Mar 042019

That would be Colin Flaherty, talk show host, author and all around race realist who knows the differences between the races. That’s the issue isn’t it? The differences. The similarities are not problems. It’s the differences that cause the crimes. How can that be stopped? 

There are plenty of ways and they must be aimed at the black males from 15 to 40 who cause the crimes. Unfortunately there’s a lot of obfuscation and denial about the root causes and a lot of misdirection. There’s no doubt about the crime cohort. The prisons and jails are full of the results. There’s a lot of Liberal B/S that is in the way of the solutions but they start at reality. The differences among the races must be acknowledged before solutions can be created. Of course they can be. The biggest beneficiaries will be in the culture at large. Some segments will benefit more than others and sooner or later it will get done.   

Mar 042019

The Washington Examiner reported that two political action committees founded by Saikat Chakrabarti Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide seem to have suspiciously funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on March 3, 2019.

The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio’s socialist Democrat chief of staff — run counter to her pledges, (they violate them) to increase transparency and reduce the influence of “dark money” in politics.

Chakrabarti’s companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.

Mar 042019

They are as guilty as Satan so they decided to deflect the blame from themselves towards the president. This should be stopped immediately in the name of simple fairness, and because it’s a defense of the criminality of the Democrats. These are wicked loser people…. They are blinded by their hatred of president Trump and they are rooting against America. 

Mar 042019

It’s not the crime that kills you, it’s the criminal…

Wiki: Most homicides in the United States are intraracial—the perpetrator and victim are of the same race.

Simple arithmetic division shows White people at 0.7 percent and Black people at 4.7 percent means 4.7/.7 almost seven times fewer white people are in prison for committing crimes.

There are eight theories about the causation of crime. None mention race. That means white people are included in crime reports and in the theories about the causes ot crime when they are far, far less likely to be actual criminals.  This can be dangerous when it provides a false sense of security making the believer believe they are safe when they are in danger. They may wrongly believe a gun can kill them instead of knowing that a criminal can kill them

Here’s a typical report: :” Shootings kill (thereby ignoring the shooter  doing the killing) more than 36,000 Americans each year. Every day, 90 deaths and 200 injuries are caused by gun violence. (Blaming a gun for a shooting is like blaming a fork for obesity) Unlike terrorist acts, the everyday gun violence that impacts our communities is accepted as a way of life.

Of all firearm homicides in the world, 82 percent occurs in the United States. An American is 25 times more likely to be fatally shot than a resident of other high-income nations. (that ignores the shooter, the race of the shooter; protects criminals and endangers innocent people by keeping them ignorant of the true cause of the shooting and the crime, viz.,  violent, non-law-abiding people who are primarily not white.)  

The lies continue: “As public health scholars who study firearm violence, we believe that our country is unique in its acceptance of gun violence. Although death by firearms in America is a public health crisis, it is a crisis that legislators accept as a societal norm. Some have suggested it is due to the fact that it is blacks and not whites who are the predominant victims, and our data support this striking disparity.”


Blame the fork, not the food. Blame the bullet, not the shooter. .  


Mar 042019

Mueller should have been investigating Uranium One, The Clinton’s, all three and Christopher Steele who was paid by Hillary’s people to get dirt on Trump. Muellar found none so the Dem’s and Clinton simply lied and made it up. This is the Media’s Eleventh Commandment….. “Make Sure the Wrong People Are Blamed”…

Congressional investigators confirmed a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign. Former FBI general counsel James Baker is under criminal investigation for unauthorized leaks to the media.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker ( This James Baker is not James Addison Baker III (born April 28, 1930) who served as White House Chief of Staff and United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, and as U.S. Secretary of State and White House Chief of Staff under President George H. W. Bush.) The Obama FBI James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie is The Democratic National Committee’s private law firm. Holy Cow! This is important… 

Perkins Coie is the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firm  Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.

The unverified dossier, rince and repeat that.. Unverified, was then used by the FBI as the main evidence seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the campaign. The FBI engaged in  Third World behavior.. 

The revelation was solidly and completely confirmed both with contemporaneous evidence and testimony under oath secured by a joint investigation by Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight committees says John Solomon, Opinion writer for The Hill.

It means the FBI knew or had good reason to suspect the dossier was connected to the DNC’s main law firm and was the product of a Democratic opposition-research effort to defeat Trump and was not worth even reading, which they most likely didn’t do,  — yet the FBI failed to disclose that information to the FISA court in October 2016, when Obama’s FBI  applied for a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump Campaign, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. Ivanka Trump and the Trump Campaign adviser Carter Page.

“This is a bombshell that unequivocally shows the real collusion was between the FBI and Donald Trump’s opposition — the DNC, Hillary and a Trump-hating British intel officer — to hijack the election, rather than some conspiracy between Putin and Trump”  

Baker was interviewed by lawmakers behind closed doors. Sources declined to divulge much about his testimony, other than to say it confirmed other evidence about the illicit contact between the Perkins Coie law firm and the FBI.

The sources said Baker identified lawyer Michael Sussman, a former DOJ lawyer, as the Perkins Coie attorney who reached out to him and said the firm gave him documents and a thumb drive related to Russian interference in the election, hacking and possible Trump connections.

Information gathered separately by another congressional committee indicate the contact occurred in September, the month before the FISA warrant was approved.

A spokeswoman for the FBI declined comment. Spokespersons for Perkins Coie and the Justice Department did not return a message seeking comment.

The sources also said Baker’s interview broke new ground both about the FBI’s use of news media in 2016 and 2017 to further the Trump case and about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s conversations in spring 2017 regarding possible use of a body wire to record Trump.

“The interview was one of the most productive we had and it opened up many new investigative leads,” one source said.

Another said Baker could not answer some questions about FBI media contacts, citing an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department inspector general into alleged illegal leaks, during and after the election, about the Trump collusion probe and other matters.

These revelations illustrate anew how much the FBI and Justice Department have withheld from the public about their collaboration and collusion with clearly partisan elements of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, Fusion and Steele, that were trying to defeat Trump.

The growing body of evidence that the FBI used mostly politically-motivated, unverified intelligence from an opponent to justify spying on the GOP nominee’s campaign — just weeks before Election Day — has prompted a growing number of Republicans to ask President Trump to declassify the rest of the FBI’s main documents in the Russia collusion case.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Freedom Caucus leaders Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), veteran investigator Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and many others have urged the president to act on declassification even as FBI and Justice Department have tried to persuade the president to keep documents secret.

Ryan has said he believes the declassification will uncover potential FBI abuses of the FISA process. Jordan said he believes there is strong evidence the bureau misled the FISA court. Nunes has said the FBI intentionally hid exculpatory evidence from the judges.

And Meadows told The Hill’s new morning television show, Rising, on Wednesday that there is evidence the FBI had sources secretly record members of the Trump campaign.

“There’s a strong suggestion that confidential human sources actually taped members within the Trump campaign,” Meadows told Hill.TV hosts Krystal Ball and Ned Ryun.

In an April 26 interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted a claim from Schweizer’s book: “Clinton Cash.”.

“You have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you’re making,” Wallace said. “Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state.”

Schweizer responded, noting that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees “dramatically” went up when Hillary Clinton, now a presidential candidate, took office in 2009.

“When you have one or two examples, it’s a coincidence,” he said. “When you have this many, to me it’s a trend.”

Headline From National Review:.. “The Russians Colluded Massively — with Democrats”