Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In 2015, Muthana urged her fellow Muslims to randomly murder Americans, tweeting “You have much to do while you live under our greatest enemy, enough of your sleeping! Go on drive-bys and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriot, Memorial etc Day parades…go on drive by’s + spill all of their blood or rent a big truck n drive all over them. Kill them.”
Sorry this is not just an oops I made a mistake...this is one urging others to KILL Veterans and US Citizens...Maybe send her to Guantanamo...at best
Morning AJ
Bringing her back would be more than a slap in the face of all who served over there...
Leave her in Hell...she didn't express desire to come back until she was captured...just release her to the pigs
Send in the clowns? Don't bother, they're here
By Richard Jack Rail
We in the real world laugh while shaking our heads at the Idiot Left. Anymore that means just about anybody on the Left.
Nancy Pelosi and Goons represent the Old Left in terms of both policy and age. New chick Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Legions represent the Newer Left ("Newer Left" because New Left was used in the sixties, and besides, it seems incongruous to style Nancy Pelosi as any kind of "new").
The Old Left pretends to have a kinder vision for mankind in its understanding of the Constitution. These people don't just burn it up, though Barama did give that a good go; they try to make it sound at least as though they believe in the Bill of Rights and all that jazz.
It's true that they don't always try very hard, though. Nancy doesn't always take it seriously, but juxtaposed with the Newer Left, she seems almost a hard-right constitutionalist.
Latecomer Ocasio-Cortez doesn't seem to have heard of the Constitution or the principles behind it. To her, once you win office, you get to do pretty much whatever you want. Just tell opponents to get used to it.
The Pelosi-Ocasio-Cortez clash came when Amazon's Jeff Bezos got to thinking about a second headquarters for his giant business in New York City. Pelosi and Club were giddy at the prospect. The world's richest man, right there where Cuomo and de Blasio could look over his shoulder! The latter pair offered $3B in incentives.
This angered the neophyte socialist Ocasio-Cortez. She-who-understands-nothing wanted the $3B in incentives to go to little people. To her simple mind, that would only be fair. Why did the world's richest man need $3B of taxpayer money? What about all those little guys shivering on grates in back alleys off 42nd Street?
She didn't know that the $3B wasn't sitting around in a pile in a bank somewhere, waiting to be showered on some lucky lotto-winner. It was, in effect, a stack of free passes for things like property taxes, zoning taxes, excise taxes, state taxes, assessments, liens, special issues...on and on, the idea being to entice Amazon to NYC because Amazon would employ lots of New Yorkers.
All this flew right over Ocasio-Cortez's pretty little uncomprehending head. As should have been expected.
The thing about the American Constitution that the Left in any of its incarnations doesn't seem to get is that its fundamental goal and principle is to limit government, to keep its role in people's lives to the minimum necessary for law and good order.
The Left, recognizing no limiting principle, has no patience for such niceties. This is why Ocasio-Cortez doesn't get it about incentives. Her "limiting principle" is getting elected. As the party in power, you do what you want.
Similarly, contracts have only dim meaning to Her Dimness, so she doesn't grasp that the Constitution is government's contract with America. Just keep pushing hard left! You're the one in office — go for it!
The non-Left can only watch incredulously as Ocasio-Cortez tears through commonsense political, economic, and legal thinking and precedent like a wrecking ball. The girl is so entertainingly, so head-scratchingly clueless that one fights the temptation to grab her cheek and make baby noises.
With this know-nothing as the alternative, one almost wants to cheer Pelosi on. Sadly, Nan's not really up to the task. She can't remember from one minute to the next what town she's in or which president's in office.
This pair has for a change and for a while stolen the spotlight from Donald Trump. Send in the clowns? Don't bother; they're here.
Richard Jack Rail is a retired Army officer and high school teacher residing in Phoenix. His items have appeared in American Thinker and numerous broadsheets throughout the Midwest.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/send_in_the_clowns_dont_bother_theyre_here.html#ixzz5fz7tuO00
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
You ready for the Blood Moon tonight?
Ocasio-Cortez raises eyebrows after comparing Trump's border wall to Berlin Wall
The gift that keeps giving...keep talking twit...
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised eyebrows after comparing President Trump’s border wall plans to the Berlin Wall separating communist Germany from the free world.
The New York Democrat made her remarks during a livestream for supporters on Friday, where she spoke out about the scrutiny she received ever since she won the election last year and dethroned top Democrat Joe Crowley.
BILL DE BLASIO CORRECTS OCASIO-CORTEZ'S CLAIM ABOUT SPENDING AMAZON TAX BREAK MONEY
“No matter how you feel about the wall, I think it’s a moral abomination,” Ocasio-Cortez said on the issue of the border wall that Trump has been pushing for since getting into office.
“I think it’s like the Berlin Wall. I think it’s like any other wall designed to separate human beings and block out people who are running away from the humanitarian disasters. I just think it’s wrong,” she added.
he Berlin Wall, which became the most notable border of the “Iron Curtain” during the Cold War, was built following the Soviet Union’s recommendation amid exodus of Germans living under the communist rule in East Germany following the World War II and the partition of the country.
The wall, guarded by soldiers on the East’s side, was a way to block the East Germans from fleeing communism to West Berlin and West Germany, a free and Democratic country. Multiple people were shot by the soldiers in their desperate efforts to escape East Berlin.
“Dear @AOC: Let me serve as your private professor here. The Berlin Wall was meant to keep people inside the socialist/communist utopia and stop them from fleeing to the decadent capitalist west. So as the New Millennial Lenin, you might want to refrain from using this example,” Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at the John Molson School of Business, tweeted.
Gad Saad
?
@GadSaad
Dear @AOC: Let me serve as your private professor here. The Berlin Wall was meant to keep people inside the socialist/communist utopia and stop them from fleeing to the decadent capitalist west. So as the New Millennial Lenin, you might want to refrain from using this example.
1,719
10:44 PM - Feb 18, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
567 people are talking about this
NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, 14 OTHER STATES SUE TRUMP IN NINTH CIRCUIT OVER EMERGENCY DECLARATION
“People who compare the US-Mexico border wall to the Berlin wall failed or slept through the easiest history classes in middle school and high school,” wrote another Twitter user.
President Trump’s proposed border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, meanwhile, has been touted as a deterrent against drug and human trafficking, in addition as a way to reduce illegal immigration numbers.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The White House is planning to move $8 billion in currently appropriated or available funds toward construction of the wall. Of that, $3 billion could be diverted with help from the national emergency declaration.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-raises-eyebrows-after-comparing-trumps-border-wall-to-berlin-wall
True...just get it to 14.00 and it will be in my rearview mirror...
I'm really hoping their stepping down will help the Stock...
Morning K...just waiting for Billary to jump in again...
Aren't you glad you aren't fishing...today??
Will be interesting to see how APHA does today
EZ...all kidding aside...sounds like a GORGEOUS morning...still waiting for the Sun to come up here...should happen before the Storms roll in...THAT will probably happen as I'm driving home...LOL
EXACTLY why I have kept my trap shut on the subject
Grins...knew I would get empathy from...EWE...
The ONE good thought is at least...THIS time around no AOC...but yes pick your poison...Beto...booker...pocahontas...kamala...and then there's...Bernie...and a cast of hundreds still trying to get in the running.
Listening to the webcast of Dianna's Church service from Sunday...getting me focused to start the day...
Ummm anywhere but Meechigan???
Actually today is not the best for Austin...
FORECAST: Showers and thunderstorms likely today, highs only in the 40s
KVUE Storm Team Forecast
The ATDS is really getting out of hand...totally absurd...and we again are in total agreement...he and the political scabs.
Good Lord...I almost had to grab a barf bag...for just a moment I was trying to visualize what might have been if Billary had been elected...please forgive me....Oh and GM EZ
Was Kamala Harris part of the Jussie Smollett hoax?
By Monica Showalter
After garnering a host of press attention for a supposed anti-black, anti-gay attack from supposed random supporters of President Trump, involving a noose, Hollywood actor Jussie Smollett looks pretty washed up now that a couple of Nigerians have been implicated by the Chicago cops in the perpetration of a hoax, supposedly to garner sympathy.
But another Hollywood guy, a film producer named Tariq Nasheed, who also goes by hip-hop rapper-like names of "K-Flex" and "King Flex," thinks this isn't the end of the story. He smells a political rat.
His series of tweets raises suspicions that the political response to the matter, led by Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris (and Cory Booker), is suspicious, real suspicious, and there might have been a staged setup in order to get a law passed and rack up voter points.
Here are his tweets making the argument:
Go here if you can't see all seven of the tweets. You won't be wasting your time. The comments that follow from people in Nasheed's Hollywood entertainment industry circles are also pretty impressive.
Up until now, it appeared that politicians such as Harris (and Booker) couldn't have known much about the phony plot and probably just glommed onto the controversy for political advantage the way a lot of politicians do. But Nasheed has pictures of them campaigning together, and even more important, she notes that Harris and Booker brought out an anti-lynching bill just coincidentally timed ahead of the attack, as if to ensure passage as the momentum built from public outrage (until the attack was exposed as phony). With Smollett a black and gay supposed victim and everyone slathering sympathy on him, who could refuse to vote for the anti-lynching bill, which just happens to have had some gay language inserted at the last minute? Trump-lynchers were simply everywhere, according to the narrative, even in zero-degree Chicago weather, lurking and looking for someone black and gay to assault, and of course it was a national problem just waiting for Harris to pass a law as the person who "fixes problems," which is how she has repeatedly identified herself to voters. (Here's another coincidence: she made that claim in the Chicago press.)
Nasheed isn't buying that and thinks the involvement of others goes a lot farther than the mere imported Nigerians. Plot-wise, it is pretty interesting, given that an actor was chosen for the role of the victim, the Nigerian bit players were whisked in and out, the red caps were purchased (they couldn't actually find real ones, but they needed to make sure they seemed like Trump hats), and there were these anti-lynching laws with both black and gay victims being inserted in, written by Harris and others, all set to be passed a month earlier. The endgame was to pass the measures to set a political narrative of raging racism among Trump-supporters as a whole staged attack occurred.
It is political, all right. And quite the political theater. Oh, and what a coincidence: It happened in Chicago, home of the famous Chicago-Obama political machine that supports Booker and Harris with a vengeance.
Meanwhile, back in Hollywood, it's pretty obvious that Nasheed knows the ways of Hollywood and its leftist establishment very, very well, so this is what leaped out at him. Actor, staged attack, Chicago political machine, presidential campaign, new anti-lynching law, and pin it all on Trump. Nasheed's suspicions are well worth a closer look, because they seem to fit together.
If he's right about them, then this whole farce is a doozy, and one can only hope it will politically finish Harris and Booker off, taking them down with Smollett.
Image credit: Twitter screen grab.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/was_kamala_harris_part_of_the_jussie_stollett_hoax.html#ixzz5fvhZ7Hfq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
That last 10 laps was crazy...took out two of my favs...
Been thinking bout you...TC...{{{Hugs}}}
Rain is always a good thing here...right now our main lake is at 101% full but it can hold more before being dangerous or opening flood gates.
What's this I hear of Mr T accusing McCabe and Rosenstein of pursuing an “illegal and treasonous” plot against him??...things are just starting to heat up it appears
Woot... spot on Stilton
They do just get in the way of an Agenda...LOL
Morning P_S_H
For the Record, Obama Made Mincemeat of the Constitution
By Jack Cashill
Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump's evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border. But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic. Democrats don't need encouragement.
Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation. In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.
At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, "It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama's speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, 'Executive order!' demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions."
Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and "basically nullify Congress." At that point, wrote Remnick, "Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it!" These were not wild-eyed tent-dwellers on Wall or some lesser street. These were potential donors.
By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection. In February 2011, for instance, Obama and "wing man" Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not "constitutional." President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.
No matter. Going forward, Obama decided that the Justice Department would no longer enforce DOMA. That simple. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley had a hard time making legal sense out of Obama's left-field decision to ignore DOMA. For one, Turley found the timing curious. The Obama administration had been defending the law for the previous two years, and the president, publicly, at least, had not changed his personal stance on redefining marriage.
For another, Obama was basing this policy change on an interpretation "that had thus far remained unsupported by direct precedent." By refusing to enforce DOMA, Obama was setting a precedent and not a good one — namely, that a president could refuse to defend a law based on a legal interpretation that no court had ever accepted.
On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama did not bother deeming existing laws unconstitutional. He chose not to enforce them because they did not poll well among Hispanic voters. It would get no deeper than that.
Since year one of the Bush administration, Congress had been trying to pass the awkwardly titled Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. In a nutshell, this bill would have provided permanent residency to those illegal aliens who had arrived in the United States as minors and behaved themselves well enough not to get their mug shots plastered on the Post Office wall.
Although President Bush supported immigration reform, as did President Obama, neither the DREAM Act nor any major immigration bill made it to their desks. The reason was simple enough: no variation of such a bill could muster adequate congressional support.
In his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope, Obama praised the system of checks and balances in that it "encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument." Once Obama ascended to the presidency, all those checks and balances just made it harder for him to transform America.
Obama's constituencies, especially labor and the Hispanic lobby, wanted action, not gathering and arguing. They started leaning on him to ignore Congress and act unilaterally. One minor obstacle stood in the way, and that was Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. For the previous 220 years, that article had informed Congress in some detail on how to turn an idea into a law.
Obama could not enforce the DREAM Act, said constitutional scholar Nicholas Rosenkrantz, "by pretending that it passed when it did not." As late as March 2011, legal scholar Obama seemed to agree. "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law," he told a Univision audience. "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."
By June 2012, what Obama said in March 2011 seemed as stale as a morning-after bowl of tortilla chips. The president had lost his taste for all that legislative analysis and argument, given that the result was "an absence of any immigration action from Congress."
Five months before the presidential election, he knew that the media would give him a pass, and he hoped Latinos would give him their vote. So he decided to dispense with debate and fix immigration policy by his own lights, confident he could make that policy "more fair, more efficient, and more just."
This fix started with presidentially guaranteed relief from deportation for the so-called "Dreamers." On top of that came the right to apply for work authorization, both guarantees in full defiance of existing federal law. "There has long been a general consensus that a president cannot refuse to enforce a law that is considered constitutionally sound," said Jonathan Turley. That chapter was apparently missing from Obama's law books.
On August 23, 2013, in a move that the major media barely noticed, the Obama administration subtly expanded the list of those who would be excluded from deportation. Deep in a nine-page memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters to its field offices was an order that "prosecutorial discretion" be shown to parents or guardians of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, AKA "Dreamers."
The news scarcely troubled the media, let alone the citizenry, but at least a few Republicans noticed. "President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws," said House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte. Jonathan Turley agreed. "In ordering this blanket exception," said Turley, "President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with. There is no claim of unconstitutionality." Said Rosenkrantz, "Exempting as many as 1.76 million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial discretion."
Encouraged by the media to keep drafting laws of his own choosing, Obama made nullification a central part of his governing philosophy. "I'm eager to work with all of you," he said to Congress of the 2014 State of the Union speech. "But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
Said veteran civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, "Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution."
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/for_the_record_obama_made_mincemeat_of_the_constitution.html#ixzz5ft6ynlYH
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Thank God according to a certain drunk Rodent...SPRING is almost here...
Morning EZ...NASCAR Hangover???...what a finish
Morning Gman
Good start to the week but with a lot of rain tomorrow
Bill de Blasio corrects Ocasio-Cortez's claim about spending Amazon tax break money
Is it crazy to assume an Economic major would understand how tax breaks happen??
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio suggested on Sunday that critics of the potential Amazon campus New York City — such as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — got the facts wrong over the money behind the tax breaks.
On Sunday morning, de Blasio responded in the affirmative when Chuck Todd of NBC News’ “Meet the Press” asked if the tax breaks offered to Amazon weren’t “money you had over here. And it was going over there.”
The Democratic mayor said: “And that $3 billion that would go back in tax incentives was only after we were getting the jobs and getting the revenue.”
Local business owners angry after Amazon pulls out of NYC Headquarters dealVideo
“There’s no money — right,” de Blasio added.
Amazon had chosen the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens to build a $2.5 billion campus that could house 25,000 workers, in addition to new offices planned for northern Virginia.
Donald Trump Jr.
?
@DonaldJTrumpJr
Will someone please explain to me how it is possible for NYC to SPEND a $3 Billion tax break on anything?
This is insanity.
Allan Smith
?
@akarl_smith
.@AOC responding to criticism that by Amazon pulling out of HQ2 in Queens, 25,000 jobs were lost: "We were subsidizing those jobs."
Says if state/city was willing to "give away $3 billion for this deal," investments can be made in hiring teachers and fixing the subway.
8,875
9:00 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
4,064 people are talking about this
“If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to,” Ocasio-Cortez said last week after the technology giant announced on Thursday that it had dropped plans to build the new headquarters in America’s largest city amid pressure from politicians and activists.
AMAZON BLASTS OCASIO-CORTEZ, SAYS ‘WE DON’T WANT TO WORK IN THIS ENVIRONMENT IN THE LONG TERM’
The mayor also noted to Todd that the deal could have been a way for progressive leaders to show a balance on economic issues.
“I have no problem with my fellow progressives critiquing a deal or wanting more from Amazon — I wanted more from Amazon, too,” de Blasio said. “The bottom line is, this was an example of an abuse of corporate power. They had an agreement with the people of New York City.”
Queens Chamber of Commerce president on Amazon scrapping plans to build second headquarters in New YorkVideo
He added: “They said they wanted a partnership, but the minute there were criticisms, they walked away. What does that say to working people, that a company would leave them high and dry, simply because some people raised criticism?”
The city was eager to lure the company and its thousands of high-paying technology jobs, offering billions in tax incentives and lighting the Empire State Building in Amazon orange in November.
De Blasio and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the $2.8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies they were offering Amazon would result in $27 billion in tax revenue. The governor and the mayor had argued that the project would spur economic growth that would pay for the $2.8 billion in state and city incentives many times over.
“We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion — we love New York,” the online giant from Seattle said in a blog post announcing its withdrawal.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Cuomo lashed out at fellow New York politicians over Amazon’s change of heart, saying the project would have helped diversify the city’s economy, cement its status as an emerging hub of technology and generate money for schools, housing and transit.
“A small group (of) politicians put their own narrow political interests above their community,” he said.
Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Frank Miles is a reporter and editor covering geopolitics, military, crime, technology and sports for FoxNews.com. His email is Frank.Miles@foxnews.com.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-blasio-ocasio-cortex-claim-spending-amazon-tax-break-money
And Austin is growing daily...in a few weeks Face Book takes up the entire third floor right above me...more tech clients coming to Austin as well...
As long as my little piece of paradise in South Austin remains...I'm good
As it is I still see an occasional Grey Fox...two at once one time...Bob Cat...Deer...and even Coyote...no Black Bears though...
LOL or at least a filter
After the outrage, Dem 2020 candidates silent about Smollett hoax
By Rick Moran
The social and cultural fallout from the revelation that Jussie Smollett staged a "hate crime" attack with the help of two friends is just now being assessed, as advocates and activists who blamed Trump, white supremacy, and homophobia for Smollett's "ordeal" find themselves in the unenviable position of having to support the actor who continues to lie about the incident or somehow make amends for their stupidity and bigotry.
But politicians who went out on a limb in supporting Smollett and castigating Trump supporters have a different problem. They must deal with the reality that they were wrong - dead wrong. And as we all know, politicians simply can't be seen as being "wrong" about anything." This is especially true when it comes to the issue of race and, to a lesser extent, sexual preference. There is only one "right way" to see these issues and that is blame whites for hating minorities and straight males for hating gays. Perish the thought that a black, gay actor would try to hoax them.
But it happened, and candidates who came out strongly supporting Jussie Smollett without any evidence and numerous questions about the incident have to say something.
As of now, they are silent.
In particular, three Democratic presidential candidates made especially strong statements on the fake attack.
Washington Examiner:
Democratic presidential candidates jockeying for position in 2020 had a lot to say when actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked in Chicago by two white men who shouted racist and homophobic slurs as they beat him.
But they were silent on Saturday, when law enforcement sources said that Chicago Police believed "Empire" star Smollett, 36, who is gay, paid two black men to set up the assault. Police arrested the men, who are brothers from Nigeria, on Wednesday but released them Friday after discovering "new evidence."
A Chicago police spokesman said: "We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation." He added that police wanted to speak to Smollett again.
Incredibly, some journalists are excusing these responses as "acceptable" - despite the titanic smear against their political opponents that was based on zero evidence.
Twitchy:
A lot of tweets from politicians and celebrities wishing to get in on the story haven’t aged well, and Caleb Hull passed around a few screenshots from Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, who called the alleged attack “a modern-day lynching.”
Broadcast journalist Shawn Reynolds, though, has volunteered to play defense for the Democrats, arguing that everything they said was a completely acceptable response at the time.
Given the information at the time, these are completely acceptable responses. If these were posted in the last 5 minutes, it would be entirely different. https://t.co/DChdlRQfo7
— Shawn Reynolds (@ShawnReynolds_) February 17, 2019
Not surprisingly, Reynolds has since deleted that tweet. But the responses are telling:
A presidential candidate cannot use that defense. It would be tantamount to admitting that you react without thinking - which, to be sure, they did.
It's not likely that any of these candidates, or any other politician, will be hurt by their initial reaction to the Smollett incident. They will either maintain silence or use the standard "both sides are wrong" argument. It's sickening to contemplate, but the outrageous pandering to minorities represented by this incident - where reason and logic take a back seat to raw emotionalism - demonstrates an unfitness for high office.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/after_the_outrage_dem_2020_candidates_silent_about_smollett_hoax.html#ixzz5fsr4szbz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Brooke Baldwin – CNN journalist and news anchor
“Absolutely despicable,” said CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on CNN Newsroom, “and this is America in 2019.”
I would describe your journalistic skills the same way...maybe next time get all the facts first...last I heard his brothers were singing they were paid to go along with the sham...
CNN...the fake news porn channel
Well she's a prime example of people being full of S**T...
Morning K
Polk County Public Schools spokesman Kyle Kennedy insisted that the boy was not arrested for failing to stand for the pledge.
“Students are not required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance,” he told The Ledger.
The sixth-grader was collared “after becoming disruptive and refusing to follow repeated instructions by school staff and law enforcement,” he added.
Who the hell is the editor in charge of writing headlines??...failure to stand for the Pledge wasn't what he was arrested for...looks like it was the threat that got him arrested...THIS would have been a good one to have a recording of
I can't say if an arrest was warranted or not because I wasn't there.
Cool...still a good story...damn...now I want watermelon...LOL
Awesome...when I heard the story I was going to ask if you knew of him...
What place did the pace car finish in??
What a crazy last ten laps...