms will overtake both, no matter what they do.

That hasn’t stopped Warren from acting as if tech companies like Google are the new Standard Oil. “I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules,” Warren claims. This misleading turn of phrase has become standard on the left, which often acts as if companies are breaking the law or using “loopholes” when they fail to adhere to the imaginary regulations. Tech companies aren’t breaking any rules by ignoring Warren’s fictitious strictures. We already have a place to adjudicate the usefulness of mergers, and it’s called the Justice Department. They already do a terrible job without any more help. And if the DOJ is susceptible to partisan pressure — Democrats are now arguing that Trump ordered it to block the Time Warner/AT&T merger — surely a second regulatory body based on capricious progressive concepts of the common good would likewise be ripe for abuse.

A number of voters, regrettably, seem to believe that increasing regulatory oversight helps alleviate the destructive relationship between government and business. Yet, by giving politically motivated regulators expansive powers to dictate how and when companies can grow, Warren would not only imbue government with more power to pick winners and losers, she would further incentivize CEOs to placate government officials and politicians rather than do what’s best for their companies and consumers. It would be a lot more productive if we left markets to compete and instead broke up government power.

“Curious why I think FB has too much power?” Warren recently asked on Twitter after Facebook took down some of her ads. “Let’s start with their ability to shut down a debate over whether FB has too much power. Thanks for restoring my posts. But I want a social media marketplace that isn’t dominated by a single censor.”

A person doesn’t need to be exceptionally perceptive to notice that Warren’s grievance regarding a “single censor” shutting down debate on social media is weakened by the fact that she went to a competing social media platform to perpetuate the debate. Nor did it take much work to find out that virtually every major news site had thoroughly covered her plan to break up Big Tech.

Her own tweet debunks the notion that a sole social media site can dominate news coverage or a national debate. Taking Instagram away from Facebook would do nothing to induce the social media giant to embrace truly open debate. However, forcing a private entity to run ads that call for its own destruction is an unambiguous attack on free expression.

In the end, Facebook contends that they removed Warren’s ads because they violated company rules against use of its corporate logo. “In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads,” the company explained. That makes the tech giant a far more robust space for free expression than your average news channel. And as sure as state intervention into TV news “fairness” would backfire so, too, will opening the door to Big Tech intervention.

Warren In ’03: Weed Can Cause Addiction, Health Problems, Traffic Accidents

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

In 2003 Princess Fauxahontis says weed leads to addiction, health problems, and traffic accidents what has changed about weed from 2003 to 2019?

Is Princess Fauxahontis now smoking weed instead of peyote?

Dem hopeful backing weed legalization previously sounded alarm.