Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 275 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Mike
Gender: Male
Member since: Tue May 20, 2014, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 43,129

About Me

US Navy Retired, Aerospace worker. All around good Dude. Eternal Foe of the work ethic

Journal Archives

Currentsitguy, is what Bill Binney (Former NSA Whistleblower) saying make sense?

If So Roger Stone is on the right track asking for the Crowdstrike Reports for his Legal Defense

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 05:10 PM (12 replies)

Does this Bimbo even realize she is in Congress?

Ocasio-Cortez starts petition to repeal Hyde Amendment

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started a petition Saturday to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal funds for abortions, arguing the restriction overwhelmingly harms low-income Americans and women of color.

“It’s not the 70s anymore. This is 2019, and none of our leaders should be willing to stand by a policy that disproportionately harms low income Americans and people of color just to suit the interests of anti-choice zealots,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in an email to supporters.

“That ends now. We’re going to fight to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and let people access the care that they need. Sign your name if you stand for repealing the Hyde Amendment,” she continued

Hey Dumbass, write a Bill!
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:34 PM (0 replies)

White House Press Briefing (a Bad Lip Reading)

Pretty dang funny
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 01:18 PM (1 replies)

Dems are worried about what Barr may find

They should be

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 08:14 AM (1 replies)

From the mixed up files of Ilhan Omar

It is now 10 days since Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Ilhan Omar was found to have filed joint tax returns with a man to whom she was not married — while she was married to another man. Although the Star Tribune is proud of its editorial criticizing Omar, the paper has yet to run a single follow-up story on Omar’s misconduct.

We know Omar filed the illegal returns for tax years 2014 and 2015 and had them redone at the urging of her “crisis team” as it dealt with the “crisis” created by Power Line. There is more to the story than meets the eye at first glance. The tax returns show Omar treating her legal marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (assuming he is not her brother) as a sham. Over what period of years did Omar file (illegal) joint tax returns with then “cultural” husband Ahmed Hirsi before she married him last year? Did she file joint returns with Hirsi during the entire period of her marriage to Elmi (2009-2017)?

The Star Tribune isn’t asking and Omar isn’t talking. Tug at any thread of this story and the original “crisis” seems to reappear. The cover stories for Omar’s dishonest conduct threaten to unravel. Is anyone tugging?

MPR reporter Brian Bakst has at least lifted a finger to do a little tugging. He has a brief if lame story that draws on the state campaign finance board file here. In the tweet below Bakst notes that he sought comment from Omar “crisis committee” member Michael Howard, now a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Bakst reports that Howard “declined to talk about what he knew of…the Omar tax situation.”

When nobody is talking about nothing, so to speak, it frequently acts as an incentive for reporters to get to the bottom of the story. Omar is a national figure and this is a big story, but the usual rules seem not to apply.

Looking more and more like she Married her Brother in an immigration scam. Her status as a Muslim Woman Democrat means she gets extra kid gloves treatment

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 06:21 AM (5 replies)

Sing hallelujah to the Lord becomes Hong Kong protest anthem

THIS is being termed a riot?

These People are protesting the Government Bernie and AOC want
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Mon Jun 17, 2019, 05:43 AM (6 replies)

Trump: It was a setup, I would have to say President Obama had to know about it

Tick Tock

President Donald Trump granted a three-day exclusive and extensive interview to ABC News ¹propagandist, and narrative engineer, George Stephanopoulos.

You might remember Stephanopoulos was actually deployed by the DNC in 2012 to ask GOP primary candidates in an ABC debate about the constitutionality of requiring insurance companies to pay for birth control pills. A totally out of left-field goofy question that no-one understood until two-days later when the DNC trotted out Sandra Fluke]

Well, here’s Stephanopoulos again, somehow granted access (likely by a person inside the White House coordinating with Nancy Pelosi). The final broadcast will be heavily edited, manipulated and presented for distribution and maximum political damage; with the intent to assist Nancy Pelosi and the impeachment narrative at 8:00pm this evening.

In an effort to gain maximum publicity ABC has released some preview segments to stimulate interest by a national audience

Transcript at 10:38] President Trump: “It’s very simple; very simple. There was no crime. There was no collusion. The big thing is collusion. Now, there’s no collusion. That means they set — it was a setup. In my opinion, and I think it’s going to come out.”

Stephanopoulos: “Who set it up?”

President Trump: “We’re going to find out very soon, because I really believe it’s going to come out. When you look at Strzok, these FBI guys that were low-lifes. When you look at – because the FBI’s the greatest- but these top people were absolute low-lifes. When you look at Strzok and Page, and they’re talking about an insurance policy ‘just in case she loses’, that was the insurance policy.”

Stephanopoulos: “You know I’ve heard you talk about”…

President Trump: “George, I went through the insurance policy.”

Stephanopoulos: “I understand that, but if they were determined to prevent you from becoming president, why wouldn’t they leak it before hand?”

President Trump: “You’d have to ask them.”…

Stephanopoulos: “Have it come out before the election”..

President Trump: “Oh, they tried. They tried – and you know what, had that gone out before the election, I don’t think I could have – I don’t think I would have hand enough time – to defend myself.”

Stephanopoulos: “You clearly believe there was a group of people working against you. Do you think President Obama was behind it?”

President Trump: “I would say that he certainly must have known about it because it went very high up in the chain. But you’re going to find that out. I’m not going to make that statement quite yet. But I would say that President Obama had to know about it.”

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sun Jun 16, 2019, 05:48 PM (22 replies)

Trump Trolls the Media and Resistance (But I repeat myself)

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sun Jun 16, 2019, 03:52 PM (2 replies)

Naomi Wolf's Crapper of a book has its release "delayed"

For Background listen to THIS (Do not drink while listening )

I missed the notice a few days ago that publisher Houghton-Mifflin is delaying publication of Naomi Wolf’s latest book, Outrages, for the simple reason that it has been exposed as an embarrassing piece of crap. (See Scott’s post “Death Recorded Live” if you haven’t followed this fabulous story.) This from the Times story:

“As we have been working with Naomi Wolf to make corrections to ‘Outrages,’ new questions have arisen that require more time to explore. We are postponing publication and requesting that all copies be returned from retail accounts while we work to resolve those questions,” a spokeswoman for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt said in an email on Thursday evening.

I suspect the book will be canceled entirely, or at least pulped in its current form and rewritten for low-profile release next year. If you’re lucky enough to have an early copy—or can find a bookstore that might still sell it to you—hang on to it. It will be an artifact on par with Clifford Irving’s bogus “autobiography” of Howard Hughes.

But one thing I noticed recently that the bloated reputations of ideological lightweights like Wolf are becoming too much to bear even for the usual gaze-averting liberal establishment. A couple weeks back the Times reviewed Outrages, and the review begins thus (with my highlights):

Naomi Wolf’s long, ludicrous career has followed a simple formula. She audits herself for some speck of dissatisfaction, arrives at an epiphany — one that might contravene any number of natural laws — and then extrapolates a set of rules and recommendations for all women. Predictable controversy ensues; grouchy reviews and much attention. Over the years her batty claims have included that a woman’s brain can allow her to become pregnant if she so desires, even if she is using birth control; that women’s intellects and creativity are dependent on their sexual fulfillment and, specifically, the skillful ministrations of a “virile man”; and that writing a letter to a breech baby will induce it to turn right side up.

It doesn’t get any better for Wolf from here. In case you’ve already exceeded your allotment of free Times articles for this month, here are a couple more delicious highlights:

Her first, career-making book, “The Beauty Myth,” is well-known for exaggerating the number of women who died of anorexia (Wolf stated that anorexia kills 150,000 women annually; the actual figure at the time, in the mid-1990s, was said to be closer to 50 or 60). One academic paper found that fully 18 of the 23 statistics about anorexia in the book were inaccurate and coined a term — “WOLF” (Wolf’s Overdo and Lie Factor) — to determine the degree to which Wolf was wrong: “On average, a statistic on anorexia by Naomi Wolf should be divided by eight to get close to the real figure.” . .

This is to say nothing of Wolf’s unhinged public pronouncements. She has alleged the American military is importing Ebola from Africa with an intention of spreading it at home, that Edward Snowden might be a government plant and that she has seen the figure of Jesus while she was (inexplicably) in the form of a 13-year-old boy. She appeared on Alex Jones’s show, and accused the government of intercepting and reading her daughter’s mail.

Throughout it all, she remains impervious to criticism. “I’m lucky,” she said in a recent profile in The Guardian. “I had a good education. I know my books are true.”

When you’ve lost the Times. . .

Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sun Jun 16, 2019, 02:04 PM (1 replies)

Will the Crazy Left Re-elect Trump?

Donald Trump is a lucky man. First he got to run for president against an almost unbelievably bad candidate, Hillary Clinton, who couldn’t win despite having the FBI and CIA laboring on her behalf. Now it appears that he will run for re-election against the nominee of a party wholly in thrall to its most extreme and juvenile elements.

The New York Post headlines a piece by Mary Kay Linge: “Why young, left-wing radicals could help re-elect President Trump.” Linge notes a new book by Robby Soave of, Panic Attack: Young Radicals In the Age of Trump:

Angry and anguished over Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Zillennials — leftist millennial and Generation Z activists — continue to fuel the anti-Trump resistance.

And they just might get him re-elected in 2020.

That’s because their ideology of intersectionality, and its full-frontal attack on moderation and compromise in American politics, “is a gift to Trump and those who continue to support him,” writes Robby Soave….

Today’s young radicals, like those of the 1960s, are openly anti-American. The difference is that the radicals of decades ago didn’t seriously think they could win a national election. Another difference is that today’s young radicals are crazy.

“ a tyranny of the most victimized,” Soave said. “The more categories of oppression you can claim, the more authority you have.”

It also spells trouble for every one of the Democrats’ 24 declared candidates, because the very qualities that could allow them to appeal to a broad swath of voters in the general election make a politician anathema to the intersectional left.

Relatively mainstream Democratic candidates like Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand are falling over themselves trying to talk the intersectional language of 2019, but doing so only exposes them to ridicule. Meanwhile, the craziness marches on:

A willingness to tolerate those with differing views, once seen as a positive good in all corners of American society, is condemned by the Zillennial left. Many of the activists Soave interviewed believe that speech that offends them should be — or already is — illegal.

Juvenile leftists have largely managed to suppress free speech on college campuses, which, as has truly been said, are islands of repression in a sea of freedom. But they will not have such easy sailing when they try to impose their bizarre ideologies on the world at large.

espite their widening influence, Zillennial activists are not a majority within the millennial and Gen Z cohorts.

“In fact, it’s striking how few they are but how large the effect they are having on our cultural and political dialogue,” Soave said. “They are very good at making it seem like they speak for everyone; very good at representing their demands as universal.

“They are a radical fringe, but they’re getting their way with their ability to control the conversation.”

Do they control the conversation? Only if you assume that the conversation takes place primarily on Twitter and in the pages of the New York Times. But these are vanishingly small slices of the real conversations that go on in the context of a presidential election.

And if Zillennials can’t get the candidate they want? They may not turn out to vote at all. “Biden and other moderate Dems’ … lack of progressive bona fides make them just another sad symptom of everything that’s wrong with the world,” Soave said. “Most Democratic candidates are seen as “not so much better than Trump that it’s worth the effort.”

In other words, Zillennials would rather risk a second Trump term than compromise the intersectional principles they hold so dear.

Of course, as already pointed out, there aren’t actually that many Zillenials. So will their staying home throw the election to President Trump? No, but what more likely will happen is that all of the Democratic candidates will be pushed into such silly positions by the ignorant left that whoever wins the nomination will be repudiated by the voters.

As I have said before, I think the jury verdict against Oberlin College shows what normal people think of “intersectionality” when they encounter it. My guess is that fewer than 10% of Americans have any idea what “intersectionality” refers to. But when they find out that it means that you can’t arrest a shoplifter because he is black, and it is not just acceptable but commendable for the shoplifter and his confederates to assault the guy who caught them for the same reason, they will be unhappy. And most will vote against anyone who is associated with such unjust and unAmerican principles.
Posted by Gunslinger201 | Sun Jun 16, 2019, 04:02 AM (13 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 275 Next »