HAHAHAHA! WASH POST, NYT: FBI Embedded Informant In Trump Campaign To PROTECT Him

Ever wonder what color the sky is in the mainstream media’s world?

Us, too.

Throughout the last week, stories exploded about the Obama FBI embedding an informant inside the campaign of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump called the reports “bigger than Watergate” and the “all-time biggest political scandal!”

But not to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Over the weekend, both stellar news agencies wrote stories saying the insertion of an informant was simply to protect Trump.

“The FBI didn’t use an informant to go after Trump. They used one to protect him,” read the Post’s headline.

“Trump and his backers are wrong about what it means that the FBI reportedly was using a confidential source to gather information early in its investigation of possible campaign ties to Russia. The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously — perhaps too cautiously — to protect the campaign, not undermine it,” wrote Asha Rangappa, a “lecturer” at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University and a former FBI agent.

As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know what Trump apparently does not: Counterintelligence investigations have a different purpose than their criminal counterparts. Rather than trying to find evidence of a crime, the FBI’s counterintelligence goal is to identify, monitor and neutralize foreign intelligence activity in the United States. In short, this entails identifying foreign intelligence officers and their network of agents; uncovering their motives and methods; and ultimately rendering their operations ineffective — either by clandestinely thwarting them (say, by feeding back misinformation or “flipping” their sources into double agents) or by exposing them.

Rangappa concludes: “Ironically, the FBI’s apparent attempt to protect the campaign by investigating Russia’s efforts quietly is now being weaponized against it. Accusations that the FBI was “spying” on the Trump campaign — rather than spying on foreign spies, which is its job — erase the important distinctions between counterintelligence and criminal investigations. It also displays a shocking ignorance of the devastating consequences to our national security….”

The Times followed suit in a story headlined “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

To the Times, it’s no foul, no problem.

“No evidence has emerged that the informant acted improperly when the F.B.I. asked for help in gathering information on the former campaign advisers, or that agents veered from the F.B.I.’s investigative guidelines and began a politically motivated inquiry, which would be illegal.”

But then the “paper of record” says this: “Details about the informant’s relationship with the F.B.I. remain scant. It is not clear how long the relationship existed and whether the F.B.I. paid the source or assigned the person to other cases.”

That’s right: We still know hardly anything about the informant, what information he gathered, etc.

But when did having no facts ever stop the MSM?

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml/favicon.ico

Texas Lt. Gov. Patrick: Arming teachers, securing guns in home will help eliminate school violence

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick believes that arming teachers could prevent more school violence in the state. He made the comment Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.

Patrick’s statement came two days after a mass killing at Santa Fe High School south of Houston left 10 dead and 13 injured. A 17-year-old suspect is being held on murder charges in connection with the massacre.

How would this work?

“We need teachers to be armed. When you’re facing someone who’s an active shooter, the best way to take that shooter down is with a gun. But even better than that is four or five guns to one,” Patrick said.

Patrick praised the quick action of two school campus officers, a police officer and a state trooper in the area who quickly responded to calls of an active shooting at the school.

“They were able to stop the shooter from killing more,” he said.

Arming teachers would be one more reinforcement, Patrick said.

“But had teachers been armed — there was a teacher next door, a Marine who saw what was going on, slammed the door, locked his door, protected his students,” Patrick said. “Some feel, had he been able to carry a gun, he may have been able to stop that shooter, had it been his choice.”

Texas already allows “teachers to carry, but we leave it up to local control, up to the superintendent, up to the teachers and up to the parents to make that decision,” Patrick explained.

What else can be done?

Securing guns so they don’t fall into the wrong hands is another step that can be taken to ensure safety, he said.

“What can we do now?” Patrick asked on a video clip that aired Friday. “One, if you’re a parent and you own guns, lock your guns safely away. Your children should not be able, or anyone else, to get your legally-owned guns. It’s a serious issue. It’s one big step that we can take.”

Everyone who owns a gun must understand that gun safety “has to start at home,” Patrick said Sunday. “Gun ownership, and I’m a proud gun owner, comes with the responsibility of gun control in your home. Be sure your kids and grandkids, or anyone who might have access to your home cannot get your guns.”

Host Jake Tapper pressed Patrick about whether there should be laws that require guns to be locked up. Patrick said it depends on the state.

“In Texas, we hold people very responsible,” Patrick said.

For example, if someone uses a gun to stop a crime or defend himself, and a stray bullet injures an unintended target, the shooter can be held civilly and criminally liable.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Trump announces major action after reports say FBI placed ‘spy’ in his campaign: ‘I hereby demand…’

President Donald Trump announced Sunday he will officially direct his Department of Justice to investigate whether or not the DOJ or FBI placed an informant in his presidential campaign in 2016 for “political purposes.”

Trump’s announcement comes after it was revealed the CIA or FBI placed an informant inside Trump’s campaign. The informant was later identified as an American citizen and Cambridge professor, who is a longtime CIA and MI6 asset.

What did Trump say?

He tweeted:

News of a potential spy in the Trump campaign has raised numerous questions. In addition to why the government placed a source in Trump’s campaign — the government alleges it did so to connect the asset with campaign advisers believed to have Russian connections — when the agent began his work is another major question.

The answer to when and why could either corroborate the government’s account or completely unravel it.

Anything else?

News of a campaign infiltrator has deepened the divide in Congress between those who believe a “deep state” is against Trump and those who believe Trump is out-of-control.

As congressmen like Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) works to unmask the government’s agent, Democrats say doing so would border on criminal activity. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday the idea the government placed a human asset in Trump’s campaign to “spy” is a farce.

“This is part of a string of meritless allegations from the very beginning that ‘I was wiretapped in Trump Tower’, there is a vast unmasking conspiracy, the investigation began with the Christopher Steele dossier — all of which is was untrue, all of which…is designed to create this alternate reality for Trump supporters,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

House GOP gearing up to oust Ryan as Speaker — with Trump’s support?

Wait, why would Trump support the ousting of a guy who’s been a loyal servant to him in Congress? Oh, right:

Haley Byrd says the buzzards are circling:

Top Republicans in Congress and the White House have in recent days entertained a plan to push House Speaker Paul Ryan out of his post over the summer, in an effort to clear the way for his presumed successor, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, to assume the speakership.

A source involved in the conversations and who has discussed the idea with President Donald Trump told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Trump believes there is merit to the plan, but has not formed a final position. McCarthy has been weighing the effort alongside a small group of trusted advisers, considering the pros and cons of forcing Ryan’s hand, and debating the best time to launch the effort. As of last week he had not spoken to Ryan about the idea, the source said.

Nothing surprising about that. No sooner had Ryan announced his retirement at the end of this term last month than grumblings from inside the caucus (almost certainly from peopled allied with McCarthy, if not from the man himself) began appearing in news stories about how the GOP couldn’t sustain the new arrangement for long. “Members won’t follow a lame duck, he’ll have no leverage to cut deals, and the last thing they need in this environment is 6 months of palace intrigue and everyone stabbing everyone else in the back,” said one source to Axios of Ryan’s delayed exit. Another Republican predicted that he’d be gone by the end of the July, a timetable that seems newly prescient. Donors weren’t thrilled with the idea of Ryan lingering for months either: “As a donor, would I ever give him a dollar if he’s not going to stay around? F*** no…. We need someone with skin in the game who actually cares about the majority.”

The fear is that there is no fear of Ryan anymore now that House Republicans know they no longer need to worry about defying him. There are signs of that everywhere right now — the farm bill crashed and burned in humiliating fashion on Friday and centrist House Republicans seem poised to embarrass Ryan by presenting a discharge petition to force a vote on legalizing DACA enrollees. The coup plotters believe ushering Ryan out and McCarthy in will restore some discipline, since McCarthy’s likely to be in charge next year. But there’s another reason to force a vote on a new Speaker, notes Byrd:

[I]t would also force Democrats to cast votes for — or against — Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a favorite target of Republican campaign strategists, to be speaker. That vote could then be used against vulnerable Democrats during the height of campaign season, the source said.

That’s a matter of “heads I win, tails you lose” for the GOP. Any Democrat who votes for Pelosi is generating an attack ad against him or herself this fall. Any Democrat who votes against her provides kindling for a new round of “Tensions over Dem leadership”/”When will Nancy go?” coverage in political media.

This is really all about McCarthy, though. He’s a heavy favorite to succeed Ryan as caucus leader but has two formidable rivals in Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan. The sooner Ryan leaves, the less time the latter two have to prepare a leadership challenge next year. McCarthy will ascend immediately via “next in line” reasoning and will be all but impossible to dislodge. McCarthy’s also been shrewd about cultivating a friendship with Trump as an insurance policy for his promotion just in case Scalise or Jordan gets any ideas. And don’t forget that the GOP’s made strides in the polls over the past month since Ryan announced he was leaving. A month ago, it looked like McCarthy et al. would be battling to see who gets to be minority leader next year. Now there’s a possibility that Ryan’s successor as head of the caucus will be Speaker himself. Hence the new urgency by McCarthy to move him out and gain a foothold of incumbency, just in case the expected blue wave this fall doesn’t gather.

Supposedly Ryan is reluctant to step down early because it’ll distract the party from the midterms and potentially trigger a civil war within the caucus. Eh. That’s why Trump is being pitched on the coup plan now: If he announces that McCarthy should be the guy, it’ll short-circuit any serious insurrection. And it’s not like there’s any important yet delicate legislation that has a chance of passing before November that a leadership change might imperil. Ryan supposedly has some dim hope of passing a DACA fix if that discharge petition forces an immigration vote, but I’m not sure why. Does he actually think Senate Republicans are going to roll the dice on even a limited amnesty five months out from a national election? (McCarthy is reportedly against a DACA compromise for that very reason, that the chance that Republican voters will revolt is too great a risk.)

A parting “be careful what you wish for” thought. If Ryan bailed out now and McCarthy became Speaker, he’d be at ground zero of the blast zone if Mueller turned around this summer and dropped an obstruction-of-justice nuke on Trump. Suddenly it’d be up to Kevin McCarthy, Trump crony, to decide what to do about it. That’d be great news for Trump — as loyal as Ryan has been to him, McCarthy is even more loyal. But it’d be a no-win political nightmare for McCarthy, forced to decide whether to discipline Trump somehow (impeachment seems unimaginable) and infuriate populist GOPers or to shrug the whole thing off and infuriate everyone else. If he mishandles it, not only might the party get pounded in November, he might face a serious leadership challenge in the lame-duck session after all.

The post House GOP gearing up to oust Ryan as Speaker — with Trump’s support? appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Donald Trump Orders Justice Department to Investigate Obama Surveillance

President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to demand an official investigation of former President Barack Obama’s administration on Sunday for infiltrating or surveilling his presidential campaign for political reasons.

“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump wrote on Twitter on Sunday afternoon.

Trump frequently blames investigations of his campaign on Obama, suggesting that politically motivated investigators were unfairly targeting his campaign.

He spent most of Sunday morning sharing his thoughts on Twitter about the ongoing Russia investigation, suggesting that the ongoing “witch hunt” was out of control. “Things are really getting ridiculous,” Trump wrote, noting that so far there was no collusion found by special investigators.

He criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team as “13 Angry and heavily conflicted Democrats” who were part of the Obama administration.

“STOP!” he wrote. “They have found no collusion with Russia, No obstruction.”

Trump again redirected the continuing investigation towards failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Tony Podesta, the DNC, and politically biased FBI officials.

“Republicans and real Americans should start getting tough on this Scam,” he wrote.

 

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

THANKS TRUMP? China Pledges To Buy More American Products, Reduce Trade Deficit

President Donald Trump drew major heat for announcing, months ago, that he would boost tariffs on goods coming into the United States from China, in an effort to re-balance what he considered an economically fatal trade deficit.

But after months of negotiations, it seems the President’s commitment ot the “art of the deal” has changed our relationship with China without many major changes on the part of the U.S., and though nothing is yet official, China says it will buy more American products to “even out” our trade partnership.

According to CNN, China has pledged to “significantly increase” “purchase of goods and services” from American companies, in order to “reduce the trade imbalance.” The news comes at the tail end of weeks of trade talks between American and Chinese officials that both parties have called “productive.”

“To meet the growing consumption needs of the Chinese people and the need for high-quality economic development, China will significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services,” the Chinese government said in a statement. “This will help support growth and employment in the United States.”

Shockingly, the deal also reportedly contains a commitment by the Chinese to respect American intellectual property — including patent — laws, meaning Chinese knockoff luxury goods may be harder to find.

In return, the United States appears ready to honor President Trump’s commitment to helping out struggling Chinese phone company ZTE, and tone down the trade war rhetoric. Our relationship with China has been steadily improving, and China seems ready to commit to being a trade ally. That’s not to say trade deficits are necessarily bad — but Trump pledge to get a better deal, and it seems Americans were right to trust his commitment.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Watch: Houston Reporter Debunks School Shooting Stat Pushed by CNN

Before you can work on solving any problem, you need accurate information. You need the truth.

This is evident everywhere: A carpenter can’t fix a table if the measurements he’s given are wrong or his tape measure is inaccurate. A pilot can’t land a plane if all the instruments have been tampered with, and show dangerously incorrect readings for altitude and speed. Truth and accuracy matter — and the more important the problem, the more vital this is.

It seems CNN, however, hasn’t gotten the memo. In the wake of the tragic school shooting in Texas, the left-leaning news network seemed to put a narrative ahead of everything else.

During its coverage of the crime, CNN repeated gun violence statistics, but inflated the definition of “school shootings” to make them seem wildly more common than they are.

“There has been, on average, 1 school shooting every week this year,” the outlet declared in a headline on Friday.

“We’re only 20 weeks into 2018, and there have already been 22 school shootings where someone was hurt or killed,” CNN continued. “That averages out to more than 1 shooting a week.”

That’s a lot — especially when you imagine each of those incidents being equivalent to the shocking attacks in Parkland, Florida, or Santa Fe, Texas.

But there’s a problem: Those numbers are exaggerated, purposely padded to give a false impression of a mass-shooting crime wave that doesn’t exist.

Do you believe left-leaning outlets are purposely inflating gun crime claims?

That’s exactly what journalist Tiffany Craig at KHOU11 News in Houston brilliantly pointed out over the weekend. Breaking down the Texas incident and related claims, she separated the facts from fiction and exaggeration … or as we used to call it, did actual journalism.

“Social media has been abuzz today with this,” Craig said. “The first one is this information that there were 18 school shootings in 2018. This number, 18, is not mass shootings like what you’re seeing today here in Santa Fe.”

The keen reporter pointed out something that the mainstream media seems eager to hide: Numbers are being padded to include situations that no reasonable person would call a “school shooting” in the common sense.

“These include smaller incidents that might be around the school or even suicides, and all of those numbers get pooled together and they’re presented in a way like this that instills fear in some people,” she explained. “So this is a false piece of information, and we want to let you know that.”

RELATED: Pink-Shirted Hero Literally Kicks Punk’s Butt for Pulling Gun on Group of Moms

She’s 100 percent correct. Sure enough, a closer look at CNN’s article reveals that they’re counting things that may be crimes, but — at best — stretch the definition of a school shooting.

One “shooting” counted by the news channel, for example, involved one student shooting another … with a toy BB gun. Nobody was seriously hurt.

Another incident included by CNN to arrive at its numbers was an accidental discharge of a firearm during a public safety class. Preventable? Yes, but not really a “school shooting.”

A 32-year-old man shot in a parking lot during a dispute after school hours. A possibly gang-related shooting of an adult at a house party near a university.

You get the idea.

These are the same number-padding tactics used by the liberal lobbying group Everytown for Gun Safety. As The Western Journal has previously noted, outlets choose a vague definition of “school shootings” and pile any possible incident into the category to come up with a shockingly high number.

It may not be outright lying, but it’s almost certainly deceptive.

By the same token, “assault rifles” and “semi-automatic weapons” are still the buzzwords of the day, despite the fact that neither of those were used by the Texas criminal.

That raises a question that Americans should carefully consider: Why do left-leaning groups need to exaggerate facts and pad numbers to push their agenda?

The answer is that despite dramatic headline-making incidents, America’s school children are safer in classrooms than they are riding their bikes or walking down the road … and there’s no dangerous correlation between gun sales and crime rates.

Crimes like the Santa Fe shooting are tragic, but they’re also statistically rare — and infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer to stopping them.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Sen. Chris Murphy Attacks Congress ‘Inaction,’ But Current Gun Laws Should Have Stopped Shooter

In the wake of a national tragedy involving guns, it’s a pitiful synonym of where we are as a nation that one can almost set their watch by how quickly a Democrat makes a grotesquely misinformed statement about guns that somehow doesn’t get called out by the mainstream media.

Most of these statements call for stricter gun laws — not any specific type of gun law, mind you, but just a general call for gun laws. There is a list of usual suspects in these sorts of things: Andrew Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand.

However, the biscuit-taker in the race to the bottom after the Santa Fe shooting was somewhat of a surprise: Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.

I’m not surprised that he said something cretinously liberal and blatantly unconstitutional, mind you; he comes from a state bluer than Violet Beauregarde after she decided to disregard some sage advice regarding experimental chewing gum and hasn’t evinced a history of bucking the wishes of his voters.

I’m surprised because a) not a whole lot of people knew who this perpetual backbencher was before Friday and b) what he said was so jaw-droppingly unconstitutional and erroneous that someone in his office should have informed him of the pain he was about to reap before he pushed the send button.

Here’s Murphy’s tweet:

“Let’s call it like it is: the horrifying inaction of Congress, slaughter after slaughter, has become a green light to would-be shooters, who pervert silence into endorsement,” he wrote.

Do you think Chris Murphy’s tweet was inappropriate?

Now, a few things here. First, as National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke pointed out, Murphy has said that he has no intention of trying to ban shotguns or .38 revolvers in the gun legislation he is pushing in Congress. (In fact, the right to own those weapons has been affirmed by District of Columbia v. Heller, the most pertinent recent Supreme Court case regarding gun control.) Is Congress showing inaction by refusing to pass laws that are unconstitutional on their face — not to mention one that Murphy says he wouldn’t support?

Or perhaps they’re showing inaction on the national background check system, which Murphy has (very ostentatiously) said needs to be strengthened. His website says that he favors “universal background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers and illegal weapon sales, and limiting access to high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons.”

He also wants “legislation to close loopholes in our background check system; to make it illegal for those on the FBI terror watch list to buy a gun; to end the ban on gun violence research at the Center for Disease Control; to encourage licensing requirements for handgun purchases; and to help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.”

First, let me just remind everyone that Murphy has been in the Senate since 2013 but has never seemed particularly concerned about straw purchasers and illegal weapons sales when they were approved by the Obama administration as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Second, none of the weapons used had “high-capacity magazines” or were “military-style assault weapons.”

And, while Attorney General Jeff Sessions is leading a thorough review of the background check system, changes to it are unlikely to have accomplished anything in this instance. Neither the shooter nor his father had any contact with law enforcement or public health officials that would have disqualified them from gun ownership.

RELATED: Oklahoma Governor Goes Against Gun Owners, Rules Against Constitutional Carry

So, where’s the “horrifying inaction?” How is the “pervert(ed) silence” of the GOP giving a “green light to would-be shooters?”

There are two potential reasons Cooke gives for Murphy’s 280-character rage-a-thon. The first is that he’s simply another soapbox hustler who screams at the top of his lungs to do something whenever a tragedy like this occurs so that he has a good quote or video clip to send out in the next fundraising email. The second option — which is scarier and (I think) much more likely — is that Murphy actually wants pistols and shotguns banned, along with pretty much every other firearm.

Even though gun violence has gone down as gun ownership has gone up, the Democrats have become far more brazen in their belief that the only solution to a barely existent problem is to take away all of America’s guns. Never mind the fact that targeted, hyper-narrow regulations and changing the way the mainstream media covers mass shootings like these would likely yield greater results.

We’ve come to the point where Democrat representatives are openly talking about seizing all modern sporting rifles — or “assault weapons,” in the parlance of the left — and “buy(ing) back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

By his language in the Friday tweet, Murphy has made it clear that hsi agenda doesn’t stop with rifles. It’s going to extend to shotguns, pistols — really, anything covered by the Second Amendment. The only thing being perverted here is the Constitution, and Chris Murphy knows it.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

BOOM! Devin Nunes: If FBI Paid to Spy on Trump “It’s Absolute Red Line! It’s Over With!… No Honest American Will Stand for This!” (VIDEO)

BOOM! Devin Nunes: If FBI Paid to Spy on Trump “It’s Absolute Red Line! It’s Over With!… No Honest American Will Stand for This!” (VIDEO)

Rep. Devin Nunes (D-CA) joined Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss the latest developments in the Deep State interference in the 2016 US elections.

It has been widely reported that the Obama administration had a spy working inside the Trump campaign.

As previously reported internet sleuths have determined who the FBI spy was inside the Trump campaign.

Jeff Carlson at theMarketswork on Thursday put together a piece where he places an individual by the name of Stefan Halper as a potential FBI spy into the Trump campaign. (Note that some believe that Obama may have had more than one spy on the Trump campaign).

It was a lucrative business for Stefan Halper. Stefan Halper was paid a total of $411,575 in 2016 and 2017 for work with the US government that included his work spying on the Trump campaign.

Devin Nunes told Maria Bartiromo if this is true, “It’s over!”

Rep. Devin Nunes: If any of that is true, if they ran a spy ring or an informant ring and they were paying people within the Trump campaign, if any of that is true that is an absolute red line. There’s not and honest person in this country who could believe that taxpayer dollars going to fund this ring and operate like this what is said in The New York Times that has quite a bit of detail on it, if any of that is true it’s a red line in this country. You can’t do this to political campaigns. According to them this was done in the spring before the counter-intelligence was even open. If that’s true, we need to know about it… If they paid someone it’s an absolute red line and this is over with!”

Via Sunday Morning Futures:

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com