Have I Not Been Saying Forever that “Fair Share” Liberals Are Hypocritical POS? The Recent WikiLeaks Exposure of DNC Emails Now Prove It Without A Doubt

Five years ago I called Assange a terrorist and said that Wikileaks should be shut down.  In fairness, at that time he was spilling US military secrets which I (still) believe is wrong, not to mention the fact that he’s obtaining these emails illegally.  I therefore hold my position that he is an information terrorist and that it should be the free press that’s doing his job instead of him, but since the press isn’t doing its job, someone else needs to.   Enter Project Veritas, enter Judicial Watch, enter Julian Assange.  So be it.

The WikiLeaks DNC email dump.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Um, “oops?” Hahahahahahahahahaha!  And right before the convention, too!  Hahahahahahahahahahaha!  Losers!!!!!!!


What have I been saying, all this time?  That “Fair Share” Liberals are hypocritical pieces of $hit, and now their leaked emails are proving it in so many ways.  The media is fair and it’s just Fox News that’s slanted, right?  It’s only Republicans that are racist, right?  This is only the first dump of emails by Wikileaks, and just look at all the misogyny, racism, anti-semitism, and corruption so far.  From the Gateway Pundit:

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
DNC making fun of black womans name.
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.

DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”
…and so many more!!!  I didn’t even get into the Hillary stuff yet, but it’s all there (and apparently from WikiLeaks, there’s more to come!)

Of course, we’ve got the Hillary “must distance her from this” firewall team in full damage control mode here, where surely we’re going to hear from Libtards all over the place as to how this was Debbie Wasserman Shultz and not Hillary behind all of this, but the proof will still be there – liberals are hypocritical, lying, and corrupt individuals that will stop at nothing to shove their fake, ideological agendas down everyone’s throats to achieve their slimy ends.

This was it for me.  I knew that the Dems were already crooked and corrupt to their core, but to be stupid or careless enough to have all of this exposed as well?  NOW TRUMP DESERVES TO WIN.  Like I said before, at least he isn’t corruptible and if elected, he’s going to give the ENTIRE establishment (the press, the DNC and RNC parties, all the world governments that have been sucking on the US teet for way too long – he’s going to give all of them a shake up that’s been long-overdue, and very well-deserved.  Can any liberal out there say that either 1) this shakeup isn’t needed, or 2) that Hillary could or would do it?  Not a chance, so now I say “GO TRUMP!”

And a “well done” to all the liberal idiots at the DNC.  Nice going, you effing hypocrites.  I’m glad you are having your own $hit fed to you on this one.  And good riddance to  Debbie Wasserman Shultz and her greasy, Ichiban-noodle hair, too.  There wasn’t an honest bone in her body and her lying about NOT being in the tank for Hillary was sickening.  She totally had her “hand on the scale” for Hillary and it was lie, lie, deny, deny.  Then she was ALWAYS playing the race card against Republicans, which I despised most of all.

And as far as Chairpeople go, take Priebus by comparison.  Did he pick his favorite from the beginning?  Did he bow to establishment pressure, or give special favors to Trump vs. anyone else?  No – he stood his ground and couldn’t be budged or corrupted.

Shultz, however?  In the tank for Hillary before she even started, and protecting her every step of the way which is why I don’t buy that Hillary wasn’t a part of the underhanded tactics here, but hopefully we’ll be seeing more emails of hers, too, that she thought were gone forever.

Guess Shultz should have followed Hillary’s lead and had all those DNC emails erased, but the cat’s out of the bag now, Debbie and the DNC, so suck it up.

Media Matters’ Selective Editing Re: Fox News & BlackLivesMatter

It’s been interesting to watch Fox News lately (wait, stay with me…) and their coverage of BlackLivesMatter.  They cover the whole spectrum.  There’s Sean Hannity who’s always playing the Ever-Anti-Obama reverse race card, trying to always ridicule and then incite BLM protestors, Bill O’Reilly who’s not inciting as much but still automatically condemns them, and then Megyn Kelly who – I believe – is giving both sides (cops + BLM) a fair shot (one can watch clips of her from the first night of the GOP convention to confirm this.  [And if I wasn’t so lazy I’d post them, but whatever]).

Beyond this you have a couple of the regular Fox News contributors, namely Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume (who is technically a Chief Political Correspondent but since he doesn’t have his own show anymore I call him a contributor.)  I’ll start with Hume’s comments, which I think up to the “No racial bias” part are accurate and I agree with (nationally, on average, the bias numbers may be miniscule but locally there’s still departments that have been/are rife with unfair bias):

And now Krauthammer:


Now note where Media Matters conveniently tries to pick up the conversation between Krauthammer and O’Reilly:  (at about 2m00s)

BILL O’REILLY (HOST): I get your point that you have to really think hard about dividing the country along racial lines. But is it enough for Charles Krauthammer to see a number of chants, “Kill the cops,” “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon?” There was an incident over the weekend where a Black Lives Matter missive was found in an attack on a police officer. Is that the evidence that you are looking for, or does it have to be more direct than that?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: You think a chant at a demonstration in New York is a reason to connect it with the killing of cops in Baton Rouge? I mean, if you want to stir up racial tensions, you can do that.

O’REILLY: So you wouldn’t make —

KRAUTHAMMER: That is the wrong thing to do.

O’REILLY: You wouldn’t make then, Black Lives Matter and, remember, the theme of tonight’s Republican convention is “Make America Safe Again.” And I’m sure that has to do with terrorism and we’re going to talk about terrorism when we come back from the break, But you would not. and the short answer is I have got to go to break, you would not bring up Black Lives Matter and its provocation to the campaign?

KRAUTHAMMER: Bill, if Black Lives Matter disappeared overnight, and sank into the Atlantic Ocean, it would have no effect whatsoever on whether or not some lunatic is going to grab a gun and kill five cops in Louisiana.

I agree with Krauthammer here, but with his WHOLE speech, not just this excerpt, starting with “BLM has no leadership, no discipline, and significant parts of their membership that are really out there and really unacceptable” and continuing from there. Totally true, but Media Matters didn’t want to report this, and I imagine a lot of other left-leaning news agencies won’t, either.

Hume at 7:40 is  good, too.  Amusing that O’Reilly tried to get three pundits to align with him, and couldn’t.  Hume is no fan of BlackLivesMatter, but still couldn’t validate O’Reilly.

And now for truly Fair & Balanced, observe Megyn Kelly, first with a Black Supremacist:

Then with the Cleveland Police Chief, calling him out on bad shootings (clip coming soon…)

Oh, and by the way – here was all the flak from the left re: the Tea Party just a couple years’ back that is hardly anywhere near what the anti-cop rhetoric is today.  (Lefties are hypocrites – shocker, Debbie Wasserman Shultz is a clown – fact, and Megyn Kelly is kick-ass awesome).  I agree with Fowler re: not condemning all of BLM (at this point).  Rather, this clip is here to show the blatant liberal double-standard and hypocrisy.  (These are the people trying to delete records, manipulate unemployment stats, lie about ObamaCare, lie about the Iran deal, lie about attacks on embassies, and forcing border agents to lie about illegal immigration for policy and history’s sake, remember.)

p.s. I love Megyn Kelly.

How Nice For “Fair Share” Liberals to Play “Righteous” When They Don’t Have to Deal With The Consequences

“Fair Share” Liberal losers are the first to cry out and demand that the free world should be letting in Syrian refugees in droves.  Although they PRETEND to care for refugees, and want to ACT like they’re doing the “right thing”, what they’re doing – yet again – is simply trying to appease their moral guilt by selfishly placing their burden of that guilt on someone else.

For instance, they pressured and applauded Germany for its acceptance of so many refugees, yet cared zero and turned a blind eye to all the misogyny, violence, and rape that came with it.  Because “fair share” liberals are such cowards for one, and so low on the social and economic totem pole for another, they’re never the ones around to ever have to deal with the consequences, so they can ask for and demand things from other people all they want, can’t they?

Take things here in my home country of Canada where it concerns Syrian “Refugees”.  Our “Fair Share” Loser and utterly clueless Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, seems to have no care or concern what mindset we’re actually bringing into our country, nor the potential criminal element, and nor the burden that these third-world dwellers place on anyone actually native, law-abiding, tax-paying, and patriotic to our country.

I submit to you an article from Yahoo Canada: “Sudden Influx of Syrian Refugees Has Brunswick Educators Seeking Help”.

“The documents repeatedly cite issues of tardiness and absenteeism among the 29 Syrian students at FHS and cultural confusion about gender roles. Some teachers complained about students refusing to speak English and using “peer pressure” to deter others who were trying.”

Unwillingness to follow the rules, thuggery, and intimidation.  And “cultural confusion about gender roles”?  Nice liberal spin.  Basically the boys are treating the girls like shit.

“In another email, a teacher described an incident in class where a student was asked by some of the Syrian students to repeat a line in Arabic. When he did, it prompted snickering and laughing from the Arabic-speaking students. The teacher said another student told her that the line included foul language directed at a student from Israel.”

And anti-semitism as well.  Nice.

“…the problems occurred because the district didn’t know how many immigrant students from Syria would be arriving or which schools would be affected.”

And why did this happen?  One reason: F#ckhead Liberal Dipshits and their feelings, that’s why.  Who cares about the cultural consequences, or the safety consequences, or the financial consequences, or the logistical consequences, so long as their narcissism is fed and fed well, right?

If “Fair Share” Liberals want these refugees so bad they should be bringing them into their own houses and both paying for them and feeding them themselves.

Ann Coulter Correctly Calls Out The Far Left’s Hypocrisy When It Comes To Radical Islam

From her blog:

With the media, you’re an “American” when you commit the worst mass shooing in U.S. history, an “Afghan” when you’re applying to college. You’re an “American” when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center, a “Pakistani” when you’re offended by Trump’s remarks. You’re an “American” when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood, a “Muslim” when you realize the Army can’t fire you.(Correction mine – her original statement was “when the Army realizes it can’t fire you”.)

So true.

She also points out how reporters continue to be unrepentantly dishonest when it comes to reporting Trump.  For instance, claiming that Trump said Omar Mateen was born in Afghan (pointing out Trump’s lack of knowledge of geography), when in fact what he said was that Mateen was “born an Afghan” meaning born with the same anti-American sentiment that clearly Mateen’s father and mother – both Afghans – also espoused.

She also points out how another Liberal reporter claimed that Trump is asking for a pat on the back in his tweet when he clearly stated that he didn’t – he wanted vigilance and smarts.

She closes with “…reporters aren’t quoting Trump and have to hope you won’t read the speech for yourself.”  So true.

I’m no Trump fan, but I’m a Hillary fan even less.  If forced to choose between the two, however, I’m confident that Trump would put the right people in the right place to do the right thing.  He’d find the best Chief of Staff, the best Attorney General, the best whoever not based upon politics, but their brains and their results.  Who will Hillary pick?  Only cronies who will lie for her and help line her pocketbooks (and that of the corrupt Clinton Foundation) at the same time.

It’s upsetting that the American electorate has left us with these two choices as President, but that doesn’t relieve the media from their job of at least ACCURATE reporting – even if it isn’t fair – so that the rest of America that isn’t comprised of celebrity-fawning Democrats or “God Hates Fags” Republicans can make a proper decision on who should lead America through its next four years.

Leftist Losers Want To Credit the Anti-Hillary Sentiment to Misogyny

I’m reading an article in the Sacremento Bee in which the writer chalks all this anti-Hillary sentiment up to misogyny.   After all, he argues, Trump lies and Reagan lied so what’s the big deal if Hillary does?

And it’s not Hillary cheating, it’s Bill who has, and Hillary has been honest about it.  Maybe she loves him so much that she forgives him, but enabling him?  Not necessarily.

All fair points, but they hardly lead to the conclusion that animosity towards her must be simply sexist. Not only is a statement like that intellectually dishonest, it shows just how lazy today’s journalists have become where any sort of fact-checking or investigation is concerned.

So why do I despise Hillary Clinton as a candidate?  It has nothing to do with her gender.  It has to do with what she lied about, why she lied, and how she’s tried to cover it up.

Let’s start with her email server.  The NY Post reveals 5 immediate (and illegal) lies that Hillary told regarding her server once the FBI got ahold of it, but take a step back from all the details for a moment and admit that Hillary had in fact sent classified and top secret emails, had numerous unlawful emails with Sid Blumenthal re: Libya and other matters… and then deliberately tried to delete these emails in order to try and cover it up.   What’s worse: the lie or the cover-up?  One could say both, but the media has done very little to call her out on the cover-up, which to me is what’s truly both arrogant and even criminal here.

And Benghazi.  She tried to spin a lie so that her friend and boss (Obama) could continue with the narrative that the war on terror was over, and Republican concerns about security and terrorism were overblown.  Worse, though, she knowingly also lied to the parents of the deceased.  “What difference does it make?”  Indeed.

And her as an entitled, establishment candidate being in the pocket of Wall Street?  Evidence of this is everywhere.  Now, do I dislike that she got paid millions by big banks for her speeches?  Not necessarily, but to try and hide that, and also misdirect and spin on the one hand while saying she’s down in commoner-land with the rest of us?  F-you.  Hillary’s full of shit on being “transparent” like she says she is, and if there’s any question as to who her friends are, here are all Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Fees After Leaving Office in 2015.

And after all that, yeah – there’s finally all the lies.  All her flip-flops on gun control, gay marriage, and her fake accents.  On their own they’d be laughable/pathetic like Trump’s “John Miller”, but here she clearly shows that she’ll lie and try to say absolutely anything to get elected, and without shame.  This includes, btw, playing the “gender card” and insulting women everywhere by doing so.  No wonder even women are getting tired of her, especially now that all her blatant lies are going viral:


I don’t “hate” Hillary Clinton as a person, because I don’t know her as a person.  I despise her as a candidate, however, because I think she is a panderer who doesn’t care one bit about the people she pretends to be out there for.  Not only does she lie, I believe she honestly thinks that the general public are stupid enough not only to believe it, but carry it forward for her – just like this idiot reporter at the Sacramento Bee has.


Review of Kirsten Powers’ “The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech” by AmericanThinker

I recently read Kirsten Powers’ new book, “The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech” and it was a refreshing read, to say the least.  Even if some don’t want to (or wouldn’t) pay for such a book, they should at least read the first chapter available for free online – it is bang-on in my opinion.

For one, Powers calls out the wimpy, “Fair Share” Liberal left for equating free speech to actual violence, such as how a female pro-choice college professor will say that she felt “unsafe” or that she was “being harmed” when pro-life demonstrators were having a peaceful rally on her campus or how a well-known feminist blogger tried to claim that she had PTSD from all the negative tweets she was receiving.

Is the far right without blame on this matter?  Hardly, but at least the far right tries to engage in an argument first rather than silence their opposition (even if the far right’s arguments are weak ones).  And at least the far right knows how to fight and has the guts to.  The far left are such wussies that even when they’re speaking with their own kind they need “safe rooms” and “trigger warnings” in order to get their oh-so-fragile sensitivities through even the conversation.  Thankfully in the midst of all of this, there’s finally a woman from the left like Powers with the guts to call them out and take them on.  Even her first chapter, line-by-line, is solid truth and those on the left should take heed.

Some excerpts:

If a college student is going to be traumatized by The Great Gatsby, then they are going to find day-to-day life unbearable once they step outside the child-care programs that are passing for universities today.

“Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we’ve seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a “rape apologist.” End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti–abortion rights don’t care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”
Kirsten Powers, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech

“In a burst of refreshing honesty, Mary Frances Berry, an African American and former chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Bill Clinton, wrote in a Politico online discussion: “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats.” Berry, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, added, “There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

“Liberals are supposed to believe in protecting minority views, even when they disapprove of those views. Instead an online mob of presumably “liberal” people tweeted about Eich’s donation, many calling him a bigot and homophobe for supporting Prop 8. Remember, this proposition passed the same year Senator Barack Obama sat in Rick Warren’s church to explain his religious based opposition to same-sex marriage.”

If you want to check our Kirsten talking about her book, here she is on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/12/unhinged-left-liberal-reaction-to-kirsten-powers-book.html

David Gayvert over at TheAmericanThinker offers a great review of Powers’ book, too, in my opinion.  Head over there and check it out if you like.

Either way, I’d highly recommend it as a quick and yet contemplative read.

Gloria Steinem Joins Shane Smith’s “Vice”

I’ve long been a fan of Shane Smith’s “Vice” and its hard-hitting (even if left-leaning) style.  The NY Times has announced that Gloria Steinem is set to join the crew.

I think this is fantastic.  While I do not buy or believe in much of the perpetual victimhood and loserism that is often heard coming from the feminist left, nonetheless I believe in the education, discussion, and debate.

Gloria Steinem is strong and outspoken.  Smith’s “Vice” is strong and outspoken.  I believe the two will be a great pair and I look forward to what comes of the pairing.