Today’s Poliotically INCORRECT Cartoon
Outside Influences
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/21/outside-influence/
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/21/outside-influence/
Authored by Michael Snyder December 20, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/while-christians-in-america-cry-peace-and-safety-believers-all-over-the-world-are-being-brutally-persecuted/
Personally, I would put North Korea at the very top of the list. If you are even suspected of being a Christian or owning a Bible, you and your entire extended family can be shipped off to a forced labor camp for the rest of your lives. There are brothers and sisters in North Korea that are literally being worked until they die, and we need to keep them in our prayers.
But I definitely don’t want to take anything away from the brutal persecution that is taking place in the Middle East. The beheading, torturing and crucifying of Christians by ISIS has been well documented, and it isn’t just in Iraq and Syria where attacks are taking place.
Earlier this month, an ISIS suicide bomber walked into a prominent Coptic Christian church in Cairo, Egypt and detonated his bomb. As a result, 25 Coptic Christians were killed…
During Mass this past Sunday, an Islamic State suicide bomber made his way inside St. Peter and St. Paul’s Coptic Church in Cairo and detonated his bomb, leaving 25 people, mostly women, dead. The bombing, the deadliest since the 2010 New Year’s Eve bombing of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria, drew swift condemnations from governments around the world. But as much as such attacks remind the world of the plight of Copts, it is their daily encounter with discrimination and persecution that poses the greatest threat to their future.
But did you hear about this from the big mainstream news networks in the United States? Probably not, because an Islamic terror attack against a Christian target is not the kind of story that they want to tell.
Could you imagine knowing that every Sunday that you attend church could potentially be your last Sunday? But it isn’t just violence that Coptic Christians in Egypt have to deal with. The truth is that they are systematically discriminated against in every area of society, and this even includes sports…
Little could dampen the enthusiasm of 13-year-old Tony Atef as he wore his soccer outfit and headed to Egypt’s most successful club, Al Ahly, to partake in the team’s junior soccer tryouts. After Tony scored two goals, a coach approached him, asking for his name to record among those accepted. But his dream of making the team died quickly, when the coach noticed the small tattoo of a cross on his wrist. Tony was quickly sent home. There would be no place for a Coptic Christian on an Egyptian soccer team.
According to a Pew Report that was released in 2014, Christians are being persecuted in 151 different countries. So this is not just a Middle Eastern thing. But without a doubt, what we have been witnessing in the Middle East in recent years is the genocide of Christians in many areas.
When the 20th century began, 25 percent of the population of the Middle East was Christian. Today, that number has dropped to about 5 percent.
And even the Islamic nations that are supposedly “friendly” with the western world are cracking down on Christians. For example, an American pastor named Andrew Brunson was just unjustly thrown into prison in Turkey. The following comes from Jordan Sekulow of the ACLJ…
An American pastor, Andrew Brunson, has been falsely charged with “membership in an armed terrorist organization.” Turkey has imprisoned this American pastor without any evidence. He has been a Christian pastor in Turkey for the past 23 years.
We are representing the family of this American Pastor who is facing grave danger in a Turkish prison where he is being held simply because of his Christian beliefs. The government of Turkey – led by an Islamic party – has begun increased crackdowns on Christians, and Pastor Andrew, if convicted, may face years in prison based on extremely serious – and false – charges. We are launching a global campaign to call attention to his plight demanding that Turkey – a NATO member – release Pastor Andrew without delay.
As has been the case with so many other American Christians that have gotten into trouble, Barack Obama has been silent on this matter.
And it took Barack Obama a very long time to take the fight against ISIS seriously. Entire Christian communities were being absolutely butchered by ISIS, but he didn’t seem to care. Now that ISIS is finally being pushed back, the fleeing ISIS fighters are making sure that the Christians that once lived in those communities have nothing to come back to…
In Christian settlements like Bartella, Qaraqosh and Karamles, about 80 per cent of the houses have been either completely destroyed by Coalition bombs or burned out and rendered uninhabitable by ISIS. One volunteer assessed the damage in Qaraqosh: “In most houses, all the rooms have been burned out completely,” he said. “Except, strangely enough, the kitchens. It is clear this has been an organised strategy.”
Father Thabet, a priest from Karamles, said the destruction in some cases was done only hours before ISIS forces left. “It seems they wanted to make sure nothing of value would remain,” he said. “The effect is a mounting feeling of hopelessness among the Christians when they discover the damage. They will really need time to recover from this news, to adjust to the new perspective of living in displacement longer than they might have expected.”
If you live in the western world and you have a good job and a warm home and plenty of food, you should consider yourself to be very blessed. Because for believers in much of the rest of the world life is a daily struggle, and they must constantly wrestle with the reality that they may soon have to lay down their lives for their faith.
Article posted with permission from End of the American Dream
Take a look at the future of America: The Beginning of the End and then prepare
Posted on December 19, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/watch-trump-christmas-parody-wonderful-time-8-years-will-rolling-laughter-viral-video/
News They Can Use
Authored URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/national-geographic-promoting-child-endangerment-sexual-abuse/
“As part of its January 2017 issue exploring our evolving understandings and definitions of gender, National Geographic is featuring nine-year-old transgender rights activist Avery Jackson on its cover—the first time a trans person has made the cover of the magazine.
*****
“‘When I was born, doctors said I was a boy, but I knew in my heart I was a girl,’ Jackson explained in her first video. ‘So I may have some boy body parts, but that’s not wrong, that is OK.’”
This boy did not make the cover of the magazine. National Geographic chose to put him on the cover as sexual exploitation. This boy is no more a girl than I am a woman, and anyone who says otherwise is morally corrupt. Today’s defenders of this type of sexual insanity, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down”1 so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable and promoted as an enlightened form of morality. Robert Bork explains the phenomenon:
“Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’ As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”2
At the same time, these same moral misfits are defining their own brand of moral deviancy up. What was considered morally normal thirty years ago – two parents of the opposite sex married and living together, participation in the Boy Scouts and being protected from homosexual predators, rejecting a pro-death culture, and stay-at-home moms – is now
“portrayed as oppressive and shot through with pathologies, ‘As part of the vast social project of moral leveling,’ [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, ‘it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.’ This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.”3
This type of moral deviancy has infected the mind of a nine-year-old boy who fancies himself to be a “transgender rights activist.” Instead of debunking the falsity of the claim, the folks at National Geographic promote it as some kind of moral high ground.
Avery Jackson knew in his heart he was a girl? Give me a break. He knows no such thing. This kid is confused, and his parents, the LGBT propagandists, and the editors at National Geographic are enabling and legitimizing a form of sexual abuse.
National Geographic used to have a good reputation for reporting on nature, history, and science. Do you recall this scene from It’s a Wonderful Life?
National Geographic is now plumbing the depths of pseudoscience. None of this nonsense should surprise us given the fact that fake news and fake science have been the modus operandi of the Left for decades – everything from evolution and abortion to the claim that the climate is warming/changing because of humans and cow farts.
If this type of propaganda is promoted as the new morality, how many second and third graders might come to believe they are not what their obvious sex organs tell them they are? Could a child call the local government child protective agencies and claim that he or she is being abused because his or her parents won’t allow him or her be what he or she really is? What if a boy confides in a teacher that he’s really a girl, but his parents won’t allow him to be and dress as a girl?
Will the State intervene and take the child away to ensure that the “appropriate” steps are taken to accommodate the child’s “true gender”? Maybe the child is taken from his parents and placed in a safe “transgender family” environment. Will sex reassignment surgery be performed against the will of the parents to mollify the sexual confusion of the child?
What happens when this nine-year-old boy comes to his senses that he really is a boy but now his “parts” are missing?
Gary DeMar was raised in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and Reformed Theological Seminary (1979). He has served as researcher and writer at the Christian Worldview ministry American Vision since 1980 and President since 1984. Today he serves as Senior Fellow at American Vision where he lectures, researches, and writes on various worldview issues. Gary is the author of 30 books on a variety of topics – from “America’s Christian History” and “God and Government” to “Thinking Straight in a Crooked World” to “Last Days Madness.” Gary has been interviewed by Time magazine, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the BBC, and Sean Hannity. He has done numerous radio and television interviews, including the “Bible Answer Man,” hosted by Hank Hanegraaff and “Today’s Issues” with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders. Newspaper interviews with Gary have appeared in the Washington Times, Toledo (Ohio) Blade, the Sacramento Bee, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Marietta Daily Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, The Orlando Sentinel, and the Chicago Tribune.
December 18, 2016 / Authored By URL of the original posting site: http://eheadlines.com/video-judge-jeanine-tears-into-michelle-obama-over-her-classless-attacks-on-donald-trump/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulJzWEc5rDU?rel=0&showinfo=0
Judge Jeanine: Since when does hope rise and fall with you and Barack in the White House?… But I get it. For you hope is gone. You and your family and friends won’t be able to fly to another 46 countries with security and hair and makeup in tow. Michelle you may not realize it but Americans rejected you and everything you stand for. They know what hope is. Hope is when people, 30,000 at a time stand in line, in the cold, with their children, hoping to get a glimpse of the man that they think can change the course of their lives from the downward spiral that you and Mr. Hope and Change have put them on.
What do you think?
Authored By Scott Wong – 12/19/16URL of the original posting site: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310827-priebus-flexes-muscle-in-trump-tower
Posted on December 18, 2016
As much as we don’t want to admit it, Hillary did win 2.8 million more votes than Trump. But when you break down those votes, it’s clear to see why we have the Electoral College. All those votes were contained in one state. ONE STATE. If we decided elections based on popular vote, we would have the president California wants. All. The. Time. Maybe now liberals will understand the importance of the Electoral College…..probably not, though.Hillary’s margin of victory in that state was 4.3 million votes – or 61.5 percent
And therein lies the rub.
The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.
California is now a one-party state. There were zero Republicans running for statewide office and no GOP candidates in nine of California’s congressional districts. At the state level, Investor’s Business Daily reports, six districts had no Republicans for the state senate and 16 districts had no Republicans for the state assembly.
Clinton was going to win California’s 55 electoral votes, so Trump didn’t campaign there. If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.
Coexist Myth
Authored , 15 Dec 2016

Below is a list of the many instances proving why Politifact is completely unqualified to be an objective judge of what’s real and “fake” news.
1. Last March, PolitiFact delivered a “mostly false” rating for a joke made by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
2. Last April, PolitiFact made phone calls and sent a reporter to investigate whether Governor Scott Walker actually “paid one dollar for” a sweater he bought at Kohl’s. PolitiFact later ruled Walker’s claim “true.”
3. When Trump said Clinton wants “open borders,” PolitiFact deemed his statement “mostly false” — despite the fact that Clinton admitted as much in a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said at the time.
4. PolitiFact cast doubts on comments Pat Smith made during her emotional speech at the Republican National Convention, where she said Hillary Clinton said “a video was responsible” for her son’s death during the terror attacks in Benghazi. Smith was referring to when she “saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony,” and then-Secretary of State Clinton “looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.”
But PolitiFact, taking an oddly defensive stance, said Smith’s memory could’ve been “fuzzy” and referred its readers, instead, to a “brief meeting behind closed doors” where Clinton addressed the families of the victims of the attack.
5. Despite video evidence to the contrary, PolitiFact claimed Hillary Clinton didn’t laugh about Kathy Shelton’s rape as a child. Trump invited Shelton to the second presidential debate and called out Clinton’s embarrassing behavior.
Again, moving to dismiss and downplay Clinton’s actions, PolitiFact wrote: “Trump is referring to an audio tape in which she does respond with amusement at her recollections of the oddities of the case, which involve the prosecution and the judge. At no point does she laugh at the victim.” 
6. In an attempt to explain Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of 25 percent of the United States’ uranium stockpile, Politifact ignored numerous key facts, downplayed other key facts, and ultimately made 13 errors in its analysis.
7. A few months later, PolitiFact was, again, attempting to whitewash Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal. Like PolitiFact’s first foray into the subject, the second report commits many factual errors and is full of glaring inaccuracies and omissions.
8. During a televised campaign event, Clinton said Australia’s compulsory gun buyback program “would be worth considering” in the U.S. When the National Rifle Association included Clinton’s comments on one of its flyers, PolitiFact ruled the organization’s claim “mostly false.”
9. While Politifact admitted that Trump’s claim that Russia’s arsenal of nuclear warheads has expanded and the U.S.’s has not, the left-wing outfit deemed Trump’s statement “half true.”
Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson
December 16, 2016 By URL of the original posting site: http://eheadlines.com/russia-to-obama-prove-we-hacked-the-dems-or-stop-talking/
“They should either stop talking about that or produce some proof at last. Otherwise, it all begins to look unseemly,”

CNN reported a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed Obama’s statement in an interview with NPR that the U.S. would retaliate against Russia “at a time and place of our choosing.”
Dmitry Peskov said the U.S. was behaving poorly by making these accusations. “They should either stop talking about that or produce some proof at last. Otherwise, it all begins to look unseemly,” Peskov said, according to Russian state news.
The Obama administration has consistently blamed Russia for hacking into the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails during the election.
Those reports from the intelligence committee have been summarily dismissed by President-elect Trump, who sees claims of Russian interference as an attack on the legitimacy of his election victory. On Friday, Trump mocked the information that was revealed in the hacks and has so far refused to condemn them.
In recent days, calls have grown louder for the U.S. government to provide what proof it has that Russia is behind the attacks. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle were disturbed on Thursday after the leaders of intelligence agencies canceled a briefing to the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
From Washington Examiner
Authored by William Hicks | Heat Street | published on December 16, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://www.1776coalition.com/other-news-1/she-made-it-up-nypd-arrests-muslim-girl-who-claimed-attack-by-trump-supporters/#ixzz4T2RecsPu
New York City college student Yasmin Seweid who claimed to be the victim of a hate crime by Trump supporters is under arrest and charged with filing a false report, a police source told The New York Daily News.The 18-year-old Seweid caused quite the media stir with her sensationalized account of Trump supporters attacking her on the subway. She claimed three men attempted to pull off her hijab while calling her a terrorist and yelling Trump’s name. All this happened, she said, while New Yorkers sat idly by and watched her get assaulted.
The police source told The News that police gave Seweid numerous opportunities to recant her story but she kept sticking to it. Finally, on Wednesday, she admitted she made the whole thing up, citing “family problems.”
Police say there were many inconsistencies in her story initially, but at first they assumed that could be a typical sign of being traumatized. They also claim the investigation into the false hate crime required “a lot” of resources.
Published on December 16, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/12/watch-hilarious-save-snowflakes-mockery-liberals-outraged/
Watch:
This video was produced by the Media Research Center to bring attention to the crisis that the precious Snowflakes face. All of the coloring books and crayons cost money, and you don’t expect a snowflake to spend their own, do you?
That would be ridiculous!
Posted on December 15, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/watch-julian-assange-gives-full-disclosure-blows-russian-narrative-pieces/
Julian Assange: “Our source is not the Russian government.”
Sean Hannity: “So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?”
Julian Assange: “That’s correct.”
Sean Hannity: “Can you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked info from the RNC?”
Julian Assange: “We received about 3 pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else.”
He’s been saying this over and over again. How many times will it take before people will listen?
H/T: Young Cons
Authored by Michael Snyder December 15, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/harvard-university-professor-claims-that-20-republican-faithless-electors-are-considering-voting-against-trump/
If Lessig is telling the truth, the Trump team should be deeply alarmed. It would be a grave mistake to simply assume that this Electoral College vote will be a formality, and we will find out on Monday what happens.
And without a doubt Lessig is in a position to know what is going on, because according to Politico his organization has been serving “as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions”…
Larry Lessig, a Harvard University constitutional law professor who made a brief run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, claimed Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against Donald Trump, a figure that would put anti-Trump activists more than halfway toward stalling Trump’s election.
Lessig’s anti-Trump group, “Electors Trust,” has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions.
If they only had a handful of votes, I really doubt that Lessig would put his reputation on the line by going public like this. But now that they are more than halfway to their goal, he is probably hoping that a last minute publicity push will put them over the top. If the rest of the Republican electors are made aware that many Trump voters are already willing to flip, that may encourage others to join the cause…
“Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote,” Lessig said.
Personally, I don’t think that it is going to work.
But I am alarmed enough about this effort that this is the third article that I have written about it this week alone.
On Wednesday, we also learned that U.S. officials are now claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “personally involved” in the effort to interfere with the presidential election. The following was reported by NBC News…
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
This revelation comes on the heels of a letter that was signed by 40 members of the Electoral College asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for a briefing on Russian interference in the election…
Forty members of the Electoral College on Tuesday signed a letter demanding an intelligence briefing on Russian interference in the election ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.
Ten electors originally signed the letter when it was published Monday, and 30 more have since added their names.
The open letter — led by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — urged Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to give a detailed briefing on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
Needless to say, there are many out there that are hoping to make as much as possible of this “Russian interference” angle in hopes that it will influence the votes of some electors.
To many on the left, it makes perfect sense to try to deny Trump the presidency even though he won the election fair and square. Here is a typical example of their reasoning…
Yet, at least outside of political fiction, there has probably never been a better election for electors to go against what their states’ voters wanted. Recent revelations by the Central Intelligence Agency that Russia actively engaged in this very close election to advantage Trump, and that Russia maintains leverage over him with unreleased information, call into question the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. Add to that Trump’s erratic and destructive behavior over the past month, the fact that nearly three million more voters preferred his opponent to him, his work to undermine relations with China, the fact that he considers his own uninformed opinions about international security superior to the evaluations of the nation’s intelligence agencies, and the near certainty that he’d be in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause on the day he is sworn in, and you really don’t get a more appropriate opportunity for Republican electors to rethink their states’ choice.
To those that supported Trump this is utter lunacy, but this is actually what many on the left are thinking.
Fortunately, at this point it appears that they are going to come up short. Even though Lessig claims that 20 Republican electors are considering abandoning Trump, the vast majority are solidly behind him…
Virtually all Republican electors reached by The Hill said they will vote enthusiastically for Trump.
“I’m voting how the people of Florida have told me to vote,” said Brian Ballard, a Florida elector who raised money for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio during the GOP primary. “I don’t know anyone who isn’t. I appreciate people using First Amendment rights to reach out and try to convince me otherwise, but I’m obligated to support Trump because he won Florida.’
“Also, I love the guy and want him to be president.”
So hopefully the vote next Monday will go as planned.
There hasn’t been more than a single “faithless elector” in any presidential election since 1832, and even though it is likely that we will see some this time, it would take something extraordinary for the anti-Trump forces to come up with the 37 votes that they need to push Trump under 270 votes and throw the election into the House of Representatives.
I don’t believe that they will be successful, but we have already seen during this election season that we should expect the unexpected.
Published on December 15, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/12/watch-keith-olbermanns-unhinged-rant-russian-coup-made-trump-president/
Here are a selection of his one-sided Twitter War with Jason Chaffetz after Hillary’s emails were being reexamined due to ‘Weinergate’:
Hey, sniveling little rat-faced git @jasoninthehouse – surprised to see you haven’t resigned yet. You’re a liar and a threat to democracy.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 29, 2016
Still waiting for you to correct and apologize for your cynical lie about “case reopened” you little devious shit https://t.co/07Fm9kKfDu
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 28, 2016
Since there is no “case reopened,” are you going to correct this, you scheming little Jiminy Cricket asshole? #YouveReversedOnEverythingElse https://t.co/07Fm9kKfDu
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) October 28, 2016
Watch Olberman have an apparent mental breakdown:
The Russians are coming!

He posted one rant on Monday that was… uh… something else:
(Our favorite part starts at about the 3:30 mark.)
Olbermann then loses his mind on Twitter in a response to a Tweet by Donald Trump:
You treacherous Russian whore @realDonaldTrump the White House and all of us have been after you for this for months. And we will get you. pic.twitter.com/h47IbSVdei
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) December 15, 2016
Twitter had fun with that:
Welp, that’s a follow to watch this mental breakdown unfold in real time. https://t.co/tubo107yGV
— Nicholas Pell (@NicholasPell) December 15, 2016
If I tweeted something like this I’d be getting a visit from the Secret Service https://t.co/giyWyebSxI
— VJ Maxwell (@vortmax79) December 15, 2016
Didn’t Treacherous Russian Whore open up for Skanky Legs at the Coliseum in 1999? https://t.co/0BWT2NaSS4
— Mo Mo 🎯 (@molratty) December 15, 2016
Keith Olbermann has crossed into the rarely seen “delusional” stage of grief. https://t.co/QNDmFKJzPd
— Bureaucrat-O-Matic (@VigoCarpathian1) December 15, 2016
DEAR SECRET SERVICE
Please ignore. Mr Olbermann is off his meds again. https://t.co/M4MfaK6iJb— Philip Terzian (@PhilipTerzian) December 15, 2016
Wow.
Keith Olbermann needs help.
First, he obviously needs to lay off the caffeine.
Published on December 15, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/12/viral-dr-trumps-butt-hurt-salve-melting-internet-making-libs-furious/

This is amazing:
You know they really, really need it:
There is a product that would go well with that:
If Liberals work really hard, maybe with the combination of the salve and a ‘Shiney Hiney’ brush, perhaps they could correct that cranial-rectal inversion problem that they have.

Posted on December 15, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/anyone-knows-julian-assange-discloses-informant-theyre-not-russian/
Craig Murray, who has served as an intelligence analyst, a British ambassador to Uzbekistan and chancellor of the University of Dundee, dropped a bombshell clarification about the ongoing furor of U.S. election hacks, saying he knew first-hand who breached the computerized walls – and it wasn’t a Russian.
It also wasn’t a hack, Murray said, in a piece on his blog entitled “The CIA’s Absence of Conviction.” (See article below)
Rather, it was a leak, he said – something that’s completely different and a nuance the media’s failing to note.
Zero Hedge had the story:
“Murray, wrote yesterday: ‘As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. …
“‘I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“In other words, Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.”
**********************************************************************************
URL of the original posting site: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.
Buried TreasureURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/15/buried-treasure/
Commentary by
Ann Coulter | URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2016/12/14/throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bongwater/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
“… had used opioids, mostly heroin and fentanyl. Many had been incarcerated. Few had families they could turn to for help, and the fathers of their babies were out of the picture.”
Why would anyone do this? And why is the U.S. government giving these lunatics a half-million dollar grant to help them do it?
As the Times explains, “Haven Hill’s philosophy” is that babies should stay with their drug addict, single mothers, “alleviating the widespread fear among pregnant drug users that if they seek help, their children will be taken away.”
Even accepting that, in modern America, single mothers and drug addicts are People Who May Not Be Criticized, this is insane. It ought to be insane even to readers of the Times, who might have noticed, next to the perky article on Haven Hill, the headline for a related article in the Times: Opioids May Interfere With Parenting Instincts, Study Finds. As the article explains, scientists found that the part of the brain that registers cute baby faces “as irresistible, kicking in our instinct to care for them” didn’t light up in people dependent on opioids, as it does in normal brains.
But forget that the mothers are heroin addicts — as Haven Hill does. Just consider the lottery tickets these kids have won by being born to single mothers. As recounted in gory detail in Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, study after study has shown that children brought up by single mothers are doomed. Regardless of socioeconomic status, race or residence, they are many, many multiple times more likely than children raised in two-parent families to: commit suicide, get pregnant, abuse drugs, run away, drop out of high school and go to prison. In fact, the single strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is being raised by a single mother.
We can’t do much about single mothers who aren’t drug addicts (except maybe ease up on the endless paeans to them), but here’s a golden opportunity to rescue children from lives of misery and place them with loving adoptive families. In this case, on top of the daunting odds facing any child raised by a single mother: Mommy’s a heroin addict.
So far, the short life of one baby at Haven Hill has entailed the following:
“Emma Lee, a tiny infant born with neonatal abstinence syndrome … had spent all 32 days of her life in a neonatal intensive care unit because her mother, Amanda, 31, who was homeless for the first six months of her pregnancy, had used heroin for most of that time and then went on methadone.”
“‘Her withdrawals were pretty severe,’ said Amanda, who did not want her last name used, as she cradled Emma Lee in their sunny bedroom at Hope on Haven Hill. While in the hospital, the baby had difficulty eating. Her hands and legs shook with tremors.”

The politician’s constant refrain is that drug addiction “is not a moral failing, this is a disease” — as Gov. Chris Christie puts it. Let’s say it is.
First of all, I would argue that it was at least partially Amanda’s fault, and not the disease’s fault, that she decided to take heroin in the first place. Unless she’s Cary Grant in “North by Northwest,” and the drugs were forcibly rammed down her throat, she chose to gamble with heroin.
Nancy Reagan’s much-maligned “Just Say No” campaign is a lot more compassionate than the parades and sky-writing campaigns announcing: DRUG ADDICTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE!
Most compassionate of all is Trump’s policy to build a wall and deport Mexican drug dealers, so that Americans with this “disease” won’t be able to catch it in the first place.
Second, so what? Let’s say drug addiction is a disease. Lots of behavior has genetic roots. Studies show that wife-beating has an underlying genetic component. Why don’t politicians weep about the “illness” of spousal abuse? How about a bucolic New Hampshire home to unite wife-beaters with their spouses, alleviating the widespread fear among violent men that their wives will leave them?
At least they can leave. Only defenseless little babies are being forced to stay with manifestly unfit mothers — in order to burnish the drug addict’s self-esteem. Ruining a child’s life is part of the addict’s recovery plan.
Suppose Amanda were an unfit mother for reasons entirely out of her control — she was a ray of sunshine, a straight-A student, with a bright future, who was raped and left in a coma by illegal aliens. Would do-gooders and government agencies adopt the “philosophy” that Emma Lee had to be raised by her comatose mother?
No, of course not. The whole purpose of this senseless child abuse is to proclaim for the millionth time: WOMEN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE! DRUG ADDICTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE!
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/14/dog-pony-show/
Authored 13 Dec 2016“We were frankly more concerned in the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,” he said. “And we’re confident that we can guard against.”
During an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, Obama downplayed the hack of a private email account of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, defending his administration for revealing in October that the Russian government was connected.
“None of this should be a big surprise,” Obama said, “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union.”
Obama dismissed the hack and the leaked emails as “not very interesting” and lacking “explosive” revelations. He puzzled as to why it was an “obsession” by the news media despite the knowledge that the Russians were responsible.
He also criticized President-elect Donald Trump for calling on the Russian government to hack Hillary’s emails to reveal the contents of the deleted emails from her private server, and reminded the audience that Trump had campaign officials connected to Russia.
“What’s happened to our political system where some emails that were hacked and released ended up being the overwhelming story, and the constant source of coverage – breathless coverage – that was depicted as somehow damning in all sorts of ways when the truth of the matter was it was fairly routine stuff?” he said.
December 13, 2016 Authored by URL of the original posting site: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/13/rush-limbaugh-dont-tell-cia-isnt-politicized-everything-hell-else-423174
“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” read a Trump transition team statement on Saturday following the news.
Building on that theme on his Monday radio show, Limbaugh weighed the seeming politicization of everything these days with the fact that most people in the American intelligence community are patriots who want to do what’s right.
So, could anyone at the CIA have a political agenda that defines their actions? As an example, Limbaugh gave his listeners a history lesson on the same topic Trump used in his statement, the Iraq war.
Let’s examine weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George W. Bush spent two years, ladies and gentlemen, traveling this country, speech after speech after speech explaining his policy, the run-up to war with Iraq, what it would take for Saddam Hussein to avoid war…
But following 9/11, Bush said we’ve got no choice. When we have intel that bad actors around the world might be planning attacks against us, we’re not gonna wait anymore for the attacks to happen. We’re gonna take preventative action. And part and parcel of this was that intelligence agencies all over the world, folks, not just ours, MI6 in the U.K., the CIA, the DIA, the State Department IA, all of these intelligence agencies, Pakistani, allied security agencies, intel agencies around the world, all, every one of them, concluded that there were weapons of mass destruction and Hussein was lying to the weapons inspectors from United Nations.
Limbaugh points out that even Hussein himself didn’t deny that he had weapons of mass destruction, likely because he never believed the U.S. would actually attack. So when we did invade and found nothing, a lot of people were embarrassed and humiliated, including Colin Powell and George W. Bush.
All because of false information from U.S. intelligence agencies. Limbaugh continues:
Okay, so what happened? Do we know? Who lied to who? Did the intelligence agencies not tell Bush there were weapons of mass destruction and Bush ignored ’em and said there were. Or did the intelligence agencies tell Bush, assure Bush over and over for two years, yep, they’re there, were they there and are they in Syria now? We still don’t really know.
What we do know is that George W. Bush’s approval numbers ended up around 30% as a result of all of this. My understanding, my theory is that, quote, unquote, intelligence people who, by definition, are unknown and work in secret can undermine anybody if they set their mind to it. They can promote anybody. They can make anybody they want to look good. They can undermine. They can lie to a president. “Mr. Limbaugh, I can’t believe you’re saying that. These are some of the most patriotic people.” I know. I totally get it. But don’t tell me that the CIA isn’t politicized when everything the hell else is, particularly with this administration.
Scott Morefield is a news and opinion columnist for BizPac Review and the editor of Raising Godly Children. In addition to his work on BPR, Scott’s commentary can also be found on TheBlaze, WND, Breitbart, Staffing Talk, and many other sites, including A Morefield Life, where he and his wife, Kim, share their marriage and parenting journey.
Under the Weather
URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/12/breaking-diplomat-says-knows-dnc-leaker-theyre-not-russian/
Craig Murray, the former UK diplomat to Uzbekistan, and close associate of Julian Assange claims on his website that the CIA is lying to the American public:
I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
Murray states that after an interview with a journalist from the Guardian, there was an article available for 3 hours that went against the acceptable narrative and actually reported the truth.
Here is an excerpt from the Guardian article:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.’
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
Murray continues:
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever.
What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.
After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling…
…The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA.
Read more: Craig Murray
So, who is the whistleblower?
It would explain why the Obama Administration hasn’t arrested anyone.
What do you think? The Media (D) is explicit in its bias, and we don’t have honest reporting any longer, we have partisanship and coverups of real news.
Stocking Stuffer
Parting Gifts
Posted on December 8, 2016
The Secure Fence Act was introduced on Sept. 13, 2006 by Rep Peter King (R-NY) and passed Congress on a bi-partisan basis. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19.
The law states in part:
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following–
(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all-weather access roads, and vehicle barriers. (b) Operational Control Defined.–In this section, the term “operational control” means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
…
…
“Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”
…
Over The Cuckoo’s nestURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/08/twitter-tweaking-the-media/
Commentary by
Ann Coulter | URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2016/12/07/how-the-establishment-will-try-to-destroy-trump/
Bruni is a fabulous writer, but if he ever writes good stuff about you, Mr. President-elect, YOU WILL HAVE FAILED.
I assume this was just our president-elect doing something he gets the least credit for, which is being nice. But you can never be too careful.
The Times is in total opposition to Trump’s stated goal to make America great again. Trump has got to know — not next year, but by 5 p.m. today — that anyone pursuing his agenda will incite rage, insanity and spitting blood from that newspaper.
There’s a long and tragic history of Republicans who won the war but lost the peace by trading results for respectability.
The first President Bush not only promised not to raise taxes, but also laid out the steps Democrats would take to get him to break that promise. “And the Congress will push me to raise taxes,” he said in his iconic 1988 convention speech, “and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips: No new taxes.’” He was a good prognosticator! Congress did exactly as he’d anticipated. But instead of saying “no,” Bush caved.
That betrayal cost the GOP its most popular issue. As the Times’ Michael Wines put it (shortly before Bush predictably lost his re-election bid), with the president’s sellout, Republicans gave up “a political weapon so fearsome that it had destroyed three Democratic presidential candidates in 12 years.”
The Times had spent months hectoring Bush about the “yawning deficit,” denouncing his “obdurate refusal” to raise taxes, and promising “political popularity” for the “needed” tax hike. But the moment Bush raised taxes, the Times couldn’t stop crowing about his broken promise. That was always the whole point. Not the “yawning deficit.” Not raising revenue. But to get the GOP to give up its most potent issue.
Trump has just annihilated 16 far more experienced Republican rivals, the Clinton machine and the entire media/Hollywood/Wall Street complex by raising the one issue no other politician would touch: putting America’s interests first on immigration. What promise do you think they want Trump to break?
Luckily for the country, Trump doesn’t seem obsessed with what the elites think of him. But his advisers include just the type of Republicans whose second-tier law schools make them particularly susceptible to the cheap respectability of establishment media approval.
Trump has been a politician for only a little more than one year. He has no experience with the tricks that will be played to get him to betray voters on his signature issue. The first president Bush knew what was coming — and he still broke his promise.
Manifestly, if anyone in Washington seriously wanted to build a wall, deport illegals, return criminal aliens to their own countries, end the anchor baby scam and prevent jihadists from immigrating here to kill Americans, it would have been done already.
Nearly every promise Trump made on immigration is 100 percent within the power of the president. For example:
None of those things have ever been done before for one reason: The entire Washington establishment is unalterably opposed to enforcing our immigration laws.
Trump will have no trouble enacting the rest of his agenda. If congressional Republicans are good for anything, it is to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and regulation, confirm good judges and protect the Second Amendment. No one but Trump would have done it, but not even Nancy Pelosi is going to attack Trump for keeping jobs in America.
Only when it comes to immigration will Trump be Gary Cooper, out there alone against every powerful entity in America. Just as he was during the campaign. On immigration, Trump will be furiously opposed by: Democrats, Republicans, the permanent bureaucracy, the Chamber of Commerce, George Soros, The Wall Street Journal — in fact, the entire media, except four webpages, six bloggers and five talk-radio hosts — and hundreds of taxpayer-funded immigrant grievance groups. And that’s just off the top of my head. He’ll even be opposed by his own hand-picked U.N. ambassador! (It is an amazing fact that at the 2016 State of the Union, both the Democratic president’s address, and the Republican governor’s response, attacked candidate Trump’s immigration proposals.)
There’s a reason millions of Americans were showing up at Trump’s rallies chanting, “Build the Wall!” and not, “End Obamacare!” “Cut taxes!” “Save the Second Amendment!” — or any other slogan that could have been chanted just as easily at a Jeb! Rally.
There are only a handful of people in the entire country with the knowledge and ability to enforce our immigration laws. Any Cabinet appointees likely to impress The New York Times aren’t going to get it done. They won’t have to expressly defy Trump. They just won’t do it.
Perhaps they’ll make some showy effort at deporting illegals — and then back down at the first La Raza lawsuit. Or they will allow career government lawyers to submit briefs in court that cite all the wrong cases. Or they’ll wait for Speaker Paul Ryan’s approval to do anything. Or they’ll be moved by a Nikki Haley speech about the vibrant diversity of Somali refugees. Or they’ll be scared off by Washington bureaucrats who say, You can’t do that!
But if Trump chooses from among the few people who know how to get it done (Kris Kobach, Kris Kobach or Kris Kobach), his promises will be kept. He can relax. He can spend all his time playing golf, living in Trump Tower, yelling at American CEOs trying to outsource jobs — and engaging in appalling conflicts of interest with his businesses.
He could even shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. (I propose GOP consultant Rick Wilson!)
Trump is down to his last wish from Aladdin. He can impress The New York Times, or he can make America great again. But he can’t do both.
Authored by Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ / December 06, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/06/this-filmmaking-couple-doesnt-want-to-be-punished-for-not-promoting-same-sex-marriage-2/

Filmmakers Carl and Angel Larsen say they wish to tell stories about God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, without fear the government will punish them for not promoting same-sex marriage. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)
Carl and Angel Larsen, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, say they run Telescope Media Group as a way to deploy their storytelling ability and production services to glorify God.
“The Larsens desire to counteract the current cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically orthodox definition of marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to tell stories of marriages between one man and one woman that magnify and honor God’s design and purpose for marriage,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota says.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Larsens and Telescope Media Group, which they own.
“Because of their religious beliefs, and their belief in the power of film and media production to change hearts and minds, the Larsens want to use their talents and the expressive platform of [Telescope Media Group] to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman,” the suit says.
Minnesota government officials argue that private businesses face criminal penalties if they promote a marriage between a man and woman but refuse to promote a same-sex marriage, the Larsens’ lawyers at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom say.
“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement.
“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,”
If convicted after criminal prosecution under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Larsens face a fine of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail, according to the lawsuit. They also could be ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages up to $25,000.
The Larsens, who are in their mid-30s and have been married for 14 years, are challenging the law before Minnesota officials take any action against them and their company. The law in question is the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from nondiscrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website says.
The Larsens’ lawyers filed a pre-enforcement challenge against Kevin Lindsey in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and against Lori Swanson in her official capacity as attorney general of Minnesota. According to the suit:
The Larsens simply desire to use their unique storytelling and promotional talents to convey messages that promote aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or that at least are not inconsistent with them. It is standard practice for the owners of video and film production companies to decline to produce videos that contain or promote messages that the owners do not want to support or that violate or compromise their beliefs in some way.
The Daily Signal sought comment from both the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Human Rights, but neither had responded by publication.
Telescope Media Group’s services include web-streaming and video recording of live events as well as producing short films.
“Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production,” the company’s website says.
The company has created content for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and LifeLight, an annual Christian music festival held near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
“Every American—including creative professionals—should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment,” Tedesco said in a release from Alliance Defending Freedom. He added:
For example, a fashion designer recently cited her ‘artistic freedom’ as a ‘family-owned company’ to announce that she won’t design clothes for Melania Trump because she doesn’t want to use her company and creative talents to promote political views she disagrees with. Even though the law in D.C. prohibits ‘political affiliation’ discrimination, do any of us really think the designer should be threatened with fines and jail time?
French fashion designer Sophie Theallet published an open letter Nov. 17 saying she would not dress President-elect Donald Trump’s wife, the future first lady, because of disagreements with him and urged other fashion designers to do the same. Last week, American fashion designer Tom Ford said on TV’s “The View” that he would not dress Melania Trump, in part because “she’s not necessarily my image.”
“The Larsens simply seek to exercise these same freedoms, and that’s why they filed this lawsuit to challenge Minnesota’s law,” Tedesco said.
Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Leah.
It Ain’t Over Till….
Authored by Joe Saunders December 2, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/thepoint/2016/12/02/media-cheerlead-obama-across-finish-line-with-glorious-jobs-picture-theres-1-huge-problem/
Advertisement – story continues below
In a fit of journalistic cheerleading that should turn even liberal stomachs, a New York Times article about the latest jobs report is hailing the American economy as a blessed miracle of modern efficiency that a triumphant Obama is handing off to lucky President-elect Donald Trump.
But a reader who makes it through the first gushing paragraphs will realize why Obama’s party is no longer in power.
Under the blatantly pro-administration headline “President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor,” The Times trumpets Obama’s economic stewardship in language befitting the Soviet Union’s old Five-Year Plan pronouncements:

Comrade Stalin has done it again!
Advertisement – story continues below
Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, was particularly cloying in contrasting the economy of today with the one the country faced in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
“It was an utterly terrifying time, the likes of which none of us had ever seen in our lifetimes,” Furman told The Times, in hyperventilating prose. “The economy was following the same trajectory that it did at the beginning of the Great Depression.”
Now, Furman told The Times, “the economy today is healthy and it’s improving.”
If all that’s true, of course, it raises the question of just why American voters rejected the president’s chosen successor in favor of a candidate and party that have made no secret of their loathing for Obama’s progressive policies and crony capitalism.
It takes a full seven paragraphs into the article before The Times suddenly changes its tune and gets down to the grim, black-and-white reality of the not-so-rosy employment picture.
For all the improvements, tens of millions of Americans understandably feel that the recovery has passed them by. Those without skills are relegated to low-paying positions without steady schedules, security and benefits. Breadwinners who once held well-compensated manufacturing jobs are angry about being forced to settle for lower-wage service jobs — or no jobs at all.
Profound anxiety, particularly among the white working class, about the ability to reach or comfortably remain in the middle class is one of the factors that helped propel Mr. Trump to the White House.
And right on cue in the concerted effort to portray Obama as a wise and wonderful parent handing the keys to a robust economy to a reckless teenage Trump, Politico declares in its own slavishly propagandistic piece, “Trump inherits Obama boom.”
It might come as a shock to people who sit on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, but when five of the nation’s 10 wealthiest counties are in a collar around the nation’s capital, there might be a problem with the concentration of wealth and the men and women who are actually benefiting from the Obama Era government.
Americans outside the Beltway and its environs know that Obama’s Potemkin economy was never as good as his sycophantic media pretended, and the juggled statistics might have indicated. The official unemployment rate might indeed be low, but as Business Insider Points out, the labor force participation rate — that is, the percentage of those capable of working who are actually looking for a job — is at its lowest level since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, outside the sunny world of Beltway-area economists, the actual real-world situation isn’t nearly as sunny as The New York Times would have the country believe.
As Business Insider reports:
The big disappointment in the jobs report was wage growth. Average hourly earnings fell 0.1% from October. This was unexpected, given that the tight labor market — characterized by a record number of job openings and fewer job seekers — put some upward pressure on wages in recent months.
In other words, the unemployment rate endlessly touted by the Obama-glorifying media in the past seven-plus years is a cruel joke. It leaves out otherwise healthy individuals who have given up hope of finding work, it counts individuals who have even minimal – not-enough-to-buy-gas-with jobs – as “employed.”
In a controversial column in February 2015, Jim Clifton, president and CEO of the Gallup polling organization, blew the whistle on the whole sham:
There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.
And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
None of that is going to make it into the mainstream media’s coverage of economic figures from the government for another two months, of course. The final days of the Obama administration are likely to be hailed as the twilight of a golden era in American prosperity. If The Times’ dishonest coverage is any indication of what’s to come from the rest of the mainstream media – and it usually is – the country can expect to hear nothing but solid economic news until at least Jan. 20 or so.
But come Jan. 21, and the first full day of the Donald Trump administration, don’t be surprised if the media suddenly report America heading back into a full-scale depression. And there will be no gushing paragraphs then.
Published on December 6, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/12/dear-democrat-dumbasses-guess-voter-fraud-michigan-favored/
“Eighty-seven of Wayne County’s decade-old voting machines broke on election day, according to Detroit’s elections director, Daniel Baxter. He told the Detroit News, which first reported the story, that ballot scanners often jammed when polling place workers were trying to operate them. Every time a jammed ballot was removed and reinserted, he suspects the machine may have re-counted it.”
In other words, in an area where the significant majority of people voted for Hillary Clinton, their votes may have been counted twice.
This means that Trump’s margin of victory in Michigan may be even larger than the 10,704 votes initially recorded. — The Guardian
And in Wisconsin? Trump’s lead is up by 26 votes.
THAT was a productive use of taxpayer time, energy and funds.
Yes, Jill Stein is in fact an idiot.
Hillary must be thrilled to lose some of her ‘Popular Vote’ lead.
Authored by Ted Goodman / 12/05/2016URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/05/half-of-detroit-could-be-ineligible-for-election-recount/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=TheDC Morning&utm_campaign=TheDC Evening

Midtown Detroit, Mich.: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

Wayne County has over 1.7 million residents and voted overwhelmingly for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at 95 percent. Krista Haroutunian, chair of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, told the Detroit Free Press that the discrepancies could make 610 precincts across the county (including the 392 in Detroit), ineligible for recount. A final decision has not yet been made.
The Michigan Republican Party, President-elect Donald Trump and the state’s Republican attorney general all filed notice that they plan to appeal a U.S. District Court decision to start the recount Monday, arguing the effort should not be decided by the federal courts system. (RELATED: Michigan GOP Files Appeal To Stop Recount)
“This is a Michigan issue, and should be handled by the Michigan court system,” Michigan Republican Party Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in a press release.
Attorneys for the Michigan GOP filed a Notice to Appeal with the Eastern District Court of Michigan Monday, with plans to eventually appeal the ruling with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, according to the Detroit Free Press.The Michigan Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for Tuesday at 4 p.m., according to a press release from the Michigan GOP.
The recount effort is in a race against the clock, as state election officials scramble to complete a hand recount of over 4.8 million presidential ballots. The judge ruled in Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s favor, starting the recount at noon Monday. The largest recount effort in the state’s history could cost taxpayers up to $12 million, according to Fox News.
In Michigan, Trump officially received 2,279,543 votes, while Clinton received 2,268,839 votes after the Election Day tally. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received 172,136 votes, while Stein hauled in 51,463 votes.
Authored by Alex Pfeiffer, Reporter, 12/05/2016URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/05/black-activists-launch-monthly-fee-system-for-whites-to-pay-blacks/#ixzz4S5WrGLAF
Liberal black activists have launched a monthly “subscription box” designed for white people “to not only financially support Black femme freedom fighters, but also complete measurable tasks in the fight against white supremacy.”The subscription service is called Safety Pin Box and was launched last week. Wearing a safety pin has recently become a symbol within the liberal community for one to show solidarity with minorities. The group is headed by Leslie Mac and Marissa Jenae Johnson. Johnson is one of the Black Lives Matter protesters who interrupted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during a speech in Seattle last year.
There are four different types of subscriptions offered by the group. The “e-ally box” is $25 a month and is “an electronic form of solidarity.” It comes with “exclusive ‘calls to action’ when urgent ally services are needed in times of crisis.” Ally is a term used by Black Lives Matter activists to describe white comrades.
There is then the “pin pals box” which is a box shared by two white people for $100 total. Lucky subscribers get a “physical ‘safety pin’ box shipped to one address with guided two-person tasks for the month.”
There is then the “premiere” box subscription which costs $100 a month. This includes a “physical ‘safety pin’ box shipped to you with guided ally tasks for the month. Tasks will vary in scope from individual to group assignments, and task categories include data collection, personal development, influencing your networks, and showing radical compassion.”Safety Pin Box did not respond immediately to an inquiry about the amount of subscribers they have. Another option they offer besides subscription is the one-time “Revenge Box” which costs $50. The description says: “Send this box to a Trump supporter, bigot, or white supremacist of our choice.”
The recipient of one of these boxes gets “a link to a website that features highlights of the current movement for Black lives and stories of Black excellence.”
This is not the first online effort seeking donations from guilty white people. A black woman launched a reparations website in August.
Upstaged Huge
You must be logged in to post a comment.