Category: US Politics

Posted on

Democrats’ ‘DREAMer’ Demands Threaten Spending Bill, Gov Shutdown In Coming Weeks

Democrats hate Americans.

A showdown could loom in December.

Not over tax reform, but over funding the government.

The federal government is funded through December 8. Republicans control the House and Senate. But historically, the GOP has failed on its own to provide the necessary votes to avert a government shutdown.

The party required a bailout from Democrats as recently as Sept. 2015 to help make up the vote deficit and pass those spending bills. Republicans sometimes balk for a variety of reasons. They don’t like stopgap appropriations packages. They’re disgusted by the process. They demand more for defense. What about entitlement spending? Where’s the plan to reduce the national debt?

As an aside, the answer to the final question wasn’t really addressed in the recent budget framework approved by the House and Senate to muscle through tax reform. And deficits are forecast to balloon by at least $1.5 trillion in the Republican tax bill.

But back to government funding …

When Republicans find themselves short in these government funding crises, they turn to Democrats. But Democratic votes could prove even more valuable in this December’s scenario.

It all has to do with DACA and DREAMers.

DACA is the abbreviation for an Obama administration-era program “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Democrats and some Republicans often refer to undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. as minors as DREAMers. That’s derived from the bipartisan DREAM Act, short for “The Development, Relief, Education for Minors” bill.

A coalition of liberal Democrats is now flexing its muscles on the upcoming government spending bill. Many Democrats insist that congressional leaders attach the DREAM Act to the spending package, or else.

“If there’s no clean DREAM Act in the budget, we’re not voting for it,” threatened Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently challenged House Republicans to pass the spending bill on their own.

“But if … you need our votes, include a clean DREAM Act,” the Washington Democrat said.

“Republicans are the majority until it comes to governance,” argued Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. “Oh. You don’t have 218 votes? We’re happy to help keep the government open.”

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

Posted on

Democrat Blumenthal Accuses Trump Of Tyranny For Doing Something Obama Did

Two universal truths about democrats are 1) they are hypocrites and 2) reality is what they say it is. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal put these truths on display Sunday when he accused President Trump of being a “tyrant” for doing something he has the authority to do and also a thing former president Obama did. Words mean what they want them to mean and things are only bad when a Republican does them.

This is all a pretty stupid and boring thing involving the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Like many government agencies, the President appoints the head and the Senate must approve. This however was a unique scenario as the person running the agency stepped down and tried to illegally name his successor. Because this happened while Congress was on a break, President Trump was well within his powers to appoint a temporary successor.

Obama appointee Richard Cordray was the director of the CFPB, but resigned on Friday. He appointed Leandra English as the deputy director, which in his absence would make her the acting director. As you may have noticed, an agency director doesn’t get to appoint directors, that’s the President’s job. As such, Trump named Mick Mulvaney as the acting director, something he is allowed to do, and seeing as Congress is in recess and can’t approve or disapprove of his appointments, something he had to do. They will, when they return, vote on whether Mulvaney gets to keep this position or not. This is all very non-controversial stuff, backed by the law.

Here’s how Blumenthal sees it:

“Congress had great foresight to mandate that the CFPB deputy fills the Director’s vacancy – to stop a bullying, tyrannical President from crippling the agency and undercutting consumers. That more recently passed provision trumps others,” wrote Blumenthal.

There is no truth to Blumenthal’s claim that the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the CFPB, authorizes the acting director to name his successor, but that’s the least of the problems with the Senator’s tweet.

The democrat is accusing Trump of being a tyrant, which is is an absolute ruler unrestrained by the law. What Trump did is well within the law; there’s no tyranny here at all. Blumenthal also accuses the President of bullying, which is just as dumb. How does using the power he is assigned an act of bullying? Like I said, words mean what democrats want them to mean.

Making this as stupid as possible, former president Barack Obama actually installed Richard Cordray as the director of the CFPB while Congress was not in session. In 2013, Obama used a recess appointment for Cordray, meaning he became the director without Senate approval. Why is Trump a bully tyrant and Obama is not?

The answer is obviously because Trump is a Republican while Obama is a democrat. Blumenthal has been a US Senator since 2011 so he was around when Obama pulled this act of tyranny and yet he was not so outraged back then. If democrats weren’t full of shit, they’d be as empty as their rhetoric.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

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

Posted on

Rep. John Conyers Steps Down from Judiciary Post amid Sexual Misconduct Controversy

Rep. John Conyers Steps Down from Judiciary Post amid Sexual Misconduct Controversy

by Penny Starr26 Nov 20170



Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) announced Sunday he will be stepping down as ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

The move comes after it surfaced that he had paid a former staffer a settlement after she claimed she was fired for rebuffing Conyers’ sexual advances.

“After careful consideration and in light of the attention drawn by recent allegations made against me, I have notified the Democratic Leader of my request to step aside as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee during the investigation of these matters,” Conyers said.

The longest-serving member of the House has denied the claims against him.

“I deny these allegations, many of which were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right blogger. I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family before the House Committee on Ethics,” Conyers said.

Politico reported on Conyers departure from the post, which he has held since 1965:

Conyers’ departure from the position opens a powerful committee post and adds to turmoil roiling Capitol Hill amid a series of sexual harassment allegations against members and aides.

BuzzFeed broke the story last week that Conyers’ office had paid an accuser $27,000 to settle a complaint that she had been fired after refusing his sexual advances.

The settlement, using taxpayer funds, was reached outside of the formal reporting mechanism for sexual harassment claims—the Office of Compliance (OCC).

As Breitbart News reported, the office released a report that showed between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2017 some $17 million had been handed out as settlements to individuals or groups of individuals who filed a variety of charges against members of Congress or staff, including sexual harassment claims.

“A large portion of cases originate from employing of offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act of 1995] CAA, such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family, and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Susan Tsui Grundmann, executive director of the OOC, wrote in the report.

“The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA.” the report read.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

Posted on

CFPB: Trump targets a monster

President Trump has slammed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a “total disaster” and rightly objects to a second leftist taking the place of outgoing leftwing director Richard Cordray.


The battle is just the tip of the iceberg surrounding this federal agency that shouldn’t even be there in the first place.



What Trump is battling is an unaccountable agency run by the Democrats and for the Democrats with the aim of funding more Democrats. It’s a shakedown racket targeting banks and other moneybags businesses based solely on the size of their assets to harvest from fines. It was never about protecting consumers. It was never about oversight. It just amounted to a slush fund for Democrats that as set up cannot be reformed.


A long, worthy piece by a Ronald L. Rubin, a former enforcement attorney at CFPB, in National Review, lays out the problems as only an insider’s account can.


Conceived as a government watchdog with noble aims, the CFPB was doomed by a structure that made it an inherently political agency.


 


is how he summed this leftist racket up.


 


The Democrats under President Obama designed the agency first conceived by Elizabeth Warren so that it would be nominally independent and nominally bipartisan, but in reality unaccountable to the voters and the leaders they elect, putting its funding under the purview of the Federal Reserve, which is independent itself, instead of the Congress.


 


Then they designed the agency so that no Republican could ever enter it. Rubin writes:


 


Over the next two years, the economy collapsed, Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House, and Warren grew famous criticizing big banks in congressional hearings. She lobbied Democrats to include her agency in their Wall Street–reform legislation, arguing that effective enforcement of consumer-protection laws required a regulator independent from politicians beholden to the financial industry. The Democrats had a better idea: They would make her agency independent from Republicans.


 


Rubin describes how the agency systematically discriminated against Republican hires through wink and nod hiring processes and got away with it. As for the director:


 


Circumventing the Constitution took two steps. First, Democrats inserted a few clever workarounds into the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB on July 21, 2010. Commissions such as the one Warren first proposed are ostensibly bipartisan, so a president-appointed director would lead the new agency. Since there might be a Republican president one day, the director would be practically irremovable after Senate confirmation to a five-year term that could extend indefinitely until the next director’s confirmation. To prevent future Republican-led Congresses from cutting the bureau’s budget, funding would be guaranteed through Federal Reserve profits rather than taxpayer dollars.


 


Operationally, they were horrible, too. It took local regulatory agencies and a long Los Angeles Times investigative piece to expose the massive opening of unwanted accounts of consumers by Wells Fargo employees back in 2013.  After all the work was done, CFPB came in and fined Wells Fargo, which was loaded with Democrat donors, the $100 million it got headlines for, ignoring that the agency actually didn’t do anything to uncover the bad case of abuse against customers. They weren’t in the business of protecting customers, they were just about shakedowns and publicity, as Rubin described.


 


And that cash they extracted goes solely to Democrat groups.


 


IBD writes:


 


Now, a little-noticed item on the CFPB’s website reveals the powerful new agency is launching its own scheme to provide backdoor funding for nonprofit urban groups politically aligned with Democrats.


The CFPB plans to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions. Through ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations, the agency will bankroll some 60 liberal nonprofits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups. It says these organizations will provide “financial coaching” for low-income homebuyers, as well as “housing and social services.”


But their activities are more political than charitable. IBD obtained a list of groups eligible for the bank payola, as approved by CFPB Director Richard Cordray and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. It includes:


• The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, whose directors include senior Democratic National Committee officials; the self-described “policy advocacy” group has lobbied Congress for more welfare spending at least 108 times since Obama took office.


• The Mississippi Center for Justice, whose stated mission is “advancing racial and economic justice” and “attacking predatory lending practices.”


• People’s Community Action Corp. of St. Louis, which has seated Obama appointees and Democrat lawmakers on its board.


With a setup like this and no possibility of reform or a change of emphasis through elections, is there any reason to keep this agency around? They don’t protect consumers, their focus is on going for firms with the largest asset bases to extract fines rather than the companies with the most violations, as Rubin notes, and they fail to cooperate with Congress. If that’s not a rogue agency, now appointing its own leftists over President Trump’s choices for the agency, what is? President Trump deserves the full support of the Congress and the voters as he battles this leftwing beast.


 


 





 


 


 





 


 


 


 


 


 


President Trump has slammed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a “total disaster” and rightly objects to a second leftist taking the place of outgoing leftwing director Richard Cordray.


The battle is just the tip of the iceberg surrounding this federal agency that shouldn’t even be there in the first place.


What Trump is battling is an unaccountable agency run by the Democrats and for the Democrats with the aim of funding more Democrats. It’s a shakedown racket targeting banks and other moneybags businesses based solely on the size of their assets to harvest from fines. It was never about protecting consumers. It was never about oversight. It just amounted to a slush fund for Democrats that as set up cannot be reformed.


A long, worthy piece by a Ronald L. Rubin, a former enforcement attorney at CFPB, in National Review, lays out the problems as only an insider’s account can.


Conceived as a government watchdog with noble aims, the CFPB was doomed by a structure that made it an inherently political agency.


 


is how he summed this leftist racket up.


 


The Democrats under President Obama designed the agency first conceived by Elizabeth Warren so that it would be nominally independent and nominally bipartisan, but in reality unaccountable to the voters and the leaders they elect, putting its funding under the purview of the Federal Reserve, which is independent itself, instead of the Congress.


 


Then they designed the agency so that no Republican could ever enter it. Rubin writes:


 


Over the next two years, the economy collapsed, Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House, and Warren grew famous criticizing big banks in congressional hearings. She lobbied Democrats to include her agency in their Wall Street–reform legislation, arguing that effective enforcement of consumer-protection laws required a regulator independent from politicians beholden to the financial industry. The Democrats had a better idea: They would make her agency independent from Republicans.


 


Rubin describes how the agency systematically discriminated against Republican hires through wink and nod hiring processes and got away with it. As for the director:


 


Circumventing the Constitution took two steps. First, Democrats inserted a few clever workarounds into the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB on July 21, 2010. Commissions such as the one Warren first proposed are ostensibly bipartisan, so a president-appointed director would lead the new agency. Since there might be a Republican president one day, the director would be practically irremovable after Senate confirmation to a five-year term that could extend indefinitely until the next director’s confirmation. To prevent future Republican-led Congresses from cutting the bureau’s budget, funding would be guaranteed through Federal Reserve profits rather than taxpayer dollars.


 


Operationally, they were horrible, too. It took local regulatory agencies and a long Los Angeles Times investigative piece to expose the massive opening of unwanted accounts of consumers by Wells Fargo employees back in 2013.  After all the work was done, CFPB came in and fined Wells Fargo, which was loaded with Democrat donors, the $100 million it got headlines for, ignoring that the agency actually didn’t do anything to uncover the bad case of abuse against customers. They weren’t in the business of protecting customers, they were just about shakedowns and publicity, as Rubin described.


 


And that cash they extracted goes solely to Democrat groups.


 


IBD writes:


 


Now, a little-noticed item on the CFPB’s website reveals the powerful new agency is launching its own scheme to provide backdoor funding for nonprofit urban groups politically aligned with Democrats.


The CFPB plans to create a so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions. Through ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations, the agency will bankroll some 60 liberal nonprofits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups. It says these organizations will provide “financial coaching” for low-income homebuyers, as well as “housing and social services.”


But their activities are more political than charitable. IBD obtained a list of groups eligible for the bank payola, as approved by CFPB Director Richard Cordray and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. It includes:


• The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, whose directors include senior Democratic National Committee officials; the self-described “policy advocacy” group has lobbied Congress for more welfare spending at least 108 times since Obama took office.


• The Mississippi Center for Justice, whose stated mission is “advancing racial and economic justice” and “attacking predatory lending practices.”


• People’s Community Action Corp. of St. Louis, which has seated Obama appointees and Democrat lawmakers on its board.


With a setup like this and no possibility of reform or a change of emphasis through elections, is there any reason to keep this agency around? They don’t protect consumers, their focus is on going for firms with the largest asset bases to extract fines rather than the companies with the most violations, as Rubin notes, and they fail to cooperate with Congress. If that’s not a rogue agency, now appointing its own leftists over President Trump’s choices for the agency, what is? President Trump deserves the full support of the Congress and the voters as he battles this leftwing beast.


 


 





 


 


 





 


 


 


 


 


 






via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1c2jbfc

Posted on

Singer Morrissey says he would kill Trump at the press of a button ‘in the interest of humanity’

British musical superstar Morrissey says he would kill President Donald Trump if he needed to for the benefit of humanity.

Woah, what?

According to the Washington Times, Morrissey was asked a hypothetical question by German newspaper Der Spiegel recently about killing Trump at the push of a button.

“If there was a button here and if you pressed on it, Trump would die dead [sic]– would you push it or not,” Der Spiegel asked.

“I would, for the safety of humanity. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion of his face or his family, but in the interest of humanity I would push,” Morrissey said.

What else did he say?

In response to other questions from the German publication, Morrissey blamed the American media for “creating” Trump and aiding in his election victory last November.

“Trump has received so much attention, especially when compared to other candidates — Bernie Sanders, for example. Although the media said he would not win, every day, all the headlines: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!” Morrissey said.

“The American media helped Trump, yes, they first created it. Whether they criticize him or laugh at him, he does not care, he just wants to see his picture and his name. The American media have shot themselves in the leg,” he added. “I never expected him to be elected.”

Morrissey is the former frontman for the British rock group The Smiths. He is currently on an international tour and will perform in Washington, D.C., this Thursday, Nov. 30.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

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

Posted on

Democrat Conyers Threatens to Take the Whole Damn Swamp Down With Him!

Democrat Conyers Threatens to Take the Whole Damn Swamp Down With Him!

November 26, 2017
by Jim Hoft

The lawyer for Rep. John Conyers hinted the Michigan Democrat may take down “many others” with him if he is pushed too hard!

Via American Thinker:

Peter Hasson describes for the Daily Caller the remarkable vague threat emanating for the attorney representing John Conyers:

The attorney for Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers, who is accused of continuously sexually harassing his female staffers, defended Conyers by indicating that there are allegations against “many members” of the House and Senate.

Conyers’ attorney, Arnold E. Reed, released a statement defending the Michigan Democrat and pushing back against the “disturbing allegations.” The bizarre statement was written in all-CAPS and referred to both Reed and Conyers in the third person.

This could get fun.

Here is the statement released by Mr. Reed:

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

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X

Posted on

WATCH: Famous Rapper Blasts LaVar Ball, Says He Needs To Thank Trump

One of the biggest names in hip-hop history said that LaVar Ball – the father of one of the UCLA basketball players caught stealing in China – should show respect to President Donald Trump for bringing his kid back to the United States where he won’t have to face years in prison for his actions.

Rapper Master P, whose birth name is Percy Robert Miller, recently told TMZ sports that LaVar Ball should stop his obnoxious behavior and just thank Trump and be thankful that his kid is home.

“I just think it’s a blessing to have your kids back at home, man,” Miller told TMZ. “You got to just be humble.”

“Just be thankful that your kids are safe, they are not in prison, and do the right thing,” Miller continued. “He had something to do with your kid getting home, so right is right and wrong is wrong.”

Miller continued saying that Ball should specifically thank the president because it’s the right thing to do.

“That’s what it should be,” Miller said. “Give respect where it’s at.”

WATCH:

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r

Posted on

Whistleblower: PP Partner Offered Cash “Prizes” for Fetus Parts

Thanks to a series of undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, the abortion providers at Planned Parenthood have been exposed for engaging in the sale and trafficking of various body parts and tissue samples procured from aborted babies.

Aside from being a horrific atrocity, the activity is also be against the law. So far, Planned Parenthood and its partners have denied any and all wrongdoing and attempted to put an end to any further investigation of the despicable money-making scheme.

But evidence that runs contrary to the assertions of the abortionists continues to emerge. An interview between CMP head David Daleiden and a whistleblower named Holly O’Donnell revealed an incentives package for employees of a Planned Parenthood partner to obtain greater numbers of baby body parts, Life Site News reported.

O’Donnell is a former employee of Stem Express, a company that worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood clinics to procure specimens of fetal organs, tissues and blood for scientific experimentation, testing, and other purposes. Her job was to convince the women obtaining abortions to sign a consent form allowing the baby body parts to be harvested and sold, though the practice obviously wasn’t explained to the women that way.

“We wanted more gestated fetuses, it was a lot easier to get these and we could take more from it,” O’Donnell stated, according to a release from CMP.

TRENDING: Mad Dog Mattis First F-22 Airstrike in Afghanistan Proves That He Is Not Messing Around

She provided documents which showed that Stem Express offered bonuses to procurement technicians that incentivized them to collect as many specimens as possible, one of which broke down the compensation rates and ranked in importance the specimens as part of categories A, B and C, from most to least valuable.

“So A is like brain, heart, lungs, liver, spleen,” explained O’Donnell, who added that such parts were “really high demand.”

“So if you really do your job, you get up to 11-20 specimens, you’re getting $20 per specimen,” she continued. “If it’s 1 to 10, you’re doing just blood, you’re getting $10 for one blood draw.”

O’Donnell said that her employer exerted “maximum pressure” on the technicians to harvest as much as possible, with a constant reminder that doing so was “not an option, it’s a demand.”

She even produced an email that served as a sort of rallying message to technicians, according to Life Site, which ended with a call to action that read, “Go Team!!! Leave nothing on the table!”

You can watch part of O’Donnell’s conversation with Daleidan in the video below:

It is worth noting that, while Planned Parenthood and their partners have staunchly denied any sort of wrongdoing and fought tooth-and-nail against all efforts at exposing them, they may finally be on the verge of experiencing justice for what appears to be incredibly disgusting illegal practices.

RELATED: Predator Weinstein Takes Hillary Approach, Uses Democrat Tactics to Cover Up Scandal

In response to a referral made last December by the Senate Judiciary Committee for a criminal investigation into the matter, The Hill reported that the FBI has requested that unredacted copies of all documents garnered by the committee in their own investigation be turned over to the agency.

Neither the FBI or the Justice Department commented on the request, but it is believed by many to be a signal that Planned Parenthood, its partners and any other abortion providers involved in the scheme may finally be the subject of an official criminal investigation.

All we can say is, it is about darn time, as such an investigation is long overdue.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know that a Planned Parenthood partner offered financial incentives to employees to encourage as much harvesting of baby body parts as possible.

What do you think of this report of incentives being offered to encourage the harvesting of aborted baby body parts? Scroll down to comment below!

Dear Reader,

We need to talk. Facebook has targeted our site, preventing over half of our stories from reaching our readers. We believe this is wrong and, honestly, we need your help to continue producing the quality news and opinion we produce every day. You can help make that possible:

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Posted on

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith Indicates Black Friday Is Racist

Yes, we’ve finally reached the point where even the word “black” in any context is racist. ESPN host Stephen A. Smith indicated in a tweet that Black Friday is racist, and that didn’t come with any crazy explanation about white privilege, systemic racism, or slavery. He just thinks it racist because of the name. In a world where everything is racist, it stands to reason that even colors would make the list.

Black Friday is of course the day after Thanksgiving where retailers hold riot-inducing sales to help balance the books by the end of the year. Here’s Wikipedia with an explanation behind the name:

As the phrase gained national attention in the early 1980s, merchants objecting to the use of a derisive term to refer to one of the most important shopping days of the year suggested an alternative derivation: that retailers traditionally operated at a financial loss for most of the year (January through November) and made their profit during the holiday season, beginning on the day after Thanksgiving.[8] When this was recorded in the financial records, once-common accounting practices would use red ink to show negative amounts and black ink to show positive amounts. Black Friday, under this theory, is the beginning of the period when retailers would no longer be “in the red”, instead taking in the year’s profits.

Now’s here’s Stephen A. Smith with his problem concerning the day:

“Awful lot of stuff to talk about on @FirstTake today, and you know I can’t wait. But I promise: one of the subjects WON’T be “Why is Today called ‘Black Friday.’? That has always irked me, but I won’t bring it up! See y’all at top of hour on ESPN,” wrote Smith.

So Black Friday irks a black guy who thinks everything is racist? Obviously, this is as racist as to him as no NFL team signing Colin Kaepernick. In other words, it is racist too.

There are Internet conspiracy theories that Black Friday was named so because the Friday after Thanksgiving was the day that African slaves were bought and sold. This is preposterous, has been throughly debunked, and has no basis in history. The first formal observation of a “Day of Thanks” came from Abraham Lincoln near the end of the Civil War, when slavery was outlawed. How can you have a tradition of slave trading on the day after Thanksgiving when one ended before the other started?

That however is not Smith’s problem. He is “irked” by the day after Thanksgiving because it has “black” in the name. It is the color distinction that makes him think it is racist. I could see (not really) if it somehow had negative connotations like black death, black lung, blackout, etc…but black ink and Black Friday are positive things.

In reality, it sounds like a day to celebrate black people. It’s not called “I Hate Black(s) Friday” just Black Friday. Does Stephen A. Smith also have a problem with Black History Month or Black Bike Week? What about Black Twitter?

If it becomes this hard to find any racism, maybe we really are a post-racial society. This is some Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson bullshit race hustling. Maybe Smith should check out how irrelevant those two con artists are and adjust his faux racial outrage accordingly.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

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

Posted on

LISTEN: Bannon Mocks Macron and Merkel as the ‘Ken and Barbie’ of Globalism

LISTEN: Bannon Mocks Macron and Merkel as the ‘Ken and Barbie’ of Globalism

Bannon

Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

by Jack Montgomery25 Nov 20170



Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen K Bannon has poured scorn on France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel as the “Ken and Barbie” of globalism.

Speaking to Breitbart London editor-in-chief Raheem Kassam on Breitbart News Saturday, the former White House Chief Strategist contrasted the globalist vision of the two Europeans with the economic nationalism advocated by President Trump.

“I think economic nationalism is what binds us together,” Bannon explained. “It doesn’t matter your race, it doesn’t matter your ethnicity, it doesn’t matter your religion, it doesn’t matter your skin colour, it doesn’t matter your gender, it doesn’t matter your sexual preference — what matters is: Are you a citizen of the American Republic? And if you are, you’re going to get preference.”

Bannon observed that citizens have “many obligations and duties” to their countries, and that, consequently, national leaders have an obligation to put them first.

“When it comes to jobs, we’re going to protect our borders, we’re going to stop the amount of illegal immigration coming into the country … and by that way, make more opportunities for American citizens,” he asserted.

“And when President Trump talks about this throughout the world, he also emphasises that other countries should have their leaders put their nations first, so I think economic nationalism is a very positive thing throughout the world.”

Bannon and Kassam rubbished the media narrative of a public turn back to globalism following the victories of Trump in the United States and the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom.

“Let’s take Macron, and let’s take Merkel, who are held up as these titans of globalism, who are held up as the Ken and Barbie of the party of Davos,” he said.

“They’re extremely unpopular. Merkel just had a horrific election,” he reminded listeners — predicting that the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD) would have performed even better had it been able to purge itself of Neo-Nazi entryists more thoroughly.

“Merkel can’t even put together a government, and is really teetering this weekend … they may have to have another election.”

Germany’s Angela Merkel was styled as the new leader of the free world by Hillary Clinton after her own failure to take the White House, among other left-liberal politicians and commentators, and her election disaster left many with egg on their face.

The election of new boy Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, was supposed to represent the tide turning against the conservative insurgencies overtaking the establishment — but weakness on terrorism and radical Islam, along with bizarre pronouncements of intention to govern like a Roman god have rapidly alienated voters.

Bannon was scathing, appraising the Frenchman as “incredibly vapid” and highlighting the fact that his approval ratings are down in the “high twenties”.

Listen to the full interview below:

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3