Thursday, January 7, 2016

Revolt of the Politically Incorrect

The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 6 2016 | DANIEL HENNINGER 

On Dec. 7, Donald Trump issued his call for a ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S.—“until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” It’s hard to recall a statement by a public figure that was met, instantly, with almost universal condemnation, including from most of the Republican presidential candidates.
Between that day and the end of 2015, Donald Trump’s support in the national opinion polls went up to nearly 37%, a substantial number by any measure.
Welcome to the revolt of the politically incorrect.
Forget the controversy over Donald Trump’s Muslim ban. This unique political campaign is about more than that. Donald Trump and indeed Ben Carson popped the valves on pressure that’s been building in the U.S., piece by politically correct piece, for 25 years.
Since at least the early 1990s, a lot of the public has been intimidated into keeping its mouth shut and head down about subjects in the political and social life of the country that the elites stipulated as beyond discussion or dispute. Eventually, the most important social skill in America became adeptness at euphemism. It isn’t an abortion; it’s a “terminated pregnancy.”
The election’s two big issues remain: a weak economy and global chaos. But for many voters, the revolt against political correctness is on. Hillary Clinton, hostage to a PC-obsessed base, must mouth politically correct pabulum. Donald Trump joy-rides the wave. An opening remains for an electable candidate who can point this revolt toward what it wants—a political win, at last.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...

Watch Ted Cruz Take on a DREAMer in Iowa (Video)

RedState ^ | 1/8/16 | L. Wolfe 

Yesterday the DNC sent a plant to a Ted Cruz campaign event in Storm Lake, Iowa. The woman, Ofelia Valdez, is an illegal immigrant who is here under Obama's DACA program. She asked, in a quavering voice, what was clearly intended to be a gotcha question of Cruz that was designed to make him look bad. I think Cruz knocked his response out of the park:...
A couple of points about this particular story. First, this woman's video was uploaded to the DNCC's YouTube channel, which you can see if you open the video in YouTube itself. This story was actually covered, based on this clip, by allegedly objective news outlets. When is the last time you saw an allegedly neutral news story framed around an oppo clip put out by the GOP?
Second, this is more evidence that the people who are wringing their hands over Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien confronting Hillary at a campaign event need to shut their yaps. The Democrats have a relentless operation that is designed to plug these people into every campaign stop every major GOP candidate makes. They always keep video with them and their goal is to get a Republican on the news saying something damaging, and they will resort to whatever it takes to get it.
The only reason Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien had to be "rude" to get Hillary Clinton's attention is that Hillary never places herself within shouting distance of actual people in a non controlled environment, nor does she almost ever take questions from random audience members like Cruz does. She should not be given a pass on answering tough questions just because she can use the secret service to keep questioners at a literal physical distance from her.
In the end, Cruz handled this scenario as well as he possibly could have. Even as a guy who is a squish on immigration, it rankles me when people who are here illegally basically demand to not be prosecuted for breaking the law. There's no other equivalent kind of lawbreaking where the criminals have an actual political party who is willing to assist them in saying they ought to not be prosecuted for their crimes. I know the DNCC thinks this clip will be damaging to Cruz by virtue of the fact that they are shopping it to the media, but I think it will be more damaging to them instead.

New Black Panthers with Guns, Lots of Them!

PJ Media ^ | January 6, 2016 | J. Christian Adams 


I remember the good old days when President Obama and his Justice Department weren't so worried about nasty racists and felons having guns. I remember when President Obama and his Justice Department refused to do anything about New Black Panthers with guns, even New Black Panthers with criminal records possessing firearms and others threatening to kill cops.
This week President Obama announced legally dubious plans to force private citizens to behave as if they were federal gun dealers and threatened to place the names of certain Americans on a list to prevent them from obtaining firearms. He sought to expand background checks to gun transactions that Congress has long exempted from federal interference.
President Obama claimed he was very concerned about the wrong people having guns.
He wasn't always so concerned about the wrong people having guns.
Over four years ago, I wrote a piece headlined " Eric Holder's Continuing Favors to Criminal New Black Panthers ."
Shabazz (L) and Jackson (R) 
Shabazz (L) and Jackson (R)
Jerry Jackson was the New Black Panther who famously stalked a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 swinging a billy club. The Panthers were deployed to help the president get elected by impairing access to individuals, including Republican pollwatchers there to document election illegalities. As I noted in 2011, the racist New Black Panther Jerry Jackson was also a Democrat Party elected official:
Jackson has a long violent criminal history. He is also a Democratic Party elected official in Philadelphia, not that those two facts have anything in common, of course. He was elected in May 2010 to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee in the 14th Ward. ...It is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)) for any felon to possess a firearm. As one federal prosecutor told me, "these cases are among the simplest to win. It's like taking candy from a baby. Did a felon hold a gun, or not? Period." It matters not if the gun was loaded, or even works."
So, is the Democrat New Black Panther Jerry Jackson indeed a felon? From my Breitbart piece:
According to this criminal complaint, in 1978, Jackson "with another black man did stab and rob comp[lainant] on the highway 4024 W. Girard Ave. . . Charged:" robbery, theft, possession of an instrument of a crime, probation offense with a weapon , criminal conspiracy, simple assault and aggravated assault. On January 10, 1979, Jackson was sentenced for robbery and criminal conspiracy convictions, both first degree felonies under Pennsylvania law.Mike Roman has reported at Election Journal that Jackson has also been arrested and served time for dealing drugs.
What about King Samir Shabazz, the other New Black Panther posing with firearms?
Here's his record:
Jackson's election day partner, King Samir Shabazz also has a long arrest record including possession of an instrument of a crime (guilty), simple assault (guilty), aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, burglary, another aggravated assault, criminal trespass, theft, terroristic threats, another simple assault, reckless endangerment, resisting arrest, harassment, disorderly conduct, trademark counterfeiting (guilty), and unauthorized transmission of a sound recording (guilty).
Another New Black Panther posing in the above photo and kneeling with a shotgun is "Field Marshal" Najee Muhammad. As I wrote in my bookInjustice:
One of them was Panther "Field Marshal" Najee Muhammad, who is seen in a Panther video called "Training Day" in which he encourages blacks in DeKalb County, Georgia, to don ski masks, lie in wait behind shrubs, and kill police officers with AK-47s. Following that exhortation he mocks the hypothetical victims' grieving widows.
These gangsters with guns seem like the sort of people the president and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be concerned about if you are to believe that they really care about the wrong people having guns.
Of course President Obama really is concerned about the wrong people having guns -- his definition of wrong. Contrary to the Rule of Law, "wrong" is a function of who you are to this president, not what you do . Otherwise, President Obama's Justice Department would have long ago held these gangsters accountable for their brazen disregard of the law.
Jackson 
Jackson

Greenfield: America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem!

The Sultan Knish blog ^ | Monday, January 04, 2016 | Daniel Greenfield 

America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.

Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind

American Thinker ^ | 6 Jan, 2016 | Lauri B. Regan 

In his masterpiece, Common Sense, Thomas Paine observed:

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions."

Paine may have been discussing the British monarch circa 1776, but his insight is equally applicable to Obama and Co., who reign like kings while exhibiting ignorance and incompetence. This is particularly surprising, given that many liberal policymakers, including Obama, are highly educated, and therefore presumably adept at critical thinking and analysis. But after seven years of Obama leading the Democratic Party in insane notions of transforming the country, it is clear that rational thought and common sense are skill sets greatly lacking among liberal elites.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Breaking: Hillary Likely to be Indicted in Next 60 Days, Says Federal Prosecutor!

Right Wing News ^ | 1/6/2016 | staff 

Hillary could be indicted in 60 days...music to many American's ears, BUT is it too good to be true? According to, Joe DiGenova a former federal prosecutor, it quite possible!

A Republican former U.S. attorney believes Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton could be facing imminent indictment over her email scandal, possibly roiling the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary in February.
Joe DiGenova, a one-time federal prosecutor originally appointed by President Reagan, told conservative radio host
Laura Ingraham Tuesday that the FBI's still-pending investigation of Clinton's email server seems to have reached ‘a critical mass.'
Congressional Republicans last spring discovered that Clinton used a private, home-based email server in her New York home while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. The scandal has dogged her presidential campaign for almost the entire past year.
The FBI has been probing whether any classified intelligence was compromised through Clinton's unusual email setup, but she has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and has yet to be charged with any crime. DiGenova said that may be about to change.
'They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff," DiGenova said Tuesday on Ingraham's show. 'And, it's going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.'
FBI Director James Comey has resisted efforts to lay out a timeline for his agency's probe of the Clinton case, but if it is as imminent as DiGenova believes, it could devastate Clinton's campaign. The Iowa caucuses are on Feb. 1 and the New Hampshire primary is on Feb. 9.
'It's going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they're not going to be able to walk away from it,' DiGenova said.
'They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that's just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives.'
One telling event would be a personal interview between Clinton and the FBI. Although the former secretary of state famously testified at an 11-hour congressional hearing in October, she has not yet been interviewed by federal agents.
A recommendation for prosecution would not only roil the presidential race, but would put President Barack Obama in an unbelievably difficult position. Decisions about prosecution, DiGenova noted, do not lie with the FBI but with the Justice Department - headed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
'I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable,' he said.
'The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information,' DiGenova continued.
'The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.'
Although she is as dishonest as she is incompetent...and despite the FBI director being a straight shooter, it is Obamas Justice department who would have to prosecute...that will be deciding factor, one would think.

Ted Cruz: Democratic Process Will Reveal Truth About Bill Clinton’s History With Women

Breitbart ^ | 01/05/2016 | Breitbart 

"Cruz told Breitbart News that he doesn’t want to launch personal attacks against Hillary and Bill Clinton’s history with women during Mr. Clinton’s time in office from 1993 to 2001, but does believe that the democratic process will reveal the truth about their history."
This is exactly why Trump is better than Cruz. At the end of the day Cruz is a politician supported by Super Pacs and large donors. He plays from the same playbook as other politicians and doesn't get it. Meanwhile, Trump takes on the Clintons for the slime they are and throws them off their game so bad that Bill Clinton is left speechless and Hillary says she won't talk about him anymore. If Republicans want to WIN against the Clintons, Trump is the only chance. Cruz will act the same way McCain did about Jeremiah Wright when running against Obama. Stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks. I guess in a perfect world that would be great, but truth is if Trump had been up against Obama he would've hit the Jeremiah Wright stuff hard. From getting Obama to show his birth certificate, leaving Bill Clinton speechless, and wiping out the Jeb Bush campaign with two words "Low Energy" does anyone need anymore proof that Trump is the GOP's last best chance?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Hooters Girls Worth More Than Feminists!

A friend had posted this picture on the Facebook and while I originally had a good guffaw over it, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there is A LOT more going on that what first meets the eye.



1.  The Hooter's girl is employed.  That means she's working and contributing to society.  You may scoff at her profession or that she just got her job because of looks, but ask yourself this question.  What in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick is the feminist doing for work?  Protesting???  Holding signs???  Mock the Hooters girl all you want she is getting people to WILLINGLY hire her, not force taxpayers at the end of a gun to fork over grant money to create a never-needed make-work "job" for the vast majority of feminists.

2.  Their looks.  I've said it before and I'll say it again because it is VERY telling and insightful about leftists, but leftists tend to be uglier than righter leaning folk because staying in physical shape takes EFFORT.  And that is the whole principle leftists are against.  They are AGAINST hard work and effort.  Ergo, the CONSTANT rationalization of how they are entitled to other people's money.  Of course, unlike money looks cannot be transferred or redistributed, and thus the feminist is trying to "shame" people for liking girls prettier than she is.

3.  The free market never lies.  Sadly, ladies, whether you like it or not, the most valuable thing you have is your looks and youth.  This is because HALF the WORLD'S POPULATION (we call them "men") demand sex with pretty girls.  Doesn't mean they're going to get it, but it is the SINGLE MOST UNIVERSALLY DEMANDED COMMODITY IN THE WORLD.  More than oil.  More than gold.  Always has been. Always will be.

The question is are you smart enough to capitalize on it?

This is why I have absolutely no qualms with prostitution, strippers, or simply women who keep themselves in shape demanding high-earning husbands.  It is also why I have quite a bit of respect for the likes of Chloe Luv,Mercedes Carerra, Jenna Jameson, and other women who work in the sex/porn industries.  It's not that they're hotties working in porn, but are serious entrepreneurs themselves knowingly capitalizing on this market.

The real issue is who is selfless and who is selfish in the picture above?  For that is the key lesson to learn about how to be financially successful.  You don't do what YOU want, you do what OTHER people want.  You deliver what they demand, not the other way around.

Ironically (though, perhaps not), the "dumb blond bimbo" knows more about economics and financial success than the doctorate in Women's Studies holding the sign.

Justice Department Plans Attorney Hiring Spree To Keep Pace With Obama’s Pardon Push

The Daily Caller ^ | January 6, 2016 | Chuck Ross 

The Justice Department will drastically increase the number of attorneys it has on staff to deal with what is expected to be a massive push by President Obama to grant clemency to federal prisoners before the end of his term.
The Office of the Pardon Attorney, which handles the federal government's clemency cases, posted a job listing for 16 attorney advisors on the Justice Department's website on Tuesday.
The number of expected hires is more than double the agency's staffing level as of May 2013. Then, seven permanent attorneys -- the pardon attorney, a deputy and five staff attorneys -- were on staff.
But that was before Obama's Justice Department announced a clemency initiative to encourage federal prisoners to petition to have their sentences reduced or vacated.
The initiative, announced in April 2014, applies to federal prisoners who have served at least 10 years of their prison sentence for non-violent crimes. Successful applicants must not have "significant ties" to criminal organizations, gangs, or cartels. They also must have neither a significant criminal history nor a history of violence prior to or during their prison sentence.
The call for more applications had an immediate impact.
Whereas 5,488 clemency applications were filed during the Clinton presidency and 8,574 were filed during the George W. Bush presidency, 18,924 federal prisoners have applied for commutations or pardons during Obama's tenure. In 2014 alone, 6,561 applications were filed.
So far, Obama has commuted -- or reduced -- sentences for 184 prisoners. Bush commuted just 11 sentences while Clinton did so for 61 prisoners. Obama has, however, lagged behind his predecessors in terms of pardons. He has pardoned 66 prisoners so far while Bush and Clinton pardoned 189 and 396 prisoners, respectively. Pardons, which are typically granted after prisoners have completed their sentences, restore lost rights, such as voting and gun ownership rights.

But as the Justice Department's hiring spree suggests -- and as Obama himself has indicated -- more clemency announcements should be expected before Jan. 20, 2017, when the next president takes office.
When the clemency initiative was first announced, senior Obama administration officials said that "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of federal prisoners would be granted relief.
And in a Huffington Post interview last year, Obama promised to "aggressively" exercise his pardon power.
"I think what you'll see is not only me exercising that pardon power and clemency power more aggressively for people who meet the criteria -- nonviolent crimes, have served already a long period of time, have shown that they're rehabilitated," Obama said.
He also claimed during that interview that he had been approved relatively few clemency applications during his first term in office because of ineffective leadership at the Office of the Pardon Attorney. He said that the cases he received for review "didn't address the broader issues that we face, particularly around nonviolent drug offenses."
"So we've revamped now the DOJ office. We're now getting much more representative applicants," Obama stated.
But not everyone is on board with the clemency push.
As one GOP Hill aide told The Daily Caller: "The president's clemency agenda is already well underway, but this suggests he's far from finished."
"Frightening," the aide added.
Others, such as Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte , the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have said that Obama's initiative is unconstitutional.
"This is not, as the Founders intended, an exercise of the power to provide for 'exceptions in favour of unfortunate guilt,' but instead the use of the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders who were duly convicted in a court of law - not to mention a blatant usurpation of the lawmaking authority of the Legislative branch," Goodlatte wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in July.
The Office of the Pardon Attorney did not respond to TheDC's request for comment and additional staffing statistics.

ID

Illinois; Minnesota; Missouri; New Mexico and Washington have been deemed completely uncompliant, with no review pending

Moving

hillary-cruz-leavenworth.jpg

Blah, Blah, Blah

X89LjTI.jpg

Anti-gun!

uFjwPAz.jpg

It's not rape!

NPZAWBd.jpg

GREED!

bernie.jpg

WHY?

YwVaTpC.jpg

Cursive

He-Dont-Read-Cursive.jpg