We Welcome Muslim “Refugees” – Then Watch as Some of Them Try to Kill Us.

abdul-razak-ali-artan

The prayerful Abdul Razak Ali Artan shown mere months before his rampage against innocent civilians at Ohio State University.

Yesterday, Somali-born terrorist named Abdul Razak Ali Artan tried to kill as many innocent civilian people at Ohio State University as possible with a car and a knife. Thankfully, he was quickly disposed of by a young law enforcement officer with a gun. Eleven people were injured, no one has died except the attacker. We got off lucky yesterday compared to last July when a crazed Muslim radical used a truck to plow through a crowd in Nice, France. That fanatic killed 86 people and injured 434 others.

How is Homeland Security’s “vetting” of immigrant refugees from predominantly Muslim countries working out? Apparently not very well. But we are told by Obama and the Democrats not to worry. Besides, to question President Obama’s open arms immigration policy reveals a person’s deep seated bigotry and racism.

“Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Artan was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident.

“He lived briefly in a temporary shelter in Dallas before settling in Ohio, according to records maintained by Catholic Charities.” (Source: NBC News @ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076

Trump’s victory will not end this. Radicalized Muslim terrorists are already in the U.S. and with their internet connections more will be created. The open borders people have blood on their hands. It’s time for them to admit they were wrong and get out of the way so we can fix this before the United States is torn asunder.

Lucius Cincinnatus

N.B. Of course, all Muslims are not terrorists. Law-abiding American citizens of the Muslim faith are American citizens first and their constitutional and civil rights must be protected. But given world events it is not unreasonable to say that very few Muslim immigrants should be allowed into the United States at this time. In fact, it is rational to say it. And if America is as bigoted and hateful as Democrats say it is, wouldn’t these refugees prefer living in another Muslim country  rather than here? This is an important question that may perplex some liberals who contemplate it.

Hypocritical Hillary or, the Altruism of Jill Stein

hypocritical-hillary

Hillary Clinton

The Clinton/Stein campaigns are coordinating with each other to request vote recounts in three states where Donald Trump seems to have won by a slim majority. Stein’s support nation-wide was miniscule, she only got approximately 1% of the popular vote and did not pick up any Electoral College votes. Stein defended the recounts by saying,

“What we’re doing is standing up for an election system that we can trust. We deserve to have votes that we can believe in,” Stein said in a video on her Facebook page. “This is a commitment that Greens have expressed — that we stand for election integrity, that we support voting systems that respect our vote.  We demand voting systems that are accurate, that are publicly controlled, that are not privatized.”

“This initiative is not about helping one candidate and hurting another,” she said. “We said over and over, we don’t support either of them. In this recount effort, we’re not attempting to overthrow Donald Trump, and I don’t expect that will be the outcome.”

(Source: Detroit Free Press@ http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/25/michigan-preparing-potential-hand-recount-48m-presidential-votes/94429196/)

Stein is being disingenuous. She is only looking for recounts in states where Trump appears to have the lead over Clinton – in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, in Pennsylvania by 68,236 votes and in Michigan by 11,612. If Stein does not favor one candidate over another as she claims then why does she not demand a recount in New Hampshire where Hillary only seems to have won by less than 2,800 votes, or Maine where she is ahead by only 20, 035 votes? The answer is that Stein, who is far more aligned with Clinton when it comes to politics and public policy, is doing this at the request of Mrs. Clinton. Of course, Stein prefers a President Clinton to a President Trump.

Even though their efforts won’t change the outcome of the election, the Clinton/Stein strategy seeks to fan the flames of Democratic voter discontent. It attempts to plant the seed of election illegitimacy in the minds of their supporters. One unfortunate outcome of all this is the destabilization of our U.S. presidential voting system. The left never loses quietly or with grace.

Donald Trump was battered by the Hillary, her supporters and the mainstream media for saying he would have to wait and see if he would accept the election results. Hillary has flipped – it is she who is not willing to accept the election results. As recently as October 20th Hillary characterized the position she is now taking as “horrifying.”

Opportunists who will do anything to get what they want have no shame when it comes to taking hypocritical positions.

Lucius Cincinnatus

Source for vote tallies: CNN @ http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Trump-haters spreadin’ their LOVE

“To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.” –Winston Churchill

By Lucius Cincinnatus

I don’t remember this kind of violence from the Tea Party. That’s because there wasn’t any.

oakland-anti-trump-protest-lighter-fluid

Trump-hater setting a fire in Oakland.

I don’t remember “Impeach Obama” rallies in 2008 before President-elect Obama took office. That’s because there weren’t any.

kill-trump-oakland

Recent “K*ll Trump” graffiti in Oakland

Liberal sore losers and the goons they are unleashing on society are deplorable. The protesters want us to believe that Donald Trump will destroy America, while they are actually in the streets destroying America.

baltimore-ppa-anti-trump-protest

Anti-Trump protesters spreading their brand of love in Baltimore.

Look who joined the anti-Trump protesters in Baltimore. It’s the Peoples Power Assembly!  On their webpage, the PPA states that, “The U.S. imperialist ruling class wants to maintain the status quo — that is what the government is there for.”

fire-anti-trump-oakland

Trump-hater dancing in the streets of Oakland.

When will moderate Democrats in this country realize that there are forces working within their own party that want to bring down the USA? It is so clear to see. No doubt some of the love and financial support for this movement is coming from our foreign adversaries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Their goal is to divide and weaken America.

burn-trum-effigy

The future of America wearing her “F*ck Trump” shirt.

None of these protests would be thinkable without the constant barrage of lies and misinformation being spread by propagandists in the media, and the grip the left-wing has on the education of our children.

Look at the video of this poor woman who was assaulted while trying to make her way through a crowd of anti-Trump, anti-everything protesters.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/driver-s-windshield-smashed-during-protest/350934129

 

 

 

 

 

The New York Times – a propaganda machine not worth keeping.

The election victory of Donald Trump took more than a few Americans by surprise. Many in the mainstream media were stunned and shocked. There is still much hand wringing in particular within the newsrooms that lean left and favor Democrats. They considered Donald Trump to be a crass, big-mouthed buffoon who could not possibly win the Presidency. Their choice, of course, was Hillary, who they helped so much to get elected. But in the end Donald Trump outsmarted them all.

Whether, Democrats and their friends in media will learn the lessons of the 2016 election remains to be seen. There are many reasons for Hillary’s defeat: Washington corruption, the Clinton Foundation, porous borders, a sluggish economy, Obama’s anti-business, anti-law enforcement agenda, a declining labor participation rate, political deception, private email servers, deleted emails, an incoherent foreign policy, IRS shenanigans. And don’t forget what is probably one of the most important reasons of all – the (Un)Affordable Care Act. It was a bad law that was shoved down the throats of the American people by one party and one party only – the Democrats. Not a single Republican voted for it when it passed the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2009.

One thing that Donald Trump capitalized on during his campaign is the American people’s growing distrust of mainstream media. There are well-founded reasons for that distrust. Many Americans see party advocates in the newsrooms rather than professional reporters. They see spin being reported rather than facts. Honest Americans do not want cheerleaders in the newsrooms masquerading about as impartial referees, yet that is what they see. And they see much more of it coming from the left.

One egregious offender is the New York Times. In a post-election letter to his readers Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the Times revealed some of the self-reflection that is going on in the newsrooms after Trump’s victory:

“After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome.”

Why does the Publisher of the New York Times think it important for his news organization to make estimations about our candidates and the support they have? That seems like a strange thing to say and begs these questions: What does Mr. Sulzberger think should be done with those estimations? And will those judgements determine how the news is to be reported?  Will they be used to help elect their favorites in future elections?

Regarding what “forces and strains” drove the election outcome, I think it will be very difficult for liberals at the New York Times and elsewhere to come to terms with that. Many will never see things clearly through the prism of their ideological views. Many are victims of their own shortcomings.

With these things in mind we republish the following article, which was originally written, in part, to reveal the notorious bias of the New York Times. The article is about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how it was sold to the American people. It makes example of the way liberal news outlets like the New York Times craft their reporting to advance an agenda. Since its publication three years ago, my family’s health insurance costs have skyrocketed. They have just about doubled since the implementation of ACA, and the coverage offered is far worse now than pre-Obamacare.  It’s like paying a small mortgage each month. Millions of others are feeling the same financial punch of Obamacare. Our PPO was cancelled, forcing us into an HMO. The cheerleaders in media can spin the failures of liberal policies all they like, but reality of these policies always have a way of catching up with the rest of us.

The following article was originally entitled, “Stabbed in the Back for Our Own Good”

November 13, 2013

The New York Times editorial, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping (Sunday, November 3rd 2013) was a blatant attempt to excuse President Obama’s (now infamous) broken health care promise. But it is much more than that and begs some scrutiny.

In an attempt to immediately deflect the discussion away from President Obama’s repeated dishonesty the Times began its editorial by pouncing on Republicans:

“Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

Why did The New York Times refer to the Republican claims as “charges,” as if Republicans might be manufacturing some unproven fact? Nowhere in the rest of their editorial can I find any verifiable facts that disprove the claim that insurers are cancelling existing policies or that many people are being forced to pay substantially higher premiums for coverage they do not want. Based on that, I suspect the Republicans have been telling the truth. Based on the letter I received from my health insurer, I know they are. The Times may try to characterize Republican truth-telling as stoking fears and confusion, but to the millions of honest, informed people who have had their policies cancelled, many Democrats included, they appear ridiculous.

The editors at the Times want us to believe that the President merely “misspoke” on numerous occasions while out selling his health care plan to the public. Therefore, let us go back and review a little of the history of ObamaCare to see if this is correct. In a speech given on August 15, 2009 President Obama said this:

“No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan you can keep your plan  –  period.”

Let’s examine very carefully exactly what the President said. Notice that when he made these statements he prefaced them by saying “No matter what you’ve heard,” thus putting forth the idea that all his skeptics were either uninformed or intentionally misleading the public about their ability to keep the same insurance coverage once the new health care law kicked in. Then at the end of these clear, carefully chosen, declarative statements the President emphasized the certainty of his pledge by saying “period.” When any person uses that word at the end of a statement everyone knows what it means (except perhaps the editors at the New York Times who think he merely “misspoke”) – ending a statement with the word “period” is a common rhetorical device intentionally used by a speaker to convince the listener that what the speaker says is going to happen, is going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.

We now know as a matter of fact that the opposite was true. It was Obama’s skeptics who were correct. They were not the ones who were uninformed or intentionally misleading. I know this because I am one of the millions of privately insured people who recently received a letter saying, “because of these new (ACA) requirements, your current Individual and Family Plan will no longer be available after December 31, 2013.”

 “A rough style with truth is preferable to eloquence without it.”    — Cadwallader Colden

Not surprisingly, anger over the President’s broken pledge has caused the Administration to go into damage control. It has been trying to explain to us that what we remember the President saying is not actually what the President said. We are told that our memories are faulty.

As an example of his attempt to rewrite history the President gave a speech in Washington on Monday November 4th where he said, “What we said was you can keep it (your healthcare plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed (in March 2010).” Really now, because that seems different from what he said back in 2009 and 2010 when he was trying to sell his health care plan to the American people!

So we watch the video reruns of Mr. Obama’s speeches to refresh our memories. We would not want to be accused any further by Mr. Obama’s defenders of misrepresenting facts and demanding accountability based on faulty memories. Mr. Obama’s speeches have been preserved for all to see and hear. But when we watch these reruns we find they do not contradict our memories. In fact they support them.

Other examples of “the promise:”

“We will keep this promise to the American people – If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor – period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan – period.  No one will take it away no matter what.” — President Obama speaking before the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009

“If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan – period.” – From President Obama’s weekly speech from the oval office, August 22, 2009.

These pledges sound very precise and very specific to me. He did not elaborate back then, before the law was passed, and say there might be millions of exceptions to his promise. But now the cancellation letters have gone out and a fact of ObamaCare is verifiable – millions of Americans will not be able to keep the plans they themselves chose and were happiest with contrary to the President’s repeated assurances – assurances that included an appeal from the President to disregard the warnings of his critics. On top of that, in most cases, the new replacement plans are far more expensive, which contradicts another foolish promise candidate Obama made in 2008.

Some estimates are that between 5 and 10 million people have already received notices of insurance policy cancellations. Regardless of the exact number, each one of those is a broken promise – millions of broken promises.

The other defense that some are asking us to believe is that back in 2009-2010 the President was simply uninformed about the fact that the new health care law would not allow millions of Americans to keep their health care plans? This idea was put forth by unnamed sources in the Obama administration as reported in a recent Wall Street Journal piece. But was President Obama merely just uninformed? If so, the American people have made a grave mistake in choosing their leader. A man who does not comprehend key aspects of what has been described as his “signature legislation” and his “greatest achievement,” should not be entrusted with remaking a health care system that involves 314 million free people.

If President Obama was more than just uninformed, which an honest view of the evidence must bear out, then one must conclude that he deliberately misled the American people. The following facts will show without any doubt that he was aware of the probability that insurance policies would be cancelled under the Affordable Care Act though in almost every instance he refused to share this detail with the American people.

The Associated Press ran a piece entitled, “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee.” The story ran on June 19, 2009. The date here is key. It began:

“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama rarely equivocates when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge.”

President Obama spoke to the public on numerous occasions after that AP story and it is clear he did so to intentionally counter his numerous skeptics. That is why in his speech of August 15, 2009 he prefaced his pledge on health care by saying, “No matter what you’ve heard…”  Skepticism of the President’s pledge was widespread at this time; he was at the center of the public debate on health care, so he was well aware of his skeptics’ arguments. He couldn’t escape them. Does anyone seriously believe, even at The New York Times, that the President did not question whether his promise was going to be kept or not? Whether he was aware specifically of the AP story is not important, the proof that he was intentionally answering his skeptics leaves not a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of their warning that insurance plans would have to be cancelled if the Affordable Care Act was in fact passed.

Did the President not examine the question and see that the outcome would allow only two possibilities, that he would either honor his promise (since he was the one making it) or that he would not or could not honor the promise? I maintain that an honest man does not pretend that he can make promises that he knows are not within his power to keep, because that is also a form of deception. Like this one from candidate Obama in 2008: “And if you already have health care then we’re going to reduce costs an average of $2500 per family on premiums.”

The same Associated Press report contained this bit of news:

“Earlier this week (June 2009), the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance under a Democratic plan that a Senate committee is working on, because their employers would no longer offer coverage.”

Does anyone, including the highly intelligent editors at The New York Times, honestly believe that President Obama was not aware that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report contradicting his bold promise?

At the Health Care Summit held in Washington on February 25, 2010 (again the date here is important) Republican Congressman Eric Cantor argued his point of disbelief in the President’s promise this way:

Congressman Cantor: “When we were here about a year ago across the street you started the health care summit by saying one of the promises you want to make is that people ought to be able to keep the health insurance that they have…well the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) sent a letter I think it was to leader Reid about the Senate bill and in that letter it suggested that between 8 million and 9 million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill.”

President Obama responded: “The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about, would be folks who the CBO estimates would find the deal in the exchange better. Would be a better deal.  So yes, they would change coverage because they’ve got more choice and competition. So let’s just be clear about that…”

This rare admission proves that the President was, in fact, aware of the bipartisan CBO estimate that showed that millions of Americans would lose their plans if the bill were to become law. But the following month when speaking before an audience at George Mason University the President Obama just couldn’t bring himself to publicly acknowledge this damning little detail. Instead, with his usual deceptive eloquence he repeated the fraudulent pledge:

 “Now, I just — I just want to be clear, everybody.  Listen up, because we have heard every crazy thing about this bill…. But when it — it turns out, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is common-sense reform.  That’s all we’re talking about. If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, keep your plan. – March 19, 2010.

It’s clear that by this time President Obama was well aware that there would be millions of exceptions to his promise, that people would have their insurance policies cancelled, but he refused to go there. The dirty little secret is that everyone who had a hand in crafting the Affordable Care Act knew that people would have to be forced out their private plans and into the exchanges in order for the new health care law to succeed. But sharing this detail of the Affordable Care Act at any point during the months long public debate could only serve to weaken the chances that the bill would become law. Team Obama, which of course, includes the New York Times simply made the calculated decision to conceal the truth in any way possible until after the passage of the bill. In my book that’s called fraud.

The question then, is what level of dishonesty will the American people tolerate from their leaders and the people in the press who can make or break politicians? The president knew that the Affordable Care Act was going to force insurance companies to cancel policies and raise premiums because of certain new requirements, yet made repeated pronouncements to the contrary to get his pet legislation passed. He is no different from a used car salesman that knowingly covers up a major flaw in a car he is about to sell, even after being questioned by the customer about any known problems.

“Undoubtedly the very best administration must encounter a great deal of opposition; and the very worst will find more support than it deserves. Sufficient appearances will never be wanting to those who have a mind to deceive themselves.” – Edmund Burke

People need to realize the danger our country is in when a major news source like the New York Times decides to provide cover for and manufactures excuses for the repeated dishonesty of a President of the United States? I have no beef with the fact that The New York Times is run by people who have a different vision for America than I do. But I do have a problem when they encourage deception and provide cover for it at the highest levels of government for the sake of implementing their world view. They are just as guilty of deception as the President is. They rationalize their lack of honesty and integrity because it is being done (in their minds) for a greater cause. They will never admit this in public.

The late William O. Baker, patriot genius and former leader of research at Bell Labs once warned: “The very media, founded on communications and automata, especially television, can communicate illusion as well as reality, and that is all right as long as we know the difference.”

The problem is that too many people allow themselves to be easily manipulated by news outlets like the New York Times and therefore do not know the difference between illusion and reality.

So what additional cover was the Times’ Nov. 3rd editorial attempting to provide for Barack Obama and his administration? Listen to what was written in order to justify the cancellation of  millions of insurance policies:

“Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.”

How many is some? Show us the data NYT! They would have us believe that only the most rotten, worthless insurance plans were the ones being cancelled. It is a bogus argument because I can tell you my deductible was $1250 with my portion of the copay being 20%, plus it included coverage for hospital care. Their extreme example does not characterize my health care plan, nor, I suspect millions of others who are having them cancelled. But the Times probably figures it can get away with this false argument because it will not be detected by the majority of people who are allowed to keep their plans (for now).

The title of the editorial itself, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping, is a glaring example of the New York Times’ complete arrogance and the great disdain they have for people who simply want to retain the freedom to make their own decisions rather than being coerced by their government. Somehow the technocrats and their cheerleaders at the NY Times have so much confidence in their abilities that they think they know what health care plans are best for millions of individuals. This is the kind of arrogance that motivates them. Their superior version of what America should be must be imposed on the masses for their own good even if it means deceiving the people in order to attain their goals.

Then the Times editorial made this stab at the backs of millions of Americans, “And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.”  The Times knew this all along as did President Obama. They were all well aware of the Congressional Budget Offices’ warnings. Some of us have been warning about the consequences of ObamCare all along, yet it was we who were maligned for speaking the truth and continue to be maligned by this administration and their media lap-dogs.

When the Times editors were actively working to get Barack Obama elected for the first time in 2008 did they believe candidate Obama when he said that his health care plan would save the average family of four $2500 per year? Perhaps they knew it was an impossible dream, but in the morally loose world of The New York Times editorial staff perhaps that too was an acceptable lie on the march towards socialized medicine.

And the New York Times is still at it spreading confusion and propaganda about ObamaCare. One recent story tried to draw a parallel between the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina to the flawed implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It’s utterly ridiculous to compare a government’s response to a chaotic, unpredictable natural disaster like Katrina to a self-inflicted, man-made law that this administration has had 3 ½ years to prepare for. The story also demonstrates how defensive the Times has become – they can hardly bring themselves to do a story about the failures of the Obama administration without somehow dragging the Republicans into it.

Now we get this report just out today from the Wall Street Journal: “United Health drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans.” I suspect that the Obama administration’s damage control has only just begun. It will be interesting watch the propaganda machine at New York Times as it continues to defend the indefensible.

I am working on a title for my next post. I’m thinking of calling it: “The New York Times – a propaganda machine not worth keeping.”

Frotho

CELEBRITIES ON THE MOVE!

By Mosby Sharp-tone

Trump has won the election and many celebrities are apparently on the move! Whoo hoo!

Bryan Cranston was seen packing his bags.

Samuel L. Jackson longs for South Africa.

Lena Dunham is moving to a “lovely place” in Vancouver.

Neve Campbell (who?) is moving back home to Canada. Apparently her fellow Canadians can’t wait.

Natasha Lyonne may be checking herself in to mental hospital. We wish her a speedy recovery.

Cher is taking aim at planet Jupiter. We wish her a speedy recovery as well.

Miley Cyrus has threatened to move somewhere, but she’s not sure where yet. It’s hard when you have trouble reading a map.

Barbara Streisand is worried that Canadian border security will not let her pass through the line. No wonder she supports Democrats – the party of open borders!

Ne-Yo  and Drake apparently want to move to Canada, a very popular place these days, or so I hear.

Amy Schumer is moving to Spain.

Chelsea Handler (who?) promised that unlike some blowhards she “actually will leave that country.” Now that’s real conviction and reminds me of when President Obama promised the Affordable Care Act would save families an average $2500 a year on health insurance. We wish Handler and her handlers well.

Jon Stewart is preparing a rocket for travel to another planet. Perhaps he will be joining Cher on Jupiter.

rocket

Jon Stewart and Cher moments after liftoff.

Whoopi Goldberg, who bragged she can afford to go somewhere far away, will hopefully do so, for our sake and for hers.

Keegan-Michael Key is fleeing north to Canada, which is great because I’ve heard the healthcare there is really good and a lot cheaper than it is here in the United States.

George Lopez, who is the self-appointed spokesperson for all Hispanics in the U.S. is leading the “were all going back” movement. We’re confused by this since George was born in California.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced months ago that she is going to New Zealand, thus freeing up yet one more seat on the Supreme Court.

Al Sharpton has reserved a ticket to somewhere, but is being a little slippery and not revealed where.

Barry Diller is either joining “the resistance” or moving somewhere. He is still undecided. I vote go somewhere.

Chloe Sevigny is heading for Nova Scotia apparently to become a lobsterwoman or something.

Eddie Griffin (who?) is going to Africa, where he probably believes they will appreciate his humor.

Amber Rose is going somewhere and taking her son with her. I hope she lets him finish the school year first. That kind of thing can really throw a kid off.

Raven-Symone is going to Canada, if they let her in.

Omari Hardwick is going to Italy. One of the best choices I’ve heard so far.

Ian Somerhalder is still consulting his travel agent.

A going away party is apparently in the works. It’s sure to be a popular event. We’ll keep you posted.

(Full disclosure: I’ve never heard of many of these people before.)

 

 

African-American Church Intentionally Set on Fire in Mississippi

By Lucius Cincinnatus

Disturbing news from Greenville, Mississippi. An African-American church was set on fire and the words “Vote Trump” were spray painted on one of its exterior walls. Thankfully, no one was inside the church at the time of the fire. This is totally unacceptable behavior and it would be nice if the person or persons responsible were apprehended immediately or at least before election day. This violent behavior has to stop before it tears our country apart. If this was done by a right-wing nut job or a Trump supporter, may he rot in jail. If this was a cynical attempt by a Hillary supporter to get out the Black vote, may he also rot….

A GoFundMe account has been set up to help the Hopewell Congregation rebuild.

hopewell-baptist-church-burned

The Hopewell Baptist Church was set on fire on Tuesday, November 1, 2016.

Why so many Homeless in Democrat-controlled states?

By Mosby Sharp-tone

One clue which backs up conservatives’ claims that the national media outlets are cheerleaders for Democrats is how they cover the issue of homelessness prior to an election. This election season the mainstream media has been mostly silent about the soaring numbers of homeless people in the United States. And personally, I have observed panhandling in the places I’ve been like I’ve never seen it before. Yet MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and others remain silent on the issue. Reporting the facts on homelessness at this time would reflect badly on Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats. But I remember vividly in 2004 when incumbent President George W. Bush was running for re-election – it seemed there were reports of homelessness every other night on the evening news. The media is not an impartial referee reporting facts. Republicans are treated differently than Democrats. This is an example of how elections are influenced by the propagandists in media. Call it rigging if you want.

Now we hear from a local CBS-Channel 2 -TV in New York City that homelessness there is at an all-time high. We should be thankful that some of the local stations deem such information as news and report it no matter who it makes look bad. Blame for this record-breaking homelessness can certainly at least partially be laid at the feet of the Obama economy and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s policies. But don’t expect to hear that from anyone at NBC or any of the other MSM outlets.

homeless

In 2014 Steven Rich of the Washington Post reported that the three states with the highest rates of homeless people were Hawaii (465 homeless per 100,000 people), New York and California – all three states are run by Democrats. The three states with the lowest rate of homelessness were Mississippi (81 homeless per 100,000), Indiana and Kansas – all three states run by Republicans. Coincidence? By the way, the Republican nominee for Vice-president this year is Mike Pence, who also happens to be the governor of Indiana.

Sources: Ballotpedia, and Wikipedia.