Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
To say this is embarrassing would be an understatement. ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… “Fake news” CNN’s […]
via Downtrend.com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There were a record 6.6 million job openings at the end of March, the Labor Department said. With unemployment down at 3.9 percent, that means there are enough jobs to employ everyone looking to work for the first time since the data began to be collected.
Not everyone will get a job, as openings are not necessarily a good fit for available workers and may require different skills than those workers have. Jobs may require workers move to places they do not want to live, or moving for work may be impractical. They may pay too little so that workers prefer unemployment, the boss may just be a big jerk, or the job unpalpable for one reason or another.
The Labor Department’s data is undeniably good news. An increase in job openings should coincide with a fall in unemployment, but in recent years this has not been the case since jobs opened up and yet unemployment remained stubbornly high. Economists debated the reasons for this disconnect, and found among them:
Whatever the reason for that disconnect, in recent months the normal relationship seems to have been restored. Job openings once again coincide with falling unemployment.
This is good news for workers in more ways than one, and likely means that further job creation will push wages up, which is the other missing piece of the employment puzzle in recent years. That remains to be seen, of course, and an unexpected economic slowdown or opening the country to additional foreign workers could prevent the realization of wage gains.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com
Carsten Koall/Getty Images
Trump will earn credit from his supporters for keeping his promise. But in truth, the Iran deal was undone by its own terms. It did not stop Iran from enriching uranium; it did not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, eventually; and it did not stop Iran’s global aggression.
In fact, the Iran deal was not even a deal at all.
It was never signed by any of the parties (the U.S., Iran, France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia). It was unclear about crucial subjects like ballistic missiles, because the “deal” was described differently by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and by the UN Security Council Resolutions that were meant to implement it. And, crucially, it was never sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Obama’s disregard for the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution was of a piece with his general disregard for the constitutional constraints on the power of the federal government and the presidency. His refusal to submit the agreement to Senate scrutiny, and his party’s abuse of the filibuster to prevent even a weak Senate vote, deepened the damage that Obamacare — his other struggling “legacy,” in domestic policy — did to American civic culture.
More than Obama’s autocratic style, what Trump ended is Obama’s legacy of appeasement.
Barack Obama came to power convinced that the United States was at best a negative force in world affairs, and at worst the cause of the world’s problems. He believed that America could be a force for good, but only if it renounced its traditional allies, abandoned its principles of freedom, and gave up its national interests in favor of rising regional powers elsewhere.
In his first year in office, Obama backed away from agreements that his predecessor had made to provide missile defense in Europe. He also reached out to the Muslim world, beginning with obsequious speeches in Cairo and in Ankara, and deep genuflection to the Saudi king. When the Green Revolution took to the streets of Iran, Obama allowed the regime to consolidate power. He criticized Israel openly while cozying up to the Cuban dictatorship.
Trump has reversed most of that. He launched attacks on Syria for using chemical weapons — policing the “red line” Obama drew but would not enforce. He withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords and exposed it as a fraud. Later this week, he will move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
“The United States no longer issues empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them,” he said. Thus ended Obama’s experiment with appeasement and autocracy.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com
Privacy and personal data are in the spotlight right now due to the Cambridge Analytica debacle and Facebook’s complete failure to protect user data. Jefferson Graham, a technology columnist for USA Today, decided to investigate further and see how Apple compares to Facebook and main rival Google in terms of the personal data collected. The results are surprising in a good way for Apple users.
Graham’s personal information archive in zip file format from Facebook is 881MB. The zip file he received from Google is much smaller, but still 243MB. The zip file from Apple? Just 9MB.
You may remember Apple CEO Tim Cook criticized Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg for prioritizing advertisers over users. Zuckerberg responded, calling Cook’s comments, “extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth.” Tim Cook also admitted that Apple could “make a ton of money if we monetized our customer,” but the company decided not to do that. Based on the personal data sent to Graham, Apple clearly is keeping your data private.
Graham has used iPhones, iPads, and Macs for at least a decade, so Apple have had plenty of time to collect detailed information on him. However, included in the 9MB zip file was a list of timestamps for iPhone backups, when uploads to iCloud happened, a record of his e-mail and physical address, and a list of each app and song downloaded or added to iTunes. There was also a record of Apple device repairs.
Safari browsing data isn’t tracked and Siri interactions use a random identifier so Apple can’t associate the data it does collect to improve the service with an individual. Because of that, it isn’t included in the personal data archive.
Another big difference is how quickly each of the companies provide the personal data archive. Facebook will share the file with you almost instantly, where as Google takes a few hours. However, Apple requires a street address, phone number, and the serial number of your device be confirmed before sharing. In the end it took Graham eight days to get his data.
Clearly Apple has a big lead when it comes to keeping your personal data private because it simply doesn’t collect it, instead choosing to leave it on a user’s phone for their own consumption. But that difference is inherent in the different business model the company follows. Apple is all about selling hardware, software, and services the consumer pays for. Google and Facebook bypass the need for payment by making consumers (and therefore their data) the product.
via PCMag.com Security Coverage
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,1738,4829,00.asp
A federal judge on Saturday handed special counsel Robert Mueller his first courtroom defeat since being appointed to investigate Russian interference and the Trump campaign last year.
The defeat, while only small, may have huge implications in the future.
Federal District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich rejected Mueller’s motion to delay the first hearing of a criminal case charging that three Russian companies and 13 Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller indicted the companies and persons in February, in what is now known as the Russian “troll farm” case.
The judge offered no explanation as to why she denied Mueller’s request.
As TheBlaze reported on Saturday, Mueller filed a motion in court on Friday to delay the initial hearing. Because those charged are outside U.S. jurisdiction, it was widely believed the charges wouldn’t be challenged. That theory was crushed last month when two attorneys representing one of the companies — Concord Management — made a “slew” of information requests from Mueller’s team.
The sudden requests were believed “to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information,” Politico reported.
Arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting — the company whose lawyers are now challenging Mueller — is scheduled for Wednesday. Mueller asked for the delay because the lawyers said Mueller’s court summons was defective and he needed time to ensure it was done legally.
They took Mueller to task for his actions so far in the case. They claimed Mueller is trying “to usurp the scheduling authority of the court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to request a delay in a hearing scheduled for next Wednesday.
The lawyers also complained that Mueller’s team has refused to provide them with the evidentiary documents they are entitled to as Concord’s counsel, according to Politico. In addition, the lawyers said Concord plans to exercise its speedy trial rights, which further pressures Mueller to turn over the documents.
If Concord’s attorneys continue to earn small victories in and outside of the courtroom, Mueller’s team will be forced to turn over documents the lawyers requested, giving them an insight into Mueller’s intentions and where his investigation actually stands.
But if he refuses to play ball, the losses will continue to stack up for the special counsel.
via TheBlaze.com – Stories
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com
The famous mural, via YouTube screengrab, after the Daily Caller
Instead of citing the highly politicized content of the mural, which would make it Cuban-style propaganda, or perhaps something redolent of what the Sandinistas of Nicaragua put up before the voters threw them out in 1990, the school’s director piously cited the “violence” in the imagery as the problem. The full statement is here:
MAAC Community Charter School’s mission is to provide a safe and accepting environment where diversity of thought is recognized, valued and celebrated. There was a mural painted at the event this past weekend that does not align with our school’s philosophy of non-violence. This mural has been painted over and we have been in communication with the artists who have agreed to create a new mural that better aligns with the school’s philosophy.
It’s nonsense. A mural going up anywhere on a school grounds would normally be subject to approval by a school board and it would be normal to ask why the board of this charter independent school approved this. Someone wanted this up and backed off when the school got caught in the glare of negative publicity. The San Diego Union-Tribune asked that question and didn’t get a straight answer: the school’s marketing director said the school was “looking into” whether anyone approved it.
Let’s keep waiting on that.
A look at who’s running the school pretty well tells us what was going on. The school, whose MAAC initials stand for Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty of San Diego County, Inc. is a project of a group of Chicano militant groups, some dating from the brown-beret era of the 1970s and earlier, and their school has been around since 2001. One name on the board stands out: Hermandad Mexicana, a Soros-funded group whose chief impact has to promote the interests of illegal immigrants. Hermandad Mexicana was the group that organized and pulled the stunt using a child to break through lines and give visiting Pope Francis a note calling for legalization of the parents of illegal immigrants in 2015. I wrote about the staging with that here.
So now they have a charter school, and that charter school claims it serves the underserved – obviously, with Chavez-style propaganda if the Trump severed head mural is any indication, just as Chavez did with the Caracas shantytown dwellers, offering goodies in exchange for political loyalty.
Charter schools get both state and federal funds, and in California, are only permitted to exist if they maintain a sufficient student ratio as well as live up to performance standards. This one doesn’t.
According to this statistic (dated to 2012, so it may be changed) they get an average of $7,131 per pupil of federal funding, plus state funding conditioned upon performance. The school has 243 students enrolled, according to its School Accountability Report Card for 2016-2017, which if the numbers are correct, would mean it gets $1,732,833 in federal funding alone.
Now let’s take a look at who’s enrolled – it’s a doozy.
According to the SARC, the school educates students up to the age of 24, and has 167 students enrolled as seniors, or, grade 12. Sixty-one are in Grade 11, a huge drop. Thirteen are in Grade 10, a more precipitous drop still, and all of two, repeat, two, are in Grade 9. There are no student rosters listed for lower grades, although the SARC forms include them as a category together with higher grades further down on the report, which could be a category placeholder.
Assuming these are all the students they have, this stands out because it suggests that most of these kids aren’t high-schoolers, they are likely adult illegal immigrants from Mexico and beyond who are the typical military-aged young men who are playing student to keep this school’s enrollment up, its funds coming, and probably to obtain Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals benefits. The Grade 12 classification is likely high because it includes 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 year-olds.
Statistics show that, too.
According to 2016-2017 student data on the SARC (and it contradicts itself in places)
95.9% are identified a Hispanic.
70.4% are listed as socially disadvantage (the figure rises to 90% later in the report)
65% are identified as “English learners,” which would likely mean Spanish-only speakers, or unassimilated immigrants.
Combine it with the huge age gaps for the high school and it has the look of a propaganda school for young Chavista soldiers from among the illegal immigrant community.
It gets worse – look at the academic record of the place, which is the main rationale for keeping it open at all:
The SARC shows that the students, most of them young adults, not kids, all have books and the school grounds have an overall exemplary rating. Yet the performance is utterly abysmal.
English language arts / literacy for grades 3, 8, and 11 is 8%, compared with 53% for the district and 48% statewide.
Science proficiency is at 5%, compared to 49% for the district and 54% for the state.
Math is not even rated because fewer than ten students at Grade 11 are enrolled in any math, although there are some math enrollment statistics further down in the report – which would make one question then why the space was left blank.
Between 89% and 91% of the students were tested.
And 98.7% of the students were enrolled in courses required for University of California or California State Universities for admission. A mightly 0.7% completed all of them.
Which makes one wonder about this school. It’s got a facile ideological militancy of the left, it’s got a questionable student body of few high-school age students, and its academic record is abysmal.
Is this really a school that should be taking federal funds and allowed by the state to exist as an alternative to public schools?
It has the look of a front group for something else, something that doesn’t resemble education.
A charter school in Chula Vista, Calif., just south of San Diego, got its name in the news for hosting a mural featuring a bloodied severed head of President Trump.
After a public outcry, the school acted quickly to cover it up, and got the “artist” (Sasha Andrade, who has no record at all on the Internet of creating any art) to change it, apparently under protest.
The famous mural, via YouTube screengrab, after the Daily Caller
Instead of citing the highly politicized content of the mural, which would make it Cuban-style propaganda, or perhaps something redolent of what the Sandinistas of Nicaragua put up before the voters threw them out in 1990, the school’s director piously cited the “violence” in the imagery as the problem. The full statement is here:
MAAC Community Charter School’s mission is to provide a safe and accepting environment where diversity of thought is recognized, valued and celebrated. There was a mural painted at the event this past weekend that does not align with our school’s philosophy of non-violence. This mural has been painted over and we have been in communication with the artists who have agreed to create a new mural that better aligns with the school’s philosophy.
It’s nonsense. A mural going up anywhere on a school grounds would normally be subject to approval by a school board and it would be normal to ask why the board of this charter independent school approved this. Someone wanted this up and backed off when the school got caught in the glare of negative publicity. The San Diego Union-Tribune asked that question and didn’t get a straight answer: the school’s marketing director said the school was “looking into” whether anyone approved it.
Let’s keep waiting on that.
A look at who’s running the school pretty well tells us what was going on. The school, whose MAAC initials stand for Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty of San Diego County, Inc. is a project of a group of Chicano militant groups, some dating from the brown-beret era of the 1970s and earlier, and their school has been around since 2001. One name on the board stands out: Hermandad Mexicana, a Soros-funded group whose chief impact has to promote the interests of illegal immigrants. Hermandad Mexicana was the group that organized and pulled the stunt using a child to break through lines and give visiting Pope Francis a note calling for legalization of the parents of illegal immigrants in 2015. I wrote about the staging with that here.
So now they have a charter school, and that charter school claims it serves the underserved – obviously, with Chavez-style propaganda if the Trump severed head mural is any indication, just as Chavez did with the Caracas shantytown dwellers, offering goodies in exchange for political loyalty.
Charter schools get both state and federal funds, and in California, are only permitted to exist if they maintain a sufficient student ratio as well as live up to performance standards. This one doesn’t.
According to this statistic (dated to 2012, so it may be changed) they get an average of $7,131 per pupil of federal funding, plus state funding conditioned upon performance. The school has 243 students enrolled, according to its School Accountability Report Card for 2016-2017, which if the numbers are correct, would mean it gets $1,732,833 in federal funding alone.
Now let’s take a look at who’s enrolled – it’s a doozy.
According to the SARC, the school educates students up to the age of 24, and has 167 students enrolled as seniors, or, grade 12. Sixty-one are in Grade 11, a huge drop. Thirteen are in Grade 10, a more precipitous drop still, and all of two, repeat, two, are in Grade 9. There are no student rosters listed for lower grades, although the SARC forms include them as a category together with higher grades further down on the report, which could be a category placeholder.
Assuming these are all the students they have, this stands out because it suggests that most of these kids aren’t high-schoolers, they are likely adult illegal immigrants from Mexico and beyond who are the typical military-aged young men who are playing student to keep this school’s enrollment up, its funds coming, and probably to obtain Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals benefits. The Grade 12 classification is likely high because it includes 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 year-olds.
Statistics show that, too.
According to 2016-2017 student data on the SARC (and it contradicts itself in places)
95.9% are identified a Hispanic.
70.4% are listed as socially disadvantage (the figure rises to 90% later in the report)
65% are identified as “English learners,” which would likely mean Spanish-only speakers, or unassimilated immigrants.
Combine it with the huge age gaps for the high school and it has the look of a propaganda school for young Chavista soldiers from among the illegal immigrant community.
It gets worse – look at the academic record of the place, which is the main rationale for keeping it open at all:
The SARC shows that the students, most of them young adults, not kids, all have books and the school grounds have an overall exemplary rating. Yet the performance is utterly abysmal.
English language arts / literacy for grades 3, 8, and 11 is 8%, compared with 53% for the district and 48% statewide.
Science proficiency is at 5%, compared to 49% for the district and 54% for the state.
Math is not even rated because fewer than ten students at Grade 11 are enrolled in any math, although there are some math enrollment statistics further down in the report – which would make one question then why the space was left blank.
Between 89% and 91% of the students were tested.
And 98.7% of the students were enrolled in courses required for University of California or California State Universities for admission. A mightly 0.7% completed all of them.
Which makes one wonder about this school. It’s got a facile ideological militancy of the left, it’s got a questionable student body of few high-school age students, and its academic record is abysmal.
Is this really a school that should be taking federal funds and allowed by the state to exist as an alternative to public schools?
It has the look of a front group for something else, something that doesn’t resemble education.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Actress Alyssa Milano attended an anti-NRA protest in Dallas yesterday. Milano, a child actress known for her work in series TV, tweetet her opposition to the NRA, suggesting people vote for candidates who received no NRA money.
The best way to defeat the NRA is to vote for candidates who don’t take their money. Register to vote at https://t.co/fRXtJpSIXv. #NoRA #Vote pic.twitter.com/2kiZIk9OEq
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 5, 2018
How very noble of her. There’s only one problem with her advocacy; she attended the event flanked by armed bodyguards.
In video captured by Ben Howe, NRA member Will Haraway asked Milano’s security if he was armed and the man clearly wasn’t amused by the question.
“I’m going to ask you to leave,” the guard said repeatedly, physically backing Haraway up by getting in his face.
“How far do I have to go?” Haraway asked.
“I’m going to need you on the sidewalk,” the agent responded.
“Hypocrite! Alyssa you’re a hypocrite! You have armed security here!” an observer yelled.
Milano’s friends, meanwhile, had no problem denouncing guns while benefiting from her special protected status.
“I will change the world,” Khary Penebaker declared, posing next to the safe Milano.
“Not one more gun death. Not one more broken hearted family. NOT. ONE. MORE,” he said.
The irony, of course, was lost on the Hollywood celebrity as she denounced the Second Amendment group.
As I wrote yesterday about Greens feeling like they have a moral license to pollute, so, too, anti-gun Hollywood celebrities feel that because they are on the “right side” of the gun issue, there is no hypocrisy in having armed guards protect their precious rear ends.
Of course, the rest of us know better. The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to protect themselves (or hire bodyguards to protect them.). But along with a moral license, there is a towering sense of entitlement on the part of rich celebrities that allows them to lecture us about all sorts of behavior and ways of thinking. We “little people” are in great need of guidance and who better to instruct us than empty-headed Hollywood types whose knowledge of any issue is dictated by Democratic party talking points?
Everyone should point their finger and laugh at Milano.
Actress Alyssa Milano attended an anti-NRA protest in Dallas yesterday. Milano, a child actress known for her work in series TV, tweetet her opposition to the NRA, suggesting people vote for candidates who received no NRA money.
The best way to defeat the NRA is to vote for candidates who don’t take their money. Register to vote at https://t.co/fRXtJpSIXv. #NoRA #Vote pic.twitter.com/2kiZIk9OEq
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 5, 2018
How very noble of her. There’s only one problem with her advocacy; she attended the event flanked by armed bodyguards.
In video captured by Ben Howe, NRA member Will Haraway asked Milano’s security if he was armed and the man clearly wasn’t amused by the question.
“I’m going to ask you to leave,” the guard said repeatedly, physically backing Haraway up by getting in his face.
“How far do I have to go?” Haraway asked.
“I’m going to need you on the sidewalk,” the agent responded.
“Hypocrite! Alyssa you’re a hypocrite! You have armed security here!” an observer yelled.
Milano’s friends, meanwhile, had no problem denouncing guns while benefiting from her special protected status.
“I will change the world,” Khary Penebaker declared, posing next to the safe Milano.
“Not one more gun death. Not one more broken hearted family. NOT. ONE. MORE,” he said.
The irony, of course, was lost on the Hollywood celebrity as she denounced the Second Amendment group.
As I wrote yesterday about Greens feeling like they have a moral license to pollute, so, too, anti-gun Hollywood celebrities feel that because they are on the “right side” of the gun issue, there is no hypocrisy in having armed guards protect their precious rear ends.
Of course, the rest of us know better. The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to protect themselves (or hire bodyguards to protect them.). But along with a moral license, there is a towering sense of entitlement on the part of rich celebrities that allows them to lecture us about all sorts of behavior and ways of thinking. We “little people” are in great need of guidance and who better to instruct us than empty-headed Hollywood types whose knowledge of any issue is dictated by Democratic party talking points?
Everyone should point their finger and laugh at Milano.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
It was revealed Friday the federal judge presiding over special counsel Robert Mueller’s fraud case against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort believes the case is not really about the charges Mueller has brought against Manafort.
Instead, the judge alleged Mueller is using Manafort as a pawn to achieve his ultimate goal: “prosecution or impeachment” of President Donald Trump. CNN broke the story, but now the official court transcripts have been leaked. What they reveal is an epic showdown between Mueller attorney Michael Dreeben and U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis.
The transcripts show Ellis repeatedly grill Dreeben over how their current case against Manafort has anything to do with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which is the scope of Mueller’s investigation. The charges Mueller brought against Manafort are for crimes that mostly happened more than a decade ago.
Dreeben repeatedly dodges Ellis’ questions, forcing the judge to pry answers out of the special counsel’s team. And just as reported, the judge exposed the case for exactly what he believes it is: an attempt to gain leverage on Manafort that will eventually be used against Trump.
“You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in,” Ellis said. The transcripts show Manafort’s lawyer agreed with the judge’s statement.
Ellis noted Mueller’s case against Manafort doesn’t even mention Russia, which he said hurts the legitimacy of the charges against Manafort.
In the end, Ellis gave Mueller’s team two weeks to show they have evidence proving Manafort colluded with Russian individuals during the 2016 presidential election. If Mueller’s team cannot do so, the case could be tossed.
Twitter user @Techno_Fog, who is a New York attorney, published the transcripts in a long Twitter thread over the weekend. He included eloquent lawyer commentary on the showdown.
Read that entire thread by clicking here or via the following tweet:
I got my hands on the May 4 transcript from the USA v. Manafort hearing in front of Judge Ellis. (Thanks to a close friend.)
Here we go… pic.twitter.com/MsEmKIlUhn
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018
via TheBlaze.com – Stories
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com
The Post reported that O’Donnell, 56, repeatedly broke Federal Election Commission that prevents an individual from giving over $2,700 to a candidate at any single election.
“Nothing nefarious,” O’Donnell wrote in an email to the outlet. “I was not choosing to over donate.
“If 2700 is the cut off — [candidates] should refund the money,” the former View co-host wrote. “I don’t look to see who I can donate most to … I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit.”
Some of O’Donnell’s donations include $4700 to Sen. Doug Jones in his Alabama Senate race against Judge Roy Moore, as well as $3,600 toward Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb in March’s special general election.
Other recipients include California Rep. Adam Schiff, and congressional candidates Lauren Wood and Omar Vaid in Illinois and New York, respectively.
According to campaign filings, O’Donnell gave over $90,000 in donations throughout the 2017-2018 election to 50 separate federal candidates and committees. She has also given at least $25,100 for local candidates since 2000, including a maximum donation of $4,950 to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.
“My anxiety is quelled by donating to those opposing trump [and] his agenda — especially at night — when most of these were placed,” she said.
O’Donnell, of course, is one of Hollywood’s most prominent anti-President Donald Trump and anti-Republican campaigners. Last year, she described everyone working under President Trump as a “Nazi.”
Following House Speaker Paul Ryan’s announcement last month that he would not run for re-election, O’Donnell declared that the Wisconsin representative is going “straight to hell.”
Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com
Via Free Beacon:
NRATV appeared to mock CNN and call the network a “bitter lemon” during the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Dallas.
Washington Post White House reporter Seung Min Kim shared a video, recording Friday, on Twitter that included the clip mocking CNN.
“This is a lemon. Its network colluded with a Democratic presidential candidate,” the clip stated. “It’s colleague gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton. Don’t be fooled. This is not a journalist. This is a lemon, a bitter lemon.”
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us