Claiming ‘Sh**hole’ is Unprecedented Presidential Rhetoric is Liberal Bulls**t

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

The loony left is acting like President Trump is the only president to ever swear in the White House when in fact many of past presidents and vice president swore.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was the most crudest and vulgarest man to sever in the White House.

When you see liberals continuing to harangue President Donald Trump for supposedly using the word “sh**hole” to describe some rather crappy foreign countries, realize it is nothing but liberal bulls**t masquerading as outrageously outraged outrage.

After all, history being our guide we knew that practically every president has engaged in potty-mouthed rhetoric and many even racial epithets and “hate” speech. So, let’s ignore this crap and move on.

Some of our past presidents were notorious racists. Despite being the darling of the left, Woodrow Wilson was 100 percent positive that blacks were in no way whatever an equal to whites and he led his life opposing any black advancements. Franklin Delano Roosevelt even sent Asian Americans to internment camps, for Pete’s sake.

One of the most profane presidents was “the president of the common man,” Andrew Jackson who called people names at the drop of a hat. Another very profane man was Lyndon B. Johnson.

Johnson was not only a profane man, he was a crude, unprofessional, loudmouth. A perhaps little known recording of LBJ ordering a pair of pants from the Haggar clothing company is a perfect example of how the Texan was not the sort of person who was a good fit around polite company. He even belches right into the phone during the conversation.

Here is how crude LBJ was if you can stand to listen to it:

But LBJ said far worse things than that. He is infamous to hating blacks. Johnson, for instance used the N-word all the time. He even called the 1965 Civil Rights Act the “nigger bill.” He also called the Vietnamese those “hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves.”

But, The Hill newspaper recently noted a whole list of more modern presidents who used very salty language, including both Bushes, Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan.

“One of the more profane presidents in recent history was Richard Nixon,” the newspaper reported. “Nixon was caught on White House tapes using numerous vulgarities, including some offensive terms about gay people.”

Other instances include Reagan, who liked to call people SOBs, Obama, who called Mitt Romney a “bullsh***er,” George W. Bush who said some of his cabinet members “never made a fu**ing decision,” and Bill Clinton who once said on an open mic that he wasn’t going to take any “s**t” from anyone during an interview about his wife’s last, doomed run for the White House.

Vice presidents have also been known to indulge the occasional swear word. You’ll remember that Dick Cheney called a reporter an a-hole, Joe Biden was known for telling his boss that Obamacare was a “big fu**ing deal,” and FDR’s first VP, John “Cactus Jack” Garner once said that the vice presidency “wasn’t worth a warm bucket of s**t.”

So, it really is totally common for our top leaders to use profanity. One presidential historian insisted that we need to all reign in our outrageously outraged outrage.

“I have interviewed six presidents of the United States,” author Doug Wead told the paper. “I have traveled with them. I have been in their homes. They’ve been in my home on multiple occasions. I have flown on Air Force One with them and commercial jets and private jets and car caravans and Winnebagos. Went to Disney World with one. They all have used the ‘S-word.’ Even that old gentleman, Ronald Reagan, would sometimes occasionally, rarely use the ‘F-word.’ So, the White house is going to endure.”

Finally, we have to remind everyone that the meeting in which Trump supposedly uttered the “sh**hole” comment was a private meeting, not a public one. And this is also an important mitigating factor.

Hillary’s Top Operative, Huma Abedin, LIED to the FBI About Illegally Storing Secret Documents on a Personal Computer

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

When will Huma Abedin be charged with lying to the FBI and punished?

New records prove that Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, Huma Abedin, illegally stored classified emails on her sleazy husband’s computer but lied to the FBI about doing it. And she is still walking around free as you please, which itself proves how corrupt the FBI is.

The records show that Abedin backed up many of the classified emails she already wasn’t supposed to have onto a computer owned by her husband, sex pervert and disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Yet, Abedin told the FBI that she never transferred any classified emails to any unauthorized device, according to the Daily Wire.

Abedin swore to the FBI that she “lost most of her old emails” when she transitioned from the Department of State (where she served as an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) to her role as Hillary’s top campaign worker.

“She had only accessed clintonemail.com through a web portal and did not have a method for archiving her old emails prior to the transition,” according to notes taken during an FBI interview with Abedin on April 5, 2016.

Abedin compounded that statement in June 2016 by telling lawyers from a watchdog group under oath that she didn’t back up emails.

“With respect to those State Department work-related emails on the Clintonemail.com accounts, what did you do, if anything, to preserve those emails?” asked an attorney with Judicial Watch, according to a transcript of the deposition.

Abedin said she “did not do anything to preserve those emails.”

“The instances where it was Clintonemail to Clintonemail, there were instances where the content of those emails had personal matters in there, and there may have also been State Department matters in there, too. It was a – a combination. But I did not – I did not preserve those e-mails,” Abedin said.

But a review of the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s devices proves that his wife was lying to the FBI. She did transfer and store messages she wasn’t supposed to have and they were found on Weiner’s computers.

According to a report by Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch, “there are at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State Department from the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s elicit email system.”

Worse, even though Abedin was bald-faced lying to the FBI and others under oath, the FBI knew she was lying and did nothing about it.

Again, according to Judicial Watch:

“These are classified records that [Former FBI Director] James Comey and his colleagues … knew were on the Weiner laptop, but didn’t take seriously enough to pursue criminal charges against Abedin or Clinton for allowing this egregious abuse of trust that the American people placed in them,” he said.

“It wasn’t just low-level classified materials that were found in the Clinton email server,” Fitton said. “But there were highly top secret documents of the most secure type and it would have resulted in a criminal prosecution, I guarantee you, if you were anyone else but the Democratic nominee for president.”

So, why the heck are Hillary and Abedin walking around free? These are direct and indisputable violations of our national security laws, after all. People of lesser position that these have gone to jail for years and had their lives and careers ruined. But Hillary and Abedin walk around untouched. Why?

Well, it’s because we know that Obama’s tainted FBI (which is still Obama’s and still tainted and needs to be cleaned up) decided to let Hillary off the hook despite the clear knowledge that she broke the law.

Under Obama, the FBI became a tool of the political left and gave up all pretense of being about “law enforcement.”

The media pretends to love revealing political scandals. But the proof that the media only cares about political scandals when they emanate from Republicans is obvious by their silence on this story.

REPORT: Kaepernick Within DAYS of Returning to Failing NFL

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

If this anti America asshole gets back in the league it will further stiffen my resolve to never watch an  National Felon League game.

Just when the NFL looked like it may be on the verge of rectifying its horrifically marred reputation, Colin Kaepernick rears his ugly head instead.

The league itself is likely imploding, at least financially.  The sheer number of empty seats and the incredible ratings slouch won’t be going anywhere until owners and administrators throughout the league stand up to their pathetic and overpaid man-children, tell them to protest on their own time, and get back to business.  In fact, things have gotten so bad as of late that ESPN’s Thursday night football tradition may find itself going the way of the Dodo.

Now, instead of looking to bring back their former patriotic fans, they could instead be bringing back the twerp who started this entire debacle in the first place:  Perpetual benchwarmer Colin Kaepernick.

“Colin Kaepernick’s lawyer Mark Geragos claimed Tuesday that his client will be on an NFL roster within the next 10 days.

“’I think within the next 10 days somebody will sign him. I think somebody’s gonna sign him. I think the NFL has to come to their senses, and realize every day that goes by just proves the collusion case even more,’ Geragos said during an appearance on The Adam Carolla Show.

“You can listen to the whole interview here. The part about Kaepernick signing with an NFL team starts around the 40-minute mark.

“We’ll have to wait to find out if Geragos knows something the rest of us don’t, but it’ll be the biggest news of the NFL season if a team makes the decision to sign the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback.”

The absurd idea that Colin Kaepernick is at the center of some grand conspiracy to silence his political beliefs is incredibly far-fetched to say the least.  If the NFL were truly concerned about the circus that Kaepernick brings with him, then they would have amended the league rules to require players to stand of the anthem or face disciplinary or financial action.

In reality, Kaepernick had lost his step and looked sluggish in the weeks leading up to his grandstanding display of disrespect for the National Anthem.  As he faced that unfortunate career-ending trend of aging, the shrewd businessman simply adopted this “social justice” persona in order to get his name back on the tips of sportscasters’ tongues.


MSNBC Anchor Defends Trump, Explains that Obama’s DACA Order was Unconstitutional

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

How long will Craig Melvin keep his job if he continues to buck the DemocRats and PMSNBC’s Trump bashing.


I don’t think Texas Democrat Representative Ruben Gallego (D-TX) expected to have to defend his party, or President Obama, when he said yes to appearing on MSNBC earlier this afternoon.

MSNBC is supposed to be a “safe space” for Democrat politicians to bash Republicans, spew talking points, and pat themselves on the back. Sadly, for Gallego, anchor Craig Melvin was having none of it on Thursday.

Melvin took the Texas Democrat and President Obama to task over their attempts to smear President Trump as the bad guy in the DACA debate, when the truth is that President Obama’s DACA order was unconstitutional. It was a not so veiled attempt at circumventing the legislature who had already voted the DREAM Act down some 12 different times!

First, Melvin explains that lower courts have ruled that DACA was illegal and that it forced law enforcement to NOT enforce the laws.

MELVIN: Congressman, the merits of DACA notwithstanding, it essentially became a law that was never passed by the branch charged with making laws. Several lower courts have said that it was illegal. DACA was supposed to be a placeholder. So, how would keeping this program in place, which means basically not enforcing the law, how would that be an acceptable solution?

GALLEGO: Well, let’s be clear. This, DACA, and the constitutionality of DACA, has been backed up before. We have seen this happen with different TPS procedures, whether it was for Cubans or for Haitians, or for other huge communities. DACA never gave status in terms of [a] pathway to citizenship to any DACA recipients, all it did was say that they were not going to be prosecuted — something that, again has been proved by the court of law. What the president did is essentially, really, pass the buck. Again, show[ing] he has zero leadership ability. Instead of making a decision to continue this program and not create the instability that he could create, he decided to pass the buck and throw it to Congress.
Gallego is wrong right from the start, Melvin already reminded him that several courts have ruled against the constitutionality of DACA. Secondly, while DACA doesn’t give the “Dreamers” a path to citizenship, it forces our law enforcement to ignore our laws.

Finally, Gallego tries to blame this mess on Trump “passing the buck” to Congress… but Melvin is quick to remind him that this kind of thing is supposed to be what Congress does!

MELVIN: But shouldn’t it be Congress? Shouldn’t it have been Congress all along that solved this dilemma?

GALLEGO: Well sure, but let’s remember that we did try to do that, and the reason the DREAM Act came in as an executive order is because it failed back in the day, and it did not get through the Senate. So this is not something that, ideally, we wanted, but it was establish law. Another problem that we have right now is that President Trump just kicked this to Congress without any idea of what he would be willing to sign or not.

MELVIN: But Congressman, you can see that the DREAM Act failed more than a dozen times. I mean lawmakers in both chambers have taken this up more than a dozen times and it has failed every time.

GALLEGO: Yes. Again, and that is why the executive order was in place after failing so many times to make sure that people had protection from deportation.

Gallego immediately admits that Melvin is right, and that Congress did fail to pass the DREAM Act, before somehow blaming Trump again. Melvin doesn’t let up though and he reminds Gallego that it was Congress that failed to pass the DREAM Act on more than a dozen different opportunities, so this is Congress’ “failure,” not Trump’s.

Again, Gallego demurs and argues that this is why the Executive Order was “needed.”

And this is where Melvin slams the door on Gallego’s terrible argument. The MSNBC anchor explains to the Congressman that this is the whole point of the separation of powers. If Congress votes no on something, this doesn’t mean that the President gets to issue an executive order saying yes. It means that the representatives of the people have said “No.”

MELVIN: But should that be what executive orders do? Should executive orders essentially be end-runs around the Legislative Branch? If elected lawmakers have said “no,” then why should the President of the United States be able to say “yes”?

GALLEGO: Well, because it is within his constitutional duties and responsibilities if he wants to choose to do that. And at the same time, we were talking about a population of 800,000 to 1.2 million people that were facing deportation and President Obama decided to do that. Now, should Congress always act? Absolutely. We’d love to act first, but there are many instances outside of just immigration where the presidency does have power and uses that because of Congress’ inaction. But hopefully that will stop. Let’s see if Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will follow up with their words and what other senators are saying and pass a bipartisan bill to protect these DREAMers.

We’ve already established that the order is not constitutional, particularly because Congress rejected the same law 12 different times. And as Melvin explained earlier what President Obama did with DACA was simply refuse to enforce the laws that our legislature had created, not because they were illegal but because he didn’t like them.

It’s terrifying to think that a member of Congress needs to have a TV News anchor explain to him how our Constitutional government is designed, but Gallego is a leftwing Democrat, so I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised.



Three cheers for Craig Melvin for being willing to hold a Democrat politician accountable, and for being willing to be honest about Obama’s DACA order.


Leftist News Outlet Smears the Star Spangled Banner as Racist

1 Comment

H/T Constitution.com.

Everything connected to thing s that is part of America’s history according to liberals is racist.

An oft-asked question about the liberal movement to tear down American history is, “Where Does It End?” I believe we now have our answer–it doesn’t.

In fact, Salon is doing its best to use patriotic symbols of this country to dived the United States even further. While not advocating their removal from the American experience, an op-ed in Salon claims that Memorial Day and our national Anthem each have their roots in the Confederacy, which despite their denials lays the groundwork for an attempt to remove them both.

Most of the article attempts to tarnish our National Anthem.

Key’s “Star-Spangled Banner,” with its lyrics deriding black people who took up arms to gain their freedom in the War of 1812, became a point of pride for Southerners.

The Star Spangled Banner has four verses. Although I never heard anyone sing beyond the first verse on rare occasions all four verses are chanted.  With “lyrics deriding black people” the writer is referring to the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

In the supposedly offensive verse, Francis Scott Key was not glorifying slavery, he was putting down the British Soldiers who generally consisted of people in one of two groups.Hired full-time soldiers, derisively called hirelings (people who are employed to do menial tasks), and the second group was the Colonial Marines, British forces made up of freed slaves. So what Key’s words in the verse rarely sung is meant to put down America’s enemy in the war that motivated him to write the poem which became our national anthem.

Additionally, the piece makes a giant fact less leap when it says

In the 1920s, as blacks and white liberals denounced Jim Crow laws and lynchings, the campaign for “The Star-Spangled Banner” became a way to wrap the ideology of the Confederacy in the red, white and blue bunting of American patriotism.(…) The neo-Confederate spirit animating those who wanted Americans to sing Key’s song after every public event was obvious. They marched under the Confederate flag.

Contemporary newspaper reports tell the story:

On June 14, 1931, the National Society of the Daughters of 1812 and the state of Maryland sponsored a ceremony at War Memorial Plaza in Baltimore to celebrate the new national anthem. The parade was led by a column of Boy Scouts carrying three flags: the Stars and Stripes, the red and gold flag of Maryland, and the Stars and Bars of the army of the Confederate States of America.

Mike Rowe says No One Wants to Hear Political Opinions from Celebrities

1 Comment

H/T Constitution.com.

We want to be entertained by celebrities and not have they leftist views shoved down our throats. 

Oh my word.

Mike Rowe became famous as the fun and gregarious host of the Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs and it’s that same personality that still endears him to his fans.

Recently, Rowe was criticized for not using his fame and his platform to speak out on political issues, particularly for not speaking out against “anti-intellectualism” that his critic said was coming from the GOP.

Rowe responded by unmasking the “logical fallacies” that the criticism was replete with and he did so in his indomitable style, revealing that his critic’s own biases were actually driving the criticism against Rowe.

From Rowe’s Facebook Page:

Chuck Atkins says…

“One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I’m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country – promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically.”

Hi Chuck,

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine. So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof – just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

“Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo – Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!”

There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter. We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never “bad for business.” (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of “fostering anti-intellectualism.”

mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re “anti-intellectual.” We’re not even “anti-college.” We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned – that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.

Again – these are not the concerns of “anti-intellectuals.” They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you?


PS. Ok, I’ve just re-read this, (in a desperate search for typos,) and I want to apologize for pointing out that you’re a lousy speller. This is probably not the time to trot out The Grammar Nazi, but your tenor and tone pissed me off, and I responded in my own snarky way. Sorry.

PPS Maybe this is how political correctness begins? Maybe we start by correcting each other’s grammar, and then move on to the business of correcting everything else? Today a missing hyphen, tomorrow a missing monument. Or, maybe not.


You’ve got to love Mike Rowe’s common sense perspective on life.

CNN Suggests Trump Assassination In Interview With Former CIA Agent

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

Conservative Media needs to stop covering CNN as nobody watches CNN other than about 3 brain dead liberals. 

There are a number of layers to the liberal “resistance” movement aimed at President Donald Trump, and not all of them are civil.

Well before the results of the 2016 were fact, a number of Americans treated the candidacy of Donald Trump as though he were the unfortunate antagonist on a reality television show.  Trump was awarded not a solitary ounce of credibility with the mainstream media, with a great majority of the punditry brazenly laughing when his candidacy was merely mentioned.

Of course, that has changed slightly in the 7 months since Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.  There still exists a nasty and unrepentant “resistance” to the very idea that Donald Trump is our Commander in Chief, however, the vitriol has seemingly calmed a bit.  No longer are we seeing Kathy Griffin-esque displays of gratuitous violence aimed at the Oval Office…

…or so we thought.

“CNN counterterrorism analyst and former CIA agent Philip Mudd said on air ‘the government’s gonna kill’ Donald Trump because he disrespected the deep state.

“Mudd subsequently clarified that he meant the phrase metaphorically, but the comments have caused alarm amongst Trump supporters.

“’Let me give you one bottom line – as a former government official, the government’s gonna kill this guy,’ said Mudd.

“’He defends Vladimir Putin, there are State Department and CIA officers coming home and at Langley and in Foggy Bottom CIA are saying, this is how you defend us?’ Mudd added.”

Mudd’s comments are from the first to suggest that President Donald Trump could meet an untimely demise.

rump’s possible assassination has been a theme for the radical left in the last 7 months, as they continue to push the concept into the mainstream.

Donald Trump’s unconventional presidency has been plagued by extreme leftist rhetoric.  Not only has Trump been the recipient of a litany of death threats, but the businessman-turned-politician has been forced to endure an unprecedented “resistance” to his reign that has resulted in a stagnation the likes of which Washington has never seen.

GOP Donor and Attorney Suing Republicans Over Obamacare Repeal

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

These Establishment Republicans need to be defeated.

It seems as though congressional republicans’ constituents are sick and tired of their elected officials’ inability to deliver on Trump’s campaign promises.

During the grueling and lengthy election of 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump made a very clear argument to the American people regarding his priorities should he wind up taking control of the White House.  Now, after Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing loss in November, Trump stormed into the Oval Office ready to lay down the law on a number of these issues, not the least of which was his campaign promise to repeal and replace the disastrous “Affordable” Care Act, or, Obamacare, as it was unnecessarily bankrupting our nation’s middle class.

Now, as President Trump faces a ridiculous liberal “resistance” to his presidency, that has unfortunately spread deep into the republican ranks as well, the battle for Obamacare’s repeal is still ongoing…6 months into Trump’s first term.  The latest blow to the process could be a fatal one as well, with the August recess set to begin for Congress momentarily.

This abject failure concluded with a number of republicans turning tail and siding with the democrats, not the least of which was John McCain – a notoriously liberal Senator from the state of Arizona.

For one GOP donor and attorney, this latest treachery from the party to which he donated was the last straw.

“A retired attorney in Virginia Beach is so incensed that Republicans couldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act he’s suing to get political donations back, accusing the GOP of fraud and racketeering.

“Bob Heghmann, 70, filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court saying the national and Virginia Republican parties and some GOP leaders raised millions of dollars in campaign funds while knowing they weren’t going to be able to overturn the ACA, also known as Obamacare.

” The GOP ‘has been engaged in a pattern of Racketeering which involves massive fraud perpetrated on Republican voters and contributors as well as some Independents and Democrats,’ the suit said. Racketeering, perhaps better known for use in prosecuting organized crime, involves a pattern of illegal behavior by a specific group.

“The lawsuit lists as defendants the Republican National Committe and Virginia’s two national GOP committee members, Morton Blackwell and Cynthia Dunbar, as well as the Republican Party of Virginia and state party Chairman John Whitbeck. “

Heghmann isn’t alone in his disappointment either.

Oregon Passes Bill that will Force Taxpayers to Fund EVERY Abortion in the State


H/T Constitution.com.

This is a sad day for Christian taxpayers in Oregon.

The most extreme abortion funding law in the nation to force taxpayers to pay against their will for other people’s late-term and sex-selective abortions.”

— Oregon state Senate Republican Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli

So much for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and the right to life. Oregon already had abortion on demand, now they’ve turned a terrifying new corner and soon they’ll be the Dr. Josef Mengele of American states.

This week the Oregon legislature passed a bill, without the support of a single Republican legislator, that will FORCE every citizen of their state to play a role in the murder of thousands of children. To make matters worse, the state’s Democrats are cheering their embrace of fascism and genocide.

The Democrat bill will now require that every single health insurance plan sold in their state fully cover abortion on demand. Abortion on demand means at any point in the pregnancy, for any reason the parent chooses including sex-selective abortion, or abortion at 39 weeks. It’s a truly horrifying bill and I cannot denounce it any more strongly than the words I used above. Oregon has truly become the new home to the Nazi eugenicists utopia.

To help cover the costs the state will set aside $10 Million in taxpayer dollars to fund the abortions, and this includes a large pool of cash from which illegal immigrants can fund their abortions as well. If Oregon has $10 Million to set aside for abortions, wouldn’t that money be better spent paying for medical care for the poor? This statute is truly insane and it unmasks the hypocrisy and evil that is at the core of the Leftist eugenics fantasies. Each year, leftists waste MILLIONS (perhaps Billions) in their efforts to murder as many unplanned babies as they can, when if they would just use that money to fund low-income healthcare… we wouldn’t need socialized medicine! But who cares about logic, leftists just want the right to murder babies.

From ABC News:

In some states such as New York, abortions are cost-free if they’re deemed medically necessary. The Oregon bill is unique, however, in that patients would have access to the procedure for virtually any reason, at any time, including sex-selective and late-term abortions.

The bill would also allocate almost $500,000 over the next two years to expand cost-free reproductive health coverage, including abortions, to immigrants who are otherwise ineligible under the Oregon Health Plan — the state’s Medicaid program that currently spends nearly $2 million a year to pay for roughly 3,500 abortions statewide.

State Rep. Bill Post (R) argues that the law is unnecessary and burdensome because Oregon already pays for most abortions performed in the state. “This is already being done in Oregon…The total number of [abortion] procedures is now as of 2014 47,000…. Total cost [is] just over $22 million dollars.”

Post has been an outspoken opponent of the bill and he had hoped they would triumph, but they failed. Earlier this week he gave a tearful speech apologizing for the GOP’s failure, and begging the state’s conservatives to become more active.

Oregon Right to Life Director Gayle Atteberry was heartbroken at the legislatures decision, “This bill is wrong on so many levels. Fundamentally, HB 3391 is morally reprehensible because it will take the lives of even more innocent Oregonians.  Sadly, even the barbaric practice of late-term abortion will increase as abortion is legal in Oregon through all 9 months.  This is not to mention that many Oregonians are opposed to the use of their tax dollars to fund abortion.”

All that is left is for the state’s liberal Governor, Kate Brown (D-OR), to sign the bill into law and every Oregonian will then have their hands stained in the blood of their children.

If you’re hoping that Brown will vote against the bill, don’t hold your breath because she’s already been seen cheering it on.

Yes! Yes! Yes! “Oregon Legislature Approves Reproductive Services Bill Covering Abortions, Contraceptives” http://ow.ly/Vn0m30dpJpK 

Photo published for Oregon Legislature Approves Reproductive Services Bill

Oregon Legislature Approves Reproductive Services Bill

Insurance companies in Oregon would be required to cover abortions and a variety of other reproductive services at no cost to the patient under a bill approved by the state Legislature.


Lila Rose, the President and Founder of Live Action Network, found the bill and Brown’s display of glee disgusting.

Guy Benson of Townhall.com ripped the bill, and the abortion supporters who defend, it to shreds. Benson also points out that the media has been silent as this radical bill has been pushed through the Oregon legislature, which is odd, considering how vocal the media gets when conservative bills move through their state Houses.

It’s difficult to imagine anything more extreme, aside from compulsory abortions.  It’s horrifying.  Every single Oregon Senate Democrat voted in favor of this monstrosity, with every Republican opposed.  The House vote was also almost exclusively along party lines.  Governor Brown giddily vowed to sign the legislation, calling opposition to tax-funded late-term abortion “an attack on all Oregonians.”  Orwellian.

Oregon has passed a truly radical new abortion law. It’s a monstrosity and an affront to human rights.https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/07/12/abortion-radicalism-in-oregon-n2353017 

Photo published for Appalling Abortion Radicalism in Oregon

Appalling Abortion Radicalism in Oregon

Crickets From the Media.


We live in troubled times, and while so much good is happening around us, Oregon exists to remind us that there is real evil in this world. Real evil that is not just “out there” with groups like ISIS, and Al Qaeda, but it’s here at home too with agencies like Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Party of Oregon.

I don’t use the word evil lightly, folks. I don’t think it should be used for political disagreements like tax increases, and healthcare bills… but when we see a group of people so hell bent on murdering innocent children, we have to call it like it is. Abortion is evil, and the legislators who voted for this abomination are evil as well.

An Inconvenient Truth about Democrats and Racial Hypocrisy

Leave a comment

H/T Constitution.com.

The snowflakes will never accept this inconvenient truth.

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

The brilliant Vanderbilt professor, Carol Swain,  was the most recent host for Prager University’s educational videos.

The subject she took on was the inconvenient history of the Democrat party and its uncomfortable relationship with racism and racially motivated politics.

While the Democrats like to pretend that they’ve long been the defenders of ethnic and religious minorities, this is simply a fairy tale that they’ve concocted in recent years. The truth is that the Republican Party has always been the party to put minority rights before majority interests. Always. Whether on slavery, civil rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. The GOP has always been the true home for defenders of minority protections.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, Dr. Swain runs through a concise and compelling history of American politics to prove that the Democrats are hypocrites and the GOP are the true defenders of minority rights.

Transcript from Prager University:

When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The Republicans? Or, the Democrats?

Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect.  

Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans.

The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander-in-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who freed the slaves.

Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order.

Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support.

During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote.

And how was all of this enforced? By terror — much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

As historian Eric Foner – himself a Democrat – notes:

“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House – the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.”

A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats.

Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.”

So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing.

Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools.  Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind?

I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: