Why don't you do a full and in-depth research of old hot head McCain and then spread all that you find, with back up proof, to the people of your state. That would be a big help in getting rid of this RINO dummycratic butt kisser! Anyone who kisses up to Schummer is a complete idiot!!

The dirt has finally settled on McCain. Watch the video! Yes, as a retired VET, I know he is dirty and has been for years. He is a spoiled brat that should have never been allowed in the service. But, with his daddy in power, his dirty was covered up over and over again. He has a bad temper that has lead to hatred of Trump because Trump brought out part of the truth.

Any 30-year career in the Senate is bound to have some highs and some lows. However, for Sen. John McCain, those lows seem to be agglomerating themselves in what are sure to be his final years in office.

While nobody ever thought that McCain was particularly a movement conservative — in fact, RINOs his size were usually only espied at the zoo or on safari — his unreliability became a major issue after he effectively sank Obamacare repeal in the Senate.

If McCain thought that his vote would be forgotten, or perhaps remembered as a profile in courage — well, it certainly doesn’t look that way from here. And, as President Donald Trump reminded everyone, McCain’s vote was a stab in the back to voters who relied on McCain’s repeated promises to repeal Obamacare.

In a video posted by the president to Twitter on Monday, McCain is seen saying he would repeal and replace President Barack Obama’s signature legislation over and over again:

A few of the many clips of John McCain talking about Repealing & Replacing O'Care. My oh my has he changed-complete turn from years of talk! pic.twitter.com/t9cXG2Io86

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

This is what McCain supporters are scrambling to hide — it’s not just once or twice. That video is over six minutes long. That’s approximately the average length of one of the deep cuts on The Cure’s “Disintegration.” And, you know what? Listening to it is roughly about as depressing.

Yes, I know, John McCain is a war hero. Yes, I know he’s going through a tough time right now with his cancer diagnosis. Yes, I know, he has done some good things for the GOP. He has served his country in both the military and the Senate.

However, now that the GOP-led Congress has given up its final effort to pass Obamacare repeal — a weaksauce, establishment-friendly last-ditch effort at that — it’s instructive to remember who shares the most responsibility for that failure.

All McCain had to do was cast the deciding vote and the Senate’s plan would have gone into conference, where problems could have been hammered out. That’s all he was being asked to do. That’s what he torpedoed at age 81, in what is almost certainly his final term in the Senate.

President Trump isn’t going to forget that McCain singlehandedly killed the last chance to accomplish what the Arizona senator has been promising for years. Neither should you.

https://conservativetribune.com/trump-unleashes-video-mccain/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=libertyalliance

File this one under ‘Water Also Wet.’

Dan Bongino, a former secret service agent who worked to protect former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and worked in some capacity with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has something to get off his chest.

In a now viral tweet, Bongino lambasted Hillary, managing to squeeze five specific insults into a 140-character message.

It is absolutely brutal …

I worked with Hillary. Hillary is an obnoxious, rude, condescending, fraud who cares about ONE thing-herself.

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) September 26, 2017

Let’s break down those five insults for Hillary supporters who won’t likely be able to spot them.

Obnoxious.
Rude.
Condescending.
Fraud.
Self-serving.

Yikes. That literally could have been a list of the first five chapters of her latest biography.

Bongino’s followers continued the Clinton mockery in fine form:

http://pic.twitter.com/iPQet6Ryp1

— Scott (@retiredfirecapt) September 26, 2017

http://pic.twitter.com/Tst0qgRuGR

— Tiernan (@Tiernan518) September 26, 2017

My condolences, Dan. For that alone, you deserve sainthood. All kidding aside, thank you.

— Donna Tropiano (@Fendi_Gucci_Gal) September 26, 2017

In an interview with NewsMax, Bongino described Clinton as “a woman of really poor character.”

Bongino’s account echoes the sentiments of others who have worked security detail for the Clintons.

In a book titled “First Family Detail,” author Ronald Kessler details one example of how Hillary Clinton treats the secret service:

“Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F*** off,” she replied.

Another former agent recalled that “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military.”

“She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do,” the agent said. “She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”

The summer prior to the election, we covered a story about Eric Bonner, a military K9 handler who served in Turkey working security detail with his dog for Mrs. Clinton.

Military #K9 handler, Eric Bonner & his #bandofbrothers won’t be voting for #Hillary
(True according to #Liberalbias Snopes)#NeverHillary http://pic.twitter.com/2X0o2obn5A

— Tom Maloney (@t2gunner) October 14, 2016

“Her words to me (after sweeping the area to ensure her safety). ‘Get that Fucking dog away from me,'” Bonner wrote. “Then she turns to her Security Detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters.”

The K9 handler said Clinton went on to berate the detail for 20 minutes and slammed the door in their faces.

“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary,” Bonner concluded.

If the people who served and protected Hillary can’t stand her, is it any wonder the American people made her a two-time presidential loser?

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/hillarys-former-secret-service-agent-calls-obnoxious-rude-fraud/?utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_9_28_17&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-9-28-17-morning&utm_medium=email

Richard Pollock – Reporter on September 27, 2017

A company whose president is “best friends” with Chelsea Clinton received more than $11 million in contracts over the last decade from a highly secretive Defense Department think tank, but to date, the group lacks official federal approval to handle classified materials, according to sensitive documents TheDCNF was allowed to view.

Jacqueline Newmyer, the president of a company called the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), has over the last 10 years received numerous Department of Defense (DOD) contracts from a secretive think tank called Office of Net Assessment (ONA).

ONA is so sensitive, the specialized think tank is housed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and it reports directly to the Secretary.

To date, LTSG has received $11.2 million in contracts, according to USAspending,gov, a government database of federal contracts.

But after winning a decade of contracts from ONA, only now is the federal agency in the process of granting clearance to the company. LTSG never operated a secure room on their premises to handle classified materials, according to the Defense Security Service, a federal agency that approves secure rooms inside private sector firms. LTSG operates offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass.

“The Long Term Strategy Group is currently in process for a facility clearance with the Defense Security Service,” the agency informed TheDCNF in an email.

Newmyer declined to address her company’s lack of facilities to handle classified material. “With regard to your questions about the status of our facilities, those are best directed to the US government, which has authority over such matters,” she said in an email to TheDCNF.

She also declined to say whether her company is footing the bill for the new secure facility, or if the taxpayers are footing the bill through the ONA.

Adam Lovinger, a whistleblower and 12-year ONA veteran, has repeatedly warned ONA’s leadership they faced risks by relying on outside contractors as well as the problem of cronyism, and a growing “revolving door” policy where ONA employees would leave the defense think tank and join private contractors to do the same work.

Others outside ONA have drawn similar conclusions about ONA’s reliance on outside contractors. USA Today complained in August 2013 that the same set of contractors never seem to leave ONA, “While Democratic and Republican administrations come and go, ONA and its team of outside advisers remains the same. Contract records show the office relies on studies from outside contractors.”

Clinton and Newmyer first met each other while attending Sidwell Friends School, an exclusive private Quaker school in the nation’s capital. They were in each other’s weddings, and in 2011 Chelsea referred to Newmyer as her “best friend.”

In numerous emails, Chelsea’s mom Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, actively promoted Newmyer and attempted to assist her in securing Defense Department contracts.

Secretary Clinton put Newmyer in contact with Michèle Flournoy, former President Barack Obama’s undersecretary of defense, according to the emails from Clinton’s private email server and released by the State Department under a lawsuit filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Hillary followed up in a July 19, 2009 email, asking Newmyer, “By the way, did the DOD contract work out?”

ONA was supposed to work on complicated future warfare scenarios when it was originally set up in the 1970s.

The think tank’s first director, Andrew Marshall, was adored by a coterie of ONA staff. Adding to Marshall’s mystique, he was called “Yoda,” after the “Star Wars” series. Marshall lasted in the DOD post for 42 years and retired at the age of 93 in 2015.

Last year, Lovinger sent a series of memos to James H. Baker, ONA’s new director, raising many problems Baker “inherited” from Marshall, including the use of contractors. ONA has a reputation for issuing “‘sweet- heart contracts’ to a privileged few,” Lovinger told Baker in a Sept. 30, 2016 email chain.

ONA’s leadership, led by Baker, did not take kindly to Lovinger’s warnings and allegedly retaliated against the staffer, according to Sean Bigley, a federal security clearance attorney who also represents him.

Baker suspended Lovinger’s security clearance in May for “security infractions,” and launched numerous investigations.

The suspension came after Lovinger had been detailed to the National Security Council. He was removed from the NSC after losing his security clearance, and now languishes inside a DOD satellite office doing make-work.

In a Sept. 13, 2017 letter to DOD officials, Bigley charged: “A review of the ‘case file’ in this matter illuminates a picture of intentional whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Lovinger; personal and political vendettas against Lovinger by Baker …”

Although Lovinger has since been exonerated for all the accusations, he still faces the possibility of a revocation of his clearance. His case is currently pending before DOD officials.

Baker decided in a recent move to “reclassify” Lovinger’s ONA position to one that now requires new skills he doesn’t possess.

Bigley complained about this new act of retaliation in a Sept. 21 letter to the DOD acting general counsel: “The practical effect of Baker’s plan, if executed, is that Mr. Lovinger will become a surplus employee and will be terminated; he does not possess the skill set applicable to the proposed reclassification.”

Lovinger is the only staff member Baker has “reclassified,” according to Bigley.

One of Lovinger’s main complaints about ONA was that many of the reports contractors imparted very little new information to the think tank. “Over the years ONA’s analytic staff has expressed how they learn very little from many (if not most) of our often very thin and superficial contractor reports,” he wrote in the Sept. 30, 2016 email.

Some of LTSG’s reports bear out Lovinger’s critique. A September 2010 LTSG report, titled “Trends in Elite American Attitudes Toward War,” came to the astounding conclusion that, “American intellectuals have for the last century held considerably more cosmopolitan views than their non-intellectual counterparts.”

Another LTSG report was “On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People.”

Lovinger also suggested in a March 3, 2017 memo to the record that contractor studies should be peer reviewed. “There has never been an external review of these contractors’ research products,” he said, adding, “It is now clear that over several decades the office transferred millions of dollars to inexperienced and unqualified contractors.”

Others outside of ONA have been even more critical of the think tank. Carlos Lozada criticized the think tank as “an opaque bureaucratic outfit,” in a Washington Post review of a book about Marshall, ONA’s founder.

Michael C. Desch said “a systematic scrutiny of [ONA’s] work is long overdue” in the December 2014 issue of The National Interest. He recommended that ONA, “like so many now-superfluous parochial schools, should close its doors.”

On the liberal front, author Jeffrey Lewis wrote a scathing attack on ONA in the Oct. 24, 2014 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine. “Marshall funded a fair number of crackpots,” he charged.

Lewis cited two studies on Iraq “written by a crackpot who thinks Saddam planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, and a study on “Islamic Warfare” by “the guy who fabricated both a Ph.D. and an interview with Barack Obama.”

Lovinger has also been critical of the revolving door at ONA, where previous government staffers went to work for ONA contractors.

Phillip Pournelle, who was ONA’s military adviser from November 2011 to December 2016, now works at LTSG as its “director for gaming and analysis,” according to his LinkedIn page.

Steve Rosen, also a long-time ONA consultant, was originally Newmyer’s professor at Harvard. But Newmyer and Rosen hit it off, and they “co-taught” a Harvard class together in 2006.

Both Pournelle and Rosen are today two top executives in a company that has only eight employees, according to its LinkedIn account.
Just some food for thought as to how easy it is for politicians and their friends can corrupt and destroy our country! Outside contractors should never be allowed to work anywhere near secretive actions of the DOD......PERIOD!!! It's hard enough to properly vet those who actually work for the Gooberment!!

Newmyer and Rosen are also top officers in a nonprofit they created together called the American Academy for Strategic Education, which is “dedicated to educating a rising generation of strategic thinkers,” according to its website.

The organization has raised $894,000 since its operation in 2013, according to their IRS 990 filing. The Academy paid Newmyer and Rosen $45,000 each in 2015.

Since serving as president of LTSG, Newmyer has participated in many prestigious bodies on national security and she was enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

But her Ph.D. had little to do with today’s international conflicts or in contemporary military strategy. Her dissertation was on “a comparison of seminal works on strategy and statecraft from ancient China, the medieval Middle East, and early modern Europe,” according to a Harvard profile of her.

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/jacqueline-deal-contracts-chelsea-clinton/?utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_9_28_17&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-9-28-17-morning&utm_medium=email

Adam Lovinger did not consent to an interview for this article. The Office of Net Assessment did not reply to a DCNF inquiry.

Come on CEO's, get on board and do the right thing!!!

After President Donald Trump expressed his opposition to the growing trend of professional athletes taking a knee in protest of the national anthem, the NFL responded by supporting the protests, and some 200 players on countless teams “took a knee” this weekend.

Fans who were disgusted by the protests — viewing it as anti-American middle finger to the flag and all it represents — have begun fleeing the game in droves, so much so that DirecTV felt compelled to offer refunds to customers seeking to cancel their NFL package subscriptions.

Now, a CEO for a company that advertises during NFL games and provides wardrobes for NBC’s on-air NFL analysts and sportscasters has decided to take a stand against taking a knee. In fact, he has announced that he is pulling all ads and will no longer provide clothing to NBC talent, according to Independent Journal Review.

That CEO is Allan Jones, owner of the payday lending chain Check Into Cash and Hardwick Clothes — billed as America’s oldest suit-maker — according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

“Our companies will not condone unpatriotic behavior” in the NFL, Jones said in a statement. Jones, who has been a big supporter of President Trump, ordered his media buyer — ad agency Tombras Group in Knoxville — to pull all ads for Check Into Cash, Buy Here Pay here USA, or U.S. Money Stores from all NFL games “for the entire season.”

“When I see Colin Kaepernick lecturing the ‘oppressed’ wearing a Fidel Castro T-shirt you realize the hypocrisy to this stupidity,” Jones stated , according to The Chattanoogan. “I love America. They have the right to protest and I have the right to turn off the channel and place our ads elsewhere.”

“The next time someone ask the public to finance a stadium this will have a very long term effect,” he continued. “These guys should really be the lead plaintiffs in the head injury cases — that’s the only jury that will find sympathy!”

“If you will research why Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner you will realize why I am upset about these NFL players protesting. They don’t even know what it is they are protesting,” Jones lamented. “The flag was still standing. 200 English ships tried to take it down. They kept it up all night and it could only be seen when the bombs were bursting in the air. So many patriots gave their lives to keep the flag up — and now to have people protesting who don’t have a clue about any of this bothers me.”

“Our companies will not condone unpatriotic behavior!” he added. “TAKING A STAND … NOT A KNEE!”

Whether Jones is just the first domino to fall or will end up being the lone CEO to walk away from the NFL remains to be seen. However, if public pressure continues to mount and the NFL refuses to address the issue that is driving fans away, we suspect Jones will likely be the first of many to choose standing patriotically over kneeling.

How did these networks become so infiltrated with so much liberal lying disgusting shit?

The NFL was wracked with controversy after its players held league-wide protests and demonstrations during the playing of the national anthem before its Week 3 games.

As divisive and controversial as those protests were — in the short term, at least — early indications are that the weekend’s games had a slight bump in viewership compared with Week 3 of the 2016 season. So clearly, television networks weren’t too displeased with what happened.

But observant fans may have noticed something a bit odd with the widespread coverage of the anthem protests.

Where were the shots of the crowd’s response?

The fans were clearly present, considering the very audible boos raining down in Foxborough as 17 New England Patriots players knelt for the anthem.

Patriots players kneel during national anthem, booed by Gillette Stadium crowd pic.twitter.com/5mxrS1mXqV

— Nick O'Malley (@nickjomalley) September 24, 2017

It turns out the major networks broadcasting NFL action gave marching orders to their camera crews to avoid shots of angry fans to present an image of unified players, coaches and owners in opposition to President Donald Trump.

According to the Sporting News‘ behind-the-scenes TV source, networks told their camera crews to avoid all upset fans in the stands to deliberately push this agenda.

Why didn't TV networks show booing NFL fans last week?@MMcCarthyREV went to find the answer.

— Sporting News (@sportingnews) September 27, 2017

NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Fox Sports and ESPN all have much to gain from promoting the narrative that the entirety of the NFL is a unified and happy front.

CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Sabatelle denied the allegations when asked by Sporting News.

Obviously, networks would deny this, but the anecdotal evidence speaks for itself.

While cameras showed plenty of players kneeling, players with arms linked and the occasional shot of the anthem singer, it’s almost impossible to recall any particular shots of the crowd. In today’s digital age, a furious fan would become an instant meme.

This may be a shrewd business decision by the networks, but it reeks of dishonesty and political opportunism.

It’s no secret that the NFL needs to do whatever it can to bring back fans.

Neither lying to them nor distorting the truth is the way to do it.

https://www.thewildcard.com/report-major-nfl-networks-manipulated-national-anthem-coverage/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=romulusconstitution&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-09-28

The tone-deaf NFL has doubled down on its disrespectful behavior during the national anthem and in front of the American flag.

As players refuse to stand for the flag and literally hide in the locker room, patriotic citizens are becoming fed up with the childish displays.

A letter from a football fan is now going viral — and it perfectly summarizes the feelings of many Americans who are tired of watching millionaire professional players become so self-absorbed that they won’t respect American traditions.

Advertisement - story continues below
Related Stories

NBA Player Just Taught Anthem Kneelers Brutal Lesson on How to Respect Our Flag
Viral Cartoon Shows Exactly How Police Should Deal With Antifa
NFL Owner Comes Forward With Brutal Truth Behind Despicable Anthem Protesters

The note has been posted on many different online pages and forums, but it’s original author is not currently known.

I see you…
I see you, professional football player, as you kneel down during the playing of the National Anthem…
I see you, with your arm raised in protest…
I see you thinking you are doing something to unite people over social and racial injustice.

I see you…
But, more than that here is what I really see…
I see a man pushing the wheels of his wheelchair as he returns home from a foreign land unable to function as he once did, due to fighting to protect you as you kneel on the ground.
I see a young widow, dressed carefully in black, mourning the remains of her husband, hugging a coffin on the tarmac of an airport. I see that same woman clutching a perfectly folded flag to her bosom as taps is played at his graveside. I see her young son, tears streaming down his face knowing his father would never come home again.

I see graveyards full of tombstones, here and overseas, with names of those fallen, with dates showing a much too early death. I see so many, from so many different wars and conflicts, crosses and stones. They are too numerous to count.
I see the sacrifices made, the hearts broken, the tears shed, the shattered lives all in the name of freedom… all in the name of that red, white and blue piece of cloth that you choose to protest.

Social and racial injustice? You who make millions of American dollars for playing a game in a country where you have more opportunity to make a better life for you and your family than anywhere in the world? Really? The hypocrisy of it astounds me.
First of all, if you really want to protest, give your money and time to make changes. Give to those less fortunate than you. Help those people get an education, buy them food and shelter. Show them opportunities to make better decisions. Teach them that they have a purpose in life.
If you really want to protest injustices…

Protest the treatment of veterans, who have to wait extremely long periods of time for healthcare, who are living under interstate bridges, in boxes, who are committing suicide. Today over twenty of them will take their lives out of hopelessness and despair.
Protest the people whose goal in life is to make sure an unborn baby doesn’t see the light of day. There will be around 3,500 of them today. There is no greater injustice than that.
Protest the loss of religious rights as some atheist complained so much that public prayer by a group of young players on an athletic field is not allowed.

When I see that flag, when I hear that song, when I sing those words, I give homage to those who died for this land, who continue to protect this land, who don’t know if and when they will ever see their loved ones again. Some say that they died for your freedom so that you can take a knee. I say they died for your freedom so you can stand proudly and be thankful that God has blessed you enough that you can live in a country of so much opportunity.

Go ahead…
Go ahead and kneel…
Go ahead and be ungrateful.
I am watching…
As are millions and millions of others.
We don’t see a protest of unity… we see a protest of disgraceful ignorance.

We have already seen football fans turning off their television sets, tearing up season tickets, and canceling sports packages over their disgust with the behavior of players.

Unless players begin respecting the American flag once again, things will only get worse. If the NFL and other sports leagues are not careful, their self-inflicted damage will be permanent.

https://conservativetribune.com/fed-up-nfl-letter-viral/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=romulusconstitution&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-09-28

The stupidity of the dummycrats has never escaped me in my 74 years. They are the race promoters and the owners of the KKK. Republicans, for the most part, down through history, have been the only true support for blacks.

It’s the lazy argument that gets trotted out every time any Republican advocates for something to the right of George McGovern’s platform: Republicans are racist.

Think that Michael Brown probably shouldn’t have robbed a store and then reached for an officer’s gun? You racist. Think that almost a decade of work requirement waivers for food stamps is enough? Racist. Think that “uprisings” that destroy private property and attack innocent people and law enforcement officers upon residents aren’t the best way to let your opinion be known? Why, you’re a regular George Wallace.

Funny thing about that George Wallace, though — he was a Democrat. As were a whole lot of racists. From Reconstruction to the modern day, the Democrat Party has been an agglomeration of the worst racial impulses in American society. And nothing says it better than this promotional ad for the Democrats from the 1860s.

Here’s what they want hidden: See pic below!!

This particular ad is from around 1869, although no particular candidate is mentioned. Lest you think that this is just a Southern phenomenon, nearly identical posters were used by the Democrats during the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race.

Advertisement - story continues below

If this were a simple matter of the 1860s, there wouldn’t be much of a story here. However, the reason the Democrats want their racist past hidden is that, as William Faulkner might have said, it’s not even past.

Moving beyond Reconstruction, the Democrats were behind the resurgence of the Klan in the early 20th century. In fact, the 1924 Democrat National Convention attracted such a heavy pro-Klan element it was called the “Klanbake”; a “picnic” of 20,000 Klansmen in New Jersey met to protest the “clownvention in Jew York” and threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith, a Catholic front-runner for the nomination.

Speaking of the KKK, during his time in the White House, Democrat President Woodrow Wilson organized a special screening of the pro-Klan movie “Birth of a Nation.” “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true,” Wilson said of the film, which featured rapacious black men who specifically targeted white women, black legislators putting their feet on their desks and eating fried chicken, and “justifiable” lynchings of African-Americans.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that T.F. Dixon Jr., who wrote the novel the film was based on, said in a letter that, “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern sentiments by a presentation of history that would transform every man in the audience into a good Democrat.”

And speaking of “good Democrats,” let’s take former Sen. Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton’s self-described “mentor.” Byrd founded a chapter of the KKK back in West Virginia (then repeatedly lied about the depth of his involvement), filibustered the Civil Rights Act and voted against Thurgood Marshall’s nomination to the Supreme Court. As late as 2001 was talking about “white n******” on national television.

Byrd may be dead now, but as Dinesh D’Souza explains, the plantation mentality of the Democrats is alive and well:

Much like they did in rural areas in the pre-1970s South, the modern Democrats treat America’s urban areas as their own private fiefdom. They may not claim to be “for the white man” anymore — in fact, far from it. That doesn’t mean they’ve done anything to give minority communities greater economic opportunity, though. They just want the votes, and identity politics turns people out.

A popular phrase in Democrat circles nowadays is “demographics is destiny” — the belief that by pandering to minority groups, they’ll end up becoming an unstoppable force as those groups grow. The merits of this approach are debatable, of course, but the one thing that’s clear is that demographics have always been destiny for the Democrats.

This was just as true when they were whipping up white racists against African-Americans as it is now, as their analysts and politicos carve up America into neat little racial slices that can be pitted against each other for electoral gain. Who’re the racists again, now?

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on the Democrats’ racist past.

https://conservativetribune.com/dems-ad-want-it-hidden/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=romulusconstitution&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-09-27

'Stand at attention, face flag, hold helmets in left hand, refrain from talking'

The NFL’s operations manual, which, unlike its rule book, is not available to the public, states:

“During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

The NFL declined to respond to multiple WND inquiries on the issue.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/busted-nfl-rules-require-anti-anthem-players-to-appear-on-field/

If you would like to read and see another perfect example of just how stupid Killary really is, click of the following link;

https://conservativetribune.com/hillary-shrieks-putin-private/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=patriottribune&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=libertyalliance

Black people who fit in this category should be ashamed for they are a direct slap to face of ALL good strong American black people I have had the pleasure to know and work with all of my 74 years.

Back in my freshmen year of college, I found Booker T. Washington’s “Up From Slavery” on a list of books for a required English course.

Booker T. was the dominant leader in America’s black community from 1890-1915, and his message couldn’t have been more different from the race-hustlers who dominate the liberal narrative today, whether it be Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the Marxists behind Black Lives Matter. While today’s race-hustlers are more oppressed by their own ideology than anything else, Booker T. was himself a slave from his birth in 1856 until he was granted freedom by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution at age 9. In the book, he recalls life on the plantation, stating “On the plantation in Virginia, and even later, meals were gotten to the children very much as dumb animals get theirs. It was a piece of bread here and a scrap of meat there. It was a cup of milk at one time and some potatoes at another.”

Despite the very real oppression that Booker T. faced, he doesn’t attack “the system” in his work. Rather, in “Up From Slavery,” you’ll find chapters making the case for the necessity of educating the black community and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. There’s even a section of the book where he talks about the importance of wealthy people – he was a Republican after all!

Booker T. was even criticized by the race-hustlers of his day, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, and he would certainly be criticized by their modern counterparts. It’s truly a shame, because Booker was a century ahead of his time when it came to seeing through the victimhood ideology.

My favorite quote from Booker T. comes from his 1911 autobiography, “My Larger Education,” which was published just years before his death in 1915. In it, he writes the following:

What do people like Al Sharpton or the leaders of Black Lives Matter seem to care about more: Black life or lining their own pockets through grievance-mongering? Don't forget Jesse Jackson who has extorted money for years using the same.......Just look at his connection to NASCAR!!!!

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/booker-t-washington-black-lives-matter/?utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_9_21_17&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-9-21-17-morning&utm_medium=email

In my many years of covering politics, I’ve noticed a pattern in the liberal thought process. It’s a pattern that guides our friends in the Democrat Party on every conceivable political platform or life choice.

It’s led me to one inescapable observation: Liberals always try to do what makes them feel good about themselves, but are completely incapable of thinking ahead more than one step at a time.

Ponder that for a moment. Then take abortion as an example.

A woman has an unwanted pregnancy. They want to fix that problem, because it makes them feel good and righteous, so they demand abortion access cloaked in the guise of ‘reproductive rights.’ They’ve solved one problem, but are unable to think to the next step – how those ‘reproductive rights’ affect the baby. Not only are they unable to think about the repercussions of abortion on that child (which is instant death), they can’t even understand that the child is a living human being.

They can’t think two steps ahead.

The following cartoon illustrates this concept perfectly when it comes to illegal immigration. Here again, we have a situation where bleeding hearts want to help those who were brought here illegally through no fault of their own.

But guess who that hurts?

The cartoon is aptly named “Some Children Left Behind,” and the artist, the renowned A.F. Branco, describes it as “Democrats seem more interested in the dreams of illegal immigrant’s than those of native born citizens.”

There’s no ‘seem’ about it. Democrats are infinitely more interested in aiding illegal immigrants because they can’t think forward to that second step of ‘how will this effect American children, or the children of legal immigrants?’

The cartoon is particularly poignant because the child having his American dream snatched away is African-American.

Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, explained in an interview with Tucker Carlson that black males are disproportionately impacted by illegal immigration.

“We’re talking about, at the very low end, hundreds of thousands of blacks losing jobs, probably if you do the math, up to 1.2 million blacks losing jobs,” Kirsanow said. “This has significant, obviously, impacts on the black community.”

All because the left can’t process thoughts more than one step at a time.

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/daca-cartoon-democrats/?utm_content=1618d0568d4f0b4aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_9_21_17&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-9-21-17-morning&utm_medium=email

Just for snowflakes!!

Google is extremely dangerous and increasing more and more as time goes by. I recommend you cut down on google use as much as possible for as long as you can.
This company isn't thinking about you, only their monopolies. They are just like ATT, who is beginning to gain ground again in their monopoly en-divers.

Most people who understand markets understand the downside of monopolies, and in America today, a few solitary Internet companies are such dominant players that their power is not only nearly unchecked within their industry, but within the global electronic infrastructure itself. One of the largest culprits in this respect — if not THE largest — is Alphabet, Inc., the parent firm of search giant Google.

Google, which was founded in 1996 by Stanford researchers Sergey Brin and Larry Page, was originally based on the novel premise of using “page ranking” technology to order results based on relevance versus mere repetition, allowing the search of the world’s Internet data to take place in revolutionary new ways. Using linked, dedicated multiprocessor computer clusters, such searches could be conducted with lightning speed and versatility.

Very rapidly, the company overtook all of its competitors in the search engine field — AltaVista, Excite, Yahoo, Infoseek and others — and today, most of these other players are corporate corpses, having been bankrupted or bought out in the wake of the Internet boom of the late 1990s.

While some people in the business world might think that having one company that’s a monopoly in the search engine field makes it much easier in terms of producing results that can direct customers, the control that monopoly power has given Google is enormous.

Google can and does dictate to business any policies it wants to in regards to hoops that the company says firms must jump through in order to have their pages rank highly in search results. In the past, whenever Google made changes to its algorithms that its web-crawling “spiders” used to scour pages on the Internet, businesses were forced to spend money (sometimes quite liberally) on “search engine optimization” (SEO) consultants who would tailor their content to keep up. Those companies that couldn’t afford to spend those funds saw their rankings decrease and often with them, their sales numbers.

As with many Internet companies, Google’s management argued that the company should leverage its dominance in one industry (search) to enable investments toward dominating others, which now include mobile smart phones and tablets (via Android OS), video (via the acquisition of Youtube), web browsing (via the Chrome browser on many computers), email (Gmail), mapping (Google Maps and Google Earth), Internet advertising (AdWords and AdSense), website performance (Google Analytics), productivity applications (Google Docs), online storage (Google Drive), social media (Google+), payments (Google Wallet), language translation (Google Translate), vintage books (Google Books), shopping (Google Shopping), travel (Google Flights), music (Google Play), online discussions (Google Groups), instant messaging (Allo and Hangouts), voice-over-IP telephony (Google Voice), and video chatting (Duo).

In addition, Google has made many major acquisitions and/or developments which have allowed it to take market-leader positions in industries like online advertising (via the purchase of firms DoubleClick and AdMob), restaurant reviews (via its purchase of Zagat), blogging (via Blogger), virtual reality headsets (via Google Glass), coupons (via DailyDeal), robotics (via Boston Dynamics) and home automation (via Nest Labs).

With all of this involvement, Google has control and oversight of an enormous amount of individuals’ data on the Internet. Google itself is the number one most-visited site on the web. But through transactions, password-protected areas and the monitoring of cookies, clicks, emails and chat messages, Google collects and stores a tremendous amount of personal data. Often, this data is mined and sold to advertisers, most of the time without the knowledge of the people whose information is collected.

In terms of the amount of data per individual, between all Google sites and properties, the company might have up to 50 pages of data per person — information from how much money is in a person’s bank account to the names of their children and spouse, addresses of where they live, phone numbers, social security numbers, recent purchases, recent Google searches, messages to friends and co-workers, documents they’ve worked on, which videos they’ve watched and/or digital copies of their Google Voice calls and voicemails.

In the past, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has said regarding the company’s thoughts on privacy, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place; if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act, and it’s possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

In 2007, privacy watchdog group Privacy International rated Google “Hostile to Privacy” — its lowest ranking — making it the only major company to receive this rating. In 2010, Chairman Schmidt blithely stated, “In a world of asynchronous threats, it’s too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you; we need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it… If I look at enough of your messaging and your location and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you’re going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself, and we can identify who you are. You think you don’t have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You’ve got Facebook photos!”

In 2017, Google’s YouTube division began ‘demonetizing’ certain videos (declining to pay their creators based on the number of views) it felt contained politically ‘sensitive’ content the company disagreed with. YouTube stated the demonetization would affect videos with content that included “controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery isn’t shown.”

To date, many conservative news outlets and channels such as Infowars, Ron Paul, Mark Dice and others have seen their videos demonetized. Although the videos are still available to be viewed, the fact that their creators are not receiving monetary recompense in the same way that creators of videos that slant to the Left are is a subtle form of censorship. And since YouTube is a private company, it could choose to make these same videos unavailable in the future, if it wished to.

Recently, a think tank called the New America Foundation, which is also coincidentally chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, kicked out an internal initiative called Open Markets after the latter criticized business monopolies.

The Open Markets initiative was started by author Barry Lynn, whose book End of the Line: The Rise and Coming Fall of the Global Corporation documents the increasingly powerful role global companies play in today’s markets. About Amazon, the dominant online book and product seller, Lynn says the company is now so powerful, it could “exercise control over the marketplace of ideas in ways that threaten not merely open markets, but free speech [itself].”

In August, The New York Times published an article which noted,

In the hours after European antitrust regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a tech giant that shapes public policy debates with its enormous wealth is criticized.

The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American Left.

But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt — who had been chairman of New America until 2016 — communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.

This president of New America, Anne-Marie Slaughter, summarily dismissed Barry Lynn and his 10-person staff. Shortly afterward, Lynn commented, “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels and then pulling the strings. People are so afraid of Google now.” Lynn is referring to the fact that Google is among the top companies in Washington, D.C. in terms of the lobbying dollars it spends.

As the Times makes clear, “[Google] helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments, sometimes without the disclosure of Google’s role.” The Times also reports that “Among the most effective — if little examined — tools in Google’s public policy toolbox has been its funding of nonprofit groups from across the political spectrum. This year, it’s donated to 170 such groups, according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on Google’s website.

Electronic privacy nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation concurs with the Times’ assessment. The group’s president, Jonathan Rotenberg, has ominously written, “There are simply fewer groups that are available to speak up about Google’s activities that threaten online privacy. The groups that should be speaking up are not.”

The founder of anti-virus company McAfee Associates, John McAfee, says that Google is driving people to a “lowest common denominator” status. The surveillance that Google’s technology affords ultimately bodes ill for humanity, he claims. “If everybody knew everything about everybody else, what would human behavior become?” McAfee asked. “We would be limited to the least common denominator of human behavior: those behaviors which no one would find offensive… We cannot have intrusions into our lives and still have freedom.”

http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/the-ominous-growing-power-of-google/

WOW, how easy it has become to steal taxpayer money!!!

A new study indicates that contrary to the argument that without federal funding, those “starving artists” just won’t make it, the U.S. government sends millions of dollars every year to organizations that are worth billions.

Michael McGrady writes for the Heartland Institute of a recent audit of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, which is responsible for the National Endowment of the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, gave more than $441 million to some 3,000 groups in 2016.

Seventy-one of those groups, which received about $20.5 million of the total, already had assets above $1 billion.

Each.

The audit of the agency was conducted and published by Open The Books, a project of the non-profit American Transparency, which aims to limit government by exposing how it spends taxpayer funds.

Adam Andrzejewski, the chief operating officer of American Transparency, said the “argument for public funding of the arts goes something like this: If you eliminate public funding of the arts, then the starving artists will go away, and you need this to have a vibrant culture in our country.”

Get “The Devil in DC: Winning Back the Country From the Beast in Washington” from the WND Superstore to learn how Americans can fight back against the establishment.

McGrady said the audit found that most of the grants don’t go to starving artists.

“They go to well-heeled, asset-rich organizations. In fact, about $8 out of every $10 go to organizations with high assets,” he said.

McGrady also cited Jonathan Bydlak, president of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, who said government bureaucrats use arts subsidies to tell artists what to say and how to say it.

“This opens up the door to all sorts of perverse incentives, and doesn’t exactly support true creativity,” he said.

The study states:

“Every year, celebrities such as Katy Perry, Pharrell Williams, Madonna, Alex Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez grace the red carpet at the ‘Met Gala,’ a benefit for New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. The star power helps the organization raise up to $300 million annual. Since 2009, however, the Met has received federal grants totaling $1.2 million from the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities (NFA-H). The Met can’t argue that it needed the money – it has more than $3.7 billion in financial assets.”

The full report is here.

The report said that in the arts community, there is “a stark contrast between the haves and the have-nots.”

“We found 71 charitable organizations – with at least $1 billion each in assets – received nearly $120 million in federal funding since 2009. Then, there were the ‘starving artist’ organizations – 1,027 organizations with assets under $1 million – that received just $41 million in federal grants (FY20160.”

The report noted President Trump wants to eliminate federal funding for arts and is getting resistance from wealthy arts organizations, raising several questions for the American public:

“Why are taxpayers funding nonprofits that have assets of at least $1 billion? Do charities have a right to public funding no matter how strong their balance sheet?”
“If the public purpose is to fund the starving artist, then why are small organizations (less than $1 million in assets) receiving just $1 of every $4 in NFA-H nonprofit grant-making?”
“Should prestigious universities receive arts and humanities funding despite their billion-dollar endowments?”
“Who can explain the public purpose in forcing working-class taxpayers to fund arts organizations that obviously don’t need the money?”

The study found there were 71 groups worth more than $1 billion each that got a total of $20.5 million, even though the groups have a cumulative worth of $366 billion.

Then there were 39 groups worth between $500 million and $1 billion each that got $4.8 million, even though their cumulative worth is $27 billion.

“Higher education institutions received $45 million in NFA-H grants (FR2016). These 258 institutes had existing assets totaling $428.3 billion, including their affiliated foundation or endowment,” the report said.

It also revealed that the average salary for staff members at the federal operation was nearly $100,000.

Among the recipients were the Art Institute of Chicago, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Lyric Opera of Chicago and Lincoln Center.

“The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a public charity with $4 billion in assets. Yet, the Met received $1.22 million in grants and contracts from the NFA-H (FY2009-2016). Calendar year 2016 was the biggest year of NFA-H grants to the Met, which received $551,028,” the report found.

The New York Shakespeare Festival, the driving force behind the controversial “Julius Caesar” production that portrayed the killing of a figure representing President Trump, got $630,000 from the NEA since 2009, the report said.

NBC News said the actor “looks like Donald Trump … moves like Trump … is knifed to death on stage, blood staining his white shirt.”

The Feminist Press, which specialists in “classic LGBT titles,” recently got $55,000 to “support the publication of books of fiction and nonfiction,” the report said, and the NFA-H gave $15,000 to Fresh Meat Productions, a “transgender and queer arts dance producer.”

http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/starving-artists-feds-sending-millions-to-billionaires/