At Least They’re KKKonsistent

These people.

From slavery to today, Democrats have a very low opinion of our black brothers & sisters. Then they paid their own money to keep those dumb n__ros on the plantation. Now they use taxpayer money. And in-between they founded the KKK as their domestic terrorist arm. And still, today, they continue to think blacks are somehow, as a group, too stupid to get Voter ID or any number of other “white” things “privilege” brings.

You have to hand it to them. They’re survivors. They’ve mutated well. But they still suck. They still think of pigmentation as destiny, and that by dint of their own fair skin, their destiny is to “help” those po’ blacks.

Lord, it’s hard not to hate them. I try every day to remember “hate only corrodes the can it’s carried in” but daaaaaamnskippy they make it hard.

American Thinker took a nice little walk through the remarkably consistent racism of the Democrat Party this morning. It won’t take long to read, and it’s worth it. Enjoy.


The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats are trying to assume the high ground against President Trump by rubbishing his nominees. Consider the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. The sum total of arguments against Senator Sessions are that at one time, many decades ago, he may have made a flippant offhand comment about the Ku Klux Klan and that he has suggested that the radically leftist NAACP and ACLU may be radically leftist.

His record of prosecuting Klansmen, desegregating Alabama schools, and generally upholding the law is, of course, totally ignored. So are Senate Democrats concerned about placing the former Klansmen to the highest levels of our legal system? No, not at all! The record of Senate Democrats and the brutal suppression of blacks in the South is stunning – and largely ignored by the leftist establishment media and educational systems.

In 1937, leftist icon Franklin Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States Attorney General Hugo Black, a man who had actually been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and never denied that fact. Senate Democrats, from the North as well as the South, voted overwhelmingly to confirm Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.

Harry Truman, the Democrat president who himself had briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan, appointed as his attorney general Tom Clark, widely believed to have been a Klansman and whose racism was so well known that black leader Paul Robeson described it as “a gratuitous and outrageous insult to my people.” Truman later nominated Clark also to the Supreme Court.

So clearly Senate Democrats have no problem with men who had actually belonged to the Ku Klux Klan being put in charge of the Department of Justice or placed on the United States Supreme Court. But, of course, Senate Democrats could not control whom a president nominated, but only whether they voted to confirm a presidential nomination or not.

House Democrats chose for majority whip a man who openly and clearly advocated “white supremacy,” John Sparkman. Senate Democrats chose Sparkman to be chairman of three important Senate committees. His overt racism and links to the Ku Klux Klan were publicly called out by Republicans, but Democrats simply ignored these.

How openly did Democrats accept this Senate Democrat who was overtly opposed to civil rights for blacks? Senator John Sparkman was selected by Adlai Stevenson to be his running mate on the 1952 Democrat presidential ticket, and not one single Senate Democrat opposed this ticket. So much for Senate Democrats’ concern about the Ku Klux Klan.

Klansmen Harry Truman, John Sparkman, and Hugo Black were all Senate Democrats who rose to higher posts by their party with no concern at all about their open sympathy for white supremacy and their membership in that most notorious association of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan. But Senate Democrats, of course, could not pick Truman and Sparkman as their party’s vice presidential nominees, nor could Senate Democrat nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats do, however, choose their own leadership. The Democrat floor leader in the Senate is picked only by Senate Democrats, the very same politicians who are trying to smear Jeff Sessions, a man who no one has suggested ever had anything to do with the Ku Klux Klan. These Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd, a high-ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan, to successively higher posts in the Senate Democrat leadership.

In 1971, Senate Democrats ousted Teddy Kennedy as Democrat whip and elected Klansman Robert Byrd in his place. Ten years later, when President Reagan was elected, Senate Democrats promoted Robert Byrd to Democrat floor leader in the Senate, the highest office they could give him in the Democrat leadership. Then in 1989, Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd for the highest constitutional office the Senate can elect anyone to be, president pro tempore of the Senate, third in line for presidential succession, and Senate Democrats also made this Klansman into chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, giving him extraordinary power over federal spending.

The record of Senate Democrats toward the Klan is extraordinary, considering the attacks this gaggle has been making against a man who actually fought the Klan. Perhaps if Senate Democrats passed a resolution apologizing to America for producing out of their number Klansmen who became president, vice presidential nominee, attorney general, Supreme Court justice, Democrat floor leader and president pro tempore of the Senate, then the rest of America would pay a bit more attention to their silly attacks on Senator Jeff Sessions.

### end ###

Snoop Be Done

Lloyd Marcus, who I read with regularity at American Thinker, is someone I greatly admire. A black conservative, a Godly man, devoted family man, and multi-thousand-mile-road-warrior for the entirety of the Cruz campaign, he is tireless and fearless. He also happens to be a very gifted writer. The words just pour out of him, painting word pictures and eliciting moods in a way that can’t be taught. I’m not talking about (snooty) high-art here, though I have no doubt if that were his heart’s desire, he could produce it. I’m talking about a God-given talent for inviting you into his world and having that experience be fully dimensional and satisfying. He does it every time I read him, and he did it here.

Inspired by Snoop (of all people!) he writes today about paternalistic progressives perpetuating (alliteration!) the black-victim mentality well past its usefulness, which, in this case, is several hundred years, beginning the second after the first impulse to embrace it was felt. I present the first few paragraphs here, but heartily recommend you read it in its entirety.


‘Roots’ Remake: Snoop Dogg Got It Right

Quoting the Pointer Sisters song, “I’m so excited!” Black pop icon Snoop Dogg’s comments about the remake of the “Roots” TV series, in essence, is what I have been preaching to fellow blacks for decades (without his profanity).

Snoop said, “I’m sick of this s—. They are going to just keep beating that s— into our heads about how they did us, huh?” Snoop spoke against new shows and movies such as “12 Years a Slave” which “keep showing the abuse we took hundreds and hundreds of years ago.”

Snoop said, “I ain’t watching that s—, and I advise you motherf—ers as real n—— like myself; f— them television shows. Snoop continued, “Let’s create our own s— based on today, how we live and how we inspire people today. Black is what’s real. F— that old s—.”

I say, “Right-on bro! (in my 1970s lingo)” Folks, for decades, I have been frustrated; trying to get through to fellow blacks that continuing to view themselves as victims and using slavery as an excuse for bad and trifling behavior only weakens them. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. My reward has been to be trashed in black and liberal media; called a traitorous self-hating Uncle Tom.

…continued here.

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ D.O.J., America.

DOJ CLOSED DUE TO CORRUPTION small copyI love this idea. Love, love, love, love, LOVE this idea. I present this article to you from The American Thinker in part, but heartily recommend it in its entirety. Bolds are mine.


May 22, 2016
Abolish the Department of Justice
By Bruce Walker

The Obama Justice Department has revealed its final descent into naked politics and totalitarian bullying. Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton, two transparently guilty criminals whose crimes are compounded by the fact that both are also lawyers, will face no indictments and no prosecution. The corrupt bosses of the Veterans Administration likewise face no sanction at all despite the manifest criminality of their actions.

Lying under oath to Congress, failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, conspiring to obstruct justice, and many other clear wrongdoings permeate almost every single crevice of the Obama administration, and yet no one who matters has faced any trouble from the Department of Justice. …

The hyper-politicization of the Department of Justice by the left has been used unceasingly as a bludgeon against conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists in America… (and) there is no real cure at the federal level. …The only effective solution is to do what may make many gasp, even many conservatives, and simply abolish the United States Department of Justice

How, then, would federal laws and regulations be enforced?

States have full authority to do just that, and Congress can return to state courts and to state authorities the enforcement of federal laws. This is perfectly proper, as many federal laws are already enforceable by state officers. Congress can confer on states the right to enforce its laws, and, indeed, it can confer upon state courts exclusive jurisdiction over “federal questions,” with the single caveat that the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction. This would solve many problems.

…It would mean folks like Lerner and Clinton, whose violations occurred in several states, would not be able to fix the system so that they are immune to prosecution. The powerful would suddenly find it impossible to game the system with fifty different states able to prosecute offenses.

…Returning the prosecution of federal offenses to state criminal justice agencies would have the practical effect of also devolving power back to the states. …This provides a practical check on the abuse of federal power… The diffusion of power that today is so concentrated in a few hands in Washington would be another vital and happy result of devolving back to states the power to enforce federal laws.

The president, of course, would still have the constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, but nothing in the Constitution says that he must be given an army of federal bureaucrats to do that …Abolishing the Department of Justice is a good place to begin the Herculean task of cleaning this horrid mess.

###

Target: ISRAEL

Sunday morning begins with Drudge looking like this:Target ISRAEL

That’s A.P. Then I move over to American Thinker for Obama’s Animus Toward Israel May Lead to War.  Below the line, I will pull out & bold a few key paragraphs to bring this matter into horrifying relief, but the entire article is worth a read, especially if you are not like me, and haven’t spent the last 8 years diving deep into why, for the love of God, this American President behaves the way he does. Had we had an honest press, Barry-Soetoro-Barack-Obama would have been dispensed with in the spring of 2007. If a person trying to be a member of his Secret Service detail brought his background with him he’d have been laughed out of the employment office. Consider that. Let it sink in: The men charged with taking a bullet for him have passed a background check the President himself could not have passed. That’s how bad his associations are.


Obama’s Animus toward Israel May Lead to War
May 15, 2016
By Victor Sharpe and Robert Vincent

Will the looming conclusion of the Obama presidency lead him to engineer an all-out war by Iran’s terror surrogates, Hamas and Hezb’allah, against the embattled Jewish state? Will that war conveniently occur in December 2016, as Obama serves out the final days of his presidency?

Is it conceivable that the pro-Muslim president of the United States will …permanently fracture the U.S.-Israeli alliance in a manner that would be difficult for any successor to repair?

Obama believes that Islam has suffered from British and European Christian colonization and oppression. After being thoroughly prepared to be receptive to this message by his stridently anti-Western mother and maternal grandparents, such was the indoctrination Obama received from Khaled al-Mansour – a Muslim high-level adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and anti-Jewish hate-monger – during his formative years.

It was al-Mansour who helped Obama gain admittance to the Harvard Law School. Edward Said, an outspoken anti-Israel professor of Obama’s at Columbia University, and Rashid Khalidi, a former press agent for Yasser Arafat’s PLO, served as Obama’s mentor in the former case and friend in the latter.

These figures, whose entire professional adult lives had been essentially dedicated to eliminating Israel, focused on influencing Obama to support the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians – along with their thugocracy known as the Palestinian Authority. These overwhelmingly Muslim terrorists amount to little more than cannon fodder in the ongoing Islamist quest to effectively perpetrate yet another Holocaust.

…Given his background, it is no wonder that Obama fell for the monumental lie that the Jewish state is also a modern colonizer, just as the European powers were. After all, Obama’s other confidants included, as the principled and worthy Victor David Hanson recently pointed out, “the obscene Reverend Wright and reprobates like Bill Ayers and Father Michael Pfleger.”

…Prime Minister Netanyahu (has) been treated with unprecedented contempt by Obama and his sycophants. This was evident early on with Obama’s support of and friendship to the Islamist Erdoğan in Turkey, who has reduced once secular Turkey to a growing totalitarian Islamic state that has openly supported terrorism against Israel, as demonstrated by the Gaza flotilla incident of 2010.  Erdoğan’s perfidy – which has included all but open support for ISIS – has in no way dampened Obama’s preferential treatment of this dictator, in contrast to his appalling treatment of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Routinely, the State Department… ignor(es) the aggression and terror of the Palestinian Authority, led by the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas and Islamic Jihad thugs who rule over the Gaza Strip.  In deplorable contrast, the State Department routinely attacks Israel

Obama has also treated America’s other traditional allies with insolent disdain and cozied up to the worst enemy of freedom and liberty – namely, the Islamo-Nazi regime of Iran. Iran’s ongoing implicit threats of nuclear warfare – against the U.S. as well as Israel – including its aggressive development of potentially nuclear-armed ICBMs, which can eventually reach the U.S., does not faze this incumbent in the White House.

The fact that this supposed nuclear “agreement” with Iran was reached, even as his very own State Department admits that Iran has yet to actually sign the agreement and even as Iranian mobs continue to chant “Death to America” to the approving nods of the Iranian mullahs, also fits into Barack Hussein Obama’s distorted world view – a deliberate policy of lies, deception, and dissimilitude.

This was admitted to by one of his closest advisers, Ben Rhodes, who recently disclosed that the Obama administration had deliberately deceived Congress and the American public about the Iran deal – as if this was something to be proud of.

…The president’s bias, his pro-Islamic sympathies, and his agenda point to a seminal hatred of not only America itself, but most pointedly of the Jewish state – this hatred may override all other practical considerations in the remaining few months of his term in office.

His parting shot at Israel may well be to force her expulsion from the United Nations… They would do so knowing that for the first time, an American president would likely stand by and approve whatever the U.N. anti-Israel “lynch mob” might concoct in order to further isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state…

It should be emphasized here that once the American national election is over, there will be nothing to stop Obama from doing this. Obama’s entire foreign policy has revolved around undermining Israel. Such an action on his part in the closing weeks of his administration can be seen as not only possible, but likely, given the pattern of his behavior toward Israel for the whole of his presidency. …What is more, once Israel is expelled from the U.N., it would be very difficult for any future U.S. president, no matter how pro-Israel, to successfully support Israel’s re-admittance into the U.N…

While such a turn of events may sound far-fetched to even some of those most critical of Obama, it is entirely possible in view of Obama’s past acts of blatant hatred toward America’s one and only true ally and democracy in the Middle East.

Victor Sharpe and Robert Vincent are freelance writers for conservative websites. Victor Sharpe is also the author of several published books, including The Blue Hour and the trilogy: Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

###

Withdraw Your Own Money? 15 Months in Jail.

The government stopped printing bills larger than $100 in 1945 and hasn't issued any since 1969. This one was found in a safe deposit box. It features Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, and is kept in the New York corporate office of the bank that bears his name.

The government stopped printing bills larger than $100 in 1945 and hasn’t issued any since 1969. This one was found in a safe deposit box. It features Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, and is kept in the New York corporate office of the bank that bears his name.

I could not agree more with this article from The American Thinker. It was brave and needed to be said.

Enjoy.


The Troubling Prosecution of Dennis Hastert
April 29, 2016 By Michael Filozof

I don’t like Dennis Hastert. During his tenure as Speaker of the House, my attitude toward him was, more or less, “Meh.” Hastert is undoubtedly the pervert and sexual predator he is accused of being – he admitted so in court. In all probability, he got exactly what he deserved when he was sentenced to prison Wednesday.

That being said, I am troubled by the way Hastert was prosecuted. It seems to me that the government targeted Hastert because he was a prominent politician and, in so doing, threw the constitutional rights of criminal defendants out the window.

Hastert was accused of numerous incidents of homosexual contact with teenage boys over forty years ago, when he was a high school wrestling coach in Illinois. Hastert was never charged with those alleged crimes, because the statute of limitations for prosecuting him expired.

Hastert was instead indicted for violating federal banking law when he tried to pay one individual to keep quiet about the alleged abuse. The crime of “structuring” is utterly bizarre: if you take $10,000 cash out of your own bank account, the bank must report it to the federal government. If, however, you take $9,999 out, you will be accused of “structuring” the transaction to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement.

In other words, the $10,000 number for reporting to the government that you took your own cash out of your own bank account isn’t really the true number at all; whenever the government thinks you are “structuring” by taking out less, they will nail you for that anyway. It’s like getting a ticket from a cop for driving below the speed limit because you were trying to avoid a speeding ticket. It’s one of the most questionable prosecutions I’ve ever heard of.

But at Hastert’s sentencing, both the federal prosecutor and the judge made clear that the case was really about the sexual allegations, not the banking issue. Hastert was sentenced to fifteen months – more than double the six months recommended by federal sentencing guidelines. U.S. district judge Thomas Durkin called Hastert “a ‘serial child molester,’ and ignor[ed] the defense’s request for no prison time. ‘Some conduct is unforgivable no matter how old it is,’ Durkin told Hastert in a lengthy statement at the sentencing.”

The judge’s statement constitutes a serious problem in my view. Child molestation is not a federal crime; it’s a state-level crime. Judge Durkin had no business sentencing Hastert in federal court for state-level crimes for which the Illinois statute of limitations had expired and for which Hastert never stood trial. But that’s essentially what he did.

The accuser whom Hastert was trying to pay off remained anonymous. Why? In court documents, he is known as “Individual A.” Individual A received over a million dollars from Hastert. Did he pay income taxes on the money? Did he report the cash payments he received in excess of $10,000 to the government? If not, shouldn’t he be charged with tax evasion and failure to report cash transactions? What about blackmail? (In yet another strange twist, the Associated Press reports that “on Monday, Individual A filed a lawsuit saying he’s been paid only about half of the money and is still owed $1.8 million.”)

Other accusers who had not been paid off stepped forward at the sentencing – including the sister of a man who died from AIDS 21 years ago in 1995. “Stephen Reinboldt was named by prosecutors, who cited his sister, Jolene Burdge[.] … She told prosecutors Reinboldt’s first homosexual experience was with Hastert[.]” Is Burdge accusing Hastert of “turning” her brother gay? (I thought the gay lobby tells us we’re “born that way.”)

Even if Burdge’s allegations are true – which cannot be proven – what do they have to do with a sentencing in a federal banking case? Shouldn’t the judge have thrown out such hearsay? And doesn’t the testimony of relatives of long-dead “accusers” violate the Sixth Amendment’s right of a defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him”?

This whole matter stinks to high heaven. It’s pretty clear that the prosecution targeted Hastert because of his political status as a high-ranking Republican. Hastert may well have deserved it – and indeed, he cooperated with the prosecution by pleading guilty.

But the fact remains that other politicians – liberals, gays, and Democrats – have avoided criminal prosecution, while the feds threw the book at Hastert for things they didn’t even really have jurisdiction over. Democratic rep. Gerry Studds had a homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy in 1983. He was censured by the House but subsequently re-elected and regarded as a gay icon for being the first openly gay congressman. Openly gay Democrat Barney Frank lived with a gay prostitute in the 1980s and was reprimanded by the House. He, too, was re-elected and regarded as a gay pioneer.

Why didn’t federal prosecutors pursue Studds and Frank on flimsy unrelated charges? Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been charged with mishandling classified information, like Gen. David Petraeus – or sent to prison, like Bradley (ahem – “Chelsea”) Manning? Why did Sen. Ted Kennedy get no jail time for killing Mary Jo Kopechne while driving drunk at Chappaquiddick – while Hastert will do fifteen months for withdrawing his own money from his own bank account? And what about the rape allegations against Bill Clinton?

The answer is clear: the criminal justice system isn’t neutral; it’s politicized. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the left was the counterculture, leftists were quite concerned with the criminal defense of Communists, hippies, draft evaders, pornographers, gays, civil rights marchers, and the like. Today, the left is politically ascendant and all too happy to stand idly by or be complicit in the prosecution of its Republican and conservative political opponents – e.g., Scooter Libby, Tom Delay, Rick Perry, and Dinesh D’Souza. Legions of liberal lawyers are willing to defend minority drug dealers and murderers – was none of them willing to question the prosecution of Hastert? Why did the gay lobby not speak out on his behalf?

The Constitution requires that the government must prosecute people fairly and abide by the letter and the intent of the law. That means that sometimes, people who morally deserve punishment will legally get off without it (such as O.J. Simpson).

Hastert is unquestionably a bad guy to defend. But the object here isn’t to defend Hastert; it’s to criticize the government. In the Hastert case, the government seems to have railroaded a guilty man. But if they can railroad Hastert, they can railroad anybody – including you and me.

###