Israel to Join US in Passing Bill Against Giving Money to the Terrorist Supporting Palestinian Authority

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a charity case for both the United States and Israel, as both annually gave it money for aid to the people living under its auspices for years. However, those days may be coming to an end as both the U.S. and now Israel are putting forth legislation to turn off the spigot in light of the PA paying performance bonuses to terrorists based on how many innocent Jews they kill.

The U.S. has already passed a bill on Friday known as the “Taylor Force Act” against Palestinian Authority, which stops all payments to the PA so long as those payments go to terrorists. Trump had lashed out at the PA for its unwillingness to work toward peace with Israel, and as a result, had its funding removed.

This may come as a great relief to taxpayers, whose money was being used to pay terrorists such as Omar al-Abed who ritualistically slaughtered members of a Jewish family in their home as they prepared for dinner to celebrate the birth of a child. Al-Abed managed to kill three members of the family until he was shot, but taken alive by Israeli authorities. He’ll be paid over $3,000 for the rest of his life thanks to the PA, as well as a ministry position within the government when he gets out of jail in 30 years.

Now Israel is piling on the punishment according to the Times of Israel:

The Defense Ministry on Tuesday publicized a draft bill that would deduct welfare payments paid out by the Palestinian Authority to Palestinian prisoners and their families from the tax revenues Israel transfers annually to the PA.

“The Palestinian Authority pays over a billion shekels a year to terrorists and their relatives, thereby encouraging and perpetuating terrorism,” Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a statement. “The moment the payments are set based on the severity of the crime and the prison sentence, namely that those who murder and are sentenced to life receive a lot more, this is [tantamount to] funding terror attacks against Israelis.”

According to the Jerusalem Post, the bill was inspired by the U.S.’s “Taylor Force Act,” and will deduct money from Israeli payments to the PA based on how much money was paid to terrorists the previous year:

Each year, the defense minister will bring the Ministerial Committee for National Security a report on how much the PA paid terrorists, directly or indirectly. The report will be classified, but the defense minister will be allowed to publicize a summary consisting of non-classified information from the report.

The ministers will then decide whether or not to deduct the amount paid to terrorists from the taxes and tariffs collected by the Israeli government for the PA. They can decide to deduct a smaller sum than what the PA had paid the terrorists.

The ministers can also decide not to deduct the funds, “for special reasons of national security and international relations.”

However, some within Israel believe the bill doesn’t go far enough. Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Avi Dichter (Likud) believes that payments should stop completely.

“If the Palestinian Authority has budgetary problems, it shouldn’t be the State of Israel’s problem,” Dichter said. “Government ministries have to take into consideration this situation: A terrorist’s entry card to become a [PA] state employee is to commit an act of terrorism.

“It’s not amorphous. It’s precisely defined. Seven percent of the money we transfer to the PA goes to terrorists. We cannot let this be,” he added.

(h/t: Daily Wire)

The post Israel to Join US in Passing Bill Against Giving Money to the Terrorist Supporting Palestinian Authority appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Google’s Bias Undeniable as Its Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites

Looking up various news and opinion sites on Google will open up a window on the right-hand side that features various bits of info about the site, as well as the topics they write about. On many sites, it will also include a “Reviewed Claims” section that will fact-check many of the articles the site puts up…that is, if you’re a conservative site.

The issue was first brought to the public’s attention by the Daily Caller, who noted that its own site had its articles reviewed for facts. The trouble is that the fact-checkers were sources with repeatedly proven biases toward the left like Snopes, or Climate Feedback.

The Daily Caller noted with examples that the fact-checking done by these sites is hardly reliable, as demonstrated by the fact checkers saying TheDC made a claim it didn’t, and reported that what they claimed was false:

Ostensibly trying to sum up the crux of the post, the third-party “fact-checking” organization says the “claim” in a DC article that special Counsel Robert Mueller is hiring people that “are all Hillary Clinton supporters” is misleading, if not false.

The problem is that TheDC’s article makes no such claim. Their cited language doesn’t even appear in the article. Worse yet, there was no language trying to make it seem that the investigation into the Trump administration and Russia is entirely comprised of Clinton donors. The story simply contained the news: Mueller hired a Hillary Clinton donor to aid the investigation into President Donald Trump.

Still, the Washington Post gave the claim, which came from Trump himself, its official “Three Pinocchios” rating. The method applies to several other checks. Claims concocted or adulterated by someone outside the TheDC are attributed to TheDC, in what appears to be a feature that only applies to conservative sites.

And to The Daily Caller’s point of it only being applied to conservative sites, that sadly rings very true.

I personally searched through many left wing sites on Google, and not one of them — be it Vox, Media Matters, Salon, Newsweek, etc — have the same fact-checking function attached to them. The only one who seems to have it is Occupy Democrats, a radical leftist site.

Google’s bias against conservatives is nothing new. Recently they labeled YouTube interviewer Dave Rubin’s Q&A with Ben Shapiro as unfriendly to advertisers and demonetized it. What was unfriendly to advertisers is still unknown, but as YouTube has stated in the past, it doesn’t need a clear reason to demonetize videos. If the content seems to fall outside levels of what its flagging partners believe to be right, the video is demonetized and hidden.


The post Google’s Bias Undeniable as Its Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

“Roseanne” Reboot to Pick Up Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing” Torch With Conservative Main Characters

Fan outrage over the sudden cancellation of Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing” is still fresh in a lot of minds. Being one of the few non-news shows on television with a right-leaning perspective — you only need one hand to count the rest — many cried foul upon the announcement that it was being taken off the air.

ABC, the network that carried the show, claimed it was going to make money for Disney since production was being handled by 20th Century Fox. However, Allen and many others believed it had everything to do with its pro-conservative messages. Seeing as how “Last Man Standing” was doing well in the ratings, especially after six years, the theory seemed highly plausible.

But it was announced recently that the Roseanne reboot would feature main characters that were actually Trump supporters. While the cast will express a diverse range of political opinions, Republican will be the Conner household’s primary voting block.

“I said, and I’ll say it again… I have always attempted to portray a realistic portrait of the American people and of working class, you know working-class people. And, in fact, it was working class people who elected Trump,” said show’s lead Roseanne Barr according to Fox News.

“So I felt that, yeah, that was very real, and something that needed to be discussed. And especially about polarization in the family, and people actually hating other people for the way they voted, which I feel is not American. And so I wanted to bring it right down the middle, and we did,” she added.

However, as Fox News reported, the announcement did not go down well with some Last Man Standing fans who feel Allen got shafted.

Despite the outrage from Last Man Standing fans, they may have something to look forward to in “Roseanne.” Barr herself is an actual Trump voter in real life who has proven to be fiery about pro-conservative issues such as defending Israel.

“I think it was time for us, as a country, to shake things up and try something different,” said Barr on voting for Trump.

“He says a lot of crazy s— but I mean… I’m not a Trump apologist. There are a lot of things he has said and done that I don’t agree with,” she said according to Fox News. “It’s always the lesser of two evils and we always have to face our own conscience of how we deal with that.”

If Barr’s reboot does indeed tackle conservative perspectives with likability and reason, she’ll probably have a hit show on her hands…again. If the writing is anything as good as “Last Man Standing,” then “Roseanne” will be further exploring a path Allen uncovered and trail-blazed, and hopefully encourage the mainstream media at large to create more of.

However, it will always be tragic for Allen who had his show canceled for the wrong reasons…unless he gets a reboot too.

The post “Roseanne” Reboot to Pick Up Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing” Torch With Conservative Main Characters appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Oprah “Intrigued” by Presidential Run Says Longtime Confidant

Oprah Winfrey has remained mostly mum on the subject of her presidential run, despite several clues that she’s looked into it.

For one, she publicly thanked New York Post’s John Podhoretz for the “vote of confidence” when he wrote an article about the queen of daytime talk being the only hope for the Democratic party, linking to the article in the process.

And then of course there was her speech at the Golden Globes, which sounded more like a politicians stump speech than anything.

The amount of political weight Oprah carries without ever having touched politics is enough to get the left excited, especially since they are currently a leaderless amalgamation of radicals, socialists, creepy uncles and whatever species Nancy Pelosi hails from. In other words, it’s not exactly a group that will attract your average Joe and Gina into the voting booths to pull the levers for the left.

But according to Gayle King, Oprah’s longtime friend, Oprah is “intrigued” by the idea of running in 2020, but not yet seriously considering it.

From Reuters:

Winfrey confidante Gayle King said on “CBS This Morning” that the 63-year-old celebrity’s past position that she was not interested in running for president remained unchanged.

“I do think she’s intrigued by the idea, I do think that,” King said. “I also know that after years of watching ‘The Oprah (Winfrey) Show’ you always have the right to change your mind. I don’t think at this point she’s actually considering it.”

There is little doubt that Oprah will be approached by almost every mover and shaker for the Democratic party in an attempt to get her to run. She is almost a sure-fire success in terms of campaigning. She widely loved, powerful in her own right, and unlike their last choice, capable of being a human. Compared to her, the other options, such as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, look like a long slog of spinning gaffes, softening policy positions, and withstanding Trump’s onslaught of catchy names and media savvy.

If you’re the Democrats, Oprah looks like a shortcut to the White House. Even the Trump administration has felt threatened enough that it already issued a statement via the White House that Trump is ready to pick up Oprah’s pristine glove should she throw it down.

Get ready. If Oprah nods, everything changes.


The post Oprah “Intrigued” by Presidential Run Says Longtime Confidant appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Is There an Afterlife? Logic Says Yes

One of the most pressing questions on humanity is what happens to us after we die. Much of humanity has some belief, or at least a guess. Atheists believe nothing happens, and eastern religions like Buddhism believes you are reincarnated.

But Christians believe in an afterlife in Heaven, a place of peace and bliss unknowable on Earth.

However, many believe that this sounds too good to be true. That’s why Dennis Prager of Prager U decided to take up the question, and really get down to the bottom of whether or not there actually is one.

His verdict? Absolutely, because there has to be an afterlife if there is a good and just God:

…this life is filled with an immeasurable amount of injustice and suffering. The only way there can be some ultimate justice for victims of evil is if there is an afterlife. And the only way comfort is available to those who suffer unjustly – from painful disease and premature death to the death of a child – is if there is an afterlife. But such an afterlife exists only if there is a good and just God. A good and just God provides a way to compensate for all the unjust suffering in this world.”

He continues:

…since God is not physical, the physical world is not the only reality. There is also a non-physical reality. And we humans have a part of us which, being non-physical, survives the death of our body. We call it the “soul.” But if there is no God, this physical life is all there is. So, no God, no soul; no soul, no afterlife.

Prager comments that many people, like atheists, believe that we do live on but in other’s memories and works. If that’s the case, says Prager, then many don’t live on long. He also notes that sadly, bad works are far more remembered than good works. If that’s the case, then Hitler is far more immortal than many kind people in history.

“If there’s no afterlife, we don’t live on,” noted Prager. “Period. Let’s be honest enough to acknowledge that. If there’s no afterlife, none of us will ever again be with those we most love and who love us. If there’s no afterlife, neither anyone murdered nor any murderer will ever receive ultimate justice. If there’s no afterlife, this life—for the vast majority of people who ever lived and for those alive now—is a meaningless crapshoot.”

The post Is There an Afterlife? Logic Says Yes appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

White House: Trump Isn’t Afraid of Oprah

One of the highlights of the Golden Globes — and I’m using the word “highlights” very loosely here — was what many are calling Oprah’s stump speech. Between that and a since deleted tweet by NBC calling her “our president,” rumors have flared…but Trump ain’t scared.

According to the Washington Times, the White House weighed in on the rumors — or desperate hope for some — that Oprah may be running in 2020, and said that Trump isn’t worried about any presidential bids from the queen of daytime television:

Responding to a clamor on the left for Ms. Winfrey to run for president in 2020 after her passionate speech at the Golden Globes, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said President Trump isn’t concerned about any challengers on the horizon.

“We welcome all comers,” Mr. Gidley said. “We welcome the challenge, whether it be Oprah Winfrey or anybody else.”

He said candidates in 2020 will be facing a tough incumbent in Mr. Trump.

Mr. Gidley said, “Regardless of who’s on the ballot, regardless who decides to run against this president, they are going to have to face a president who has record-setting achievements in record-setting time, whether it’s an economy that is booming, job creation, historic tax cuts and tax reform when that hadn’t been touched in 30 years, an increase in wages, an absolute decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

While Mr. Gidley’s point about Trump’s accomplishments working for him is solid, 2016 proved that nothing is more powerful than a good show. It’s what got Trump elected.

If Oprah does run, we’ll have two media giants who know a thing or two about putting on a show running against one another. Trump’s biggest problem will be the fact that the vast majority of people actually like Oprah, and she has some serious cred in the general public’s memory. If she does run, it’s likely that Trump will have a hard fight on his hands.

That’s IF she runs, but last night wasn’t the first time she’s given people some hope that she’ll try to attain the Oval Office. Oprah tweeted back in Sept. 2017 an article labeling her as the Democrats best hope, thanking John Podhertz for his “vote of confidence.”

The post White House: Trump Isn’t Afraid of Oprah appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Rand Paul: Recovering from Neighbor’s Attack was a “Living Hell”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had a rough 2017. Between being shot at by a crazed socialist, and then being attacked by his crazed next door neighbor, Paul has had a lot to deal with.

But it was the latter attack that caused him the most grief, as Paul recounted to CBS News on Sunday during “Face the Nation,” as his recovery was difficult and very, very painful. In fact, he called it a “living hell.”

From The Hill:

“It was sort of a living hell for the first four or five weeks,” Paul told CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

“Couldn’t get out of bed without assistance. Six broken ribs, damage to my lungs, two bouts of pneumonia,” he continued.

“It was really a tough go of it, but each day I feel a little bit better,” he said. “This last month I’ve been doing better.”

According to Rand’s neighbor’s lawyer, the attack was over yard maintenance and not at all politically motivated. Paul seems to have cast some serious doubts over this claim.

And both of the attacks have the rest of the GOP worried.

“My colleagues come up all the time, and they want to make sure that there is some kind of deterrent because people don’t want to think that it’s open season on our elected officials,” Paul said.

“So yeah, I’ve been involved in violent attacks twice in the last year. And so, we’re very aware of it,” he added.


The post Rand Paul: Recovering from Neighbor’s Attack was a “Living Hell” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Guess Where the Money Behind Al Gore’s Promotion of Climate Hysterics Came From

If you think former Vice-President Al Gore, and current head of the Church of Climate Change was helping to save the world out of the goodness of his heart with his own money, you are sadly mistaken. As leaked documents reveal, Gore was having his pockets filled by an outside source that had a specific interest in the climate hysterics being spread far and wide.

And that source was none other than leftist sugar daddy George Soros.

According to Daily Caller, documents published by DC Leaks show that Soros’s group Open Society Institute (OSI) threw $10 million at Al Gore in 2008 to push climate panic in order to help push policies surrounding the bad science.

“U.S. Programs Global Warming Grants U.S. Programs became engaged on the global warming issue about four years ago, at George Soros’s suggestion,” reads a leaked OSI memo.

“There has been a budget of $11 million for global warming grants in the U.S. Programs budget for the last several years,” the memo reads. “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”

The OSI continued to give Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection with more donations, including a $5 million in 2009.

But all of this money wasn’t just to kick the climate alarmism into high gear, it was also help generate a youth movement:

OSI didn’t only plan to fund Gore’s climate group to promote global warming policies in the U.S., OSI also planned on giving millions of dollars to spur the “youth climate movement.”

“This budget item also allows for the renewal of U.S. Programs’ long-standing support of the Energy Action Coalition, which is the lead organizer of the youth climate movement in the U.S., the memo reads.

The Daily Caller reported that OSI, now called the Open Society Foundation, has handed out over $13 billion over the past three decades, mostly to left-wing causes.

The post Guess Where the Money Behind Al Gore’s Promotion of Climate Hysterics Came From appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Nancy Pelosi Drums Up Unhinged Response to Miller/Tapper Interview

No one goes from zero to crazy quite like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif). Whether it’s calling a GOP tax bill the beginning of “Armageddon,” or saying national reciprocity will invites convicted criminals to shoot their significant others, she really knows how to turn the hysterics up to 11.

And never one to disappoint, Pelosi weighed in on the heated interview between CNN’s Jake Tapper and Trump’s policy adviser Stephen Miller. All on its own, the fireworks that occurred during the interview were entertaining enough, but Pelosi took to Twitter and threw her two cents in.

According to her, Miller is 100 percent proof that white supremacists are still whispering in Trump’s ear, and guiding him policy-wise.

“The bigoted world view that Bannon pushed remains at the WH,” tweeted Pelosi. “White supremacists still have the ear of Trump and are shaping national policy through their hate-filled lenses. Yes, that means Stephen Miller who must be removed.”

That’s right, folks. According to Pelosi, Miller is a white supremacist.

As Cunningham wrote earlier today, Miller’s part of the interview did not at all come off well. But to say he’s a white supremacists when nothing Miller said or did was remotely white supremacist was a fast trip to Crazytown. He’s not a white supremacist…in fact, he’s Jewish.

But pshaw!

Pelosi and facts were never close. For the California congresswoman, it’s all about what phrase can be the most sensational. The most terrifying. Thus calling Miller, a Jewish man, a white supremacist is no sweat. The fact that it reeks of desperation be damned.

No one is quite sure if Pelosi is saying these things because she truly believes them, or if she’s doing it to generate the necessary fear that will drive people away from her political enemies, and right into the voting booths to keep her and her colleagues in power. However, what I can be sure of is that the fear generates the very type of blind outrage that infects the minds of many a protester that takes to the streets to either chant slogans or destroy property.

If you need an example of how fear can drive ignorant outrage, check this out.


The post Nancy Pelosi Drums Up Unhinged Response to Miller/Tapper Interview appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Antifa Members are Asked to Define Fascism and Just Can’t

One thing you notice if you work in politics long enough is that many people who are part of a movement, protest, sit-in, or anything of the like aren’t there because they truly believe in the cause. What they know is that something is bad, and they want to feel good. So they take part in whatever outrage fueled crowd they come across.

Take for instance Antifa, short for “Anti-fascist.” Many of its members know fascism is bad, and they know who the fascists are.

But ask them what a fascist is, and you may suddenly find that the anti-fascist doesn’t know what he or she is actually protesting against.

Websters defines “fascism” as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Easy enough, or so you would think.

Campus Reform went down to an Antifa protest to ask members what a fascist is. Sadly, many in the crowd either didn’t know, or flat out refused to answer the question:

Wanting to know if these so called “anti-fascists” actually knew what fascism was, Campus Reformheaded to the protest to get an answer.

While the first few protesters we encountered to refused to speak with “fascist sympathizers,” those who did engage in conversation made it clear they weren’t entirely sure how to actually define “fascism.”

“Uhhh….I don’t know, man” admitted one befuddled protester when asked to define the word. “I don’t really want to get into all that history and stuff…” conceded another.

One protester seemed confident in her understanding of fascism, saying it was “an increasingly upward, hierarchical model, that puts white people and European people at the top.”

When asked to elaborate on her meaning, however, she declined.

Watch the video below.

I have trouble using the term “brainwashed” in many regards. This isn’t brainwashing, so much as a need for inclusion, and a vague outrage about something they heard was outrageous.

Not understanding the real reason why they’re there is a common trend you’ll notice about these interviews. Often, someone they know knows someone who knows more about this. That person told the person they know that X is really bad, and the best way to combat X is to get out there and protest or else some horrid things will happen.

Very few of these people ever actually look below surface talk about the issue. That’s why you hear so many screaming at the top of their lungs that racism is going to have whites hanging blacks in the streets, or that gays will be jailed or killed, or that the Handmaid’s Tale is just a reality waiting to happen. None of this is true, but for the ignorant person wanting to be something, and make a difference, this is prime meat.

The post Antifa Members are Asked to Define Fascism and Just Can’t appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State