Loretta Lynch refuses to answer questions about "chance' meeting with Bill Clinton

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/20/obama-ag-lynch-refuses-discuss-notorious-clinton-t/

Most of you have probably forgotten that less than a month before FBI director James Comey was slated to testify to congress on whether Hilliary Clinton had ordered her aides to email above-top-secret information to her unsecured email account on the private server in her home, Obama’s attorney-general Loretta Lynch secretly met with Bill Clinton in her government jet while it was parked at the Phoenix airport.

When word of this meeting leaked out, Lynch said the meeting was "totally by chance," that the two just happened to have been in Phoenix on the same day and that when the former president learned she was there he wanted to just "pay his respects."  According to Lynch the two just talked about "grandchildren and golf."

Wow, some amazing coincidence there, eh citizen?

The only people dumb enough to buy this ridiculous bullshit are liberals and Democrats.  Everyone with an IQ over 80 thinks the real reason Hilliary's husband met Lynch was to promise her that if she'd ensure the FBI would clear Hilly of any violations, Hilly would appoint her to an even higher position after Hilliary won.

In other words, Lynch was offered what amounted to a payoff if she could pressure the FBI not to charge Hilliary with a crime.  In other words, she was offered a legal bribe.

A few congressmen were curious about how that odd meeting came about, and what was discussed on Lynch's government jet, and asked Lynch to answer some questions in a closed-door meeting.

Lynch refused to answer a single question about the meeting when she appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on October 20th.

Lynch has been accused of attempting to influence the FBI’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s private email use while secretary of state — and both she and Mr. Clinton say the meeting at the Phoenix airport was a "chance social encounter."

In June, during highly anticipated testimony, fired FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting caused him to hold a press conference on Mrs. Clinton’s email case.

Sources say Lynch refused to answer three questions from the panel: whether she ever instructed Mr. Comey to characterize the DOJ’s Clinton email investigation a “matter,” whether she discussed the idea of holding the tarmac meeting with Mr. Clinton with anyone in the White House; and whether she could address any issues related to Mr. Comey’s June testimony.
 
Now: Does anyone believe the meeting was a "chance social encounter"?  Only Democrats.  In a reasonable world prosecutors would question the government pilots to find out the reason for the trip to Phoenix, and whether they were aware of any communications between Lynch and Clinton's aides before the meeting.  You could easily determine whether the ostensible reason for both planes to be there was genuine.

Both Lynch and Clinton are lying.  But as always, there won't be any penalty for either.  Cuz top Democrats are above the law.

Latest scheme from the "humans-burning-fossil-fuels-are-killing-the-planet" crowd

The same crowd of moronic faux-scientists who claim that a) global warming is caused by humans; and b) it's being driven by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, have now proposed an equally crazy, dangerous scheme to cool the planet.

Cuz they're really really brilliant, and have created "computer models" that they say enable them to predict all sorts of things you never imagined would happen.

And you simply have to pay attention to them, cuz leftist activists will immediately condemn anyone who doesn't as a "climate denier."  Or a "hater."  Or worse.

So their latest proposal is that a few--the really really smaht ones, of course--want to reduce heating of the planet by dumping huge amounts of sulfates into the upper atmosphere.  These sulfates will reflect sunlight, cooling things off.

What could possibly go wrong?  These people should be nominated for the Nobel right away!  And you can bet that the next time Americans are dumb enough to elect a Democrat like Hilliary or Obozo as president, that person will jump right on this idiotic idea, cuz they want to signal how virtuous they are and how much they care about the environment.

Democrats are still furious that their brilliant, personable, impeccably honest and ethical Hilliary lost to that Awful Man, and they put the blame squarely where it belongs:  On the electoral-college system.  And to keep such an unfair, awful thing from ever happening again, Dems are pulling out all the stops to eliminate that system and replace it with the winner of the national popular vote.

Of course to do that they'd have to amend the Constitution, and it's hard to imagine states with small populations voting to commit suicide that way.  But before dismissing that possiblity, consider this:

Two days ago the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (Tom Perez) gave a lecture to law students at Indiana University, in which he said "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution."

Uh, Tom?  Would you kindly read Article II aloud for us?  Can you tell us what it means?

Article II, of course, specifies the details of the Electoral College--a mechanism created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, creating the system of indirect election of the president.

So why did Perez say the E.C. "is NOT a creation of the Constitution"?  Is he really unaware of what that document--once called the supreme law of the land--says?  Or is he merely trying to convince future attorneys that it doesn't mean what it says?  Perez has previously stated that President Donald Trump "didn’t win" the presidential election because Hilliary Clinton won the popular vote. 

It's one thing to bitch endlessly about a Constitutional provision you don't like.  It's quite another to claim that the president didn't win simply because Hilliary won the popular vote.  Interestingly, no professor at IU stood up and asked him if he really thinks the E.C. isn't set forth in the Constitution.  Similarly, the Democrat National Committee didn't respond to the same question.

After claiming the E.C. isn't a "creation of the Constitution" Perez went on to tell his audience of eager law students about a cunning, Democrat-contrived plan by which Dems hope to elect future presidents by the winner of the national popular vote, despite the Constitution's direct orders.  It's devious, and a century ago it wouldn't have had a chance of being ruled legal.  But now we've got so many corrupt, anti-Constitution Dem judges now that anything is possible.

The Constitution provides that the states may choose their electors on any basis they wish.  So what Perez and the Dems are pushing is to persuade Democrats in each state to pass a state law pledging to award their electoral votes NOT to the candidate that won their state, but to whoever wins the national popular vote.

"There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says, we will allocate our...electoral votes to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 170 electoral votes do the same," Perez said. "I’m frankly proud to tell you that the first state to pass such a law was Maryland."

The main supporters of the plan put forward by Perez understand that its intent is to eliminate the electoral-college system created by the Constitution, not an argument that the system doesn’t exist. And of course they all understand that the cunning of the plan is that it would destroy a key Constitutional compromise without having to amend the Constitution itself.

As I said:  Cunning.

If you think the Dems aren't trying to destroy the electoral-college system you're dreaming.  The far-left website Slate has called the electoral-college system  "a democratically indefensible anachronism that dilutes minority votes while disproportionately amplifying whites votes."

Really?  Apparently it doesn't "dilute minority votes" at all, because you Democrats managed to elect Barack Hussein Obama.

Answer that one, you communist assholes.  You managed to elect your emperor, so apparently the electoral-college system can elect anyone, regardless of color or sealed records or fake birth certificate.

The Slate article coyly talks about this scheme as "probably our best hope of effectively nullifying the Electoral College."  Also they call it an "agreement among the states and the District of Columbia to render the Electoral College obsolete."

Aren't they just too, too clever?  We're not doing anything important, citizen.  Merely "effectively nullifying" something.  "Rendering it obsolete."  Nothing to get concerned about, citizen.  Trust us.

How crazy have education schools gotten? You won't believe...

How crazy are the professors who are teaching the newest generation of teachers?  Take a look:

Rochelle Gutierrez, a math education professor at the University of Illinois, has written a book in which she claims algebra and geometry perpetuate “unearned privilege” among whites.

She goes on to insist that teachers must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.

“Are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?”

Damn, Rochelle, that's a great point!  You really don't need math or algebra or geometry to do things like, oh, building St. Peter's basilica.  You jus' keep puttin' dem rocks on toppa each udder an' don' worry, mon!  We don' need no damn math!  Cuz we's politically correct!
 

Here's Rochelle:

On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.

Gutierrez also claims that merely teaching (she says "emphasizing") ideas like the Pythagorean theorem and pi "perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans."

Ah yes, it's all so clear now!  Da eeebil algebra be made up by da White Debbils, so we jus' can't teach it to our precious ninos cuz dat's bowin' to duh white debbil's discovery!  Way better to not teach our ninos math, cuz who needs dat white raaaacis' sheeit anyway?

Rochelle also claims that teaching math to kids actually helps perpetuate white privilege!

If her "reasoning" here seems a bit...fuzzy...you're not alone.  So Rochelle graciously offers to raise your consciousness:  She notes that "our economy" places a premium on math skills--which gives people who can do math well a form of “unearned privilege.”   And of course most of the people who can do math well are...wait for it...disproportionately white!

Jeez, this crap is self-parodying.

Just when you thought she couldn't top her own dumbass thoughts, she asks why math professors get more research grants than social-studies or English professors.  It just ain't right!

Maybe not, but it seems to me that math is one of the basic skills, and that if you can't do math, you probably aren't smart enough to do anything *more* advanced.  I don't think it's unreasonable to be very skeptical about the rest of your intelligence and reasoning ability.  

She worries that inability to master math "can perpetuate discrimination against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts."

See above.  If you can't master math....

“If one is not viewed as mathematical, there will always be a sense of inferiority that can be summoned,” she says, adding that there are so many minorities who “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math class… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”

To fight this, Gutierrez encourages aspiring math teachers to develop a sense of “political conocimiento,” a Spanish phrase for “political knowledge" for teaching.  Oh sure, cuz ya can't understand math unless you put it in a political context.  Absolutely.

So typical of the Lyin' Mainstream Media!

University "philosopher" claims having kids is awful...but not on ecological grounds

In 2006 a professor of philosophy published a book called Better Never to Have Been. pushing the idea that simply being born is always a serious harm.  He claimed that because life is often painful, and unavoidably ends in death--which is also often painful--people shouldn't have children.

Seriously, he wrote a book pushing this.

People should never, under any circumstance, procreate.  Even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong. Life is simply much worse than most people think....

...and there are powerful drives to affirm life even when life is terrible.  People might be living lives that were actually not worth starting without recognising that this is the case.

The suggestion that life is worse than most people think is often met with indignation. How dare I tell you how poor the quality of your life is?  Surely the quality of your life is as good as it seems to you.

He goes on to claim that if you believe your life has more good than bad, you're naive.

Okay, I know "crazy" afflicts a certain percentage of people in every walk of life, but geez, what a loon.  At least that's my take.

This explains so much!

Comey knew about FBI's teaming with FusionGPS to commission and leak anti-Trump "dossier"

Most Americans would probably agree that the FBI shouldn't use its virtually unlimited budget and resources to support one party's candidate over another's.

Democrats, on the other hand, are totally fine with that sort of ghastly misuse of power--as long as it helps their party and hurts Republicans.

If you get your news from the Lyin' Mainstream Media you almost certainly haven't heard about what I'm about to describe.  Once you hear, you should be furious, demanding people be fired and jailed--unless of course you're a Democrat, in which case you won't see any problem.

Before last year's election a "dossier" surfaced, purporting to be an "investigation" into candidate Trump's alleged behavior on a trip to Russia.  The allegations were ghastly--really damning stuff.

The content was carefully leaked to the media, which eagerly published them with virtually no caveat.  After all, they alleged that the FBI had commissioned the investigation, and even paid for it.

And if Hilliary had won, you'd never have heard any more about who commissioned the "dossier" and paid for it.

But against all odds, Hilliary lost.  Now congress wants former FBI director James Comey to disclose whether Fusion GPS, the Democratic opposition-research firm that produced the debunked dossier on President Trump’s alleged Russia ties, was itself a Russian agent paid by the FBI to damage Trump.

Last May senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who has been a vocal critic of President Trump, had this exchange with James Comey:

Graham:   Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey:     I know the name.
Graham:   Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey:     I can’t say.
Graham:   Do you agree that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey:    I don’t want to say.

It was a surprising question about information that has not been well reported in the media. Graham referenced an April 28 letter from Grassley to Comey. Grassley noted a pattern of FBI obstruction into the committee’s investigation of Russian interference, particularly when that investigation touched on decisions made by the FBI.

Grassley asked for information on March 6 about the FBI’s relationship to Christopher Steele, author of a political opposition research dossier that alleged collusion between associates of Donald Trump and the Russian government. The FBI failed to respond, despite a March 20 "deadline"--because top officials at the FBI know they won't pay any price for obstructing congress.

On February 15, Grassley and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked for a briefing and documents related to the resignation of Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and the leaks of classified info involving him. There was a “startling lack of responsiveness” to the request, Grassley wrote. Comey finally briefed Grassley and Feinstein in mid-March, addressing also a small number of the questions about Steele.

On April 19, the FBI claimed that the meeting addressed the concerns of both letters. “That is incorrect,” Grassley noted. Not only has the FBI failed to provide the documents requested in the March letter or answer the vast majority of its questions, there appear to be “material inconsistencies” between the description of the FBI’s relationship with Steele that Comey gave in the briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made available to the committee after the briefing.

Grassley wrote that whether those inconsistencies were honest mistakes or an attempt to downplay the FBI’s relationship with Steele, he still needs the answers and documents he requested. But then he noted this new information:

Fusion GPS is the subject of a complaint to the Justice Department, which alleges that the company violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by working on behalf of Russian principals to undermine U.S. sanctions against Russians. That unregistered work was reportedly conducted with a former Russian intelligence operative, Mr. Rinat Akhmetshin, and appears to have been occurring simultaneous to Fusion GPS’s work overseeing the creation of the dossier.

Grassley said he requested information about this on March 31 but that Justice failed to respond.

Now Grassley is demanding documentation of all payments made to Steele, as well as disclosure about whether the FBI was aware that Fusion GPS was at the same time allegedly working as an unregistered agent for Russian interests; when the FBI became aware of this allegation; and whether this information was included in FISA warrant requests or any other related documents.

This consistent, brazen pattern of stonewalling by Obama holdovers at the FBI clearly demonstrates that the Deep State exists, and will obstruct even attempts by congress to uncover the truth--which is that the FBI is totally, irredeemably corrupt.  They're in the tank for the Democrats, and in turn the Dems will ensure that no one in the FBI is ever prosecuted for using its resources to damage Republicans and cover-up for Democrat lies and crimes.

Wheeeee!
 

 

 

Attorney for U.S. undercover informant says FBI ordered her client not to reveal anything to congress

If you have any source of news other than the Lyin' Mainstream Media you may have heard something vague about the Russians contributing millions of dollars to Hilliary's foundation just before a low-level drone at Hilliary's State Department approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves to a Russian company.

Now an attorney who says she represents an American businessman who was an undercover informant for the FBI says Obama's Justice Department ordered him not to tell Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to a Russian nuclear company's efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and to influence Obama administration decisions.

The attorney--a former Justice Department official and former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee-- said she's working with members of Congress to see if they can get the Justice Department or the FBI to lift the non-disclosure agreement to allow her client to talk to members of congress.

Now, I don't know whether there's anything to this or not, but it's hugely significant that this story appeared on the pro-Democrat website "The Hill."  As such, it's an "admission against interest," which courts regard as much more credible than the same charge levied by an opponent.

Draw your own conclusions.

Interesting event in Wyoming

Today a Wyoming "woman" was *convicted* of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl in a public bathroom.

Wait, that's not quite right.  Here's the real story:  A "transgender woman" [sic, this is how even Fox wrote the story] was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.  The convicted creature is Miguel Martinez, who now prefers to be called "Michelle."  Here's a pic of the creature:

The Billings Gazette reports Martinez, a friend of the girl's family, invited the ten-year-old into the bathroom where he raped her. The girl told her mother immediately after the assault who then reported it to Casper Police.

Note well:  liberals and Democrats whined to sleazy, snowflake-loving politicians that they wanted--no, demanded--that men who "identified" as women be allowed to use women's restrooms and locker rooms.  The sane people warned that even if 90% of trannies were harmless, such a decree (law) would make attacks like the one on this poor ten-year-old girl inevitable.

The pols put their licked fingers in the air to see which position would get them the most votes, and because liberals seem to have the media and all the power behind them, they then voted to allow trannies to use any room they wished.

Now that this attack has happened, where are all the snowflake-loving pols to say "We stand by our decree, cuz it was right to let men use girls' restrooms.  We're smart, you're not.  You're not qualified to make decisions on such highly technical matters in which you lack any expertise.  So shut up."

Now, I realize Wyoming's legislature wasn't dumb enough to pass a trannies-can-use-any-facility-they-want law.  But you have to wonder if perhaps someone noticed this creature taking the girl into the bathroom but thought "I don't want to make a big deal about this because 'all enlightened people accept this, just like our emperor.'"

Oh, and that line about "You're not qualified...because this is a technical matter you don't have the expertise to analyze"?  That's exactly how the kingpins of King County, Washington (i.e. Seattle) responded to a legal petition to bar Seattle from establishing taxpayer-funded "shooting galleries" where junkies could inject heroin "safely"--i.e. under the watchful eyes of taxpayer-funded medical personnel standing by to administer lifesaving drugs if they overdosed.

The pols believe this is a good thing.  Maybe the pols think Seattle needs more heroin addicts.  Hard to know.

How crazy have the libs gotten? November "Playmate of the Month" is...a transgender man

This doesn't seem to be a parody, and shows how totally screwed this country has become:  Playboy Magazine's "playmate of the month" for November is...a transgender man.

The website uses all female pronouns in describing this person--a total bow to the gods of political correctness.

Warning:  If you have a weak stomach, don't click on the link.  What has been seen can't be unseen.

I know the U.S. took a huge dive into the cesspool during the eight years that emperor Obama occupied the White House, but I didn't think it had actually gotten this bad.

A sane person has to wonder:  Who the hell makes astonishingly dumb-ass decisions like this?  I realize that all corporate execs are now politically-correct, so not one would ever stand up and object to such a dumb decision, for fear of getting fired from their cushy six-figure jobs.  But who do they think reads Playboy?  Lesbians?  Gay pencil-neck metrosexuals?  Congress-creeps whose favor the execs want to curry, to enhance their careers?

I write this as someone who's never subscribed to the mag and hasn't picked one up in 40 years.  Don't care if they go bankrupt.  Just curious as to how things came to such an awful state.

And yes, I do blame Democrats and everyone who demands that we all bow to the altar of trans-gender snowflakes.  Yes, the emperor Obama pushed it (and pushed, and pushed), but he couldn't have done what he did without your endless, unflagging support, Democrats.

You people OWN this.  I'm not sure you know what you've done, but I hope you realize it eventually.

Former Democrat head of the Fed Election Commission pushes for government to control of Net content

Conservatives have known for years that you can't trust anything reported by the Lyin' Mainstream Media.  And even though everyone knows the internet is full of wild speculation, it's a far better source for information because there's always someone *local* to any event, who reports what really happened in that event.

Because the net has always been open to all opinions, and because more Americans are learning that the Lyin' Media constantly lies to support Democrats, it's getting harder for Democrats and their media allies to succeed in fooling at least the 50 percent of Americans who aren't Democrats.

So you won't be surprised to learn that for years Democrats have been trying to ban individuals and conservative outlets from posting anything on the Net that cuts against the interests of Democrats.

Of course you probably think that's just a wild conspiracy theory.  But now the former Dem chairperson of the all-powerful Federal Election Commission has written a paper entitled "The Case for Government Regulation of "Fake News."

You won't believe all the things they're seriously pushing for.  Here's their own summary:

Fake news--or as we call it, “disinformation advertising”-- undermines voter competence, or voters’ ability to make the choice that is right for them. Regulations to address it should aim to improve voter competence in three ways: (1) reduce the cognitive burden on the voter by reducing the amount of disinformation to which they’re exposed; (2) educate and nudge social media users in order to inoculate voters from the negative effects of the disinformation and teach them how to avoid unintentionally spreading it; and (3) improve transparency to facilitate speech that counters disinformation after it is spread, creating the possibility that voters will receive “corrected” information.

The Democrat authors claim that allowing anyone to post their opinion on the internet--including social media-- "splinters the electorate with divisive messages."

In their view, Americans should only see and hear "news" and opinions approved by Democrat.  Can't have "divisive messages" on the Net, right?  

Click on the link and read the whole thing.  You won't believe it unless you see it for yourself.

As an aside, the link goes to a site called "sites.google.com/sites/[name of author of paper]" which is apparently owned by Google.  Question:  does anyone know if Google charges people to host a website for folks?  If Google is doing this for free, anyone wanna speculate on whether they'd offer to host a conservative?

Of course they wouldn't.  But if it's a paying gig, any bets on whether Google would offer the same terms to a conservative?  

You already know the answer.  And this, folks, is what Democrats want the net to be like:  The only opinions allowed will be Democrat/liberal ones.  And thanks to Google for proving my point so easily.

Breaking: FBI knew about Russian bribery plot before Obama regime approved uranium sale to them

Every story I've read on the website "The Hill" has totally supported Obama, Hilliary and all Democrats.  So I was surprised to see them post a story by John Solomon and Alison Spann titled

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

The story concerns a deal the emperor's lackeys made--barely over a year into his first term--to sell uranium leases in the U.S. to a Canadian company--which promptly sold them to RossAtom, the Russian nuclear agency.  The deal reportedly covered 15 to 20 percent of U.S. uranium deposits.

When the deal was made public, a handful of conservatives pointed out its obvious stupidity, and started asking who, exactly, approved the deal...and why.  Turns out 16 government agencies--including Hilliary's State Department--needed to approve the deal for it to take effect.  So naturally a big question was who at each of those agencies approved it?

Most Americans not on the Left would likely think a deal to transfer of 15 to 20 percent of U.S. uranium leases to the Russians would be considered crucial to national security, and thus would require careful analysis, and could only be approved by the head of each agency.  So a natural question was, who at Hilliary's State Department signed off on the thing?

This question took on more significance when it was discovered that one of the principals in the Canadian company--Frank Giustra--donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.  Later Mr. Giustra’s publicly pledged to donat another $100 million to the Foundation.  (Source: NY Times, January 31, 2008.)

Of course Barack Hussein Obama wasn't yet president.  Instead the front-runner at that time was...Hilliary Clinton.  But the final deal was only approved in 2013, when Hilliary was Secretary of State.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"?

You'd think that when it came to reviewing and approving a deal with such a potentially huge impact on U.S. interests, any approval could not have been made below the top level.  And you'd think the identity of the person who approved it would be easy to determine, eh?  Hahahaha!  You'll be amazed to learn that to all appearances Hilliary didn't seem to have had any involvement with either the review or the approval of the deal.

Say what??  A critical-to-national-security deal, and she didn't know about it?  Didn't one of her aides see fit to tell her about the deal and its security ramifications?  No one is talking.  But a dogged reporter managed to find a guy at State who claimed to have been the approving authority.  He was so far down the organizational chart that no one really knew who he was.

But sure, that makes perfect sense, right?  Approving the sale of 15 or 20 percent of U.S. uranium leases to Russia was so trivial that it could be left to some non-entity.  I mean, happened every day with Hilliary's State Department, right?

Okay, now for the latest developments:  Turns out the FBI--including then-director Robert Mueller and all his holdover assistants--had solid evidence of Russian bribery surrounding this deal before it was approved, but didn't say a word to anyone.  Cuz hey, not their job.  Not anybody's job.  Cuz they all were strong Hilliary supporters, so whatever she was involved with, everyone looked the other way.

Most transparent administration evah!

But now there's another mystery:  Why did The Hill--which has always supported Democrats and run endless stories supporting them--run this story that would tend to elicit at least mild criticism of them?

Don't know, but one thing sure is that this is what lawyers call an "admission against interest," which gives it a lot more credibility that the same claim from an opponent.  I don't believe for a second that the Hill has switched sides, which leaves only a couple of plausible reasons:  One is that they knew the story was about to get out anyway, possibly from the hundreds of new pages of docs that Judicial Watch has managed to pry loose from the FBI.  If true, far better to get out there early, so that when it breaks elsewhere the Dems can claim it's "old news."

Professor: "Scientific facts are just social constructs"

The pic below is from a student taking a course in what is amusingly called "anthropology" at a university (which shall mercifully remain nameless).

So according to the creature teaching this course, "scientific facts are social constructs"?

Umm...how about "the Earth revolves around the sun"?

Actually the professor is right:  Both the Earth and the sun--along with gravity, heat, cold, hunger and Hollywood--are "social constructs" that only exist to the extent that anthropologists and other liberals allow.  In other words, there is no "objective reality."

Hahahahahaha!  This explains why liberal policies produce such uniformly awful results, cuz if facts are merely "social constructs"--i.e. if there's no such thing as objective reality-- why should their policies and programs try to take it into account?

Obama's U.N. rep claims someone else made many "unmasking requests" under her name

If true, this is huge:  Last week Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, testified before the House Intelligence Committee about the thousands of "unmasking requests" she made--more than one per business day during her last year in office.  And what she said was shocking.

If you haven't followed this you need some background: Someone in the Obama administration--perhaps several people--asked U.S. wiretapping agencies to "unmask" the identity of Americans who'd been recorded during phone conversations with foreign agents.  This is only legal under a very narrow range of reasons.

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Power was “emphatic” on the point that she did not make all of the unmasking requests the paperwork says she made. 

If she's telling the truth--something yet to be determined--it means someone else in the Obama administration made the unmasking requests using her name.

If that's true, why is it a big deal?  Because it would be proof that the Obama regime was knowingly breaking the law with its unmasking "requests" (essentially commands).  And the only logical reason for hiding requests to unmask an American is if they're not legitimate--as would be true if the person making the "request" wanted to use the info to harm political opponents.

Wait, didn't Obama say--literally--"This will be the most transparent administration in history"?

Yeah.  Totally "transparent."

Thorough, scum-sucking crooks.  All of 'em.  They all should be in prison.  But we all know that won't happen.  No one will ever be punished... cuz laws don't apply to Democrats.

Hilliary releases statement explaining why apparent bribes in uranium case aren't a crime

As more details continue to emerge about the Russians funding the payment of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to get the then-Secretary of State and her boss to approve sale of  U.S. uranium leases to Russia, Hillary Clinton released this statement:

"We had no intent to be bribed.  When our accountants realized that a hundred-million dollars had been anonymously deposited to the account of our wonderful charitable foundation we were totally mystified.  But of course since we didn't know who had made it there was no way we could give it back. 

We didn't announce it because we believed it could have come from a Republican who wanted to contribute to our wonderful global works but secretly, so he wouldn't be condemned by the deplorable members of his cult.  We decided not to investigate because we didn't want to reveal the identity of such a great person.  But we had NO INTENT to be bribed.  None.  Zero, zip, zilch. 

And as FBI director James Comey has now firmly established, if there's no intent, there's no crime.

Flashback: Emperor Obama caught on hot mike throwing away missile-defense plan for Europe

Many college students--all of whom have been taught that emperor Obama was a faaabulous president--are too young to have been "aware" of politics back when the emperor met with Russian president Dmitri Medvedev barely 8 months before the 2012 election, on the crucial issue of a proposal by Obama's predecessor to put a ballistic-missile-defense system in Europe.

Russia strongly opposed that idea, and history shows that  the Russians could have been expected to offer one or more major concessions to get the U.S. to scrub those plans.

But then during a break in the televised 90-minute meeting between the emperor and the Russian president, the emperor clearly signalled that he was willing to give up the plans without getting any concessions from Russia.  Not realizing the cameras were still on and picking up his words, Obama leaned toward Medvedev and ask him to deliver a private message to Medvedev's boss, Russian premier Vladimir Putin. 

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.  This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand,” Medvedev replied. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”  Whereupon Obama--in an astonishing breach of normal diplomacy, reached forward and patted Medvedev's leg.

Obama was clearly signalling that while he couldn't risk scuttling the missile-defense plans before the coming election, he'd be willing to do so after he was safely re-elected.

Canny, right?  Faaabulous negotiator, right?

If he'd been a Republican the NY Times and WaPo would have been running screaming headlines for a month about how stupid that move was.  But because the emperor was a Democrat, not a single reporter ever asked Obama to explain his remark.  In fact the Times praised the comment, calling it was "a rare and frank assessment of the difficulty of reaching a deal — on this or any subject — in an election year."

Naturally you can't believe that ever happened.  After all, if it had, wouldn't you think it would have been a huge story?  So you would have heard about it for at least a week, right.  But since you didn't, it must not have happened, right?  Okay, take a look at the video:



And here's the link to the NY Times version of the story.

Still, not a single reporter ever asked the emperor what he meant.  Cuz, Democrats.

The Lyin' Media will always spin stupidity or treason by Democrats as the greatest thing evah.

Another of Obama's DACA "dreamers" murders a high-school girl; liberals yawn

Another illegal alien that the emperor Obama allowed to stay in the U.S. under his DACA program has murdered an 18-year-old high school girl.

In Greenville, South Carolina, a friend of 11th-grader Dianna Martinez-Gonzalez made a “frantic” call to police reporting a shooting.  When police arrived they immediately located a male who matched the friend’s description and took him into custody.  Later they found the girl's body.  She'd been shot in the head. 

Police say the suspect, 19-year-old Daniel De Jesus Rangel-Sherrer, confessed to the murder. 

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement the suspect is a Mexican national who had entered the U.S. illegally but had been allowed to stay by emperor Obama’s DACA program, which allowed all children of illegal immigrants brought into the U.S. before age 16 to stay here--a de-facto amnesty.

Rangel-Sherrer remains behind bars at the Greenville County Detention Center until his next hearing. ICE issued a detainer on him.  Fortunately South Carolina isn't a "sanctuary state" like California, so there's a chance that even if liberals raise his bail, he won't be able to vanish.
 But hey, what are a few murders compared to the huuge benefits of open borders and "diversity"?

Dumbassery from a snowflake at...Princeton??

The quote below is from a student at Princeton.  Sadly, it's an all too accurate example of what passes for "thinking" by liberals/socialists/communists on what are amusingly called "liberal" college campuses today.

Nowadays cries for “free speech” ring from campus to campus. The term has become quite...popular.  Perhaps it owes its popularity to how vague it is.

Really?  "How vague it is"?  Sounds like a charge made by someone trying to discredit the idea.

It...comes from conservatives in response to some sort of censoring of ideas. In its own way, "free speech" has become conservatives' rhetorical weapon of choice, defended by right-leaning groups and thinkers

Conservatives would have you believe that their insistence on free speech is related to a desire for...openness of discussion.  When conservatives appeal to “free speech” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition.

I argue that when conservatives resort to this move, they can be safely ignored, as they are appealing to a right that does not exist.…

Because “free speech” is a cornerstone of our rights under the Constitution, it can appear that conservatives’ free speech has this constitutional tradition as its backbone.  However, this speech is something much different...  Conservatives are interested in being able to propose their ideas without any political opposition to their right to speech.

I am not arguing that conservatives do not expect intellectual opposition to their content; instead I am arguing against their right to be heard…

If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of “free speech.”

This is such a piece of illogical garbage that it's almost self-refuting.  Hard to believe the Daily Princetonian published it.  Wait, this is exactly the kind of liberal crap college newspapers think is just precious.

I don't think these people will ever give up and just enjoy life in the United States.  Instead I suspect they'll keep trying to force conservatives to give up more and more rights to satisfy the communists/socialists/snowflakes/Democrats.

These are the same folks who think Che Guevara was a great person.  Crazy.  Ignorant.  Deluded.

Stupid.  Naive.

Princeton, huh?  Weep for America.

Deadly Cali fires may have been sparked by powerlines touching. And there's more...

Latest reports are that the hugely-destructive fires in Napa and Sonoma counties in California were caused by high winds that blew powerlines together.

For those unfamiliar, cross-country powerlines aren't insulated but are just bare wires, so when they touch it makes one hellofa bang--which typically also blows up any transformers that feed the lines.  Both these events can start fires.

Now here's the gotcha:  Last year the California legislature passed a bill that would have required the state's electrical utilities to increase their efforts to make powerlines less susceptible to wind damage.  But the socialist governor of California--Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown--vetoed the bill.

Interestingly, someone reported that Brown's sister is on the board of directors of an energy holding company.  But probably no connection, eh?

Now Crazy Jerry--one of the most leftwing members of the socialist democrat party in the USA-- blames the deadly fires on ‘climate change/man made global warming.’  It's the socialist agenda for greater control of… everything.

"Universal Basic Services"--a proposal to give every resident free food, housing, internet etc.

Does the following sound familiar?

Our economy and society depend on public services.  [Unless the author defines "public services" in some bizarre way, this is a crock.  But do go on...]
 
The continuing failure of our government to deliver a high quality of life and prosperity to every resident is eroding the social cohesion on which our society depends, and undermining our ability to address the significant challenges ahead. 

Our economy is not only underperforming, it is floundering [sic] socially.  [Really?  Source?]  Real incomes are dropping, and opportunities for many of our communities are restricted and eroding. It is a dismal picture.

A broad consensus has emerged that the untramelled pursuit of growth does not deliver an equal quality of life for all.  [But you're clearly implying that it should.]  But the most common response to this challenge is to claim that we can't afford to invest more in public services because of the high cost. This is tantamount to saying that we cannot afford to invest in our citizens, in the people we live with and among.

Ah yes, the siren song of "investing" in people whose highest aspiration is...what?

At the Institute for Global  Prosperity we're committed to three things:  public debate on exciting, innovative new ideas; "investment in social infrastructures;" and public policy  aimed at improving the quality of people’s lives.

We've been inspired by other nations' experiments with a "guaranteed basic income."  The idea has been offered and praised by the brilliant former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and would tremendously benefit society by, for example, supporting more aspiring artists who otherwise would have to be working a menial job. 

It's clear that we need to rethink how our economy should work, so that college graduates with valuable degrees in Womens' Studies or African Folklore don't have to take demeaning jobs at Starbucks to survive. 

In this report, we lay out some ideas about how to deliver a great quality of life to all residents by offering more public services at no cost to residents, regardless of national origin.  We'll also link to more radical policy initiatves to increase "social integration and cohesion."  We call this complete set of ideas "Universal Basic Services."

Over 30 million people living in the U.S.--including 23 million undocumented immigrants-- suffer from "food anxiety" at some time during the year.  At the end of the month there's not enough money left on their Electronic Benefit card to ensure they'll be able to afford a decent steak on Saturday. We need to ask: why is that?  Why should residents of a country with lots of food have to worry about whether they'll be forced to suffer with just a sandwich or mac and cheese near the end of the month?

Clearly our income tax system isn't progressive enough.  We need to change the brackets so the well-off pay more, so we can give Universal Basic Services to those who stuggle with a minimum-wage job or are simply overqualified for a menial job.  If we are to "increase cohesion," the sense that we are “all in it together,” we must act where we can have the greatest impact and that is on the cost of basic living.

Our research clearly shows that the most efficient way to improve the quality of life for people with no college or with a degree that won't currently give them a high income is to simply give them "basic services"–food, housing, internet, health care and transportation--the fundamental building blocks for life required by every citizen in the 21st century.

This will dramatically reduce the cost of basic living for the those on the lowest incomes, and will reduce poverty because residents won't have to pay anything for a decent standard of  living.

"It will *make accessible* [love that phrase] a life that *includes participation,* *builds belonging* [another total winning phrase!], *creates a common purpose* and *strengthens the cohesion of society as a whole.*  [Wow!  Total win!  Rainbows and unicorns!]

Our research unequivocally shows that giving every disadvantaged resident "basic services"  such as housing, food, cell phones, internet and transport is guaranteed to reduce their cost of living dramatically.

This looks like any position paper from a leftist "think tank."  It's dirt-easy to imagine Bernie or Hilliary or Rahm or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Maxine Waters endorsing this paper.  It's so goofy--so utterly socialist--that it almost looks like parody.  But it's not:  There really is an "Institute for Global Prosperity," and what you just read is a very slightly edited version of a 58-page paper they wrote proposing Universal Basic Services.

That institute is in London, but my guess is that U.S. Democrat/Socialists will pick this up in a heartbeat and run with it, cuz they know that with half the electorate not having the faintest idea what capitalism his, or how socialism works, or what the Constitution says, the best way to win elections is to promise Democrat voters free stuff--in this case free food, housing, cell phone, internet and transportation.

Dems: Why stop at trying to ban guns? Why not ban something equally deadly?

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting Democrats are renewing their call to repeal the 2nd amendment and forbid civilians to own guns.  That makes lots of sense, cuz every year a handful of people armed with guns do indeed go nuts and kill other people.

But Democrats are missing an even bigger target here:  Why not push to ban...alcohol?

Seriously.  Look at the number of people killed each year by drunk drivers.  Gotta be 10,000 or so.  And look at the number of people who, in an alcohol-fueled rage, kill a spouse, lover, parent or total stranger in a bar--often with a weapon other than a gun.  Must be several thousand of those each year too.

So how 'bout it, Democrats?  I realize you want to go for the easier target but why settle for half a measure?  If your goal is to reduce the number of premature deaths, it only makes sense to push to ban alcohol too, since it causes more deaths each year than guns  And that's before even considering alcohol-related diseases.

But somehow I don't think we'll see Dems push to ban alcohol--because their real goal isn't saving lives, but disarming Americans.

Tell me, Democrats:  How has that worked out for residents of the U.K?  Not only can't they defend themselves against home invaders, they get prosecuted if they so much as pick up a knife to defend against attackers.  But hey, at least they don't have civilians with guns!

A modest proposal

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting--which the Dems are blaming on either the second amendment or "toxic masculinity"--Dem congressional "leaders" are calling for either repeal of the 2nd amendment or far tighter gun controls.  Of course this is a hugely controversial topic, so here's an idea that should make everyone happy:

All Democrats should publically promise not to buy or own a single gun--either long gun or handgun. 

Dem politicians would encourage this--and show that they had the courage of their "nominal" convictions, and truly believed guns were not only bad but deserved to be banned--by promising that their bodyguards wouldn't carry guns. 

Congress could encourage this by passing a bill requiring all Democrats who want to buy a gun to disclose their name, address and party when they purchased the weapon.  Since Dems think the federal government should require everyone to register their guns, not a single Dem politician should object, right?

Of course I realize Democrats wanting to buy a gun could nullify this by simply claiming not to be Democrats, but the point is to force Dem politicians to reveal their true colors:  either they don't believe the line they're spouting, or if they do, their own constituents will see what they really are.

Thoughts?

The challenge facing western nations

Liberal politicians of westernized countries can't raise taxes enough to pay for the promises they made to get elected, without killing their economies.

The citizens of western nations aren't reproducing fast enough to maintain their populations--meaning they will eventually be overwhelmed by immigrants and will die out.

Only one western nation--the U.S.--has shown a willingness to devote enough resources to maintain a credible military deterrent.  And the nation came within 80,000 votes of junking that, under the military-hating command of a president Hilliary.

The school systems of western nations refuse to educate their students on such basic topics as the superiority of freedom and free markets over socialism and communism.

Democrats--the Deep State holdovers who actually run the government and make most of the decisions, even with the nominal Republican Trump as president--are determined to keep things on the present course.

Every day offers new opportunities for ordinary citizens to see the truth and vote to change course.  But the grip of the Lyin' Media and class envy and hatred pushed by Democrats--is so powerful that nothing changes.

If you understand what's written above, there's a way to fix this:  Forward this to everyone you know.  The fix is to vote against every Democrat and RINO.  It will be a long, hard fight, made harder by the tendency of the Deep State to corrupt freshman politicians with money or sex.

Think it's daunting?  How does this compare to wading ashore on a beach raked by machinegun fire?

State senator from St. Louis who called for Trump's assassination now compares him to Hitler

Missouri Dem Who Previously Called For Trump’s Assassination Defends New Tweet Comparing Him To Hitler

This is Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democratic senator from the total shit-hole that is suburban St. Louis.  Her claim to "fame" is that she authored a Facebook post calling for President Donald Trump’s assassination.

Her newest claim to fame is a tweet comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler.

Chappelle-Nadal said she was upset by Trump’s tweets early Thursday suggesting Puerto Rico must take on more responsibility for its recovery from Hurricane Maria.  Her mother is from Puerto Rico, “So this is very personal to me,” she said.

Ah, now we understand.  The Democrat mayor of the capital of Puerto Rico is sitting on a port crammed with emergency water and food, and refuses to kick the ass of the corrupt teamsters who refuse to deliver the badly-needed supplies to the suffering people.  Which clearly makes it Trump's fault.

Cops from the island nation have called local radio shows saying exactly this.

If I were Trump I'd send in a few thousand of our military and commandeer the distribution of supplies.  Then watch communists like Chappelle-Nadal scream that the Yankee imperialists are "oppressing" the locals!

Nothing--nothing at all--will ever satisfy people like this woman.  She will always find someone else to blame for any problem in the world.  Fan the flames of blame and hate, pitting class against class, race against race.  It's what communists are.  It's what they do.

Then and now

In the 1940's tens of thousands of starveling, impoverished young American men who reached their 20's during the Great Depression somehow found it in themselves to cross beaches swept by enemy machine-gun and artillery fire.

In stark, devastating contrast, today--an era in which ordinary Americans have apps to order pizza, a date on Tinder or a cab within minutes--very few of the the so-called "men" can find a good reason to live.

Some still have a reason, of course.  Hard to tell if their numbers are rising or falling.  Those who join the armed forces seem to love this country and have shown their willingness to sacrifice to defend it.  Surely others do too.  Until the crunch comes, it's hard to tell.

And that "crunch"?  It's coming, sure as the sunrise tomorrow.

H/T Wretchard at Belmont

Contrast Weinstein with the firing of an Army two-star general for...what?

As the avalanche of stories about powerful Hollywood males groping or raping women (sort of like Bill Clinton did) continue to mount--assaults many others knew about but kept quiet because they were unwilling to provoke the powerful--thought you should see the difference between how the folks in Hollywood and NYC reacted, and how people in a straight-shooting organization with values react to the same thing.

A two-star Army general was fired--and likely will be forced to retire--after he was accused of...what, raping a female subordinate? Groping? No, he was fired for sending "flirty emails" to a married woman.

In the civilian world powerful men can grope women--as Weinstein and Clinton did--and everyone keeps quiet.  But in the U.S. armed forces something as inoffensive as sending flirty emails gets even a two-star general fired--because the woman he sent the flirty emails to was the wife of an enlisted man under his command.

This is a big deal because when a commander flirts with the wife of an enlisted guy, the troops can't trust him.  For an army or other combat branch, that's fatal.

There's a reason--in fact *lots* of reasons--that moral, hard-working Americans trust the military far more than any politician, or the Lyin' Mainstream Media, or Hollywood stars. 

Simply being in the military--even making high rank--doesn't guarantee that someone is a straight arrow.  But if a commander can't follow the rules, the System has to step in and do what's right--something the civilian world rarely does.  I'm delighted to see that this two-star got fired.  It's the kind of "don't do this or else..." that the whole nation badly needs.

Democrats: "All cultures are equal." Reality replies: "That's a complete lie."

Democrats, liberals and socialists--America-haters all--have used their totally-controlled megaphone of the Lyin' Mainstream Media to tell us, over and over again, that

"All cultures and all societies are equal."

Their followers--university professors and public-school teachers --dutifully chanted in unison

"All cultures and all societies are equal!"

Hollywood elites got the message, and their movies began to spread it:  All cultures are equal.

Ah.  Well....

Unfortunately for the Democrats, socialists, liberals and other so-called "elites," the internet offers regular Americans the opportunity to hear what happens outside the U.S.--things the Lyin' Media steadfastly refuses to tell you, since it proves their Narrative is totally false.

The news from outside is extremely eye-opening, because it shows that all cultures are most definitely NOT equal.

For example, in the Congo--a shit-hole in Africa--members of one of the thousands of "rebel" groups dragged a woman into the central town square and cut off her head, as townspeople cheered.  The group videoed the execution, and a French television network got a copy.

Why did the armed "rebels" behead the poor woman?  What crime did they claim she committed?

They killed her because she served them food with bits of fish in it.

The "rebels" believed eating the fish would take away their magic powers.

Got it.  Makes perfect sense.  (Not.)

The French network interviewed several of the townspeople who watched and cheered the execution.  "Why did you cheer?" the interviewers asked.  "Was this woman widely disliked?"

No, said the interviewees, she was nice.  But we couldn't do anything because...we had no guns, no way to fight off the rebels.  So we cheered because we were afraid that if we didn't, they would kill us too.

Are you starting to see why the Dems don't want you to hear stories like this?  Starting to see why it's absolutely critical that you not let the Dems take away your right to own firearms?

And are you starting to see why the notion that "All cultures are equal" is an utter crock?

IMF forecasts Venezuela's inflation rate next year--again proving socialism is jus' great!

The International Monetary Fund has issued its forecast for inflation for next year for the socialist hell-hole of Venezuela.  And that forecast is...2,300 percent.

With inflation that high no one can plan for the future.  It makes no sense to save money since the skyrocketing prices make savings worthless.  Venezuelans are starving, and killing each other at a rate 18 times higher than here in the U.S.  The IMF predicts what's left of that nation's economy will shrink 12 percent this year.

Yet astonishingly, nearly half of all college students surveyed on the east and west coasts say they think socialism is a better system than capitalism.

But obviously virtually no American college student has actually experienced socialism, so how in the world did they ever form such a favorable opinion of such a ghastly system?

The answer, of course, is that their professors--and before that, their high school teachers--told them socialism was wonderful, and that capitalism was awful.

It'd be interesting to hit the university lecture circuit showing hi-resolution pics of Venezuela 30 years ago, juxtaposed against pics of the same cities today.  There's not a doubt in my mind that once word got out that someone was showing the total disaster that is Venezuela, the communists and socialists and assorted snowflakes who buzz around universities like flies would scream and wail and protest and demand that the lecture not be allowed.

Cuz we just can't let American college students (or anyone in this country, for that matter) see how "faaaabulous" the results of socialism are.  Hell, if that happened the Dem party might lose lotsa votes!

WaPo reports Pelosi threatens to block "must-pass" bills if illegal DACAs aren't given citizenship

The Washington Post has been a pile of socialist-Democrat crap for my entire lifetime.  So without further ado, here's a piece they published just two days ago--under the cutesy header "PowerPost" (so *obviously* all the insiders wanna read it, eh?) titled

Nancy Pelosi won’t rule out voting against spending bills to strike DACA deal

The gist is that several bills each year are considered "must-pass," like spending bills to keep the government running, social security checks flowing, keep paying the military and so on.  In the "Power" article, the author says Pelosi has implied that she's willing to demand that her fellow Dems vote AGAINST these bills unless congress has passed a bill to give the illegal-immigrants brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents when they were under 15 full citizenship.

Let that sink in for a minute.

This scum-sucking, power-hungry, America-hating bitch wants to not only make a million illegals citizens--and thus Dem voters for life--but also wants to encourage another ten million people to illegally enter the U.S. in the hope that it'll happen again in another decade or so.

Author says Pelosi said "her caucus may withhold support for must-pass spending bills later this year if Congress can’t reach agreement on how to protect “dreamers” from deportation."

If that isn't clear enough, nothing will help you.  

“I fully intend to use every possibility” to strike a deal on the status of young immigrants protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Pelosi said.

Pelosi said that the administration’s new plan is “un-American” and that “there’s nothing in it to negotiate because it does not have shared values of who we are as Americans.  As long as we understand that, let’s go on with what we can agree on.”

Did you hear the "command language" there?  "As long as we understand that, let's go with what we can agree on." 

No, Nancy, you America-hating bitch, "we" don't agree, but we sure noticed that you want us to think all "good Americans" agree with you.  Just understand that most of us see through your bullshit and emphatically do NOT agree.

But she's ready to block "must-pass" bills to get her way.

Other leading pro-illegal Dems--like Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.)...called on Democrats to vote against "must-pass" legislation slated to come to the floor around Dec. 9.  Gutiérrez said “If we approve a budget which doesn’t include the Dream Act, then we’ve turned our back on our immigrant community and our principles.”

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), who chairs the Hispanic Caucus, said that withholding votes for spending legislation “is definitely on the table” for her caucus.

Of course you already know how the Lyin' Mainstream Media--led by the WaPo and the NY Slimes--will spin this if the Dems vote against the must-pass bills, right? 

"Republicans threaten government shutdown!"

They lie.   The mainstream media *always* lie.  It's what they do--because it's always worked in the past.  And as long as half the electorate gets their information from them, it'll keep working.

Another liberal triumph

"Hey, passing a law banning drugs worked, so I expect this one will work too. 
Next will be my ban on all guns!  Wow, this is so EASY!"

Why is the Lyin' Media strangely uninterested in Fakebook background of cop-killer at Texas Tech?

Normally if a white male shoots a cop the Lyin' Mainstream Media go nuts.  They examine the guy's social media posts and friends and likes with a vengeance, trying to see if the guy can be called a conservative or Republican or Trump-supporter, or former military.

But strangely, in the case of a white college male at Texas Tech university who shot a cop in the head *while being booked at the police station*--something the media would normally consider a huge hook for readers--the Lyin' Mainstream Media seem to be totally uninterested in looking into the killer's background.

Gosh, what in the world could account for the total reversal of the Lyin' Media's usual policy--the unique lack of interest in reporting on the killer's background, associates, friends and likes?

Could it because the shooter's fakebook page shows he's a total leftist--likes Bernie, Barack, black anti-cop groups and every leftwing group in the country?  "Proud progressives."  "Turn Left."

Because the shooter's background cuts against the Narrative--beloved by the Left and the Lyin' Media--that "all white killers are gun-crazed conservatives," the Media will ignore it.  *Poof,* down the memory hole.  Not a word beyond the bare event.

For the zillionth time:  If you trust the Mainstream Media to tell you the truth about anything, you're simply naive.  They have an agenda about everything, and will ignore or only superficially report any story that doesn't agree with that agenda.

Just like NBC and the NY Times refused to report solid evidence of Weinstein's sexual assaults for nearly a decade.  To the Lyin' Media a story is only newsworthy if it supports The Narrative.

Flashback: Lyin' Susan Rice claims deserter Bowe Bergdahl "served honorably"

Susan Rice was emperor Obama's ambassador to the United Nations.  Because Barky knew she would lie when asked, she was trotted out to peddle the utterly false Narrative that the attack on the U.S. consular annex in Benghazi was a "spontaneous demonstration" triggered by a video that depicted Muslims in a bad light.

As a reward for her loyalty, Barky promoted her, appointing her National Security Advisor.  In that position Rice was able to "unmask" U.S. citizens who were captured on tape during routine wiretaps of foreign citizens.  This was totally illegal, but she got away with it because laws mean nothing to powerful Democrats.

So was Rice merely a loyal lackey who really had the best interests of the country at heart, or was she a Islamic mole?  To shed light on that, consider that when Barky ordered the release of 5 top Taliban commanders from Guantanamo prison in exchange for the Taliban releasing Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, Rice praised Bergdahl by outrageously claiming that the deserter had "served with honor and distinction."

In hindsight it's pretty clear that Rice has always been a bad actor, bent on doing whatever she could do damage the U.S., and military morale.  Which is why all the damn Lying Media networks LOVE this bitch.  Here's the video:

Is western civilization is committing suicide?

Western civilization appears to be destroying itself in self-hatred, literally choosing extinction. 

Most analysts agree that to keep population from shrinking, couples need to average 2.33 kids.

Last year the average for all EU countries was 1.58.  Muslim immigrants in the EU, on the other hand, are averaging around 4 kids per couple.

A tiny bit of math proficiency will show the problem there:  In roughly 40 years Europe will be majority-Muslim.

If you're like most Americans--which is to say, you work hard and spend most of your free time raising your--you don't have time to analyze world events, let alone trends.  So you depend on the Lyin' Mainstream Media to keep you informed.  And of course the Lyin' Media resolutely refuse to do that.  So you have no idea what the demographic numbers imply.  Or what a Muslim-dominated government in, say, France would mean.

So let me help:  What is it that keeps a nation's government from banning, say, alcohol, or movies, or non-Islamic music?  It's the fear by elected pols of losing their office and power and income.

So what do you think would happen when a previously westernized country--say Belgium or the Netherlands--has enough Muslim voters that politicians realize they'll only be re-elected if they vote for policies Muslims want?

If you're like most Americans this question elicits a shrug:  Why should you care if the government of Belgium goes Muslim?

You don't, of course.  Their country, so they can do as they please. 

But what about, say, France?

If you have the same reaction, it's because you don't know jack-shit about "thermonuclear weapons."

Cuz France has hundreds of the things.

Iran is working hard to design and build an atomic bomb.  That's a mere nuisance compared to a "themonuclear" bomb, as the latter can be, oh, 1000 times more powerful.

When the government of France becomes Muslim-controlled, what do you think will happen to the French H-bomb arsenal?

If this happened in past decades, the U.S. government would have intervened to neutralize that threat.  But that's no longer possible, even with a tough Republican president--because congress and the Deep State have succeeded in neutralizing Trump.  In fact the New York Times reports that major liberal donors are no longer funding politicians like Hillary but have swung to funding "the Resistance."

We now live in an environment where whole populations are immersed in an ocean of deliberate lies. People who have been carefully, relentlessly taught to despise Christianity and other religions (other than Islam) can believe anything -- and do.  The dominant Narrative is Open Borders, 71 genders and you must not criticize any behavior, no matter how crazy.

Good luck.

McCain posing with ghastly zombies

Consider the pic below:



Why would John McCain pose for a pic with Harvey Weinstein and Hilliary Clinton?

Because he has no sense, and is actually a Democrat.  Always has been.  And corrupt (see "Keating Five").

Half of the nominal "Republicans" in congress are actually Democrat plants.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi thanks an illegal immigrant's parents for bringing him here illegally

Democrat Nancy Pelosi has been a member of congress (spit!) for roughly a hundred years (okay, maybe it just feels like it--but wait, the Left always tells us that feelings are more important than facts, right?)  She loves illegal immigrants, and sucks up to them every chance she gets.

On Wednesday she got an hour of free, televised pro-Democrat propaganda as CNN staged a "town hall" meeting between Pelosi and an audience of illegal-alien "children" (now in their 20's and 30's) who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their illegal-alien parents, in defiance of U.S. law.

From the stage Wednesday, Pelosi thanked the parents of one of these angry illegals for bringing him to the United States illegally. 

This is who Democrats are, and what they want:  More illegals--which just happens to give them more Dem voters, forever.  Fine deal for the Dems, eh?

In 2012 former emperor Obama ordered federal employees to defy U.S. law by not deporting any of these people--a program cleverly mis-named "DACA"--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Not "illegal aliens."  Simply "Arrivals."  Named so no one outside the Beltway who wasn't part of the elites could readily see what the order really was, or who it affected, or what it did.

President Trump rescinded the emperor's unconstitutional order last month, and urged Congress to replace it within six months.

Democrat leader Pelosi promised her illegal supporter that a clean "Dream Act" would be passed before December.

And Trump has already signalled he will sign it.  Amazing.

Tell Trump and your representatives that if they pass a bill granting citizenship to the illegal DACA horde, you won't vote for a Republican, and will in fact join the Dems in calling for Trump's impeachment.  They don't seem to understand anything short of that.

Mainstream media manaage to trivialize the best factory utilization in 13 years

The people who run all the "mainstream" media companies all hate Trump and Republicans and capitalism with a passion.  This is also true of the people who work for the Reuters "news agency."

Wanna see how that affects what they put out as "news"?  Ok, here's an example: the government just anounced that the "U.S. factory index"--a measure of how busy factories are--hit a high not seen in 13.5 years.  That's tremendously good news, and unless it could be countered, average Americans might get the idea that Trump's policies lead to...uh...more prosperity.  

Lord knows Democrats can't have that!  So Reuters needed to work hard to find a headline that would trivialize this great news.  And they ran the story under the following headline:

  "Hurricanes Harvey, Irma lift U.S. factory activity index to 13-year high"

But that headline is crap.  Utter, complete crap.  Because virtually no factory can gear up by a measurable amount in response to the hurricanes in the month or so since they hit.  Oh sure, the folks that make bottled water might add a shift, but that wouldn't make a blip.

But see how cleverly the media trivialized great news:  So most Americans think the great news isn't due to improved business confidence because of Trump's policies, but to the twin disasters of the two hurricanes.

In fact I'm a little surprised that they didn't spin the headline even more, spinning the record factory utilization as *bad news* because of the hurricanes--which of course would be blamed on Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.

Rat-bastard Lying Media.

Story below is from a site that seems a bit sensationalistic, so may need to verify.

MADISON, Wis. - Police revived a 30-year-old man from a heroin overdose.  When the guy regained consciousness, the man told the cops this was the 19th time he'd overdosed on heroin and been revived, officials said.

Consider that for a minute.

How many more times will this guy overdose before a rational person concluded that he obvious wants to kill himself?  If that's right, how much money should taxpayers be willing to spend to rescue him from something he obviously wants to do?

As liberals see it, cops should keep reviving him no matter how often he tries to OD.  We should keep doing this even if the maker of the antidote drug doubles or triples the price (as they're trying to do).

Seems strange to me but then I'm not a liberal.  If the guy is so unhappy in this life, let him go on to the great beyond and try for a better situation next time.

Conservative voters continue to revolt against Establishment "leaders" of the party

Conservative voters continue to express their growing anger and disgust with the party's nominal "leaders"-- who are actually members of the Democrat "establishment," also known as the "uniparty."

Back in the ghastly reign of Hussein Obozo these traitorous assholes wailed that they couldn't do anything cuz they didn't have a majority in House or senate.  So conservatives opened their wallets and busted their butts to elect enough Repub candidates to give RINO Paul Ryan and the "treasonous turtle," Mitch McConnell, the majorities they pleaded that they needed.

How has that turned out?

The Repub-controlled congress has surrendered to the Dems on every single issue.

What good is a Republican majority if many of the so-called Repubs (actually RINOS) vote with the Dems?

The members of the "GOP establishment" reject every actual conservative candidate as "too risky" and instead support so-called "moderate" candidates--who are solid members of the uniparty.

If you ask RINOs why they haven't passed any conservative legislation, their answer--carefully camouflaged with polibullshit-speak--is that conservative legislation is "unrealistic."

Now, what does all this mean?

It means conservatives--having been screwed by Republican "establishment" types--i.e. the uniparty--won't turn out to vote in the 2018 midterms.

By contrast--and it's a huge one--Democrats have already fanned their moronic voters into a frenzy of hate against Donald Trump, and are already dangling the possibility of re-capturing a majority in one or both houses of congress.  So the Dems will turn out at a much higher rate than normal.

Result?  Huge Dem gains.

We warned the GOP leadership this would happen if they continued to act like Democrats, of course, but they didn't listen.  Cuz they're smaht, see?  They regard voters the same way John Maynard Keynes regarded businessmen:  He urged central governments to squeeze businessmen for as much tax revenue as possible, because he believed business-people would continue to be productive and work hard to succeed regardless of how punitive the taxation and regulations became.

Then, as anyone but a liberal could have predicted, business-people said "Why should I keep my business in the U.S. where I'm regulated and taxed to death, when I can open factories overseas and reduce my production costs?

Democrats still consider Keynes to be right about everything.  Reality has other ideas.

Sealed records

Think about it:  People seal their own records for just one reason:  They have something they don't want anyone to know.

Barack Hussein Obama spent millions in legal fees to ensure his college records were sealed.  Why?

If Obozo had been a Republican the mainstream media would NEVER have let this mystery go.  They would have kept trying and trying and trying, until someone found a source willing to leak the sealed records.

But because Obozo was a Democrat, the media just shrugged and said "We have decided this is not at all important or significant, so you shouldn't be concerned about it."

That should make you mad as hell.

A brilliant plan from the Democrats/socialists....

Just hours after 50 killed in Vegas, CBS attorney tweets "no sympathy bc country music fans often Republicans"

Hours after the mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas, an attorney with CBS tweeted that she was “not even sympathetic” for the victims of the shooting at a country music festival at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas Sunday night--"because country music fans often are republican gun toters."

Naturally you don't believe that.  If you're a hard-working, family-oriented American you simply can't believe anyone could be that warped, that twisted, that hateful.

Imagine the outrage if, after the nut shot 16 school kids and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, an editor at, say, Breitbart had tweeted "I've got no sympathy because the killer was typical of how those northeastern liberals raise their kids."  I don't think *any* conservative would *ever* say anything like that.  But this liberal bitch...well, see for yourself:

“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing,” she wrote, perhaps referring to Sandy Hook. “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Folks, these are the people running CBS, and all the mainstream lying media outlets.  They hate you and everything you hold dear, and that attitude permeates every word they publish or broadcast.  They're ghastly, warped creatures, devoid of sympathy for people they think are stupid, unsophisticated and superstitious (i.e. religious).

They will never change, and their definition of "we need to work together and agree on a compromise" is that you need to concede to them on every single point.

"We will not comply." But we still *demand* you grant us U.S. citizenship.

Consider, if you will, the pic below:

This is a group of illegal aliens in the U.S., demanding--yes, demanding--that they be allowed to stay here, despite being here illegally.  If this strikes you as utterly tone-deaf and charmless, it should.

Note the charmless graphic in red:  "We will not comply."

Ah.  One is momentarily tempted to ask "What is it that you won't comply with?"  But asking is pointless, because the answer is, Whatever you want them to do, or whichever of our valid laws you want them to comply with, they refuse.  Period.



And yet they demand--demand-- that we accept them.

Democrats want you to surrender to that demand.  They want you to believe that these people--proud lawbreakers--will somehow magically turn into good, solid U.S. citizens if only we surrender to their demands.

Of course if we do that they'll certainly vote Democrat for their entire lives, so at least there's that.

Oh, and ON AVERAGE, each one will bring in six more of their family members, demanding that they too be given U.S. citizenship.

Hell of a deal, if you're a Democrat.