Four massive hoaxes in just three weeks:

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/01/22/nolte-four-massive-media-hoaxes-in-first-three-weeks-of-2019/

Like the man said:
"If you think the media are despicable and dishonest now, wait till the 2020 presidential election — you haven’t seen anything yet."

Wow. A politically-driven study is commissioned by a group of politicians from a politically-financed group of intellectuals and the results dovetail perfectly with what the politicians ordered. Well, I never. For once, we all win.

Threats, Mmm-hmm. More like 'predictions', but still, let's call them 'threats'.
'Threat' #1:

Of course it won't. Wages don't 'kill' jobs, greedy businessmen kill jobs. Duh!
'Threat' #2:

Nah, wages don't 'kill' businesses, greedy businessmen who take too much from the business kill the business then blame it on the workers!
'Threat' #3:

Prices only skyrocket because greedy businessmen charge too much for the products! Wages don't raise prices, greedy businessmen do!
If there were no greedy businessmen everybody would have everything he wants! Hang the businessmen!


A second ago they were threats, now they're predictions. Interesting.


Ah, now they're threats again.


It's also important to remember that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics. Notice how they get worse as the list gets longer.
You copied this from somewhere, didn't you? Why are you hiding your source by presenting this as an original argument? Here's a source that is both intelligent and credible:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aedab43616b5

Funny, it talks about the precise study you keep referring to:

"The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city."

I guess it all depends on which lines you read between...

OK. Question this:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1087095671348318209/video/1

Go ahead, claim it's 'made up', or 'faked' somehow.


See what they did there? "Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam". All 'progressive' buzz words.


Seems to me the freedom loved there is for everyone, regardless of gender of skin color. As I understand it, there are laws in place to enforce that very ideology; and yes, that includes "White Conservative Males", all in caps, of course, because it looks 'scarier' like that.


Ha! You mean they just happened to notice that every time someone looks like they might be in a position to 'spill the beans' on the Clinton 'business', they end up dead, usually from a highly suspect 'suicide' or freak 'accident'?

Here, read this:
https://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-death-list-33-most-intriguing-cases/

In all, there are 150 suspicious deaths (that we know of) surrounding the Clintons in one way or another, including:

22 Bodyguards / Escorts
56 Military & Law Enforcement
8 Investigative Journalists
7 Women (Interns, Assistants, Affairs)
5 Fund Raisers
13 Lawyers
23 Witnesses
5 Medical
11 Political Staff

Want more? Take a look at this:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DEAD/clinton.bodycount.gif


'Extreme' they may be, but 'right' they are.

That's been an ongoing argument for decades. As more and more people come to understand the way it works, this becomes more and more likely to happen. The first step is to audit their operations and take it from there. Remember this, they are accountable to no-one, not even the Congress that created them.

Nice try.

Although it never barred any specific religious group from entry, the McCarran-Walter Act has been amended many times and was modified substantially by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

When regulations issued under the authority of the Passport Act of 1926 were challenged in Haig v. Agee, Congress enacted § 707(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979 (Pub.L. 95–426, 92 Stat. 993, enacted October 7, 1978), amending § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act making it unlawful to travel abroad without a passport. Until that legislation, under the Travel Control Act of 1918, the president had the authority to require passports for foreign travel only in time of war.

Some provisions that excluded certain classes of immigrants based on their political beliefs (Read Communists) were revoked by the Immigration Act of 1990, however members of Communist Parties are still, to this day, banned from becoming citizens of the United States.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush implemented the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System and other border and immigration controls.

In January 2017, President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 made reference to the "Immigration and Nationality Act".

Finally, I refer you to the first amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's right. Banning Islam is actually illegal in the United States.

Okay, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. Tell me, oh fountain of all things intelligent, how do you know this?


Seems to me he's been doing that all along. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'drop the hammer'.


SAM's? Who has them and how will they deliver them? Remember, commercial jets such as Air Force One fly at altitudes approaching eight miles, that's a long way for a SAM to traverse and still reach the target.


Oh, please. Impeach him for what? Being a big orange scary guy? Impeachment requires evidence of wrongdoing, something that is about as easy to find as rocking horse shit, and even harder to prove against someone who has done nothing wrong. And remember, impeachment is only the first step in a longer process involving a trial held by the Senate after the House confirms the charges. How far do you suppose an impeachment effort against President Trump would actually go?

After the inauguration, impeachment was raised in the House at least once a week. Even with Nancy in charge, it's still (to use her words) a 'non-starter'.

Well, six more years anyway. It has been interesting so far, I'm looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds in his second term.

New Video Completely Debunks “Catholic Protester” Story. Gee, imagine that!

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/ny-times-forced-to-eat-crow-after-new-video-completely-debunks-catholic-protester-story/?utm_source=ilmf&utm_medium=klaviyo

How's this for a headline?

“Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native American Elder at Indigenous People’s March.”

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? Almost as if a bunch of teenage gang-bangers beat up on some old man just out minding his own business.

But then, thanks to the internet once again, the truth came out. No, these boys weren't out for trouble, in fact, they acted in a very mature, non-aggressive manner towards this old fool who went among them banging his drum in their faces.

As usual, the headline does all the damage, then the retraction gets buried among the obituaries. Fallout? Oh, yeah, there's plenty of that:

Indiana-Kentucky Indian Movement and Antifa Plan Tuesday Protest at Covington Catholic School Over Far Left Fake News Scandal

Kentucky Prosecutor Fires Warning Shot to People Threatening Acts of Violence Against Covington Catholic High School

Even after all that, the old stalwart CNN still pushes this obviously unfounded narrative:

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1087083855826309121

At least the Daily Wire saw fit to investigate a little further into the facts and actually talked to the teens being maligned so egregiously:

"Sandmann denies that he and his friends said anything derogatory towards either the African American or Native American protesters. He also notes that he believed "remaining motionless and calm" would help diffuse the situation."

Does anyone else think this has gone far enough yet?

UPDATE: Maybe this was the point all along...

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/hysteria-democrat-calls-for-ban-on-teens-wearing-maga-hats/?utm_source=ilmf&utm_medium=klaviyo

He's talking about the same video I posted yesterday.

I give up.

So where is it? Where is this famous video "depicting a group of Catholic school students in Make America Great Again hats taunting Native American elder Nathan Phillips" that "went viral on social media this weekend"? I posted an actual video of the alleged incident where the poor, downtrodden 'native American' (what a canard) stuck his drum in their faces and generally dared them to react, which they didn't. That's documented on video.

It's not just the mainstream media that pisses me off, it's the mindless automatons who can't help themselves, they just have to repeat this drivel on a never-ending cycle of inanity. That's what drives me nuts. They don't even bother to take a look and see that what they're buying into is an outright lie.

Whatever. I'm not interested in how much money he made or how much he donated to a given charity but you go ahead, I'm sure the 'celebrity fixation' will give you a thrill right up your leg. That is, of course, if he deigns to let you see it.

“January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer...America will start winning again, winning like never before.”

So? Who was it?

Oh? Is that right? Interesting...

https://milnenews.com/2019/01/20/when-teens-in-maga-hats-met-the-native-americans-heres-what-really-happened/