Saturday, August 10, 2019

Fake Story??

Hillary Clinton expresses shock and sadness for Jeffrey Epstein’s upcoming suicide

In a heartfelt tweet, Hillary Clinton expressed her surprise and shock at the unexpected forthcoming suicide of long term friend and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein:
Epstein was arrested in New York Saturday on federal charges related to sex trafficking, CBS News has confirmed. The financier has long been accused of sexually abusing underage girls, and in 2007, he pleaded guilty to two prostitution counts in a Florida court as part of a controversial deal to avoid federal charges.
It has been revealed that former president Bill Clinton was a guest at Epstein’s “orgy island” 26 times, where naturally nothing unethical happened.
“We were such good friends, so that’s why his suicide next week is such a tragic shock to us,” Clinton added.

Thursday, August 8, 2019

Rush Is Right!

Rush Limbaugh Says “Hell No!” to Red Flag Gun Confiscation

Published
  
on
 
On August 6, 2019, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh came out against red flag gun confiscation orders.
Several Republicans such as Lindsey Grahamand Dan Crenshaw have thrown their support behind such legislation.
Even President Trump declared that he is willing to sign this proposal into law.
However, Rush isn’t having it.
He described red flag laws as “a law which would allow law enforcement to identify a deranged individual before he goes out and shoots. In other words, you could apprehend somebody before they do it if they exhibit red flag-type behavior, like if they’re mentally ill or if they’ve attended a Trump rally, or who knows what it would be.”
Limbaugh then proclaimed that red flag laws are a “pipeline to gun control.”
He views this scheme as a way for the Left to “incrementally” get what they want, which is law-abiding gun owners’ firearms.
Who could oppose that, see? “Who could oppose the mentally ill not getting guns? “If it takes a red flag law to do it, Limbaugh, then we gotta support it — and, if you don’t agree with this, it just means you’re too big of a… You’re just.. You’re just… You’re just not flexible enough, Limbaugh!” That’s what people will say. Now, it’s a Democrat idea, which is its first disqualifier to me. It means it sucks from the get-go. But I’m going to be flexible here. I think it’s their way of incrementally getting what they want, which is your gun or guns.
For Limbaugh, kowtowing to anti-gun pressure will not satisfy the relentless Left:
But I know what they’re trying to do in the White House. They’re trying to remove the issue. They’re trying to take the issue away from the Democrats by agreeing to what they’re proposing. Not necessarily making it happen, just agree to it in words. You take the issue away. That’s the strategery. But the Democrats are not gonna compromise with Trump on anything! Especially now, a year and a half or less prior to the election.
The radio host sees a much bigger play in these debates. When commenting on the more radical factions of the Left, he observed that “they want your guns. They want everybody’s guns. They’re just like the communists: They want your guns. They want full confiscation, and there is no majority for that in this country.”
By conceding this ground to the Left, they will become even more emboldened and demand more concessions further down the line that bring them closer to their ultimate goal—civilian disarmament.
Red flag laws are already present in 15 states, and now appear to be at the top of the legislative agenda in the U.S. Congress.tisement: 0:11
Limbaugh nails it in his analysis.
This is a Rubicon moment for gun rights in America.
If Republicans yield to the Left on red flag laws, they will open up the floodgates for enormous gun grabs in the future.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Will He Be Punished? Doubtful At This Is What Happens When The Norms Are Ignored

VIOLENT LEFT

Twisted Leftist Reza Aslan: Trump Supporters Must be “Eradicated” From Society

Aslan’s violent rhetoric towards Trump supporters represents a new low for the “scholar of religions.”
Published
  
on
 
Fired CNN host and so-called “scholar of religions” Reza Aslan, who ate human brainswith cannibals, endorsed the “eradication” of Trump supporters in a Sunday tweet, holding them to be synonymous with white nationalists.
The UC-Riverside professor’s chilling remarks are possibly the most vengeful and hateful response on the left to Saturday’s El Paso massacre, carried out by a purported white nationalist who wanted to kill Hispanics.
Aslan went on to repeat his threat to White House policy advisor Kellyanne Conway, expressly singling her out as the “evil” that needed to be eradicated.
Seeing as Kellyanne Conway isn’t even slightly comparable to a hate-fueled white nationalist, it seems apparent that Aslan’s explicit threat applies broadly to any and all Trump supporters.
This isn’t the first time the utterly deranged and wrathful progressive has demanded violence against Trump supporters in a conniption of visceral rage.
The “religious scholar” claimed Covington hate hoax victim Nicholas Sandmann had the “world’s most punchable face” in a tweet dating back to the incident in January. 
It would seem calling for a 16-year old boy would be a clear violation of Twitter’s rules, but the fired CNN host escaped scot-free without any consequences after for a call to violence directed at a child.
Observers concerned with Aslan’s repeated violent and quasi-genocidal rhetoric have reported his latest round of death threats to Twitter’s Safety team. But it’s unlikely the deranged leftist will face any consequences, leaving him free to escalate in his repeated pattern of dehumanization and violent threats towards Trump supporters and American patriots.

Just Another Lie Told To Placate The Uninformed

Your savings quickly becoming worthless with new budget leading the charge

The direct result of another runaway government collapsing under the weight of the gimme people – uncontrolled immigration, no work, more pay, more unearned  benefits and Voila — national  bankruptcy.   jsk
Budget Deal a Win for Everyone Except Taxpayers
Redacted from an article by Bob Adelmann
23 July 2019
The budget “deal” cobbled together over the last couple of weeks is a win for every vested interest but one: the U.S. taxpayer. It provides proof about what can be accomplished, even by Congress, when the motivation is sufficiently strong.
That motivation was provided by a letter from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 12 that his “extraordinary measures” being employed since the debt ceiling was reached in early March were about to be “exhausted.” This move allowed him to conduct budget negotiations directly with Pelosi, sidelining Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney and resulting in a deal that was a win for nearly every vested interest in Washington.
First and foremost it solves the number one problem politicians face when they leave Washington for their six week “recess”: unhappy constituents quizzing them on big spending Washington. It gives President Trump a victory: more spending for the military and “his” vets.
It gives Pelosi and her Democrat counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, a win by increasing domestic spending by even more than that granted the military.
It gives a win for Mnuchin who is now free to borrow without limit the sums increasingly needed to pay Congress’ bills. It provides a chance for establishment politicians to claim improved “stability” without the threat of another government shutdown, while touting the kind of pragmatism and compromise that Washington is famous for but largely missing until now.
It also funds Planned Parenthood, provides nothing for Trump’s wall, fails to loosen budgetary constraints on the Border Patrol, and, best of all for big spending politicians, it finally and completely obliterates any remainder of the highly touted but rarely followed Budget Control Act of 2011 and its “sequester” caps. 
As House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) celebrated: “I am proud that this agreement ends the senseless austerity imposed by the Budget Control Act.” (‘Senseless’ — Huh?)
The deal includes extending the budget ceiling until June 2021, a convenient eight months after the November 2020 elections.
It increases government spending by nearly a third of a trillion dollars over the next two years, part of which goes to the military and part to domestic spending. 
As Pelosi and Schumer chortled, the deal “will enhance our national security and invest in middle class priorities that advance the health, financial security and well-being of the American people.”   (Who the F are they kidding?)
It predictably engages in phony bookkeeping maneuvers to show an attempt at cutting spending. The White House sought $150 billion in faux “cuts.” The deal provides supposed cuts of $77 billion by — ready? — extending cuts to Medicare beyond fiscal year 2027(!), and by “extending” fees being collected by Customs and Border Protection. That $77 billion in cuts is less than two percent of the government’s total budget and just one quarter of the increased spending provided in the agreement.
This is the same stunt engaged in by Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush. In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.
At present the federal government borrows a quarter of every dollar that it spends, with that percentage increasing in the next few years thanks to this budget deal and as boomers retire and interest rates increase.
The “deal” — humorously being called a “compromise” — is expected to be voted on and passed by Congress on Thursday, a day before the summer recess begins. 
When it is signed into law by the president it might, as Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, “end up being the worst budget agreement in our nation’s history, proposed at a time when our fiscal conditions are already precarious.”
Author Bob Adelmann is an Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.