Month: April 2019

Now that the Mueller report is out, effectively exonerating President Trump of colluding with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, the Trump administration has begun investigations as to the origins of the phony Steele dossier and the illegal surveillance of his campaign.  It’s a trail that’s unlikely to lead anywhere but to the office of embittered President Obama, and independent reporter Nicholas Ballasy got a chance to ask the Obama administration’s former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, whether he thought this investigation would eventually lead.

His response was about what you might expect — nowhere Obama might be, along with a string of ”narratives,” so fake that if you weren’t suspicious Obama knew anything about the abuses of power going on, you would be after hearing Rhodes.

There he is, in all his twerpy glory, situated between two bottles of screwtop wine, using the teenage girl’s favorite word “like” as a particle, and perhaps most significantly, blinking his eyes every time he insists that the Obama administration knew nothing about the Steele dossier or the effort to spy on the Trump campaign, even as Ballasy shows admirable restraint in not belting the guy across the table.

It’s interesting that he starts the interview confidently dismissive, but then, seemingly getting into his cups, gets more emphatic and detailed, repeating all sorts of defensive denials, even as the reporter was quite gentle on him.

Here’s one of Rhodes’s clearest whoppers — he actually seems to contradict himself with this sequence — from Ballasy’s report on PJ Media:

“We had nothing to do with that, nothing. I saw it – I heard about it at the very end when, you know, in January of 2017, like, we weren’t involved in commissioning the dossier like that’s crazy, you know.  We learned about it when it was in the report that was appended to the report that went to Congress at the end of the administration,” Rhodes said.  ”I have been investigated by these committees and I’m telling you they didn’t find it.  No, we had nothing to do with the dossier.  I mean, like literally, nothing to do with this dossier.”

He heard of the Steele dossier only after President Trump became president?  Even though it was all over the news in late 2016?  File under ‘disingenuous.’  Suddenly, the man who suggests he gets all his information from the Washington Post…forgot to read the paper.

Now, in Rhodes’s defense, it’s possible he was kept out of the loop by the Obama administration due to his sheer twerpiness, his lightweight intellectual heft.  Someone like Obama, or perhaps his more powerful minions, might have known he wasn’t a guy to be trusted with a secret.  And, as President Obama’s public relations guy, he might not have had a need to know, although that is contradicted by the fact that he was first and foremost President Obama’s chief propagandist, and very much a political operative. 

But Obama officials were intimately involved in the strategy of attempting to undercut candidate Trump and oust President Trump once he got into office.  Sundance over at Conservative Treehouse has good documentation showing just how false that Sergeant Schultzy claim to know nothing is.  The writer there has a strong timeline.

Rhodes annoyingly repeats all sorts of now discredited “narratives” — one that stands out is the now discredited canard that the FBI investigation of Trump was all the result of poor hapless George Papadopoulos’s bar talk with the Australian ambassador, not the Steele dossier.

“To what end is this?  We’re going to attack law enforcement for — I mean, we know from the Mueller report that the initiation of the investigations came from, not the dossier, but from the contacts that George Papadopoulos had in London, right, so the whole origin of this stupid conspiracy theory has been disproven by exhaustive work. So, to me, the whole thing is a waste of time,” Rhodes said.

That fell apart long ago in this Byron York report.  And the Mueller report itself cites a WikiLeaks dump as the origin of the investigation, not Papadopoulos.

There are plenty of others.  It all suggests that Rhodes has returned to fiction-writing as his means of projecting reality.  To the rest of us, it looks like he’s on his back foot and is trying to lie his way out of his self-created morass.  Team Obama has got a sticky web to extricate itself from.

Image credit: Nicolas Ballasy via shareable YouTube, screen shot.

Now that the Mueller report is out, effectively exonerating President Trump of colluding with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, the Trump administration has begun investigations as to the origins of the phony Steele dossier and the illegal surveillance of his campaign.  It’s a trail that’s unlikely to lead anywhere but to the office of embittered President Obama, and independent reporter Nicholas Ballasy got a chance to ask the Obama administration’s former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, whether he thought this investigation would eventually lead.

His response was about what you might expect — nowhere Obama might be, along with a string of ”narratives,” so fake that if you weren’t suspicious Obama knew anything about the abuses of power going on, you would be after hearing Rhodes.

There he is, in all his twerpy glory, situated between two bottles of screwtop wine, using the teenage girl’s favorite word “like” as a particle, and perhaps most significantly, blinking his eyes every time he insists that the Obama administration knew nothing about the Steele dossier or the effort to spy on the Trump campaign, even as Ballasy shows admirable restraint in not belting the guy across the table.

It’s interesting that he starts the interview confidently dismissive, but then, seemingly getting into his cups, gets more emphatic and detailed, repeating all sorts of defensive denials, even as the reporter was quite gentle on him.

Here’s one of Rhodes’s clearest whoppers — he actually seems to contradict himself with this sequence — from Ballasy’s report on PJ Media:

“We had nothing to do with that, nothing. I saw it – I heard about it at the very end when, you know, in January of 2017, like, we weren’t involved in commissioning the dossier like that’s crazy, you know.  We learned about it when it was in the report that was appended to the report that went to Congress at the end of the administration,” Rhodes said.  ”I have been investigated by these committees and I’m telling you they didn’t find it.  No, we had nothing to do with the dossier.  I mean, like literally, nothing to do with this dossier.”

He heard of the Steele dossier only after President Trump became president?  Even though it was all over the news in late 2016?  File under ‘disingenuous.’  Suddenly, the man who suggests he gets all his information from the Washington Post…forgot to read the paper.

Now, in Rhodes’s defense, it’s possible he was kept out of the loop by the Obama administration due to his sheer twerpiness, his lightweight intellectual heft.  Someone like Obama, or perhaps his more powerful minions, might have known he wasn’t a guy to be trusted with a secret.  And, as President Obama’s public relations guy, he might not have had a need to know, although that is contradicted by the fact that he was first and foremost President Obama’s chief propagandist, and very much a political operative. 

But Obama officials were intimately involved in the strategy of attempting to undercut candidate Trump and oust President Trump once he got into office.  Sundance over at Conservative Treehouse has good documentation showing just how false that Sergeant Schultzy claim to know nothing is.  The writer there has a strong timeline.

Rhodes annoyingly repeats all sorts of now discredited “narratives” — one that stands out is the now discredited canard that the FBI investigation of Trump was all the result of poor hapless George Papadopoulos’s bar talk with the Australian ambassador, not the Steele dossier.

“To what end is this?  We’re going to attack law enforcement for — I mean, we know from the Mueller report that the initiation of the investigations came from, not the dossier, but from the contacts that George Papadopoulos had in London, right, so the whole origin of this stupid conspiracy theory has been disproven by exhaustive work. So, to me, the whole thing is a waste of time,” Rhodes said.

That fell apart long ago in this Byron York report.  And the Mueller report itself cites a WikiLeaks dump as the origin of the investigation, not Papadopoulos.

There are plenty of others.  It all suggests that Rhodes has returned to fiction-writing as his means of projecting reality.  To the rest of us, it looks like he’s on his back foot and is trying to lie his way out of his self-created morass.  Team Obama has got a sticky web to extricate itself from.

Image credit: Nicolas Ballasy via shareable YouTube, screen shot.

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. corporations that cozy up to the Chinese communist government and ignore its brutal and even deadly treatment of religious minorities to gain access to their markets need instead to stand up for American values, a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Liberty (USCIRF) said on Monday at the release of its 2019 report.

Commissioner Gary Bauer said that the report “very gently” notes that U.S. corporations are putting profit over principles by ignoring how China is brutalizing its people because of their religious beliefs.

“I’d like to get a little bit more specific,” Bauer said. “Trade with China was supposed to change China. Trade with China ended up changing America as more and more corporations became dependent on the goodwill of the Chinese government.”

Outspoken conservative and award-winning actor James Woods has been locked out of his massive Twitter account — which has accumulated over 2 million followers — for over a week now, the actor’s girlfriend Sarah Miller has confirmed.

On April 20, Miller posted a screenshot of the email Woods received from the tech platform.

“Of course Twitter doesn’t inform his followers,” she captioned the photo. The email claims Woods was locked out of his account for “violating” Twitter rules “against abusive behavior.” The tweet supposedly in violation read as follows: “If you try to kill the King, you better not miss. #HangThemAll.”

Woods’ quote was apparently made in reaction to the Mueller report findings exonerating President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign of collusion with the Russian government.

This is not the first time Woods has been suspended from the platform. It was reported in September that the “Casino” actor was suspended for making a crack about a fake meme, which he acknowledged was likely fake.

“Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible …” Woods captioned a meme falsely suggesting top Democrat organizations encouraged men to skip voting in the midterms “to make a woman’s vote worth more.”

“The irony is, Twitter accused me of affecting the political process, when in fact, their banning of me is the truly egregious interference,” Woods told the Associated Press at the time of the suspension.

“Because now, having your voice smothered is much more disturbing than having your vocal cords slit. If you want to kill my free speech, man up and slit my throat with a knife, don’t smother me with a pillow,” he continued.

“I wish this were about an unknown Twitter user so that I could be even more passionate about it,” the actor added. “This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced — one tweet at a time.”

Two years ago, Woods temporarily quit the platform over their censorship.

“Since [Twitter] is now in the #censorship business, I will no longer use its service for my constitutional right to free speech. #GoodbyeAll,” the actor posted in a short-lived farewell tweet, noted by The Daily Beast.

Twitter’s bias against conservative or contrarian speech has been well-documented. For example, CEO Jack Dorsey and Twitter’s global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety, Vijaya Gadde were pressed on their ideologically driven speech policies pertaining to transgenderism during a March appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast. Radical feminist Meghan Murphy was notably banned from the platform for refusing to use female pronouns when arguing with a transgender woman, who is biologically male. Moreover, Twitter briefly suspended the official Twitter account for the pro-life “Unplanned” movie without cause last month. The account was restored only after fierce backlash.

Rep. Ilhan Omar is ‘shocked, shocked’ that President Trump could think that with recent statements from the likes of Democrats such as Gov. Ralph Northam, infanticide is going on. Here’s her furious tweet:

This is truly dangerous and sickening!

Is this deranged President suggesting parents and doctors are working together to commit infanticide?

We have seen religious fanatics bombing clinics and threatening women, this will fan the flame of violence.

Stop the misinformation. https://t.co/Ad2ysWpDh9

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 28, 2019

Omar was of course reacting to this:

“The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

And while Trump’s statement was stylized for a campaign audience with a hypothetical scenario, there was nothing untrue about its substance. It came from the openly made statement from Northam and multiple other like-minded Democrats speaking about their approval for late-term abortions. Northam actually said this: 

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

If the infant is alive, why is there any ‘discussion’ at all about what ‘to do’ with him or her? Why is there a need to ‘keep comfortable’ someone who (in this logic of Democrats) is perfectly killable? The whole statement is revolting, amounting to an endorsement of infanticide for convenience’s sake, using Orwellian language to suggest something good going on.

But by Omar’s argument, anyone calling such a vile event ‘infanticide’ is ‘dangerous and sickening!’ And anyone who can point out how bad this picture can be is ‘deranged.’

And of course, she preemptively claims that the infanticidists are now in danger from terrible right wingers. Never mind that baby on the chopping block, who has just lost his or her right to life, Omar thinks everyone needs to rally for more late-term abortion that goes all the way past birth, and treat the perpetrators of it as the victims.

Omar has been in a lot of heat recently for her anti-Semitic remarks and her associations with Islamist groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. Supposedly, she’s a good Muslim, or at least that’s the message she is trying to send by wearing her Somali hijab. But pro-infanticide statements such as these pretty well mark her not for a devout Muslim but for a garden variety far-leftist. (Unless, of course, her aim is to destroy the West from within) Islam, along with all the world’s major religions, disdains abortion. Omar on the other hand, is stepping right up for it – in its most extreme form, making the likes of Planned Parenthood and other far-left causes very proud. What’s Islam when your priority is to be left wing?

Her creepy invective and denials are disingenuous. Infanticide is exactly what is going on with late-term abortion and Omar’s defense of it is one more reason to marvel at the extended array of her moral disorder.

Image credit: Lorie Schaull, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

Rep. Ilhan Omar is ‘shocked, shocked’ that President Trump could think that with recent statements from the likes of Democrats such as Gov. Ralph Northam, infanticide is going on. Here’s her furious tweet:

This is truly dangerous and sickening!

Is this deranged President suggesting parents and doctors are working together to commit infanticide?

We have seen religious fanatics bombing clinics and threatening women, this will fan the flame of violence.

Stop the misinformation. https://t.co/Ad2ysWpDh9

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 28, 2019

Omar was of course reacting to this:

“The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

And while Trump’s statement was stylized for a campaign audience with a hypothetical scenario, there was nothing untrue about its substance. It came from the openly made statement from Northam and multiple other like-minded Democrats speaking about their approval for late-term abortions. Northam actually said this: 

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

If the infant is alive, why is there any ‘discussion’ at all about what ‘to do’ with him or her? Why is there a need to ‘keep comfortable’ someone who (in this logic of Democrats) is perfectly killable? The whole statement is revolting, amounting to an endorsement of infanticide for convenience’s sake, using Orwellian language to suggest something good going on.

But by Omar’s argument, anyone calling such a vile event ‘infanticide’ is ‘dangerous and sickening!’ And anyone who can point out how bad this picture can be is ‘deranged.’

And of course, she preemptively claims that the infanticidists are now in danger from terrible right wingers. Never mind that baby on the chopping block, who has just lost his or her right to life, Omar thinks everyone needs to rally for more late-term abortion that goes all the way past birth, and treat the perpetrators of it as the victims.

Omar has been in a lot of heat recently for her anti-Semitic remarks and her associations with Islamist groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. Supposedly, she’s a good Muslim, or at least that’s the message she is trying to send by wearing her Somali hijab. But pro-infanticide statements such as these pretty well mark her not for a devout Muslim but for a garden variety far-leftist. (Unless, of course, her aim is to destroy the West from within) Islam, along with all the world’s major religions, disdains abortion. Omar on the other hand, is stepping right up for it – in its most extreme form, making the likes of Planned Parenthood and other far-left causes very proud. What’s Islam when your priority is to be left wing?

Her creepy invective and denials are disingenuous. Infanticide is exactly what is going on with late-term abortion and Omar’s defense of it is one more reason to marvel at the extended array of her moral disorder.

Image credit: Lorie Schaull, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

President Donald Trump has directed deputies to quickly draft regulations which will deny work permits to asylum-seeking illegal migrants, shorten the asylum process to 180 days, and charge migrants a fee to apply for asylum.

The new directive provides a legal foundation for the fast-track regulations when they are attacked in court by progressive judges and pro-migration groups. The regulations will be published by the end of July.

The impact of the new regulations is difficult to predict, partly because some are difficult to implement, and some will be delayed or blocked by pro-migration judges.

A legal immigrant from Cuba caused a 28-vehicle crash in Lakewood, Colorado, that left four men dead, law enforcement officials have confirmed.

Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos, a 23-year-old green card holder from Cuba, is the main suspect behind a 28-vehicle crash that ended in flames, four deaths, and left ten others injured in the hospital last week, FOX31 Denver reports.

Lakewood Police Department officials told local media that the crash, allegedly caused by Aguilera-Mederos, involved 24 cars and four semi-trailer trucks. The Cuban immigrant was driving a truck carrying lumber when the crash occurred. He is a resident of Houston, Texas, and has been living in the U.S. on a green card.

According to newly released data, several migrant groups of different national origins in Switzerland have welfare dependency rates well above 50 per cent, with over 80 per cent of Somalis in the country taking state handouts.

The data was gathered and released by both the Federal Statistical Office and the State Secretariat for Migration and shows that the 4,000 or so Somalis in Switzerland are by far the most prone to being on government benefits with 83.7 per cent relying on state income, 20 Minutes reports.

While Somalis are by far and wide the largest recipients of welfare, several other nationalities also have rates of over 50 per cent, such as Eritreans at 54.7 per cent and Angolans at 54 per cent.

When Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first introduced her ambitious “Green New Deal” to ostensibly combat man-made climate change by transforming the nation into a centralized government-controlled socialist hellhole, many critics keyed in on an accompanying “fact sheet” that decried the level of methane emitted by “farting cows,” a greenhouse gas that some assert is causing significant and irreparable damage to the planet’s climate.

The fact sheet quickly disappeared following scrutiny, however, and supporters of the Green New Deal attempted to assure everyone that there was no need for concern, as there were no plans to ban the agricultural production of beef and other meats that sustain the diets of the American people.

We see now, though, that some Democrats really do want to ban — or at least significantly reduce to near nothing — methane-emitting cows on farms, as is evidenced in New York City’s own version of the Green New Deal, a $14 billion initiative titled OneNYC 2050,.

It’s broad set of goals allegedly aimed at combating climate change, achieving social justice and transitioning to a more sustainable city for the future.

The amount of utter nonsense and wishful thinking contained in that report is mind-boggling and it would take several articles to fully explain just how unattainable and economically disastrous the plan truly is.

TRENDING: Polling in Distant 3rd Place, Kamala Desperately Lashes Out at Fast Food Restaurant

When the plan was initially released by Mayor Bill de Blasio, there were slightly misleading reports that one of the included initiatives involved the city essentially instituting a ban on processed meats like hot dogs, a staple of the American diet and a food item that New York City is itself quite famous for.

According to FactCheck.org, however, those initial reports got it wrong, and there is, at least as of now, no city-wide ban on hot dogs.

But there was an important element of truth to the story.

The proposed ban on processed meats and mandatory reduction in beef consumption would — again, at least as of now — be constrained to just city-run buildings and agencies, such as hospitals, prisons, and public schools. In other words, the city would no longer purchase beef and processed meats, though private establishments — like restaurants, street-corner vendors and baseball stadiums — could continue to sell and serve hot dogs.

FactCheck.org quoted an email from a city spokesman:

“This policy would apply only to City purchases. The plan is to phase out completely purchases of processed meats by agencies, and reduce how much agencies spend on beef by 50 percent. This would affect, for example, hamburgers in NYC public school lunches. It would not impact hot dogs at baseball games, street vendors, restaurants, etc.”

So, New York City Democrats want to keep schoolchildren from American staples like hot dogs and hamburgers?

Also, we stress the “at least as of now” qualifier because the OneNYC 2050 plan makes it abundantly clear throughout that New York City residents will, in countless various ways, be compelled to make potentially significant lifestyle changes in order to aid and adapt to the city’s planned changes and comply with the purported climate-friendly and sustainable dictates on a sustainable and “livable climate.”

On page 21 of the 36-page document, part of a section about New Yorkers shifting to a more sustainable lifestyle, there are details for how the city plans to “Adopt more sustainable consumption practices in city government operations,” which involved a plan to “shift away from goods that have an outsized impact on the environment,” which includes beef and other processed meats.

RELATED: A Storm’s Brewing for AOC: ‘Multimillionaire Mystery Donor’ Steps Up to Knock Her Out of Office

The city intends to use its Environmentally Preferable Purchasing policy and executive action to achieve, among other things, “reducing the purchasing of beef, and phasing out the purchasing of processed meat.”

The plan cites the supposed success of the “Meatless Mondays” policy that was foisted upon public school children by the government, and declared, “the City will reduce the purchasing of beef by 50 percent.”

“Beef has a relatively high environmental footprint compared to poultry, pork, and plant-based foods. Beef cattle, managing manure, and manufacturing fertilizer produces nitrous oxide and methane, two climate-warming pollutants 298 and 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, respectively,” the plan stated.

“Processed meat consumption is linked with increased risk of cancer and is often high in saturated fat and sodium which is linked with heart disease. This policy would offer health benefits to the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” the authoritarians added, proving that the do-gooders in City Hall really just have the health and well-being of New Yorkers in mind as they tell them what kinds of food they can and can’t eat.

Within that same section, the OneNYC 2050 plan also revealed how the city intends to completely do away with “unnecessary single-use plastic foodware,” such as “straws, cutlery, cups, plates, bowls, and trays” that are used once and thrown away.

That’s because those items are “petroleum-based products” that some view as an existential threat to the environment.

“The City is ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, switching to compostable, reusable, or recyclable alternatives while maintaining a sufficient supply of single-use plastic foodware for those who need it. And we will work with City Council to expand these requirements to private businesses,” the central planners at NYC’s Politburo declared.

That last line about the desire to “expand these requirements to private businesses,” while in this case appears limited to the single-use plastic foodware items, nevertheless provides justifiable concern that the prohibitions against beef and processed meat consumption could be similarly expanded to the private sector in New York City.

In the big scheme of things, New York City’s reduced consumption via government purchases of beef and processed meat products will have no discernible impact on the environment whatsoever, but will, in fact, expand and extend government control over yet another aspect of the people’s lives.

Anyone who actually believes that the New York City government will stop at just banning the purchase and sale of beef and processed meats and plastic straws/utensils at city-owned buildings and locations hasn’t been paying attention to how the left is incessantly seeking to gain more ground and exert more control over the citizenry.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.