Saturday, September 16, 2017

Montana Snow About 60 Days Early

iceagenow.info ^ | 9/15/2017 | Robert 

I live south of Missoula, Montana, in the Sapphire & Bitterroot Mountains at 3,500 ft; in the area being discussed, and we haven’t been getting snow like this for several years. Our hunting seasons have been without snow quite regularly and last year we didn’t get ANY snow until the last few days of the season in late November. However the winter snow sticks around here until early August at higher altitude (6,000 ft+).
So, it’s about 60 days early, and with this the bow hunters might stop complaining about terrible tracking conditions without SNOW. Animals leave tell-tale tracks in the snow to follow their movements.
The real change has been the temperature and seasonal shift. What used to take several weeks to change from blistering hot to a cooler fall season has turned into an OVERNIGHT event. Even with hot days (80s & 90s), the nights are dropping into the mid to low forties. This summer has been like the Sahara and then overnight NOW it’s cold-drizzly-wet old London, and then our next day is followed by northern Norway. We could turn around of course and go back to the Sahara for a couple of weeks, but if the snow sticks and keeps advancing down the mountainsides then the shift to winter will have deleted our having any FALL season.
Sometimes we get an Indian Summer; a reprieve with sun & heat in early November, but they have become all but scarce events.
It’s very early to get this kind of snow, however (trying to be positive) we do need it to possibly dampen and put out some of the high-mountain fires that have been allowed to go unchecked. Global warming nonsense is only a political expedient …try living here in the cold reality.
(Excerpt) Read more at iceagenow.info ...

Mueller Hires 17th Left-Wing Lawyer to Probe Trump – Latest Hack is an Obama/Hillary Donor

thegatewaypundit ^ | Cristina Laila 

This is the 17th radical leftist lawyer to join Mueller’s team.

SHUT IT DOWN!

Special Counsel Robert Mueller just hired another Obama-Hillary crony to investigate President Trump.
Since they are unable to find any evidence of ‘Russian collusion’, they just keep adding liberal activist lawyers to spy on a Republican administration while collecting a paycheck on the back of taxpayers.
According to Politico, Kyle Freeny (a female) just joined the pack of wolves on Mueller’s team investigating Trump for a crime that has yet to be named as the Stalin-like hunt continues.
Freeny specializes in money laundering and was present on Friday as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort testified in front of a grand jury at federal court in Washington.
Politico reported that prior to joining Mueller’s witch hunt, Freeny was working at the Justice Department on a case to seize profits from the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” financed with assets looted from the Malaysian government.
According to the Daily Caller, Freeny is a Democrat donor. She has donated money in the last 3 elections to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
According to documents maintained by the Federal Election Commission, Freeny has donated in each of the past three presidential elections to Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
She donated $250 on three separate occasions, on Sept. 13, 2008, June 30, 2012 and Sept. 9, 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

Breaking: Non-Citizen Voting Reversed in College Park

Townhall.com ^ | September 16, 2017 | Larry Provost 


On Friday night, the City of College Park, Maryland reversed its city council decision that allowed non-citizens of the U.S., including illegal aliens, the right to vote. This was due to council conveniently forgetting that such massive changes to the College Park City Charter require the vote of a supermajority on council as opposed to a simple majority. Ironically, the law that mandated a supermajority to pass changes to the city charter was enacted just this summer while the proposal to allow illegals and other non-citizens to vote, and was passed 4-3, was voted on only a few months later on September 12, 2017.
As the College Park City Council cannot be trusted to follow its own laws, it is inevitable that certain College Park council members will try to resurrect this issue in line with their lawless, progressive agenda.
As a resident of College Park, the father of an immigrant, a Christian who believes Jesus died for all people, and having served to protect foreign peoples with different backgrounds and religions, I can safely tell you that allowing non-citizens to vote was, and remains, ludicrous.
First, this proposal diluted the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship, with its rights, privileges, and responsibilities is a high calling. Citizenship, for those not born as Americans but wishing to become Americans, means swearing an oath and being willing to bear arms on behalf of the United States while forsaking all foreign allegiances (exceptions to having to take the oath are made for young children for whom, it is expected, their parents will teach them the meaning of citizenship).
My son of 15 years of age recently had to swear this oath. It is not too much ask of people to not only be a certain age to vote, but also to be citizens who are willing to forego all foreign allegiances and being willing to defend this great nation.
How ironic that those who are currently decrying foreign involvement in our elections are the same individuals saying non-citizens should have the vote.
Second, if all the privileges and powers of citizenship are given to non-citizens, then what incentive is there to become a citizen?
Immigrants and non-citizens are not inherently bad people. Most of our country traces its lineage to immigrants. My family just expanded considerably because of an immigrant. However, the proposal is a citizenship issue, not an immigration issue. Amazingly, while my son was waiting for his citizenship and residing in the U.S., illegal aliens had more rights to benefits than he did.
The leftists pushing this agenda are trying to have it both ways. They talk of inclusiveness but say that those who spoke against the proposed amendment are “racists” and “white supremacists.” The leftists recently succeeded in declaring College Park a sanctuary city in keeping with the national movement. Yet proponents of the proposal say letting non-citizens vote should be a non-issue because voting in local elections only means the gathering of trash.
Really, that’s what leftists think the power to make decisions over people’s lives amount to? Gathering trash? If that’s the case, is the trash really that bad in College Park? If so, perhaps what is really needed is taking out the trash, starting with a new City Council.
The local progressives can’t have it both ways and the truth is they are trying to make a national political statement.
The very definition of progressivism is just that; progressive to where there is no stopping point and that standards are continually lowered politically, economically, and spiritually in the name of creating a bigger political tent and base. This is the leftist mantra. They will never tell us when they are done with their incremental proposals to change our communities and ultimately our nation.
One other thing. If the College Park City Council persists in wanting to let non-citizens vote than perhaps council should divest itself of their power and allow non-members of council to make the decisions of College Park instead of council. That would at least be consistent, for council’s recent amnesia regarding their own voting laws shows they are not fit to govern and vote on behalf of others.

9 Reasons It’s So Hard to Find a Good Man

Bolde.com ^ | Amanda Chatel 

If we get straight to the point and skip the BS that’s only used to soften the blow of painful facts, we can admit it’s hard to find a good man. Even if we take our standards, expectations, and delusional hopes off the table and really look at the situation for what it is, we can clearly see that we are not to blame for the lack of good men. No, we have society who can take the blame for this one.
Unfortunately, our culture has evolved in a way that has made finding a good man tough ― and they certainly don’t make them like they used to. So, why is it so damn hard to find an awesome guy who’s going to treat you right and not bail the first time temptation comes his way? Here are nine reasons.
1. Hookup culture has taken over. Although I would never knock hooking up, it has replaced dating and even relationships. Men don’t want to be with one woman only, if they have an entire buffet at their disposal.
2. People have too many options. While it’s good to have options, it can be bad when there are too many options. At any given moment a guy can sit down at a dating app and immediately have endless options of women from which to choose. Because of that, it’s hard for them to give one woman a shot for more than a hot minute.
3. Lots of guys are holding out for something “better.” It’s a sad thought, but in a world with so many options, people can become immersed in the idea that something better might be just around the corner. Because that’s the case, it’s hard to find a man who wants to commit when they’re thinking that the next woman they meet could be perfect ― whatever perfect is.
4. Marriage is becoming obsolete. Once upon a time, people couldn’t wait to get married. Although it was likely due to the fact that they would finally be able to have sex, the reality is that these days people are in no rush to get married, so therefore, they’re in no rush to get into a relationship or settle down. And if a guy’s friends aren’t married, he sure as hell won’t be the first one to do it.
5. Some men are intimidated by power. In comparison to the past few decades, women are more independent than ever. This success and power, for some reason, can be intimidating for some men who, perhaps, realize that they’ll never be the “man” his female partner is.
6. Technology has created distance. How can anyone possibly find a good man or anyone at all when we live in a world where technology rules and our most intimate relationships are with our iPhones? We can’t.
7. The “man-child” is a legitimate problem. A man-child is a just modern day term for a man who suffers from Peter Pan Syndrome: He does not want to grow up. If he grows up, he’d have to become responsible, get his act together, and even maybe find a girl and fall in love. Too many men just don’t want to do that.
8. Everyone has their baggage. No one is immune to having a rocky past, and sometimes that past can interfere with how that person moves forward ― if they move forward at all. Messy baggage can keep even the great guys in hiding for a long time.
9. Being phobic of commitment is accepted. We live in a world where being scared of commitment has simply become the norm. If a man doesn’t want to commit, people are rarely surprised. Since that’s the case, they’ll just keep on skipping out on commitment and sticking to hookup culture, because it’s so accepted.

Hillary Clinton: White women voted against me because the men in their lives told them to!

The Washington Examiner ^ | September 15, 2017 | Becket Adams 

Hillary Clinton has expanded on her earlier claim that sexism helped torpedo her 2016 campaign, stating more specifically this week that white women were scared off by their husbands, brothers, boyfriends and male employers.
"When women are serving on behalf of someone else, as I was when I was Secretary of State, for example, they are seen favorably," the twice-failed presidential candidate said this week in an interview with NPR.
She added, "But when they step into the arena and say, 'Wait a minute, I think I could do the job, I would like to have that opportunity,' their favorabilities goes down."
Clinton continued her conversation with NPR, recalling a recent conversation she said she had with Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, who told the former secretary of state that a woman's unpopularity is directly proportional to her success.
"Sheryl ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure – and I'm talking principally about white women – they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for 'the girl,'" Clinton said.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Democrats cling to the impossible: Winning the Senate in 2018

The Politico ^ | September 15, 2017 | Kevin Robillard and Gabriel Debenedetti 

Senate Democrats are three seats shy of a majority and almost entirely on defense in the 2018 elections, making it all but impossible for them to retake the chamber next year.
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen are privately refusing to rule out an improbable midterm victory, even though they must first defend 10 incumbents in states President Donald Trump won. Their insistence is primarily to keep donors invested and excited about next year’s Senate races, said a handful of top party operatives. But Democrats also want to be prepared to ride a massive wave next fall should one develop, potentially taking advantage of bloody Republican primaries to spur a red-state surprise and swing the Senate.
“Our priority is to make sure that we win all our incumbent races,” Van Hollen said in an August interview. Then, “we have great pickup opportunities in Nevada and Arizona,” he continued. “And we have good candidates in other states, and we’re going to have more. We’re going to work to maximize our opportunities.”
Democrats’ path to 51 Senate seats in 2018 is exceedingly narrow. They would have to defend all of their Trump-state incumbents, including five in states the president won by double-digits. They would have to successfully pick off Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona, the only two battleground-state Republicans up for reelection next year — though Flake in particular looks more vulnerable than expected after conflict with Trump this year. Then, Democrats would have to pull off a major upset in a state like Alabama, Texas or Tennessee, victories that would make their 2012 wins in states like Indiana, Montana and North Dakota look easy.
Yet the party is investigating potential candidates in those states and preparing to aid them if the right circumstances arise. And already, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is plotting primary challenges against incumbents, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker is mulling retirement and picked up a potential primary challenger on Thursday, and Republicans are fighting a bitter and expensive primary in Alabama’s special Senate election.
This wouldn’t be the first time Democrats prepped for a wave that never came. In 2016, they got top-tier recruits in Arkansas and Kentucky in former U.S. Attorney Conner Eldridge and Lexington Mayor Jim Gray. Both men lost by double-digits, despite outrunning Hillary Clinton.
Republicans, for their part, don’t find Schumer’s plotting plausible.
“Chuck Schumer has said for years that Democrats will win the Senate, and that claim is no longer funny, but just plain sad,” said Katie Martin, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “There are 25 Democrats up for reelect, with 10 of those in states President Trump won. Either Schumer has trouble with math or he has trouble living in reality.”
The most immediate opportunity for Democrats may come in Alabama. Some Republican operatives privately fear former Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore could lose the general election if he defeats incumbent GOP Sen. Luther Strange in the primary. Democrats are wary of turning a race in such a tough state into a national referendum, and they worry that it might be impossible to boost former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones over the hump. But the opportunity to boost Jones, a civil rights attorney who won fame prosecuting members of the KKK, against the ultraconservative Moore may be too tempting to pass up.
National Democrats still have no immediate plans to get involved in Alabama, and the candidate says he’s ready to run either way.
“It doesn't really matter whether I've got help or not,” Jones said in an interview. “I'm running as a Democrat. The other side is going to try to tag me however they're going to tag me.”
The next opportunity comes in Texas, where Rep. Beto O'Rourke has already announced a challenge to incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz. Democrats are pleasantly surprised by O’Rourke’s strong online fundraising, and he has impressed national operatives with constant campaigning throughout the state.
Still, O’Rourke’s refusal to accept PAC money frustrates strategists who think he’ll need every penny possible to compete in an ultraexpensive state. Democratic outside groups have recently shied away from spending heavily in big states, with the DSCC and Senate Majority PAC pulling out of Florida last fall.
But Van Hollen said the committee would be ready to back up O’Rourke if he can make the race competitive.
“If Texas becomes clearly competitive, we’ll be able to find the resources,” he said.
But the state Democrats are most openly excited about is Tennessee. In conversations with other senators — in which he refuses to rule out winning back the Senate — Schumer often brings up Corker’s seat, which Senate operatives regard as the white whale of 2018.
As DSCC chair in 2006, Schumer saw Corker win his seat by just 3 points. Fellow senators and campaign pros have taken to wondering whether former Gov. Phil Bredesen might be interested in running. (The 73-year-old has shown no intention of jumping in.)
Even if Bredesen stays out, Democrats seem content with an announced candidate against Corker: James Mackler, a 44-year-old lawyer who joined the military after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, flew Black Hawk helicopters and fought in the Iraq War, and then joined the JAG Corps and prosecuted sexual assault cases. Mackler made the rounds at the DSCC donor retreat in Martha's Vineyard, making a favorable impression on donors and lending his candidacy extra legitimacy, some said.
In an interview, Mackler said he thought Tennesseans and national Democrats both were ready to get behind a candidate with his “proven track record of service and sacrifice.” Mackler attacked Corker as overly partisan, and said the Tennessean’s criticisms of Trump weren’t backed up by actions.
“He’ll vote for whatever his party puts in front of him,” he said, referencing a quote where Corker dismissed the substance of an Obamacare repeal bill. “I’m an outsider. I’m not the Democratic Party.”
While Corker’s occasional critiques of the president haven’t satisfied Mackler, they have prompted some Republicans to muse about a primary challenge. On Monday, Corker said he wasn’t committed to running for reelection.
"I think everyone in the Volunteer State knows, as they did in 2012, that running for reelection has never been an automatic for me,” Corker said in a statement. “While we are in a strong position, I am still contemplating the future and will make a decision at the appropriate time.”
That Democrats are even considering offensive tactics, rather than preparing to hemorrhage losses in red states, is a reflection of how strongly they feel about their 2018 chances despite the Republican tilt of the Senate map.
The DSCC believes Democrats have a clear upper hand on health care and that fewer top-tier candidates than expected are challenging Democratic incumbents. They have eagerly watched Trump’s spat with Heller and war with Flake and wondered if such intra-GOP conflict could spread. On Wednesday, the Schumer-controlled Senate Majority PAC released polling showing Flake trailing state Sen. Kelli Ward in a GOP primary and losing to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema in a general election. And former Americans for Prosperity state director Andy Ogles’ decision to potentially challenge Corker in a Tennessee primary could complicate things there.
“We have a tough political map,” Van Hollen said. “This is a year where anything can happen.”

Ignoring new evidence, MSM cling to their Charlottesville narrative

americanthinker.com ^ | 9/16/2017 | Thomas Lifson 

The lethal violence of Charlottesville was instantly packaged as a narrative of violent racist Trump supporters killing innocent Americans. Defending that narrative becomes difficult when the facts start to be known, so the obvious response of the Mainstream Media has been to ignore the facts and keep pushing the old narrative.
My friend Mark Fitzgibbons pointed out to me that, “still no major liberal news outlet other than Politico has reported the DHS warning to Charlottesville that both sides were preparing for violence, or McAuliffe’s involvement.” That piece of news crushes the narrative, as Mark explained half a month ago. Governor Terry McAuliffe knew that both sides were preparing for violence and were armed. Yet he oversaw the forcing of the two groups into each other’s close proximity in a confined space, while the police stood down.
Mark observes that Politico remains the only major liberal outlet to report on the DHS revelation. Meanwhile, we are being treated to Trump-racism meme, such as:
Trump repeats equivocal Charlottesville rhetoric after meeting with black senator President Trump Stands By Original Charlottesville Remarks
His comment in an email sums it up:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

New Hillary Emails Warrant Special Prosecutor

American Thinker.com ^ | September 16, 2017 | Daniel John Sobieski 

New emails unearthed by Judicial Watch confirm that the Clinton Foundation was in fact a pay-to-play influence peddling operation far more worthy of a special prosecutor than imaginary Russians colluding under Trump Administration beds. It is time for President Trump to keep the promise he made in the presidential debate to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes:
About 20 minutes into the debate, Donald Trump delivered a menacing threat to Hillary Clinton. “If I win,” he warned, “I’m going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.” …

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.“Because,” Mr. Trump replied “you’d be in jail.”
The emails fully incriminating Hillary are part of of documents obtained by Judicial Watch under a court order forcing the State Department to find the documents it said it couldn’t find, didn’t have or was too understaffed to look for:

Judicial Watch today released 1,617 new pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...