No Barack, We Won’t Make Your Birthday Into A Holiday

Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois doesn’t think the former president’s birthday should be a state holiday.

The Illinois House was unable to muster the needed votes on Tuesday to designate Obama’s Aug. 4th birthday as a state holiday, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The House measure, sponsored by Chicago Democratic Rep. Sonya Harper, on Obama’s behalf, received 54 votes, six votes short of what was needed to move it to the Illinois State Senate, where Obama served from 1997 to 2004.

“President Barack Obama, he did great work for the state of Illinois and our country, and I believe we need to do our part in preserving that history,” Harper said.

Opponents to the proposal were fine with honoring the 44th president but not keen on the idea of closing schools and government facilities for the day.

“The concept you are working on here, giving President Obama his own day, I think is deserved. I think it’s appropriate, but I have a couple of questions about how we are doing it,” Rep. Steve Andersson said.

Noting that the Feb. 6th birthday of the 40th president and Tampico native, Ronald Reagan, is not a holiday, the Republican floor leader voiced concern over giving state employees a paid day off in the midst of its current financial crisis.

Harper disagreed with the suggestion that the day be simply honorary, citing the importance of formally recognizing the nation’s first African-American president and his history as a community organizer in his adopted home of Chicago, according to the Tribune.

“Personally, to me, he helped me to get motivated, get up in my community and organize my community to be the change that we want to see, and we are seeing right now on the ground,” Harper said.

The state has long-held Obama in high esteem and other pending proposals include naming a stretch of Interstate 55 the “Barack Obama Presidential Expressway.” Another measure proposes calling the state’s Tri-State Tollway the “President Barack Obama Tollway.”

Harper used a parliamentary procedure to allow another vote if she is able to garner enough support at another time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Idaho Boy Injured, Family Dog Killed by a USDA Cyanide Bomb

Your tax money being used to kill wild life and occasionally pets

It’s always legal when the gubmint commits a crime

Last Thursday, a bomb filled with cyanide exploded, injuring an Idaho boy and killing his dog. When 14-year-old Canyon Mansfield came upon the device, near his yard, he thought it was a sprinkler head. When he went to inspect it, the device exploded, covering him and his yellow lab, Casey, with the toxic chemical. The teenager used some nearby snow to wash out his eye, but quickly noticed that his dog was not ok, “I look over and see him having a seizure,” Canyon told “I ran over and he had these glassy eyes. He couldn’t see me, and he had this red stuff coming out of his mouth.” Despite efforts from Canyon’s father, physician Mark Mansfield, Casey died.

Now questions are being raised about the US Department of Agriculture’s use of the deadly devices so close to residential areas. The device, called an M-44, is used to kill predatory animals, like coyotes, by spraying them with the lethal gas instead of declaring open season on them. Wildlife Services, the division of the USDA responsible for placing the devices, said in a statement that they post warnings about the devices and that the “devices are only set at the request of and with permission from property owners or managers.” The agency noted that the incident was the first “unintentional lethal take of a dog” in Idaho since 2014.

However, Bannock County Sheriff Lorin Nielsen said they have never been notified about the deadly devices. “I’ve been a sheriff here for 20 years and worked for the office for 39 years, and I’ve never heard of leaving around a device that emits poisonous gas,” Nielsen said.

Canyon’s mother Theresa said that Wildlife Services had not offered an apology of any sort.

There are a hundred thousand reasons why this is a very bad idea.

The incident highlights the dangerous use of M-44s to manage wildlife populations, leading to lawsuits brought against the government by conservation organizations.

In December, the Center for Biological Diversity, along with WildEarth Guardians, and The Humane Society of the United States released a joint statement regarding their intent to sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service over their use of sodium cyanide in M-44s, as well as another liquid poison “Compound 1080.” The statement notes that M-44s killed 13,860 animals in 2015, with 385 “nontarget” animals, like wolves and family pets, being accidentally killed.

“The EPA considers both of these toxicants Category 1 poisons — the most deadly. The use of these horrific, indiscriminate pesticides by taxpayer-funded federal and state agencies must end immediately,” said Anna Frostic, senior wildlife attorney at The Humane Society of the United States.

Meanwhile the USDA said that,

“Wildlife Services is completing a thorough review of the circumstance

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Big Brother Denies Illegal Wiretapping

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director and Big Brother, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s wiretap assertion.

Mr. Comey says that Trump’s highly charged claim is false and must be corrected.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

Fake and Faker

What else would you expect him to say?

While we’re at it, why not have the fox investigate who broke into the hen house?

Big Brother, James B. Comey’s denial means that he confirms the New York Times and other media outlets are fake news.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Senator Feinstein Says That Trump May Resign: “I Think He Is Going To Get Himself Out”

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

It’s no secret that there is a concerted effort underway to do everything possible to remove President Donald Trump from office.

From Russian ties to business conflicts of interests, Democrats, Republicans, the FBI, the DHS, and the CIA are actively working to find chinks in the President’s armor.

But for those with hope of change in their hearts, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein says there is a possibility that Trump will eventually remove himself from office by filing his own resignation.

Speaking to a crowd during a town hall-style Questions and Answers session, Feinstein was asked how Congress is going to deal with Trump’s so-called illegal activities:

So-called Journalist: We don’t know what’s happening but we know that he is breaking laws every day, he’s making money at Mar-a-lago, he’s getting copyrights in China, he has obvious dealings with Russia, the Dakota pipeline… there’s some many things that he’s doing that are unconstitutional… how are we going to get him out?

Feinstein: We have a lot of people looking at this… Technical people… I think he’s going to get himself out… I think sending sons to another country to make a financial deal for his company and then have that covered with government expenses… I think those government expenses should not be allowed.. we are working on a bill that will deal with conflict of interest… it’s difficult…

Videos of Feinstein speaking to what appears to be a local press pool of reporters and protesters appear below. You can jump to 1:30 in the first video to listen to Feinstein discuss Trump’s conflicts of interests, or watch from the beginning to hear Feinstein’s response to how her husband’s firm directly benefited from bills she voted into law, proving once again that the hypocrisy of socialist Congressional representatives from California has no bounds…

Part 1:

Part 4 of Q&A. A protester asked “how do we get Trump out” @SenFeinstein responds: “I think he is going to get himself out.”

— Javier Panzar (@jpanzar) March 17, 2017


Part 5 of @SenFeinstein Q&A

— Javier Panzar (@jpanzar) March 17, 2017

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thanks to Muslim immigration – 1,500 acid attacks recorded in London since 2011

None of this is possible without Muslims colonizing Great Britain

Reshma Quereshi, of Great Britain: “You can’t do anything bad enough to deserve it. An acid attack is the worst sort of crime you can inflict on another human being.”

‘It is Used as an extreme mark of dominance. It’s letting the individual know I haven’t killed you…yet’

Fakhra Yunus committed suicide, jumping from her sixth floor apartment window in Italy.  She was only 22 when her husband of three years, Bilal Khar, a member of Pakistan’s politically elite Khar family, allegedly threw acid on her face while she slept

By Pamela Geller – on March 17, 2017

As I noted earlier today, acid attacks are a hallmark of angry Muslim men in Pakistan, where women have been disfigured in acid attacks for crimes such as rejecting a marriage proposal or being raped. Now there has been a spate of such attacks in Berlin. Seven out of ten victims in London are male, in gang-related crimes. But that leave 30%, or 450, female victims. This is without any doubt a consequence of the Islamization of Britain.

“There Have Been 1,500 Acid Attacks Since 2011 In… London,” by Christine Rousselle, Townhall, March 16, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Jaw-dropping numbers released earlier this week show that there were 1,500 acid attacks in London from 2011 to 2016. In what’s even more disturbing news, the frequency of the attacks seems to be increasing–2016 alone accounted for 431 attacks, compared to 261 in 2015. Overall in the whole of the United Kingdom, these attacks have risen 50 percent in the past decade.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nearly A THIRD Of America’s College Students Will Use Student Loans For Spring Break Trips This Year

A third of America’s college students with student loan debt admit that they plan to fritter away part of their federally-subsidized loan funds to pay for sun-and-beer-soaked spring break trips in 2017. And why not? In 2015 Obama that barred student debt collectors from charging any penalties or fees on past-due student loans.

In other words, tax-payers were funding beer-soaked spring break trips.

But there is a new sheriff in town. Last week Trump rolled back Obama protections on student loans.


Just days after reports emerged that student loan defaults are soaring, which is undoubtedly due to some combination of poor job prospects for the millions of snowflakes who graduate each year with their $200,000 educations in gender studies, blowing the funds on parties and spring break vacations, and the moral hazard created by liberal politicians constantly calling for student debts to be ‘forgiven’ (a.k.a. forcefully jammed down the throats of taxpayers), the Trump administration has revoked rules put in place by Obama that barred student debt collectors from charging penalty fees on past-due loans.

Seems the cost of financing those spring break trips to Cancun just got a little costlier…sorry, snowflakes.

Of course, it didn’t take long for Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren to draft a letter to the Education Department urging them to not take away ‘freebies’ from America’s entitled snowflakes.

Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) sent a letter urging the Education Department to uphold the Obama administration’s guidance on the collection fees, which they said “results in an unnecessary financial burden on vulnerable borrowers.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Judicial activism, courtesy of radical Left, is asserting every person on the planet has U.S. constitutional rights

The courts aren’t just stripping the president of his authority to stop national security threats. They aren’t just endangering Americans. They aren’t just basing their rulings on pure ideology instead of the law.

The American judiciary is creating an “affirmative right to immigrate” to the United States for every person on earth, says Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review and author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.”

He explains the federal judges who blocked President Trump’s immigration order are challenging the most fundamental aspect of American sovereignty.

“Even President Trump’s original orders were grounded in precedent and statute,” Horowitz told WND. “But these federal judges who have issued a halt to President Trump’s new executive orders have gone even farther. Not only did they simply refuse to address the legislation that gives Trump the authority to issue these orders, they started creating new rights out of thin air, which gives practically everyone in the world a future affirmative right to immigrate to the United States. Obviously, that means the end of the United States in any meaningful sense.”

Last Friday, Judge William Connelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order against President Trump’s ban on some travel from terror-producing nations. On Wednesday, a judge in Hawaii placed a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order. The next morning, another federal judge in Maryland joined in the political strategy. At a rally in Nashville Wednesday night, President Trump slammed the block as “an unprecedented judicial overreach.”

Horowitz said it is hard to disagree with the president. If anything, he claims, Trump is understating the case.

“The reasoning that was used in these cases doesn’t just undermine statute, precedent and law, it essentially repudiates the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty altogether,” Horowitz fumed.

“For example, in the case in Wisconsin, the judge blocked the order because an asylee living in America feared the ban might prevent his wife and daughter from coming to America at some point in the future. But if the order doesn’t apply to those already approved for asylum, from where does his supposed fear derive?

“Of course, there’s also something way more important at stake. A court can’t just demand any alien in the world be admitted to the United States. Yet the court is not only claiming this power, but it is granting standing to someone who hasn’t even suffered any consequences from the proposed ban. There’s no ‘injury-in-fact’ in legal parlance. The only way this makes sense is if the court is saying everyone in the world is suffering from the loss of some newly created legal right to come to this country.”

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling in Hawaii is even more unhinged, in Horowitz’s view. According to Judge Watson, the executive order “was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

But the text of the ban did not refer to any particular religion and instead was a temporary restriction on all immigration for certain terror-linked countries.

However, both Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland reached outside the evidence of the dispute itself and used campaign statements from President Trump and his advisers to say the executive order was an attempt at the “Muslim ban” promised during the campaign and, therefore, could not be allowed.

Yet as even fierce Donald Trump opponent David Frum observed, the attempt to stop the presidents travel ban radically rewrites American immigration law.

“By barring foreign Muslims, the opinion argues, the Trump administration has signaled disfavor of domestic Muslims as well, thereby violating their First Amendment rights to religious equality,” Frum writes of Watson’s decision.

“Not only that! Watson’s opinion further contends that this argument is so convincing that it is ‘highly likely’ to prevail on the ultimate merits – and for that reason, that he is justified in issuing immediately a temporary restraining order against Trump’s ban. This double argument is bold, to put it mildly.

“What it does, in effect, is globalize the First Amendment, and possibly other amendments too, provided only that a fellow adherent of that religion live inside the United States.”

As Horowitz notes, Watson is essentially declaring the president and even Congress are simply not allowed to impose any restrictions on immigration because of a newly discovered “global freedom of religion.”

“The claim being made by Judge Watson is breathtaking,” he said. “Essentially, he is saying that domestic Muslims are being harmed because President Trump is imposing a temporary travel ban on a predominantly Muslim country, even when the ban itself does not identify Muslims specifically.

“What’s more, liberal states are claiming ‘injury’ because of the travel ban. As I’ve written before, it’s equivalent to a state suing the president because it doesn’t like his foreign policy or if a state felt that the military deployments are hurting and disrupting the lives of residents of their states.”

Horowitz argues the court rulings constitute an existential challenge not just to the authority of President Trump and Congress, but to the country itself.

“This is it,” said Horwitz. “If conservatives do not push back on this, the courts will essentially mandate unlimited immigration from the entire world. It means that the most fundamental areas of public policy and the existence of American sovereignty will have been essentially given away to judges.”

Horowitz identified a number of specific actions Congress should take to reclaim authority over immigration from the courts.

They include passing a concurrent resolution disapproving the court’s decision and affirming the power of Congress and the executive over immigration, using a defunding rider to reintroduce the president’s immigration order in a budget bill, drawing up articles of impeachment against the judges, eliminating the ability of lower courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders outside their jurisdictions, and breaking up the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Finally, and most importantly, Horowitz says Congress must strip the courts of any power to adjudicate any case forcing the entry of a foreign national into the country against the will of the other branches.

“We shouldn’t have to do any of these things, but the situation has gone too far,” said Horowitiz. “We are now essentially being governed by unelected, radically left-wing judges unmoored by statute or precedent who are simply dictating law to the rest of the country based on their ideology. The Constitution works as a system of checks and balances. It is time for the legislature and the president to check these judicial supremacists.

“Otherwise, we won’t just lose our constitutional system. We lose the country itself.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment