More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday February 6, 2018


A transcript of the president’s call to a foreign leader? No problem. Unmasking the name of an American citizen as he spoke to the Russian ambassador? That sounds fine to many. So long as it zings Trump.
In the previous decade, Democrats demanded prosecution of leakers of classified information, and with gusto.
In fact, the last time the Republicans held the White House, the Democrats and media built a witch hunt around a journalist’s news column. The goal was to embarrass the administration of President George W. Bush.
On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that an Iraq War critic, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had traveled to Africa in February 2002 to look into claims Iraq was buying yellowcake uranium from Niger.
It was a complicated tale of the buildup to the war, but Novak got into trouble for this sentence: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.”
David Corn, a left-wing journalist now with Mother Jones, insisted the law had been broken in the leak to Novak. The political drumbeat began, the CIA asked for action, and in September 2003, President Bush and his attorney general named a prosecutor. The investigation took two long years. As the indictment came, liberals could barely contain their glee. Some hoped for Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to be “frog-marched” to court.
And Lawrence O’Donnell, now with MSNBC, made an infamous whiff of a prediction: “[A]t least three high-level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.”
Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, resigned on Feb. 13 because it was disclosed in leaks that he spoke
with the Russian ambassador in late December. Flynn had told Vice President Mike Pence that he did not mention sanctions on Russia. The leaks were detailed enough to prove that wrong. The amount of effort that went into the leak was prodigious, according to a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill who works in intelligence.
The leaker would have not only have to have access to the transcripts of the Russian ambassador, but power to “unmask” Flynn, who would have been initially protected by U.S. law.
The seriousness of the leaks involving Flynn helped build tremendous disappointment on Monday, when FBI Director James Comey, acting oddly as usual, said he could not even confirm an investigation into the leaks.
A former intelligence operative told LifeZette that the leaks of Flynn’s name show possible political intent, from the start of the intel gathering all the way through. The former intel operative says he wonders who at the FBI or the
National Security Agency received emails or calls from the National Security Council or the White House about the Flynn meeting. The former intel operative says normally, any intelligence professional, especially a manager, would recognize that the collection of Flynn’s data, even in the incidental fashion as they followed the Russian ambassador, would be so laced with political danger to their agency that they would “run away” from it. Or they would notify the relevant oversight committees at Congress, to protect everyone concerned.
What if the shoe had been on the other foot?
What if, the former intel operative wondered, the Bush administration’s National Security Council had received incidental collection on the Obama campaign in late 2008, and not informed the congressional oversight committees?
So what is the media doing in 2017? They are asking for more leaks of classified documents. Some newspapers have even set up anonymous online “dropboxes.” And the Democrats? They are nowhere to be seen on the issue.
December 21, 2015 A Commentary URL of the original posting site: http://commonconstitutionalist.com/current-events/stop-making-excuses-for-islam
Before I answer that, if I may go off topic – is there any wonder why our country has become so dysfunctional – so segregated. It seems everyone is part of their own “community,” and as a result pledges allegiance to that community in lieu of the United States. It seems the only ones who don’t, and don’t dare, are whites.
Sorry about that. It’s been a pet peeve of mine.

And it’s not just Islamic clerics and academics who rush to the aid of their religion. The media does the same. Even before the dust settles, left-wing media and politicians proclaim, “that it is not Islam.”
The incident doesn’t even need to be a tragic event. It could be something relatively minor, like say, a Muslim cab driver refusing a fare due to his religious beliefs.
Let me first say that if one’s religion precludes one from doing his or her job, one should find another field of endeavor. But for whatever reason, a lot of cabbies are Muslim and because of this, these incidents are fairly common.
In 2006 there was a big dust-up in Minneapolis over Somali cabdrivers refusing to transport passengers with alcohol, claiming adherence to Islam. Even passengers with a simple bottle of wine purchased at an airport duty-free shop are refused service. “If you are a cab driver and a practicing Muslim, you can’t carry alcohol,” said Idris Mohamed, an adjunct professor of strategic management at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul.
Burdened by political correctness and, “Instead of forcing them to ferry passengers, the airports commission proposed putting colored lights on top of cabs to indicate which ones will carry alcohol, a compromise worked out in discussions ongoing with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota.” Luckily that idiotic plan was scuttled after the commission received thousands of angry e-mails.
However, every once in a while one of the Muslim cabbies is brought to justice (kind of) as was the case recently of a Muslim taxi driver refusing to, “let a woman ride up front with him as her family piled into his yellow cab at Penn Station – later claiming that his religion forbids him from being that close to a female stranger. The woman asked whether there was a problem, and all Drammeh [the driver] would say is that her husband could sit up front but that she was not welcome.”
The woman filed a sex discrimination case against the driver. Judge Laura Fieber found against the cabby guilty and said, “That his religion did not allow him to sit next to a woman is not an acceptable defense…” The city of New York fined the Muslim driver $350 and suspended him for all of one day. He was able to maintain his cab license and is still working.
Not surprisingly, a Muslim academic excused the driver. Hossein Kamaly, a Middle Eastern studies professor at Barack Obama’s alma mater, Columbia University said, “There are some Muslims who wouldn’t be comfortable with that and some would. He’s an older man and probably an immigrant, so it’s closer to the way he was brought up.” And evidently that makes it all okay.
Now, you already know what I’m going to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. Imagine a white Christian cab driver refusing a fare because he is homosexual or telling a black woman she can’t sit up front but her white friend can. Think that cabby might be given more than a paltry fine and a slap on the wrist one day suspension? Maybe something just short of the death penalty.
I am so weary of the excuses made for this “religion.” I could understand if a relative few misinterpreted a meaning or two, but we’re talking about millions worldwide. They can’t all be wrong. How is one supposed to interpret a book riddled with passages like, Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

st video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>
On Tuesday, the Fox News Channel’s “Kelly File” host Megyn Kelly criticized the “double standard” between the treatment of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Tea Party, stating with the Black Lives Matter movement, “suddenly the actions of a few do not apply to the many” like they did with the Tea Party.
Kelly began by playing footage of a New Black Panther group chanting “Oink oink, bang bang” in front of a jail in Texas, which she said was “Just one of the angry and incendiary chants we have seen against police in recent months. … But so far, haven’t heard much from Washington. however, take a walk back with me to 2011, when a shooting in Tucson led to an angry chorus complaining about what they said was angry Tea Party rhetoric.”
Kelly then played clips of House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rev. Al Sharpton denouncing heated political rhetoric after the Tuscon shooting.
Kelly then stated, “I went out to see, Katie, whether Debbie Wasserman Schultz was out denouncing the rhetoric that we are now hearing, you know, the lack of civility, that she was complaining about, with the Black Lives Matter movement, and this is what I found her saying about that movement.” Kelly then played a clip of Wasserman Schultz on August 22nd saying, “I’m proud of the young people who have been pushing that Black Lives Matter movement. We brought the Confederate Flag down. We’ve made sure that symbols of hate, symbols of hate are unacceptable in America.”
Guest Fox News Contributor and Townhall.com Editor Katie Pavlich stated, “if Debbie Wasserman Schultz were concerned about symbols of hate, she would be denoting the Black Lives Matter movement.”
Kelly added that the DNC is “trying to tie themselves to the movement, the same movement that’s chanting ‘Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.’ And these same people [were] denouncing, not long ago the lack of civility in America, meanwhile you’ve got people connected with this movie — with this movement, putting up the sign of a roasted pig and Officer Darren Wilson’s name on it.”
Fox News Contributor and talk radio host Richard Fowler countered, “I don’t think we’re watching the same Black Lives Matter movement. I think if you talk to any of organizers on the ground, both in Ferguson, in Baltimore, and New York, they will tell you they’re a nonviolent movement. That all they want to do is end the disparities –” Kelly cut in to ask why “nonviolent” protesters were chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.” Fowler responded that this was “one small incident” of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Kelly then cut in to ask why “so many on the left” were “so quick to tie a comments made by alleged Tea Party members to the entire Tea Party? How about that Richard?” After a period of crosstalk, Kelly asked again, “the people on the left we just showed, were very quick to blame violence that happened in the country on what they alleged were a couple of Tea Party comments that they found to be racist or incendiary. Why are they not as outraged now, when as you point out, okay, maybe it was just Minnesota, maybe it was just those New Black Panther — maybe it’s just that one roasted pig. But suddenly the actions of a few do not apply to the many. Why the double standard?”
Fowler stated, “Well, first, the shooting death that you were talking about in the video clip, there’s actually evidence that indicates that this person was — who had — he had Tea Party sentiments, he agreed with the Tea Party. In this case in Houston — or in Texas, rather, there is no evidence, right? There’s been no investigation, and from somebody, Megyn, who’s a lawyer, you would say, ‘Let’s see the facts first.’” Kelly interjected that she did exactly that on the show the previous night.
Fowler continued, “the Black Lives Matter movement, for the past year, has petitioned and fought to make sure that black lives indeed do matter, and they’re not gunned down by police officers, or choked to death in New York City like Eric Garner was.”
Pavlich concluded by stating, “I just want to make it clear and obvious that Richard Fowler refuses to condemn Black Lives Matter protesters who want police –” Fowler then cut in, after a period of crosstalk, Pavlich continued, “you refuse to condemn Back Lives [Matter] protesters who officers to be executed in their police vehicles. That is what you are promoting tonight.”
http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4458937305001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>” href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4458937305001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”>http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4458937305001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4458937305001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript> aligncenter wp-image-19125″ src=”https://whatdidyousay.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/meygn.jpg” alt=”meygn” width=”801″ height=”451″ />

Hillary Clinton, the woman who was tossed aside by the Democrat Party so that the race card could be used against those who disagreed with their radical agenda as pushed by Barack Obama, has just used the gender card.
The Women of the World Summit recently took place in New York. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a panelist. In response to what she perceives as media treatment of women, Clinton made the following remarks.
“There is a double standard, obviously. We have all experienced it or at the very least seen it. … The double standard is alive and well, and I think in many respects, the media is the principal propagator of its persistence.”
She continued.
“You have to play both an outside and inside game,” Mrs. Clinton said, about how women should broach dual roles in public and private life, ABC News reported. “On the outside, you have to find ways to raise these issues that are truly rooted in sexism or in old-fashioned irrelevant expectations about women’s lives, not just to score a point but to change a mind.”
But, not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton was silent. Perhaps she sees some value in pushing that gender baiting card since a recent Gallup poll revealed that 18% of their poll respondents believe that the best thing about Hillary potentially being elected as president is that she’s a woman.
I guess standing up for what she deems as ‘gender bias’ is only politically beneficial and expedient now that she likely plans to run for President in 2016.
You must be logged in to post a comment.