Talk about a sign of the times.

Vandals smashed a window. The words “white coffee” were spray painted in a cruel joke on the building’s exterior.

And a coffee shop that had been doing business in Denver for three years without any problem suddenly found itself a target — and apologizing — for making its neighborhood a better place.

The reason the shop known as Ink! Coffee was in liberal crosshairs was that it committed the sin of “gentrification” — and maybe the bigger sin of being proud of it — two sins that are apparently unforgiveable to the modern liberal.

The confrontation that closed Denver’s Ink! Coffee for a week took place in November in an area of the city called Five Points, which was once largely black, according to The Associated Press, but has “become one of Denver’s trendiest neighborhoods filled with breweries, restaurants and apartments.”

“Breweries, restaurants and apartments” is what liberals would call a dog whistle. Along with “gentrification,” it usually means white people — young adult white people with decent-paying jobs.

So, when Ink! Coffee put out a sign lightheartedly making a reference to “gentrifying” the area, the “progressive” forces hit hard.

It was a clapboard sign on the sidewalk like a million other signs that have stood outside coffee shops and restaurants, carrying messages like the day’s specials or happy hour drink prices. This one said, “Happily Gentrifying the Neighborhood Since 2014.”

It didn’t take long for liberals to notice and start a social media campaign like this Twitter post that declared: “We are not cool with this sign on 29^th and Larimer. Bad decision. Bad design. BAD. W.T.F.”

yo @inkcoffee we are not cool with this sign on 29th and Larimer. Bad decision. Bad design. BAD. W.T.F. pic.twitter.com/81UkXfM9kh

— La Suprema Pistola (@theperfectRu) November 22, 2017

As Helen Raleigh wrote in a piece published by The American Conservative on Tuesday:

“The sign didn’t go over so well with some residents, many of whom congregated outside the little coffee shop in an angry mood. Hundreds showed up during a subsequent weekend to protest against the gentrification of their neighborhood, which they said had pushed out longtime minority residents. The shop building was sprayed with graffiti; at least one window was broken; the offending sign was carted off. The protesters demanded that the shop be shut down. Some wanted it replaced with a community center dedicated to helping residents with housing and other issues stemming from rising living costs in their neighborhood.”

Unfortunately, the events that played out in Denver last fall are just a symptom of liberals’ refusal to face the reality of what “gentrification” is.

It’s just the way cities naturally evolve because areas that are cheaper to live in tend to attract outsiders. When those outsiders spruce it up enough, the area’s property values go up and it can turn into one of the premier neighborhoods in the city. That’s how Brooklyn, N.Y., became a “hipster heaven,” as NYULivewire once put it.

RELATED: 2nd Largest US Bank Declares War on Gun Owners

The anti-gentrification movement in the Big Apple got so bad that even the liberal Daily News found itself publishing a column headlined: “The left lies about gentrification.”

In the Denver dust-up, not only were the “protesters” (meaning criminals) wrong about the gentrification involved, they missed the point entirely that the shop was just expressing an opinion — as the First Amendment guarantees every American the right to do.

It’s been clear for some time now that the left has no qualms about attacking conservatives on, say, a college campus, but an attack on a coffee shop for expressing an opinion is pretty far outside the pale.

And finally, the coffee shop wasn’t just celebrating itself — it was celebrating its neighborhood, too. And that presumably would include some of the thugs who broke a window and spray painted racist graffiti on the outside of the building.

It’s an almost certain bet that the owners of Ink! Coffee aren’t Donald Trump supporters.

But it’s now an America where Trump opponents feel entitled to disregard the rights of anyone who steps outside what’s perceived to be the progressive circle.

And in this case, that means opening a successful business, bringing money and visitors into a previously underprivliged area and having the temerity to be proud of it.

The attack on Ink! Coffee might have been six months ago, but they’re really a sign of the times.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, has been investigating suspected bias and politicization within the Department of Justice and FBI, particularly as it relates to the FBI-initiated investigation of Russian election interference and alleged collusion with the Trump presidential campaign.

However, Nunes and his committee have been largely stymied in this effort by a less-than-cooperative DOJ.

Townhall reported that the DOJ foot-dragging and lack of cooperation appears to have ceased, at least in one instance. On Wednesday, Nunes finally gained access to a specific document he had been seeking — though that access was only granted after Nunes effectively threatened the jobs of two top DOJ and FBI officials.

The document in question — which had already been subpoenaed by Nunes — was an unredacted version of the two-page brief, which, in July 2016, served as the justification for opening an FBI investigation into alleged Russian collusion.

According to The Hill, Nunes threatened on Tuesday to not only hold in contempt but also to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray if he didn’t receive the document he sought.

“I can tell you that we’re not going to just hold in contempt, we will have a plan to hold in contempt and impeach,” Nunes vowed Tuesday night in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, as he set a new deadline of Wednesday evening.

“We are going to get the document. We are going to get the two pages,” Nunes added. “So they can either cough them up now, or it will get really complicated starting tomorrow night, and we’ll have to take all the steps necessary in order to get the document.”

Nunes’ threats apparently grabbed the attention of Rosenstein, as the Intelligence Committee chair was “finally” granted access to the long-sought document Wednesday afternoon, according to Business Insider.

“After numerous unfulfilled requests for an Electronic Communication (EC) related to the opening of the FBI’s Russia counterintelligence probe, Chairman Trey Gowdy and I met this afternoon with Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,” Nunes said in a statement released following the meeting.

“During the meeting, we were finally given access to a version of the EC that contained the information necessary to advance the Committee’s ongoing investigation of the Department of Justice and FBI,” he added.

Politico reported that a minimally redacted version of that document was later released to all members of the Intelligence Committee, with only the name of a foreign agent and foreign country shielded from view.

It is believed that this document laid bare what exactly compelled the FBI to open its investigation into Trump and Russia.

Recall that throughout most of 2017, the mainstream media kept reporting the investigation began because of the so-called “Steele dossier.” Of course, that document was really just a Hillary Clinton and DNC-funded collection of thinly sourced and unconfirmed memos alleging scandalous connections between then-candidate Trump and Russia. The document was used to obtain a FISA warrant against a marginal Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page.

RELATED: Huck Lets Loose on Trump Attorney Raid, Says Exactly What We’re All Thinking

That narrative changed, however, after The New York Times reported in December that the investigation was actually launched after a different marginal campaign adviser named George Papadopoulos had a drunken conversation with an Australian diplomat in a London bar. During this conversation, he allegedly revealed connections between the campaign and Russia.

Though the still minimally redacted version of the two-page brief may obscure which of those two competing narratives is correct, Nunes and Gowdy were able to see the unredacted version and likely know for sure whether the investigation was started by the Steele dossier or Papadopoulos’ drunken ramblings.

While it is certainly a good thing that the DOJ finally cooperated with Nunes and handed over subpoenaed documents for the House investigation, it is disconcerting that it literally took a threat of impeachment to compel that reluctant cooperation.

That said, it is also wise to bear in mind that the DOJ, particularly in relation to its inspector general, has its own ongoing investigations to worry about. Some of the information sought by Congress remains integral to the integrity of those investigations and must be protected, hence the foot-dragging and stonewalling.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Facebook is embroiled in scandal, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the face of a tech giant struggling to explain itself.

The billionaire was forced to do exactly that during two days of testimony in front of Congress, and one of the main topics surprised nobody: data security.

Not long ago, it was revealed that information broker Cambridge Analytica had “mined” the personal details of some 87 million people, and some of this information was used in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The media has tried to tie the scandal to Donald Trump. Recent reporting has pointed out, correctly, that Trump’s campaign team was aided by Cambridge Analytica data in its efforts to target voters.

However, what has been suspiciously missing in the uproar is the fact that Barack Obama’s campaign did almost the exact same thing in 2012 … and even openly bragged about its “accomplishment.”

That inconvenient reality was brought up to Zuckerberg by Republican Senator Thom Tillis — and one look at the tech billionaire’s face shows just how uncomfortable he was hearing about it.

“I think that timeline needs to be updated,” said the North Carolina senator, who has a business and technology background.

“I’ve read a series of three articles that were published in the MIT technology review back in 2012,” he continued. “And it talks about how proud the Obama campaign was of exploiting data on Facebook.”

The senator used the Obama team’s own words to illustrate that the problem had existed long before 2016.

“I think you should probably be equally mad when a former campaign director of the Obama campaign proudly tweeted: ‘Facebook was surprised. We were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing,’” he said.

Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.

— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018

That tweet was from Obama’s former media director, Carol Davidsen. In another tweet, she openly suggested that Facebook gave special privileges to the Democrat candidate because the company agreed with him politically.

RELATED: Obama Said He Was ‘Very Proud’ of Not Striking Syria After Chem Attack

“They (Facebook) came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,” Davidsen wrote.

Senator Tillis firmly suggested that Zuckerberg not ignore this fact. “When you go back and do your research on Cambridge Analytica, I would personally appreciate it if you would start back from the first high-profile national campaign that exploited Facebook data.”

As Tillis went into detail about how a 2012 Obama app had mined users’ Facebook data to help the Democrats, Mark Zuckerberg seemed visibly uncomfortable on camera. On a split-screen broadcast by C-SPAN, he could be seen glancing around and making a face that looked particularly nervous.

“I also believe that that person who may have looked the other way when the whole social graph was extracted for the Obama campaign, if they are still working for you, they probably should not,” Tillis scolded.

“At least there should be a business code of conduct that says that you do not play favorites. You are trying to create a fair place for people to share ideas,” he added.

“Playing favorites” is exactly the core problem at companies like Facebook and Twitter. On platforms that are used by billions of people, a level playing field is expected. If the admission by Obama’s former social media guru is true, things haven’t been level for years — and judging by Zuckerberg’s face, he seems to know it.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

The Republican National Committee (RNC) bought the domain name “LyinComey.com” and launched the website shortly before former FBI Director James Comey’s scheduled book tour next week.

The RNC website, LyinComey.com, features quotes from senior Democratic leaders—including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)—attacking Comey’s character during the 2016 presidential election.

The website also presented other opposition research questioning the former FBI director’s credibility, including a claim that Comey tried to paint himself as an innocent, nonpartisan victim of President Trump’s administration instead of a “politically motivated Washington insider.”

“James Comey’s publicity tour is a self-serving attempt to make money and rehabilitate his own image,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. “Comey is a liar and a leaker, and his misconduct led both Republicans and Democrats to call for his firing. If Comey wants the spotlight back on him, we’ll make sure the American people understand why he has no one but himself to blame for his complete lack of credibility.”

An RNC official told Fox News that the GOP plans to fact-check Comey’s book once it is released and create a “rapid response” effort to point out any “misstatements” or “contradictions” in the book.

“No matter what his grandstanding book says, Comey has already confirmed multiple times under oath that neither President Trump nor his staff asked him to stop the Russia investigation,” the website declares at the bottom of the page.

A preview of Comey’s first of several interviews with ABC News about his book shows that the former FBI director is already on the warpath against Trump.

In one of the clips set to air Sunday evening, Comey tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that Trump is like a “mob boss.”

Comey’s memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, is expected to be released on April 17, and contain “never-before-told experiences” from his career.

Rod Rosenstein was unexpectedly seen leaving the White House Friday morning, then was noticeably absent from a press conference at which he was scheduled to appear, fueling speculation the Deputy Attorney General may be slated for the chopping block.

“Unfortunately, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been called away on another matter today, so [Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse] Panuccio will have the honor of introducing the attorney general later in our program,” acting DOJ Civil Rights Division head John Gore told reporters at a major press conference at the Main DOJ building in Washington, DC.

Rosenstein appeared on the program for the event – distributed to reporters that day – as scheduled to appear alongside Attorney General Jeff Sessions, HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, and Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.

Hours earlier, reporters saw Rosenstein exiting the White House after an unexpected meeting. Some cited sources claiming he was there to discuss the ongoing controversy over the speed of document production for the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and other requests from Congress.

From what I understand, Rod Rosenstein, along with the FBI general counsel, went to the White House today for a meeting on Congressional document requests. I don’t know with whom he spoke. He remains the Deputy Attorney General, to the best of my knowledge as of this writing.

— Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) April 12, 2018

A White House official, meanwhile, told Fox News that “Rod Rosenstein met with the president at the White House regarding routine department business.”

President Donald Trump has found himself in an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Rosenstein, and the number two man’s future at the Justice Department is now rumored to be in question. Crucially, firing Rosenstein would bring Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom he appointed after Sessions recused himself from matters concerning the 2016 presidential election, under new supervision.

The FBI’s raid, at Mueller’s direction, of the New York offices of Trump’s personal lawyer Micheal Cohen – later reported to have been devised to obtain information on the infamous “Access Hollywood tape” that came to light during the 2016 presidential election – appears to have soured the relationship further, perhaps irrevocably.

On Wednesday, the president turned his frustrations directly at Rosenstein, calling him “conflicted” because of his role in drafting the memo used to justify the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and his role in approving a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application regarding one-time Trump associate Carter Page:

Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

The criticism was amplified by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who threatened Rosenstein with impeachment Saturday.

CNN is reporting Friday not only that sources tell them Trump is considering firing Rosenstein, but that the White House is rolling out a plan to undermine the Deputy Attorney General’s credibility.

Trump had long been critical of Mueller’s investigation – that appeared at times to go far beyond its original gambit of Russian interference in the 2016 election – frequently referring to it as a “witch hunt” or similar. The investigation, by the terms of Rosenstein’s original order of appointment, was only to cover:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).

Due to Paul Manafort’s criminal trial, a much more detailed memo from Rosenstein to Mueller defining the scope of the special counsel’s investigation came to light, but remains heavily redacted. Rosenstein had reportedly once considered recusing himself from the “Russia investigation” but took on the role – appointing Mueller and then drafting this memo defining his role in August.

Rosenstein has since defended Mueller from accusations of misconduct related to his one-time underling Peter Strzok’s bias-laden texts with his extra-marital lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page. “I am not aware of any impropriety,” Rosenstein told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in December.

Some Senate Republicans, in the meantime, are preparing a vote on a new law that would protect Mueller further.