More leftist bullshit....sigh. You just don't quit with the stupidity, do you?

A 52-year old man in the Texas city of Katy has made headlines after his attempt to hire a prostitute through an online service ended in a terrible mixup that will likely cost him his marriage.

http://www.unitednews.org/man-from-katy-tx-ordered-prostitute-discovers-wife/

Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" audience initially cheered loudly on Tuesday at the announcement that President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey minutes earlier, visibly vexing the comedian.

Presumably, the left-leaning audience thought this was positive news ever since Comey angered Democrats with his late-October letter to Congress announcing the discovery of emails related to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Clinton herself has cast blame on Comey for costing her the election.

Continue reading: http://freebeacon.com/culture/colbert-audience-cheers-news-james-comeys-firing/

Just shows how much of a coward this thug really is. They have to attack in numbers, or pick on the elderly. Cowards!

Just what I thought, you're too much of a pussy....LOL.

Are you in one of those videos....Buckwheat?

Aaaahhhhh, the keyboard Rambo roars. Squeaks is probably a better term. Suck it up, Sambo.

I don't wear your clothes....Buckwheat.

Do you ever read your own posts? They read like they were written by an absolute moron. Man, are you ever stupid!

Nah, I said it first...Buckwheat.

Get a life....Sambo. Better yet, get a job.

Former President Barack Obama traveled to Italy this week to make a speech on climate change at the “Seed & Chips: The Global Food Innovation Summit” in the city of Milan.

It seems like Obama has taken a page out of Leonardo DiCaprio's book of “do as I say, not as I do” and took a private jet to Milan. Not only that, he had a 14 car convoy to get into the city, which also included protection from above with a helicopter.

It doesn't end there. According to The Daily Mail, 300 police officers were used to protect the former president.

The fleet of 14 included multiple SUVs, police cars, and sedans — not to mention a few motorcycles.

While in Milan, Obama also met with former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who was a close partner during their respective times in office.

During his post-presidency vacation, Obama spent many weeks in French Polynesia on music mogul David Geffen's 450ft superyacht, which surely does not frugally sip fossil fuels like he wants the rest of the country to do.

Seems like President Obama's retirement is going well.

http://ijr.com/2017/05/867816-obama-uses-private-jet-14-car-convoy-get-european-climate-change-speech/

Trump Derangement Syndrome is inspiring all sorts of craziness... like the suggestion that we'd be better off if we were Canada.

We have come to quite a pass in American society when major publications are publishing straight-faced criticisms of the very existence of the United States. But in this week’s New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik (“We Could Have Been Canada”), he questions the goodness of the American Revolution two and a half centuries ago. Seeing Trump at the head of our government has driven Leftists so mad, they now question everything—including America itself. The result is a bad argument against the ideas that led to the greatest country on Earth.

Remember? Monarchy Is Actually Bad

Of all the left-leaning bloviating floating around, the defense of monarchy is perhaps the most ridiculous. What makes Gopnik’s argument even more ridiculous is that if America were ruled, even technically, by the British queen, most of the opposition to monarchy would come from the Left. Even in Britain, where the monarchy is beloved, the head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has a long history of republicanism.

In America, intersectional-socialist-identity politics thinkpieces against a crown write themselves. “Why should America, an increasingly diverse nation, be ruled by a family of old, rich, white, people?” “Shouldn’t we stop throwing away money on an idle, rich monarch while the war on poverty is not yet won?”

For a group of people who cry nepotism at every political utterance of Ivanka Trump, who resent every trip President Donald Trump takes to his Florida palace, and who cry out in rage that the person with the most popular votes is not our current chief executive, this defense of unelected spendthrift monarchy rings false.

America Isn’t A Dystopia

Gopnik’s more specific arguments are no less absurd. Consider this from the opening paragraph:

No revolution, and slavery might have ended, as it did elsewhere in the British Empire, more peacefully and sooner. No “peculiar institution,” no hideous Civil War and appalling aftermath. Instead, an orderly development of the interior—less violent, and less inclined to celebrate the desperado over the peaceful peasant. We could have ended with a social-democratic commonwealth that stretched from north to south, a near-continent-wide Canada.
Diversions into alternate history are always utopic or dystopic. No one likes to imagine that if one major event had gone differently, the world would be … pretty much the same. Here, the author imagines that a utopia might have been achieved, if only American colonists had meekly submitted to rule by a king and Parliament across the sea. If only our Founding Fathers had been a bit more cowardly, we could be governed today by a crowned head whose tolerance of natural rights is more in line with that of the New Yorker’s tremulous readership.

It’s Not As Simple As It Seems

But even if Washington and Franklin had been as pusillanimous as Gopnik’s fantasy, the beautiful vision he proposes is unlikely to have come about. To begin with, the British government not only permitted slavery in the colonies, it actively encouraged it.

Once our Revolution began, the British encouraged slaves to desert their masters, but only as a means to weaken the enemy. The convenient conversion to abolitionism did not carry over to Britain’s West Indian plantations, where slaves continued to labor in conditions equally brutal—if not more so—to those in the worst malaria swamps of South Carolina. But those slave owners were paying taxes to the Crown and were loyal to the mother country; their crimes against humanity were allowed to continue for two more generations.

That slavery would have been peacefully abolished within an undivided Empire is absurd. The opening of the Southern interior to cotton cultivation would have enhanced the profits of a slave economy in Gopnik’s alternate America just as it did in the real one. Many in the Founding generation thought slavery was on the decline, and few imagined it would endure as long as it did after their deaths. But the invention of the cotton gin and the cultivation of rich interior farmland breathed life into the dying institution, and further entrenched it in the hearts and minds of slave owners.

Things Could Have Been Worse

Gopnik pooh-poohs the “Enlightenment argle-bargle” at the heart of the Revolution, but the leading men of that day believed those principles and were not blind to the contradictions of proclaiming liberty in a slaveholding republic. By the time of the Civil War, however, their places in society had been taken by men who had grown rich on the fruits of unfree labor, men like John C. Calhoun and Robert Barnwell Rhett, who portrayed black slavery as part of a just system.

To them, slavery was a positive good that had to exist. Between people who believed that and people who believed in abolition and racial equality, it is hard to imagine any possible solution short of Civil War. When Trump suggested last week that the Civil War might have been avoided had Andrew Jackson lived, all the bien-pensant minds on the Left laughed at his naiveté; when Gopnik suggests the British crown might have done the same thing, they all nod their heads and mutter praise. But it is equally preposterous.

Being part of a unified British Empire would not have changed the American South’s economic facts or racial ideology. On the other hand, it might have changed the way the Empire dealt with the cause of abolition. In 1833, Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act. The Act provided for compensated, gradual emancipation of 800,000 slaves in the Caribbean and South Africa (India was excluded from the Act’s provisions).

The effort cost the British government £20 million at a time when the total government spending was just £50 million. If the United States were still ruled by the Crown, there would have been four times that number of enslaved people. That would require £60 million more to be paid out. The answer would not have been just to pay it, which even the most powerful nation on Earth could not have afforded; it would have been uncompensated emancipation.

We Just Aren’t Canada

Historically, the mere rumor of abolition led reactionaries in the South to secede; in Gopnik’s imperialist fantasy, the result would have been no different. He must know that, even if he does not admit it. Consider this passage: “It was only in recent decades that schools cautiously began to relay the truth of the eighteen-seventies—of gradual and shameful Northern acquiescence in the terrorist imposition of apartheid on a post-slavery population.”

American students should, indeed, be taught more about the reaction that followed Reconstruction. But it is not crazy to think that the exact same thing would have happened in a British colony. Need proof? The very word Gopnik uses, “apartheid”, came from a post-slavery system of white supremacy that originated in South Africa, which was ruled by Britain until 1910, and remained nominally under the Crown (as Canada still is,) until 1961.

Shorn of its southern neighbors, Canada was spared the bloody conflict that accompanied slavery’s end in America. But that is not because they were more enlightened than we: it is because they had almost no slaves. Had we remained united, our civil war would have been an Empire-wide conflagration, and Canadian blood would have been shed along with American and British blood. Separation spared Canada all of that and left them in peace. The American Revolution created our nation, but it also created Canada.

What About The Whigs?

Although he takes shots at them, Gopnik’s real complaint is not with our exact form of government, nor with the history of slavery. His real argument is with the Enlightenment. The article, a polemic disguised as a book review, pulls into the discussion two forthcoming volumes, Justin du Rivage’s “Revolution Against Empire,” and Holger Hoock’s “Scars of Independence,” both of which examine the events and ideas that led to the nation’s founding. He gives Hoock short shrift generally (“like the fat boy in ‘Pickwick,’ he wants to make your flesh creep”,) but uses du Rivage’s arguments to get to a larger point about Whiggism and the theories that animated the men who led the Revolution.

Du Rivage divides British-American opinion into two camps: radical Whigs and authoritarian reformers” “The radical Whigs were for democratization, the authoritarian reformers firmly against it. The radical Whigs were for responsible authority, the authoritarian reformers for firm authority. And so on.”

Du Rivage believes, as most of us do, that the Revolution was fought for a set of ideas. Gopnik prefers the warmed-over Howard Zinn view of history, updated with 21st century wokeness. “Du Rivage’s and Hoock’s accounts,” he writes, “are mostly about white guys quarrelling with other white guys, and then about white guys being unimaginably cruel to one another, stopping only to rape their enemy’s wives and daughters.” Indeed, why discuss ideas when there is the much simpler expedient of calling everyone racist?

More errors follow from this, mostly with the aim of slandering things the author does not like about America. He calls the Confederacy “libertarian,” which besides being an anachronism, is just untrue: the slave labor system of the CSA more closely resembles feudalism than an ideology of self-ownership and self-determination. Even the original radical Whig, John Wilkes, is singled out, not so much for his own ideas—which included most of the things that would end up in America’s Bill of Rights—but for the fact that someone named after him became an assassin. “Nor is it entirely accidental that he would give his name to the charismatic actor who killed Lincoln.” Let us just say what should go without saying: sharing a name does not require sharing culpability.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Gone Wild

The reason for these increasingly strained connections is, of course, the desire to connect the American Revolution to Trump. “A government based on enthusiasm, rather than on executive expertise, needs many things to be enthusiastic about. Whig radicalism produces charismatic politics—popular politics in a positive sense, and then in a negative one, too.” Gopnik finds two things he dislikes, Trump and the Revolution, and ties them together, hoping each will sully the other.

Donald Trump can be called a lot of things, but a son of the Enlightenment is not one of them. In Gopnik’s imagining, Trump is the natural result of Enlightenment thinking and Whiggish politics; the opposite is embodied by Canada and, though he does not name her, by Hillary Clinton: “a largely faceless political class; a cautiously parliamentary tradition; a professionalized and noncharismatic military; a governing élite—an establishment” It’s all a neat little bundle, like 2004’s Jesusland map. A nice, tidy analysis, except that it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

The Enlightenment embodied the idea that universal reason should rule the world, that all humanity was endowed with natural rights, and that the preservation of liberty and equality was the highest goal of government. The reaction to that came a generation after the Revolution with the Romantic movement, which reasserted the importance of emotion, nostalgia, and individualism, and which eventually led to the rise of nationalism. Which of those sounds more like Trump?

Our Most Effective Assault On Trumpism

The most effective assault on Trumpism comes in pointing out its departure from the ideals that formed the basis of America. Americans have traditionally been resistant to nationalism because we are a nation founded on ideas, not blood and soil. Those ideas are Enlightenment ideas. Gopnik turns this critique on its head when he calls Trump the natural result of American Whiggism, and he does his side no favors in the process.

The rot of Trump Derangement System runs deep. One would have to be truly deluded to believe that it does the American Enlightenment harm to tie its principles to Trump, or to any other popular figure. The American Revolution is quite popular in America! Linking it to Trump will only burnish the president’s credentials with the average American. Indeed, the idea that Trump is the natural outcome of the Founding Fathers’ Revolution is something that, heretofore, would only have been uttered by the most fanatical of Trump supporters. Here, we have it from the mouth of his detractors. The biggest favor the Left could do themselves is to forget Gopnik’s article ever existed.

By Kyle Sammin

More skewed leftist opinionated journalism....sigh.

6 Quick Takeaways From Trump’s Firing Of FBI Director Comey

1) Comey Was Not Good at His Job

Precisely no one can argue with a straight face that Comey did a good job at the FBI, particularly in the last year. While the Democrats have only themselves to blame for nominating a presidential candidate under FBI investigation, Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information left much to be desired.

In part because Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught secretly meeting with Clinton’s husband, Comey held a public press conference to talk about his recommendation regarding the investigation. He then proceeded to brutally condemn Clinton for her mishandling of classified information that violated the law while also recommending she not be prosecuted. His justification for failing to uphold the rule of law was to invent a non-legal standard of “intent” then declare that, inexplicably, Clinton had failed to meet that standard. His encroachment on the prerogatives of DOJ prosecutors was a grave miscarriage of justice.

He then violated the norms regarding secrecy during investigations by promising Congress he would provide an update if anything reopened the investigation. When investigators found thousands of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer shortly before the election, he was forced to notify Congress.

When he realized how politicized the Justice Department was, he should have spoken out and said there was a problem. He didn’t do that. He did what it took to keep his job. Then, when he was effectively put in charge of the investigation, he had an opportunity to uphold the rule of law, but he again didn’t have the courage to do the right thing.

His most recent testimony regarding letting Huma Abedin get away with mishandling classified information was also problematic, and showed how his failures with Clinton had secondary effects.

He appears to have been duped by a shoddy dossier, presenting it to the president-elect, which legitimized it in the eyes of the journalists who were leaked the meeting’s occurrence. He apparently tried to pay the Democratic opposition researcher to continue his efforts, despite the shoddy product. And he may have signed off on a FISA warrant request based on the dossier.

As my husband said of Comey’s practices in the last year, “It’s like he kept on trying to split the baby in two and just kept hacking it to pieces.”

2) The Firing Was Done from a Position of Strength

While at some point in the last year nearly everyone in DC has called for Comey to be fired, some Trump critics questioned the timing of Trump’s decision. The White House says Rosenstein, who recommended the firing in a detailed letter, had only been at the department for two weeks.

Public opinion against Comey had continued to grow, with a March poll showing only 17 percent of registered voters had a favorable view of Comey. As the poll director put it:

“Even in 1953, the height of McCarthyism, Gallup had 78 percent saying J. Edgar Hoover, Jr. was doing a good job and only 2 percent a poor job,” said Harvard-Harris Poll co-director Mark Penn. “Comey’s ratings, which are two-to-one negative, suggest a crisis of confidence in his leadership as top law enforcement officer.”
Some conservatives had recommended Trump delay the firing. In National Review‘s February 6, 2017, issue, the editors wrote, “At this point, Comey has lost the trust of nearly everyone in Washington and undermined the credibility of the Bureau. Trump may not want to dismiss him immediately for fear of validating the Democratic narrative about the elections — in which case he should wait a decent interval.”

The delay helped in that much of the NeverTrump movement in the Republican Party has come around to either a friendly or non-antagonistic relationship with Trump. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s immediate response to the firing was, “I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well.”

While the more unhinged elements of the anti-Trump crowd, both in the media and on the Left, are clinging to their hope that Trump will have been found to have coordinated with Russia in its hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails, most adults have realized that there’s not a lot of “there” to the Russia investigation, and likely not much beyond what is already known about Trump associates Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Mike Flynn.

The hopes for impeachment-level activity are fervent on the Left, but at least insofar as the Russia investigation is concerned, if there were something significant to it, the ever-leaking intelligence community probably would have gotten it out. The FBI leaks so much that as soon as Comey was fired, word got out via leak, of course, about a grand jury subpoenaing Flynn associates. If they had something meaningful on Russia, instead of the non-breaking news that Trump makes some bad personnel decisions and some of Trump’s associates are bad at decision-making, they probably would have let the world know months ago.

3) It’s Reasonably Not Just the Clinton Probe

The reasoning Rosenstein lays out in his letter is airtight. And it’s a good and convincing read. Comey’s failures in the investigation of Hillary Clinton are more than sufficient grounds for firing, but observers are reasonably suspicious that Trump, of all people, would fire an FBI director because the latter had been unfair to her. Even on self-interested grounds, though, Comey’s failures in that probe don’t speak well of his ability to handle further investigations. And his politicization of the agency is widely known and corrosive to its mission.

He’s repeatedly suggested that he’s failed to investigate the leaks coming from the FBI. He’s under heat from Sen. Chuck Grassley for misjudgments related to the shoddy dossier that was used by the FBI despite its fatal flaws.

Despite the media’s daily efforts to push a narrative of treason by Trump and his associates, the investigation of Trump’s supposed ties to Russia has been mostly fact-free and highly manipulated. Whatever has been breathlessly reported as part of a leak campaign has turned out to be mostly sound and fury, signifying nothing, a far cry from collusion and treason. Democratic efforts to secure a special prosecutor make sense not because of any actual evidence of collusion with Russia, but because a fishing expedition with subpoena power would be fun for critics to play with.

4) Democrats Have Been Begging for This, Only to Denounce It

Far too many people in politics are hypocrites. Democrats loved Comey and Republicans hated him in July. Then each team switched sides in October. For months, then, Democrats have been saying they lost confidence in Comey, felt he had violated the Hatch Act, and should be fired.

Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats accused him of violating federal laws. Roughly 1,000 headlines just last week blared that Clinton “blamed Comey” for her loss in November.

Yet as soon as Trump fired Comey, the narrative flipped to a strong defense of Comey and a claim that firing him was unacceptable.

While it is possible that critics of Trump truly thought Comey was corrupt and should be fired, but not in the precise way that Trump fired him, that’s a difficult argument to sell to the American people.

5) This Is Not a Coup. Get a Hold of Yourself

Speaking of people losing their ever-living minds, David Frum tweeted the following:

David Frum ✔ @davidfrum
It’s a coup.
5:15 PM - 9 May 2017
3,962 3,962 Retweets 7,593 7,593 likes

A coup is defined as “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.”

Trump fired someone who worked for him. He fired someone in whom people in both major political parties had lost confidence. Even if you disagree with the prudence of said firing, that is not a coup. It’s only a coup if you believe that non-elected representatives should have less authority than bureaucrats.

Keith Olbermann ✔ @KeithOlbermann
TO HELL WITH YOU, YOU MOTHERFUCKING TRAITOR. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/862135824745467905 …
8:59 PM - 9 May 2017
3,539 3,539 Retweets 10,899 10,899 likes

Anyone is welcome to believe that this firing was unwise, and to make the case for that, but it’s wise to make that case calmly. Here’s an example of someone claiming that Comey getting fired for mishandling an investigation was a world-altering event of doom:

Brian Stelter ✔ @brianstelter
Toobin: "The fact that Trump did this will disgrace his memory for as long as this presidency is remembered."
8:24 PM - 9 May 2017
698 698 Retweets 1,428 1,428 likes

CNN media reporter Dylan Byers was extremely, extremely excited by Toobin’s partisan commentary:

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
TOOBIN on FIRE: “Grotesque abuse of power by the President of the United States. This is the kind of thing that goes on in a non-democracy."
4:01 PM - 9 May 2017
538 538 Retweets 656 656 likes

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
More TOOBIN: “This is not normal. This is not politics as usual."
4:02 PM - 9 May 2017
54 54 Retweets 117 117 likes

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
TOOBIN: “Can we point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes…."
4:20 PM - 9 May 2017
171 171 Retweets 512 512 likes

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
Here comes Toobin….
4:31 PM - 9 May 2017
5 5 Retweets 19 19 likes

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
“Disgraceful memo”
“Total lie”
“Absurd memorandum”

- @JeffreyToobin
4:32 PM - 9 May 2017
42 42 Retweets 65 65 likes

Follow
Dylan Byers ✔ @DylanByers
"This is a dark day in American history"

- @JeffreyToobin
6:05 PM - 9 May 2017
26 26 Retweets 46 46 likes

One wonders if people in newsrooms have any idea how such hysteria comes off to others, serving only to whip people into frenzies or cause them to tune it out completely.

On the bright side, Politico quickly ran an article asking scholars whether the president firing someone who works for him is a constitutional crisis. Most people responded reasonably.

If Trump replaces Comey with a corrupt individual, that would be cause for concern. But firing someone who was bad at his job is at least arguably not an existential crisis, all due respect to Toobin.

6) Investigations Will Continue

Frum fleshed out his claim into a conspiracy theory essay about Comey being fired because he knew too much, or something. Toobin also stated, without any evidence, that Comey was fired because the investigation was “Getting Too Close for Comfort.” The New York Times editorial page, bless their hearts, opined that “Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president.”

In the real world, of course, there is no indication Comey was fired because he’s on target over some massive revelation or conspiracy.

Media commentators worried about the investigations seem to think that Comey was personally leading an investigation of Trump, rather than the bureau investigating Trump associates and any potential ties with Russia. Comey wasn’t personally leading that investigation, but the agency performing the investigations. As such, those investigations will continue. In fact, they will continue with less of the politicization and problems they had a day ago.

By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway