Monday, October 30, 2017

Manafort Indictment Nothing to Do w/ Trump Russia Collusion

After a year of Trump Russia hysteria and this is the best they can do?

Here's the PDF of the indictment of Paul Manafort: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download

The document is 31 pages long. There is NOT ONE MENTION of Donald Trump or his campaign for President or any hint of collusion between the campaign and Russia. It's all about work Manafort did years ago in regard to Ukraine. Nothing at all to do with Trump.

Now, if the new standard of guilt is anyone who has ever done business with Ukraine, or even Russia by that matter, a much more recent case of Bill Clinton taking $500,000 for a speech in Moscow comes to mind but we'll let Mueller decide whether that applies.

Sorry Trump haters. Christmas (ooops, can't call it that can we) festivus or kwanza did not come early. It's Halloween and you went to Mueller's door and he's handing out apples instead of candy!

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Major News Networks Still Covering Up for Hillary and Attacking Trump. Imagine Trump's Success if Coverage were Fair

Shouldn't we ask whether Hillary is guilty of treason?

Remember the sheer level of hysteric coverage of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with a Russian to discuss opposition research on Hillary?  The news broke this summer and the airwaves were filled with reporters, commenters and Democrats all shouting "TREASON."  One talking head said "this isn't a smoking gun, it's a smoking cannon."  See the montage here.

But then, as they often do, the facts slowly caught up with the manufactured hysteria and we learn from the actual memo prepared by the Russians for the meeting with Don Jr. that there wasn't much dirt being slung by the Russians. They just used that to gain access to push other policy objectives that are of little interest. Certainly nothing like the revelation that it was the Clinton campaign and DNC that funded a Russian dirty tricks smear operation that even infected the FBI and CIA.

But the media went berserk over Don Jr.'s news and basically swept the Hillary bombshell under the rug:

In all, there has been over a thousand minutes of Trump-Russia collusion stories on the major networks.  If placed on the graph below the amount of time networks spent discussing Hillary's scandals would barely show up.

Imagine how well Trump could advance his agenda if reporting of these various scandals were "fair and balanced?"  But that's exactly why the reporting is not. More evidence, not that any were needed, of a biased and corrupt media that will cover up wrongdoing by anyone with a (D) after their name.

What if the opinion of NY Post columnist David Harsanyi were given equal time in newsrooms across the country:
HARSANYI: Now, you might expect that the scandalous revelation of a political campaign using opposition research that was partially obtained from a hostile foreign power during a national election would ignite shrieks of “collusion” from all patriotic citizens. After all, only last summer, when it was reported that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer who claimed to be in possession of damaging information about Clinton, there was widespread condemnation.

Finally, we were told, a smoking gun tied the Trump campaign to Vladimir Putin. Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine went as far as to suggest that the independent counsel begin investigating treason.

Treason! Trump Jr. didn’t even pay for or accept research.

The Clinton crew, on the other hand, did. They didn’t openly push the contents of the dossier — probably because they knew it was mostly fiction. Instead, Fusion GPS leaked it to their friends in the media.
the dossier didn’t just awaken the Russia-stole-our-democracy narratives in the media. It’s just as likely that the dossier was used by Clinton’s allies in the government.

The Obama administration reportedly relied on the dossier to bolster its spying on US citizens. We know of at least one case where the information was used to justify a FISA warrant on a Trump adviser. And let’s not forget that Steele had reached an agreement to be compensated for his efforts by the FBI.
And at some point, Democrats will have to decide whether it’s wrong for a political campaign to work with foreigners when obtaining opposition research or whether it’s acceptable. We can’t have different standards for Democrats and Republicans.

Otherwise people might start to get the idea that all the histrionics over the past year weren’t really about Russian interference at all, but rather about Hillary losing an election that they assumed she’d win.
But of course we do have different standards for Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats know it and they use it to their advantage. Sadly, too many Republicans think that the best counter is to play nice and hope the media will treat them well. Just ask John McCain how that worked out in the 2008 presidential election!

P.S. Media Bias Mirrors Prosecutor Bias

As a final proof for our media bias narrative consider how the media would react if prosecutors of any potential Hillary wrongdoing included major donors to Trump and Republican campaigns. Keep the following fact in mind over the next few days:

Friday, October 27, 2017

Top Dems Broke the Law and LIED to Congress About Dirty Dealings and Payouts for Fake Russian Dossier

But don't expect them to be held to the same level of accountability as Trump and associates. That only happens to Republicans!

Things are really starting to get interesting.  Soon we will have the potential bombshell of an eyewitness to Russian bribery of U.S. officials from the Obama Administration. And possibly also, the bank records from the discredited Democrat firm which supplied the phony Russian dossier. Did they pay Russians in Putin's power for that malarkey?  Who else did they pay with Hillary's money?

We should soon know. But for now, we have the sorry fact that Dems LIED to congressional investigators and even CNN is having trouble covering up for them. Take this report from Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb:

Exclusive: In Hill interviews, top Dems denied knowledge of payments to firm behind Trump dossier

(CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz both privately denied to congressional Russia investigators that they had any knowledge about an arrangement to pay for opposition research on President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
The interviews happened before this week's disclosure that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the research. Senate investigators may seek to further question the two top Democrats and dig deeper on the origins of the so-called Trump dossier, one of the sources briefed on the matter said.
Their remarks to congressional investigators raise the stakes in their assertion that they knew nothing about the funding because it's against the law to make false statements to Congress.

Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.
Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta's attorney and not as a witness.
On Tuesday, that law firm, Perkins Coie, wrote in a letter that it had retained Fusion GPS as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The disclosure of the Democratic funding source for Fusion GPS is raising new questions for the congressional Russian investigators. The Perkins Coie letter suggested its clients -- the Clinton campaign and the DNC -- did not learn about the matter until recently.
Senate intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told CNN Wednesday that the disclosure that Fusion GPS had been paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC opens up a new line of inquiry for the panel to pursue as part of its investigation.
"This provides us the ability to connect some dots that we couldn't do before this," Burr said. "And any investigation when you have a revelation this big, it begins to clarify some pictures that you were already trying to understand. This ... will require us to dig a lot deeper in some areas that maybe a week ago we weren't planning to."
Why is it so easy for Democrats to lie?

Things are starting to get messy for Democrats VERY quickly. After a year of pointing the finger at Trump we're now finding out how Democrats may potentially be guilty of far worse. Is it time yet to appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into this with the same thoroughness as the investigation of Trump?

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Is Clinton Obama Russian Scandal About to go Nuclear? Gag Order Lifted on Man Who Has the Evidence!

Will we see the Dems who fretted over phony Trump Russia collusion show the same concern for a REAL Russian scandal?

This will be VERY interesting:

FBI informant in Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery cleared to testify before Congress

The Justice Department on Wednesday night released a former FBI informant from a confidentiality agreement, allowing him to testify before Congress about what he witnessed undercover about the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favorable decisions during the Obama administration.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill a deal had been reached clearing the informant to talk to Congress for the first time, nearly eight years after he first went undercover for the FBI. 
“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the informant to disclose to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation,” she said.
Multiple congressional committees have been seeking to interview the informant, whose name has not been released publicly, because he stayed undercover for nearly five years providing agents information on Russia’s aggressive efforts to grow its atomic energy business in America. 
The committees are keen to learn what the informant knows about any Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton, to win Obama administration approval for Moscow’s purchase of large uranium assets in the United States or to secure billions in new uranium sales contracts with American utilities.
Russia’s uranium business drew controversy starting in 2015 when it was revealed that former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank and millions more in charitable donations interested in the Uranium One deal while his wife Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State. Russia’s Tenex nuclear sales arm also secured billions in new American nuclear fuel contracts about the same time. 
The Obama administration said they saw no national security reasons to block the deals, one of which gave Russian President Vladimir Putin control of 20 percent of America’s uranium stockpile. 
But last week a series of stories published in The Hill disclosed that before those decisions were made, the FBI had gathered extensive evidence that Mikerin, Tenex’s chief executive inside the United States, was directing a massive bribery scheme, compromising an American trucking company that shipped uranium for Russia.
What's more is that Obama was briefed on the whole mess and went along with the Russian deal anyway. I guess when Russians are colluding with Americans it's OK as long as they are Democrats!

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Anatomy of a Smear: Biggest Dirty Trick of All Time. How Hillary Paid for Russian Dossier Then Used FBI/CIA to Attack Trump.

This house of cards is about to come crashing down!

The Washington Post broke the story Tuesday night. The Clinton campaign paid for the infamous Russian dossier that supposedly linked Trump to Russian collusion.  The post reports: "Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research." This is the same Elias who lied repeatedly to reporters about the funding.  Needless to say, reporters at the New York Times who carried that water are now upset that they were used:

The fake dossier was used to initiate FBI and CIA investigations and may have provided the basis for obtaining wiretaps of Trump and associates. It also was a factor in appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump.

In summarizing the findings, NY Post columnist Michael Goodwin wrote:
The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

Anybody surprised? Me neither.
No, I'm not surprised. To prove that we're on to something here we have Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). This is the same Member of Congress who can be counted on to dismiss every Democrat misdeed. Cummings called these revelations a "distraction" that takes away from his and fellow Dem's efforts to continue the smear campaign of lies. Bought and paid for!

P.S. As you might imagine there is the potential for other shoes to drop in this unfolding hyper-scandal. Perhaps one of the biggest is the role the FBI played in this episode.  As the Washington Post reported in February we know the FBI had considered paying to continue the smear process during a presidential campaign. What other actions did they take? Why are they stonewalling Congressional committees whose job it is to oversee the Bureau?

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Do Dems Care About Russian Collusion? Lift FBI Gag Order on Uranium One Deal Involving Hillary, Obama and Mueller

There is NO evidence of any Trump Russia collusion but there IS evidence of collusion and corruption about uranium deal. LET THE WITNESS SPEAK!

Our Trump hating friends insist that Trump is "Putin's Puppet."  When asked to provide any example of where Trump has done anything to benefit Russia they change the subject.  I wonder if they care about a case where there was a massive benefit to Russia?

Millions in payoffs including huge speaking fees for Bill Clinton, donations to the Clinton Foundation as well as bribes and kickbacks.  All part of a Russian scheme to control uranium that was enabled by the Obama Administration with Hillary Clinton playing a key role.  Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy reviews the case in detail.

There was even a conviction, through a very generous plea deal, that was quietly hushed up by the very same prosecutor hired by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. Andrew Weisman, a bulldog of a prosecutor known for his aggressive prosecutions of high profile cases came off like a chihuahua in this case.

And  Special Prosecutor Mueller has his fingerprints on this Russian scandal too.  Why did the FBI put a gag order on the one witness who brought this information to light and prevent him from informing Congress and the public?

Looking into the matter Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has demanded the FBI lift the gag order and allow the witness to speak. Why not if there is nothing to hide? But we are dealing with the deep state here and corruption at this level involving so many current and former officials will be a hard nut to crack. Isn't it time we had a special prosecutor to investigate the Special Prosecutor, the Clintons and Obama?

Friday, October 20, 2017

Democrats in Virginia Cut Black Man's Photo from Campaign Material for Political Reasons

But we're not supposed to call DEMS racist?

Can you imagine the hoo ha that would take place if a photo of a black GOP candidate were cut from party campaign literature weeks before an election for political reasons?  You know the story line by now, charges of racism, marches, protests, NFL players, you name it. The usual racebaiting song and dance.

But when Dems do it, hardly a peep.  Take the example in Virginia where Justin Fairfax, Dem candidate for Lt. Governor in a close election had his name and photo removed from party literature distributed in the state.

Naturally, black Democrats are upset. But they're used to it by now. Dems use them as a doormat time and time again. When will they learn?

Samantha Power, Obama UN Ambassador Claims Someone Used Her Name to Spy on American Citizens

If true it's a staggering lapse in intelligence safeguards and worthy of a Special Prosecutor. Same if she's lying!

Can you imagine the media reaction if someone in the Trump Administration did something very suspicious and claimed that it was done by someone else using their name?  You would have to be very careful standing in front of a microphone as the stampede of Democrats demanding a Special Prosecutor would put you at risk.

But apparently when an Obama Administration official is asked why she unmasked a record number of Americans in highly sensitive intelligence matters and then claimed it was by someone using her name there is hardly a peep in the media.

Here's the story. You decide whether it merits an investigation. If not, I assume you're fine with Trump Administration officials spying on Americans!

College Students Reflexive Dismissal of Trump Tax Plan But Approve When Told Same Plan is by Bernie Sanders

Just shows you how well programmed these robots are and how they have no principles AT ALL!

Campus Reform went out and interviewed students at George Washington University in Washington, DC regarding Trump's tax reform proposal.  One might expect students there to be better informed on public policy but sadly no. When asked if they supported Trump's tax plan they responded with the same pre-programmed responses Democrats have used to brainwash the ignorant for years. Nonsense like "tax cuts for the rich," blah, blah, blah.

But when the interviewer told the students specifics of Trump's plan that these policy changes were proposed by left wing nut Bernie Sanders the students all had favorable reactions. Watch....

Maybe Trump should just change his name to Bernie Sanders and he'd be re-elected by acclamation!

Thursday, October 19, 2017

To Dems Nothing is Sacred Anymore. Not the Flag, Not the Anthem, Not the Death of a Fallen Soldier. It's ALL POLITICS to Them!

Listen to General Kelly, who lost his son in war, describe the process of calling families of the fallen and his disgust at what the left tried to turn it into!

It's almost too horrible to comment on. The politicization of the death of a soldier. But the left goes there without shame.  On Thursday, White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly describes the process of honoring fallen soldiers and the President's role especially in the case of La David Johnson, whose death has been used shamelessly by some of the same people who spit on the flag and our country.  I excerpted the video to the relevant point but feel free to watch the whole thing:

GEN KELLY: Well, let me tell you what I told him. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me -- because he was my casualty officer. He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1 percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we're at war. And when he died, in the four cases we're talking about, Niger, and my son's case in Afghanistan -- when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this Earth: his friends.

That's what the President tried to say to four families the other day. I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning, and broken-hearted at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the President of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion -- that he's a brave man, a fallen hero, he knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There's no reason to enlist; he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be, exactly where he wanted to be, with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken.

That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted.

It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That's obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life -- the dignity of life -- is sacred. That's gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.

Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought -- the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.

And when I listened to this woman and what she was saying, and what she was doing on TV, the only thing I could do to collect my thoughts was to go and walk among the finest men and women on this Earth. And you can always find them because they're in Arlington National Cemetery. I went over there for an hour-and-a-half, walked among the stones, some of whom I put there because they were doing what I told them to do when they were killed.

I'll end with this: In October -- April, rather, of 2015, I was still on active duty, and I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986 -- a guy by the name of Grogan and Duke. Grogan almost retired, 53 years old; Duke, I think less than a year on the job. Anyways, they got in a gunfight and they were killed. Three other FBI agents were there, were wounded, and now retired. So we go down -- Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well, and law enforcement so well.

There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there, and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.

And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money -- the $20 million -- to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.

But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, okay, fine.

So I still hope, as you write your stories, and I appeal to America, that let's not let this maybe last thing that's held sacred in our society -- a young man, young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country -- let's try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.

Nothing is sacred to Democrats except power. So corrupt! How long before the Trump hating Congresswoman who LIED about this issue uses it to raise money?

UPDATE: Dem Congresswoman Voted AGAINST Vets and Families!
The Florida Democrat who criticized President Donald Trump this week for being "insensitive" toward the widow of a U.S. soldier slain in Africa might be facing similar criticism herself.

It turns out that U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson has frequently voted against measures intended to help veterans and their families, according to VoteSmart.org, a vote-tracking site whose founding board members included former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

The measures that Wilson opposed included a bill that could have ensured that families of four soldiers slain in Afghanistan in 2013 received death and burial benefits.

In fact, Wilson’s voting record on veterans issues may call into question the sincerity of her recent defense of U.S. service members and their families.

Despite Wilson's claim to be “committed to honoring our service members, not only with words but with deeds,” she has voted against most bills ensuring continued funding for veteran benefits, including payments to widows of fallen soldiers, the vote-tracking site shows.

She has also opposed measures designed to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Another vile, racist, left wing ranter. Aren't we over quota for those haters?

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

So, NFL Players Can Protest National Anthem But @Delta Passengers Can't Sing to Honor Fallen Soldier. And Flight Attendant LIED About Policy

What about the free speech rights of REAL Americans?

We're told that NFL players have the right to protest the National Anthem, even though they are at work. But why don't those of us who love this country have the right to sing the Anthem? Especially to honor a fallen soldier....

Dr. Gaudry has the full video on her Facebook page. Here's a shorter version:

SAVANNAH, Ga. — A Georgia physician said her plan to honor a fallen soldier by singing the U.S. national anthem aboard a Delta Air Lines plane carrying the soldier’s casket was stopped by a flight attendant who told her it would violate company policy.

Dr. Pamela Gaudry of Savannah said she and fellow passengers were told “to stay quietly in our seats” as an honor guard escorted the casket from the plane Saturday at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. A flight attendant told her that singing “The Star Spangled Banner” would make passengers from other countries uncomfortable, she said.
Gaudry said she was flying Saturday from Philadelphia to Atlanta when the pilot told passengers the plane was carrying the remains of a fallen American soldier. She said she began asking other passengers if they would join her in singing the anthem as the casket was taken off the plane. Many agreed enthusiastically, she said.

“The chief flight attendant came back to my seat and she kneeled down and she said, ‘It is against company policy to do what you’re doing,'” Gaudry said in the video. “And I said, ‘The national anthem? And there’s a soldier onboard?’ And she said, ‘Yes, you cannot sing the national anthem. It is against company policy.'”

Gaudry said she stayed in her seat with her head down — a decision she soon regretted. In her video, she reserved the harshest criticism for herself: “I just did the most uncourageous thing in my life today.”

Anthony Black, a spokesman for Atlanta-based Delta, declined to comment Monday on the specifics on Gaudry’s account.

“There is not a policy about singing the national anthem, period,” Black said.

The body of Army Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright, a special forces soldier who was among four U.S. troops killed in an ambush attack Oct. 4 in Niger, was returned Saturday to Wright’s family in rural southeast Georgia.
On Twitter, Dr. Gaudry is being attacked by the same people who think the NFL players protest is just peachy.  I bet if NFL players wanted to protest onboard a Delta flight the attendant who refused to allow Dr. Gaudry to sing would have cheered them on. It's time to stand up for America and stop letting these politically correct bullies from depriving us of OUR rights!

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Another Sex Hypocrite: Trump Critic @JimmyKimmelLive Asks Woman to Guess What's In His Pants. "Put Your Mouth on It"

Trump is starting to look like a Boy Scout compared to these leches!

Night after night Jimmy Kimmel blasts Trump on just about everything. Who knew that a comedian could be such an expert. But while lambasting Trump, Kimmel has his own skeletons rattling around.

More dirt and sleaze from another sanctimonious Hollywood liberal who relishes lecturing the rest of us while doing whatever he pleases. SICK!

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Media Collusion: Denouncing Pence for "Stunt" While Praising NFL Players Who Kneel During Anthem

Once again, free speech rights are the exclusive purview of the left. Anyone else exercising theirs will be denounced!

Vice President Mike Pence, shown above in his home state of Indiana at an NFL game between the Indianopolis Colts and San Francisco 49ers on Sunday. Pence, along with his wife in a Colts Jersey stand at attention during the playing of the National Anthem while on the field several players from the 49ers showed disrespect for the flag. Shortly after Pence and his wife walked out.

In a series of tweets Pence explains:
It didn't take long for the usual whiners to attack Pence:
The vice president later came under fire from 49ers safety Eric Reid, who called the early exit a “PR stunt” and example of “systemic oppression.” “He knew our team has had the most players protest,” Mr. Reid told reporters. “He knew we were probably going to do it again. And so this is what systemic oppression looks like—a man with power comes to the game, tweets a couple things out and leaves the game with an attempt to thwart our efforts.”
So now these fabulously rich NFL players are "oppressed?" Unbelievable considering that no one "thwarted" their effort to disrespect the flag.

And apparently, the feeling that Pence doesn't have the same right to express his views as an overpaid NFL player was widely shared by the left wing sports press and other players who have such praise for the players engaging in this behavior while denouncing anyone who dares to express their views and criticize:
DAVID MUIR: (music) Vice President Pence sparking a firestorm. Was it a political stunt?
RON CLAIBORNE: (outdoor noise) How much in taxpayer money was wasted on this stunt?
BILL WEIR: …an expensive political stunt.
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: This political stunt…
PETER ALEXANDER: …a political stunt…
ANA CABRERA: Was this all just a political stunt?
JENNIFER RUBIN: Of course it was a political stunt.
VAN JONES: You’ve got now the president, the vice president pulling off a stunt to oppose a stunt protesting a protest.
ALISYN CAMEROTA: This was a quarter million dollar publicity stunt?
RYAN NOBLES: …just a big publicity stunt.
JAMES ROSEN: …a preplanned publicity stunt…
RICHARD LUI: What the vice president did here, was this a stunt?
TYLER TYNES: This seems like a PR stunt.
DONTE STALLWORTH: …this whole staged publicity stunt…
JOE WATKINS: …sending the vice president to the game was a preplanned stunt.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to any of these overpaid whiners that the "STUNT" is what the players are doing?

At this rate, the further politicizing of NFL games by activist players who disrepect our flag and anthem will drive the NFL viewership and ticket sales even further into the ground. No doubt when this starts hitting players in the wallet they will be first in line to demand some sort of government handout. I have an idea. Let's buy the protesting players a one way ticket to a country where they won't feel so oppressed. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year!

Monday, October 09, 2017

Hollywood Hypocrites Denounced Trump for What he SAID but Looked Other Way for YEARS w/ Weinstein Serial Sex Predation

Democrats KNEW about Weinstein but embraced him anyway!

Harvey Weinstein finally got caught for being a serial sexual predator after being exposed by the New York Times. The curious question is why the same New York Times covered up the story for thirteen years?

Many of the same people who dumped all over Donald Trump accusing him of being the worst sort of misogynist for a wildly inappropriate REMARK, knew about Weinstein yet stayed silent for years.

Even after the news came out Saturday Night Live, who dumps all over Trump at every opportunity, gave the Weinstein scandal a pass with Producer Lorne Michaels because Weinstein is from New York. That never stops them from going after Trump.

And all the big Democrats lined up for YEARS to be seen with Weinstein who was very generous with his donations to the party.

Some Democrats have given the money they received to charity. But many have not including Obama and Hillary.

Where's your pussyhat Obama?  Weinstein made 13 visits to the White House.
 How come you haven't given the money back?
Michelle Obama called Weinstein "a wonderful human being." She even arranged for her
own daughter to work for Weinstein as an intern. I hope she didn't wear a blue dress!
Hillary giving Harvey some love. And she kept the MILLIONS
he raised for her and Bill. So much for abused women!
Weinstein (center) shows his support, or.... at one of the Pussyhat
protests against Trump. Looking for a date Harvey?
Actress Meryl Streep who trembles with faux outrage when speaking about Trump's choice of words once called Weinstein "A god!"

Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein..... But the pussyhatters protest Trump for what he SAID? Give me a break!

UPDATE: Liberals start asking why Obama and Hillary remain silent?
Comedian and liberal activist Lizz Winstead joined MSNBC’s Katy Tur on Monday to discuss the fallout from last week’s New York Times exposé on decades of harassment claims against a Hollywood titan. The conversation soon shifted to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton’s muted responses.
“President Obama, Hillary Clinton, silent so far,” Ms. Tur said. “How do you feel about the selective outrage? ‘I can be outraged about Donald Trump last year, but not outraged about this.’”
“I feel it happens a lot with women’s issues and I feel really disappointed in both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,” said Ms. Winstead, the chief creative officer at Lady Parts Justice. “If you took money from this person, because this person had really good progressive goals that were in line with the politics, great. When you find out that this person is a monster, especially a monster towards women, why wouldn’t you denounce it?”

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Hard to find Video. Wonder Why? Puerto Rico Congresswoman Praises Trump and Federal Response to Hurricane Disaster.

With all the Democrats criticizing Trump in unison talking points it's refreshing to hear what some of the folks in Puerto Rico actually think about Trump's response to the disaster!

Rep. Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon is the non-voting Congressional Representative for Puerto Rico in the U.S. House. At a meeting Tuesday she described the Federal government's response to the disaster in the island territory:

REPRESENTATIVE GONZÁLEZ-COLÓN: Thank you, Mr. President. The first thing is that, before we were hit by Maria, we were hit by Hurricane Irma. And during that time, before the hurricane, here was FEMA acting together with a lot of employees. More than 4,000 people were here in the island from the different branches of the military -- HHS, Navy, Army, FEMA -- and all the staff working together before the hurricane hit. They were here before, during, after the first hurricane, and they continued to stay on the island, boots on the ground. During Maria -- same thing.

I think we never got the level of communication between the federal government and the government like never before. And we are in the path of the hurricane, so we are used to receiving hurricanes, but never before a Category 5. The amount of devastation is unheard of. But during all this time, we got the federal government by our side, doing the job of the people here, like you in the military, doing all that has been asked. All the questions and requests that the governor did, the President and his Cabinet accomplished it and send more people, and has continued to send in more people -- trucks, drivers, and resources.

Thank you, Mr. President, for all you've been doing for the island.
What a shame that Democrats continue to use political talking points when what is needed is help to restore Puerto Rico. Trump is getting the job done!

Loud cheers for Trump at another event handing out supplies:

Death toll from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico has risen to 34. It's a miracle it wasn't higher but pre-storm preparation by the Trump Administration also played a role!

Liberal Statistician: "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."

But it doesn't matter. Keeping law abiding Americans from owning guns is the only and reflexive solution Dems have. They often forgive criminals who USE guns!

We must have gun control!  That's all we hear every time there is a mass shooting. But we already have gun laws and in many cases, it doesn't seem to make the slightest difference.

If guns were the problem, why did Obama forgive so many criminals who used guns or violated gun laws? If more gun laws are what's needed, why did prosecutions of criminals under existing gun laws drop dramatically under Obama?

Cities like Chicago have the strictest gun control laws in the country yet there are killings every week.

Liberals clamoring for more gun control should be forced to answer these questions before they further limit the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans.

Consider this:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

By Leah Libresco October 3
Washington Post
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
If Democrats who constantly preach about gun control spent even a fraction of their time promoting mental health or combating gang violence we might make some progress. But when was the last time you heard Obama or Hillary talk about the scourge of gang violence that has unleashed a genocide against black people in our inner cities?

Trump is the only President to take on gang violence directly with an effective program.

And what good are more gun laws if the next Democrat president is so desperate for votes that he or she will continue to pardon gun offenders?

Monday, October 02, 2017

At Times of Tragedy, Americans Reject Politics of Division and Unite

Blood has no color other than red!

Immediately in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas many on the left proved that they continue to follow the dictum of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and "never let a crisis go to waste." While the left continues to ignore the weekly genocide of black people shot by other black people in Chicago and other cities they leapt on the massacre in Vegas trotting out the usual political arguments about gun control.

Some went even further saying that those who attended the Country Music festival deserved what they got because they were likely Trump supporters.
[A] top lawyer for CBS was fired after writing that she isn't sympathetic for the victims of the most deadly mass shooting in Modern United States history. Hayley Geftman-Gold took to Facebook last night to write that she was 'not even sympathetic' to those killed or wounded because 'country music fans often are Republican.'
To all those who would use this tragedy for a political agenda or to hate other Americans, JUST SHUT UP! Now is not the time for you to prove how poisoned you are by hate and corrupted by left wing politics.

Instead, take a moment (not a knee) and listen to this rendition of our National Anthem and remember that we are all Americans and now is the time when we come together and put aside the noise that divides. The U.S. Army Field Band Brass Quintet performs the national anthem of the United States, "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Sunday, October 01, 2017

Now, Racial Black Power Display During Anthem at NFL Games Shows WHO is Really Dividing America and How

Imagine the immediate condemnation from ALL SIDES if the KKK did anything like this!

Cleveland Browns give the infamous Black Power salute during the National Anthem
on Sunday. Symbol of the Black Panthers and racial division!
I don't need to add more than this.....

Then there were the NFL players at a game in England who knelt during the National Anthem but stood for God Save the Queen. Are these clowns so poorly educated they don't know the British basically enslaved or dominated much of Africa? Or does that not matter since this isn't about historic equality. It's all about politics and creating a racial division!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator