Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, December 10, 2016

America's Colleges Are Goofy When It Comes To Islamic Terrorists.

‘What is wrong with us?’: Judge Jeanine unloads after criticism of Ohio State University officer


‘What is wrong with us?’: Judge Jeanine unloads after criticism of Ohio State University officer
Image source: YouTube

Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro on Friday defended the Ohio State University police officer who killed 18-year-old Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the student who, police say, plowed his car through a crowd and stabbed multiple victims. Nine people were injured in the Nov. 28 attack, some critically.
Since then, however, some students at the Columbus, Ohio, campus have had troubleacknowledging the threat of terrorism. More recently, some have even suggested that Officer Alan Horujko, who fatally shot Artan, shouldn’t have pulled the trigger, the Daily Caller reported.
Pirro addressed such claims on Fox, saying, “As though this cop who killed him, and I think the cop is a hero, should have waited for him to exhaust himself until he tired and then cuffed him. This is what’s going on on campuses in the United States today.”
“When someone is trying to kill someone else … maybe a cop ought to use the force we as a civilized society give him to kill someone. And if you can’t understand that in grammar school, then you don’t belong in college,” Pirro added.
The judge went on to point out that Artan was a Somali refugee who came to the U.S. in 2014. Before that, he lived in Pakistan for seven years.
“What was he taking? A correspondence course? That all of a sudden we’re going to give him an associate degree a year and half later? Put him in Ohio State University? What is wrong with us. I mean there are so many pieces to this,” Pirro said.
Lastly, Pirro responded to claims that the OSU attack was the latest example of extremism: “Hogwash! It’s Islamic extremism.” Pirro retaliated.

Trump Secretary Of State Candidate Is A Surprise, If Media Reports Can Be Believed

Report: Donald Trump has selected his secretary of state


Report: Donald Trump has selected his secretary of state
Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images

CNBC reported Saturday afternoon that President-elect Donald Trump has selected Exxon Mobil President and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state.

Tillerson became chairman and CEO of Exxon in January 2006, and since his rise to the position, the company has been supportive of climate change science and has been in favor of a carbon tax.
As the top executive of Exxon, Tillerson has an extensive background working and negotiating with foreign leaders. His ties to Russia are most notable, as Exxon has partnered internationally with Russian oil giant Rosneft. Tillerson also received the Order of Friendship decoration from the Russian government in 2012.
However, Trump team Communications Director Jason Miller has refuted the announcement on Twitter, although all signs have pointed to Tillerson as the front-runner. In his statement, Miller did not deny that Tillerson had in fact been selected, saying, “Transition Update: No announcements on Secretary of State until next week at the earliest.”

The report comes at a time when the U.S. government tries to assess whether Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election. Late Friday, the CIA released a report asserting that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election to secure a Trump win.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to add a statement from Trump communications director Jason Miller.

Penn And Teller Are Great Magicians With A Message

WATCH: Performers “Burn” American Flag, But Bring It Back with Incredible Illusion and Point About Freedom


Unbeknownst to those poor souls who had not yet had the opportunity to observe their routine, legendary magicians Penn Jillette and Raymond Joseph Teller (known as Penn & Teller) often perform a special trick for their audience that seemingly involves burning the American flag.
It was no doubt a controversial trick — but hidden behind the smoke and mirrors lay a paramount lesson about Old Glory’s true meaning.
“Do we really burn a flag in that trick?” Penn asked in a column published Friday on CNN, referencing the ambiguous nature of the illusion. “Do we symbolically burn the flag? Or do we vanish the flag in a patriotic flash of fireworks?”

Watch the trick in full below and find out for yourself:

Still not sure whether they actually burned the flag?

Because, as Penn highlighted, without the freedoms afforded to it by the Bill of Rights, the flag “means nothing” — but “with that freedom, with our Bill of Rights, it’s the greatest symbol on earth.”
“It’s magic,” he added.
Bingo. It is not the flag itself that carries value but rather the freedoms it represents, including the freedom to burn it. And incidentally, America’s most cherished warriors and heroes agreed with this message.

“Many veterans and other patriots told us after the show it was their favorite magic trick,” Penn explained. “We didn’t kid ourselves; carny trash like Penn & Teller don’t deserve that kind of reaction. These people were cheering freedom.”
Specifically, they were cheering the most profound freedom in human history — a freedom granted to them, to us and to Penn & Teller courtesy a wonderful centuries-old document known as the Bill of Rights.
“I sure hope no one misunderstands our simple message, because I promise you that although many other Americans love this country as much as I do — no one loves it more,” Penn concluded. “America has always been great.”
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Penn and Teller’s amazing message about the American flag!
What do you think about their routine?

CNN Is The Racist For Not Looking For The Reasons Republicans Did Not Support Obama's Programs And Only Looked At Racism As The Cause.

CNN Legacy Special

 Lauds Obama For


Republican Racism

Cortney O'Brien
Posted: Dec 08, 2016 5:30 PM

CNN Legacy Special Lauds Obama For Overcoming Republican Racism
CNN aired a special highlighting 
President Obama’s legacy on 
Wednesday. As expected, the 
network offered a glowing review
 of his two terms, while praising
 him for being able to overcome those racist Republicans in 
You probably could have guessed how it was going to go judging
 by the host, former Obama adviser Fareed Zakaria, who once
 called Donald Trump a cancer on democracy. On Wednesday 
night's report, Zakaria explained how the president faced unfair
 pushback as soon as he was elected.
“Within half a mile of where Obama and Michelle are dancing and 
celebrating their great victory, his Republican opponents are wining
 and dining and plotting his defeat,” he said, eerily.
He used two other liberals' opinions to support his claim.
DAVID AXELROD: It's indisputable that there was a ferocity

to the opposition and a lack of respect to him that was a

function of race.
VAN JONES: I can't name one thing that this congress

supported this president on in eight years. You have to

have an extraordinary explanation for this level of obstruction.
Later in the two-hour program, Zakaria suggested that the fight over
 Obamacare was also rooted in racism.
The host wouldn’t dare say this, but most Republicans did not
 oppose Obama’s policies because of the color of his skin. They
 fought against them because they were counter to a freedom-loving, conservative agenda.
I’m left to wonder, where was the legacy special for President
 George W. Bush? You would be hard pressed to hear the media
 talk about his successes or defend him from his Democratic 
dissenters. Apparently that opposition was completely justifiable.

Can We Believe Anything That Comes Out Of The Obama Administration?


(ZeroHedge) — Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called “fake news” sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp.
“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,”Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”
Secret photo
Photo by RestrictedData 
The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others.
Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks’ own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton’s White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians’ aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”
CIA agents told the lawmakers it was “quite clear” – although it was not reported exactly what made it “clear” – that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.
And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA’s report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November “The “Fact” That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A “Fact“, and then also because aside from so-called “consensus”, there is – once again – no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article’s entire argument :
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
* * *
 “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don’t have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia’s government, putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.
Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure “the integrity of our elections.”
“This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate,” Schultz said.
Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: “The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.” In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.
“We are going to make public as much as we can,” the spokesman added. “This is a major priority for the president.”
The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.
On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that “the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.” “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” they said.
trump photo
Photo by Michael Vadon 
Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its “Person of the Year” award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: “I think so.”
“I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”
Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.
Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.
Obama’s homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.
* * *
An interesting aside to emerge from last night’s hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC’s Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:
To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:
However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president…
… which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.
* * *
So while there is no “there” there following the WaPo’s latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say “fake news”, here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:
“…there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
* * *
“…Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.”
And then the summary:
  1. Announce “consensus” (not unanimous) “conclusion” based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
  2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
  3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
  4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
  5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist – which is virtually all of them – in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel “Seven Days in May.”

Why Did Matt Ortega Not Set Up The Site To Explain Hillary's Corruptness?

Matt Ortega told POLITICO that he launched the site “completely on my own and out of my own pocket.” | AP Photo

Former Clinton staffer launches new anti-Trump site:

A former senior staffer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign has launched a new website to highlight Donald Trump’s alleged corruption, with a foul-mouthed URL to match its mission:
Matt Ortega, who served as Clinton’s digital director for communications until he left the campaign in June, told POLITICO that he launched the site “completely on my own and out of my own pocket.”
Officially, the “af” in the site’s web address is the country code for Afghanistan, which administers the top-level domain along with some help from the United Nations.
Unofficially, in the abbreviated argot of texting and online chatting, “af” stands for “as fuck.”
The bare-bones site is topped by a full-bleed photo of the president-elect, along with the words, “Donald Trump is corrupt AF.”

Below, it reads, in all-capital letters: “4 hours since the latest instance of corruption by Donald Trump.”
For now, Ortega is manually curating the unabashedly partisan site himself -- recent links and excerpts include Variety’s revelation that Trump plans to retain his title as executive producer of “The Celebrity Apprentice”; a months-old POLITICO story on Trump bundlers that included fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder, who has since been tapped to be labor secretary; and a Forbes report noting that Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to run the Small Business Administration, was his foundation’s top outside donor.
“A lot of these examples are obvious conflicts, like having Ivanka Trump sit in on Trump's meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Abe,” Ortega said. “But they also include examples that show his policy on specific issues or, say, countries [where his position] could be swayed because of financial interest either in his business or his personal finances.”
Users can also submit a link of their own, and Ortega will decide whether it’s worth highlighting.
It’s far from the first time Ortega has skewered Republicans with an Internet meme: His specialty is quickly setting up snarky websites in response to news stories and riding the viral wave. During the 2012 campaign cycle, he, which poked fun at GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s ideological flexibility, along with dozens of other rapidly launched microsites.

Since Trump won the Nov. 8 election, Democrats have watched news coverage of the president-elect’s business conflicts with deepening frustration, with many accusing the news media of treating Clinton’s alleged scandals differently than Trump’s.
“Donald Trump gave his Foundation's largest donor a CABINET spot yesterday,” Clinton’s debate coach Ron Klain tweeted on Thursday -- twice. “Did you see blaring headlines? Imagine if HRC had done that??”
Trump had great success in portraying Clinton as corrupt during the campaign, referring to her with disciplined regularity as “Crooked Hillary.”
But in the weeks since his surprise victory, the president-elect has faced a blizzard of stories showcasing potential conflicts between his new role and his vast real estate empire. Trump has pledged to announce his plan for handing over the reins of his company later this month, but is expected to stop well short of what ethics experts in both parties are demanding. The New York Times reported Wednesday that he is considering putting his business in the hands of his two adult sons, but retaining an ownership stake.
Ortega says he was motivated to create because he feared that the ethical questions around Trump’s presidency weren’t drawing enough sustained scrutiny.
“There were so many conflict-of-interest stories flying around, it was kind of hard to keep track of everything,” he said. “That's my fear. It will all go down a memory hole and people will forget.”