Tag Archives: Democrats

Dems Responsible for Texas Church Murders

by Rev. Austin Miles

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Texas 11/10/17–Communists and the Democratic Party are one and the same. We have Communists in virtually every area of the government of The United States. It strains credulity as to how they were able to get into those positions. Simple–now that you’ve wondered–they had inside help….from our own countrymen.

It was known from the beginning that Communists saw Christians and the church as a foe they had to abolish since a Christian’s mind cannot be enslaved. So in the beginning, Lennon and Stalin began closing churches to get them out of sight proclaiming that Christianity is the opium of the masses and this sabotages their usefulness to the Party.

There was a time that others only spoke of Communists in hushed terms. They maintained a quiet profile as they were multiplying. They became school teachers and occupied any position where  minds could be molded. The movies began very slowly slipping Communist doctrine into movies with brief roles where they came off as good decent people.Their presence on the big screen became more prominent.

Communism came out in the open during the Obama election fraud.  Feeling bolder now, the Reds openly let it be known that Obama was sponsored by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).  During the time when George Soros was  staging riots under the banner, Black Lives Matter, this writer keenly observed the professionally printed protest signs which showed clearly at the bottom of each sign, “Communist Party USA.” The purpose of this was to agitate, divide the races, cause fights in the streets and block major intersections to weaken both sides making it easier to take the helm of both sides. 

These staged  race riots is a war that can never be won by either side. That is the point.  It is a Soros ploy that will effectively weaken BOTH sides, making them totally controllable by the Soros Communist Democrat Cartel.

By this time, the Democrats who had sold their souls to the devil, began to sabotage churches from the inside, going in as new members, then stirring up dissension among the attendees. Leaders were PLACED in pastoral positions. This is why so many churches have gone downhill as distrust of churches, clergy, and even Christians in general have reached the breaking point by good people who simply wanted to worship God and live according to His standards, but  they were let down by their leaders watering down The Gospel.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church is now controlled by Democrat Communist leader GEORGE SOROS? He has worked his way into various Vatican committees and is behind many of the decisions made there.  Of course, with the billions of dollars he has, he is very valuable to the Church.

Soros made his first fortune when he was 19 by betraying the Jews--his own people–in Hungary, his home country, by leading the Nazi storm troopers to Jewish homes and showing them where they kept their wealth. He received a healthy commission for all the wealth he led the Nazis to. Betrayals, even to one’s own family and countrymen means nothing to Soros nor to any other Communist.

Soros is the one who put Pope Francis on the throne who was Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina, a Communist country. This was carefully contrived. I have some knowledge of what goes on in the Vatican. I had never heard of this man who would be named ‘Pope Francis, nor did I know anything about him being in the College of Cardinals. Suddenly he was paraded into the main room where he was crowned as Pope.

In the very first address he made from the balcony he declared that he planned to “re-distribute the wealth.” How’s that again? That is right out of the book of Marx, the Communist Manifesto. He reiterated that the next day stating, now get this, ‘ being wealthy is a sin.’  I received an urgent call from a woman in Pittsburgh who was somewhat wealthy and she was in a panic thinking she was going to hell for being rich.

This similar Papal Statement came out before Obama was placed in the Oval Office (not elected but PLACED) when out campaigning he told Joe the Plumber on the street the he would redistribute the wealth when asked what would be the first thing he would do if elected.

Under Obama, the democrats did all they could to publicly undermine Christianity, how it was a dangerous doctrine, racist, and harmful to all, especially the children.  The attacks on Christianity became bolder as they began to forbid the word, Christmas, to be used in seasonal school plays, or even displaying a cross in public. Hate speech and ridicule became hurled toward Christians and the church itself.

Then, this past Sunday the subdued hostility toward Christians  became full fledged warfare as  the 1st Baptist Church in the small town of Sutherland Springs, Texas became the scene of a merciless massacre of more than half of the church members, being shot to death by a misfit militant atheist named Devin Patrick Kelley, who received a dishonorable discharge from military service, escaped from a mental hospital and it has now been reported that he has sexually assaulted little girls .Should be no surprise there.

Even worse, his Democrat mentors has steered him totally away from God and Church, which was and is their very intention– to keep God out of society. This is natural in a Communist-Democrat party.  So it is the Democrats who are totally to blame for the church massacre in Texas.  Yes, that blood is on YOUR filthy hands as will be noted in Ezekiel 3:18.  And since your entire party appears to be anti-God and claim there is no God, you will all learn in the end that there very much IS a God, and a devil who will gladly toss you into the lake of fire.

They are the ones who agitated this mentally ill kid to the point of shooting any Christians he could find, even those in prayer at a church with many women, expectant mothers and little children who were brutally killed in a sacred place where God is worshiped. .Twenty Six innocent people were murdered while 20 more still fight for their lives in the hospital. What else can be expected when the Democrats denounce God, ridicule God and mock his rules for morality and discouraging anyone, like that young church murderer, from following God.

And why is George Soros and the Communists so frantic about taking out the U.S.? Because the ONLY country standing in the way of the complete New World Order, is The United States of America where there are overwhelming numbers of Committed Christian and their churches that dot the landscape from sea to shining sea.

Democrats say it is hate speech when our government wants a ban on all Muslim  immigrants who have staged many, many vicious attacks on innocent people where they have managed to get in, with the full determination and full living assistance provided by the Democrats using our tax money to support these savages who only want to kill us.

Yet the Dems state that banning Muslims is….discrimination against a religion.  How’s that again?  When they get here they demand “constitutional rights.”  Really? 

Constitutional Rights ONLY apply to American Citizens.

The Democrat-Communists insult God, blaspheme God, and make it law to do every despicable perverted sexual activity that they can think up that gives the finger to God plus they are at this moment trying to make a law that approves and encourages sex with children.

Meanwhile Demoncrats: remember the Scriptures above. Every leftist who has  blocked anyone  from following God WILL face God and the lake of fire.  The deaths of those 26 Christians while in church, with 20 more severely wounded in the hospitals would never have happened had it not been for the Dems discouraging this young man from committing murder. Yes the blood is on YOUR hands.  YOU ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE.

The  future before all of you will be total terror. At that time you will know for sure that God is real. But then, don’t forget this, it will be too late.

TODAY’S NEWS FOR TOMORROW’S HISTORY

Going for the Party of Treason’s Jugular

By Jim O’Neill

I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic Party.  I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation have come to it through this so-called party, therefore beware of this party of treason[italics added]

Nathaniel Grigsby (1811-1890), Civil War vet, from his tombstone

Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose — The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Any remaining doubts that “we the people” may have had about where the Democrat’s loyalties lay were put to rest during President Trump’s recent “State of the Union” address.  When he promoted jobs for the jobless the Democrats sat on their hands.  When he advocated giving aid to victims of crime the Democrats booed.  And when President Trump honored the widow of a fallen American SEAL the Democrats sat stone-faced and silent.

The Democrats (and their #NEVER TRUMP Republican cohorts) are globalists – and globalists are by nature anti-nation states.  More to the point, Democrats and their Republican cohorts are anti-American.  In a word, they are treasonous — and their treasonous nature was on full display for the nation to see during Trump’s speech.

There can no longer be any doubt whatsoever that “the progressive agenda is a dagger aimed at the heart of America’s social contract and the security of the American people.”  Conservative Republican members of Congress had best stop playing their “hail fellow well met” colligate games with these Democratic a–holes and get serious about saving the United States of America – NOW.

The quote from the paragraph directly above comes from David Horowitz’s bookBig Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America” – a book that I strongly suggest conservative members of Congress purchase and read.  Horowitz understands the war and the nature of the enemy – he pulls no punches.

Reluctance to go for the jugular and willingness to accept defeat can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you are reluctant to fight, you are inevitably headed toward defeat when the other side is relentless and despises you.  It is only for those who persist in the battle and never let up that the possibility of changing the result comes into view.  P.80

If they attack you as a racist or call you an obstructionist and you are not prepared to throw those charges back in their faces, you are already losing the war.  If your first response is to defend yourself by denying the charge, you are losing the war.  To have a chance of winning, your first response must be to attack them in a way that is equally strong, that throws them off balance and puts them on the defensive.  Mike Tyson summed up this strategy with the following observation: “Everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.”  To turn around the political battles conservatives have been losing for so long, they must begin every confrontation by punching progressives in the mouth.  To do so conservatives must develop an attack that takes away progressives’ moral superiority and smugness.  P.82,83

Exactly how does one go about taking away the Democrat’s sense of “superiority and smugness?”  By exposing them for the lying, corrupt, traitors that they are.  Throw their hypocritical lies back in their face and go on the offense – and stay on the offense!  Nothing less than the world is at stake – as goes America so goes the world.

The globalists envision a world ruled over by an arrogant godless elite.  They call that “utopia,” I call it hell on earth.  Make no mistake, “we the people” are in a war, and the stakes could not be higher.

So, we go for the jugular, we “hit ‘em where it hurts” – and hit, and hit, and hit until they don’t get up.  As Sir Winston Churchill said, never give in.

Never give in.  Never give in.  Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense.  Never yield to force.  Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill  (1874-1965)

Hit the Democrats in what Horowitz calls “their Achille’s heel” – their abject failure to help inner-city blacks rise out of squalor and dependency.  The Democrats demonize the Right and stoke the fires under entitlement and victimhood, thereby deflecting the justifiable rage of inner-city blacks away from themselves – the true perpetrators of inner-city violence, despair, and chaos.

Punch them in the mouth with their virulent anti-American globalism.  A globalist is anti-American by their very nature – it cannot be any other way.  You are either with us or against us, simple as that.  And who can doubt that the globalists are against us?

People like to be a part of something greater than themselves.  This emphatically includes their nation.  Patriotism is thus a natural phenomenon.  It is satisfied best when people feel that their nation is strong, or at least not weak.

Michael Anton “America and the Liberal International Order

American patriotism is a natural, healthy, vibrant appreciation and respect for your home turf.  To disdain and mock your home and environment is unhealthy, unnatural, and oh so Democratic.

And hit them with freedom.  Globalism is directly opposed to freedom, is the antithesis of freedom – and freedom rules.

The economic redistribution [of wealth] that progressives demand is not “fairness,” as they maintain.  Socialism is theft and a war on individual freedom…a war on the ability of individuals to work for themselves instead of the government, and therefore an attack on individual freedom.  P. 142

Why in the world would anyone ever be defensive about being pro-freedom. pro-American, and wanting to radically improve life in America, especially America’s inner-cities?  Why indeed.

Be on offense; take no prisoners; stay on the attack.  To stop the Democrats and their societal transformation, Republicans must adhere to a strategy that begins with a punch in the mouth.  That punch must pack an emotional wallop large enough to throw them off balance and neutralize their assaults.  It must be framed as a moral indictment that stigmatizes them in the way their attacks stigmatize Republicans.  It must expose them for their hypocrisy.  It must hold them accountable for the divisions they sow and the suffering they cause.  P. 142

 

 

Did You See This? Gender Neutral Marines. Will Someone Please Stop The Madness?

In the I just can’t take this crap anymore category. —————————————————-

Marines Announce Gender Neutral Boot Camp…So USMC Captain Goes BEAST Mode In EPIC Rant.

Screen-Shot-2016-01-08-at-8.39.28-PM

Published on January 8, 2016

This is what is happening to our military under President Barack Obama, he definitely is going to be leaving a big legacy, that’s for sure. After the Marines announced that they plan to make their boot camp gender neutral,U.S. Marine veteran, Captain and Counterintelligence officer Eric Kirsch went full on beast mode on Facebook speaking out about it. Check it out…

According to IJ Review:

On January 15th, the Marine Corps is required to submit a plan toSecretary of the Navy Ray Mabus on how they’re going to make boot camp gender neutral.

Their proposed plan must also apply to Officer Candidate School, as well as include a method on how to make titles gender neutral for Marines.

Here it is:

“The Navy Secretary served for 24 months (1971-1972) in a non combat role within the United States Navy prior to attending Harvard Law School.

He issued his memo request on 1 JAN and expects a detailed plan to be delivered no later than 15 JAN, erasing 241 years in 14 days, the United States Marine Corps, compliant to lawful order, obedient and faithful, always, is scrambling to dismantle title, as if it were an gangrenous arbitrary item and they have 5 further business days in which to do it.”

“I served with Males and Females and Homosexuals and I’m cool with Transgendered because nothing would make me happier then hearing the frantic stuttering hand held radio transmissions of ISIS fighters announcing the assault of fabulous Marines who also enjoy alternative lifestyles raining steel upon their intolerant bullshit.

That said, I believe, firmly, in gender segregation, in basic training….why WOULD YOU NOT SEGREGATE GENDERS? Of what benefit to either gender is mixing the two in initial training? If you got something I do not know about, regarding how it will IMPROVE the Marine Corps, sound the fuck off, I beg you.

I also believe it’s folly to argue over the inevitable, fine, okay, they are making Female Grunts now? Ok, I politely suggested ALL FEMALE / FEMALE ONLY INFANTRY BATTALIONS, yet I said that somewhere else and was pretty much called a Satan Shit Lord Misogynist, unreal.”

“We’re about to be glove slapped by history and then who will have the strength to point their outraged little fingers when the rosters swell with madness of unnecessary WIA/KIA due to “Social Manipulation” in the name of bullshit “Gender Equality”, we are NOT ALL EQUALS and life is not fucking fair, fair is where you go on rides and eat candy apples, F!”

Will removing the title “Man” from the United States Marine Corps end our Constitutional Republic, no, yet it’s sort of like taking a massive break in a rest room after a binge at Taco Bell and bombing the head with Butterfly Garden aerosol potpourri.

Now your confined space smells like a bear took a dump in a Butterfly Garden, I’m not sure what is worse, natural rancidity or that enhanced by a toxic chemical perfume.”

~Steve~

clashdaily.com

Coming Out Fashion Statement? Iranian Valerie Jarrett Describing Last Year Of Obama Nightmare In More Traditional Garb

BY RICK WELLS FOR RICKWELLS.US

valerie jarrett

For those of us who aren’t fashion aficionados it’s difficult to figure out exactly what that is wrapped around Valerie Jarrett. She looks as if she might have inadvertently gotten herself tangled up in the window drapes or something but it’s color-coordinated so that’s unlikely. Maybe it’s some kind of Iranian headscarf and shawl combination turned around backwards.

Given her appearance, having the headscarf turned backwards is a great idea, provided she had left it in place. But she’s uncovered, so what’s the point other than a statement, an actual fashion statement, of who she is and what she represents. She is what she is; a pro-Islamic operative guiding what is at a minimum an Islamic sympathizer who’s squatting in the big boy chair in our White House.

The conversation is centered on crime, a topic the members of this regime are undeniably experts on. She describes their approach to redefining it and reducing the penalties for the types of crime most common to potential black voters, if they were, absent a felony conviction on their record, able to vote.

She claims that if you keep people from going to prison in the first place it reduces subsequent crimes. Of course not committing crimes in the first place is the most effective method of remaining out of prison, but that’s not what criminals do, so the regime is looking at other ways to once again reward bad behavior.  Pretending the crime never occurred or blaming someone other than the perpetrator seems like the course of action they’ve decided upon.

She describes the alternative to choosing a life of crime, which happen to be the very things her Dear Leader is destroying through his open borders invasion; an ability for the potential criminals to have had gainful employment and a means through which to support their families.

Ominously, Jarrett compares the last year of the Obama tenure to the second half of the fourth quarter of a football game, noting that “really big things happen near the end of the game, as we all know. And just look at this last year, we’ve had a terrific year,” mockingly criticizing the media who she recalls as having described Obama as a lame duck. She says, “Doesn’t feel much like lame duck to me.” A terrific year for Jarrett and Obama translates into another miserable year for traditional, free America.

She’s describing their focus for the next year as “criminal justice reform.” As there is bound to be a significant amount of liberal double-speak in her comments, just what perversions will be identified as reform is unknown and they will not likely be restricted to those she is admitting to in the interview.

Hidden agenda items will be attached, such as the federalization of local police forces, efforts to attack the Second Amendment in the name of crime reduction, and wealth redistribution packaged as “social justice” and “equal opportunity.”

Jarrett highlights with pride their pronouncement that felons will no longer be required to self identify on federal employment applications. It’s a situation which could leave the personal data of all Americans subject to harvesting for criminal activities, a situation she views as a positive and urges Congress to mimic their insanity in the case of federal contractors.

She calls upon everyone to help, saying it’s a problem that touches all of us and we need to own that responsibility. Just how we’re all responsible for the deliberate decisions of others to break the law is unclear. She talks of responsibility but not personal responsibility, that of the criminals to take ownership of their own bad decisions which led to their introduction into the criminal justice system.

Jarrett’s right, Obama isn’t lame; Congress is. She’s also correct that, given the level of forethought and scheming that has gone into the Marxist efforts under his “leadership,” the second half of the fourth quarter is going to be quite turbulent for the American people. It will be a period of offensive success for the regime, filled with trick plays and misdirection as well as bad officiating, missed opportunities, and the giving up by the Republicans on defense.

The Republicans haven’t stood up to these criminals in seven long years; there’s absolutely no reason to think they’d start now.

I’m Rick Wells – a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it. – Please “Like” me on Facebook, “Follow” me on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers.com.

Hillary Clinton’s Record of Malfeasance

8From Little Rock to Chappaqua — Will Any Scandal Stick?

By Mark Alexander FOR THEPATRIOTPOST.US

“[She] who permits [herself] to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; [she] tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing [her]. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

orange

Long before the Great Prevaricator Bill Clinton and his chief administrator Hillary duped their way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, their tenure in Arkansas was defined by relationships with radicals, real-estate shenanigans, drug dealing associates, Ponzi schemes and “lucky investment returns” such as Hillary’s one-in-31-trillion cattle futures profits. However, none of that corruption stuck to the Teflon couple.

What follows is a concise record of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s deceptions, obfuscations and subterfuges, from Little Rock to Chappaqua. Given that Hillary is (for the moment) the national frontrunner for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination, I’ve compiled some of the more ignoble examples of her abject corruption from the Clintons’ White House “co-presidency” years (recall that Bill promised “You get two for the price of one”) — and the years since. (For a complete chronological listing of our Clinton campaign coverage, check out the Clinton tags.) But don’t delay — the terminus of Hillary’s political aspirations may come sooner than she expected — if her email server lies results in felony indictments.

If I had to choose just one quote that best defines the Clintons’ philosophy on governing, it would be these recent words from Hillary: “I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.” This is the re-warmed doctrine of Karl Marx and the mantra of today’s Democratic Party statists.

1993: After the suicide of Hillary’s longtime friend and White House counsel Vince Foster, files “disappear” from his office, impeding the investigation into his death — files that would most assuredly have shown the Clintons’ fingerprints to be on various nefarious enterprises. (Sound familiar?)

liar

1993-94: The Clintons’ White House “security director,” Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer and Clinton political hack, is caught with more than 900 classified FBI background files that he’d requested on leading Republicans from the Reagan and Bush administrations. Hillary lied in her testimony about the files.

1993-96: Hillary convenes illegal secret panels to create a socialized health care plan, which was exposed by Republican House investigators and subsequently went down in flames. Her ClintonCare proposal was thus shelved until Barack Obama became president, but she is without question the grande dame of what eventually became ObamaCare.

1993-97: The Clintons turn the IRS into their personal attack dog, and the agency went after every major conservative group in the nation, including The Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Concerned Women of America, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Not even conservative publications such as National Review and American Spectator were spared. In 1996, The Washington Times researched the targeting of these organizations and could not identify a single liberal advocacy organization that had been audited during Bill’s first term. (Sound familiar?)

1994: Hillary’s Rose Law Firm billing records related to the 1980s Whitewater Development bankruptcy mysteriously disappear — but then inexplicably reappear a year later after having been “scrubbed” of any incriminating evidence linking Hillary with key partners in that fraud. (Sound familiar?)

1995: Bill Clinton signs legislation making it easier for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. His Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, rewrote the lending rules for the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act (which had been signed into law by none other than Jimmy Carter), opening the floodgates of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) subprime loans. Clinton’s legislation applied affirmative action to the lending industry, sowing the seeds for the massive deflation of home prices and for the near-total collapse of the American financial markets 10 years later. Bill Clinton admitted in 2008, “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress … to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Indeed.

mortgage

Democrat Rep. Artur Davis was a bit more direct: “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In retrospect I should have heeded the [Republican] concerns in 2004. Frankly I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that, when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

1995-96: Hillary confidant John Huang is appointed to the DNC and raised large illegal donations from foreign sources. (Sound familiar?) Charlie Trie also raised major illegal donations from foreign sources. His $450,000 contribution to Clinton’s legal defense fund was a pass-through from Asian special interests. According to Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, those interests included the Red Chinese government.

1996: The Clintons trade Commerce Department positions and Lincoln Bedroom lodging for big campaign donations. Then-Vice President Al Gore repeatedly and infamously insisted, “There is no controlling legal authority,” after it was determined that the Clintons were operating a major fundraising call center in the White House.

1997: Six years into Bill Clinton’s tenure of national security malfeasance, one of Osama bin Laden’s well organized al-Qa’ida terrorist cells crafts a plan to settle into American suburbs and prepare a strike on our homeland. Four years had passed from the time of the first World Trade Center attack under Clinton’s watch until preparations began for the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. The Clinton’s refused an FBI field agent’s efforts to open a case file on Arab nationals who were, curiously, training to fly commercial aircraft, but not training for takeoffs or landings. The stated reason for the case file denial was to avoid the appearance of any presumption of an Islamic threat — precisely why, to this day, Democrats refuse to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” in the same context. During his eight years in office, Clinton had numerous opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden, but refused. Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the “nuclear football” codes for the Clinton administration, notes, “[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11 and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities. … We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him.” Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team responsible for hunting bin Laden, confirmed that prior to 9/11 SpecOps had two opportunities when Osama was literally in their sights, but Clinton pulled the plug on both operations.

1998: Bill Clinton is impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice after falsely insisting he “did not have sexual relations” with a 22-year-old female White House intern. Hillary had established a long record of defending her husband against charges ranging from sexual impropriety to rape (in order to ensure her own political aspirations), including but not limited to charges brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Hillary perfected the practice of “blaming the victim,” and she insisted that the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal was fabricated by a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

billy

Americans learned a lot about DNA evidence, and the Clintons should be credited with the popularity of all the cold case and forensic file TV shows that followed. We also learned that, unlike Richard Nixon, who had the decency to resign instead of putting the nation through an impeachment proceeding, the Clintons knew that Senate Democrats would never join with Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required to convict the Philanderer in Chief.

2000: Bill Clinton issues executive pardons to big donors and other convicted felons, some doing time related to Clinton scandals. Recall that among all those last-minute political pardons, one was for his former CIA director, John Deutch, who, it was discovered in 1996, stored classified documents on an unsecure laptop at his residence.

2001: According to Hillary, she and Bill depart the White House “dead broke” after vandalizing the executive residence before the Bush family arrived and loading up $190,000 in gifts and furnishings. However penniless (despite six-figure taxpayer-funded salaries and an $8 million book deal), they managed to buy a Chappaqua, New York, country house for $1.7 million in 1999 in order to establish residency for Hillary’s carpet-bagging Senate run in 2000. They also acquired a seven-bedroom house in DC for $2.85 million so Hillary would have a place to stay while the Senate was in session.

So, what are the two most notable lessons from the Clinton White House years?

First, never select an old establishment Republican like George Bush or Bob Dole to run against a young, charismatic narcissist. (Apparently Republicans forgot that lesson in both 2008 and 2012.)

Second, virtually nothing sticks to the Teflon Clintons. They have perfected the art of the BIG Lie and the basic tenets of obfuscation: Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-allegations.

2001-2009: Bill and the then-junior senator from New York amass hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth from fees charged to those who were betting on Hillary’s political future. What she did not amass, however, is any record of accomplishment as a senator — no piece of legislation was advanced under her name.

2009: After Hillary’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary bid against Barack Obama, he hushes her up and keeps her close with an appointment as secretary of state, an office she held from 2009-2013. While Bill and their “family foundation” continued to amass millions in speaking fees and donations, Hillary compiled an even less impressive but much more lethal record as secretary of state than she had as a senator. She visited 112 countries, and, though she falsely claimed having been shot at by snipers in at least one of them, she can claim no treaty, no accord or even a meaningful summit success. Hillary does claim that she “restored America’s reputation,” but what she actually did was advance Obama’s failed foreign policies to the extent that America now suffers its weakest world standing since the Jimmy Carter era.

2012: Hillary crafts and propagates the Benghazi cover-up after the death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya. She lied about the attack, claiming it was inspired by an obscure Internet video rather than a well-planned and executed al-Qa’ida assault on the anniversary of 9/11. She did so to protect Obama’s 2012 election, thus ensuring her own 2016 ambitions. Recall that at that time Obama was continuously crowing about how al-Qa’ida was “on the run.” Given that his domestic economic and social policies had been an abject failure, all he had to frame his 2012 campaign upon were the patently false claims of victory in Iraq and the defeat of al-Qa’ida.

2014: While Hillary was secretary of state, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation took in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments, corporations and individuals, who were currying favor with Hillary as secretary of state and as a potential future president. Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” provides a sobering outline of the abuse.

2015: In March, Hillary admits that she illegally maintained a “private email server” for official State Department communications — in violation of federal law, and had failed to acknowledge those records in congressional testimony regarding the Benghazi attack and cover-up. In April, Clinton officially announces her presidential candidacy. But Clinton’s self-spun web of lies about keeping her communications out of the public record may yet ensnare her, and end her 2016 presidential aspirations. It’s not likely that she’ll withdraw without a fight, but she is, clearly, in trouble. (Read our comprehensive account of Clinton’s email cover-up lies.)

Thus far, from Little Rock to Chappaqua, Hillary’s non-stick surface has proven effective at avoiding criminal charges. Indeed, she learned a lot from her slippery spouse. But she may have finally met her match in South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

If he pins Clinton with felony charges related to her email server subterfuges, those charges will stick.

Indeed, it is now increasingly likely that Clinton, having deleted more than 30,000 emails from her communications server, will face criminal charges. Those charges range from perjury and felony possession and dissemination of classified documents to obstruction of justice. The latter could result in felony charges, as Clinton directed the erasure of all those emails even though she was fully aware that all documents pertaining to her tenure as secretary of state were subject to subpoena by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Though Clinton claimed, “I’ve never had a subpoena,” Rep. Gowdy corrected the record, noting, “[S]he was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server, and that the State Department was not the custodian of her official record. For more than two years, Clinton never availed herself of the opportunity, even in response to a direct congressional inquiry, to inform the public of her unusual email arrangement designed to evade public transparency.”

In regard to felony possession and dissemination of classified documents, recall if you will the recent prosecution of Gen. David Petraeus, Obama’s former CIA director. Gen. Petraeus admitted to security violations after he inadvertently made classified material available to his biographer, with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Though that biographer, former Army Major Paula Broadwell, held security clearances and none of the classified material was compromised, it was still a serious breach of security protocols. Petraeus avoided a felony conviction by pleading guilty, and he was sentenced to two years’ probation and required to pay a $100,000 fine.

And regarding the statute pertaining to obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, it specifies felony charges for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry” in any official account or record “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter.” Notably, it further specifies, “or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case,” which is precisely why Clinton maintained that private server.

That statute, part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for which then-Senator Hillary Clinton voted “yes,” includes penalties of up to 20 years in prison.

Felony counts may be coming, despite her claims that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” and “There is no classified material,” now that another 300 emails have been recovered from “lost” State Department servers that appear to have classified content.

As for where the Benghazi investigation will lead, Clinton concludes, “We’ll see how this all plays out.”

Indeed we will… At present, the best evidence that felony charges will be filed is Obama’s pseudo-endorsement of Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, by way of his spokesman Josh Earnest.

According to Earnest, “The president has indicated that his view that the decision that he made … to add Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into the vice president’s aptitude for the top job.” Earnest added, “The vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. So I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

While Earnest also expressed Obama’s “appreciation, respect and admiration” for Hillary Clinton, it’s hard to overestimate the importance of his statements on Biden in light of Hillary’s mounting troubles.

And that statement came a day after Biden met with Sen. Elizabeth “Honest Injun” Warren. No doubt that meeting was to reach an accord that he would serve one term with her as his veep, if she stayed out of the 2016 primary. Indeed, a Biden/Warren ticket would be far more competitive than either Clinton or Sanders at the top of a ticket.

Recall that in February, Biden advocated for an Obama third term: “I call it sticking with what works!” By “what works,” he must have meant duping voters in presidential campaigns, because in both the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Obama’s Democratic Party policies suffered resounding defeat. That notwithstanding, in July, Obama himself asserted: “I cannot run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran I could win. But I can’t.”

Make no mistake, a Biden/Warren ticket is a third Obama term!

And I noted that Bill Clinton was vacationing with the now-rich and famous Obamas at their exclusive Martha’s Vineyard in mid August. The White House press corps released photos of Bill and Barack golfing — which I’m sure Clinton hoped would be a subtle shot over Biden’s bow to keep clear of Hillary’s ‘16 campaign.

Or… perhaps he was cutting a deal for another executive pardon similar to the one he gave John Deutch in 2000, as noted above. However, in this case, it would be Hillary who was keeping classified documents on an unauthorized server in her home.

(For a complete chronological listing of our Clintons campaign coverage see the Clinton tags. For our comprehensive account of her email cover-up lies, click here.)

 

 

Couldn’t be any clearer!!!! Baltimore Riot Explained

My Comments:  This really is quite sad, because all of it has been propagated by the federal government.  Think back about LBJ’s great society.  Prior to LBJ, black families and white families had the same statistics, fathers were in the homes, babies were not born out of wedlock, drugs were not the norm, gangs were not the norm…then it all changed, and first it hit the black communities, then it went to the white communities and the burbs.  It was promoted especially in the schools, and the testing started on the minority schools in the south, then in the north, and then in all schools.  It’s all true, and now it’s almost too far gone to save America’s children, both black and white.  And the majority of Americans never even noticed.

one

two

three

SO Happy that we got that cleared up!!
This also said conservatives..I am one, but didn’t know I was a racist.. Gee, why is it that all cities run by Democrats look like this….Detroit does too after 50 yrs.
of the same. PS: That US attorney
is a Communist..in case you didn’t know.

LOTFI: Fox News one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors for better part of two decades

By Michael Lofti for TRUTHINMEDIA.COM

Hillary Clinton testifiesHillary Clinton testifies before Congress at Benghazi trial

To many, it seems contrary to intuition that Fox News could be one of the Clinton family’s largest donors for the better part of two decades. Check your intuition at the door- it’s true. According to Federal Election Commission and Center for Responsive Politics data, 21st Century Fox News Corp. has donated more than $3 million to Clinton family accounts. Overall, this lands Fox as the Clinton family’s 9th largest donor over the course of the family’s political involvement.

CLINTON

Should it really infuriate the conservative viewership of Fox News that the company also donates to Democrats? After all, are political parties not constantly blaming media outlets for being biased? What would it say about the state of media in America if companies and their journalists only donated to one specific party? More troubling, what does it say about Americans that some are upset over the fact that Fox News and its employees are donating to Democrats in addition to Republicans? Do we really want our media to be non-bias, or do we simply want it to follow our own bias?

 

 

 

The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

By Brandon Smith for ALT-MARKET.COM

statue

I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects of that strange movement separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel Without A Legitimate Cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of ANY person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order and the implementation of mass electronic surveillance without warrant.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses REGARDLESS of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society. Their publicly stated intentions are otherwise pointless.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People Must Be Forced To Bake Gay Cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is all that matters, whether the Supreme Court dignifies it or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing. What they do not seem to understand is that recognition by the state does not necessarily translate to recognition by religious organizations, nor should it.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and personal property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for ANY reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years through legal chicanery. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers. Keep in mind, these businesses did not refuse outright service to gays. What they did refuse, was to make gay wedding cakes. To do so would have been in outright conflict with their religious principles.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused to do business with.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? Yes, according the dictates of individual liberty, yes it is okay.

First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it, and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to the government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Again, marriage has been and always will be a religious institution. The PC crowd will not be happy with government recognition alone. They want to force recognition from everyone.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open HIS OWN bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or or do business with them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some groups to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender Bending Does Not Make You Special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were…

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the scientific FACT of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will EVER be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group, and do not necessitate special attention or government protection. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology or a legal battle is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to social distraction and disaster.

There Is No Such Thing As ‘White Privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70% of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions only due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. All of their concepts of discrimination are based purely on assumption. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The Cost Of Cultural Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.

Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

 

 

Image

Chicago

chicago

7 Homosexual U.S. Ambassadors: Trade Deals Should Advance LGBTI Rights

By Patrick Goodenough for CNS NEWS

gaySix openly gay U.S. ambassadors meet in Washington in March 2015. They are, from left, Ambassador to Australia John Berry, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James Brewster, Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford, Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Daniel Baer, Ambassador to Spain James Costos, and Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius (Photo: Blake Bergen/Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies)

(CNSNews.com) – International free-trade agreements like those being negotiated with countries in the Pacific and Europe should help to export American values such as human rights, including for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, according to seven openly homosexual U.S. ambassadors.

The seven, joined by the State Department’s first “special envoy for LGBTI persons,” Randy Berry, signed a joint letter published Tuesday in the national gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, and re-posted by the White House.

“Through the President’s trade agenda, we will not only support more American jobs, but we can also promote greater justice beyond our borders,” they wrote.

“We are committed to working closely with the White House to ensure that any trade arrangement approved by Congress is a force for progress on human rights for everyone, including for LGBTI persons.”

The letter comes as the House of Representatives prepares to vote on a contentious piece of legislation known as trade promotion authority, giving the president “fast track” authority to negotiate trade deals. The Senate passed it by a 62-37 vote last month. The administration has been lobbying hard to win support, especially from Democrats worried about the potential impact on workers and wages.

“With America’s interests and values on the line, we hope Congress passes trade promotion authority without delay,” the diplomats wrote.

The seven joining Berry are Ambassador to Dominican Republic James Brewster, Ambassador to Spain James Costos, Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford, Ambassador to Australia John Berry, Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius, Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Daniel Baer, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Holleyman.

“Many of us are currently working in our host countries to promote new trade initiatives, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),” they said.

“In speaking about these agreements, we often use the word ‘values.’ We promote transparency, public participation, accountability and the rule of law, and we advocate for our host countries to join us in setting the global standard.

“As the seven openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex U.S. Ambassadors and the Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons, this approach is particularly important to us.”

The U.S. is negotiating the TPP with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam), and the TTIP with the 28-member European Union.

The diplomats who signed the letter said that “LGBTI persons” continue to face challenges in countries around the world.

They did not name any countries, but of the TPP partners, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei outlaw same-sex sexual acts, according to data compiled by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).

In Malaysia, anyone convicted of “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” can be imprisoned for up to 20 years, and also be flogged.

In Singapore, a male who commits “any act of gross indecency with another male person” can be jailed for up to two years.

Brunei punishes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal” with a prison term of up to 10 years, plus a fine.

Moreover, Brunei is scheduled to introduce the death penalty for certain same-sex activity by next year – as part of a roll-out of a controversial shari’a-based legal code – although ILGA said in a report last month that it “seems unlikely to be implemented in actuality.”

(According to ILGA data, same-sex sexual acts are illegal in 76 countries. In five – Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen – the death penalty is implemented for same-sex activity, along with some provinces in Somalia and Nigeria.)

“Done right, trade policy is a strong complement to our broader bilateral efforts to urge partner countries to defend and protect the human rights of all individuals,” the diplomats wrote.

“In many ways, the two issues go together: open markets promote development, raise wages, and increase living standards, which in turn goes hand-in-hand with more open and engaged societies that demand a higher standard of protection for civil rights.”

The signatories said they were proud to be part of an administration “deeply committed” to advancing the human rights of LGBTI people, citing President Obama’s recent comment – in a statement marking International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia – that “all people deserve to live free from fear, violence, and discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love.”

The administration has made the issue a foreign policy priority, and at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva it co-sponsored in 2011 the first-ever resolution adopted by the U.N. on the human rights of LGBT people.

Delivering a keynote Human Rights Day-themed speech in Geneva six months later, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton focused on LGBT rights, calling the issue “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our times.”

Clinton in that speech said that failure to uphold the human rights of homosexuals and lesbians could not be justified by citing religious or cultural values.

Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote

Well, of course they do…they want them to vote democrat and stay in the country! And they’re not undocumented workers, they are ILLEGAL ALIENS, LAW BREAKERS, INVADERS, AND MANY ARE FROM GANGS AND TERRORISTS.  HOW STUPID ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KEEP ALLOWING THIS?  Or is it, they just don’t care?

From RASMUSSEN REPORTS

Are voters ready to let illegal immigrants vote? A sizable number, including most Democrats, are.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that one-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (35%) now believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote if they can prove they live in this country and pay taxes. Sixty percent (60%) disagree, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case challenging how Texas sets up state legislative districts. Texas currently counts everyone in the state, including illegal immigrants, before carving up districts of proportional population size, but the challenge argues that only eligible voters should be counted because the current system creates some districts with much larger numbers of eligible voters than others.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters agree with the legal challenge and say states should only count eligible voters when setting the size of legislative districts for voting purposes. Just 23% favor the current system in Texas that counts all residents including illegal immigrants. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 952 Likely Voters was conducted on May 27-28, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters think the United States is already more democratic than most other nations, but 17% say it is less democratic. Slightly more (19%) feel America is about equally as democratic as most other nations.

Women are more supportive than men of letting tax-paying illegal immigrants vote, but the two are in general agreement that the size of voting districts should be determined by counting only the number of eligible voters.

Voters under 40 are twice as likely as their elders are to favor allowing illegal immigrants to vote, but they, too, draw the line at counting illegal immigrants when setting up legislative districts.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans think states should only count eligible voters in setting the size of legislative districts, a view shared by 65% of unaffiliated voters and 52% of Democrats.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of those who oppose letting illegal immigrants vote favor counting only eligible voters when carving up a state into voting districts. Those who favor letting illegal immigrants vote agree but by a much narrower 45% to 39% margin.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of all voters say it is too easy to vote in America today. Eighteen percent (18%) think it’s too hard to vote, while 49% rate the level of difficulty as about right.

But voters are more confident in the fairness of U.S. elections than they have been in over two years.

Most voters have said consistently for years that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

Image

Who’s Running this Mess?

ghetto

How our Federal Constitution Secures our Unalienable Rights

by Brent Parrish

Hitler

Since our public schools no longer teach civics, in any meaningful way, many Americans are utterly clueless when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and the enumerated powers contained therein. When the American people no longer know their rights, then any manner of usurpation and violation against those rights is possible by an overreaching federal government.

In cooperation with Publius Huldah, I have put together a series of slides written by Publius Huldah in the hope that they will be shared with others so Americans can begin to reclaim their God-given rights, and gain a better understanding of the enumerated powers spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

Enumerated-Powers-PH-3 Enumerated-Powers-PH-4 Enumerated-Powers-PH-5 Enumerated-Powers-PH-6 Enumerated-Powers-PH-7 Enumerated-Powers-PH-8