I'll be off shortly to Big 'D' for the Cotton Bowl, and afterwards the West End to bring in the New Year. So I'd like to take this last opportunity to Thank You All for your support of DMF this year and wish everyone A Very Happy, Safe and Prosperous 2016.
And let's hope the boys in 'Crimson and White' do the SEC proud this year!
2015 will be remembered as the year when beer pong related shootings became an epidemic. For the third time this year, the seemingly innocent drinking game has caused an eruption of gun violence; this time in New Mexico where one man was killed and two others injured. When will the cowards in Congress act to ban this preventable cause of death?
The Albuquerque Journal reports that one man died and two others were injured, one critically, after a game of beer pong went horribly awry. 18-year-old Arturo Villa, 17-year-old Jaime Acevez, and 17-year old Ignacio Vasquez started last Saturday night out by going to a house party. Unfortunately, there was a shooting at that place, so they decided to find a less violent location to get their groove on. They picked wrong.
At another house party Villa and Acevez found themselves in a beer pong game with 18-year old Esias Madrid and 22-year-old Jack Daniel Trujillo. Acevaz was so confident with his pong skills that he bet his watch against one of the men from the other team’s watch. As a general rule you should never bet in a drinking game when your opponent’s name is pretty much “Jack Daniels.”
As you can imagine, Acevez and Villa were defeated, but they didn’t want to give up the watch because they are sore losers. Soon a fight broke about between the two groups and because they take their beer pong seriously in the ABQ that meant a gun fight.
Madrid shot Villa in the neck, killing him and Trujillo shot Acevez critically wounding him. Vasquez was also shot, though not seriously wounded. Madrid was arrested and charged with an open count of murder, while Tujillo remains at large.
By my count, this is the third beer pong related shooting this year:
In May, 39-year old black guy Ronald Wayne McNeil crashed a college graduation party and got into a fight over the rules of beer pong. He left to get his Glock and came back to fire 14 shots at the partiers, killing 19-year old Lacie LaRose.
In July, 27-year old black guy Manus Shannon was trying to distract his beer pong opponent by waving a loaded gun in his face. What was supposed to be a joke turned serious when Shannon inadvertently pulled the trigger. The bullet struck one man in the hand and another in the shoulder.
There have been four mass shootings in the US this year, but two of those were terrorist attacks, so in reality there have been two. If two mass shootings is an epidemic, as the liberals claim, then 3 beer pong shootings must be a super-epidemic.
Why aren’t the democrats jumping all over this? Sure, this wave of increasing beer pong violence is perpetrated exclusively by minorities, but everyone knows that this is a game privileged white men play as a pretext to rape and racism. If democrats really want to make us safer, they should move to ban beer pong, close the “table tennis loophole” and crack down on Coors Light straw purchases.
As you gaze down at your Smart Phone at a red light on your way to the airport while sitting in your $50,000 SUV with GPS and satellite fed radio, or view this page with your new $2,500 Mac Book Pro while sitting in your comfortable centrally heated home, ever wonder what is was like to live 100 years ago? Here's just a sample.
I read with interest an article in The Opinion Pages of the New York Times entitled, Dear White America. It was written by George Yancy, a professor of philosophy at Emory University and a black man, which he feels (as apparently did the Times editorial board) somehow gives him special license to psychologize every white person alive and read him the riot act.
He does, of course, deny that this is what he is doing and even begins his missive by urging white readers to “listen with love” or “at least try.” Later on, he explains that his letter is “a gift” to us. He spends the next few paragraphs establishing his bona fides as a moral arbiter by revealing himself to be a dyed-in-the-wool sexist. The message underlying this admission is clear: If he is willing to own up to his own bigotry and biases, then whites, every last one of whom is racists should be willing to do the same.
He does his best to encourage me (and all white readers) to fully accept my racism and to search inside myself to learn why I feel as I do. It’s a rather lengthy essay explaining how and why I’ve come to be a racist. He tries to explain that I have to let go of my “white innocence” and instead to recognize the weight of my responsibility for those who “live under the yoke of my whiteness.” He is daring me to face my racism and to recognize the racist poison that is inside of me. He says that he doesn’t want to hear about how many black friends I have or even that being married to a black man or woman doesn’t exclude me from being a racist. In short, explains in detail, all of the reasons that I simply can’t NOT be a racist.
He doesn’t want to hear retorts of “what about the violence in black neighborhoods” or “Yancy is simply an angry black man.” He doesn’t want any rebuttal to his suppositions at all – in fact, they just aren’t germane to his points – those being that all white people are racists. He says that I should accept the racism within myself and recognize all of the trappings of racism that I try not to see – those things that bind me to forms of domination that I try to ignore. And then he asks, “White America, are you prepared to be at war with yourself, your white identity, your white power, your white privilege? His “letter” is just about what you’d expect from a professor of philosophy in a black university.
Okay Professor Yancy, I’ll play your game and readily admit that at times I've had feelings about people of your race you may or may not call bigoted. I'll also reiterate what you won't admit; that blacks who commit the growing amount of violence against whites just because they're white, are also wrong-hearted and racists. So, I suppose we're all in the same racist boat together, eh? You'll understand that I was really interested to read this article, especially since I'd just recently viewed a video showing very graphically three black women and three of their children savagely beat a white homeless man TO DEATH with a hammer and a chair leg. They kicked him in the head repeatedly and left him for dead.
Is it any wonder that I and many others feel the way we do sometimes when we witness this kind of subhuman savagery? Those savages who did this are supposed to be my equals? My peers? They are NOT of my species. They are NOT like me and I am NOT like them.
I work in a world of business with many black men of your generation or older, who accept America's racist past as it's history. But they, unlike yourself and many of your ilk who continue to turn a blind eye and refuse to own up to the failings of your own black cultural norms, work to better relations between the races rather than destroy what has been achieve by people who came before you. I for one have no patience for this kind of flowery bigoted anti-white tripe coming from someone in charge of educating the minds of our youth. You make me sick.
Groups like the Black Lives Matter movement have made it their mission to paint all police officers as criminals, no matter what the facts of the situation are. Independent Journal recently reported that a social media page called “Civilians against CopBlock” posted a photo of two police officers that it claimed had killed over 250 people “in the line of duty.”
“Civilians against CopBlock” is a page dedicated to countering the lies perpetrated by the anti-cop social media organization “CopBlock.”
“These two officers in Georgia have killed over 250 people in the line of duty. They were best friends in high school and entered the police academy together only to fuel a more sinister and sexually devious lifestyle than anyone could predict.”
Predictably, several people went apeshit and commented under the photo decrying police nationwide and claiming that this was just another example of the systematic brutality of America’s police force.
But unfortunately, some didn't bother to read the entirety of the post before venting their spleens.The two “officers” in the post were from the hit TV show “The Walking Dead.”
Some social media users got the joke (the hashtag #zombielivesmatter at the end of the post was a dead giveaway) and poked fun at the gullibility of anti-police folk.
Much of what the Black Lives Matter folks rely upon is pure social media speculation mingled with the occasional blatant lie. If they bothered to investigate, they’d realize that the “systematic” racism that they love to talk about isn’t nearly as systematic as they think.
People are so desperate to prove that all police are evil, they'll fall for anything that seems to support their narrative. I'd like to think they learned their lesson from this, but they probably haven't.
San Diego Union Tribune -A man was stabbed by a 400-pound, bearded woman soon after asking a group of people for a cigarette in East Village Wednesday night, police said.
The 39-year-old man walked up to the group on Park Boulevard near K Street about 7:40 p.m., San Diego police Officer Robert Heims said. After asking for the cigarette, a woman walked up to him, told him to get away from her things, and then stabbed him in the neck. The victim was taken to a hospital with an injury that wasn’t life-threatening.
The assailant ran away heading south on Park. She was described as white and about 400 pounds with a beard. She was wearing a white shirt and jeans.
Excerpts from The Hayride: To residents of New Orleans and the state, Mayor Mitch Landrieu is responsible for the purging of history which will soon take place in the Big Easy, just as the New Orleans City Council approved Landrieu’s plan last week to remove four historical monuments. Landrieu, though, acts more as a prop it seems when it comes to removing all symbols related to the South and the Confederacy. During the vote to remove the monuments, New Orleans City Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell said the movement to remove monuments did not come from the ground up, rather it came directly from Landrieu’s office. The monuments were pre-picked by Landrieu and it entirely unclear how the mayor actually chose which monuments should go. Sources close to the Hayride say Landrieu’s call for monuments to be removed was not simply a reaction to the Charleston AME Church shooting, but rather a well-planned and well-organized demand.
General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard who advocated for increased civil rights and suffrage for recently freed slaves.
Back in June, when Landrieu called for the monuments to be removed, immediately following was a protest rally at Robert E. Lee Circle where protesters burned the Confederate flag. Coincidentally, members of the Trilateral Commission of New Orleans, which is made up of multiple social justice advocacy groups, spoke at the flag-burning rally. Besides the NAACP, one of the groups involved with the Trilateral Commission of New Orleans and the protest was the National Action Network, which was founded in 1991 Rev. Al Sharpton, the notorious race-baiting liberal. Sharpton has become known for perpetually running to the scenes of racial tensions across the country and drumming up controversy among local residents. Sharpton’s National Action Network, however, is certainly not the only national, elite organization involved in Landrieu’s monument removal. The global bastion-of-liberal-thought organization, the Trilateral Commission, has been wildly pushing the narrative that New Orleans must remove monuments to shed its racist history. (The Trilateral Commission of New Orleans seems to be a smaller sect of the global Trilateral Commission.) Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson is a member, as is New York Times writer David Brooks. And oddly enough, both Isaacson and Brooks wrote pieces explaining why it was extremely important for monuments to be removed in New Orleans. Isaacson actually wrote a few pieces, which the Times Picayune and New Orleans Advocate published. Brooks’ piece on New Orleans monuments appeared in the New York Times shortly after Landrieu’s call for monument removal. Brooks and Isaacson’s pro-monument removal op-ed pieces ran on the same exact day in the New York Times and the Times Picayune. Isaacson also has very close ties to Landrieu. The former Time magazine editor was hand-picked by Landrieu to serve on the city’s Tricentennial Committee. Why would Landrieu be following a “pathway” for monument removal outlined by Brooks and Isaacson if this issue came from the grassroots like Democrats have continued to claim in the debate? Besides Isaacson and Brooks, other very prominent liberals who sit on the Trilateral Commission, include former Secretary of StateMadeleine Albright, former New York CityMayor Michael BloombergandMSNBC hostAndrea Mitchell. The New Orleans media has made the removal of monuments seem like an issue that came from the residents up to Landrieu’s office. When, in actuality, it came down directly from the Landrieu administration with the help of powerful voices of well-connected, liberal elites who foisted their politically correct worldview onto the residents of a historically-rich city.
Doug Gottlieb, CBS Sports Reporter / Part Time Constitutional Expert
Yeah, me neither. But according to Doug Gottlieb, a reporter and radio talk show host for CBS Sports, we be dumb. After 24 year old Lakeisha Holloway drove her car up on a Las Vegas sidewalk killing one and injuring 37 others, Gottlieb decided to address the situation on Twitter. Apparently confused (or still reeling from the fact he's not a 7ft. black guy and didn't make it to the NBA) and jumping to the conclusion that Holloway used a gun to injure her victims as opposed to a 2000 pound vehicle, Gottlieb tweeted some rather bizarre tweets he has since deleted.
Dougie originally went to the University of Notre Dame on a basketball scholarship and after some legal issues there, he transferred to Golden West College and then to Oklahoma State where he graduated. Apparently none of courses he took involved civics, history, government or anything to do with the Constitution.
If Gottlieb wants to stick with the line that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution when it comes to the Second Amendment, that means he thinks the 4th and 5th Amendments are not part of the Constitution either. And of course, his job as a reporter could be curtailed or eliminated by the government because the First Amendment protects the press as well.
I think it's about time the liberal Bob Costas and Doug Gottliebs of the world stick to there expertize. Just as I don't want listen to Alan Dershowitz or Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg try to explain an illegal offense formation or the pass interference rules, it's time the sports monkeys just STFU. They need to stick to their world of sweaty ballplayers and bad interviews and droning on about who's best. And after being miles off the mark on college football this year, they have a lot to work on.
With all the stupidity and ignorance that reins supreme and surrounds him at MSNBC, it must have been an epic time consuming project to narrow down to just 5 examples the dumbest of comments by Chris Matthews this year. But MRC's Ken Shepard took on the task and managed to do just that for us all:
"With the year swiftly coming to a close, I thought I'd take a look back at some of the stupidest comments that Hardball host Chris Matthews made on the air in 2015. These are ones I consider particularly stupid, not necessary or merely politically slanted, just head-scratchingly stupid. Here are just five, ranked in no particular order."
1.)Cuban-American Republicans aren't really Hispanic:- On his November 11 edition of Hardball, Matthews holds forth on how Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are not really Hispanic, although they are "Cuban nationals." Of course both are natural-born U.S. citizens of Cuban heritage, which makes them Hispanic but NOT Cuban nationals, which implies they were born in Cuba -See Video
2.) We should sentence the gyrocopter pilot who caused a terrorism scare at U.S. Capitol to... giving Congress a lecture?! The day after Florida mailman Doug Hughes piloted a gyrocopter through restricted Washington, D.C. airspace to land on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol – ostensibly so he could "deliver" letters about the need for campaign finance reform to all 535 members of Congress – Matthews told his audience at home his brilliant idea for what sort of sentence Hughes should serve - See Video
3.) The Amtrak derailment in May was caused by the lack of "straight lines" on the route: I kid you not. Now, in fairness, Matthews's larger complaint was about how property rights and lack of central planning mean countries like China can quickly build super-fast rail lines on relatively straight routes. That said, yeah, it's still pretty stupid: See Video
4.) Chris thinks the defunct Blockbuster Video chain has stores everywhere in 2015 America: This is one for the "Do you even get out much, Grandpa?" file. Apparently Chris Matthews is stuck in a 1995 America - "that's always the best argument against free trade. A point defense kind of thing. If you look in particular areas, Michigan City, a lot of the a lot of Midwestern cities have nothing less than a Blockbuster and a diner left, if they have the diner, and if they have the Blockbuster. They're hollowed-out cities." Link
5.) London's mayor should run for president of the United States some day: While Boris Johnson is in fact a natural-born U.S. citizen, he doesn't meet the other matter of constitutional eligibility to hold the office: the 14-year residency requirement. Link
Someone needs to remind Neil deGrasse Tyson that Star Wars is a piece of space fantasy
Neil deGrasse Tyson made the decision a long time ago to be a sort of media cheerleader for science instead of an actual scientist, and although he isn’t a great communicator, it was the right decision because he was unlikely ever to trouble the Nobel committee. Also, he is stupid and his politics are dumb.
Tyson, whom liberals love because they are racists who can’t believe a black guy could be smart enough to be a scientist and so spontaneously ejaculate and soil themselves every time they see him on TV, hasn’t published anything of note for years. The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don’t actually have to do any science. You’re exempted from the usual “publish or perish” rules.
Even when he was making a go of being a proper academic, Tyson didn’t exactly have the most glittering record. He didn’t get the PhD he was studying for at the University of Texas and had to go elsewhere for his qualification. Obviously, rather than take responsibility for his academic performance, Tyson has blamed racism. In reality, Tyson was playing in bands and appearing on stage instead of completing essays. Typical science PhD students are at any given time either studying, teaching or sleeping.
It’s tough to avoid the conclusion that much of what is frustrating about Neil deGrasse Tyson stems from identity politics and the victimhood ideology peddled by leftist academics and journalists. Despite all his media success, Tyson insists that racism is responsible for his academic failures, alluding to sinister “forces” that keep women and ethnic minorities down.
In 2005, he said: “I know these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there’s equal opportunity.” He of course doesn’t address the fact that the only reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is on television at all, given his intellectual shortcomings, is that he is black.
Social justice-inspired grievance culture has flavoured much of Tyson’s output during his media career. Indeed, some observers say he’s more left-wing propagandist than rigorous thinker these days. His reboot of Cosmos, for instance, was saturated with progressive garbage designed to appeal to liberal-minded students and lefty geeks.
The New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 yesterday to remove four historical monuments in the city: Robert E Lee Circle, PGT Beauregard’s City Park statue, the Jefferson Davis monument and the Liberty Place monument.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu first requested the proposal back in June after the AME Charleson Church shooting. At the time, Landrieu said he wanted to hold a “60-day discussion period” so that residents could converse about the four monuments on the chopping block. The Landrieu administration knew that they had the votes to remove all four monuments before even proposing the idea.
Also, the Mayor’s administration apparently has been looking into warehouse spaces and construction companies to remove the monuments since August, even though the “60-day discussion period” was not over.
Mitch Landrieu and his merry band of PC History Jihadist
Councilman Jared Brossett compared the monuments to the “Berlin wall,” while Councilwoman Susan Guidry said she and others were “justifiably offended” by the monuments.
Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell and Councilwoman Stacy Head, however, felt differently. Cantrell said she felt “disrespected” by Landrieu for proposing the idea with no input from residents or the City Council. Councilman Jason Williams, though, said that other council-members should not be “too upset” with the Landrieu administration for bringing up the issue.
As predicted, a federal lawsuit was filed immediately following the New Orleans City Council’s 6-1 vote on the matter by a group of historical preservationists.
Cantrell also took a major issue with the fact that Landrieu suddenly got an anonymous donor to pay for the removal of the monuments. Cantrell said she and the residents of New Orleans deserved to know who was behind removal of the monuments.
Now that four of the most historical monuments in the city are getting the axe, other monuments, street names and landmarks are on the chopping block next. Back in September, the Hayride reported exclusively about how the city’s most prominent statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square could be the next to go for the Landrieu administration. And it turns out, that’s correct. In a press conference yesterday, Landrieu said that monument removal of Lee Circle was just the beginning, a hint that Andrew Jackson could be next.
Statue of Andrew Jackson - 7th President of the United States - Deemed Offensive
And it’s looking more likely for all of these monuments and landmarks to get the axe by Landrieu as well. Besides monuments and landmarks, the Landrieu administration may soon be taking on the task of renaming a slew of street names. There’s really no telling where the Landrieu administration will stop with the removal of history in the city, meaning this could go as far as renaming a number of prominent Catholic street names as well.
In fact, he's known to be a Winter Cajun, spending the cold months of the year in the Snowbird Nesting sites in the Lower Mississippi River Delta.
We found him bulking up on Crawfish Tails and Beignetsfor his impending trip around the world at the table next to us at the Marriott in New Orleans on Wednesday, and kindly allowed us to take a picture to prove he's real.
When asked if I was on the 'Naughty' or 'Nice' list this year, he told me not to worry. As someone who's job it is to sneak into peoples homes late at night, he said he always makes a point stop in where naughty girls live.
by Ben Shapiro With both Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) running ahead of establishment favorite Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) in Rubio’s home state of Florida, the establishment is beginning to realize how precarious its situation actually is. Cruz and Trump are most likely to win Iowa; Rubio is running a distant third in current polling. In New Hampshire, Rubio runs a distant second behind Trump, but he’s grouped in with Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), Cruz, Governor John Kasich (R-OH) and former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). And so the possibility now arises: if Donald Trump is the nominee, will the Republican Party back him? Or will they destroy the party the way they suggested ardent conservatives were poised to do in 2008 and 2012? It appears that Republican establishment figures are already thinking along those lines. On Thursday, former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman wrote:
“Republicans, now is the time to defeat this scourge of our party. We can make America great again by defeating the selfishness, arrogance and bigotry of Donald Trump.”
She called Trump “evil” and compared him to Hitler. She called Trump a threat to “the very foundational values on which our party and our nation were built.” Does that sound like someone prepared to support Trump if he wins the nomination? On Wednesday, Politico reported that Bush aides “began looking into the possibility of making a clear break with Trump – potentially with the candidate stating that, if Trump were the nominee, Bush would not support him….the option may still be on the table.” Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that if Trump were the nominee, the Republican Party honchos would run a third party candidate to split the vote and give Hillary Clinton the presidency:
“I think Haley Barbour and a lot of the Republican leaders would much rather Hillary Clinton be President of the United States than have Donald Trump represent them as a Republican.” Scarborough went on to suggest that the establishment would recruit Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg to run third party to take a “political bullet for his party.”
Back at the end of November, The Hill suggested that GOP donors would back Hillary over Trump:
“In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”
The establishment and their donor base have spent so much time trying to determine how to lock grassroots conservatives out of the halls of power that they’re now finding themselves overrun – and they’re fleeing into the arms of defeat. Trump’s ascendancy has made one thing crystal clear: the establishment wouldn’t just prefer Hillary over Trump – their decision not to support Trump virtually guarantees Hillary the presidency – but that they would prefer Hillary over Ted Cruz. They could, at any time, move their support from Rubio and Christie and Kasich and Bush to Cruz; if they did so, Cruz would wallop Trump in the primaries. They aren’t doing so, because they hold out hope that Rubio will somehow pull victory from the jaws of defeat. That hope is fading. The longer they wait, the clearer it becomes that the establishment’s worst nightmare isn’t merely Trump, but something bigger: losing control of the Party to either a hard-line conservative or a populist. It’s their way or the highway. And if they don’t get their way, they’ll make Hillary Clinton president. (via The Daily Wire)
A conservative-hating, liberal comic has been chosen for the 2016 White House Correspondents Dinner. This time, it’s Nightly Show anchor Larry Wilmore. Scheduled for April 30, the dinner will likely contain many of the slimy attacks the comedian is known for. On November 30, Wilmore blaming the Planned Parenthood shooting on Fox News.
Regarding claims that the shooter shouted “no more baby parts,” the host sneered that it’s “almost as if it was served up in a nice cold pitcher of Fox and their friends’ Kool-Aid.” In September, Wilmore mocked Kentucky clerk Kim Davis as similar to George Wallace and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.
In December, the comic declared “creepy” Ted Cruz to possibly be mentally ill. While his guest, Aida Rodriguez, claimed that the Texas senator’s agenda will be “to do everything the KKK does.” Politico quoted the White House Correspondent Association President’s praise for Wilmore:
“Larry’s edgy, even provocative, brand of humor means he’s certainly up to the task of skewering politicians of all ideological stripes, and we don’t expect the nation’s news media to escape unscathed, either,“ said WHCA President Carol Lee, a White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. “We are thrilled that Larry has accepted our invitation to be the featured comedian at our annual dinner, which will be the last during the Obama White House.”
Well I guess it's no real surprise a group of people pretending to be journalist who can't recognize the truth right in front of them would actually know the difference between a real comedian and a propagandist pretending to be funny....
Rep. Noodle Head Schulz and Muzzie Rep. Keith Ellison
Democrat National Committee Chairperson and all-around lunatic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla) is asking her fellow congress peoples to do an 'In Your Face' to immigration opponents by bringing a Muslim to the upcoming State of the Union address, like they are some kind of liberal fashion accessory.
Two senior Democratic lawmakers are asking their colleagues to bring a Muslim-American guest to the State of the Union in protest of Donald Trump's recent proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
In a letter sent to House Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, said lawmakers should bring Muslim-Americans to the Jan. 12 speech as a way to rebut anti-Muslim rhetoric.
"Over the past few weeks we have seen a shocking and alarming rise in hateful rhetoric against one particular minority population in our nation."
"Leading political figures have made offensive and outrageous suggestions that we should create a national registry of all people of one particular faith and that we should prevent any person of that faith from even entering this great country...."
Ellison and Wasserman Schultz said that bringing a Muslim-American guest would show “our compatriots and the world that we will not be intimidated by fear into discrimination. There could be no stronger expression of support for our American values than sending this message of solidarity through the extension of this invitation.”
There was no word on suggested wardrobe for the occasion as to whether their guest should wear an evening Burka or business casual Hijab.
via Moonbattery Work faster! It is your duty as a taxpayer to at least try to generate wealth as quickly as the government wastes it on sick lunacy like this:
A former she-male hooker, only a year out of jail on a fraud conviction, just received a full “sex change” operation, courtesy of the American taxpayer. His story is loving told over more than four full pages in Sunday’s edition of theNew York Times. Jerome Nimmons tells his story of growing up effeminate, HIV infection and a life turned to prostitution and other forms of crime.
Plus he’s a person of politically preferred pigmentation, making him a model citizen and hero from the liberal intelligentsia’s viewpoint.
Jerome’s story, however, eventually becomes yet a newer iteration of what Ronald Reagan called the “welfare queen.” Though Jerome was living with other transvestites in Atlanta, was lured to Brooklyn by a friend because New York has become something of a welfare haven for transsexuals.
Arriving by bus with only $200 in his pocket, within only a few weeks, Jerome scored a state-supported apartment, monthly disability checks, obtained food stamps, and proceeded to spend his leisurely days watching television.
He found a pro bono lawyer to help him get a new transsexual name. The New York Times reports this is a new and booming pro bono area in the law. Though Jerome had used various names in his transsexual life, including “Magnolia Thunderpussy” and “Meeka,” the name he settled on was “Kricket,” inspired in part by one of his favorite characters on The Young and the Restless.
The new surroundings, vast government support, a new name, and—most importantly—a change in insurance put Jerome on track to go all the way with his change of “sex." Jerome says he is now no longer a “chick with a wiener” but “a woman in mind, body, and soul, before the Lord and before the law.”
Jeromenow considers himself a “heterosexual woman” and is now dating a “transgender man,” that is, a woman who thinks she’s a man.....
Jerome has the skill that is most useful at this stage in society’s decline. He knows how to get other people to pay for everything.
Seems BLM Fake Negro Shaun King Got a Lil' Case of Butt Hurt
That He Didn't Get Invited to the White House.
BlackLivesMatter's Deray Mckesson (left) and Johnetta Elzie (center)
The glaring lack of class of the Obama Presidency and friends is almost unbearable. No one could have imagined the level of disgrace he's brought to the office if they had tried. Thugs, race baiters, criminals and terrorist sympathizers. His associations run the gamut. The Founding Fathers would weep for their country and what they left to us.
"Danish linguist Tina Magaard and a team of researchers spent three years examining the texts of the 10 largest religions to see if any incite violence. 'The texts of Islam are clearly distinct from the other religions' texts, as they, to a higher degree, call for violence and aggression against followers of other faiths,' she concluded. 'There are also direct incitements to terror.' ...
"Islam is not a 'religion of peace,' and won't be until most of its followers -- the Taliban, the Ayatollah, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the mullahs of Saudi Arabia -- reject tenets like jihad. To suggest otherwise is naive. Virtually everyone is hacking at the branches of this growing menace, and almost no one is striking at its root."— Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution
Shortly after the San Bernardino shooting, the New York Times made a big deal out ofposting an editorial on the front pagefor the first time in nearly a hundred years. The article was a scathing condemnation of our nation’s gun laws, as well as America’s gun culture. However, their impassioned plea for more gun legislation hasn’t had its intended effect. For 20 years the New York Times has periodically surveyed their readers, asking them if they would support an assault weapons ban. For the first time since 1995, a majority of their readers opposed the ban. In January of 1995, 67% of readers supported the ban, and 27% opposed. By 2011 there was a slight shift, with 63% in favor and 34% opposed. By 2015 there was a dramatic change with only 44% in favor of a ban, and 50% opposed. The numbers suggest that support for the ban is falling even faster than its opposition is rising, with 19% less support than in 2011, and 16% more in opposition. The gun control crowd should be deeply concerned. If a majority of the readers for a dying, left leaning, pro-government rag no longer support more heavy handed gun regulations, then clearly the gun grabbers are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of America.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous. - Paul E. Marek
Republicans want to make the Chicago mayor's woes a political liability for his former boss and a “massive liability” for Democrats in next election if Obama leaves him to twist in the wind and abandons him to the
gangsters of #BlackLivesMatter:
"Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s struggles are reverberating in Washington, where he’s causing headaches for his most powerful of close friends and former bosses, the Obamas and the Clintons.
Republicans are eager to make Emanuel — who worked in both the most recent Democratic administrations — a political liability for President Barack Obama and the campaign of Hillary Clinton, both of whom have resisted calling for his resignation over the handling of a video showing a police officer shooting a retreating black teenager. And even among the president’s allies, the famously profane Emanuel is a polarizing figure after playing a key role in the tough-on-crime legislation of the mid-1990s that Obama has made his mission to undo. Emanuel, who has a reputation for his loyalty to friends as fierce as his vindictiveness for enemies, was already doing some damage control on Thursday to better align himself with Clinton. His administration refused for more than a year to release what turned out to be a damning dashboard camera video of an officer shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald 16 times, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
Emanuel has cited his recent reelection as reason to stay in office, and so far White House spokesman Josh Earnest has echoed that rationale — resulting in a less-than-full-throated endorsement of Emanuel’s tenure.
Few of the people who worked with Emanuel are left in the West Wing. The president is the most important exception, of course, but White House aides say the two Chicagoans haven’t spoken in recent days...."