Although Hillary Clinton has billed herself as the best candidate for black v**ers to support, some black leaders aren’t buying it.

On Tuesday afternoon, the DMV (DC/Maryland/Virginia) branch of Black L***s M****r called on Hillary to stop “pimping black v**es” and start “spending time convincing her bestie [Chicago Mayor] Rahm [Emanuel] to resign.”

Progressives have criticized Hillary for her close ties to Mayor Emanuel, who has faced calls to resign over his administration’s lack of action in the shooting of Chicago teenager Laquan McDonald. Black L***s M****r has led the campaign for Rahm’s resignation.

The activists’ rebuke of Hillary came just hours after she adopted an accent mimicking that of the Reverend Al Sharpton.

“My lips are sealed,” Clinton said in a clearly altered accent.

The bad publicity for Hillary comes as she and Bernie Sanders are jockeying for the support of black primary v**ers, who up until now have overwhelmingly supported Clinton. That tide appears to be changing, however. Just last week, progressive website The Nation ran an article titled “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black V**e.” The article argues that “policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.”

Prominent black voices — including The Atlantic’s Ta-Nahisi Coates and former NAACP leader Ben Jealous — have endorsed Sanders over Clinton, causing progressive website Alternet to wonder: “Is Hillary Clinton Losing Her Lock on Black V**ers?” Even Al Sharpton has said that Hillary will need to “earn” the black v**e.

Clinton and Sanders will face off in the Nevada caucuses this Saturday. Clinton has faced sharp criticism after her campaign — in an apparent attempt to lower expectations — argued that Sanders will do better than expected in Nevada because “it’s still a state that is 80 percent white v**ers.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/black-l***s-m****r-to-hillary-stop-pimping-black-v**es/#ixzz40UokrOvj

I like that quote....

Some I have kept when reading different things about Atheist~~~

There is no proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon

"Atheism is rather in the life than in the heart of man."
-Francis Bacon

"God exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God."- Robert A. Laidlaw~~Similar to yours~~

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Trump is running a primarily negative campaign focusing on tearing down and discrediting the other GOP contenders. He makes a few general promises about making America great again but all politicians do that. Because of the somewhat large field he may be able to win primaries and even get the nomination with 30-35% but can he win the e******n by alienating so many? Remember his negative rating is huge. It appears that his goal is to get the nomination and if he is denied that to severely damage the chances of any other Republican to win. All his nasty sound bites will be fodder for the Democrats to use. If he continues on this path he may get the nomination but he will not have avid support from many he will need in November.

Poetic Juctice? Obama Was 1st US President To V**e To Filibuster A 02/15/2016 Supreme Court Nominee: It would be poetic justice for the GOP to block any Obama nominee.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/poetic-juctice-obama-was-1st-us-president-to-v**e-for-filibuster-in-supreme-court-nomination/Randy DeSoto

Obama’s nominees to the high court during his final year in office, some would deem it to be perfect poetic justice.

President Obama was the First President to V**e to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee… http://www.youngcons.com/president-obama-was-the-first-president-to-v**e-to-filibuster-a-supreme-court-nominee2/

Barack Obama and top senate Democrat Chuck Schumer are already engaging in hypocrisy of the highest order by calling on senate Republicans to move quickly to replace the vacancy left by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The GOP needs no further justification in choosing not to move forward on any nominee than Obama’s and his fellow Democrats’ own past words and actions.


In his remarks on Saturday concerning Scalia’s death, the president said:

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.

There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely v**e.

These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.

They’re bigger than any one party.

They are about our democracy.”


In 2006, while no doubt starting to lay his eyes on a p**********l run, then-Sen. Obama had no problem throwing a wrench in the works of democracy by v****g to filibuster George Bush’s nominee to the high court, Samuel Alito.


Obama told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.

When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”


In other words, because Alito did not share his judicial philosophy and he felt the judge’s ascension to the Supreme Court would not allow an independent check on the excessive use of executive branch power, Obama, in fact, v**ed to block the appointment.


Then-Sen. John Kerry led the effort to filibuster Alito, which ultimately came up short, and the judge was approved.

If Obama, as a senator, felt justified in seeking to block a p**********l nominee to the court because he feared Bush’s use of executive authority.

How much more true is that concern now, with multiple court rulings that the president has exceeded his authority in high-profile instances such as executive amnesty, EPA regulations regarding c*****e c****e, and portions of Obamacare.


Sen. Schumer, D-N.Y., has no legs to stand on in this regard either. On Sunday, Schumer, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on ABC’s This Week.

“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days.”

McConnell, along with Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, have stated it should be up to the next president to select a replacement for Scalia.

It was the same Chuck Schumer in July, 2007, with 18 months remaining in George Bush’s time in office, who said the Democrats should presume anyone the president nominates to the Supreme Court should not get their approval.

In a speech to the American Constitution Society, he said:

How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? …

For the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same se******n criteria let me say this:

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.


The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance.

We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.

Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

If the Republicans choose to stand firm and not move forward with any of Obama’s nominees to the high court during his final year in office, some would deem it to be perfect poetic justice.

Yes, because it's really the pledge that's ruing our country and its youth.

Just a mere glimpse at the latest headline published in Salon tells us everything that is wrong with our society. According to the left-wing outlet, the country is in dire need of scrapping our "toxic" Pledge of Allegiance. Because, after all, the pledge is what's really hurting our children and preventing them from becoming critical thinkers (not society's obsession with g****r neutrality, identity politics, trigger warnings, "safe spaces" and general left-wing assault on free-speech).

In its subversive attempt to disparage the Pledge of Allegiance and all it stands for, Salon writes:

The pledge of allegiance must go: A daily loyalty oath has become a toxic, nationalistic ritual

We make students salute national greatness for 13 years. No wonder Trumpian anti-intellectuallism is on the march.

Yes, Salon, reciting the pledge is what's brought to bear "anti-intellectualism." Ironic then that it's the very people who seek to ban everything who are in fact the anti-intellectuals ruining our society.

The left-wing outlet cites the case of a student who was allegedly accused by a teacher of "treason" for sitting out the pledge. The unleashing of "mean-spirited" accusations against students supposedly insightful enough to "question the wisdom of a loyalty oath" is what really irritates the braintrust over at Salon. Below are additional key excerpts from the outlet's latest pseudo-intellectual screed:

I’ve spent the last year interacting with kids who have participated in the American Humanist Association’s boycott of the Pledge of Allegiance. The boycott is intended to raise awareness of the fact that the pledge, which was originally scripted by a magazine editor in 1892, did not include the words “under God” until 1954. The insertion of those two words has long irritated many Americans, particularly those who reject the notion of tying patriotism to God-belief, and the AHA’s boycott has been an effective strategy for educating many, especially young people, on the issue. The Supreme Court in 1943 ruled that constitutional free speech principles guarantee public school children the right to opt out of the pledge, but many school officials need to be reminded of that precedent. As such, the AHA’s legal center, which I direct, spends lots of time helping kids whose teachers don’t respect the nonparticipation right.

The author goes on to write that any "objective observer would quickly conclude that the exercise is downright toxic, a nationalistic ritual that too often instills a venomous attitude of chauvinism." The article continues with the indictment that the pledge is a tool of "American militarism":

Frequently the teacher will answer that question by saying that nonparticipation is disrespectful of the troops, as if any student not taking a daily loyalty oath—something no other developed country expects from its youth—is thumbing her nose at America’s military men and women. Here we see how the pledge is a tool of American militarism, with the clear message: stand each day and pledge allegiance, kids, because our fighting men and women are out there protecting your freedoms. Not surprisingly, no public school offers a daily analysis of the country’s foreign policy to offset this not-so-subtle message of nationalism and militarism.

The author prattles on, lamenting the lack of "critical thinking" at play and even asserts that the pledge essentially brainwashed an entire generation into joining the military to fight in the Iraq War:

Dealing with schools mistreating pledge dissenters is like a tour of duty in the culture wars, a visit to the trenches to see the other side at its ugliest. One discovers that critical thinking is the last thing that many teachers and administrators really want from their kids, who are expected to line up like lemmings each day for 13 years and vocally affirm the Establishment position of national greatness. With such an educational environment, is it any wonder that over half the population in 2003 wanted to rush to war in Iraq, believing Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept. 11 attacks?

This "unhealthy nationalism," according to the author, "is cultivated when an entire population is encouraged to participate in easy symbolic gestures that validate national greatness."

Yes, because we all know that America should not be great. We should instead teach children to loathe their country the way the Left does:

Anyone can stand and pledge allegiance and anyone can slap a magnet on their SUV to “support the troops,” but not anyone can learn the history that underlies today’s international situation and carefully assess policy options.

The author then has the audacity to quote George Orwell's distaste for nationalism as validation of his premise:

George Orwell, an authority on groupthink if ever there was one, wasn’t fond of nationalism. In his essay on the subject he warned against “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

With this in mind, the author concludes that "seeing the dynamics of pledge recitation and dissent up close, however, and considering it in the context of a nation that seems increasingly unhinged socially and politically, the impact of a daily ritual that conditions kids to blind national loyalty is worth reconsidering":

If there are concerns about anti-intellectualism and even f*****tic tendencies in American society nowadays, the practice of daily national exaltation has relevance. If you truly love America and the values “for which it stands,” there’s only one thing to do: scrap the Pledge of Allegiance.

We have an even better idea on what to scrap. And it isn't the pledge.

(h/t: Newsbusters)

tdsrnest-unfortunately we do not have emergency rooms which treat patients for zero costs. Someone has to pay the piper and that is the taxpayer. Governors, who are responsible for balancing the budget in their respective States know what the State can and cannot afford. If they refuse a temporary infusion of Federal dollars into an expansion of medicaid they know that it is temporary and they will have to budget to cover the shortfall when the Feds take their piggy bank and go home. Of course, liberals do not have any concept of balanced budgets. Its all borrow and spend. PS. I am not from Texas but they have a better track record than the country as a whole has both in health care and job creation. The Unaffordable Care Act is doomed. Good Luck America !!!

Going the e-mail rounds. :lol: :lol:


In a dark and hazy room, peering into a crystal ball, the fortune teller delivered grave news:

"There's no easy way to tell you this, so I'll just be blunt. Prepare yourself to be a widow. Your husband will die a violent and horrible death this year."

Visibly shaken, the young woman stared back at the old woman's lined face, then at the single flickering candle, then down at her shaking hands.
She took a few deep breaths to compose herself. Her mind raced. A question forced its way out... she simply had to know.. She met the Fortune Teller's gaze, tried to steady her voice and asked,

"Will I be acquitted?"

For some reason, wives tend to like this joke.